In Response to the blog Jealousy over "Arab" Islam

Share/Save/Bookmark

In Response to the blog Jealousy over "Arab" Islam
by Darius Kadivar
06-Nov-2010
 

In Response to the following blog "Jealousy over "Arab" Islam".

This Photo Is Absolutely Coherent :

http://iranian.com/main/blog/dariushabadi/jealousy-over-arab-islam

 

Which only proves your General Ignorance about the entire concept of the Monarchy.

 

HISTORY FORUM:The Monarchy with David Starkey (Cambridge University)

 

A Monarch in ALL Countries including the most advanced and democratic Constitutional Monarchies are seen as Protectos of the Faith because they are deemed ( Albeit Symbolically) as Anointed by GOD ... 

The Notion of Divine Kingship was abolished Only in Practice in all Modern Constitutional Monarchies but Symbolically They Prevail. It may seem absurd to our modern ears but that is the case in nearly all Constitutional Monarchies in Europe.  

And so as Such Yes You heard and understood me well they are considered as Chosen by GOD. As was seen as being the case for our very own Ancient Persian Monarchs but under the Shadows of Ahura Mazda. 

That after the Arab Conquest they prayed to God under a different Name ... Doesn't Change the fact that it was the Same GOD for Ancient Iranians were EQUALLY MONOTHEISTIC:

THE STORY OF GOD: Robert Winston explains Zoroastrianism

 

Whether or not they are in fact Anointed or not ( and the answer being Probably They Aren't) is irrelevant including to their subjects.

The Monarchy never claimed nor aimed to be democratic unlike a Republic so arrogantly does but rarely achieves.  

Indeed for historical reasons the Monarchy is ONLY Benevolently Democratic :  

HISTORY FORUM: How Truly Democratic is The British Monarchy ?

But in Practice is FULLY Democratic because of the Parliamentary implementation within the Royal Framework which ultimately limits the Royal Prerogatives to a symbolic and representative role. But on paper the Monarch is seen (including by the Monarch himself or herself ) as Anointed by GOD. As such the Queen of England is nothing else but a Veleyateh Fagih, since she is the head of the English Church which happens to have parted from the Vatican at the time of King Henry VIII.

The British actually did with Christianity what we Iranians did with the Shi'it Vs Sunni Dichotomy some centuries ago. In Short we created our own Religion just like the British did with the inception of the Anglican Church.

But in practice and Officially speaking the Queen of England claims to be Anointed by God. Just listen to the following interview of Journalist Jeremy Paxman ( in the 2nd Part where he explains how Queen Elizabeth believes or makes believe that she intimately entered in a direct dialogue with God at the moment of her Anointment) : 

 

What does it mean to be royal? Charlie Rose interviews Jeremy Paxman on the British Monarchy

And the British given that it is a Democracy they are the First to Make Fun of this "Un democratic" and "Religiously Superstitious" interpretation:

Monty Python-The Holy Grail:

 

That may sound absurd to your Republican Ears Yet No One Questions it in Great Britain or in any other Constitutional Monarchy where the King, Queen and Royal Institutions remain Politically Immune to Criticism But Not to Political Accountability. Since if the interests of the Royal Family for instance financially or legally were to enter in conflict with the interests of the government or the nation at large, the Monarch is reminded of the limits of it's powers and prerogatives. This is why it is in the interest of the Political establishment as well as the Royal Family to see a BUFFER ZONE aka the Constitution keeps them as Separate from potential Controversy and scandals. But if let's say a member of the Royal Family has financial problems or legal problems they are EQUALLY Accountable to the Judiciary System as any of the Monarch's Subjects. Only the Monarch for Obvious Reasons is Politically Immune to such investigations. Although in recent years one of the last prerogatives of the Queen was abolished like requiring her to pay taxes ( also true in a country like Morocco today) and other Monarchies like in Holland for instance where the Private Fortune and Public Spendings of the Royal Family are Transparent to public knowledge. But in general the Royal Family have Privileges denied to other citizens such as diplomatic immunity. Will this like other aspects related to the evolution of society be subject to change in the Future ? Quite Possibly but Not the Royal Institution's Legitimacy from a Constitutional point of view.

How does that Interfere in the Secular Nature of Britain's Parliamentary Democracy ? ...

Answer: It Doesn't !

Why ? because of the Bill of Rights and other Democratic demands which were implemented Prior to both the American Revolution ( a Colonial war actually) and the Secular French Revolution:

RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

However in the Ceremonial or Public duties of the Monarch Respecting the State Religion of the country remains a Duty of the Monarch be it for purely symbolic reasons.

