History Jihad against Zoroaster of Iran

Share/Save/Bookmark

airie
by airie
22-Nov-2008
 

NEW Movie script on Mohammed PBUH* - the founder of Islam

View “Fitna”- an online movie by Geert Wilders
This site is dedicated to a factual and realistic analysis of the Islamic Jihad

Here you will read about the history of the Islamic Jihad from its beginnings at Mecca in 620 C.E. up to 9/11, and the lessons it has for us in today’s challenging times. If we are to understand Islam, we need to understand the temperament of its founder Mohammed PBUH*, the way victorious Muslims have treated the subject people, and above all the reasons for the victory of Islam.

Saturday, November 22, 2008 6:15:21 PM

The History of Jihad site is brought to you by a panel of contributors. This site is co-ordinated by Robin MacArthur with Mahomet Mostapha and Naim al Khoury, New Jersey.

Other contributors to this site include professors and members of the faculty from the Universities of Stanford and Michigan (Ann Arbor), Kansas State University, Ohio State University, and the London School of Economics. We strongly suggest that this site be recommended as additional reading for students of Islamic History.
We also invite students and professors of this subject to mirror this site on your University or private servers, link it up from your sites, to print it as a non-profit publication and refer it to students, journalists, cinematographers, military personnel, members of both houses of Congress, and Parliamentarians from your countries, members of the judiciary and most importantly to officers of the FBI, CIA, Scotland Yard, MI5, Mossad, FSB (Russian Secret Police) Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE) and to all other stakeholders in the subjects of the Islam and the Jihad.

________________________

How the Jihadis mercilessly vandalized Zoroastrian Persia and wiped out Zoroastrianism from the land of its birth

After the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula had been subjugated, the Muslims turned on their northern neighbors the Persians and the Byzantines.

Today when the Mullahs and Ayatollahs rule Iran, we might tend to think that they have always been characteristic of Iran. Not many know that Iran was the first nation that waged a short but bloodied campaign of battles with the Jihadi hounds that were unleashed on an unsuspecting world by Mohammed.

As they had provoked the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were now dealing with a settled civilization.

So the Muslim Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the depredations of the Muslim Arabs.

__________________________________

Iran was the first country that lay blocking the path of these bloodthirsty maniacs who were out to impose their Islamic creed on all those who succumbed to their ruthless march. The Persians (and the Byzantines) were both unfit to defeat the Muslim Arabs, as till then in human history nowhere had a people been worked into a frenzy to go out defeat the adversary and convert the defeated and weak to a creed that imposed the same paranoia of converting still others who were unfortunate and weak to fall before the bloodthirsty Islamic Jihad.

Till the rise of the murderous creed of Islam, the world had known only imperial conquests, where the conqueror, be he Alexander, Cyrus, Julius Caesar, Hannibal or any other, the war took place between the opposing armies. The fate of the battle was decided on the battlefield alone. The common people, the unarmed civilians were not in danger of a victorious adversary imposing anything more than new taxes and new administrators.

How Islam changed the rules of warfare making the entire civilian population of a defeated adversary, into a victim of tyranny

The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world. Those who fell victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their lives by becoming Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty.

Those who fell victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their lives by becoming Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty like the Muslims.

The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world.

__________________________________

Islam was, and still is, a curse on humankind from the word go. At the pain of death, Islam spread like wildfire into Persia, making the Persians also into bloodthirsty wolves like the Muslim Arabs. It was the Persians who a hundred years later were to take this bloodthirsty creed to the Turks and the Turks in turn a few hundred years after that were to attack Byzantine and the Balkans.

Today the Persians (Iranians) have faint memories of their pre-Islamic past. The glories of Cyrus and Darius, of Pasargade, Persepolis, Ctesiphon, of Zarathushtra, and the Shah-Nameh. The student community is becoming increasingly aware of their pre-Islamic past mainly through the websites on the Internet, that tell the true story of Iran. And this adds fuel to the restlessness of the young among the Iranian population.

Today, they must realize that the twilight of the Mullahs is the last twilight before the dawn of the post-Islamic Iran. Iranians, need to not only overthrow the Mullah regime, but also discard Islam and return to their pre-Islamic Zoroastrian roots. Here we shall trace the struggle waged by Iran (Persia) against the Arab Hordes who forcibly imposed Islam on the defeated Persians at the pain of death and torture.

The Battles of Namraq and Kasker (12 A.H. 634 C.E.)

As they had provoked the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were now dealing with a settled civilization.

So the Muslim Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the depredations of the Muslim Arabs. The king sent a reconnaissance force under the command of a general named Jaban. This force first approached the town of Hira that had been occupied by the Arabs. On seeing the Persians approach, the Arab force withdrew towards the desert into the oasis town of Namraq (modern Kufa) to draw the Persians into the desert, a terrain that the Arabs were familiar with, but the Persians were not.

The Muslim Arabs were on camels in addition to their infantry. The Persians were on horseback. While cavalry gave an advantage while fighting on normal terrain, they were a liability in the desert. With the Persians in the desert, the Arab force caught up with it and inflicted a defeat, and forced it to withdraw. The Persian reconnaissance force then withdrew to join the main Persian army at a town called Kasker.

Here another Persian general named Narsi had assembled a good concentration of forces. This town was well away from the border. Kaskar was so far away from the Muslim camp that Narsi felt that no Muslim attack could be imminent. But Abu Ubaid, the Muslim commander, thought otherwise. He thought that it would have a good psychological effect if in the wake of the battle of Namaraq itself, the Muslims rushed to Kaskar and deal with the Persian forces there before the forces under Jalinus, another Persian general could come to their assistance. This shows the Muslim daredevilry, which we must outmatch with our cowboy spirit, if we are to destroy Islam and win the war on terror.

______________________________
When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with the barefooted Arab lizard eaters, coming at his doorstep as victors, sent out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:

"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."

Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could decide the issue between them. This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim.

__________________________________

Abu Ubaid accordingly ordered a march across the Suwad to Kaskar. Dashing across the Suwad the Muslim forces appeared at Kaskar before the astonished Persians. The Persians hurriedly brought their military into formation and the two forces faced each other at Saqatia a few miles from Kaskar.
The strategy of the Persians had been to defer action till the arrival of the force under another Persian general named Jalinus who had set off with additional forces. The strategy of the Muslims was to press the attack and force immediate decision. With this element of surprise, the Arabs kept the initiative in their hands and fell upon the Persians as soon as they reached the Persian camp. With this momentum, the Arabs were able to overwhelm the Persians at Kasker too and force them to retreat to the east, beyond the Euphrates.

Lessons from the Battles of Namraq and Kasker

The Arabs took these battles in their favor due to their guile in forcing the Persians into hostile and unfamiliar terrain and keeping the initiative in their hands, by pouncing upon the adversary the minute they sighted the Persians. These first defeats set the tone for future Arab-Persian battles and the ultimate defeat of Persia by the Arabs.

The lesson here is to keep the initiative always in our hands if the aim is to stun and defeat the Muslims. In the modern context, the 9/11 attacks on America were meant to stun America as the Arabs had stunned the Persians at their first battles at Namraq and Kasker. So after 9/11 if President Bush had immediately seized the initiative by taking out a couple of cities in the Muslim world using Neutrons or Nukes, this would have delivered a strong message to the beastly Muslims that they could not mess around with America. By going about a slow and conventional start, America has emboldened the Muslims to carry out attacks on other Western targets, as the Sassanid Persians did by their dithering and letting the Arabs take the initiative at the Battle Kasker, conveyed to the Arabs that they could overwhelm and stun the Persians if they kept the initiative in their hands.

Although the Muslims today cannot defeat the West, the West is giving them a lifeline by allowing the initiative to slip. On the other hand, the Muslims by staging dramatic attacks on Western targets like those at London, Beslan Madrid after 9/11, are living up to their tradition of keeping the initiative in their hands and hitting at their adversaries where they least expect to be hit. The lesson which these first battles between the Persians and Arabs give us today is to keep the initiative in the war on terror completely in the hands of the West and to hit the enemy where it hurts most – by nuking Mecca during Hajj. And carrying out large scale attacks during Ramzan and regular attacks to coincide with the Friday noon prayers across the most populous towns in the Islamic crescent.

______________________________
When the battle of Nihavend started going the way of the Persians, the Arabs faced certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play.

Ali who was Mohammed’s son-in-law and the husband of the Child Persian Princess Shahrbanu (Princess of the Town - of Ctesiphon), suggested a base move to the Arab Muslim commander Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. After the battle of Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were taken as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. Among the unfortunate children who were left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King Yazdgard. When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three years old) they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn gifted her to Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali. At that time Ali was thirty two years old and he decided to take a three year old child princess as his concubine!

Now at the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive child wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he offer the Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to leave its fortified position and walk into an Arab trap. According to Ali’s advise, on the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed the captured Persian child princess to the assembled Persians and said that he would kill the princess on the battle field and of the Persians had the courage, they could come and save her. As a reaction, and against their commanders’ orders the front ranks of the Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs leaving the fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.

Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions Mugheera ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell upon them from three sides. This way using foul tactics the Arabs, could annihilate the Persians once again. The carnage of Nihavend was the break the back of the Persian resistance to Islam and the remaining history of Persia is that of Arabization and Islamization.

