wed1.jpg

First Pahlavi wedding

Shah & Fawzia

Egypt's Princess Fawzia marriage to Mohamed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Original family wedding photo, 1939>>>LARGER IMAGE

17-Dec-2007
Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Darius Kadivar
 
default

mullahs?

by Shah Savak Western Puppet (not verified) on

Khomeini was a great leader the Shah sold Irans indepedants he's not a Mullah he's an Ayatollah and a Sayed god bless him the Shah was an American puppet and the Savak was totally ran by the c.i.a


default

Now Shah was bad because he was a liar. Wow wow!

by Another Anonymous (not verified) on

I can't believe this! Shah bashers think like a child and write like a child, a child that keeps crying no matter how many candies and toys he receives, and have no courage to admit mistakes when they are wrong - no wonder we are in such a dire situation. I can probably criticize shah much better than you do; but let's summarize crimes of the shah according to you as you have changed your reasoning each time: Shah was bad because:
(1) He took photos of his wedding. Answer: everybody does that.
(2) He divorced his two wives for one reason or the other. Answer: his personal life is none of anybody's business.
(3) He had jewels. Answer: jewels belonged to treasury as "poshtwaneh" for monetary system. He used them in special occasions as all kings do (including european kings and queens to this day) instead of buying anew as his personal belonging. Jewels belonged to iran and were all left in iran once he left -- all the jewels, worth millions of dollars, could fit in a small suite case and he could easily take them with him when he left, but he did not
(4) He was a liar. Answer: What did he lie about beyond what ANY leader (democratic or not -- including leaders of those countries that shah bashers live in today -- need I mention a few?) typically lies about. Most iranians lie on a routine basis as well.
(5) He thought he was divine. Answer: Most leaders think they are divine and placed in the leadership position by some supernatural force. Most western leaders think so (need I mention a few?) as well as leaders of most islamic states, including IRI. So nothing new here.
(6) He run away. Answer: You don't seem to be familiar with 1979 atmosphere. Listen to Jamshid on this thread to see how people thought back then. He only had two bad choices: (a) stay, kill as many people, fight for his rule, and rule by force. That meant a lot of bloodshed at the time and may have ultimately failed. (b) Leave and let people have what they were asking and yelling for in the streets. Well any moral person would choose the least bad choice, i.e., the second choice. But today on the hindsight, a lot wished he had not done so. He even offered to delegate his rule to Bakhtiar, a respected nationalist, but people refused to accept him either. He gracefully bowed to the will of people when masses were saying that they did not want him anymore. That needed morality and courage, otherwise he would have stayed and morphed into a strong-armed khomeini-like or saddam-like leader by force.
Now you can keep crying wolf childishly without making any sense, but history has no emotion and will judge him fairly and history is not here yet. We may have to wait for another 28 years to maybe get a leader as progressive as he was. By then he and his father will be considered the best leaders that iran would have had in a century! But I doubt if you or likes of you care about progress for iran and welfare of iranians.
Let me just mention only two things for reasonable people who read this thread.
(I) If Pahlavis (reza shah and M.R. shah) had done nothing at all except for the educational system that was developed under their reign from nothing to the best in the world, they deserved immense praise. Let me paraphrase the head of engineering department of stanford university (the best engineering school in america after MIT in case you do not know) in front of many people (not his exact words but what he meant): iran has the best engineering school in the world. Do you know what he was referring to? He was referring to the university that was established during pahlavis, with shah personally being its overseer (not under ghajar nor under mullas). If that is the only thing that pahlavis did, they saved iran from being like a mixture of afghanistan and pakistan today. But I know some shah bashers don't care about these achievements at all, but I and likes of I do.
(II) For those who go to iran often, should look around carefully to see what major institutions they see (schools (free under shah but not in IRI), universities (free under shah but not in IRI), steel mill, refineries, telegraph and telephone communication network including first communication satellite that iran rented/purchased, hospitals and clinics, paved roads, railroad system across iran, airports and airliners, radio and television transmitters, banks, electrical system across major towns, piped water and sewer system in major cities, home appliance and car production factories, criminal justice system, identity cards (shenas-nameh) and birth and death, marriage and divorce registration system based on shenas-nameh, land and contract registration system, educated people, modern armed forces (that could take 8 years of mulla war with saddam with support from almost all islamic and western countries for saddam), the first research electronic chip fabrication facility (in north tehran), a health system with free immunization for all children against communicable diseases (that essentially wiped out most of those diseases in a generation) ..., and don't forget the first research nuclear reactor in tehran university and the half-built nuclear reactor in bushehr) and then ask people when that institution was built? The answer, almost without exception is during pahlavis. Maybe a few mosques, a few prisons, or a few public toilets have been built by 28 years of islamic republic. Everything else were built or were planned to be built during pahlavis. I bet most shah bashers were not, or did not want to be, aware of any of these; or do not consider them important or necessary!
I search for reasons to hate either of pahlavis, but I find none. Because I only care for iran and their contribution to iran and iranians rather than how many wives shah had and how many pictures he took at his wedding. Pahlavis served iran well, well beyond what they did wrong, this is a fact that is very hard to dispute.
Does shah deserve criticism? Absolutely, everybody deserves criticism, but not childish outcries like those here, and in a balanced way.
So you see, shah did not fail iran on balance; Iranians who preferred a deceptive imported mulla failed iran.
I rest my case with this beautiful poem from a great iranian:
Aan yeki khar daasht, paalaanash nabood;
Yaaft paalan, gorg khar ra dar robood
.
Javid iran, payandeh iranian, pirooz iran-doostan.


