Anyway

"IRI is a heresy"

I am obviously not here defending Islam, although I'd defend muslims as much as Bahaiis, jews, christians in case of injustice. But I do believe that a lot of friends here with good intentions are for want of a better phrase "barking up the wrong tree" when dealing with/trying to understand  this calamity of so called "Islamic Republic".

I invite our learned friend freethought to use his/her particularly excellent comment as the centre piece for a blog on islamic republic vs muslims........ 

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."

On the un-Islamic nature of the Islamic republic

I recommend the scholarly written book by the late Professor (aka Ayat...h) Mahadi Harei-Yazdi who tought Islamic philosophy at Harvard and Oxford until he was placed under house arrest on his return to Iran and passed away shortly afterwards.  Haeri-Yazdi in this book proves from a kalaami argument that VF is an invalid doctorine in Islam.

Mahdi Hairi-Yazdi, Hikmat va hukumat (London, 1995). 

For an Islamic democracy

Excellently put Freethought

You explained it in no uncertain terms my dear brother. Thank you.

For an Islamic democracy

VPK

The debate about Ferdowsi's lines in the Shahnameh in praise of the Ahl-i-Bayt has been debated by scholars for years and the academic consensus today is that they were indeed penned by Ferdowsi himself. Per his own words, Rumi's Masnavi is a mystical commentary on the Qur'an and Hafez's ghazals are likewise mystical commentaries on verses of the Qur'an. There is not a scholar of Rumi or Hafez alive that disputes this, even ones who are not well disposed towards Islam as a faith do not dispute this. Whitewashing these figures, as certain revisionists in the Iranian exile community seem to insist in doing, is spurious.  It is wishful thinking and not based on facts. These men were Muslims, their cultural worldview was Islamic, and their works are commentaries on Islamic themes, narratives and concerns. If you do not believe me, crack open a study by the greatest Rumi scholar who ever lived, Badiuzzaman Furuzanfar, and see for yourself what he has to say.

You can disagree all you like but the fact of the matter is that the Taliban, the Sa'udi Wahhabi state as well as the IRI are reactionary products of the modern world and not traditional Islam. I invite you to look at this book and the arguments made by its author. If you wish to read it, I have a PDF and can send it to you on the house.

Muslims throughout the Sunni world have condemned Wahhabism, Salafism and the Taliban repeatedly, even Al-Azhar is on record for doing this, but on this site and among similar sites such news does not receive coverage. Early this year the Supreme Sufi Council of Egypt openly declared war on the Wahhabis for their continual desecration of Islamic holy sites in Mecca and Medina. The Supreme Sufi Council of Egypt has also condemned the attacks on the Christian Coptic community of Egypt as well. But none of this gets mentioned here (or generally amongst Islamophobes) because such news will make the Islamophobic narrative and propaganda here on this site (and the assorted interests determined to push it)  look blatantly transparent for what it is. 

The IRI is not Islam because the ideology of the IRI is a heresy. The VF system attempts in theory and practice to usurp the authority of the Imams of the Ahl-i-Bayt and arrogate this authority to itself. In other words, in the VF Khomeini created a Shi'a Caliphate. The very existence of Islamic government under a Twelver Shi'a banner proves it so since no government (including an Islamic one) can in theory be deemed legitimate without the Imam of the Age. Khomeini was not the Imam of the Age, therefore his VF is illegitimate and a heresy. The Taliban and the Wahhabi interpretations of the hudud laws are excessive and have gone beyond all bounds of textual evidence and reason. As such they have engaged in bid'a (innovation) and so represent a heresy. Furthermore the Saudi kingdom has several times published Qur'ans where they have taken out verses from the Book condemnatory of kings and sovereigns. This form of interpolation of the Book proves that the Saudi kingdom and its leadership are heretics, kafirs.

Freethought111

I disagree. Islam is IRI; Taliban and Saudi. Rumi or Hafiz were not Islamic celergy. They were speaking for themselves not as interpreters of Islam. Nor did any of the rest of those you mentioned. They do not run Muslim nations.

Fredowsi is mot definitely not an example of Islam I question if he was really a Muslim. All he ever wrote was about pre-Islam Iran. The few lines in praise of Shia are most likely added later on by others.

