Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Iranians converting OUT of Islam infuriates Islamic clergy

A mullah in the occupational Islamic Republic's state television expresses his anger at the increasing number of conversions out of Islam! The mullah is worried about the growing numbers of Iranians that are beginning to see the chilling truth about islam and its child-molesting "prophet", and are re-discovering/reverting back to their rich pre-islamic history which the muslim clergy had tirelessly tried to hide, deny, and eradicate.

Zoroastrianism is Iran's ancient faith whose tenets are summed up by "Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds", and which many Iranians are now reverting back to after 1400 years of savage Islamic occupation and indoctrination. The end 1400 years of brutal and savage Islamic domination over Iranian people is slowly coming to an end.

Iranian culture has endured and persevered many brutal occupations throughout history and will come out of this ordeal victorious, stronger than ever before.


Anonymous said...

A reader’s email:

Dear compatriots, 18 Tir is near.

Greetings to all Readers:

Once again news of despicable crimes of the Islamic government, Khamenei’s treason and his thieves have wounded our hearts. From the death of a young freedom fighter in Tabriz who was murdered by electric shocks to the destruction of our ancient and holy Pasargadae. As yet we have not forgotten the burning of Takhte Jamshid (Persepolis), nor does the devastation of our identity of Persian Gulf give us an opportunity to contemplate. What a shameless regime which stands in front of 70 million people to relate the burning down of Takhte Jamshid (Persepolis). How the unscrupulous Sardar Zareii buys his punishment for adultery by filling the pockets of vile Akhoonds (Mollahs). How impudent is Ahmadinejad to promise freedom of dress to the young and women of Iran but then subjugates them in front of their mothers’ eyes by beating them. Khamenei calls Dariush the Great a tyrant, yet forgets that unlike Khomeini and Velayate Faghih no other person or regime in history has killed so many young ones. I will make it short, dear compatriots 18 Tir is near, we cannot overlook this. Be sure that this government is continuing to breakdown. The war from within Iran is weakening the foundations of this shameful Islamic regime. So, from today let us begin to spread the word for freedom. If those who are reading this gain the support of only two more people to the cause, we can be certain that the life of this regime will not be prolonged even to 19 of Tir. Do not forget that before you, the people of the City of Mashhad already declared their readiness.

Long Live Iran


Original Email in Persian - IranPressNews or Here

Anonymous said...

Dear fellow compartiots i would like to thank Plateau for this true and reall comment, about these savages mollhas the republic of islamic of iran is affraid, they know they lost they know 70 million irannians will take them to justice dead or alive, these mollahs know they can never mess with America ,the super power of this world,europe and the world knows that,the regime of iran, is already toppled, bar khizid Melateh man ke ma poshteh shoma hastim. to my dear compatriots, stand up, against these criminall regime of the mollahs by millions and i am here with you we are with you, with millions to come back and rescue you from torture hunger poverty, and freedom of speech live free or die, you will live free and the mollahs hezbollah and hammass and the revolutionary guards will die. god bless all of you the freedom fighters to overthrow the republic islamic of iran, the most cruel regime in the humand kind of history, Tirdad Gharib.

Winston said...

Islam is dead as a viable religion in Iran, which is great news.

Apache Man said...

The numbers if those people who no longer believe in islam is probably much greater than many think because many would be afraid of being attacked if they expressed their disgust with this despicable false religion. Many who call themselves muslims are really no longer, or may never have been, real muslims who really believed muhammad the monster was a real prophet. Actually muhammad was a profiteer that preyed on people, and never prophesied anything.

Anonymous said...

You know,

I really don't want to argue with you and I don't want you to think that I'm supporting any particular faction whether within Iran or outside, but I always find speculation and conspiracy a very peculiar phenomenon amongst Iranians. At this point, I have become jaded to so many conspiracy theories that I've become indifferent, but in all seriousness I find it very counterproductive for Iranians to engage in speculations.

