Jump to content
Forum | Bia2.com

MeehanDoost

Members:
  • Content Count

    455
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MeehanDoost

  1. Lately, I have noticed that a lot of Iranians are turning away from Islam. More specifically, there are a lot of people who now wear the Faravahar. So my question is (1) If you are Iranian and (2) were born in a Muslim family, which of the above choices best describes you? This question ONLY applies to Iranians. Thanks I guess a final choice is (5) Born Muslim - Don't believe in Religion anymore.
  2. This is an Exclusive Topic I want to dedicate this thread to Iranian National Heroes that fought against Arab invaders of Iran in order to save Iran, Iran's dignity, and the Iranian people. Very little is known about most of them because in the post-Islam history of Iran much has been done to give the impression that the Arabs peacefully came into Iran and the Iranians welcomed them. Nothing can be further from the truth. There were many revolts, many years of war, and an enormous amount of Iranian's blood was shed. Let's remember those who fought for Iran. These people have been kept in the dark and tried by the supporters of Islam to be erased from history to distort the truth about how hard Iranians fought to get rid of the Arabs and the Arab faith, but were killed until everyone was converted by force. The below people are true national heroes who gave their lives to save Iran and Iran's name. May their souls rest in peace. Peerooz Nahavandi, the Killer of Umar Ibn Khattab http://islamic-world.net/khalifah/caliphate.htm says in pertinent part: Umar Ibn Khattab was the the second caliph and Muhammad's father-in-law. Upon Muhammad's death in 622, it was Umar who compelled Abu Bakr to accept the caliphate. Abu Bakr appointed Umar as his successor on his deathbed in 634. During Umar's reign, the Persians were defeated in Iraq and eastern Iran, effectively wiping out the Sassanid dynasty, while the Byzantines were defeated in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. He was mudered in 644 by a slave with a personal grudge against him. Umar was feared rather than loved: he had a harsh disposition and lived an ascetic lifestyle. According to Muslim tradition, he wore patched clothes, ate plain food, and carried a whip while walking in order to chastise those who broke the law. The rest of the story not mentioned: That “SLAVE’S” name is a forgotten Iranian hero by the name of Peerooz Nahavandi. In really old Arab history books (I was unable to find any on the web) it is said that this Iranian person got himself close to Umar because he had a many talents, one of which was building mills. Umar agreed to take “his slave” – the Iranian person who like all others were enslaved by the Arab conquerors – on the condition that he would build such a mill. Thereafter, one morning, this national hero took revenge for all the Iranians who had been enslaved by the Arab conquerors by taking his knife, placing it under Omar’s stomach, pressing it in and pulling it all the way up to his throat. He did what any patriotic person would do when his country was conquered and his people killed and enslaved. If you guys remember, Umar is the same person who wrote that letter that I posted in a different thread to Yazdegird (the Shah of Iran) telling him either give in or you and your people will be killed. Behzad Hamadani, the Killer of Osman Osman, another Caliphate who ruled Iran was also killed by an Iranian hero by the name of Behzaad Hamadani. I was unable to find anything on this on the internet to link. But I assure you that this is accurate. You can ask any historian that has knowledge on this subject. He too is a national hero who is forgotten and who fought to free Iran from Arab invaders. Babak Kkorramdin, another freedom fighter http://www.answers.com/topic/babak-khorramdin Bâbak Khorramdin (Persian: بابك خرمدين ) Around 795 , according to some other sources 798 - 838) - One of the leaders of Khorram-Dinân (Persian: those of the joyous religion), which was a local freedom movement fighting the Abbasid Caliphate. Early life Bâbak Khorrami was born in Balal Abad (Qaradag),Iran close to the city of Ardabil. After his father’s death in his early teen, he was given the responsibility of his 2 brothers and mother during a traditional Zoroastrian ceremony in a fire-temple, which used to involve a glass of wine and wearing a purple ribbon. By the age of 18 Bâbak had established himself in the city of Tabriz and was engaged in the arms trade and industry. Later on, this engagement gave him the opportunity to travel to different regions like Caucasia, Middle East and Eastern Europe and familiarised him with history, geography and language of the countries and nations in these regions. During all these time, Azarbaijan was constantly invaded by the Abbasids (Caliphate). Movement In 755, Abu Muslim of Khorassan, a famous and popular Persian nationalist, was murdered. Although he had helped the Abbasids to defeat the former Caliphs, the Umayyad dynasty, the ruling Caliph had ordered to kill him, probably because of his increasing popularity among Iranians and Non-Muslims. Many Iranians who had expected more freedom and more rights from the new rulers could not believe that their hero was killed by the ruling Caliph whom they had considered a friend of Iran and Iranians. This incidence lead to many revolts, most of all by angry Zoroastrians. This, in turn, forced the Caliphs to use more violance against the Iranian population in order to keep the eastern provinces under control. The constant revolts did not come to an end in the following decades, and the Zoroastrian population of the Caliphate was constantly being opprssed by the Caliphs. Witnessing all these pressure being exerted to his people, Bâbak joined the "Khurramiyyah (Khorram-Dinân)" movement in what later became known as Ghaleh-ye Bâbak (Bâbak Castle), in the mountains of Qaradag. His skills in the latest battle tactics accompanied by the knowledge of history and geography strengthened his position as a most favorite commander during the early wars against Arabs. Bâbak was a highly spiritual and educated person who respected the Zoroastrian identity of his nation. He made every possible effort to establish