Quintessential Questions

Mooshie

Listen, next time you need to educate yourself about Bahai genocide go read one of Mojan's papers(you know who I mean?).

Moojan has already been denounced far and wide as an idiot propagandist and liar without a shred of credibility. And as such the worth of his pseudo-academic screeds he writes is even less! Those have also been denounced far and wide. FYI

But thank you for proving once again what a gigantic idiot and troll you youself are, not to mention a dangerous religious extremist and bigot, as if any further proof were even required.

Q

"I never made such a grandiose claim as "I know nothing is wrong with a major world religion"

Q, can I assume that you are not playing with words? If yes, then it is safe to assume we are both talking about Islam. You claim that you never said nothing is wrong about Islam.

If you are sincere (which I doubt), could you then list three of the things that you indeed think are wrong with Islam?

Could you also list three things that people like you do, which makes Islam look bad?

We can them compare and see which ones do more damage. I eagerly await for your response, eventhough I know you will dodge answering my questions as usual with your usual rantings.

Excellent Analysis on Q & the Sword of Islam Hooshie Jaan!

Be careful Q may now call you a Zionist or something like that since his muslim sword theory is put to rest. I asked him for proof and he gave me list of Western apologists as you correctly stated below.

You have to understand something about this Q character. He is most likely Azari and most of the thugs in the IRI today, like Khamenei, are Azaris. They will be the big losers when these Muslim sword swinging thugs are overthrown by our hamvatans. This is what Q, and other fake reformist are trying to protect. They will lose.

Azali

Give me your address and I will drop in to collect the letter (ROFL).

Listen, next time you need to educate yourself about Bahai genocide go read one of Mojan's papers(you know who I mean?).

 Try harder to convince people next decade Daghali.You never know it may work.

Q your anger is Quite telling (LOL)

Clam down brother. I had never seen you so angry and restless at reply to a rebuttal. Wipe that froth off you mouth and join the club baby. We need apologists on this site, as another commenter said we are all here to help you get paid you don't need to be rude and disorderly. What is the rate of pay by the way? per number of comments? per no. of lines per comment per number of hits per blog? (ROFL).

OK back to your subject of payment: Islam and peaceful conversion (I am pissing in my pants with laughter - cant hold myself no longer - back soon).

15 minutes later and much relieved (aaaaaaaaaaaah how nice it feels now). Don't get me started gain pleeeeeeease. where were we? Oh, yes Sword of Islam.

So you bring examples from the likes of Karen Armstrong!! - Isalmic apologist par excellence?!!!

So every one whose research work is opposed to you is an Islamophobe and naturally those in your favor must be Islamophiles!! I am sure Karen is one (she was considering converting to Islam at one point has she done it or not?).

You see the trouble with you and your newly found friend Azali is that you guys read the texts with one eye open and the other shut. I don't blame you after all you adopted the techniqe in your permanent profession of society photography (LOL). But I don't know why Azali does the same? 

Anyway, none of your so called echolars have denied Islams bloody battles against the non-converted infidels (Persian Zorasterians being one). These battles were not sunday picnics Q dear. They were aimed at converting the disblievers or have them wiped off from the face of the earth (Ahamdi want to do the same with Israelis). Don't believe me? Go read Bernard Lewis (OOOPs sorry another Islamophobe in your books - hahahaha).

Even the Holy Quran orders them to do so. There are many examples cited on your well paying blog - go review them bro.

By the way, Gandhi was no historian, only a peace maker. even  wedding photographers know that.

Now lets talk business Q. How much you charge per photo session?

Have a nice shoot tonight. "shabe jaanvjeh in LA" (LOL)

See you next decade.

Sadly,

as is often the case with you, Jamshid, in your eagerness to show cleverness by "turning the tables around", you forget that I never made such a grandiose claim as "I know nothing is wrong with a major world religion".

Perhaps it's that you assume everyone must be a binary absolutist like yourself. That would be a short sighted mistake.