In regards to your post, I realized that you had mentioned about the backwardness of Islam and of Iran's poor posture since its introduction 1400 years ago. Historically speaking, this is quite absurd as Iranians were very succsesful under Islamic rule and have been a major proponent in helping Islamic culture flourish. Hence it's very hard to believe you when you conveniently ignore 1400 years of history.

I should clarify that I'm not comparing Islam and Zoroastrianism, for I'm sure they both have their pros and cons (as do all religions), but to emphasize the reality that Iran's backwardness or success is not necessarily dependent on its religion. We have seen various civilizations of different religions succeed, and the very same ones fail miserably at a different point in time.

Therefore, I would advise against associating religion as the *sole and only* explanation for a country's success or failure.

It's perhaps just as absurd as associating the British and the Americans for Iran's social ills.

As a sidenote, why have you put comment moderation? Is it to filter criticism or profanity?

Aryamehr said...

Dear Anon,

You are attributing Iranian achievements under Islamic Rule as "Islamic Achivements" just like the occupying Islamic authorities have done. What does Iranian accomplishments in poetry, maths, medicine, art have to do with Islam? If you are Iranian why would you support those whose hopes and efforts are focused on stripping Iranian of their identitity and replace it with a nation-less Islamic identity (which is only a cover for Arab Imperialism)? Iranians had many great achievements under the Islamic occupation - such a Ferdowsi's tireless efforts in producing the Shahnameh to revive and preserve our cultural heritage and language (is this an Islamic achievement as well???) or many of our poets who had to include phrases that satisfied the Islamic rulers but who where still able to masterfully shine through the message of love, friendship, and happiness which marks Iranian culture.

If you have studied Islam and Islamic culture what would seem absurd is you, seemingly, unintentionally lumping Iranian and Islamic culture as if they were ONE and the SAME - and to me whose aware of what Islam is, what the Muslim invaders did, this ignorance (thinking Iranian and Islamic culture is one and the same) is truly a slap in the face of my national, cultural, and historical identity and something which my forefathers and the ancestors of Iranians fought against.

Although your intentions are honorable in that you respect all religions in my opinion this is completely baseless. Respect is earned. Read the koran and tell me if this book of hate deserves respect. You are welcome to search the sites I have put under my links.

Associating the British and American government for some of Iran's ills is anything but absurd. What would be absurd is associating them with ALL of Iran's ills. Are you familiar with Iran's history and how the British in an illegal action invaded us in WWII and destroyed the entire Imperial Iranian Navy? About the Brits' efforts in securing unfavorable oil contracts? How Jimmy Carter betrayed the late Shah of Iran by supporting Islamic terrorists?

Lastly I have comments on moderation to prevent spam and profanity from those who cannot argue their point in a civilized manner.

Amir Nosrat said...

Well I don't believe that I ever claimed that Iranian and Islamic culture were one, but I'm not going to deny Islam's influence on Iran and Iranians. All civilizations and people evolve and Iranians too have been subject to much change and any historian will tell you that there is never any such thing as an eternal stationary civilization. Even when we were Zoroastrians there was a 300 year interim during the Samanian dynasty where we didn't even have an established writing system and had slipped back to a very primitive tribal society. Hence it doesn't require for us to be Muslims or Zoroastrians to be backwards.

Iranian accomplishment were of course... Iranian accomplishments. I never claimed they were Islamic. I claimed that the Islamic system provided them opportunities to achieve what they have achieved in various scientific and academic fields the same way I would give credit to the USA today for allowing people from all over the world to be able to accomplish what they can in academia. Hence, in a political sense, it doesn't matter if we are Muslims, Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, or Bahai. What matters is that we have a system that allows our people to thrive by ensuring basic rights and freedoms and offering opportunities to flourish.

If I were to follow your logic then, technically I would have to be bashing the Persians for invading my Medean ancestors (considering that my family is part Kurdish). That is absurd, because Medeans were known to have prospered under Persian rule for the most part.