reasonable political and cultural relationships with other Irananians and also with leaders such as Afshin and Maziyar to form a united front against the Arab Caliph. One of the most dramatic periods in the history of Iran was set under the Bâbak’s leadership between 816-837 AD. During these most crucial years, they fought not only fought against the Caliphate, but also against Arab langauge and culture. Eventually, Bâbak, his wife and his warriors were forced to leave their command post (Ghaleh ye Bâbak) under a very difficult situation after 23 years of constant campaigns. He was eventually betrayed by Afshin and was handed over to the Abbasid Caliph. During Bâbak’s execution, the Caliph's henchmen first cut his legs and hands in order to convey the most devastating message to his followers. The legend says that Bâbak bravely rinsed his face with the drained blood pouring out of his cuts, thus depriving the Caliph and the rest of the Arab army the sight of his paled face which was the result of heavy bleeding. Ancient Historical Figure and Modern Nationalistic Debates In recent years, there has been debate on ethnic origin of Babak, even so trying to fit an ancient figure to this or that nationality goes against any objectiveness. Some Turkish nationalists claim that Bâbak was an Azeri-Turk. On the other hand, Persian nationalists retain the established opinion that he was Persian and that at the time of Bâbak, the Turks had not yet migrated to Azerbaijan. From the Turkish point of view, it is said that Babak's name can not be shown as a proof of his alleged Persian roots, because it was not his real name. Names of some of his lieutenat's such as Tarkhan who was a Turk and Azrak who was an Arab, show that the movement was a mixed ethnicity, broad regional freedom movement against the Caliphate rule. Existence of Muslims among Bâbak's supporters also reinforces this assertion. According to the Persian point of view, however Babak's (more correctly Pâpag) name, is purely from Persian (Iranian) origins. Turkic peoples migrated to Azarbayjan several centuries later. Bâbak was a follower of Zoroastrian Persians and Abu Muslim of Khurassan. There are no proofs for a Turkish background. As mentioned in the main entry, the claim that he was Turk is recent and propagated mostly by Pan-Turkists. In early history books, there is no mention that he was Turk. He has always been known as a patriot Iranian and Zoroastrian. Even the name of the province, Azarbayjan is Arabicized form of persian word Azarpadgan meaning the Place of Guardians of Holy Fire (Azar=fire, pad=guard, gan=suffix indicating a place). Ancient Arab historian Ibn Hazm in the book "Religion and People" and ancient Armenian historian Vardan in his "World History" clearly and explicity mentioned Babak as being Persian. There is no sources that claim otherwise. The name of Babak's father was Mardas, his mother in sources has been called Mah-roo. Both names are Persian. The mentor of Babak was Javidanpoor Shahrak, which is another Persian name. Also the two most important commanders of Babak, Adhin and Rostam, were ethnic Persians. Finally the name Tarkhan is also mentioned as "Tarhan" (which is an Arabic word) in some sources. Besides this, the name also occurs in the Shahnameh and some sources mention that the Soghdian rulers of Samarghand went by this name. So this was a general military title. Finally it should be mentioned that there is no trace of Turkish in Azarbaijan before the Ilkhanid era on paper, rock, leather, inscription, etc and all sources at that time mention that Azarbaijan spoke Azar-Pahlavi (the local dialect of middle Persian) as it continues today in Talyshi, Kurdish, Tati and other NW Iranian languages. Due to the invasion of Oghuz tribes, Seljuqs, Mongols, Ilkhanid, Teymurid, Black Sheep Turkomens and finally the Turcophone Safavid dynasty who imported Turkomens from Anatolia, this region became predominately Turkic speaking. But all this was after the time of Babak. There are many others. I will try and bring their names forward as well, so we can know who our true national heroes are, and we can be thankful for their efforts to free Iran.
  3. The Parsi way to saying hello is Dorood, and the Arabo-Farsi way of saying hello is Salaam. Dorood literally means Salute and is a way to give respect to a person that one meets. I had heard about the origin of the word "Salaam" which is said to mean peace, but has deeper historical roots. The below article reinforced what I had heard earlier. What are your thoughts? http://www.iranchamber.com/literature/arti...age_history.php Modern Persian language or Farsi (Arabic pronunciation of Parsi) as spoken today consists of a lot of words of non-Iranian origin. Some modern technical terms, understandably, have been incorporated from English, French and German and are recognizable, but Arabic has corrupted a major part of the language by replacing original Parsi words. What Ferdowsi worked so hard to preserve is finally being lost. ... Another example is the word "Salaam" which has been borrowed from the Arabs and is used by Iranians as a salute when two friends meet each other, instead of the Parsi salute "Rouz-e-gar Neek" and "Dorood". In Arabic "Salaam" means Peace but no Iranian is aware of its meaning or origin. The Arabs who lived as a tribe were always at war with each other; they always had their sword ready by their side. When they came close enough to each other they had to call out "Salaam" meaning I come in peace otherwise he was considered an enemy who had to be killed. Not replying to a Salaam, even among the Iranians who do not know that the word means peace, is considered as a sign of enmity.
  4. Hi Again I was thinking of doing a poll, but decided against it because I came to the conclusion that a poll would be under-inclusive. Basically, I want to ask who is your favorite Iranian figure of all time, and please give me the reason or attributes of that person for making him/her your favorite Iranian of all time. Some figures, obviously, are Zartosht, Kourosh-e Bozorg, Dariush-e Bozorg, Ferdowsi, Anoushiravan, Saadi, Haafez, Khayyaam, etc. One Rule: The figure MUST be Iranian!!! Thanks for your opinions
  5. http://www.petitiononline.com/wpci96c/petition.html
  6. MeehanDoost