default

jewel or no jewel. shah was a massive liar and failure.

by A nonymous (not verified) on

I said that when he had the TAJ - the jewels he was content and loved Iran. I dont care how much money he had. What good was it? just enough to make him fararee.
All leaders steal and have a lot of extra. That wasn't my point about that tarsoo dog of a shah. My point was that he let it get to his head and without the riches, he was NOTHING. All his b.s. about loving Iran was b.s.

As a leader, he failed iran. he failed the people he claimed he loved and wanted to help. He was full of it and it's unbelievable that some of you are still on about this dead loser.
now keep going on and on about mullahs. it's over. the shah v. mullah debate is OVER. everyone of you shahis can't talk about shah without talking about a mullah. get a life!@ get some sense! wake up.


jamshid

Re: Another Anonymous

by jamshid on

You stole the words from my mouth! Well said! I was one of those who during the revolution was deceived by believing the very same trash that they are writing against the shah in here. 

 

It is ironic that they claim the shah was a thief while the shah indeed left ALL of the crown jewels in Iran. The mullahs themselves later plundered those jewels.

 

Once the mullahs took over, they gained control of all of the "asnaad va madaarek" in Iran. They could not find any evidence of those "billions" of dollars they accused the shah stole.

 

Too bad I discovered these facts too late. Unfortunately the shah's regime did not have any propoganda machine (none!) to counter these lies. That is why the majority of Iranians were so easily decieved.

 

Today these idiots think it is still 1978 and people are going to believe their old and tired crap.

 


default

Shah was bad because he had jewels? Wow!

by Another Anonymous (not verified) on

Read your own writings a couple of times to see that you are only rambling with childish non-sense. If you educate yourself a bit then you can make a valid argument instead of using the logic of vulgarity. But at this stage you are not worth reasoning with. You jump from shah's private and personal life to his jewels. And you apparently do not know that shah's jewels did not belong to him or farrah personally, they belonged to khazaneh (treasury) and were left behind for mullas to swallow when he left the country to avoid excessive bloodshed.
If this childish stuff (i.e., wives, jewels, private photos) is all that a shah basher can find to dislike him, then he must have been a much better person than I thought. Shah bashers rarely use reason. They just throw their venom at him and his family.
I am not shahi at all. I am Irani and for Iran. I am still open to changing my mind with reason, but it seems like shah bashers know everything and therefore not willing to reason or accept errors. Poor shah had to rule on such unreasonable people; no wonder he failed!
Aan kas keh nadaanad va nadaanad keh nadaanad,
Dar jahle morakkab abadod-dahr bemaanad.


default

He got up and ran. what else do you want to argue? Oh wait, khom

by A nonymous (not verified) on

Khomeini was too powerful? Screw yourselves shahi's. You live in a fantasy about this dead bastard.He was a liar and he saved his ass and family which was all he was in it for. he wasn't a leader and he was an opportunist. Iranian leaders always are.


default

Dehatis are fine - but THIS dehati pretended he was divine

by A nonymous (not verified) on

AND HE SCREWED THE COUNTRY. HE CLAIMED HE LOVED IT AND ALL THAT B.S. HE LOVED IT WHEN HE HAD TAJ JEWELS AND PARIS CATERING. HE WAS A BIG LYING S.O.B. AS THEY SAY.

