Islam: Ideal religion for anti-racists

[gmork]

Was the "call to prayer" the first rap "song?" :lmao:


United Colors Of Islam (http://www.al-sunnah.com/colors.htm)

BILAL THE ABYSSINIAN One of the earliest converts to Islam was an Abyssinian slave named Bilal. Traditionally, black Africans were a lowly people in the sight of Arabs who thought them to be of little use beyond entertainment and slavery. When Bilal converted to Islam, his pagan master had him brutally tortured in the scorching desert heat until Abu Bakr, the Prophet's closest friend, rescued Bilal by buying his freedom. Muhammad appointed Bilal as his muezzin and the call to prayer announced from minarets in every comer of the world today echoes the exact same words proclaimed by Bilal. Thus, a onetime despised slave achieved one of the highest positions of honour in becoming Islam’s first muezzin. Although ancient Greece is accredited with being the birthplace of democracy, it was a democracy only for its Free citizens - the majority of its population, being slaves, were denied the right to elect their ruler. Yet Islam ordained that a slave could himself be ruler! The Prophet ordered: 'Stick to obedience (i.e. 'Obey your ruler) even if he be an Abyssinian slave.' (Ahmad)


Racism...a tool of Satan! And racists can only have been led astray by Satan!



Racism: A Gross Sin and Psycho-Spiritual Illness (http://www.submission.org/islam/racism.html) from Your best source for ISLAM (SUBMISSION) (http://www.submission.org/islam/)

An intelligent person realizes that racism is more than a biased attitude or prejudice towards others. Racism should be duly classified as a mental disorder by mental health professional organizations, national and international. Racism is also a spiritual illness first manifested by humanity's ardent enemy, Satan.

Racism is wholly incompatible with submission to God alone (Islam). A person who submits to God alone does not have a need to embrace racist ideas and beliefs to feel better about him or her self. A Submitter (Muslim) recognizes that God alone is the Superior One over His creation with no equal or 'competitor.' In contrast, a racist gives him or her self over to the First Racist. True Submitters are protected by God from Satan and his tool of racism.


You have no power over My servants. You only have power over the strayers who follow you. (15:42)

O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant. (49:13)


Dr. E. Douglass Brown


:lmao: gotta love the image...says it all, methinks...And the anti-racist moslems tut-tutting about poor Belfast is almost as amusing.



http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z26/gmork_hunting/focusonrace.jpg

Islam: The Solution to Racism and Prejudice (http://www.islaam.ca/news/latest/islam-the-solution-to-racism-and-prejudice.html)

Belfast has been labelled by the European Union as the most racist city in Europe and by the United Nations as the most racist city in the world. This programme was sponsored by a government funded function to discuss racism and prejudice, and in this case - hear what Islam says about the topic.

Allah, the Majestic mentions:

And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge. (ar-Rum, 30:22)

O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allâh is that (believer) who has At-Taqwa [i.e. pious) . Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (Al-Hujurat 49:13)



Hmm, more on racism as being from the devil...and of Islam being 'successful' in fighting this great evil!



Homepage: The Reign of Islamic Dawah (TROID.org) (http://www.troid.org/)

Article: Racism: Is there a solution? (http://www.troid.org/new-basics/a-warning-to-the-new-muslim/racism-is-there-a-solution.html)

"(Allaah) said: 'What prevented you (Iblis) that you did not prostrate?' Iblis said; 'I am better then him, you created me from fire and you created him from clay'"
(Surah Al-A'raf 7:12)

Islam however, is not like this. Because Islam was not revealed for a specific set of people or for a specific period of time, it is able to answer this question in a truly objective manner. This is one of the reasons why Islam has been so successful against racism. The origins of racism, as explained by Islam, go back to the beginning of mankind's creation. Before the creation of man, Allaah the Most High, had already created the Angels and the Jinn. Amongst the Angels at that time was a Jinn by the name of Iblis. Iblis had resided amongst the Angels and was very obedient to Allaah. However, this was to change, as Allaah then created man. This new creation of Allaah was created from clay and named Adam. He was first in the line of humanity, and as a result occupies a very special place in history. From him and his wife Hawwa (Eve), the generations of humanity have descended. After his creation, Allaah ordered the Angels and those with them to prostrate to Adam. The Qur'an informs us of this important event, from which we may all learn a valuable lesson:

And (remember) when We said to the Angels: 'Prostrate yourselves to Adam', and they all prostrated except Iblis. He refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:34)

and:

"(Allaah) said: 'What prevented you (Iblis) that you did not prostrate?' Iblis said; 'I am better then him, you created me from fire and you created him from clay'"
(Surah Al-A'raf 7:12)

In Islam, the other name for Iblis is 'Shaytan'[5] or the Devil. Thus, the root of racism is attributed to the Devil. Iblis's insistence on being better than Adam, aroused his arrogance and pride. And what was the reason for this insistence? Nothing more then the fact that Iblis was of fire and Adam was of clay. It was at this stage in the history of the world, that the ugly head of racism first reared itself.


Iblis, the Devil, was consequently the world's first racist! This Islamic explanation helps us to understand the reality of racism. Pride and arrogance leads to people thinking that they are better than others, simply because of their physical makeup. This pride and arrogance is truly a Devilish trait which humans have learnt from Iblis, the accursed Devil. Iblis's refusal to prostrate before Adam led to his expulsion from the company of the Angels, and he vowed to Allaah that:


".. I shall indeed adorn the path of error for them (humanity) on the earth and I shall mislead them all, except Your chosen slaves among them"
(Surah Al-Hijr 15:39-40)

True to his word, the astray Devil has indeed adorned the path of error for most of mankind throughout the ages. One of these adornments has of course been the Devilish behaviour of Racism.


So, no pride in race for Moslems, only in their Faith. Their book and their scholars say they can only be one big happy melange. In fact, racism is not only wrong, it sounds like something akin to a Christian Original Sin.

Anyone care to dispute this? :)

[Hermanric and Horse]

Anyone care to dispute this? :)
Nope. Not me. But this argument works just as well against Christianity. Which is fine by me; but it's the folks who think Christianity is gonna save the White Man who will deny this.

[gmork]

Nope. Not me. But this argument works just as well against Christianity.

No doubt. In fact, I agree. Though I've never heard of any Christian saying racism was straight from the devil, the way these Islamic sites are all claiming.

Which is fine by me; but it's the folks who think Christianity is gonna save the White Man who will deny this.

I agree, but its too bad Perun's not a member here. He made a stronger case than I first would have thought on this matter. I still didn't buy his arguments in toto, but I think somebody else could if they squinted hard enough.

[The Exorcist]

Nope. Not me. But this argument works just as well against Christianity.

And most other religions as well, but human nature seems wins in the end. If you stepped foot in a Persian home and called them on par with Arabs, you'd probably get kicked out. Same goes for white Baptist families with black Baptists, Israeli Jews with American Jews, Chinese Buddhists with Vietnamese Buddhists, Serbians with Turks, etc.

[gmork]

And most other religions as well, but human nature seems wins in the end. If you stepped foot in a Persian home and called them on par with Arabs, you'd probably get kicked out.

So most Moslems fail in their practice of Islam? Meaning they know what their Prophet said but cheerfully disregard it. Interesting idea, if true.

Same goes for white Baptist families with black Baptists,

Agreed.

Israeli Jews with American Jews,

Not so sure. What makes you think this?

Chinese Buddhists with Vietnamese Buddhists,

Probably, but I have no idea, honestly.

Serbians with Turks, etc.

Don't see how this applies, most Serbs are Orthodox Christians, most Turks are Sunni Moslems. :confused: Perhaps you meant Albanians and Turks?

[The Exorcist]

So most Moslems fail in their practice of Islam? Meaning they know what their Prophet said but cheerfully disregard it. Interesting idea, if true.

For Iranians, race is a heavy thing. Culture seems to come second, and since the Arabs kind of tried to destroy it before they were kicked out, let's just say that they're not casted favorably in Iran's history.

To say that all Muslims believe in "racial equality" (first I heard of it) is to ignore the fact that there are many variations within the religion. This applies to Christianity and Judaism as well, obviously.



Not so sure. What makes you think this?

I'm basing it on all of the accounts I hear of Israeli Jews disliking American Jews, but I don't see it at the same level as the others I've mentioned.