This is true for ALL other Monarchies to date, except for maybe Spain today given it's own Catholic Tradition. Since unlike Protestant or Anglican countries, Catholic King's remain Symbolically Loyal to the Vatican and therefore the King of Spain is In No way the Head of the Catholic Church but merely Head of State. That is one of the reasons that when the King or Queen or anyother member of the Royal Family wish to marry or divorce they need to have the approval of the Vatican. This explains why in Monaco ( hardly a monarchy but a principality) for instance Princess Caroline's divorce and remarriage was not recognized for years by the Vatican and it was only after several requests and the advent of a new Pope John Paul II, that the latter accepted to give his pardon.

Now in practice this does not change anything in the way the elected government runs the country but it does have an influence on the Symbolic representations of the Monarchy because of the fact that the person who embodies the Royal Institution is regarded as Politically immune to any form of criticism because he embodies the country in the same way a Flag embodies the nation. One can find this absurd from a Republican outlook of political life but then go tell the millions of British, Swedes, Spanish, Belgians, the Benelux, Dutch or Danes to name a few that they are a bunch of morons and wait to hear their reaction.

I would go further in my development. The Current Regime in Iran is NOT a Republic per se ... It is actually a New Dynasty and from that point of view However Tyrannical and illegitimate from a Constitutionalist point of view it follows a very Royalist approach in that the VF aka Zahak Ali is it's hereditary Monarch except that unlike the Monarchy it is not Oligarchy Oriented ( Not for the time being at least unless as some rumors have it Prince Mojtabah was to follow in his father's steps).

The difference however with the Monarchy is that the Islamic Republic and it's Unelected Turbaned King actually claims the very opposite by claiming to be not only a Republic but also a Democracy. 

Unlike Your Turbaned Monarchs the Last Shah no more than his predecessors in the past 14 00 years since the conversion of Iran to Islam ever claimed to be anything but Anointed by Allah except that we would say: Khoda as in the Slogan "Khoda Shah Meehan"

He actually tried to make his Religious Prerogatives Linked to the Pre Islamic Era by giving himself the Title of "Arya Mehr" or by Changing the Islamic Calender to the Royal Calender which at his time was criticized by the clerics and some intellectuals but which was no more no less coherent  with what Henry VIII did when he parted entirely from the Catholic Church.

In the case of An Absolute Monarch as was the case of the Shah it is  all the more coherent to be Accountable to No One but GOD !

That is questionable from a Democratic perspective but Not from a Royal Perspective, even if the Constitutionalist Perspective not only offers a Secular Interpretation to the Monarch's deemed Prerogatives but imposes a Clear Cut Separation between Church and State.

Under the last Shah's nevertheless Secular Policies that was Not a prerequisite condition. The Shah was at best Mystic in his private thoughts but Not Religious in his political approach or the way his society and people wished to run their lives. If you wanted to go to the Mosque You could and you were equally free to go to the Beach with your Bikini or Not:

pictory: Girls in Bikini vs Veiled Women on Caspian Sea, Babolsar (1971) 

And he did that for Benevolent Reasons. As Absolute King he was not forced to be tolerant. I don't claim that is correct from a democratic point of view, I am just saying that is how an Absolute Monarchy operates. Had he claimed to be a democrat which he never did, that would be a different matter. It just happens that he was far more moderate than His own father who was far more radical and Secularist than he ever was throughout his reign. Which explains that MRP was No Tyrant unlike Today's Turbaned Monarch Zahak Ali who calls all those who oppose him including religious minorities : "microbes".  

King Khamenei Would have Been a Perfect Cast to play  King Richard III in Shakespeare's play:

Al Pacino in Looking for Richard:

 

 

Lastly That You may Not Like the Concept of the Monarchy is one thing and should I say your absolute right ... But Then Don't try to define something you clearly don't understand !

 

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Darius Kadivar
 
Simorgh5555

Dariush Abadi's article

by Simorgh5555 on

This article could not be more wrong on every account. 