HE CUT AND RAN AS THE REPUBLICANS SAY.

HE WAS FULL OF IT.

SO IS HIS FAMILY AND SO IS FARAH.

HE HAD THE BEST WIFE, THE FIRST, AND IF HE HAD ANY CLASS, BRAINS HE COULD HAVE SUSTAINED IT AND MAYBE BEEN A BETTER LEADER. ANYWAY. FAILURES AT ALL ENDS. HISTORY RECORDED IT AS DARIUS SIR SAID.


default

History?

by Peter Pan (not verified) on

Yes, it's history... fascist history and you glorify it! Why? Face it, you're a cultist.


default

A nonymous

by Another Anonymous (not verified) on

You see, you have no logic. you failed in arguing by reason. Here is why you are so wrong, and why your judgment and judgment of those like you are purely based on prejudice.
(1) you bash shah because he was dehati -- so what? Dehatis are the majority in iran and are mostly honorable people. They are in fact feeding the country and usually not very religious and very self-reliant. And they are usually not patriarchal. And what is it that shahri's have done for us that dehati's did not do for us, except that shahri's handed the country to the worst of non-iranians, aka, mullas. Shahri's destroyed iran, dehati's did not.
(2) you praise the daughter of a corrupt arab king compared to an educated iranian commener like farrah. You must be either an arab or have arabic or religious tendencies. You should know that king Farough was far more corrupt than shah. And he disliked iran and iranians, that is why shah married his daughter to improve the relation between the two countries; such that iran would have one less enemies. So you failed here again.
(3) you provided no counter-argument except for expressing your animosity towards shah again. That is no argument except proving my point. Being rude does not make you right. On the contrary, only those who have no logic resort to rudeness. You failed again.
(4) You provided no proof that shah was not the best that he could be, given the backwardly religious people of his time (shahri's for the most part). Shah tried to put the best educated people (non-dehati's in your vocabulary) in important posts, but then those well-educated shahri's often end up serving themselves instead of the country. That was not shah's fault, rather the fault of shahri's culture.
Maybe in another 28 years of mulla rule, you will finally realize that shah was not perfect at all, but he did the best that he could when destiny placed him in charge of a truly third-world country, given the mind-set of people who welcomed a 1400-year-old devil from najaf and marched after him and killed and tortured teenage boys and girls for him, without questioning the rationality and morality of emam's edicts and fatwas. Those were the kind of people that shah had to get along with and still had to bring the country out of dark ages.
Go read the articles by Baghi and Ganji, both ex-revolutionaries, to see how they confess that they deceived people and vastly and hugely and intentionally and knowingly exaggerated corruption and crimes of the shah (sometimes by a factor of 1000) to deceive gullible people like you so that they can overthrow the shah and take over the country. Those are their words, not mine. Or go read the declass'ed documents of 1953 coup to see how gullibility and religiosity of iranians of that time is explicityly mentioned that were used to fool them and to pour them into the streets.
I am open to changing my mind if proof is given that your shahri's deserved and could accept better than shah, although there is empirical evidence to counter that; but are you? Or is it that insult and prejudice are your (and any other shah basher's) only evidence?


default

Shah was lucky to have married her - she was way above him

by A nonymous (not verified) on

Her family and their reputation far exceeded the dehati Pahlavis. ALL the wedding photos of the next wife reveal that. Farah's family was trash..... compared to Soraya and Fawzia. What a shame.

Iran is such a sad country and Pahlavi was a major reason. Pathetic fool.


default

to A nonymous: Jamshid is right

by Another Anonymous (not verified) on

You are either too idealistic or too emotional with no fact to support your views. It is because:
(1) Typical of most iranians who blame someone else for their shortcomings
(2) Unfamiliarity with reality -- look at any country and see if the leader is "ideal" -- they are mostly thieves and dictators from the point of view of robbed and dictated citizens
(3) people chose IRI not because of shortcomings of shah but because of his progressiveness and their religiosity
(4) Of course everyone wishes that shah was wiser, but he was only a human, and iran only had 2 or 3 choices in 1979 (a) shah (b) khomeini (c) bakhtiar -- and 98% of people voted for khomeini -- those who voted for IRI should take full responsibility for their poor judgment, the judgment that they claimed shah did not have.
Maybe you don't know how a typical iranian was during reign of pahlavis. Here is just one example of reality of iran that shah ruled on: have you ever seen a religious iranian walking out of toilet semi-nude to rinse his nejes ass in the pool (three times) so it would be religiously clean (paak) after excrement; that was not uncommon in small towns in iran. Those were the kind of people that shah had to rule on, not the ones in northern tehran. And those were the ones opposing shah and ultimately voting for khomeini and now for the current president. they were/are all voting for someone of their kind, not someone wise or progressive.
Well shah has been long gone, and iranians have not managed to find someone at least as good as he was in 28 years.
As for pictures that you are criticizing - well everyone weds and takes pictures, don't you? that was only his business and normally those pictures are private and should not be seen outside family to begin with. Besides, this particular picture looks quite modest for a king.