Don't see how this applies, most Serbs are Orthodox Christians, most Turks are Sunni Moslems. :confused: Perhaps you meant Albanians and Turks?

I believe, by the end, I was prying further away from religious principles and just went on ethnic conflicts

[Hermanric and Horse]

No doubt. In fact, I agree. Though I've never heard of any Christian saying racism was straight from the devil, the way these Islamic sites are all claiming.
Really? Then you haven't been listening for it. Christianity has been on a "racism is evil and un-Christian and therefore of the devil" kick for the past thirty or forty years, at least. There are political opportunists in Islam just as there are in Christianity, they have picked up on white people's current state of PC self-flagellation, so you can't blame them if they are willing to pick up the anti-racism card and use it to their own advantage. Sure Islam was officially racially egalitarian (as was Christianity) but it was never that big an issue within Islam until Western PC dogmas made it politically advantageous for Islam to emphasize this. It has never changed in the slightest the actual behavior of Moslems of whatever race towards other racial groups. Religions usually bend to the will of the cultures that adopt them, and not the other way around. Anti-racism is simply the current cultural imperative within the West. "Anti-racist Islam" is a pose. It's expedient and useful.

I agree, but its too bad Perun's not a member here. He made a stronger case than I first would have thought on this matter. I still didn't buy his arguments in toto, but I think somebody else could if they squinted hard enough.No need to repeat anything; I'm aware of this and there's plenty of that type of thinking on places like Original Dissent. These people are salivating at the thought of renewed Christian vs. Moslem religious wars, because it is a weapon they can use against Western secularists. There is a basic point of disagreement here: those religious sorts see Christianity/the West/whites as essentially the same thing, or as things that are not in conflict with each other, but at bottom they see Christianity as the issue that trumps all others so when push comes to shove anything in conflict with their version of Christianity has got to go.

On the other side are seculars - some of whom are in fact religious, just not of the fundy or literalist or exclusivist variety of religion - who see other issues as more definitive of what constitutes "the West" or "whites", for instance secularism is seen not as the enemy of the West but a logical and necessary evolution of Western culture, developed to bring peace amongst whites and prevent us from slaughtering each other over silly points of religious dogma, and therefore it would be a major defeat and backwards step for the West if it abandoned the progress of the past 400 years to revert back to a medieval conception of the role of religion in society. Same thing goes for other issues like science.

The problem is that since WWII, the seculars have been dominated by leftism and secularism and leftism have come to be seen as essentially the same thing. But this ain't so. Most of the evolution of secularism over the past half century has been in the wrong direction, but that does not mean that turning back the clock 200 years or 500 years is a good idea, either. There are other paths forward that have been shut off and denied to us since WWII. It isn't simply a stark choice between reactionary Christianism on the one hand and leftist secularism on the other; there are other choices.

And I know what some of you are thinking, and no this is not an apology for nazism/fascism. That form of extreme nationalism had its own problems, and perpetuated a number of the failings of extreme religion, in secular form. The reaction against it after WWII, however, ie, leftist secularism/cultural Bolshevism/PC multiculturalism, has in most respects been a "cure" that is worse than the disease. But so would extreme Christianism be, if it was strong enough to get what it wants.

[gmork]

For Iranians, race is a heavy thing. Culture seems to come second, and since the Arabs kind of tried to destroy it before they were kicked out, let's just say that they're not casted favorably in Iran's history.

So, culture and ethnicity come before Islam in Iran? Startling. Do you have any references from Iranian sources that trumpet the supremacy of culture and ethnicity over religion? (And they'd have to be in English, sorry.)

To say that all Muslims believe in "racial equality" (first I heard of it)

I didn't say anything vis a vis what Moslems may or may not actually believe, I don't think, though it is certainly an interesting topic. I'm honestly more interested in the context of this thread in seeing what their Prophet taught vis a vis racism. And on that you seem to agree with me, that Muhammad was a staunch anti-racist. Does that statement make sense?

is to ignore the fact that there are many variations within the religion.

Aside from the Sunni/Shia split, what exactly are you talking about? I agree their faith make take on some differences in local practice, but would they ever chuck Muhammad's teachings out, at least as an ideal? Wouldn't that tend to render Islam, well, un-Islamic?

This applies to Christianity and Judaism as well, obviously.

No argument from me, there.