__________________________________
Lessons of the Battle of the Bridge (Al Jisr) - 14 A.H. 636 C.E.
At the next major clash which is known as the Battle of the Bridge between the Persians and the Arab Muslims, the Persians used elephants for the first time, which were new for the denizens of the desert the Bedouin Arab Muslims. At the battle of the Bridge (the Battle of Al Jisr in Arab chronicles), the Persians used their elephants to trample over the Arab attackers. They even trampled the Arab general, due to which there was panic among the Arab army which stared retreating. The Persians chased the Arabs up to the Bridge on the Tigris river, which then marked the boundary between the Persian empire and the domain of the Arabs.

The Persians stopped at the bridge and chased the Arabs across it, but did not follow the Arabs into the Arabian desert. The Persians wasted an opportunity to utterly defeat the Muslims by going right into Arabia and hunting down the Muslim Arabs in their homeland and slaughtering them in the same manner in which the Arab Muslims slaughtered all their adversaries and speaking to the Muslims in the only language they understand – that of blood and death.

This the Persians did not do, as that was how battles had been fought from time immemorial till the beastly Muslims came on the scene. Alexander did not slaughter his adversaries, neither did he forcibly convert them into followers of the Greek religion. Nor did the Romans do this neither did the Byzantines, nor did the Persians.

The Persians and the Byzantines had been fighting for four hundred years till before the Arab Muslims invaded both their empires, but neither the Persians nor the Byzantines exterminate each armies to the last man, nor did they torment each other’s civilian populations, and less so did they try to convert each other’s civilian population to their own faiths at the pain of death, the way the Arab Muslims were to do with both. Today we find no Zoroastrians in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, or Turkmenistan, which were ruled by the Zoroastrian Persian dynasties like the Hakkamanishiya (Acheamenian) and the Sassanids. Neither do we find any Christians in any significant number in Syria, Jordan or Turkey which were Byzantine provinces and once entirely Christian till they were overrun by the Muslims.

With the Arabs it was going to be different. The Muslims were to slaughter all defeated armies to the last man, and then terrorize the civilian population to embrace Islam. Had the Persians known this and had they decided to respond in the same way, they should have slaughtered he entire fleeing Arab army at the Battle of Al Jisr (Battle of the Bridge) and then they should have gone into nook and cranny of Arabia (as Mohammed had done) to convert the newly converted Arab Muslims to any religion, but the vicious creed of Islam.

The tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of sedition, cheating, bribery, betrayal and foul tactics that included shooting arrows at the steeds, slashing their feet to bring the riders down while they were engaged with another attacker, so much for Arab Muslim valor in winning wars!

During the Muslim aggression against Sassanid Persia, Arab chroniclers tell us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man, perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made his face look like that of a camel which has a protruding lower lip. This Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to pin him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could only defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian’s thumb so hard that he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.

__________________________________

The Persians cannot be blamed for not doing this, since they did not know the kind of enemy that they were facing, so they allowed the retreating Muslim army to flee. An army that was to come back again to slaughter the entire Persian army at Qadissiyah and in all other battles where the Arab Muslims faced the Persians and all other adversaries, after which they were to terrorize the civilian population to embrace Islam.

But while the Persians can be forgiven for not having done that to the Muslims, today when we know what Islam is all about and we have the track record of Islam to see, it is foolish and suicidal not to do this. By “this” we mean to not just defeat Islam on the battlefield, but to forcibly convert the Muslims to any other religion, but their accursed creed of Islam by giving them a choice of giving up Islam or death. This is the lesson for us of the battle of Al Jisr (the battle of the Bridge).

An opportunity to do this was lost by the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers in 732, by the Austrians and Poles at the battle of Vienna in 1683 by the Hindus at the Battle of Tarain in 1191 at the Battle of the Bridge by the Persians in 634, and more recently at the six day war in 1967 by the Israelis; the liberation of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, after which we should have forced the defeated Muslims to choose between abjuring Islam, or embracing death. But for this the non-Muslim do not yet have an understanding of their enemy – the Muslims.

We have not yet realized what can defeat Islam, once and forever. And so we have repeated the folly of letting a defeated Muslim army and nations go scot free at all these and at and countless other battles at which the victorious non-Muslims had the Muslims at their mercy. The lesson for us to learn fast is never to allow the murderous Muslims to retreat unmolested after they have been defeated, but to press on with consolidating the victory by giving the Muslim the choice of abjuring Islam or embracing death. Inhuman as this may sound, it is the only workable way of defeating Islam once and forever.

All our acts of letting Islam survive after every defeat were costly mistakes that came back to haunt humankind time and again the last time spectacularly on 9/11, and which is bound to repeat itself over and over again till the world decides that enough is enough and puts a full and final end to the menace called Islam.

______________________________
It was at the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.), that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into retreat and defeat. During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the Persian general Rustam by sneaking into the Persian camp disguised as wounded Persian soldiers, and once they set their hands on him, they beheaded him much in the same way as Zarqawi does today with his Western captives. The Arabs displayed Rustam’s decapitated body to the Persian army at the morning of the fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah (Cadesia).

The grisly sight of their general’s headless body riddled with arrows lying on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not used to. This sealed the fate of the battle and the Arabs could make short shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the next target of the attacking Muslims.

The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in the Muslims – an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use nuclear weapons to reduce the enemy to radioactive dust across the entire swath of the Islamic crescent from Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago.

__________________________________

The seminal Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)
At this seminal battle fought over four days, the Persians were led by a capable general named Rustam-e-Farrokhzad (Farokh Hormazd), and only the foul tactics of Saad-Ibn-Waqas, the Arab Muslim commander could bring defeat and death to Rustam and the Persian army. Under Saad-ibn-Waqas, the Muslims very effectively used the tactic of luring the Arab contingent to defect from the Persian army, join the Arab Muslims and betray their non-Muslim Zoroastrian paymasters. This way the Muslims could get to know the weaknesses of the Persian army and devise tactics to trick and defeat the Persians.

One of these tactics was the cutting off the girdles of the Howdas (seats) of those who were riding the elephants, so that the howdas along with the riders would fall and thus the elephant would become directionless. The elephants played havoc on the Arabs at beginning of the first day of the battle. But when the Arab contingent who had defected, betrayed the Persian paymasters and told the Arab Muslims to cut the girdles of the elephants, the elephants became directionless and useless. This was one foul tactic that the Muslims used to defeat their more superior Persian adversary.

The second tactic told by the defectors was to blind the elephants in one eye only, so that they would lose direction and flee away from the direction, of its attackers. When this gruesome act was done, the elephants turned around away from the Arab-Muslim tormentors and broke through the Persian ranks, causing disorder in the Persian army and opened up passages for the Muslims to advance into the Persian ranks. This was the second tactic which the defectors told the Arab Muslims to use, due to which the tide of the battle turned in favor of the Muslim - so much for Allah giving them victory.

The Arabs and Persians had agreed at the beginning of the battle not fight after sundown, but when the tide of the battle began to turn against the Persians on the third day of the battle, the Arabs attacked the Persians all through the night, shouting Allah-o-Akbar. This was the Night of Clangor, which sealed the fate of the battle in favor of the deceitful and barbaric Muslim Arabs.

The victory was a result of deceit, which the adversaries of the Muslims today need to remember when fighting the Muslims. Today the Muslims try to deflect the American effort at war, by many such tactics based on their mean psychology of deceit. They say that the 9/11 attacks were the handiwork of the Jews (sic). They say that they are fighting in self-defense and so they kill innocent civilians, women and children (at Beslan). They march in droves in the “Peace Rallies” in which they are encouraged by their socialist and communist 5th columnist bedmates – those accursed snakes in the grass.

This kind of deceit has been used by the Muslims in all their encounters all through the 1400 years of their existence. This base and mean mentality of the Muslims will have to borne in mind and countered if we are to finally defeat the Muslims in our generation and to permanently end the menace of Islam.

Lessons from the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Quadsiyyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)

It was at this battle that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into retreat and defeat – something which neither Alexander, nor Cyrus, nor Darius, nor Julius Caesar, nor Hannibal had done.

During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the Persian general Rustam, and once they set their hands on him, they beheaded him much in the same way as Zarqawi does today with his Western captives. After this Arabs displayed Rustam’s decapitated body to the Persian army at the next morning of the fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah (Cadesia).

The grisly sight of their general’s headless body riddled with arrows lying on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not used to. This sealed the fate of the battle, and the Arabs could make short shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the next target for the attacking Muslims.

The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in the Muslims – an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use all the weapons in our arsenal including nuclear weapons, to reduce the enemy to radioactive dust across the entire swath of the Islamic crescent from Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago.

After the battle of Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were marched off as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. This rapacious behavior was to be repeated over and over again at Jerusalem (636), Damascus (637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650), Tripoli (651), Constantinople (1453) and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on their non-Muslim adversaries.

__________________________________

How Islamic deceit made single combat a deathly struggle for its adversaries

The Persians, who were one of the first non-Arab people, on whom the Muslims fell upon, had a tradition of single combat, which they used in many battles. The strongest person from each army would fight the champion of the adversary’s army. The winner’s army would be deemed to have won the battle, and the actual battle was not then fought, as both the armies were honor-bound to abide by the result of the duel.

The duel was a test of strength and skill. The opponents were not bound to kill their adversary, but only to defeat him, and in most cases the defeated champion was allowed to return to his camp, and his army withdrew thus preventing a battle and saving of many lives. The Persians, the pre-Islamic Turks, the Greeks and Romans had used this practice of single-combat to settle the result of many a battle. This practice was fine as long as both the adversaries were bound by honor.