So when you ask me what I think about Islam after I read the Quran is quite irrelevant, because that matter is up to theologists and the kind, which is not my real field of interest. Again, I'm not defending Islam, but rather defending the historical reality of Islamic influence on Iranian culture. Iranians are mostly Muslim, and that is a fact. In a hundred years, they can be Bahai, but that would not make me pro Bahai or anti Bahai, pro Muslim or anti Muslim, pro Zoroastrian or anti Zoraostrian and I will certainly not deny Bahaism's influence on our culture.

The tendency to blame outside sources for our problems is quite a common phenomenon. Again, I'm not trying to downplay your beliefs, but in your post and in our conversation, you have already blamed the Muslims, British, and Americans for our troubles. You have yet to blame Iranians for their problems. And I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about Iranian society. Its social retardations, its various backwards thinkings, and with its lack of understanding of democracy and rule of law.

And you cannot blame Muslims for this phenomenon. Iran has not been under foreign rule for over 800 years (except for the brief post-1941 Allied invasion). I feel that we've had plenty of time to make up for lost ground. But of unfortunately, we haven't been able to entice ourselves to do so.Even if the British destroyed our Navy, secured unfair oil contracts, or left us to Islamist fundamentalists, it was still our own fault for not being able to build an effective Navy, protested the unfair oil contracts or had the brains to realize we're being duped, or succumbed to Islamist fundamentalists.

Aryamehr said...

If you don't understand the Koran and believe it is up to theologians, who you believe have monopoloy in interpreting the koran as they wish (perhaps because they are men of holy cloth?), then how in the world can you make such grossly contradictory and misleading statements attributing some sort of positive influence of Islam upon Iranian history/culture? By your own words you either have not read the koran or do not understand it and believe it should be left for mullah's (!) to interpret - i find that quite amusing especially if you are familiar with the nature of mullah's. If you don't know anything about the koran which embodies the essence of Islam and Islamic culture then your attempt to attribute some form of positive status upon "Islam's influence on Iran" is nothing but empty words from someone who has been led to blindly accept this barbaric ideology as something "positive".

I will not stand for muslims trying to strip Iranians of their identity and for them to try and hijack Iranian culture in the name of "Islamic culture and civilization" - this is Islamization or better put Arabization in its full glory. Already we have many Arabs and Turks claiming renown Iranian historical figures as being their own kin and their achievements as Arabo-Muslim achievements.

Secondly you briefly mention the Samanid Dynasty - a dynasty that existed after the Arabo-Islamic Invasion of the Persian Empire and who were of zoroastrian theocratic class that converted to sunni islam and fervently propagated it. The fact that this theocratic class converted to Islam should tell you something about all theocratic classes be they muslim, jewish, or zoroastrian - they long for power and influence. If you're familiar with Zoroaster you will know that he never claimed being a prophet or such - he was a philosopher whose teachings and beliefs are embodied in his scriptures. The theocratic zoroastrian class emerged after Zoroaster.

Thirdly there is indeed a great deal of plausibility between being a muslim and backward - again you need to read the koran to realize this rather than rely on mullah's who will sell their mothers to convince you otherwise.

Fourthly Islam is not unique in having inhumane teachings in its "holy" teachings, Christianity and Judaism have their fair amount as well. You will be hard pressed to find anything similar to the obscene, violent, and inhumane passages found particularly in the Koran in the Zoroastrian Avesta.

Do you realize that the "Islamic system" you refer to was an occupational power and that it wasn't particularly accomodating towards non-muslims (i.e. Iranians)? Do you realize that it took large-scale genocide and intimidation to convert an entire Empire to accept the "label" of muslim? Only when you converted were you elevated from a sub-human level towards something more acceptable and even then Iranian converts were not considered real muslims by the Arab occupiers and were looked down upon. Whatever the Iranians accomplished during these years of occupation was through their own perseverance and persistance. The Arabo-Muslims didn't mind as long as they were able to take credit for it.