Parallels between Christianity and Judaism

The difference between Islam and the other organised religion is the way
that it commands all aspects of society, culture, norms of behaviour
and human conduct to conform with Islam. There is an Islamic law or
Hadith from hair styles, which foot one should put in first before going
to the toilet and what food is permissible to eat. Fundamentally,
loyalty is not to the state or the national ruler but to the ulema. This
is the same phenomenon in all Arab-non Arab societies. The Koran is the
unequivocal work of 'God' and athiests are condemned. In most Christian
countries the state and Church are divided. In England it is the Church
which serves its subjects and pledges allegiance to the Sovereign. Not
the other way round as in Islam. In St Paul's letter to the Corinthians,
St Paul stated that the Christian message is one of spiritualism, the
Jewish laws under the old Testament do not have to be observed, e.g such
as the eating of Pork. Unlike Islam where learning Arabic is
compulsory, its followers do not have to read scriputes in Hebrew or
Arameic or be forced to learn them in schools; there is no equivalent of
a hijab; there is no dress code; hymns are not sung in the old
testament language; there is no compulsory fasting; there is no rule
about what a church should look like; there is no single unifying law
regarding marriage, divoce or death and burrial; there is no application
of old testament punishment for adultery, murder and theft;  there is
no specific date where evry one celebreates religious ceremonies (e.g
Christmas) pastors can be men, gay or even female. Religion is conformed
and moulded to the standards of the society in the country which its
followers live in. The people in Iran have a right to be resentful
towards Islamic because of its intrusive nature. Islam is the
anti-thesis of ancient Iranian identity. Celebreations of Nowruz,
Chaharshanbe-Souri havebeen discouraged or adapted heavily to fit Islam;
the ban on the consuption ofalcohol and even the wearing of black
(frowned upon amonst Iranian and Zoroastrians) and the culture of death
and martyrdom defies Iranian tradition.  Eben when a Muslim dies, he
must be burried facing Mecca. Not Persepolis. Not Pasaargod or Babylon
but face Mecca. 

The early muslims used a mixture of force and coercive methods such as
Jayiza and inequitable laws such as in inheritance until eventually the
majority of Iranians were pushed over to Islam. The Persian language was
corrupted and the speaking of Pahlavi was banned. Iran did not become a
fullmuslim country until 200 years later because it was a large terrain
and many Zoroastrians held steadfast to their beleifs.

The destructive and evil of the Muslim inavders was seen in the
sestuction of many of the Zoroastrian fire temples and ancient
buildings.  Cyrus's tomb in Paasargad was renamed as the 'tomb of the
Soleman' as part of a cleverly contrived ruse to stop it from certain
destruction.  This is evidence of Islam's rampant destruction.

The Pahlavis 

Mohammed Reza Pahlav and his father Reza Pahlavi may have been followers
of Islam, but it is not clear whether there outward devotion to their
faith was pretence to appease the public or a sincere belief. However,
in private there is overwhleming evidence of both the Shah's resentment
of the clergy and their struggle to destroy their power base. The
banning of the Hijab and the fact that both of them had very much
liberal western lifestyles is at odds with fundamentalist Islamic
beliefs. For supporters of the monachy, such as myself, I am less
concerned about Islamc but more about political islam.

The indifference of Khomeini towards Iran inhis infamous 'Hich'
interview on board his airplane; those who wanted to raze Persepolis; to
rename the Persian Gulf as the Islamic Gulf; those that want to ban
Chahar-shanb-Souri are all evidence that Islam and Iran cannot be
reconciled. 

Note that I have not mentioned the Iraqi invasion of Iran, the support of Saddam Husseins war of the 'battle of Al-Qaddasiya'. 

Tell me why Iranians should not be hostile to Muslims or Arabs (not the Arabs in Iran, of course)? 

 

The revolution 

The idea that Iranians wanted a revolution on the basis of an Islamic
fervour is palpable nonsense. There was large opposition to the Shah's
political policies and many of those who rallied around Khomeini were
Leftists, anarchists, trade unnionists and confirmed athiests. Each of
them had their own agenda but answered Khomeini's carrion call to their
stupidity. 

Even if there was a grin of truth in what you say about Iranians
devotion to Islam, then why does the current regime not test it? The
vast majority of the country are under 30  years of age and were
not born at the time of the reovlution and it is only fair that that
regime repeats its referendum to a different and new generation and ask
the people whether they want to continue with an Islamic form of
democracy. You can bet that the overwhelming majority of Iranians would
rather see the back of Islam both politcally and as a religion. If you
are so certain then put it o the test? 

It is impossible  to walk the streets of Tehran, Los angeles and
Europe where Iranians are present and not observe a Farvahar medalion.
Iranians are converting to Christianity and zoroastrianism in their
droves in order to dis-associate themselves of Islam. 