But with the coming of the dishonorable Muslims, the single combat, became a farce. It was now one more tool to humiliate the enemy and to demoralize it before the actual combat could begin. Even if the Arab Champion was defeated, the Arabs would nevertheless attack the opposing army. And if the Arab champion was victorious, he would not just defeat the opposing adversary but kill him, after which the Arab army would thereupon fall on the opposing army and a carnage would follow.

The Arabs never allowed their adversaries to escape by retreating. They found sadistic glee in slaughtering their defeated opponents to the last man. The Persians were the first to bear the brunt of this beastly mentality of the Muslim Arabs.

The Persians had specialized a practice wherein they nurtured champions who were called Hazar Mard (A thousand men), which meant that these champions had the strength of a thousand men and who would fight off a champion from the opposing army to stave off the need for an actual battle.

Arab chroniclers have gloated about the heap of bones that marked every encounter of the Persians and the Arabs. At the battle of Al Madain (Tessfoon or Ctesiphon) the capital of the Sassanids, Arab chroniclers tell us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man, perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made his face look like that of a camel which also has a protruding lower lip.

This Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to pin him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could only defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian’s thumb so hard that he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.

The Arch of Chosroes (Takht-e-Kisra) is all that remains of the awesome grandeur of the White Palace at Ctesiphon capital of the Sassanian Empire. After the Muslims captured Ctesiphon, they were befuddled by its shear beauty and opulence. Desert nomads that they were, they could not figure out what they could do with an imperial capital with its palaces, carpets, baths, terrace gardens, orchards. The abominably cruel and violent bare-footed, lizard-eating Muslim Arabs had no use for these trappings of a civilized life, they stripped the city of all moveable items like jewelry, carpets, ornate furniture and then they reduced the city to rubble and carried away its residents to slavery in to the sandy wastes of Arabia. The tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of destruction, vandalism, savagery that included burning down libraries, destroying fire-temples (Zoroastrian places of worship), slaughter of captured civilians to ensure that civilization would never rise up again after an Islamic victory.

__________________________________

The Muslims' Capture of the Persian capital Ctesiphon revealed the nature of the Islamic threat

After the Arabs has slaughtered two thirds of the Persian army at Qadissiyah, they did not stop, but continued to march to the Persian capital Ctesiphon (Teesfoon). The Arabs were not interested in a border war but were intent in defeating Persia utterly by marching into the nook and corner of that country. The prize – the Persian capital was the first in their path. When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with the barefooted Muslim Arab lizard eaters, coming to his doorstep as victors, sent out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:

"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."

Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could decide the issue between them.

After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam, or death. This is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were converted to Islam.

This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the Muslims survive – both cannot survive!

You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.

After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam, or death.

After this they brought each of the Persian noblemen who had the misfortune to having fallen in to the hands of the Arab Muslims as prisoners in front of the Saad-ibn-Wagas, the Muslim gangster who now occupied the throne of the Persian Emperor and gave the prisoners a choice of Islam or death. This is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were converted to Islam.

This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the Muslims survive – both cannot survive!

You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.

__________________________________

After the disastrous defeat at Qadsiyah and the occupation of his capital Ctesiphon, the Hapless Persian emperor Yazgard, withdrew to the fortress of Hulwan, from there to Rayy and finally to Merv, near the border of the Persian empire with the domain of the Central Asian Turks, where he died fighting the Muslims in 651 – seventeen years after the Arabs had first attacked Persia. But before this had to happen, the Persians put up one final major resistance to the Muslims at Nihavend (Nihawand).

Lessons from the battle of Nihavend

After the disastrous defeat at Qadisiyah, the Persians regrouped under a new Commander-in-Chief named Pirojan. The first step that Pirojan took was to re-organize the Persian army in the light of the foul tactics that the Arabs used. He purged the Persian army of all Arab contingents, and provided the entire Persian army with mail armor. The Persians had a burning desire in them to liberate Persia that was being slowly occupied by the Arabs after their victory at Qadisiyah.

The Persians took the oath by the holy fire that they will die, but not let the Arabs occupy the Persia. With this new resolution, the Persians regrouped their forces at Nihavend. When the two armies faced each other, the Persians had taken a vantage position on the slope of a hill. The Arab historians describe the Persian army as a ‘Mountain of Steel’. The determined Persians put up a stiff resistance under the leadership of their general Mardanshah and the Arabs could not make any headway.

The battle of Nihavend was going the way of the Persians and the Arabs faced certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play once again.

Ali who was Mohammed’s son-in-law and the husband of the child Persian Princess Shahrbanu, suggested a base move to the Arab Muslim commander Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. At the battle of Qadisiyah, when the Persians has hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were taken as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. This rapacious behavior was to be repeated over and over again at Jerusalem (636), Damascus (637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650), Constantinople (1453) and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on their non-Muslim adversaries.

At the Persian capital Ctesiphon, among the unfortunate children who were left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King Yazdgard. When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three years old) they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn gifted her to Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali as maal-e-ganimat (slaves obtained by Muslims after a war).

At that time Ali was thirty two years old and he decided to take the three year old child princess as his concubine! In doing this he was following the illustrious (sic) footsteps of his lecherous father-in-law Mohammed. The lecherous Mohammed had married and consummated his marriage with a seven year old girl named Ayesha in addition to many other unfortunate young and beautiful ladies who had been captured by the Muslim gangsters in the numerous wars at Badr, Uhud, Trench, Autas in the Arabian peninsula.

It was from this "marriage" of Ali to Princess Shahrbanu, that he fathered his two sons Hassan and Husain, who were later murdered in Battle of Karbala in October of AD 680. Ali himself had been murdered in 39 A.H. (661 C.E.). The descendants of Hassan and Hussain were to be the Shiite Imams who founded the Shia sect of Islam that had mixed Persian (royal Sassanid) and Arab ancestry. (Arab historians deliberately attribute the motherhood of these two sons of Ali to Fatima, another of Ali’s wives, and the daughter of Mohammed.

But the reason for such attribution is to keep the ancestry of Husain and Hassan purely to Arabs and to suppress the royal Sassanid Persian element of their ancestry.

The historical fact is that Shahrbanu the Persian princess was the mother of Hassan and Hussain. So the descendants of Hussain and Hassan from whom came many of the Shiite Imams had royal Sassanid Persian ancestry. A fact that the Muslim historians try to hide by wrongly claiming that Sharbanu was a young princess of marriagable age when she had been captured by the Arabs.

We know that the battle of Qadisiyah had been fought in the year 637, and Yazdgard had ascended the throne in the year 634, when his age was 21 - twenty one. So in 637 when he fled his capital leaving behind his daughter he was 24. How could a King aged 24 have a daughter who herself was a teenager or a young lady?

The Muslim historians have us believe that Shahrbanu was honorably married off by Ali to his son Hussain from whom she begot Ali's grandon Ali Zayn al Abidin (the fourth Shia Imam) in 658 CE.

But we know that princess Shahrbanu was abducted in the year 637, and according to Arab accounts she gave birth to a son in 658. If she was a young lady when she was abducted in 637 then why did she have to wait for 21 years till 658 before she could beget? Especially so considering that the Muslims force their wives to procreate as soon as they can lay their hands on them!? The Arab Muslims and their Iranian Muslim cohorts are practising their ritual deception taqiya to mislead us and give a veneer of hanorablity to the abduction and rape of Shahrbanu by Ali when he lustfully took the Persian princess into his harem as his rightful property (maal-e-ganimat) won after a war as per the henious Muslim custom.

This is the reason why most Persians are Shias. The Persian converts to Islam saw in the Shiite Imams a continuation of their pre-Islamic royal Sassanid lineage as the Shiite Imams were descended from the union of Ali with Shahrbanu (or of Hussain with Shahrbanu in which case too the royal Sassanid Persian element of the ancestry of the Shiite Imams remains). The Zoroastrian converts who yearned for a return to the Sassanid days saw in Ali, Hussain, Hassan and the Shiite Imams, the successors to their Sassanid emperor Yazgard by virtue of Ali (or by some accounts his son Hussain) being the husband of their princess Shahrbanu.

The Shias who are mainly Persian, Iraqi and Bahraini converts to Islam came from those parts which constituted the Sassanid empire before being overrun by the Muslims. These converts saw in Hussain and Hassan, the continuation of their old Sassanid royal lineage thru the Sassanid princess Shahrbanu along with the ancestry of Mohammed, as Ali her husband, the father of Hussain and Hassan, was Mohammed’s cousin. So they formed a cult within Islam separate from that of the Sunnis who came from the Arab Peninsula that was not a part of the Sassanid empire. Thus in today’s Shia-Sunni divide we can see the expression of the Persian-Arab divide that existed before the birth of Islam.

Coming back to the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive child wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he offer the Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to leave its fortified position and walk into an Arab trap.

According to Ali’s advise, on the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed the captured Persian child princess to the assembled Persians and said that he would kill the princess on the battle field and if the Persians had the courage, they could come and save her.

The astonished Persians took some time to recognize the princess. But once they recognized her as their own princess, who had been captured by the Arabs after the battle of Qadsiyyah four years back, they went into a frenzy of rescuing her. Against their commanders’ orders the front ranks of the Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs leaving the fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.

Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions, Mugheera ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell upon them from three sides. Weighed down by their armor and being chained to each other, the Persians had little room for maneuvering in the narrow valley where the Arabs had hemmed them in. After a valiant but futile battle, what followed was a carnage of the Persian army all through the day. By nightfall the remnants of the Persian army retreated in the dark and many of the retreating Persians fell into the steep cliff, behind the hill on which they had assembled to attack the Arabs from the high ground.