As for Islamophopia is means  "fear of Islam". Now I am a former Muslim. I rejected Islam and decided on no religion. By most Islamic law that means a death penalty. Should I not fear that? I would be an idiot not to fear a religion that wants me dead.

Islam enriched Persian culture

and of course it is true vice versa. Persian scholars like Al-Ghazali, Ibn- Sina, Al-Khwarazmi, and Al-Biruni made immensley valuable contributions to the Islamic faith and science.

But tell me brother, while Greeks and Romans can proudly remember their great philosophers, playwrights, scientists, mathematicians, physicians, architects, artists, etc of the same era as Achemenids and Ashkanids were ruling Persia, how many internationally famous Persians can you name who were contemporaries of , and of the same status as, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Diogense , Sophoclese, Archimedes and many more whose name I can't readily remember?

But after Islamization of Persia thre was an explosion of hidden talents that were not given a challenege and a chance to grow under the Zoroasterian rulers of the pre-islamic era.  

And I do not deny the services of the Pahlavi kings to Iran. They were not practising muslims but they, espcially the second Shah, had strong religious beliefs. So I will not say what did the Pahlavis do for us.  

For an Islamic democracy

CoP

Islam is one entity that needs to be taken seriously. Everything about
Islam should be feared as it is a belief system that harbors and fosters
violence and uses it to advance its "cause". 

This is out and out hate-speech, and if you were to substitute another word for Islam there are places in the world (such as Canada) where you may be up on charges.

VPK

As the typology spells out reducing Islam to a monolith or a single stereotype is engaging in Islamophobia of the same kind that reduces every Jew to being a greedy financial tycoon out to exploit everybody in the universe as in Antisemiticism. Your examples are Islamophobic and uncritical. Islam is not the Taliban. Islam is not Saudi Arabia. Islam is not the IRI.  Islam also includes Rumi, Hafiz, Ferdowsi, Ibn 'Arabi, Ibn Khaldun, Avicenna, al-Biruni and endless others.

Phobia infers Perception

So "Islamophobia" is a phrase invented to divert attention from the truth because the perception is an extension of truth in this case.

Islam is one entity that needs to be taken seriously. Everything about Islam should be feared as it is a belief system that harbors and fosters violence and uses it to advance its "cause".  

I will gladly withdraw this statment the minute I see a prominent muslim, or muslims in general, denonce the violent nature of Islam. 

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Thx, VPK

I do understand people questioning my posting on IC. And I don't mind, it's their right. 

As for brother Salman, I find him rather amusing. Also, must admit, he's polite in his comments. Something, I appreciate.

Dear Rea

You are very welcome to post on IC. There is no requirement to be Iranian. For all I know Salman is not Iranian either. None of IC rules require you to be Iranian or to even know Persian.

I have been questioned a number of times on why I mostly post in English. I do so because I want everyone to be able to read my posts. Just because IC is not just for Iranians.

Brother Salman

From what I know, neither is religion uniquely Iranian thing nor is IC out of bounds for non Iranians.

Don't know why but you make me think of this guy, he,he: 

//youtu.be/Zf-qNFoNHts

Freethought111

I live in the USA. About 20 miles from my home is the Islamic Center. I work with many Muslims. I had a practicing Muslim working for me. He asked for time off on Friday to go to prayer. As his boss I gave him permission and made adjustments to the schedule.  I did this despite being classified as "Islamophobe" by many. Because I believe in freedom of people. As long as they ask for something reasonable. Like going to mosque to pray on Friday. 

I would say that at least where I live in USA there is no discrimination. Muslims are given all the rights anyone has. Of course my Muslim friends are civilized and behave like anyone else. No violence is either seen or expected; hence no discrimination. Now I am not speaking for Europe. I will leave that to those who live there. But I do know Canada is also very tolerant and does not practice discrimination. In fact discrimination is illegal and carries penalties.

My point is that just because I do not like Islam does not make me a bigot. Nor does it make me discriminate against Muslims. I will strongly oppose any violence no matter who practices it.

Islamophobia

Is very unfortunately rooted in truth. Most of the claims of barbarity and violence are backed up by evidence. This not to say there is no racism or bigotry involved in some "Islamophobes": there is. Also it does not excuse similar barbarity in the history of Christianity. But right now in today Islam is definitely more backwards and violent than either Christianity of Judaism. The proof is right there: IRI; Taliban; Saudi and many other Muslim systems. 