    Please sign this petition against the movie "300"

    Listen, I don't want to argue here about the petition. If you agree with it, then please sign it. If you don't, then you are free not to sign it. That's all. I just wanted to post it for whose who agree to sign it. That's all.
  7. MeehanDoost

    Please sign this petition against the movie "300"

    I don't have any double standard. I have a standard, which is to protect my heritage and people from false statements and attacks. When there is a movie that shows Iranians/Persians as some out of this world animals and demons and calls us barbarians and is based on a scewed view of what truly happened, then yes, I will support petitions to fight against some propoganda, especially when this movie comes at a time in which there is high anti-Iranians sentiment, and this movie may be based in great part to increase such hatred and support some sort of a war against my country. So I say to all the people who are proud of who they are and their past, please sign this petition and do your part to fight against OUR demonization. Thanks.
  8. I think Blair's statements are baseless and without any merit whatsover. Afterall, the British and the IRI are very good friends and the British get a lot of goods and petrol out of Iran for cheap by having such an unpopular regime. I actually believe that the IRI staying in power has a lot to do with the support (although hidden) by the Eurpoeans, led by the British. In short, I think his statements are nothing more than just playing out a scenario or a game, and that his ultimate objecitve, by "engaging Iran and Syria" is to hold the regimes of such countries in power.
  9. Many of us have heard of the three wise men or the three kings that visited Jesus when he was an infant. Today, I saw this program on the Discovery Channel that said they were Persian Kings, most likely Zoroastrian. I found this to be very interesting and wanted to share. If you guys like, you can go online and read upon this just by search Three Kings and Jesus, or the Three Wise Men. Wikipedia says:
  10. MeehanDoost

    The Three Wise Men

    i donnu.. but magi are zoroastrian priests if i am not mistaken, and i have never heard them to be jewish..
  11. I prefer a secular, constitutional/parliamentary monarchy. I favor a republican form of gov't, but I also would like to have a symbolic monarchy overlay. I think framing the question as Monarchy vs. Republican MAY be misleading in that a monarchist gov't may not be democratic.
  12. Man meekhaham be hameye shoma jashnvaar-e mehregaan ra shaad baad begooyam. omidvaraam keh aanhayee keh mehr bar iran-zamin daarand, shaad, khoram, peerooz, behrooz, paayandeh, ostovaar va neekoo bashaand. Dorood bar shoma va dorood bar iran-zamin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehregan
  13. MeehanDoost