When you say Iranians are jealous about Islam - nothing could be further
from the truth. On the contrary, heed the words of Umar-Bin-Khatib to
Yazdegard III, the follower of Prophet Mohammed and the general which
launched an attack on Persia in 64, "Submit to Allah, pay the Jayizah, or in the same way as you enjoy life I shall bring an army of death".

The sentence says it all. Muslim envy of Iranians of joi de vivre in conrast to the Muslims lust for death. Why death? Whta's wrong with life and enjoying it? 


G. Rahmanian

Abadi,

by G. Rahmanian on

You wrote:"Seeing as how you are on this site 24/7, I assume it is because you have no job and are still living off the money you and your co-horts stole when they left Iran-Zamin in 1978 - 1980."It did not end in 1980! Mr. Kadivar is still stealing dollars from Iran.Haven't you been informed about the recent attempt by Mr. Kadivar and abunch of his friends to steal even more money from Iranians? What happened was they got unlucky this time around and their $18 billion heist was intercepted by the Turkish authorities in Turkey. Poor suckers!Of course as is customary in IR, the authorities there have denied havingany knowledge of such heist and are looking for Mr. Kadivar's accomplices.Please join me in condemning such blatant acts of thievery and shout:Shame On The Real Thieves!PS: I would like to add more slogans, but I'd rather keep things civil. I hope you understand what I'm talking about!


Q

....

by Q on

....


Darius Kadivar

FYI/ Pope Slams Spain's Secularism (bbc)

by Darius Kadivar on



Nagoftam ? ... ;0)  NEVER Trust an Akhound !

LOL 

Pope Benedict XVI sees 'aggressive secularism' in Spain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11703708

 

 

 

 


Parthianshot91

I said it once I'll say it again

by Parthianshot91 on

Islam equals the arab mentality and identity, this is why.

 

1. You can only pray in Arabic.

 

2. The racist quran can only be written in Arabic

 

3. Muslims are expected to wear the arab clothing, put rags and towels on their heads, and wear manly Arab skirts.

 

Not to mention that only 2 countries were Arab before the Islamic invasion of the mid-east and Northe africa, and those two countries were saudia Arabia and yemen, the rest, like the Phenocians/Lebanese, Iraqis/Babyloanians, Syrians, Egyptians, Northern African Berber/Amazigh states were never Arab, but were forced through converting which islamic encouraged. If Islam wasn't an Arab religion from the beginning, then arabs have corrupted it to the level that it can never be saved. Modern islam is only used to spread the filth of Arabism, it's a political tool that is used by the Arabs nowadays. 

 

I don't care much for religion, cause it's bewteen only me and god and none else, but if I had to suggest a religion for my fellow Iranians/Persians, then it would be Zoroasterianism followed by bahaism, but especially zoroasterianism since that is mainly a Persian religion while Bahaism, it might have some Persian elements in it, it's a worldly religion, and sadly we Iranians have not put the interests of Iran and Iranians ahead for a long time, so I would go with Zoroasterianism.

--------------------------------

"They are not afraid of the ideology alone, but of the detemination and will of the men behind it"


Darius Kadivar

SamSamIIII Jaan Good to See You Back Bro ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Time We Crossed the Rubicon together :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PeN1k9AAMg

 

With or Without a MAC ;0) 

 


Darius Kadivar

To dariushabadi Do You Mean You are actually Jealous ? ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

Thank You For Proving My Point !

LOL

Maybe Now you can Prescribe Your Own Medicine to Yourself ! 

Hee Hee 


maziar 58

..

by maziar 58 on

Personally I believe that all Iranian were alaki moslem just pretenders but with iota of faith here and there for the sake of others.

Thanks god the past 30 yrs of IRR rulling also took away that iota of belives and in the FREE IRAN we'll have Islam and its BS.... only in history books for all to read about if they want.

BTW thanks for the picture I know the 3 gentelmens to the right of late shah.                Maziar


SamSamIIII

chetori DK jaan

by SamSamIIII on

 

I tried hyperlink and it doesn,t work for me..give me a tutorial bro..

 

Cheers!!! 

 

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan http://iranianidentity.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mr Abadi

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

I have a different point of view than Dariush Kadivar. I am not a monarchist. I do know history. 

There were times when Iranian monarchs did rule with the Farr. Those were people like Koroush the great, Karim Khan Zand and possibly Reza Shah. However Farr does not remain with you forever. Nor does it pass by birth. If a ruler misbehaves it will leave them.

As for Mohammad Reza Shah yes he did have SAVAK. Yet he was much kinder than your Islamic Republic.