Furthermore you made this statement: "What matters is that we have a system that allows our people to thrive by ensuring basic rights and freedoms and offering opportunities to flourish" right after you had commended the great "Islamic system". It's a bit mindboggling how this Islamic system fits your profile of a system that ensured basic rights and freedoms when it commited genocide against non-muslims, commited heneious atrocities against any oppononents, and who tried to erase the iranian cultural heritage but who thanks to Iranian persistence and perseverance was not successful.

You state: "
If I were to follow your logic then, technically I would have to be bashing the Persians for invading my Medean ancestors (considering that my family is part Kurdish). That is absurd, because Medeans were known to have prospered under Persian rule for the most part." What logic are you referring to? The Persians and Medes are from the same race (Aryan). They lived side by side in an Empire that was unified by Cyrus the Great who was part Mede part Persian. Are you trying to suggest that Cyrus commited genocide against the Medes and denied them their cultural rights like the Arabo-Muslim invaders and occupiers did? Lets not get too creative when defending the "Islamic system"...

As for Iranians I do blame them as well - it's just that I cannot fit all my thoughts into one post. I blame the Iranians of 1979 for the treason that took place and in the bringing to power of a terrorist Islamic system. Those Iranians who participated or who were idle in those times are involved be it more or less just as the British, Americans, and Arab terrorist organisations such as that of Yasser Arafat's PLO. Your claim that Iranians should have built a stronger navy so that it wouldnt be destroyed by the allies is quite amusing as well. Instead of commending the efforts of modern Iran's founding father's (Reza Shah the Great) efforts in building a country from scratch (a poverty, disease, bandit-stricken land ruled by an incompetent and careless Turkish Dynasty), of which one of his first great accomplishments was the establishment of a modern military force in a very limited time-span, you chose to ignore putting things into context and evaluate the achievements of Iranians in a fair light.

Lastly you claim most Iranians are muslim. However earlier you claimed you haven't read the koran or don't understand it - so in effect you don't know what islam is (since it's set out in the koran) and are not able to pass judgement on who is muslim and who isn't. I've read enough of the koran to know what it specifies is a muslim and by no standards do the majority of Iranians qualify for the title. Iranians have been fooled and brainwashed by the muslim clergy who has had a stronghold on our society since the Arabo-Muslim occupation, into believing that islam is something positive when it is anything but.

Until you read and understand the koran i believe this discussion will be nothing short of futile. Instead of entrusting mullah's to interpret something for you I suggest you take matters into your own hand and read the teachings of the koran to then be able to judge what Islamic culture is and who is a muslim. Also once you're at it read up on Iranian history and see how this hell-sent ideology was brought and imposed upon Iranians.

Unknown said...

I must first say that I am not a Muslim but rather a Catholic. I am not Iranian but a great admirer of Persian culture and the Pahlavi's too.
There are a thousand things one could dislike about the dictatorship in Iran. I do think the most dangerous is that it has driven people away from a belief in God. I agree that Islam has been a tragic error for Iran. This does not mean God does not exist. It is the Islamic religion that is the problem.
Any Muslim who says he/she is a moderate Muslim is in reality not a true Muslim.
Secularism is what is bringing Christian Europe to it's knees. If Iran frees itself of the dictatorship and copies the secularism of the West then nothing much has been accomplished.
God bless a free Iran.

Amir Nosrat said...

First of all let me correct my previous post. I meant the Sassanian not Samanian. There was a 300 year interim period where we had diminished to a very primitive tribal society. We made a comeback and made a lot of significant progress but then stagnated in the last few decades until we finally fell to the invading Muslims.

Now in regards to your post, it seems to me that you have a lot of biased hate in you which is really hard to miss and unfortunately a lot of Iranians won't listen to you simply because you're attacking their ideology, whether right or wrong.