    A big break

    not a surprise, obviously. the us distorts everything in the name of "democracy" but the real meaning is to maintain hegemony and keep others from developing
  14. Kheili jaleb bood. Ravaaneh Shahanshah Aryamehr shad!
  15. MeehanDoost

    Reza Pahlavi - Shahs Son

    I dont think that's right. In the west, democracies have taken over 100 years to be where they are. I think that is sufficient time for the same to happen in Iran. I think a more accurate satement is that it is very unlikely that western style democracy will exist in Iran in our lifetime. But that does not mean we should not try and start a democracy and leave a better Iran for future generations.
  16. MeehanDoost

    Reza Pahlavi - Shahs Son

    I agree with most everything that you say. However, I would add that one positive reason to have a monarchy (parliamentary) is to further our traditions, which have been such for nearly 7,000 years. We have had some of the greatest kings in history (and some of the worst). Yet, I believe in a system that the shah is forced by a constitution to serve the people can achieve the balance of preserving and respecting our history and have a democratic gov't. By no means do I support a monarchy where the king has the last say. I support a system where the constitution tells the shah his role and the shah is limited by the constitution and parliament. But your points are very well taken.
  17. MeehanDoost

    Reza Pahlavi - Shahs Son

    Khaahesh meekonam geraami. Meedoonam chi meegee. Een mard faghat baraaye del khosh kardan be dard meekhoreh. Valy raastan heech kari nemeekone..
  18. MeehanDoost

    Reza Pahlavi - Shahs Son

    I agree that "Eshkal az saltanat-e moluk al-tavayefi-e nah chizeh digeh !" But there is a big difference from my prespective of a system of "Paadeshaahi" and one of "Saltanat." Saltanat is means to rule by force and dictatorship. The ideal of padeshaahi that I adhere to is one in which the shah serves the people and not rule over them by force. Perhaps a bit too idealistic. Anyway, I'd ideally like to see a parliamentary monarchy, and not a pure monarchy. But, hopefully if Iran is one day free, there can be a vote on what type of gov't the people want and that's what Iran should have.
  19. MeehanDoost

    Reza Pahlavi - Shahs Son

    From my persepective, a monarchist, I can say that I am extremely shameful of Reza Pahlavi. To be very frank, and I am very sad to say, he is a disgrace. I view his father and grandfather as true Iranians, patriots (esp. Reza Pahlavi I). When I see R. Pahlavi II not doing anything and just having a stupid office in D.C. and just giving out a few statements each year, I see him as a shame. Honestly, either stand up like your grandfather did or just get out of the spotlight. Stop putting stupid announcements that do nothing. You have so many supporters yet you do nothing. Honestly, he is a shame and a bigger shame when you know he is Reza Shah-e Bozorg's grandson. Shame on him. He is polluted with foreign influence. He is weak. He is a shame of a person who does nothing for his country -- and I truly mean nothing. If he does anything, it's negative b/c he plays with people's minds that he may do something yet he truly does nothing. "Shah-Zaadeh" from me to you, you truly are a weak figure and I wish that you would do something to make everyone proud. Even with me who has such a negatively view of him at this point, I would support him if he changed his attitude and became more like his grandfather. Wake up out of your dream and do something for your country. You do afterall acknolwedge when people call you "shah-zadeh". Have some responsibilty with that word. I think I said more than I wanted to say... But he is not "opposition" to anyone. I truely and sincerely hope that he changes his attitude. He is the most well known "opposition" figure or at least one of the best known and can do so much if he wants to. I truly hope that he does something positive for his country. Be Paa Kheez and make us proud.
  20. MeehanDoost