Q

"declaring I know what's wrong with a major world religion and complex history with assumptions pulled out of my behind."

And what about those "declaring I know nothing is wrong with a major world religion and complex history with assumptions pulled out of their behind"??

Would you fall in that category?

Well Jamshid,

unlike you, I'm not self-centered enough to be giving fatwa's on the "mentality" of entire classes of people, instantly declaring I know what's wrong with a major world religion and complex history with assumptions pulled out of my behind. You have that kind of God-like vision that needs no earthly confirmation, that's great for you.

So when I call you a short sighted, arrogant hypocrite with nothing of substance to say, I do mean you specifically. Because that's all the evidence I have.

Just to be clear.

Q

I just want to make it clear that by "you are Islam's desease", I don't mean you specifially. You are not significant enough to be anybody's desease. I meant your mentality, which is practiced by many in Iran today. This mentality is what has hold Islam back in the 7th century, despite its potentials.

Yawn...

another completely baseless and irrelevant attack, typical of people who have nothing to say on the substance.

You are Islam's desease.

LOL. Whatever you need to get off your angry chest Jamshid, my blog is here for you.

You might want to learn from hooshie. He's just as lame ultimately but at least he can be original once in a while.

Q

It is not Islam itself, rather it is the likes of you who are the reasons why Islam remains backwarded and can't progress. You fear and "oppose" progress and change.

You and many other ertejaaee people want to keep Islam in the 7th century. Because of your mentality, we still have an abomination called tozihol masaa'el.

You are Islam's desease.

How idiotic can you get

hooshie,

you've lost so bad, it's pitiful. Not only have you repeated fascist "blame the victim" mentality like this:

I admit that we deported Armenians from our eastern provinces, but we never acted in this matter upon a previously prepared scheme. The responsibility of these acts falls upon the deported people themselves.

You have far-outpaced any so-called Muslims you are so-called criticizing as violent. You have no facts to back up anything you say, and four "vocabulary" based nonsense, now completely debunked was only good for a laugh-break.

Even if I ignore you and just laugh in the future, I want to thank you for making this blog so popular with all these comments. So that your desperate tactic of drowning good information with neo-fascist nonsense does not actually work, I will copy the relevant (good) information up on the blog itself so that when people come to read the substance of the article, all the relevent info will be there. Your attempt to waste time as space won't effect anyone. 

hooshie, I reapeat, you are an irrelevant side show

Hooshie,

you really are patheic. You find ONE source from a known bigot and you think you're right. What a fantasy world of selfish pompasity you must live in! 

Elst is a textbook islamophobe who pretends like he's Hindu. His Islamophobia is beyond just the method of spreading. He thinks all muslims (even Arabs) must reject Islam. As a fanatic extremist and "independent" hindu scholar, his word is worthless compared to the people I cited who have studied comparative religions and Islamic history all their life. Elst's theories has no explanation of why the majority of world's Muslims who were converted peacefully did so. No one takes him seriously except neo-fascists and bigots which you have proven to be. Most real Hindus have rejected him as joke.

Here, read some of this and educate yourself before you open your worthless mouth:

 Their rabid Islamophobia was at times paired with an ostensible admiration for Hinduism, or at least for certain of its ersatz manifestations. 

It thus came to be a perfect marriage of convenience between the likes of the Belgian Koenraad Elst (closely associated with the radical Vlaams Blok, condemned legally for its racism and xenophobia, and reincarnated as Vlaams Belang) or the Frenchman Francois Gautier, and the Hindu far right. 

Islamophobia provided the perfect cement between these European agitators on the one hand, and Sita Ram Goel and Arun Shourie on the other. 

 //timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1913851,prtpage-1.cms

So much for his "scholarship" :

Manini Chatterjee, in a review in the Calcutta Telegraph, called Elst's book Ramjanmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid a "very bad book".[46] She also said that it was marred by miserably tentative terminology, like "maybe" and "possibly".[26] Paul Teunissen's review of the same book criticizes Elst for the unfavourable portrayal of Syed Shahabuddin.[46]

Thomas Blom Hansen described Elst as a "Belgian Catholic of a radical anti-Muslim persuasion who tries to make himself useful as a 'fellow traveller' of the Hindu nationalist movement”[47] Ashis Nandy criticized the alleged dishonesty and moral vacuity of Elst.[48].