Again, I'm not trying to argue with you about the legitimacy of the Quran or Islam. That is a different topic within itself. When I say I don't bother with it is not because I believe in it, it's because religion is not something I find worthwhile arguing about because it's all myth and storytelling. It could be Zoroastrianism, it could be Bahai, Islam, or Christianity, I really don't dwell too deep into its details. As far as what the Quran says, yes there is a lot of unfortunate phrases and comments, but that's all really dependent on what one's interpretation is. I won't argue with you because I won't defend something I don't associate with. I accept Islam just as much as I do Zoroastrianism, so that would be a waste of my effort and yours. YOU need to stop taking words out of my mouth, because I never mentioned that I "haven't read the koran or don't understand it". I certainly do NOT leave my political and personal decisions at the whim of the clergy as I rely on my own mind to decide what is right and what is wrong.

By the same token, I have to disagree with you when it comes to the influence of Islam on Iranian culture. Yes, the initial 150 years was quite brutal as is the case with most invasions and expansions (we were quite brutal against the Greeks and the Egyptians), but with the first Islamic Revolution that brought the Abbasid into power, Iranians had performed very well for the next 300 years. That means the system that the Abbasid had developed worked and allowed Iranians to prosper. We had been able to make our biggest contributions to humanity only seen a thousand years prior and that has still not been re-achieved to this date.

What I found interesting about your post was your reference to the mullas. Technically speaking, it's actually quite false to consider all mullas as possessing the same ideology as they have very different approaches and ideologies. That would be the equivalent of lumping Iranians with Arabs or other Muslims. Historically, 'modern' mullas have been around for only 200 years, as they are a very distinct breed with a distinguishable line of thought. What is unique about what I like to call the Iranian version is that they constantly re-interpret situations based on modern social norms which is often abused by various members to meet their own ends. One famous example is the decree of Tehran's friday prayer imam that had considered the use of railways 'haram' in the 1850's. Of course his motivation was purely political since he saw it as a threat to his associates which often comprised of tribal leaders. Anyway, what is different about Iranian version and say... Arabic version is that they constantly re-interpret whereas Arab mullas only persist on the ways of the Prophet which is obscure. There are reasons as to why this came to be which can be traced to Shia ideology and its evolution over time, but what is most significant about these development is the rise of the Marjae Taghlid which came into effect right before the Qajar came into power.

Now, there are libertarian Mullas who are advocates of secularism, freedom of expression, and rule of law while there are the more conservative ones who are more inclined to not sullying Islamic principles and name. The latter are the type that usually suppress free press and free thought (as was the case 10 years ago with the Press Courts). The conservatives are the ones that are in power and have been for most of the past 30 years. There was a time when odds were heavily stacked against them as it was during the Constitutional revolution (aside from Reza Shah and his son who left out all Mullas out of the loop).

Now if you look at the 8th and 9th century, libertarianism prevailed and Iranians were allowed to prosper when there was a surprising amount of freedom of thought and expression. There was so much freedom of thought, in fact, that the divinity of the Quran was challenged in open public in Baghdad, a task that is tantamount to suicide in the modern world.

So, in a way, (after maybe the 100th time I'm repeating myself), it doesn't really matter what people believe in, what matters is the respect for the rule of law, for freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and the ability of critical thinking which can come in the form of criticizing the government, religion, and all that matters.

Therefore, I would have to say that your claims are quite false. The truth is that Reza Shah and his son were more of a tyrant than the IR would ever be. Not because the IR has Islamic elements, but because it allows more freedom of thought than Reza Shah and his son would ever allow combined. Now we can probably agree that the IR has to change because obviously right now they're not doing that well in promoting basic freedoms, but that's a different battleground and not the one that you are putting yourself in.

Anonymous said...

"Again, I'm not defending Islam, but rather defending the historical reality of Islamic influence on Iranian culture."

If we are to talk positive & value added influence, I would most definitely qualify the above comment.

Most positive and value added influences have been Pre-Islamic, Iranian (Persian), traditions of science, fine arts, learning, literature, architecture, administration, and more on Muslim invaders and Islam in general. The Arabs and others thereafter allowed them, within strict confines of Islam, mainly because after they managed to force their religion on Iranians, they began to see that the mentioned fields very much worked to their own advantage. And, since Arab invasion, most dynasties ruling Iran have been of foreign origins anyway.