    Hizbullah Charter

    Good post. Hamas has a similar charter in its views of Israel. And some people say negotiate with them. I personally do not understand how you can negotiate with an entity that has the goal of your destruction... But anyway...
  21. Keyvan-e Geraami: You say for an "unbiased" view and the first sentence of that article reads "The land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs [for the past 2000 years]" when the term "Palestinian Arab" is a recently new term and that "Arabs" did not by an large live in that area. The area became "Arabized" in the 8th century with the conquest of the Arab Muslims... The article continues up the "biased" view from that first sentence and continues. It continues to say "Under considerable pressure from high-placed American Zionists, the UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state — despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land" but fails to mention that the PALESTINIANS REJECTED this plan. Fails to state that 80% of the land given to the Jews were UNSUABLE DESERT and the fertile land was given to the Palesitinians, and JERUSALEM was at the heart of the Palestinian state. It then says "When the inevitable war broke out the outcome was never in doubt..." This war was NOT inevitable. It only occured b/c the Palestinians REJECTED the partition. In addition, the outcome was very much in doubt b/c there were many Arab states and the Jews at the time did not yet have the backing of the US nor did they haev much artilary. It then says "In 1967, Israel conquered still more land" but does NOT mention the root cause of the war which was the Arabs coming to the borders and having the goal of destroying Israel off the face of the map. Need I go on? I can critique almost every sentence in this article. Please do not call it "unbiased". Call it very biased! Doost-e-aziz As I have said to you before I agree with many of your views especially where Iran is concerned. However, we beg to disagree on this issue! I think the issue of the land is playing with the psyches of many arabs especially when that land is taken away from them. There has been more than 17 UN resolutions and their violations by Israel. Since 1980's Israel has continued with aggressive expansion and illegal settlements into the occupied territories despite condemnations from most of the international communities (yes international communities and not only those arab countries that are sitting on the UN borad). And Israel has ignored them all with the tacit approval of the americans. Under Sharon's government israelis were going to stop the illegal expansion and settlements in the occupied territories as part of a deal to the palestinians. How can this be a deal when you go and build a house in someone else's land and then you use that as part of a negotiation? I do agree imlicitly that violence does not help solve the problem whether it is from the palestinian side or the israelis vali israeliha ba in karhaie ke mikonan hich goli be sare khodeshoon nemizanan! The topic and body of this text was the article that you posted, which is extremely biased. That's all. I did not really go beyond that, and it would be good to see you say that you made a mistake of saying that was an "unbiased" source. You have changed the topic and we can discuss those issues as well. Like I said before I really do not care too much about who gets what b/c it does not affect me nor does it affect Iran. But if you like, we can discuss "occupation" and "taking of land" and "illegal outposts" etc.
  22. MeehanDoost

    Your Favorite Iranian Figure

    So Iran was a regional "prosperous power" during Shah's time, was it. Then why were even pro-western elements fleeing Iran during that time? Lets see what the online encyclopidia "Reference.com" says about that period: Don't ruin this thread by taking it off topic. But anyone who calls a person who directly caused the death and handicap of 2 million Iranians, as Khomeini did by not accepting a cease fire when Saddam offered it on 1982 and resulted in the destruction of Iran and the death of all those people and the bombardment of Iran, and you call a "favorite Iranian Figure" when he was not even Iranian but was part Indian, then that statement is enough. So whatever you want to rant about the Shah, open a new topic.
  23. MeehanDoost

    Your Favorite Iranian Figure

    Good to know your real feelings. How interesting that you kept saying otherwise in your prior posts. That is the dude that turned Iran from a regional and prosperous power 50 days back by brewing a war and 500 years back intellectually. His name should be referred to as AyatoShaytaan, which is what he was.
  24. Laboojoon... I have two masters degrees in history and politics, specialized in the middle east. I also have a JD (Law Degree).
  25. Keyvan-e Geraami: You say for an "unbiased" view and the first sentence of that article reads "The land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs [for the past 2000 years]" when the term "Palestinian Arab" is a recently new term and that "Arabs" did not by an large live in that area. The area became "Arabized" in the 8th century with the conquest of the Arab Muslims... The article continues up the "biased" view from that first sentence and continues. It continues to say "Under considerable pressure from high-placed American Zionists, the UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state — despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land" but fails to mention that the PALESTINIANS REJECTED this plan. Fails to state that 80% of the land given to the Jews were UNSUABLE DESERT and the fertile land was given to the Palesitinians, and JERUSALEM was at the heart of the Palestinian state. It then says "When the inevitable war broke out the outcome was never in doubt..." This war was NOT inevitable. It only occured b/c the Palestinians REJECTED the partition. In addition, the outcome was very much in doubt b/c there were many Arab states and the Jews at the time did not yet have the backing of the US nor did they haev much artilary. It then says "In 1967, Israel conquered still more land" but does NOT mention the root cause of the war which was the Arabs coming to the borders and having the goal of destroying Israel off the face of the map. Need I go on? I can critique almost every sentence in this article. Please do not call it "unbiased". Call it very biased!
×