Just take a look at the picture of what Taliban did to Aisha: 

//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319804/Af...

As for Saudi they do not even let women drive a car.

We all know what IRI does so I won't bother. 

Salman

You are mistaken. The discussion about Romans fits a discussion about the Pahlavi. Before Islam we did have all those things like:

• Education: Sassanids even developed their own script "Din Dabireh" to replace the less accurate Aramaic.
• Health: Academy at GondeShapur.
• Security: We had a very advanced system of policing and justice.

And so on.

But after 1400 years of Islam we lost most of it. Then Reza Shah came and brought us all those things. Those who hate him as just like the ones complaining about the Pahlavi. Who gave us all those wonderful things. By the way this analogy with Pahlavi has been made before. So don't you dare compare Islam with the Romans. The latter were bringers of civilizations. Islam simply stole the civilizations developed by Sassanids until there was nothing more left to steal.

Islamophobia

//www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-a-definition/

The Runnymede Trust has identified eight components that they say define Islamophobia.
This
definition, from the 1997 document 'Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us
All' is widely accepted, including by the European Monitoring Centre on
Racism and Xenophobia.
The eight components are:

1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2)
Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in
common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not
influence them.
3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7)
Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices
towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

For a summary of the 1997 report, see here

For the follow-up report from 2004, 'Islamophobia: Issues, Challenges, and Action', see here

Islamophobe

It's an interesting label if you think about it... Even though an islamophobe isn't dealing with reality in a practical sense, the fear itself isn't irrational in the short-term...

Imagine you read the bible and there you find stories of god punishing non-believers and doing all sorts of horrible things. Is it not rational to believe that christians will practice what is written in their holy book?

I think you have to look at it from an atheist point of view... If I read a book that uses violience as different methods of punishment I can not help to feel a bit afraid of the people who preach the same material... The same goes to societies that "preach" the death penalty which is written in their laws.

In the case of laws, they are written in such a way that you know what to expect from them. But religious scripture uses the term god, and most times in history different individuals play the role of "god" and carry out the punishments. That to me is scary, especially when I know that some religions haven't been as reformed as other ones... One can argue that it's the individuals fault, who play the role of god, however since god never comes down and delivers the punishments personally, somebody obviously plays his role in order to keep the faith going...

Brothers VPK and Siavash and sister Rea

Your reaction to the truth as spoken in the holy Qur'an is revealing your inability to handle the truth. 

Brother Sivash, 

Before, you educate me, for which I am very grateful, I suggest to learn a little about the subject you want to challenge me. First of all, Mo'ammareh is not the name of Khuzestan but the former name of Khorram-shahr. Second, as my learned brother Freethought has stated, Hadith does not constitute a firm ground for Islamic practices. For every hadith that you bring I can bring a counter-hadith. Qur'an itself is open to exegesis (tafseer and t'aveel) otherwise we are down to the same level as wahabis and Taleban. 

Brother VPK,

Your monty python proof speaks volumes of your scholarly approach to religion and history. I can imagine you speaking against Islam and muslims in a gathering of your fellow Islamophobes like your monty python hero speaking against Romans:)

  //www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

Sister Rea,

Am i correct to say that you are not even Iranian?

For an Islamic democracy

Stoning

Is definitely rooted in Judaism which Islam then copied. My proof is here from Monty Python "Life of Brian". As the magistrate says to all the fake women stoning the old guy:

All right, no one is to stone ANYONE until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, Jehovah.

Need more proof 

Siavash300

The Shar'ia is based on the Qur'an and Sunna, and what comprehensively constitutes the Sunna (despite what Wahhabis and the Iranian mullahs like people to believe) is up in the air. Traditionally (that is, until the early 11th century) the Twelver Shi'a weren't even considering much of the content of the Sunni ahadith collections like Sahih Bukhari as authentic or legitimate. This changed with people like Shaykh al-Saduq who attempted to align the Shi'a more and more with the mainstream. But the Twelver Shi'a, at least, have 4 canonical books of akhbar (reports) whose content often is supposed to trump the contradictory material found elsewhere - although this material itself has many glaring contradictions.