Sarvepalli Gopal in the book Anatomy of a Confrontation calls Elst "a Catholic practitioner of polemics" who "fights the Crusades all over again on Indian soil". He also says that it is difficult to take serious an author who "speaks of the centuries when there were Muslim rulers in India as a bloodsoaked catastrophe".

Sadly this proves you are all but braindead:

So you are (mis)quoting from non-Islamic authors  -as a I said  before none of them have denied Mohammad's boody campaigns don't bother with the rest of opologia. 

No my iliterate friend. If  you had read any of them, you would know that none of them are misquoted. Most of them offer those same quotes when asked about the subject. You just have nothing else to say, so you pull this irrelevant accusation out of your behind.

You're also a shameless sophist. The question is (as I have repeated many times now) about conversion by the sword. Not "conquests" or "campaigns". No one had denied the military campaigns. And this is nothing but some BS controversy you are concocting because you have lost so badly on the main question. So b badly that I feel sorry for you.

When a regime apologist comes to the rescue!!

... then the situation must be even more desparate (ROFL). OK let's do it Daghali's (aka Azali's) way:

"Right! I lost a debate where I proved you an imbecile with the facts."

Facts?, which facts? oh, you mean falsities.  Is that what Azalis call facs? No wonder their population is so miniscule.

It all started with Azali failing meet the challenge to show a single occurance of the term Eshq in Quan. Instead, in the style of that Rashti fruit seller who, when asked if he had certain fruit,  used to say "khei vali moshabehash ra daarim" (LOL) , Daghali came up with a few disjointed words that only in his peanut sized brain were moshabeh but not Eshq itself. That was azali's Failure No. 1 - sorry but Arabic 101 is not good enough Azali dear.

Interestingly the only person who agreed with Azali was his regime apologist allay,Q (surprise, suprise).

Then Azali went mad. Being a poor loser, he resorted to badmouthing the winner and hurling abusive remarks and at the same time claimed to be  a follower of sufism(Failure No. 2).

Now Azali being humiliated and having lost face twice reappeared in the genocide debate. Against overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of Islamic fuelled slaughter of, among others, Hindus, Armenians, Bahaiis, Bosnian Serbs by their Muslim counterparts and, much closer to home, MKO members by Khomeini's decree (oops sorry Azali, did I hit a raw nerve? your cover is to pretend you are against the Islamic regime or Q may withdraw his support - ROFL again) Azali's defense was to come upwith such feeble comments as:

Well, technically, the young turks were secularist but Azali, being an Azali should read a little beyond wikipedia but eveb as a wikipedian scholar (LOL) that he is he should read its text less carelessly. Even Tatat Pasha (the chief perpetrator) in his memoirs justified the genocide by giving it an Islamic ( and not a Tukish) twist:

and here was only one example of Azali's , Failure No. 3.

As for the letter by Beitol-Adl my reaction is WOW Big deal! Where is the orginal Azali. Any one, even as dumb as Azali,  can type a letter and claim it is written by so and so. You brain size is an insult to all Azalis..... 

which brings me smootly to the next question: name one Azali who has lost its life by the Islamic regime's decree. The answer: none! Next question: why not? answer: because Azalis (like our own Nima Daghali) are closet regime collaborators. Any evidence? Aftaab Amad dalil-e Aftaab: the marriage between Q and his new sogoli, Nima Daghali (celebrated on this blog.

On that happy not Azali, I let you to continue entertaining us with your galrbled deliberations (seriously LOL).

Hooshie, see a shrink!

Azali, he has already lost the debate.