This way using foul tactics the Arabs, could annihilate the Persians once again. The carnage of Nihavend was the break the back of the Persian resistance to Islam and the remaining history of Persia is that of Arabization and Islamization. The Persia we next hear of is the Islamic Persia of Muslim dynasties the Samanids, and the Safavids of Muslim kings like Shah Abbas and Nader Shah. Although the Persian were forced to become Muslims, they preserved the faint memory of their pre-Muslim past, that was captured by poets, historians and bards in their works, of which Firdawsi’s Shah-nameh is the most famous example.

Using imagery we can say that Zoroastrian Sassanian Persia was like a strong horse, who had been caught unawares by the Islamic tiger prowling around it, and when the tiger pounced on the horse and caught it by its neck, the struggle of the strong horse was not enough to save itself from the vice-like grip of the tiger’s fangs. The horse had to meet its end, in becoming the first major victim of the Islamic Jihad. It is up to the Iranians of today to realize what happened to their ancestors in history and repudiate the bloodied creed that the bare-footed lizard eating Muslim Arabs of the desert, imposed on their refined Zoroastrian ancestors.

The Persian origins of the much touted “Renaissance” associated with Islam

This is how the Muslim Arab overran Persia. It was in Persia that the much touted Islamic Renaissance with advances in calligraphy, astronomy, mathematics, literature, was to take place. But the credit for it does not go to the Muslim Arabs or to Islam, but to the Persian converts to Islam. The center of this Renaissance was Baghdad, which was built near the ruins of the ancient Persian Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon.

How the Muslims forcibly converted the Zoroastrians of Iran to Islam
Today we do not have an idea of how a merciless jihad transformed Iranian Zoroastrian society into a Muslim one. We have definitive assessments of those few Zoroastrian communities which survived the devastating jihadist conquests of the mid 7th through early 8th centuries. All through the Muslim Arab occupation of Iran, the Zoroastrians experienced an ongoing, inexorable decline over the next millennium due to constant sociopolitical and economic pressures exerted by their Muslim rulers, and neighbors.

This gradual, but continuous process was interspersed with periods of accelerated decline resulting from paroxysms of Muslim fanaticism- pogroms, forced conversions, and expropriations – throughout the millennium beginning from the year 637. Boyce describes these complementary phenomena based on an historical analysis, and her personal observations living in the (central Iranian) Yezd area during the 1960s:

”In the mid nineteenth century disaster overtook Turkabad, in the shape of what was perhaps the last massed forcible conversion in Iran. It no longer seems possible to learn anything about the background of this event; but it happened, so it is said, one autumn day when the dye-madder - then one of the chief local crops - was being lifted. All the able-bodied men were at work in teams in the fields when a body of Moslems swooped on the village and seized them. They were threatened, not only with death for themselves, but also with the horrors that would befall their women and children, who were being terrorized at the same time in their homes; and by the end of the day of violence most of the village had accepted Islam.

To recant after a verbal acknowledgement of Allah and his prophet meant death in those days, and so Turkabad was lost to the old religion. Its fire-temple was razed to the ground, and only a rough, empty enclosure remained where once it had stood.

______________________________

We shall give our blood for you Khamenei – Iranian Basij militia march through Tehran during the bloodied Shiite festival of Ashura. Display of their cruel and blood-thirsty mentality is a matter of pride for Muslims.

__________________________________

A similar fate had overtaken many Iranian villages in the past, among those which did not willingly embrace Islam; and the question seems less why it happened to Turkabad than why it did not overwhelm all other Zoroastrian settlements. The evidence, scanty though it is, shows, however, that the harassment of the Zoroastrians of Yazd tended to be erratic and capricious, being at times less harsh, or bridled by strong governors; and in general the advance of Islam across the plain, through relentless, seems to have been more by slow erosion than by furious force. The process was still going on in the 1960s, and one could see, therefore, how it took effect.

Muslim techniques of forced conversions to Islam

Either a few Moslems settled on the outskirts of a Zoroastrian village, or one or two Zoroastrian families adopted Islam. Once the dominant faith had made a breach, it pressed in remorselessly, like a rising tide. More Muslims came, and soon a small mosque was built, which attracted yet others. As long as Zoroastrians remained in the majority, their lives were tolerable; but once the Moslems became the more numerous, a petty but pervasive harassment was apt to develop.

This was partly verbal, with taunts about fire-worship, and comments on how few Zoroastrians there were in the world, and how many Moslems, who must therefore posses the truth; and also on how many material advantages lay with Islam. (As we hear time and time again today that “Islam is the World’s fastest growing religion”). The harassment of the Zoroastrians. was often also physical; boys fought, and gangs of youth waylaid and bullied individual Zoroastrians. They Muslim miscreants also diverted themselves by climbing into the local Tower of Silence (the Zoroastrian graveyard) and desecrating it, and they might even break into the Fire-Temple and seek to pollute or extinguish the sacred flame.

Those Muslims with heightened criminal leanings, which were natural to them, found too that a religious minority provided tempting opportunities for theft, pilfering from the open fields, and sometimes rape and arson. Those Zoroastrians who resisted all these pressures often preferred therefore in the end to sell out and move to some other place where their co-religionists were still relatively numerous, and they could live at peace; and so another village was lost to the old faith.

Several of the leading families in Sharifabad and forebears who were driven away by intense Moslem pressure from Abshahi, once a very devout and orthodox village on the southern outskirts of Yazd; and a shorter migration had been made by the family of the centenarian ‘Hajji’ Khodabakhsh, who had himself been born in the 1850s and was still alert and vigorous in 1964. His family, who were very pious, had left their home in Ahmedabad (just to the north of Turkabad) when he was a small boy, and had come to settle in Sharifabad to escape persecution and the threats to their orthodox way of life. Other Zoroastrians held out there for a few decades longer, but by the end of the century Ahmedabad was wholly Moslem, as Abshahi become in 1961. [Boyce's footnote: The last Zoroastrian family left Abshahi in 1961, after the rape and subsequent suicide of one of their daughters.]

It was noticeable that the villages which were left to the Zoroastrians were in the main those with poor supplies of water, where farming conditions were hard.

Now we examine the tall boasts that Muslims make about themselves in heralding the Islamic Renaissance when the Western world was in the Dark Ages.

Exposing the Myth of Islamic Science

Much is said about the Islamic Renaissance at Baghdad, specially under the caliphate of Harun-al–Rashid. In the Arabian peninsula (jazeera), the Arabs had lived in a hardy and barren area, which was not conducive to the growth of civilization. But this lack of a civilized life among the Arabs has no ethnic reason. The same Semitic Arabs, who lived in the fertile crescent in Mesopotamia had developed advanced civilizations of Babylon (the Mesopotemians and the Assyrians). But for those others who lived in the desert, the arid fastness precluded them from developing any substantial civilization in Arabia itself. And we need to note that Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, not Mesopotamia. So the way of life associated with Islam was based on the same meager barren desert life of Arabia.

Hence Islam was a simple religion, as it was born in an environment where people lived at subsistence, in an extreme climate which made them temperamental – this is the root of Muslim fanaticism. A trait that was passed on to all the peoples from different climates and geographic environments who were forced to accept Islam.

______________________________

This worthy Ahmed-i-nejad, who has vowed to destroy Israel, will be the last President of Mullah-led Iran. The Mullah regime will soon be reduced to dust – of the radio-active smoldering variety.

__________________________________

There was in fact a forced Arabization of the Persians (in Iran, Afghanistan), North African Hamitic people (in Egypt, Libya, Sudan) the North African Berbers (in Algeria, Morocco), the Negros (in Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, Niger) the Turks (in Turkey, Turkmenistan, Chechnya) the Mongols (in Uzbekistan, Kazakistan, Tajikistan), Hindus (in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka), Slavs (in Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania) etc.

But the converted Persians, Hindus and North Africans had cultured and civilized pre-Islamic pasts. They had developed advanced civilizations of Egypt, India and Persia. So when these people were militarily defeated and forcibly converted to Islam, they brought in cultured traits and a tradition of learning into Islam.

In fact the first codified grammar of Arabic was written by a Persian. The Arabs were unlettered, Mohammed (yimach shmo ve-zichro - may his name and memory be obliterated) himself was completely unlettered and illiterate, although he was quite cruel, cunning and ruthless.

The much vaunted Islamic renaissance was in fact a renaissance of the Persian (Zoroastrian) converts to Islam during the Persianized Abbasiad Caliphate. During the first four caliphs Abba Bakr, Umar, Uthmad and Ali (the last three who were murdered) and the Ummayad caliphate at Damascus, there was no such thing like the Islamic Renaissance, it was the Persian and Egyptian converts who had a pre-Islamic legacy of being civilized, which they carried forward after being converted to Islam.

In fact Islam tried to smother their pre-Islamic legacy of culture and civilization, and so it was only after the initial flush of Islamic savagery had passed over, that the newly converted people could after four to five generations again pick up the threads of a civilized life. The Islamic Renaissance happened not due to Islam, but in spite of Islam being around. The Islamic Renaissance was not a triumph of Islam, but a triumph of the human spirit over Islam.

_________________________

Hitler and Ahmedinejad

Hitler knew that it would be an easy matter to transform the skilled, young glider aviators into fighter and bomber pilots. As the Mullahs and Ahmedinejad know today that once they have enriched uranium, have the missile tested out for their range and have other building blocks of nuclear technology in place with uranium enrichment, it would be a walkover to a nuclear weapons suite to blackmail and then destroy the civilized world.