[gmork]

Really? Then you haven't been listening for it. Christianity has been on a "racism is evil and un-Christian and therefore of the devil" kick for the past thirty or forty years, at least.

Not like what I quoted. Go back and read the OP. Racism coming straight from "Shaitan," etc.

There are political opportunists in Islam just as there are in Christianity,

Agreed.

they have picked up on white people's current state of PC self-flagellation, so you can't blame them if they are willing to pick up the anti-racism card and use it to their own advantage.

So the people running these sites are cynically misrepresenting Islam for their own ends? Moreover, there seem to be no Moslems out there countering this anti-racism position, at least that I've found. Are there any?

Sure Islam was officially racially egalitarian (as was Christianity)

So, the ideal for Islam is anti-racism. That's what I've found as well. Not sure where you're going here, beyond that.

but it was never that big an issue within Islam until Western PC dogmas made it politically advantageous for Islam to emphasize this.

What did the mullahs, etc., teach before these dogmas came into play? That may not be do-able, I admit, but it would be interesting if available...But are there any Quranic verses to cite in favor of racial separation? Or (say) against race-mixing?

It has never changed in the slightest the actual behavior of Moslems of whatever race towards other racial groups. Religions usually bend to the will of the cultures that adopt them, and not the other way around.

I'm under the impression that groups like the Taliban would vehemently reject the above. As in, if a local culture does not measure up to the Qu'ran or Sunnah, you change the culture, not the other way around.

Anyway, so what? As best I can tell, this simply means these Muslims have failed to heed their Prophet, insofar as they've ever placed cultural or ethnic or yes racial concerns ahead of religious ones. Making them defective as Muslims.

Anti-racism is simply the current cultural imperative within the West.

Agreed.

"Anti-racist Islam" is a pose. It's expedient and useful.

Not really, as it seems to reflect what their Prophet taught, doesn't it?

[Hermanric and Horse]

Not like what I quoted. Go back and read the OP. Racism coming straight from "Shaitan," etc.
I fail to see why this is such a big distinction. Saying bad things are straight from "Shaitan" is just the Islamic style when they want to condemn something. Christians do the same thing, they just may word things a bit differently. It doesn't matter how they phrase it, the message is the same: "racism bad; God no like; don't be racist!". I'm sure I could find Christians saying racism comes straight from Satan if I felt like looking for it; there's always a Christian somewhere blaming something he doesn't like on Satan. Who cares? The Islamic denunciation of "racism" is not materially different from the Christian denunciation of "racism".

So the people running these sites are cynically misrepresenting Islam for their own ends?Who knows? Are anti-racist Christians cynically misrepresenting Christianity for their own ends? Maybe. I don't know. What does it matter? Religions always do this. They are constantly catering to the demands of the moment and the prevailing prejudices, even while they claim their religion is unchanging and unaffected by necessity and opportunism. Islam is just like every other religion in this respect. So why are some statements on a Moslem website such a big deal? They are behaving just like the Christians.
Moreover, there seem to be no Moslems out there countering this anti-racism position, at least that I've found. Are there any?
I have no idea. But Muslem websites aren't any more representative of Islam as a whole than Christian websites are representative of Christianity. Christians condemning anti-racism are a tiny minority; so what if they have websites countering anti-racism: they have no influence within Christianity and don't represent anyone but themelves or tiny splinter groups. Since no one has used "anti-racism" yet to target Arabs or other Moslems the way whites are targeted by "anti-racism" I'm not surprised it isn't a big topic amongst Moslems. If "anti-racism" was a tool used to keep Moslems down (say) I don't think we'd see too many Christians opposing "anti-racism" either.

So, the ideal for Islam is anti-racism. That's what I've found as well. Not sure where you're going here, beyond that.
Just as the ideal for Christianity is anti-racism. Not sure what you're getting at, apart from looking for excuses to single out Islam for a fault that is shared by Christianity.

What did the mullahs, etc., teach before these dogmas came into play? That may not be do-able, I admit, but it would be interesting if available...But are there any Quranic verses to cite in favor of racial separation? Or (say) against race-mixing?
I have no idea, but they seemed to have no problem with racial slavery and de facto racism and segregation for negroes, the same as with White Christians prior to the Civil War or WWII. It's incredibly easy to find a ruling or a verse or something to justify just about anything. Christianity and Islam both do this. They are every bit as flexible and changeable as a Communist propagandist using dialectical materialism to justify Stalin's pact with Hitler, for instance. They change constantly while insisting they have never deviated one iota from "God's unchanging Word".