Right! I lost a debate where I proved you an imbecile with the facts. But yours is the Baha'i way: up is down, down is up, kind of like the present regime in Iran! Everyone knows I have wiped the floor clean with you and that you are one sore as a beetroot loser without a leg to stand on!

He is repeating the same old
unadultrated rubbish that he has done since he was kicked out of the
Bahai faith

Kicked out of Bahaism, was I? Then why is this letter from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of Australia quoting its counterpart in the USA saying I resigned?

//iranian.com/main/blog/nur/ex-bahai-turned-sufi-spied-and-harrassed-between-continents-bahai-administration

NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA’IS OF AUSTRALIA
INCORPORATED A.R.B.N. 009 727 128 Incorporated in the A.C.T.)
(Liability of members limited)

Phone: (02) 99113 2771 SECRETARIAT Fax: (02) 9970 7275 Email:
aus...@bahai.org.au

4 November 1997

The Local Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the Gold Coast

PO Box
833 Southport 4215

Dear Baha’i Friends,

RE: MR. NIMA HAZINI

The National Spiritual Assembly of Australia has been informed
by the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States that Mr. Nima
Hazini occasionally spends time in Australia visiting parents and often
associates with the Baha’i youth here. As Mr. Hazini’s parents aremembers of your community we are sharing the following information
(which has been provided by the National Assembly of the United States)
with your Assembly:

"…It is important for you to know that Mr. Hazini withdrew his
Baha’i membership in December 1996 after expressing his strong
dissatisfaction with the Baha’i community and our National Spiritual
Assembly. Shortly after his withdrawal was accepted, Mr. Hazini wrote
to the National Spiritual Assembly stating that he had not withdrawn
from the Baha’i Faith but had withdrawn only from the Baha’i community.
He provided a copy of his letter to the Universal House of
Justice…When Mr. Hazini received a copy of the Universal House of
Justice’s letter, he chose not to pursue reinstatement of his Baha’i
membership. The last information that we had about him was that he had
decided to become a follower of Sufism."

At one stage Mr. Hazini was transferred to the United States as
a Baha’i in good standing. However, in light of the information given
by the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States we have made
the necessary changes in our records about his status. Your Spiritual
Assembly is advised to be alert to Mr. Nima Hazini’s activities in your
area, when he comes to Australia to visit his parents, especially his
association with the Baha’i youth.. Thanking you for your cooperation
and with loving Baha’i greetings.

When "mother of the bride", comes to the rescue ...!

 the situation must be really desparate. Q sweeti  just stick to your own guns and don't hide behind Azali, he has already lost the debate. He is repeating the same old unadultrated rubbish that he has done since he was kicked out of the Bahai faith and joined the pathethic losers, ie Azalis. Azali and Q  (Bride and her mother), you guys are still busy churning up crap? At least Azali has the sense to qualify his outrageous nonsense with such qualifiers  like "technically" or "usually" and the rest of the apologistic modifiers but you Q are so stupid that put your foot into your mouth every time you open it. So you are (mis)quoting from non-Islamic authors  -as a I said  before none of them have denied Mohammad's boody campaigns don't bother with the rest of opologia.  So this is the first of many non-muslim quotes. Now, go figure:

In his book "Negation in India" Famous Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote:

The Blitzkrieg of the Muslim armies in the first decades after the birth of their religion had such enduring results precisely because the Pagan populations in West- and Central-Asia had no choice (except death) but to convert. Whatever the converts' own resentment, their children grew up as Muslims and gradually identified with this religion. Within a few generations the initial resistance against these forcible converions was forgotten, and these areas became heidenfrei (free from Pagans, cfr. judenfrei).

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible.

Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them.

Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

It is because of Hanifite law that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide on the Hindus (self-exemption for which they were persistently reprimanded by their mullahs). Moreover, the Turkish and Afghan invaders also fought each other, so they often had to ally themselves with accursed unbelievers against fellow Muslims. After the conquests, Islamic occupation gradually lost its character of a total campaign to destroy the Pagans.

