Blog
Comments
Anonymous_Observer 's Recent Blogs
JJ- Why the Selective Censorship?
Anonymous_Observer | 5 years ago
12 705
Iran Floods. Where to Donate
Anonymous_Observer | 5 years ago
4 1133
40 Years After the 1979 Devolution: Who won and who lost
Anonymous_Observer | 5 years ago
22 901
The New Yorker: How Donald Trump Gave Democrats the Working-Class Blues
MajidNaficy | less than a minute ago
0 2
Category: None
Did the Iranian communists really win though? (Perhaps a question for antsy!) I mean short of the one's that survived, came to U.S and now lecture every one about democracy and free markets! Most got killed by this regime (Something that shah and previous regime did not do) , some survived and reside in Europe and still talk about Glorious 1917 bolshevik revolution and how the 1979 revolution some how got stolen from them by bunch of iliterate mullah's go figure!
MRX - you raise a good point. I think to them, they won because shah was overthrown. The ones who survived the purge certainly think so--even if the regime locks them up too. Example: Abbas Edalat.
Add JJ (Sar Dabir-in-chief)to the list of the victors!
AO and 1b1s1b
The chelo Koobab & abdoogh khiar for the 40th revolution party at Iran interest section in washingto DC was supplied by the Marjan restaurant ion Washington DC. You might want to call them or go on their web site and give them a peice of your mind!
MRX joon,
Yous should also call them and complain why you were not invited, after working so hard here, 24/7 as MRX/Antsy/Ahang/Bavafa and so on! From what I heard Faramarz was invited but not you, and he ate all the tah dig!!!
AO:
-Mullahs, who had been fighting for power for 700 years;
Who says so? They only discovered politics around 150 years ago.
1b1s1b: You are correct. I should have added a category called Revolutionary Morons.
Zolf: Good to know about Marjan Restaurant. I don't live in DC, and I usually don't go to Iranian restaurants as they are mainly kabab houses and I don't eat kabab, but I make sure to mention this to my friends who live in DC so they can avoid this place.
Amir[the]bear (I love bears BTW, so I highlight that part of your username): I think the mullahs have been looking for power since the Safavid era. Look into Allameh Majlesi's writings. The whole Shia doctrine is a political power structure.
I think A.O meant 700 century, when the Islam came to power.
Safavid and Shah Ismael who ordered Shia as a main and official religion was in 1514. Furthermore, shah Ismael brought mullahs from Lebanon to Persia to teach principles of Shiaism to Iranians. Before Shah Ismael, Iranians were Sunni. Shah Ismael main objecitve was to prevent Ottoman Empire invasion to Persia, so he used Shia as a weapon of nationalism.
Mullah Baghr Majlesi was in 1600. His write up is full of superstitus. For example, he says households should keep the birds and animals in the backyards so the bad spirits (Jen) get busy with them and doesn't bother the occupants in the house. He also says once you walk in the bathroom, you should walk with right leg first then left legs second because that prevent the person to fall inside the toilet. ... Majlisi's book , which I read during my high school time, is full of superstitious stuff. I remember most of those comic and stupid staff as of this write up.
After revolution, one day I was walking on street of Chalus. Across street One big picture of a turban guy caught my attention. At first I thought it was Khominie's picture. Under the picture said with a bold letters : "The Leader of Islamic movements". Curiously, I walked cross street to see who was the person. As I got closer, I realized that it was a picture of Mullah Bagher Majlisi. At that point I was completely disappointed. I was thinking what a big mistake people made.
Religion shits the brian and the islamist revolution in Iran is proof positive not to mention other overwhelming evidence of it you see even in the "civilized world"!
Ex_Cop:
”Religion shits the brian ...”
Hey Ex,
Who is Brian? LOL
Correction : 7 th century , NOT 700 century
also none of Majlisi writing is about politic. it is full of superstitous stuff. Shia politic started with Jamale din Asad Abadi. Naser e din Shah sent him to exile to Turkey for his political activities.
For those who want to know more about political Islam’s role in the Qajar era, see the series posted here:
https://www.balatarin.com/search?q=سابقه+خیانت+آخوندها
But AO is actually right. Political Islam actually dates back all the way to Sadr e eslam.
what do u think Eid Ghadir means? What do u think Hadith of Thaqalayn means? Why do u think IRI puts so much stock into that particular event and why do they teach that Hadith a zillion times in schools?
Its because they explain the need to have mullahs in power in perpetuity. It basically means this: “it won’t matter if you democratically elect to do something or not. The imam will always be the head of the society in all matters of state and politics, because that’s what the prophet wanted”
so shia Islam from its birth was a political movement. So was Sunni Islam actually. But Shia Islam sums up the political structure around one figure, one leader, one Imam. Sunni Islam does not.
otherwise they don’t differ at all. Islam to begin with is a political ideology that is intolerant of other competing viewpoints. It is tamamiyat-khah
تمامیت خواه
So AO is right. This mullahs-must-have-power shit goes straight back to Mohammed.
I recommend everyone to read the works of Richard Spencer on Islam.