That said, the quotations you have made from Sahih Bukhari, especially the first one, outright identify the source of  stoning for adultory, and it is Judaism. There has been a debate for a long time now by some to declare stoning to be un-Islamic and so not authentic Shar'ia or Sunna. When the regime in Iran falls and when, hopefully, the Wahhabis/Salafi scum are wiped off the face of the earth, this may well happen where you will see stoning for adultory dropped altogether and widely declared an un-Islamic practice.

Dear Siavash

I am not convinced Salman is Iranian or irrational. He sounds like an Islamist who is deliberately trying to push your buttons. He wants to make you mad and get some perverse joy out of it. 

No real Iranian even of Arab origin will say things he says. Therefore I must assume he is just out to make noise. We all know what Islam is about. 32+ years of IRI has taught us that! So I do not get too mad. 

By the way two may play at this game. If they want to misname Persian Gulf I respond by calling West Bank "Judea and Samaria". If they want to claim Khuzistan I say half of Iraq is Persian territory. After all Sassanid Capital Ctesiphon was 10 miles from Baghdad. By the way Baghdad is a Persian name "Baghe-dad". So even the Iraqi Capital is Iranian territory. They better watch out. Before long there will be nothing Arab left other than their desert peninsula.

Siavash

Your link does not work, are you referring to this blog and comments by 'Shepesh'? It is something that I never forgot.

//iranian.com/main/blog/jahanshah-rashidian/rape-mullahs-prisons

Dear VPK - irrational thinking of brother Salman

Dear VPK,

I am giving benefit of doubt that this individual is an Iranian (I personally doubt it) and he is lost. Knowingly or unknowingly this person promoting arab culture, Arab language on Iran.com which is big threat to our national interest. These are the same people who were trying to call our Khozestan, moamareh, not long ago. They have an eye on our Persian gulf these days. I think  protecting our national wealth/interests starts here on I.C.  The barbaric idea that we are questioning here originated in Arabian Peninsula, perpertuated throughout histoy , lashing out in our modern time. The same idea which hit the twin tower in NYC, blow up madrid train and burned our people in Cinema Rex in Abadan to ashes. We shoudn't let it go unrespond. Look at logic of Quran.  

"Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (An-Nessa:3)" Salman Farsi

marry "captive that your right hand possess" means slave-girls who were captured in a war. Men may "marry" them because slaves do not incur very much expense, not as much as free women do.

A man may "marry" four wives, but have sex with his slave-girls, and the number of these latter is not limited. According to the timeless and universal Quran, therefore, Muslims today have the right to practice polygamy. Wherever Islam engages in the slave trade or captures women prisoners of war, Muslims may have sex with them.

Allah gives the husband control over his small bevy of wives. If the husband keeps the undesirable wife, he must provide for her; thus she lives in a perpetual state of emotional rejection. On the other hand, he may divorce her, thus rejecting her on the shaky grounds of her being no longer desirable to him.

Clearly, Islamic law is patriarchal. I am sure Salman's wife and the above woman in this video didn't know that when they converted to Islam

Siavash

Rea

is right. Stop dividing people based on religion; or anything. Iranians are all Iranian and religion does not matter. I am sick of people like Salman who try to push this Islam on us. Iranian people are just that.

We do not need religion to be a nation we need our culture. Dear Siavash please do not waste your time with this Salman. He is beyond hope and just here to annoy you. Getting upset at someone who has a traitor for avatar is a big mistake.

Some educational literatures for brother Salman

"No stoning in the holy Qur'an" Salman Farsi

Islamic Sharia Law is based on the Qur'an, the hadith

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23: Funerals, Number 413: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque." [15]

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50: Conditions, Number 885: Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: A bedouin came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's apostle! I ask you by Allah to judge My case according to Allah's Laws." His opponent, who was more learned than he, said, "Yes, judge between us according to Allah's Laws, and allow me to speak." Allah's Apostle said, "Speak." He (i .e. the bedouin or the other man) said, "My son was working as a laborer for this (man) and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that it was obligatory that my son should be stoned to death, so in lieu of that I ransomed my son by paying one hundred sheep and a slave girl. Then I asked the religious scholars about it, and they informed me that my son must be lashed one hundred lashes, and be exiled for one year, and the wife of this (man) must be stoned to death." Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais, go to the wife of this (man) and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death." Unais went to that woman next morning and she confessed. Allah's Apostle ordered that she be stoned to death.[16]

Please change your arabic avatar to Persian Avatar.