Many Muslim rulers preferred to enjoy the revenue from stable and prosperous kingdoms, and were content to extract the jizya tax, and to limit their conversion effort to material incentives and support to the missionary campaigns of sufis and mullahs (in fact, for less zealous rulers, the jizya was an incentive to discourage conversions, as these would mean a loss of revenue).

Nail, hammer & head!

scholars agree, Islam was not spread violently

The way the discussion (if it can be called that) turned since I left basically demonstrates the points I made in the blog.

There's just a very stubborn group of people who believe what they believe and don't really care about what the reality is or the scholarship shows. As Nur and I pointed out, there's almost academic concensus on this subject. I found it hillarious that people challenged these objective scholars because they are just so convinced in their head that they don't exist. I named a few before but I will quote some of them just to make sure there's no logical basis for this "disagreement", although the emotional, ahistorical and and counter factual basis for it continues as it always has.

De Lacy O'Leary wrote: 
"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated." --De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8.

Karin Armstrong:

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

source: //www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/18/religion.catholicism

Even the neo-con sage and history professor Bernard Lewis from his new 2008 book:

"The fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible."
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis#Primer_...

"Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."

That's how deluded the believers of this myth are!

Opinion of Mahatma Gandhi on the matter:

"I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers and his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle." -- Young India, 1924
//www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/65279.Mahat...

I also cited Le Gall and McDonough before.

Note that because I'm frequently dealing with bigotted Islamophobes, I didn't bother naming any Iranian or even Muslim sources (such as Bazargan in the video) because in the mind of bigots that automatically disqalifies these sources.

Armstrong explains the origin of this myth which has to do with medival European Christiandom's ideological rivalry with Islam. Like white supremacy and antisemetism, it has of course remained in European thought and has been exported along with colonialism to the 3rd world where too-eager-to-immitate-all-things-European Iranian aristocracy has picked it right up and promoted it.

Ishalic reasoning, take 2

1) I did not ignore your agreements.

"Arguments". Or was this a bad attempt at a Freudian slip? And, yes, you ignored them -- patently.

Yes. But that's not what you're doing. You're not merely disagreeing. Your whole argument is based upon a preconceived premise to invalidate what they're about or what they want to say at the get go.  Add to that the fact you are not even open to consider an existence of a variety of Islamic templates and forms that would shed nuance and complexity to Islamic praxis as you have conceived it, and already you have established that you are not even willing to listen to the premises, let alone to be in any position to disagree on valid intellectual conclusions. In other words you are biased.

My experience has been that Muslims truly believe that if anyone really
listened to them that person would see the light and become Muslim.

And that is a complete non sequitor because no one, least of all myself, has been trying to convert you to Islam -- and least of all myself who is technically not even a Muslim. So right there you have already confirmed your intellectual bias at the very initiation of the discussion. Instead what has been offered by myself, and earlier by Q, is to consider that the consensus reality regarding Islam as a monolithic praxis and that Islam propagated itself in its first centuries by the sword is in fact based on the evidence completely false and ahistorical. In other words it is a wrong narrative in all cases and circumstances.

My first language is Persian and my English is good enough to get by.

Then write in Persian if you think you can express yourself better.

4) There is nothing wrong with saying Happy Holidays!

To me, in the context of Western Christendom's imposition of its religious celebration in a secular context that is then validated by business, there absolutely is something wrong with it! And, again, I have explained my reasons.

I think someone got a piece of coal in his stockings this morning because he was a naughty boy!

And I think you're a complete idiot! So that makes us even :)

Islamic reasoning

1) I did not ignore your agreements. I disagree with them. Do Muslims accept that it is possible to honestly listen to them and still disagree? My experience has been that Muslims truly believe that if anyone really listened to them that person would see the light and become Muslim. With the only exeception bing insanity. 

2) I should have said: "They throw a few big names around". So  my English isn't perfect, big deal. My first language is Persian and my English is good enough to get by.

3) Name calling?