jamshid

Re: Revolution was hijacked???

by jamshid on

How can you say the revolution was hijacked? I too used to say that to clear my consience from ruining my country since I participated in the revolution.

 

But not anymore. Let's be truthful. The revolution was never hijacked. We GAVE the revolution to the mullahs on a sliver plate. That was no hijack. That was our collective stupidity. The revolution was on the wrong path from day one.

 


default

Failure of shah separate of mullahs

by A nonymous (not verified) on

I dont care about the mullahs. I'm discussing shah. you can talk about the two separately. Actually, lots of people have gotten rich in Iran since the mullahs, but that's a different story. anyway, he was going out of business anyway with his stupid cancer. it was good iranians got rid of him, just too damn sad that revolution was hijacked.
instead of having these stupid wedding ceremonies and coronation B.S. he should have been focusing on what was important. he was a moron. iranian people did lots of amazing things, but he was the weakest link and weakest leader.


default

To: A nonymous

by Another Anonymous (not verified) on

Yeah shah failed in his marriages but shah's replacement, the mullas have not failed in multiple marriages and multiple sigheh's, in addition to screwing 70 million iranians with some of them still neither knowing nor complaining, and some still welcoming the screwing, all very successfully. So here is a two-choice question: Would you prefer shah with two failed marriages or mullas with 70 million screwed iranians - and I am not counting animals, refer to khomeini's tozihol-masael for rules governing screwed donkeys and dogs. Obviously some people still prefer successful-in-screwing-iran mullas over failed shah.


default

a failure at marriage, just like his leadership

by A nonymous (not verified) on

No wonder. At least he got around.... too bad he couldn't squeeze in some diplomacy during his bed sessions. Iran would have been "served" better.


default

Hey M.D.

by Another MD (not verified) on

You say "The mariage with FowZia should have been a british plane in oder being able to have egypt as well as Iran better - it means easier with more benefits, of course all illigal - in thier hands."
Yeah, but you forgot to say that the marriage between your daddy and mommy was also a british "plane" in order to conceive you to defend the anti-iranian IRI in the west. Of course all "illigal" as you said. And what a "plane" it was, it must have been a jumbo "plane". Maybe even a jumbo jet.
One more thing: are you an arab who benefited immensely from fall of the shah? Certainly no iranian benefited from replacement of the shah by akhounds, another british "plane"? Maybe an Airbus-380 this time?


jamshid

Re: Maleknasri

by jamshid on

I can't beleive that after 29 years, there are still people with the mentality of this Maleknasri stooge. I mean, wouldn't you want to know where and how are people like this manufactured?