Thanks,

Siavash

Payandeh our Aryan Land Iran.

Gosh, hate religion !

It's enough we are divided by our social status and money we make, why do we have to divide based on religion ?

And to see these crows in the video. Who is advertising this, pifft !

Hirre

You are right about a lot of practices being cultural. For example female circumcision; burkha are not required by Islam. They are cultural and forced under the guise of Islam. 

However I still think there is a lot of savagery in all Abrahamic religions. To a point of making them not worth the holy paper they are written on. These glorify some guy who almost sacrificed his own son to please God. 

I tell you something if some God told me to kill my children I will say "no way". I would gladly go to hell before I harm one hair on my children God or not. And that story is common among all three religions. They are savage.

In addition even a really good religion like Zoroastrian may be prevented. The proof was in the Sassanid regime as the Mobeds showed. Whenever you give people right to speak for God you are asking for power hunger. 

Then they want use to obey them or else. At least with a regular dictator we know they power is "man made". With religion they hide behind God and claim divine right.

Hence I would say let us dump organized religion. No matter if the book is good or bad the people are going to abuse it. When you allow a VF; Pope or Mobed get too much power they get corrupted by it. For me no organized religion; no thank you.

Islam

In history stoning has been more related to a certain culture in a certain area than to specific religions. That is why we see stoning carried out by different kinds of people, especially in the middle east and during different times of history.

The problem is that some schools maintain that the punishment may nevertheless be exacted on the grounds that hadith can establish laws which the Quran does not mention. It's important to distinguish between what is written in the Quran and what has later been written as islamic laws. The case of stoning never occurs in the Quran, it has been created as an islamic law centuries later which is adopted by some countries.

The problem with the Quran (or rather the people who want to leave responsibility to "someone" else) is e.g. these kinds of verses 5:33 which different religious leaders take advantage of, claiming they are the messengers of God, or they know what god wants and who is waging war against god (call them muslims, islamists, extremists, fundamentalists of whatever you like)...

If you ask me, the holy script breakthrough for christianity was the new testament which basically reformed christian scripture and faith. Before you could find the same stuff in the bible (old testament) as you would in the Quran. What the Quran needs is a new testament, or brave people who can put exact interpretations aside for a moment and spread a new message (hopefully a message of hope, love, acceptance and not a message of total submission)...

What the world is waiting for is basically unified demonstrations by "true" muslims against the so called "islamic regimes" which I doubt will occur, since no average muslim in general (broad masses) has read the whole Quran, or is willing to challenge the "islamic regimes'" interpretation of islam. This "gap" which is created by "true" muslim pasifism allows people (especially westerners) to create more prejudice about the "true" faith of islam.

No stoning in the holy Qur'an

ٱلزَّانِيَةُ وَٱلزَّانِى فَٱجْلِدُوا۟ كُلَّ وَٰحِدٍۢ مِّنْهُمَا مِا۟ئَةَ جَلْدَةٍۢ ۖ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌۭ فِى دِينِ ٱللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ ۖ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَآئِفَةٌۭ مِّنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ

 The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment (An-Nur: 2)

On polygamous marirage:

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا۟ فِى ٱلْيَتَٰمَىٰ فَٱنكِحُوا۟ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَٰثَ وَرُبَٰعَ ۖ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا۟ فَوَٰحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَٰنُكُمْ ۚ

ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰٓ أَلَّا تَعُولُوا۟

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (An-Nessa:3) 

Remember, it is impossible to prove adultry and it is impossible to uphold justice among two wives let alone four. Only Allah is all seeing, all knowing and just. The Holy Qur'an has effectively made it impossible for the sinful man to prove adultry and to uphold justice among four wives. Those who ignore the intricacies of the Holy Qur'an are abusing the faith of Mohammad (sws).

The verses are self explaining but if you still have difficulty understanding them, then I am available to help.

:

 For an Islamic democracy

Khorasani prophet

Ibdid not mean to say christianity is better but that given the opportunity Islam would show that it was not better. Freethought has read to many nation of islam books and think that all evils are from the white men, from the other guy, somehow we are not responsible ourselves and we are all good.