Given the fact that after the conquest of Iran, Muslim Arabs killed so many learned non Muslim Iranians, burned their valuable books, cut off their tongues and fingers, destroyed their universities and places of learning, it is quite admirable how Pre Islamic Persian traditions still endured and were passed on throughout the following centuries despite continuous Islamic limitations and savagery.

At the same time, regarding the "glorious not Islamic influence", how can we not expect Iranians to be influenced by all the negatives and backwardness of Islam, Arabic mentality, and their self interested "theologians"?? Look at the socalled Iranian trait of being "two-faced" or shall we "Taarof". This is very much based on Islamic and particularly Shia practice of Al Taqiyah! It certainly isn't due to any Zoroastrian teachings, which values truth not lies and deception.

The last 29 years alone has shown how Islam and Islamic influence can work to the absolute detriment of a nation such as Iran, let alone some previously 1300 years of it, which has had a tremendouly negative impact on Iran and pre Islamic Iranian culture.

If we want Islamic influence diminished and eventually gone from Iran, we must get rid of the Mullahs in Iran. Pure and simple. They are the culprits & "influencers" and have always been, directly or indirectly. Without them there will be little left of Islam in Iran, never mind the Quran. Most Iranians do not bother reading the Quran, nor necessarily understand it!

Anonymous said...


You assert that "Secularism is what is bringing Christian Europe to it's knees", which is such a load of bollocks that I simply want to scream. No, secularism isn't the problem, religion is the problem. As Pat Condell
, YouTube's most high-profile anti-theist commentator noted(On his website's FAQ section ), "our indulgence of Christianity has encouraged Islam to claim equal status and threaten our freedom". Had religionists such as yourself not given the idea that religious faith worthy of respect, Muslims would have had no basis asking for privileges under the banner of "religious tolerance".

Next, you're saying that "If Iran frees itself of the dictatorship and copies the secularism of the West then nothing much has been accomplished." So you're suggesting Iran should free itself from one religion and enslave itself to another, even one that is less malignant than Islam? Is that a solution? I don't think so. A secular world is a sane world.

"God bless a free Iran."

God does not exist. Certainly not the God of the Bible, nor of the Quran.

Amir Nosrat said...

I should mention beforehand that the concept of Taqiya is not a phenomenon unique to Muslims as it can be found in various other cultures. It's personal implications correlate with natural human instincts (such as the detained UK sailors' public admittance of not crossing Iranian territorial waters while under IR guards custody) and its wartime implications can be seen in texts that date back as far as Sun Tzu (China 5,000 BC). And surely Taqiya is not a product of the Shias as it was implemented almost simultaneously with the inception of Islam.

Even assuming that Taqiya is bad or undesirable, I must admit that there is no real scientific correlation between Taqiya and Taarof. Taarof is not meant to be a form of deception or a survival insticnt, but rather a form of politeness and I don't really see how it would have been derived from Taqiya unless I am pointed to solid evidence saying otherwise. I find this suggestion the equivalent of comparing spaghetti to worms. Just because they look like each other doesn't mean that we should eat worms or throw away spaghetti.

The point I am trying to make is that by associating all that has gone wrong with Muslims is a very unscientific, naive and counterproductive method of solving them and is a product of much of the speculative and conspiratory habit that has engulfed Iranians. By believing this and calling to get rid of all Mullas, regardless of their ideological or political beliefs, is the equivalent of the IR's efforts in downplaying the pre-Islamic culture of Iranians. In other words, you are applying the same poison that has riddled Iran for over a century now.

You should not associate personal beliefs and religions as a source of progress or detriment. It would be much like saying that Christianity doesn't work due to the state of Europeans in the Middle Ages or that Christianity is inherently backwards.