If the Islamic Republic tortures and rapes people in prison -- it is because those who are raping and torturing are psychological byproducts of the Shah's prisons. The Shah's SAVAK did that to them, and in return they do it to their prisoners because that is the only way they know how to treat prisoners.

Most of the Islamic goons were not even born during the Pahlavi. The older ones may have been in their teens. Therefore your argument does not hold.

You sir are an apologist for the most brutal regime in Iran. You try to justify their murders by blaming them on the Shah. This is a cheap shot that I have come to expect of Islamic people. That is why the world is sick of Islam. Lies; refusal to take personal responsibility and more lies. That is Islam.

So if the Islamic Republic does the opposite it is because they do not follow Islam, but rather the methods taught to them by SAVAK.

No, SAVAK did not write Sharia. It was Muslims who did. Therefore your attempt at blaming Sharia on SAVAK fails. Islam is the gift of a lunatic named Mohammad. It is the source of the insanity and tortures in Iran. Be a man and take responsibility.

 

 

 


dariushabadi

To Dariush Kadivar

by dariushabadi on

While many of your like claim that the Muslims are the ones trying to bring us backward -- it is truly disgusting that you want to bring to Iran a tradition of the past that is rather almost extinct and disgusting in nature.

 

Even British people have recently been polled being in favor of dismantling the monarchy because it is a waste of their tax dollars feeding a spoiled Queen and her family who do nothing but live lavish lifestyles they don't deserve.

 

Seeing as how you are on this site 24/7, I assume it is because you have no job and are still living off the money you and your co-horts stole when they left Iran-Zamin in 1978 - 1980.  


dariushabadi

to veiled prophet of khorasan

by dariushabadi on

You claim to know history yet your history begins in the early 1900's, and not 2,000 years ago. 

 

If anything, history shows that when Iranian monarchy exchanged from one dynasty to the next it was usurped through deadly wars and massive deaths.

 

And your last King, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi did not rule with Farr Izadi but through SAVAK and brutal force and suppression of dissent. Let us not forget Raztakhiz.

 

If the Islamic Republic tortures and rapes people in prison -- it is because those who are raping and torturing are psychological byproducts of the Shah's prisons. The Shah's SAVAK did that to them, and in return they do it to their prisoners because that is the only way they know how to treat prisoners.

 

It is an inferiority complex prisoners gain and in turn inflect on the next breed once they become in power. So we have the Shah to blame for that.

 

We can't blame it on Islam because we know Imam Ali treated even his own enemy (Ibn Muljam) with utmost human compassion even though Ibn Muljam had given him a strike to the head. Imam Ali told his family to make sure that Ibn Muljam got food and water and did not go hungry in his prison cell. He asked that Ibn Muljam be given justice but not retribution and that his family be left alone for they did not commit a crime.

 

So if the Islamic Republic does the opposite it is because they do not follow Islam, but rather the methods taught to them by SAVAK. 

 


Darius Kadivar

Answer

by Darius Kadivar on

1) Yes 

2) There are two to three if not more questions in your question ( See below)

Answer to N° 2:

No I do not consider Khamenei as the current King of Iran because he doesn't claim to be One nor does the Political Establishment he embodies which voluntarily Opposes the historical heritage of the Monarchy. 

All Persian Monarchs From One Dynasty to another were founded by Force but Never Questioned the Royal Continuity per se:

KING OF KINGS: Mohamed Reza Shah Pahlavi's Tribute to Iran's Past Kings and People (Nowruz 1977)

That has never been the case for Your Theocracy. Which even takes pride in banning the names of the Royal History from our books, something No King would do (As a matter of fact this is a question which was submitted to the last Shah by David Frost in relation to the banning of a Shakespeare play where the King was assassinated and which the Shah ordered the play to be performed nevertheless). One dynasty can badmouth the previous one and even downplay their contributions as has been the case for all dynasties. The Pahlavis ridiculed the Qajar for their incompetence but they never questioned their Royal Status:

Farah Pahlavi inaugurates Qajar Paintings:

http://www.farahpahlavi.org/kajbrook.html

For there is always a tacit bond between all Royal Families including in Europe not to question the Legitimacy of a given Dynasty once they have ruled the country. They rarely if never question the legitimacy of other Royal Families either again for questions of Legitimacy. All the more that many Royal Families end up by marrying into one another as was for instance the case of Mohamed Reza Shah with Egypt's Princess Fawzia. But has also been the Case for the Queen of England whose husband Prince Philippe is of German Greek Ancestory despite the abolishment of the Monarchy in both countries. Same thing for Juan Carlos of Spain whose wife is the Sister of the deposed Monarch Constantine of Greece:

TITANS MEET: Shahbanou of Iran Greets Ex-King Constantine of Greece (Roudaki-Opera House, 1971)

RESTORATION: Greek Constitutional Monarchy Toppled by Military Coup (April 21st, 1967)



All they did was Replace the previous Dynasty with their own and often would pick many of the civil servants ( aka ministers, military, even clerical representatives) from the previous dynasties to serve them. That is precisely how many Qajar Ministers including Mossadegh worked equally in both under Qajar Era and the Pahlavi Era. 