__________________________________

After having subjugated Persia, the Arabs turned their full fury on the other adversary the Byzantine Christians. The Jihad against Byzantines went on for a much longer period. While Persia fell in seventeen years from 634 to 651, the jihad against Byzantium started in 635 but went up to 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Muslim Turks.

Although the Arab Muslims had attacked the Byzantines in 635 at Yarmuk, they could not immediately make forays deep into the Byzantine territory into Syria, Anatolia or Egypt. But with Persia subjugated, it was now the turn of the Byzantine Christians to shed their blood to resist the Islamic Jihad.

_____________________________

* For those uninitiated, PBUH expands to Perpetual Battle Upon Hagarism (Islam) – founded by the mass-murderer and pedophile pretender prophet Mohammed-ibn-Abdallah (Yimach Shmo – May his name and memory be obliterated).

______________________________________

Select Bibliography

Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher

Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries (Hardcover) by Paul Fregosi

The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World by Srdja Trifkovic

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer

Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam) by David Cook

Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq

Onward Muslim Soldiers by Robert Spencer

Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'Or

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Yeor

What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary by Ibn Warraq

Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad by Mark A. Gabriel, Mark A. Gabriel

A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer

The Great Divide: The failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West by Marvin Olasky

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims by Robert Spencer

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones

The Koran (Penguin Classics) by N. J. Dawood

Don't Keep me Silent! One Woman's Escape from the Chains of Islam by Mina Nevisa

Christianity And Islam: The Final Clash by Robert Livingston

Holiest Wars : Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden by Timothy R. Furnish

The Last Trumpet: A Comparative Study in Christian-Islamic Eschatology by Samuel, Ph.D. Shahid

Unleashing the beast: How a fanatical islamic dictator will form a ten-nation coalition and terrorize the world for forty-two months by Perry Stone

Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature (Religion and Politics) by David Cook

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle by Mark A., Ph.D. Gabriel

The Challenge of Islam to Christians by David Pawson

The Prophetic Fall of the Islamic Regime by Glenn Miller, Roger Loomis

Prophet of Doom : Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words by Craig Winn

The False Prophet by Ellis H. Skolfield

The Approach of Armageddon: An Islamic Perspective by Muhammad Hisham Kabbani

The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God by George Weigel

Infiltration : How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz

Unveiling Islam : An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs by Ergun Mehmet Caner

Perfect Soldiers : The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry McDermott

Islam Revealed A Christian Arab's View Of Islam by Anis Shorrosh

Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out by Ibn Warraq

The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book by Ibn Warraq

________________________________

Unfortunately for humankind, the end of the death-seeking fiery cult of Islam can only come about through a fiery death-giving weapon. Ironically such nuclear mushroom clouds would be the blazing hell-fire that the Quran talks about and acknowledges will bring about an end to Islam such that there will be no one across the globe to say "Lah ilah il Allah, Mohammed ur Rasoolallah" (There is no god but allah and Mohammed is his prophet)

Exclusive Coverage
Iran preparing to launch an Electro-Magnetic Pulse Nuclear war

The Nazis of Yesterday and the Qazis and Ghazis of today!
Hitler and Khamenei - The two faces of Evil

Warrantless Wiretapping of Muslim phones and Electronic Surveillance of Radiation around Mosques

Our Resolution for the New Year - Realize, Learn and Implement the only way to destroy Terrorism - Attack the Hajj, pulverize Mecca

Shape of things to come in Iraq and the world over

Ramsey Clark as Saddam's Attorney and the politics of subterfuge and murder

Kill or Be Killed - Shiites and Sunnis in a Catch 22 trap inside Iraq

How we are making Islam self-destruct

Muslim Brotherhood raises its Hood in Egypt

Our withdrawal plans and news highlights about Sunnis being tortured by Shiite prison guards and link of these two happenings with the Saudi-Iranian Sunni-Shiite Proxy War that has already started in Iraq

Sharon turns out to be the proverbial "SHEEP" in "Wolf's" clothing!

Muslims crying about deprivation of Civil Liberties and Human Rights is like a Jackal crying "Wolf"

Najaf and Fallujah - A tale of two Cities and two strategies

The Amman Blasts - the first shots of the emerging schism between the Wahabis and the Hashemites

"We should bring our troops Home to achieve our Iraq Policy goals" - A Republican Neocon view

Why do Arabs discriminate against other Muslims from the Ummah - Reason: Muslims are thugs. As they fight with others to commit thuggery, they also fight amongst themselves while sharing the spoils of their thuggery.

Bring our Troops home - Afterall Cindy does actually have a point

Idle Minds are a Devil's Workshop, but in France we are confronting the Devils' Mind

The simple use of demographics of democracy against our enemy

Know the mind of the enemy if we are to defeat those who brought us sorrow

How are Muslims like women?

Shiite-Sunni War coming in Iraq and then across the Middle East

"Winning Muslim Hearts and Minds"

Earthquake in Pakistan - Allah's Jihad against Muslims?

Can the West win a mortal combat of the War on Terror with one hand cuffed?

Are Muslims Alienated everywhere as any civilized lifestyle is alien for them?

The effective way of defeating Pre-cultural theology-inspired Islamic terrorism

Optional Scenarios ...

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by airieCommentsDate
Vote
-
Jun 16, 2009
We Say No To Islam
14
Nov 20, 2008
PETITION against Carter
15
Nov 16, 2008
more from airie
 
samsam1111

Re;Arabs conquored many lands

by samsam1111 on

Arabs conquored many lands that did not convert. We were invaded by many other people's and we did not "convert" to them. Cruelty is a part of war and invasions but It's just irrelevant to religious conversion.
And in fact most of Muslims converted without any invasion.

"Arabs conquored many lands that did not convert."

Like who? Except some odd ball exception , the only case that people didn,t fully convert was Spain and that was due to many factors, including the fact that Invading Arab armies were made up of north African natives , Arabs were  much more urbanite & refined by then , As well the Spaniards were a more or less unicultural people unlike Iran with vast ethnic groups(MedeoPersian , Parthians, & natives dating to pre IE migration).

We were invaded by many other people's and we did not "convert" to them

Do you make these up as you go ..This one is realy ridiculous . Is this the kinda mumbo they feed high school kids now !! ...Who are You talking about Mongols?

or Turks? ..These nomads didn,t come under a religious banner to invade Iran or bring a brand new religion, they came to loot . It was strictly a "classic geo-political invasion" . plus they didn,t much to offer in regard to spirituality/philosophy to Iranian mavalis already subjugated by ommah khallifs . In case of short Selucid reign , they actualy melt into Persian pot than the other way around....

And to answer your question , actualy Yes it happened once. by the power of sword & blood of thousands later on , in the hands of turkish ghezelbash who forced a mostly sunni nation into Shia.

""in fact most of Muslims converted without any invasion""

Yes Bangladesh(the lower caste indians) or Indonesian/thais/Malays...& it,s mostly due to these nations limited cultural/estate hood background who found Islam a superior thesis to their empty bag...

You make no sense ...too much hot air and few half-truths

 


default

The murdering thugs within

by KavehV (not verified) on

This last post is for the benefit of the readers, as the illiterate Islamist is once again struggling with the concept. As I said earlier:

Argument over the stretched logic of these generalities is fruitless. The merits of a worthwhile discussion resides in an overview, on case by case basis, of particular subjects whether in europe, middle east or far east.

In strict interpretation of the following logic:

1) No nation has ever voluntarily given up "the way of their forefathers" for another religion.
2) No nation has ever voluntarily given up "the way of their forefathers" for "another religion, UNLESS faced with a gradual conversion.

Both are equally valid statements in any social and historical context. 1) can be considered the majority view with direct consequence on the event outcomes, and 2) can be considered the minority view WITHOUT consequence on the event outcome.

This means, that in all likelihood, there were those who voluntarily and wholeheartedly converted to the Islamic ideology in the early stages of the Arab/Islamic conquest (some call them traitors), as seen from their modern descendents on this site. BUT, these were the minority types who were inconsequential in taming Islam's wrath upon Iranian society. All evidence points out to a barbaric and ruthless rape of the Iranian society beginning in mid 7th century and continuation of it through our time. Why would any Iranian voluntarily accept the tenants of this savagery that has befallen them over and over ?

BTW, the genocidal Islamists who murdered their way into Iranian plateau and settled-down, never left.

The rest is the absurd rants of a cornered and blind Islamist rat.


Souri

I agree with Q ...

by Souri on

"Arabs conquored many lands that did not convert. We were invaded by many other people's and we did not "convert" to them. Cruelty is a part of war and invasions but It's just irrelevant to religious conversion.
And in fact most of Muslims converted without any invasion..."

I think the same way about this particular matter.


Q

Kaveh, you have now talked yourself into silliness

by Q on

and complete irrelevance.

You started by saying "no society ever gives up the ways of their forefathers". You seemed to be saying that

Then, faced with some evidence, you modified your story with:

"No society will give up the ways of their forefathers, unless through GRADUAL conversion."

Just like Christians and Jews, I guess. Then faced with evidence that Iranians took centuries to convert (you used said "decades"), you again change your story AGAIN to say that no, it's a "gradual conversion" followed by a bloody one, but in the case of Iran it was bloody all along.

So, this begs the question, if "Islam" skipped your (BS) Phase I, why did it take the same amount of time as it did the Roman Empire turning Christian?