4) There is nothing wrong with saying Happy Holidays! In fact I like to express my wishes for all (who have the holidays) to have a most wonderful holiday. Furthermore, I like to say "Merry Christmas" to all who celebrate it.  

I think someone got a piece of coal in his stockings this morning because he was a naughty boy! There is no reason to get mad at others. 

Ramin's river of Denial

If I was the sore loser, you wouldn't be here vigorously venting your spleen trying to prove and convince yourself that you aren't. QED.

Ishalic Reasoning

1) They present you with their arguments.

Which are ignored without any substantial argument or counter-evidence. Instead one is met with a whole plethora of non sequitors, one of which is to label someone like myself "Islamic" when I have stated time and again I am not technically a Muslim. Tactics of bullying, lynch-mobism and ad hominem are instead employed as the method to silence the argument, the discussion and the individuals involved. That is your modus operandi.

 2) If you are convinced then you are "intelligent"; "wise" and "open minded".

BS! Here the record speaks for itself. I offered example, argument, example after argument after example. Instead of looking at either evidence or argument, you instead rant with pseudo-argumentation and then contine as before. What you engage in is tautological argumentation based on fallacies of reasoning right, left and center. And there is no assumption of trying to convince a close minded moron of anything.

3) If not then "quote" some big names either "Sina"and "Sadi" or as Shariati's followers like to do "Sarte".

Another of your cliques patented tactics of intellectual dishonesty. Could you show where in this thread I have quoted any of the above? I cited names, sources and provided facts. That is not a quote. Do you know what a quotation is? Do you know the difference between a citation and a quotation? 

4) If you are still holding out then you are labeled "ignorant" and anything else they can throw at you. 

Because in this discussion that is precisely what you have demonstrated yourself to be, i.e. an ignorant buffoon adamant in their own stupidity!

 I made a genuinely innocent statement "Happy Holidays".

No, you expressed a group-think statement of a herd consensus you happen to belong to. I took issue with it and expressed  precisely my reasons why. Your retort, as with all the rest,  was with more rant, more ad hominem, more non sequitor and more adamant stupidity, a testament to your core intellectual dishonesty and those like you here. And this why you people, for all the disengeuous chest beating you do regarding Iran, at the end of the day, are Iran's worst enemies! Someone had to tell you....

Islamic Reasoning

1) They present you with their arguments.

2) If you are convinced then you are "intelligent"; "wise" and "open minded".

3) If not then "quote" some big names either "Sina"and "Sadi" or as Shariati's followers like to do "Sarte".  Then expect the other side to be impressed by those names and quietly submit.

4) If you are still holding out then you are labeled "ignorant" and anything else they can throw at you.  We all know where that leads to

It is the very Islamic approach that is discrediting them.  

I made a genuinely innocent statement "Happy Holidays". One person took "offense" to it. The same person made a deliberate vile attack o the most holy of Christian days with the express purpose of making offense. Then he calls me Nazi. You people judge.

......

Happy Holidays to all of you!!!

Take it easy!!! Take care!!! 

Delaram Banafsheh (Yolanda)

"Cactus in the Desert"

Azal, a hollow SORE LOSER

who offers NOT ONE WORD OF SUBSTANCE in rebuttal, other than to curse, chastise and demean his foe without due cause, a sure sign of monumental and total defeat by an all-too alarmingly insecure, ill-mannered, first-generation city-dweller, who routinely and excessively flaunts a few bits of knowledge in the gaudy, amatuerish way a nouveau riche dahati with a biting inferiority complex flaunts a newly acquired used BMW.

I'm sad that I pity you now, even though initially I was inclined, all too generously, to consider your voice a worthy alternative to the numerous Hezbollahi whores on this site.

Merry Christmas to all Iranian Christians and all Christians all over the world. And happy Yalda to all. A rational human being can appreciate/celebrate one, without denigerating the other.

Your stale, hezbo-rooted, xenophobic "gharbzadeh" jibber-jabber is 100% BULLCRAP, and I'm 100% certain you know this to be true!