I'm under the impression that groups like the Taliban would vehemently reject the above. As in, if a local culture does not measure up to the Qu'ran or Sunnah, you change the culture, not the other way around.
Which is why groups like the Taliban are hated by other Moslems and eventually get kicked out of power. Dancing, music, sports, art, boy buggering - all proved to be too popular for the Taliban to eradicate. The Taliban are not the first Moslem group who tried to impose their views on the larger culture and failed. There is a definite limit to what religion can impose on a culture if the culture is unwilling to accept it.
Anyway, so what? As best I can tell, this simply means these Muslims have failed to heed their Prophet, insofar as they've ever placed cultural or ethnic or yes racial concerns ahead of religious ones. Making them defective as Muslims.
Just as most Christians are defective Christians, by this definition. This is the way of things, always has been, always will be.

Not really, as it seems to reflect what their Prophet taught, doesn't it?
No, not really. "Racism" is a 20th century concept. There wasn't even a word for it before the 1920s/30s. All Islam teaches as far as I can tell is equality of all in religion before God, the same as Christianity teaches. It does not imply that therefore all people are equal in terms of intellect, ability, property, or social rights. That is a distinctively modern, secular idea that was not present in Islam or originally in Christianity - although it is an idea that has crept into Western Christianity in the past two or three centuries.

[The Exorcist]

So, culture and ethnicity come before Islam in Iran? Startling. Do you have any references from Iranian sources that trumpet the supremacy of culture and ethnicity over religion? (And they'd have to be in English, sorry.)

I can't recall the texts so much (I don't speak or read and write Farsi). My family and I are Persian as well as other Persians I've spoken to who feel the same way about ethnicity and culture. Hell, my family basically disowned my uncle for marring an Arab woman. Walk up to any Persian and ask him/her about how they feel about Persian culture and ethnicity and in relation to Islam. Hell, I've spoken to many who believe that Islam is a foreign religion that should stay with the Arabs.

The works of Ferdowsi, known as the Shahnamei (Book of Kings), is accredited in preserving the Persian language against the influence of Arabic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnameh


I didn't say anything vis a vis what Moslems may or may not actually believe, I don't think, though it is certainly an interesting topic. I'm honestly more interested in the context of this thread in seeing what their Prophet taught vis a vis racism. And on that you seem to agree with me, that Muhammad was a staunch anti-racist. Does that statement make sense?

Don't know, not Muslim and never read the Koran. All I know is from what my father told me, who was more of a religious man at one point in his life.


Aside from the Sunni/Shia split, what exactly are you talking about? I agree their faith make take on some differences in local practice, but would they ever chuck Muhammad's teachings out, at least as an ideal? Wouldn't that tend to render Islam, well, un-Islamic?

Well, there will be universal tenets. In Christianity, for example, it's that Jesus was the son of God who died on the cross for our sins (at least that's what I got). Islam has its share of universal tenets, but also keep in mind you have Suufi sects, Wahabists, and people in general who interpret the Koran differently from one another.

[MrLiar]

So, no pride in race for Moslems, only in their Faith. Their book and their scholars say they can only be one big happy melange. In fact, racism is not only wrong, it sounds like something akin to a Christian Original Sin.

Anyone care to dispute this? :)

This is the very crux of the problem with regard to the war on terror, Islam has no loyalty to nation only to the faith. Which makes you wonder when there is nothing but sectarian violence in Iraq, But on the whole Islam transends nation, scary shit really.

[MANGO!]

So most Moslems fail in their practice of Islam? Meaning they know what their Prophet said but cheerfully disregard it. Interesting idea, if true.

Is it really that surprising? How many Christians fail at Christianity? You must have a very high opinion of Muslims if you think the majority are "good" at keeping to all the rules of their religion.

[gmork]

Is it really that surprising?

Actually, yes. I figured living in a nation where Moslems are in the majority, that the majority would find it quite easy to keep to their Prophet's teachings. Are you saying Islam is an impossible faith for the average individual to be true to? I wouldn't know, in all honesty.