I should mention that this is the last time I will be making this statement (that Islam is not Iran's cause of backwardness or Zoroastrianism will lead Iran to glory), and I would like to suggest that by being so spiteful of a line of thought will not solve anything but rather add to the problems of Iranians. Iranian society has changed much over the past 200 years and it would take us another few generations for us to get somewhere formidable and it won't happen with the eradication of Muslims, Zoroastrians, or Bahais, but rather with the rise of libertarianism, critical thinking, and the will to coexist, features that will take time to grow.

Anonymous said...

I hereby issue a fatwa regarding terminology. From now on, there shall be no more mentions of "Islam" (the Religion of Peace (TM)) or "Muslim". From now on, the proper terms are "Islamonazism" and "Islamonazi". The justification for this is the extremely close parallels between Islam and Nazism: cultish devotion to a leader (Mohammad or Hitler), quest for world domination and destruction of opponents, especially Jews. Remember, Cyrus the Great is a Jewish hero for letting the Jewish exiles return home and, further, underwriting the reconstruction of the Temple and other institutions.

As for WWII. I have seen idiotic claims that Reza Shah was a British agent, the proof being the British invasion. The truth is that Reza Shah was incompetent in dealing with major powers. He allied himself with Germany as a counterweight to Iran's historic British and Russian enemies. This failed attempt and divide-and-rule was modeled on his domestic policies. However, international powers are several magnitudes more powerful than provincial leaders. On the eve of the invasion, the Brits and Soviets were fighting for their very survival. The Nazi army was at the foothills of the Caucasus. Meanwhile, Iran, a German ally, though officially neutral, sat in a strategic location between the British Near East and Middle East and between the Brits and Soviets. The invasion was completely predictable. The proper policy would have been to join the Allies and maybe recover northern Azerbaijan after the war.

Anonymous said...

"The truth is that Reza Shah and his son were more of a tyrant than the IR would ever be."

The comparison is ludicrous at best, and you know it. Perhaps you've been living in a coma, in denial, or simply have not kept up with atrocities commited by the IR in Iran for the last 29 years.

"Not because the IR has Islamic elements, but because it allows more freedom of thought than Reza Shah and his son would ever allow combined."

Yes, IR allows more freedom of thought so long as you keep it to yourself or are willing to pay for it in Prison or often be executed, well unless the expressed thoughts are in favor of IR.

Obviously and unfortunately, both Reza Shah and his son allowed far more freedom of thought & expression than the present despicable ruling clergy and their thugs and goons deserved. IRI is a testament to their critical mistakes. I can assure you that this mistake will not repeated by many Iranians in the future.

"Now we can probably agree that the IR has to change because obviously right now they're not doing that well in promoting basic freedoms, but that's a different battleground and not the one that you are putting yourself in."

They aren't doing that well right now?! Meaning they were doing fine to begin with or for x number of years?! This is an incredulous comment by anyone who is remotely informed about IRI's abominable actions starting on day one.

The above quotes clearly convey your true stance regarding IRI, Islam, your "Islamic influence". The rest of your words are contrived. You actually remind me of the reformists of IRI who like to dazzle people with their psuedo intellectual babble.

As I said before, Al Taqiyah (dissimulation) is an Islamic concept, particularly practiced in Shia Islam. And, no we weren't talking about the Chinese influence on Iran, but the Islamic Influence on Iranian culture. Your words and claims in this thread are perfect examples of the practice of not only Al Taqiyah but also of "Talk Over".

Aryamehr said...


You took the words out of my mouth. If he hadn't given it away with his "islam's great influence on Iran" talk then this put the record straight:

"The truth is that Reza Shah and his son were more of a tyrant than the IR would ever be. Not because the IR has Islamic elements, but because it allows more freedom of thought than Reza Shah and his son would ever allow combined."

I think this guy is trying to play with our minds :D It's funny to what lengths these regime apologists are willing to go in passing off utter nonsense as facts.