default

REPLY : SHAH`S FIRST WEDING and the COMMENTS TO IT

by Farbors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

1.I think that in - I want say OUR - "IRANIAN" is stil nothing sacred = there is no sensorship. I myself have written some "prohibited" words. I have only earned some earthy words not more.
2. It was 1958. farahs Robe with long skirt had the typical iranian design named Pasely = BOTTE JEGHAI.
3. Following is what i have heard throegh years about the dead majesty the most last Perser kaiser:
The mariage with FowZia should have been a british plane in oder being able to have egypt as well as Iran better - it means easier with more benefits, of course all illigal - in thier hands. But Fowzia was a fine lady. Pretty soon the sisters of his majesty find out that she is not a suitable tool performing that what the little satan - England - wanted. The daughter of Fowzia - SHAHNAZ _ was also clean. she married the son of fazlolah ZAHEDI the Ardeshir, who worked himself for CIA. Shahnaz could not play ugaddicted - may be with a little help of her aunts who were professional dealer specialy the ashraf - and later on, after divorce from ardeshir, she died. Anyway there was no more a word about her in th public. Then came soraya. she was also a real Lady and could do for his majesty not the jobs the great satan - now US-Imperialism - expected from him. The Question of heir to throne was regulated by constituation: The first child. It was Shahnaz. his majesty changed this passage, further on it was the first son. Soraya could not get pregnant and more important: she was not the appropriate compaign so she had to go. She should have asked Imam Khomaini he should tell her how much she has to pay back.THe Answer was: Go in peace. The Farah was for Great satan just the right bride. She made the jobs sometimes even better than this majesty himself. She was "socially" active. She sponsored the most beutifull Studentshoustel in Paris in Cite universite as "Iran House". The only condition was: No Iranian Student could have a room in Iran House. The administration was made by french nones, Iran paid. She said once to the german TV as she were asked why the iranian films get sensored? YOU MUST FIRST EDUCATE A NATION TO DEMOCRACY BEVOR YOU GIVE THEM IT: It was in winetr 1976/77. In the same time show the heroic Iranian nation: It prefers another kind of Democracy and another Teacher. As the pair left Iran on 16th January 1979 farah had a 20 Kg heavy Boardcase. It was full of jewellery. President Carter a nutsdealer had allready on january 15th said: It is better when the shah goes. And all Iranians ahd the same idea. In the late 8ties could farah stil sell jewelleries for 6 Million Dollars per day. In fact a lady who can manage her Life. the wealthes in "his" 4 Airplanes were taken him away by his "friend" Sadat in Airport of Cairo. It was just a Custom formality! The farahs younger daughter could not stand the Stress of changes and made suicide. the older has married - I think - an Iranian nice young man. the crownprince is also owfully nice and is waiting in an active manner to come back to IRI. Just in the same active manner as the Iranian nation is actively waiting for reappearing of Mahdi(s). The Prince wants to save the nation from being drowned, to rescue it out of the burning Land, and prevent it from going complettly mad as that handfull fanatic mullahs. Not knowing that the honourable nation, the Poeple of the Islamic Repubklic of Iran, those 70 Million fanatic mullahs are allready "A LOST CAUSE", beyond any hepl. Greeting


default

SAVAK was here [backspace backspace]

by A nonymous (not verified) on

Sheesh. "Shhhhhh SAVAK!" - Marjan Satrapi in persepolis I

so much censorship here all of a sudden. don't bother writing comments unless its "barikallah. javid shah" or other nonsense


Darius Kadivar

Its History NOT Cult !

by Darius Kadivar on

If you still don't Get it, That's your Problem.

Best,

DK


default

Why?

by Peter Pan (not verified) on

Why are these pictures posted? Why are some Iranians cultists? The Shah was a dictator. Hi wedding, birth, graduation should be mourned not celebrated.


default

The postings in this site

by Anonymous765 (not verified) on

The postings in this site are randomly sensored and deleted. Know that the comments that you read are only those acceptable to the taste and likings of the "editor police" of Iranian.com. I've witnessed many a comments deleted after thier original posting with no evident rationale or reason.
"Nothing is Sacred" my ass.


jamshid

Re: Looting

by jamshid on

Another of the lies used during the revoluion to deceive people. Iran's wealth was well spent during the shah's era to build Iran. All that looting crap tunred out to be just that: CRAP.

 

Even if there were any "looters" they were no more than a few "aftabehdozd" compared to the IRI looters.

 


default

Beware of Looting

by Danesh (not verified) on

I don't have the answer to the "Question of Century" but an important moral can be learned from this volture situation:

Do not Loot no matter how easy it may look and no matter how dispossessed you have become for with the looting the volture gene will transmigrate into your spirit making you to become a welcome member of this species...

There is no such a thing as free lunch!


default

Question of the Century

by Daneshgh (not verified) on

What happens when the volture is dead and what will happens to its dead body....

Who ever comes up with the right answer will win small tiny red transistor radio so small that can be insert in the winner's rear end so he can listen to his favorite radio station during the jogging...

How about if the winner wish to change the radio station during the jogging? Don't worry we are living in the age of Post Einstein Era (PEE) and with the advances made in the realm of technological innovation ... the sound sensitive remote control implanted inside the radio itself cn repond to the voice of jogger to shift station!

But beware! Restrain from faurting... for it will interfere with the quality sound of your won radio at par with the famour Bose Radio with mega stereophnic clean sound well known to the world...

Bose!


default

The second one

by alborzi (not verified) on

This is the picture of the second one, she was very pretty
//www.bakhtiarifamily.com/soraya.php


default

When did he wed

by a question (not verified) on

Does anyone know when did he wed Farah?


default

Another KKK era picture

by stop (not verified) on

Another KKK era picture