The Constitutional Nature of the Monarchy is an invention of the 20th Century in Iran at least.

Actually we largely copied the Belgian Model to draft our Royal Constitution in 1906/1907:

RESTORATION: Belgium King Baudouin takes Oath Amidst Republican Animosity (31st July ,1950)

 

However Constitutionalism can be dated at various epochs in other countries and as far as Europe is concerned  In Great Britain the Foundations of the Constitutionalist Ideas date back to the Magna Carta. 

As to your question is a Monarchy based on a Hereditary Model ? Yes because of the idea of continuity of the bloodline, hence the notion of "Blue Blood". 

The Only Exception being Malaysia which elects it's Kings and Queens:

RESTORATION: Elected Monarchs of Malaysia

Which is an interesting alternative to Hereditary Rule even if it is far from being a model Democratic state given their record of Human Rights. But then Why Not ? It still has to prove it's democratic nature which has not been the case to date but may well be the case in the future. But then might as well call it a Republic ! 

In modern times however as is the case in Sweden ( a fairly Young dynasty as a matter of fact) and Spain Royal Princes or Princess' are no more required to marry cousins of one's own bloodline but being of a Royal background is considered a plus. Although neither Laetizia of Spain or the husband of Sweden's Crown Princess are aristocrats. However the Oligarchic nature of the monarchy is never questioned in either of these Monarchies no more than in other European Constitutional Monarchies. You Marry Into a Royal Family and not the otherway round. Even if some like the poor lady Diana thought the opposite was possible.

 

But in England like all other Democratic countries there is a Republican Front that questions the British Royal Families Legitimacy:

RESTORATION: Prince Charles, The Meddling Prince (5 Parts)


And even in marginal cases like George Galloway ( who being Scottish helps) also questions it's Utility:

GALLOWAY's REPUBLIC: George Galloway on the Decline of the British Monarchy

The Majority of the British subjects don't seem to share the above views as best expressed by Stephan Frye:

ROYAL RHINOPLASTY: Stephen Fry On The Imperfections of the Monarchy and Why It Should Be Preserved

No one is arrested for thinking otherwise because Great Britain with all it's shortcomings remains a Democracy.

But Some things Remain Sacred in their Collective Psyche.

I believe that is also the case for Iranians in relation to their own Royal Heritage which the current Theocracy has Far FRom Wiped Out Be it:

In the Exiled Diaspora:

BEYOND WORDS: Group Reading of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh

Words For Eternity ...

 

Or Back Home in Iran:

 

GIVE ME BACK MY COUNTRY: Bold Poem by a fellow compatriot denounces Ahmadinejad's Iran

A Genuine Brave Irandokht:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPHW-ldSeqY

Hope this answered your questions to the best of my possibilities.

Best, 

DK 

 

 

 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Mr Abadi

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

I know you asked Dariush Kadivar. But I am gonna give my response

1) Yes I know history.

2) Khamenei is not a king. He is a usurper. There is a difference.

Iranian monarchy is based on the constitutional revolution. That is the constitution that defines it. The Islamic Republic does not respect that constitution. Therefore its leader Khamenei is not a legitimate monarch. Of course he is a dictator and more brutal than the worst any monarch got.

Also I believe to be the monarch of Iran you must have Farr-eh Izadi. Without it Khamanei rules by fear. He is no more king than Zahhak was. Both have absolute power. Both did and do not have "Farr" without which they cannot be a true king. Both are beholden to evil powers.


dariushabadi

to dariush kadivar

by dariushabadi on

excuse my ignorance -- but based on what you say -- let me ask you this:

 

1) You know the Pahlavi dynasty only lasted 2 generations

 

2) You claim Khamenei is like a King, and that you support a monarchy

 

then...

 

Do you accept Khamenei as the current King of Iran? Or does it have to be hereditary where Khamenei has to pass his leadership directly to his son?