NOW you seem to be saying Iranians were "forced" but "gradually"!!!! over Centuries "until majority" was declared.

Yet you conveniently forget that by the time "Majority" occurred Iran was no longer occupied by Arabs. In fact, even at the beginning local Iranian vazirs were put in charge of administration.

You have so many historical inaccuracies that I hope to god you didn't get a college degree because if you did, that school should be closed immediately.

I really don't have time to waste with people who disrespect history as a cheap tool to prove the hatred they already feel before even looking at History. But I will make a few corrections for those young people who may be reading just so they don't end up like you.

1. There is no reason why Iran would follow a different pattern of "cruelty" and "violence" compare to Armenia, Ethiopia and dozens of other places that I names. Some directly occupied by an Arab force, some not. Your feelings fueled by ingraned racism wants us to think these invasions were somehow more cruel to Zoroastrian Iran than they were Hindu India or Christian Ethiopia. It's all in your head.

2. You completely ignore evidence that many Iranians were ready to accept the new religion, and some had converted to Christianity AND Islam before the actual invasion.

3. You falsely try to say that European dark ages were because of the violence of the "majority Christians". First of all Roman Empire was majority Christian long before its fall. Second, the dark ages, (according to REAL scholars) were caused by the increase of population of barbarians invading from the North and overthrowing the Roman Empire (already Christian) by that time. So the dark ages have nothing to do with your scnario.

4. You try to say "East Asians" are the "only exception" to Islamic conquest by force. First of all, how can the MAJORITY of World Muslims (who are East of Iran) be some kind of "exception" ? Second, you say they kept their traditions, but there's no evidence they kept anything any more than Persians did. In fact, the most common source of food on Indonesia, Philippines and many east Asian countries is Pork which they gave up after turning Muslim. Bangladesh and Indonesia are aruably MORE orthodox Islamic and more purists than Iranians. That means they kept LESS of their previous culture, not MORE.

Third, this is not the only example, East Africa, South Africa, West Africa were also Islamicized without invasion. So, it seems your exaggerated "conception" of how Islam spread is what's actually the exception, not the rule.

5. Back to the basic question, you seem to think that conversion over 400 years can still be called "forced" (that's the dispute with Bazargan's video). This is rediculous. Explain to me how the initial invasion and occupation with foreign armies didn't convert that many people but 400 years later when all the Arabs were gone and the ruling parties and local armies were all Iranian, they decided to give in to "force" ?

It sounds like you are accepting the thing you yourself ridiculed originally, that it was old fashioned preaching and evangelizing that converted the Iranian people "gradually."

And I suppose the Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews and Hinus who DID NOT give in were somehow "better" or "stronger" people?

6. Sudan is completely irrelevant. If Arabs were trying to Islamicize anybody ( Darfur is already Muslim), they would invade Ethiopia or Coptic villages in southern Egypt. This is strawman BS. You are using it only to prop the "horrors" and anger of you readers, hoping they don't actually think about it.

Why do you have such a hard time admitting reality in front of your face? That most religious conversion is voluntary, including in Iran. The only exceptions are when you seperate children from families so they don't know any better. This happened in many Colonial possessions but not by Muslims or Arabs.

End of story.

samsam: I really couldn't care who or what religion you are. But your comment is just ignorant. Of course "cruelty" of invasion does not equal conversion. As I said, Arabs conquored many lands that did not convert. We were invaded by many other people's and we did not "convert" to them. Cruelty is a part of war and invasions but It's just irrelevant to religious conversion. And in fact most of Muslims converted without any invasion. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you guys. Why don't you take off the Islamophobic "tint" and be objective? The day you are capable of considering Islam like any other religion and seperating it from the perceived and oft-exaggerated "horrors" of Arab invasion, that is the day you can talk to anybody else about "bias."

(funny how no one cares about the serious cruelty Iranians suffered under Mongols, could it be Islamophobia?)


samsam1111

Q

by samsam1111 on

""I already answered you. Nobody disputes that the invasion was cruel as were most invasions""

Aftab aamad , ,,, Aftab . You just proved the point about forced conversion . Your logic goes like this ; A truck crashes with brute force into a house but the roof doesn,t cave in until a week later ...According to your logic , the truck is not responsible for the house demolition since it didn,t happen instantly . Can it get more ridiculous than that !! . look dude, this is no anti Islam propaganda since I practised Shiaa-garii since age 6 under Shah , in a non-religious family (Army) . I,m a nationalist today , not because of what mullahs did but because I read & studied more books on Iran & her heritage up to age 16 than most folks read in a life time . I,m a spiritual person of God without the baggage of religion . I have come to closure with Islam but my fight is with Ommatism . It,s time for you to come to closure with Iran and stop distorting her past with ideologically biased views . You don,t have to be a nationalist but take that ommatist tint  off for a fair judgment .

Now go answer Kaveh question & this time without the tint .


default

No to genocidal Islam

by KavehV (not verified) on

A typical dishonest Islmaist behavior is to take a sentence out of context and quote. To a simple Islamist, there seems to be a logical jump from a general statement saying: 'no nation has ever voluntarily given up "the way of their forefathers" for "another religion"', to assuming that all supposedly peaceful conversions to any religion are in direct contradiction of this statement.

There are centuries worth of events, developments and conflicts that have played a role in completing these religious conversions. Some voluntary and much by coercion, fear, intimidation and force. The simple claim that, a generally perceived, "peaceful" process of some religious conversion over a few centuries, is the proof-positive of a voluntary acceptance of a change in "the way of forefathers" is nothing but an adolescent style fallacy.

Arguement over the stretched logic of these generalities is fruitless. The merits of a worthwhile discussion resides in an overview, on case by case basis, of particular subjects whether in europe, middle east or far east.

Typically, the "peaceful" spread of any ideology progresses in multiple phases. Phase I, is the spreading news, new recruits and renewed optimism under the old guard and structure. Much like the spread of christianity in the Roman time. The change is voluntary and every person incorporates their new beliefs within their own social and cultural structure and according to "the way of their forefathers". Phase II, once the majority consensus is established, the old guard is sacked and the bloody power struggle starts. After a bloody struggle, the grand wizard at the top will tell everyone that: 'this I will shove down your throats according to "the way of my forefathers"'. Conflicts will ensue, as this will be against the way of the forefathers of the majority and will continue on that basis. Much like the post Roman Dark ages and Middle ages; crusades, Spanish Reconquista, heresy, inquisition and conversions and prosecutions in the name of christianity. After exhaustion from utmost savagery, the next phase may start. Phase III: renaissance and revision of an unworthy belief system which would become a little more tolerable by everyone. During the entire process, no one will ever admit to do things different than "the way of their forefathers", not even the lowly Islamists of any tribe.

The bloody Islam skipped phase I altogether in many places (especially Iran). It came to Iran after a bloody military defeat in mid seventh century along with numerous genocidal criminals who murdered their way into Iranian plateau. They then settled down in the same towns and villages to murder, rape, maim, terrorize and extort every little bit that they can from an already vanquished nation. Iran was declared an Islamic land in 7th century and these true believers, genocidal Islamists, rose up again and again to suppress the last vestiges of Iranian independence, until majority Muslim was declared a few centuries later. There is nothing in their holy book to indicate their intentions were anything, but hostile. They have explicit orders in their Quran to kill their enemies swiftly and in high numbers. The absolute lack of basic human rights for non-believers, infidels and their civilian population. These strict and inhumane characteristics and the bloody rampages of Iranian countryside would make Islam an unlikely candidate for "phase I" type (renewed optimism) expansion within Iran at the early stage. Unfortunately, Iran suffered further blows from Turko-Islamic Safavids and their newly declared Shia'a cult, in collusion with Lebenese Jebl Amel fanatics, in yet another bloody chapter of the history.

Islamist had similarly conquered territories, by force and enslavement, until their were repulsed in southern Europe (Spain) and later in the Balkans, Caucasus and somewhat in India. Today, the same barbarism is raging in Sudan, as the Islamists are expanding their empire into sub-saharan Africa. These are all the land territories accessible to Islamic hordes and they all had similar fate; Islamic blood and rage. Then again, Islamists call them cheap diversion tactics.

The one exception is the far-eastern muslims. These people were Islamized through trade and are still living under their old cultural structure. For geographical reasons, these people were spared the land incursions of the Islamist hordes and are still in the process of consolidating their majority muslims and do not even abide completely by Islamic laws. If and when the current structure collapses and the power struggle starts, watch out Indonesia!


Souri

Thank you

by Souri on

Thank you so much ! You did exactly what I was hoping you would do.


Q

Exactly what I thought Kaveh

by Q on

Your words are quoted verbatim and now you're claiming you didn't mean it? Doesn't matter, you're still wrong, no matter how you slice it.

Iranians ALSO took centuries to become Muslim.

Richard Bulliet's "conversion curve" and relatively minor rate of conversion of non-Arab subjects during the Arab centric Umayyad period of 10%, in contrast with estimates for the more politically multicultural Abassid period which saw the Muslim population go from approx. 40% in the mid 9th century to close to 80% by the end of 11th century.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_in_Iran

it took 400 years for Iran to become 80% Muslim. It did not happen over night, no scholar has ever said it happened anything but slowly. It's in fact a longer time frame than the Roman Empire turning Christian.

We also havemuch continuity between Zoroastrian past and Islamic present, not only Persian cultural traditions, but the Shiite traditions that were influenced by Iranians. There is always some continuity by the virtue of it being the same culture as before.