Example how Khwajeh Nasireddin Tusi (a supposedly liberal mullah in the ilkhanid era) would kill his ideological and political opponents:
https://www.balatarin.com/permlink/2019/2/9/5034567
Dear Fesenjoon - Islam is entirely a political / military doctrine, with a little mix of Arab ethnic superiority. The "religious" stuff in the Quran are mainly copy and paste stuff from Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Egyptian Mythology, with a very healthy dose of Arab paganism (example: Hajj, a completely Pagan Arab tradition). Mohammad was so obsessed with achieving political and military victories that he entered into power sharing deals with pagan tribes whose chieftains symbolically "accepted" Islam--just so that he could quickly consolidate power. His main concern was consolidation of power--and women, of course. The dude went on a tear, and didn't even pass on a seven year old.
And the Shia version of Islam is the perfection and systemization of the Islamic political system. What the bedoiun Arabs lacked in knowledge on how to run a government and a beuracracy, the Iranians added and created the modern Shia monstrocity.
Btw, has anybody noticed that Daheh Fajr is actually 11 days?! Always a delight to point it out to regime fans :-))
pagan (n.)
mid-14c., "person of non-Christian or non-Jewish faith," from Late Latin paganus"pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant" noun use of adjective meaning "of the country, of a village," from pagus "country people; province, rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere"to fix, fasten," from PIE root *pag- "to fasten." As an adjective from early 15c.
The religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganusin Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c. 202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.
The English surname Paine, Payne, etc., appears by old records to be from Latin paganus, but whether in the sense "villager," "rustic," or "heathen" is disputed. It also was a common Christian name in 13c., "and was, no doubt, given without any thought of its meaning" ["Dictionary of English Surnames"].
https://www.etymonline.com/word/pagan
On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of whatever happened in 1979, a gentleman sent me a video clip in which a mullah claims the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was beheaded by Ayatollah Khomeini who had received a sword from the grandson of the Prophet of Islam. He claims the beheaded Shah attacked Khomeini and Khomeini disembowled him. And that’s how the Shah died. While the mullah was speaking, the camera showed the audience. Not all looked dumb or illiterate.
I wonder how many millions of Muslims around the world have heard and believe the Mullah’s story.
If Islam meant to be political religion and want to reach political power from the time of Muhammad, so why 225 million Indonezians don't want to take power and establish Islamic state. ? We never hear anything about political Islam in Asian countries or Russian proviende in that respect. We only hear "political Islam" in the Middle East or rather in Lebanon and Iraq. All these mess started with criminal mullahs in Iran in 1979 and it goes back from the time of Seyed Jamal e din assad Abadi in late 1800's. We don't see any poltical Islam before him. In fact, Iranains were Sunni almiost for 1000 year. Shah Ismael forcefull conversion from Sunni to Shai intimated with massacre and bloodshed. We don't see any Islamic movements in Iran before Jamal e din Asad Abadi. We had Babi (Bahaie) movement during Qajar, but it was NOT Islamic and it was NOT meant to establish Islamic state.
Tehran university professor, Ali Asghar Haj Seyed Javadi says: "door kheez 200 saal rohaneyat barai kasb e ghodrat." It means 200 years of mullahs' effort to reach political power.
Actually we have seen growth of political Islam all over the planet including in Russia, china, Indochina, Malaysia, Pakistan, India, Egypt, philipines and ton of places in Africa. Obviously in places like China and Russia Islamists are not tolerated, the system crushes them rather brutally. That being said the match that lit the fuse for the inslamists were two events: 1) Khomeini’s victory over a non-Arab semi secular state with the help of U.S behind the scenes 2) Defat of Soviet Union in Afghanistan with the help of U.S this time openly.
With Saudi Arabia establishing tens of thousands of Wahhabi schools from Pakistan to horn of Africa, this disease will continue for decades to come.
Chera baba. Indonesia also has its share. And so do Pakistan and Saudi, which are worse than even Shias, and both Sunni.
To say that Islam is not political just means you havent studied it well.
What do you think it means when Muhammed calls himself Khatam al-Anbiya (verse 40, Sureh Ahzab)? That's a shrewed political move right there. He essentially is cutting off the validity and legitimacy of any future religion right there.
The very concept of having a Qebleh is a political move. It ties God to a particular location, tribe, language, etc. Think about it.
Hadith Thaqalayn (which is actually verified by Sunnis) is a political staement. Only, the Mullahs jumped and capitalized it by interpreting it as the core of Velayat Faghih.
Jesus (Matthew 22:21) says "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." And what does Muhammed come up with instead? He creates the notion of Jihad against Kuffar. That's as political as it gets.
Maybe some sects and splinters like Sufis and Bahais tried to move away from politics in the past 1400 years. But have no doubt: Islam at its core is political and highly centralized. That's why it's so successful in recruiting the disenfranchised and masses.
Islam is first and foremost, the religion of violence with Sword next to Quran (dine shamshir). It's political by nature (as are all monotheistic) but islam is particularly pernicious and unevolved relative to Judaism and Christianity both because it's younger and also because it is Bedoin. Shiite elevated it to fomality and were quite brazen about it in Iran including during Mashrooteh
سید حسن مدرس: سیاست ما دیانت ماست و دیانت ما سیاست ما