Reza Shah the Great and his son were more of a "tyrant" than the terrorist Islamic Republic will ever be??? Have some shame for God's sake.

Amir Nosrat said...

You guys really keep missing my point.

They say blinded liberals and blinded conservatives are equally annoying. I guess the same can be applied to Iranian politics.

Not only do you guys take words out of my mouth (as Aryamehr makes false quotations of me as I have never used the words 'great Islamic influence'), assume false opinions (that I'm in favor of a particular religious creed), and selectively ignore what I have to say (that you guys need to stop looking at religion as the only factor in Iranian progress) but refuse to allow yourselves to listen to a different opinion and engage in a negative criticism for one's beliefs.

Unfortunately, I'm tired of repeating myself and to be very honest you guys aren't very different than basijis and hezbollahis who persist on false claims of Islamic superiority and of the IR's flawlessness. I guess I had overestimated your openmindedness.

As I would say to all Iranians: "Stop coming up with conspiracy theories and get the facts straight."


Aryamehr said...


Nobody is misquoting you - anyone can see what the intentions of your comments where. You are here to downplay the savagery and backwardedness that (what you try to potray as positive) Islamic influence/system has brought to Iran.

Once you had made this clear you then proceeded to attack the founding fathers of modern Iran, Reza Shah the Great and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and as a true regime apologist made the absurd accusation that the Pahlavi Dynasty to be more of a tyrant than the terrorist Islamic Republic EVER will be.

Not only have you insulted our intelligence but you've insulted an entire nation with your statements.

As for this statement of yours:

"I guess I had overestimated your openmindedness."

loooool! even if all hell freezes over i wont be "openminded" to accept utter islamic lies (taqqiyah) which is what you are trying to pass off as "the truth" here.

Your kind really needs to do some soul-searching and have some shame in making the kind of statements that you make to mislead and fool Iranians.

Anonymous said...

a student:

Can you give me a source for Iran (Reza Shah) being a Nazi Germany Ally during WWII ?

As I understand it, Iran was not even unofficially a Nazi Germany "ally" during WWII, though there has been a fair bit of speculation and conjecture disseminated, mostly published at the time and thereafter by then "allies".

To my knowledge, Reza Shah was keen to enlist German help for modernization purposes of Iran - a request which the Brits were refusing and had refused to do (remember the Qajar Dynasty and the British influence/deals). Brits have always had a vested interested in Iran, its oil, economy and politics. Same equally applies to the Russians.

I believed "the allies" (Britain in particular) disposal of Reza Shah (his exile finally to South Africa) supposedly based on their incessant claims that Reza Shah was a Nazi sympathizer was a deliberate excuse to ensure the occupation and domination of Iran during WWII due, as you mention, to Iran's strategic geographical location.

Iran actually opened its borders to Jews, especially Polish ones, including non Jews, starting in latter part of 1940 through the port of Pahlavi, with many Jews and non Jews from Poland fleeing to Iran thereafter in 1941-1942. Strange how Reza Shah should've been an "ally of Nazi Germany" yet set the basis for this significant humanitarian favor for the Jews & other Eastern Europeans.

Please provide a bona fide source if you can for your comment, I'm really interested. Thanks.

Aryamehr: you aware of anything related to the above? I'd like to know out of interest.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I wonder if it's ok to link your homepage to my blogg!!!???

Aryamehr said...

Hej Airieweichie!

You are more than welcome to exchange blog links - i'll put yours up as well.

Anonymous said...

Nosrat thinks Iranian civilization started after Islam. Iran is almost a 6000 year civilization.

All of the pre-Islamic are much more substantial than after Arab's conquest of Iran. In fact, Islam had eroded and halted all those achievments.

The arab/islam culture is not conducive to progress or anything positive; as it is clearly evidenced today by the miserable state of affairs in all arab/muslim countries.

I highly recommend Nosrat to educate himself about Iran. You can start by reading Abbas Milani's book, "LOST WISDOM" or other books explaining the pre-Islamic Iran.