In almost all conversions, the converted gave up the central tenets of their religion, afterlife and eschatology. There have been many, many conversions that did not have any force involved. I listed them all for you before. When was the force involved in Indonesian Islamization? Why did they give up their religion for Islam??? Why did the Swedes gave up Nordic Gods for Catholic Christianity and then later for Lutheranism? When did "Christians" start "acting like Muslims" in the Roman Empire? Huh?

Your isolated examples and cherry picking are completely irrelevant. Facts are that Iranians converted gradually and as they converted, they took over more and more control of their own territory and at the same time adapted Islam to their own customs.

Everything else (about Sudan, etc.) is a cheap diversion tactic.

Once again, we conclude you don't know what you're tlaking about. And you feel the need to use verbal abuse to compensate for your obvious lack of knowledge and over-raging hate.


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Islamists unite! Hold hands! Ya Allah!

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

Samsam11111111111111 do you deny what you have said about Islam? ALL religions are barbaric. All of them, including your precious Zoroastrianism. Have you ever read what the Catholic church has done in the world? They are a country with more wealth and power than all mullahs combined. 

All religions are bad and by focusing on one religion, you're  showing how ignorant and hypocritical you are. BTW Zoroastrianism is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. There's a reason it had to be changed and evolved into Christianity. They're similar, except for that dumb story about Mithra being born of a rock then raised by wolves. How stupid. All religions are stupid, all religious movements are stupid. Yours included. 


default

No more Islamist ignorant rants....

by KavehV (not verified) on

It goes to show the illiteracy of the Islamists and their lacking analytical skills. To point out the centuries long changes in various complex societies, in an opportunistic ignorant rant, as proof of voluntary changes in "the way of their forefathers" ? The sword wielding two bit Islamist, lacking the most rudimentary knowledge of history, is hell-bent in defending his genocidal Islam by commanding others to stop slandering their bloody savage ways. What is next Muslim boy ? commanding everyone to pray to your murderous Allah, or you will cut everyone's head off ?

Read and learn, I will say again: no nation has ever voluntarily given up "the way of their forefathers" (dare to define this term) for "another religion" in the face of force and intimidation (savage Islam and bloody Quran). UNLESS, the nation was faced with a gradual conversion (i.e. continuity), which was not the case in Iran.

In just about all the conversions to Christianity, Khazar-Judaism and Buddism, there was one important factor present: CONTINUITY. In these conversions people did not give up "ways of their forefathers" (dare to define this term). At least, not until much later when majority christians started to act like your Islamic kin during middle ages. It took centuries to convert europe to christianity.

Someone need to educate the sword wielding muslim boy about the barbarism of the Turko/Islamists in the Balkans and how the "Jan Nesars" would kidnap and behead Slavic men for not converting to Islam. No continuity, Islamic style conversions and ever lasting conflict

Here's another Islamic genocide worth remembering. It just happens to be going on right now in Darfur. The great Islamic army warriors (aka. Janjawids) are killing civilians, burning villages and raping women in Sudan (familiar ?), even though many of the victims claim to be Muslims. If you want to see what took place in Iran 1400 years ago, take a look at Sudan today.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdR9SB4yPOo


samsam1111

lol , u c souri :)

by samsam1111 on

 eh eh  Hitler too ha .heeeh ..entertaining  !!! The idiocy is not some post hajieh menopausal syndrom but as I said before a lonely hajieh need to be Acknowledged . I,m no hitler but she defenitly is the delusional official  mullahs mouthpiece on this site... ..I,m out..while she is constantly yapping to hell. cheers!!!


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Samsam11111111111111 You have the makings of Hitler

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

No one said your name and attributed it to ethnic cleansing. You have a wild imagination. 

But when you label Muslims, make fun of them, blame them for the problems of the world, call for their conversion, blasting their holy sites, etc.... You remind me of Hitler and other famous ethnic cleansers before they became famous. They all started out like you. They said they are just innocent patriots, just "serious" thinkers. You're a joke. A fun joke. Now go get ZION to come comment ASAP! I mentioned Hitler so this should get FUN! 


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Oh my god. Desi please tell me you have read Samsam's latest....

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

Samsam11111111111 I never ever ever ever in my wildest dreams, thought a real Iranian Dwight Schrute existed. God bless you. Good thoughts good words good deeds. 

 as the many ladies in personal life confirm to that fact)  . I have ignored rants by some sane ladies on this site in the past with reservations  . I,m not here to socialize or chit chat . When I visit it,s strictly to read views and make my 2 cents on a subject worthy

This just made my day. Until you topped yourself with this:

 I,m a cross between Sean connery & George clooney , I,m willing to give a her signed authograph to hang on her monitor 


Souri

dear Samsam

by Souri on

Thanks for the reply. I heard you.

I believe all of those people you were talking about, did hear you too. I feel sorry for this wrong climate getting in the air of IC. I regret our dear friends (regardless of their views) leave us like this.

Now, please keep cool. You are a very sincere, passionate and special nationalist. No doubt.

If I may, I will send you a personal email (not today) to talk about this and tell you my own view.

for now, I want just to assure you that, there's a good person, in each of us. Look at the comments under Ali P. blog today, or JJ's blog about his sister's death, the other day.

We all have kindness and sympathy for others, deep in our heart. We are all, Cyrus's children. We are all good people, believe me.

In that movie, I'd posted the name, last time (Shake hands with the devil) there was a great part. I really admired.

The general (Dallaire) goes to see one of the opposition's leader, asking him to cess the fight and killing the people, so the other party would  do the same.

The leader, replied him : I don't care how many people will die, I have to save my country, I will fight for my country.

The general replied then : And what it this (the country) ? The hills? the trees? the lands ? What is " the country" for you ? You kill your compatriot, to save your country ? What will be the country without the compatriot ?

This part of the movie, was amazing for me. Think about that.

Respectfully,


samsam1111

Souri jaan

by samsam1111 on

For the last time . As a principle I treat ladies with ease ,respect & tolerance (as the many ladies in personal life confirm to that fact)  . I have ignored rants by some sane ladies on this site in the past with reservations  . I,m not here to socialize or chit chat . When I visit it,s strictly to read views and make my 2 cents on a subject worthy . I have these gang of male&female characters on the ignore list , so some of them are pretty pissed and keep addressing me in 3rd person even when I,m not part of a thread . I,ve noticed that they have an obcession with me(& some other free thinkers which is okay (let em explode:)) as long as it,s not about how many women I had sex with or my mother had an Aryan lover...and when I finally respond and make them cry, they run to moderator crying wolf to delete mine . with these folks it,s not about the views but juvenile gang mentality & games . I keep ignoring it until I see words like ethnic cleansing,killing is wrongly attributed to me . I,m not the only one though , A lot of independent bloggers have been ganged up by this group such as Bijan, Programmer craig, amir ashkan & even red wine on his last entry on Obama..do u see them around any more? nahh...so go figure..maan por roo am keh hanooz injaam..cheers!!

 

btw* it seems your blue haired friend  is a fan of Sean connery & Bond & Since I,m a cross between Sean connery & George clooney , I,m willing to give a her signed authograph to hang on her monitor if she doesn,t force me to involve in juvenile dialogue with a lady .  :)

 

 


Souri

One BRAND NEW (??????) sugesstion

by Souri on

I have a very Brand New suggestion for everyone :

HOW ABOUT, WE DON'T INSULT ANYBODY, FROM NOW ON ?

Just try it right now from this very moment. Maybe it will work better and people get more willing to listen to what we have to say, rather than only hearing our insult to them !!!!


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Insult?! Dwight is a compliment. Samsam11111111111 so sensitive!

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

he has martial arts skills, he likes RUSH, REM and he was a deputy sheriff's volunteer. Also, Angela is gorgeous. Google them. 

Also, you say some of the meanest, cruellest things to people. What do you expect, for us to bow down? If you dish it, you should be ready take it too. 

You just called me an idiot. Now if I had done that to you, JJ would have said he's going to terminate my account. Which he should do since I used some bad words, but he's a nice guy and I'm sorry for what I said. But you don't let up, you just attack us relentlessly.  


samsam1111

:) pathetic lying ommati

by samsam1111 on

 

heeh, I made a civil comment for tolerance for other bloggers ..& as ususal the village idiot, just like her gang comes in with juvenile idiocy ,looking for acknowledgment via distortion & insult...dream on


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Desi: Where to start - Purple Belts and samsam1111111111's Jivin

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

1. can you imagine if we took away samsam111111111111's purple belt one day? lol. Angela = airie in my internet image of this duo.

2. Ethnic cleansing is right. That is exactly what these people are suggesting with their "get out. die. you are less than human". Personally, I don't subscribe to religion, but I have muslim, jewish pals - not terrorists I assure you - and they aren't the problem. Samsam is the problem. Fascism is never good samsam11111111111111111111111111. Name calling, labeling, all that other jive, makes you the same as IRI. 


default

what stands Q for?? karbala???

by airie on

Dont worry! We gonna send u all home to your karbala and all of u can have a tv show whith yor bazargan and say "our ppl chose islam" "our ppl chose islam"! whith your own language,arabic,not eaven al-farsi you're loud it to talk!!!
All you deserv to go home sweet home! You the baazmaandegaane al-ghadesieh which destroyed for us and force us to STAYING MUSLIMS! Dream on,OLD MAN! dream on!