Happy Holidays!

ROFLMAO (rolling on the floor laughing my arse off)

Just because you were outwitted, outflanked and destroyed

Bro, the record of the discussions here shows I've wiped the floor with you and your fwends and that you and your fwends have no critical argument on substance and hence no legs to stand on. I dropped the conversation because it is apparent as sure as the sun rises each day that one is conversing with complete intellectual ignoramuses, lightweights and so neathderthals who couldn't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag!

You people are maliciously biased, close minded beyond repair, nay downright stupid dumbasses (olagh be tamam-i-ma'na), and thus unamenable to any actual reason or evidence. You are the spitting image (emphasis on 'spit') of the most unintelligent, moronic and undeveloped Islamic fundalooniest religionist belonging to the most low class lumpenproletariat elements of Iran. The only difference is that you wear different clothes and label yourself differently. But on actual content, you and the Khatt-i-Emami Hezbollahi-i-Olagh are exactly the same creature -- and then you have the gall to claim victory in the debate?! LOL!

Ya, screw the MAN's X-mas holidays! I am an Iranian and I celebrate YALDA! And if I was going to celebrate anything other than YALDA it would be KWANZAA, and not the wrong date for celebrating the birth of the white man's god, i.e. taghut. Got a problem Mr gharbzadeh Amrika'i? Too freakin' bad! What's wrong with you that you don't?

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

Azal

Writes, "gooreh babaye christmas!"

Shame on you, man. I thought you said a while ago that the discussion was over on your part? And then you go and insult a holy day like Christmas, a day celebrated by so many people around the world. Take it easy, man. What the hell's wrong with you? Just because you were outwitted, outflanked and destroyed (your own stupidity to lampoon against "westoxification" and then suggest a westerner's take on Islam) doesn't mean you have to insult a very holy occasion celebrated by many good people around the world. 

How would you feel if some moronic westerner ranted against Iranians and said something like, "To goddamn hell with Noruz" on the eve of our new year? 

I personally wouldn't like it very much. And stop calling everybody a goddamn "Nazi," pal. I guess it has something to do with you being half-Jewish, but it's patently ludicrous, if not outwardly juvenile, a charge that is wholly unfounded. I may despise the influences of Islam and the Quran on our society, but I don't hate muslims, nor do I hate Arabs, or Jews for that matter (although I firmly believe that Islam was fabricated out of thin air by a handful of Jews so as to stem the tide of Christianity's enormous popularity back in the 7th century, which if left unchecked, would've ultimately resulted in Christianity's takeover of the entire known world). 

Bottom line, I don't hate people, but I do detest certain ideologies (communism, Islam, etc.). If hating certain ideologies (as opposed to hating people) makes me a fascist Nazi, then so be it. But how can I be a fascist Nazi if I'm not a racist or a homophobe? I'm not prejudiced against any certain race or creed, I treat every human being as an individual, whether black or white or whatever. I just rather live in a world that is free of organized religion, which in fact, is the most divisive agent in our world today.

In fact, calling me a Nazi trivializes the enormous gravity of Nazi crimes against the Jews. I hope you understand that one should toss out the label "Nazi" as often as one tosses a man-hole cover, and that is very sparingly, so as to not diminish the horrific crimes against humanity that were committed by the Nazis. 

Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays!

Kheile khob baba

Hala Joosh nazan.

Kootah bia hala. Ye emshabo Kootah bia. ziadi kaf kardi.

Ya think? Don't be so sure...

I believe morons such as yourself here are in for a mighty rude awakening and giant reality check once the regime in Iran finally does fall. You can take that to the bank with you, and rest assured that the line behind me will be crushing you instead and other outdated SAVAKI dinosaurs into a pulp and paper-thin flat surface if you even try this kind of BS over there after the mullocracy is finally dispatched. And besides words are cheap, and this site seems to full of colored in rotten eggs being sold as diamonds!

Warmongering? with Nazis like this lot, you betcha!