How many Christians fail at Christianity?

Quite a few, obviously.

You must have a very high opinion of Muslims if you think the majority are "good" at keeping to all the rules of their religion.

I thought they were better at keeping to what their Prophet taught than Christians are at keeping to what Jesus taught. They're not?

I personally have a very low opinion of all Abrahamic faiths as to their doctrines, though as a uniting force I can only admire the tenacity of Jewish, Christian and Moslem believers.

[gmork]

I can't recall the texts so much (I don't speak or read and write Farsi). My family and I are Persian as well as other Persians I've spoken to who feel the same way about ethnicity and culture.

That's fair, I guess. I'm just curious why no Muslim scholar seems to be willing to publicly rebut what I posted in the OP.

Hell, my family basically disowned my uncle for marring an Arab woman.

As in, they'd have preferred he married a Persian Zoroastrian or Sabaean?

Walk up to any Persian and ask him/her about how they feel about Persian culture and ethnicity and in relation to Islam.

They'd seriously come out and say racial concerns trump religious ones?

Hell, I've spoken to many who believe that Islam is a foreign religion that should stay with the Arabs.

Are they in Iran and saying this? Seems like it might get you into some very serious trouble, as I understand the regime currently in power.

The works of Ferdowsi, known as the Shahnamei (Book of Kings), is accredited in preserving the Persian language against the influence of Arabic.

I'm only familiar with this work as to its name, sorry. But wasn't the author a devout Muslim, to the point where his grave is some sort of pilgrimage destination? I'm also under the impression he praises Muhammad to the sky, please correct me if I'm wrong. :)



Well, there will be universal tenets. In Christianity, for example, it's that Jesus was the son of God who died on the cross for our sins (at least that's what I got). Islam has its share of universal tenets, but also keep in mind you have Suufi sects, Wahabists, and people in general who interpret the Koran differently from one another.

I'm under the impression these are only differences in practice not belief, and even the Sunni/Shia split is more a matter of a difference as to the legitimate heir to Muhammad than on any substantial matters of I guess what a Christian would call dogma. (Different from say Sikhism or Bahai or probably the Druze, the first two listed differ radically from Islam despite their use of Muhammad, the last is kind of a strange beast, not so sure about that one.) As in, every Moslem agrees about what Muhammad said, where he said it, etc.

I realize it isn't your responsibility to correct every potential error I hold, certainly, so only respond to the above if you feel like it. I'll try to look into this a bit further, I need to take the kiddo to the library today.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback. This thread is actually more interesting than I thought it would be. :)

[The Exorcist]

As in, they'd have preferred he married a Persian Zoroastrian or Sabaean?

From what I recall, marrying an Arab is almost as bad as marrying a black person. The Indians, I believe, are considered crazy to some degree, and I don't believe they're accepted in marriage (probably excludes Pashtuns). They would have rather preferred he married another non-Arab Iranian. I say "non-Arab" Iranian because there is a community of them in the southwest Abadan region. Europeans are acceptable but of course, as with most family approvals, the person has to be family oriented. I believe a common perception in Iran is that American women are sluts. Considering all of the stuff that's on American television, it's no wonder how they came up with that conclusion (It may be the same towards Europeans, but I think there's more respect to Europeans in that their nations are usually made up of long-standing cultures)


They'd seriously come out and say racial concerns trump religious ones?

They'll let you know how important Iranian culture is, but you'll have to convince them you're not with the ADL if you want them to admit that race tends to come first.

Are they in Iran and saying this? Seems like it might get you into some very serious trouble, as I understand the regime currently in power.

You have a very large number of Iranians in Iran that usually take Islam only by name, similar to people across the West that claim to be Christian but don't even go to church and probably can't recall anything in the Bible except what television tells them. As far as sentiment goes about Islam being an Arab religion, you won't find it being shouted publicly.