Take a Taazi as yourself for a source,but we get ours,beside the evidence of history battle! You failed;

It is a very simple matematic;

Iranians are not arabs!

Iranians are a different nation!

Iranians are civilicing ppl!

The first civiliced world started by my great,great, great grand parenths!

we did not chose and we still dont chose!

U mulla trash whith your pathetic and barbarics Taazi,paasdaar killing us and bucthering us and everyone who deny your damn way of life, mazhab-o-l islam!

This is the chose you ppl talking about????
I revert to my own roots,ZARATHUSHTRA! I AM AN IRANIAN; I' ve got nothing whith your AnIrani to do,but if i go home one day your ppl whould kill,me!

We never chose islam,becouse is not good for us!

Your islam is perfect for crimanals and rapers and pedophiles,but u have to know,iranians are human be,thats why we always said and will say,no,no,no and damn no to your ppl of al-ghadesieh and arabs way of life!

you tried in 1400 years now!
it does not working!

For everyone is intreesing to know how islam came to Iran and can persian:

Go to youtub,Shayan Kaviyani,bahram moshiri and ramze aazadi by Homer Abramian!

or;

//www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/parsi

//www.kavehsara.com

//www.farhangiran.com

There have you !

The true histori of Iran and Iranians!

we send you all! you islamics leftists and islamics toudehiyi and all u mulla will go home!

VIVA A ZARATHUSHTI(ZOROASTER) JEWS ;CHRISTIANY AND BAHAYI IRAN!
Your time is over!

Get deal whith it!


Q

Dear Ommatist-caller

by Q on

Samsam,

Why are you playing ignorant? I know your sources which sound like sure-exaggerations. But that's irrelevant.

I already answered you. Nobody disputes that the invasion was cruel as were most invasions. In fact Arab invasion was not even the worst against Iranians.

The Zoroastrians were of course considered people of the book where the hell did you get this from? The tax was the same. Besides, are you telling me a difference in "tax rate" broke the will of the proud Zoroastrian Iranians? How do you explain the fact that they never converted back when they were no longer occupied? How do you explain Millions of Hindus (definitly not people of the book) in India and central Asia that did not convert? How do you explain the Zoroastrians inside Iran?

You are grasping at straws. Some berbers may be fighting a nationalist movement in Algeria, but it's not against "Islam."

Let's face it, if we believe your theories and accept historical facts, that means you only have one explanation of why Persians converted and others didn't: Persian Zoroastrians must have been weaker and less devoted followers of their religion. Things like "taxes" made them change the 1000 year old religious practices.

That's the kind of respect you have for Iranians?


Q

Kaveh: Total lies

by Q on

beside your ignorant slander and name calling, you are way off base historically.

These illiterate Islamist morons do not seem to know that there has never been such precedence in history where a people, a nation, have voluntarily given up the "ways of their forefathers" for a more "superior religion" which Islam never was.

1. Armenians were Christianized
2. Roman Empire was Christianized
3. Khazaris in Eastern Europe accepted Judaism en masse.
4. Indonesians, Bangladeshis, East Africans, Chinese, Philipinos, Thais, Sri Lankans accepted Islam without any Arab armies on their soil. Yet despite actual occupation by Western colonial powers for over 500 years, majority did not give up Islam.
5. Greeks gave up the glorious and complex religion of "their forefathers" for Christianity.
6. All Asian Bhuddists in China, Japan and Korea, accepted a religion originating in India.
7. Significant Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean Christian minority populations.
8. Most Bosnians and Albanians accepted Islam while most Serbs and Croats did not. All were equally occupied by the Ottomans.
9. All of North Europe gave up their Nordic polytheism in favor of Christianity.
10. Celtics and Druids in UK and Ireland accepted Christianity.

In conclusion: you don't know what you're talking about. Stop the slanders and listen to the experts and do the research. It's clear who the illiterate moron is in this conversation.


samsam1111

Jazzieh & Slaughter

by samsam1111 on

I have nothing against Islam as a reality but will not stand for distortion of old Iran heritage by the likes of shaikheh bii abbaa Bazargan..here is a repeat of some examples which is conveniently overlooked .. which might work for some folks (on this thread)  who think Arabs came to Iran "800 yrs ago"  & are ill informed about the past;

These event according to brainwashed cultural agents of ommah never happened .;

Bani Amer the khallife governer of Estakhre who massacred 90000 Iranians in 29HG after they renaged on their oath to Islam and returned to practice of Zorosrianism...Abu musa the governer of Rae who killed 40000 fighting men of the taghaff rebelion about khallife ...Hojaj ibn yousef genocide of remaining 120000  Iranians in eastern Iraq , Razvan & Koofah for  rebelion against Jazieh that even Arab Ibn ghotair called cruel  "The blood of house of Fars will one day burn our trace" . Ibn Ashaari governor of Espahan killing 20000 Medeo-Persian Zorostrian nobility & academics , in summer of 24HG along with burning half Zorostrian houses .Abol-Ajaj of Shoush took 30000 slave just from the city of Ramhormoz to be sent to Medina & Koufa. Abdol Rahman Samareh governor of Sistan in 28HG  twice went back to put bloody rebelions headed by Mardanpirouz down , ending up, with 50000 dead Sistanis ...and tons more........The rebelion of Mokhtar, Babak ,Beh afarid , Ghatran, Daylam, Azarbijan, Balkh, Tabarestan, Rae, Fars, & massacre of millions never happened...

Get outta  brainwashed ommatist mind set .. Re-educate

The reason Jews & Armenians kept theirs was because they kept paying Jazieh . In case of Zororostrians , the Jazzieh was even higher because, they were not considered as the so called "Ahlol-ketab" .

Berbers in north africa still fighting for national recognition . read north african berbers sites for enlightment .

 


default

Enemy from within

by KavehV (not verified) on

Abdolali the Bazargan is a demagogue sheik in Persian clothes. Here is another despicable decendent of Al Ghadesieh criminals arguing That the "great nation of Iran" had an enlightment moment 1400 years ago and decided to go against the "ways of their forefathers"!!??

These illiterate Islamist morons do not seem to know that there has never been such precedence in history where a people, a nation, have voluntarily given up the "ways of their forefathers" for a more "superior religion" which Islam never was. This is against individual and social psychology of human race, unless these Arabesque morons, 1400 years ago, were sending tutors, or bombarding Iranians with their infomercials for decades. Even that type of conversion would be highly questionable.

You can make them wear a tie, put on lipstick and make them look like ordinary human beings, BUT a sick Islamist is a moron, is a moron, is a moron, no matter how you dress them, or what language they speak.


Q

I feel compelled to slap you and Samsam around some more

by Q on

with facts.

It's funny when Samsam and "Airie" performed the same dog and pony show in their last joint hit job of a "blog", I put up this video and they immediately attacked it with firvolous things like "the interviewer was biased" and Bazargan is an "Ommatist". (The new favorite generic attack by Samsam)

I posed a series of questions which of course got no factual answers (surprise! not). The truth is hard to believe apparently for our brainwashed friends here. Facts and Evidence show that Iranians (for the most part) accepted Islam given the state of disarray, corruption and chaos that Zoroastrianism was in at the time. There are exceptions of course, but it was the general trend.

It's incorrect to say "Iranians said no to Islam." No, Arabs conquored many lands, and instituted the same tax system on the people. All conquests are cruel and as far as that goes, Persians themselves have been cruel to others, and other invasions (like that of Mongols) have been far more cruel to Persians. So pulling 8th century "evidence" that invading armies actually killed people is just lame, and doesn't prove anything. Your thesis is flawed.

Armenians said no to Islam.
Ethiopians said no to Islam.
Lavant Christians and Iranian Jews said no to Islam.
Spanish said no to Islam.

Iranians said Yes to Islam.
Indonesians, Chinese, Egyptians and Bangladeshis said Yes to Islam.
Berbers said Yes to Islam.

These are facts. What you have in these blogs is emotional expression of hate and racism. Anything to show victimhood and alienation to justify your pathological hatred of the religion that 90% of Iranians practice today freely.

Once again watch and learn.(4:10 on)

By the way this entire blog is wholesale lifted from this newsgroup discussion. Very "independent minded", huh Samsam?


samsam1111

What a lunetic ommati

by samsam1111 on

This site truly deserves this character & her ommatist gang to bring it to the level it is today....just one look around & find out how many true independent minded Iranians are left on this site..pretty soon it,s a site for the seyeds gang & no one to play with but braindeads such as themselves... !!!


Souri

Marge, thanks

by Souri on

Thanks for your nice words. You are very nice to me.

 


desi

LOL Marge,  What do you

by desi on

LOL Marge,  What do you think I can set in a bowl of jello?


desi

Thanks Marge, that's exactly

by desi on

Thanks Marge, that's exactly what I was saying.  

What happened 800 years ago is tragic to be sure.  I'm sure we'd all rather be Zoroastrian or some other indigenous Parsi religion.  However what's done is done.  I think that our Iranian identity is of utmost importance.  But remember nationalism and ethnocentrism is a slippery slope.  It breeds contempt, division and racism.  The Arab bashing is getting a little out of control on this site.  How do we know if a blogger on Iranian.com isn't 1/2 Lebanese or a quarter Yemeni and yet identifies more with their Iranian side.  I'm not happy that my culture was hijacked 8 centuries ago but how  do you suggest we should we go about this thnic cleansing?   


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

If you are a fan of THE OFFICE you will recognize samsam1111111

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

and others as Dwight Schrute. Self Explanatory.