I'm only familiar with this work as to its name, sorry. But wasn't the author a devout Muslim, to the point where his grave is some sort of pilgrimage destination? I'm also under the impression he praises Muhammad to the sky, please correct me if I'm wrong. :)

On the contrary: (excuse the fact that it's a pro-Iranian site)

http://www.marzeporgohar.org/index.php?l=1&cat=20&scat=33&artid=869

After the arrival of Islam, Iran faced the most critical test in its history. Would its ancient, tolerant Zoroastrian culture survive or would Islam and Arab culture replace the unique Iranian identity. Alternatively, could Iran somehow transform Islam into a palatable Iranian form? These questions have characterized Iran since the Islamic takeover. It is true, Islam has become the dominant cultural force, yet Iranian identity, rooted in its Zoroastrian past, has never quite conceded defeat. The tension remains to this day. For example "no ruz" or the Iranian new year (based on a Zoroastrian practice) is condemned by the Islamic clerics as a pagan practice, yet is widely celebrated. In addition, the achievements of the ancient Achaemenian period (whose empire was conquered by Alexander the Great in the 4th Century B.C.) and its classical civilization, have never left the Iranian collective psyche. The ruins of Persepolis are a constant reminder that there was great Iranian past a thousand years before Islam was even born. Not even the mullahs can deny evidence that is carved in rock.

During the Abbassid period, Ferdowsi (b.935), perhaps Iran 's greatest amongst many great poets, wrote the epic "Shahnameh" (story of kings) and reclaimed the Iranian past and language from arabic influence. Ferdowsi's poetry openly proclaims the superiority of Iran's culture and laments the Arab invasion. He accepts Islam itself as a fact of life without directly criticizing its teachings. However, Ferdowsi has nothing but contempt for the Arabs themselves and cannot forgive them. At times Ferdowsi's poetry even condemns the imposition of Islam itself. It is revealing that Ferdowsi's tomb is still revered by Iranians despite the ruling Islamic theocracy.


I'm under the impression these are only differences in practice not belief, and even the Sunni/Shia split is more a matter of a difference as to the legitimate heir to Muhammad than on any substantial matters of I guess what a Christian would call dogma. (Different from say Sikhism or Bahai or probably the Druze, the first two listed differ radically from Islam despite their use of Muhammad, the last is kind of a strange beast, not so sure about that one.) As in, every Moslem agrees about what Muhammad said, where he said it, etc.

I remember another Iranian saying to me once, "Iranians don't understand ANYTHING that's Arabic." and it's pretty much true. If you look at Shiite Islam in Iran, you'll note how they adopt Zoroastrian (Pagan) holidays and beliefs within their system. In old Iranian culture, women were on par with a lot of activities males could do (i.e. praying). Granted, I don't think women are allowed to pray with men at Muslim mosques in Iran, but women are allowed to drive, work, own property, wear make-up (non-officially), go to school (about 60% of the college population of Iran is female), and hold political office (rarely seen though).

In Iran, generally the male dominates the household as the breadwinner, but in time, the wife holds dominion over the household. Also, in Iran is a huge pro-women's rights movement. Back when Khomeini took power in 1979, he had strict enforcement of female dress, but he still allowed them the rights I stated above (I think). I know when the Mullahs took power, they wanted to dismantle the film industry, but Khomeini supported it (and hence it exists today). Anyways, today, you'll see women in Iran in not-so-strict clothing as back in 1979. You'll see women who are devout and in full black chador covering (no face masking though), but you see a lot of the types who wear jeans underneath their clothing and just a head scarf. In April this year, there was controversy and protest over the government trying to reinforce stricter dress codes. Many Iranians were pissed off about that one.

http://www.iranian.com/Arts/2004/August/Dress/Images/10.jpg

http://www.iranian.com/Arts/2004/August/Dress/Images/11.jpg

http://www.iranian.com/Arts/2004/August/Dress/Images/3.jpg


I realize it isn't your responsibility to correct every potential error I hold, certainly, so only respond to the above if you feel like it. I'll try to look into this a bit further, I need to take the kiddo to the library today.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback. This thread is actually more interesting than I thought it would be. :)

Yea, I'm a natural born U.S. citizen with an Iranian background. I'm not Muslim and I don't speak Farsi. So everything I know is mainly from what my family tells me, news articles, other Iranians, etc.

One thing that always irks me is how they always show the angry Muslim dude with the flag, shouting obscenities at the U.S. or something. Keep in mind that a lot of the people you see that protest against the West on television in Iran are usually the types that are poor and paid and possibly bussed in to make a demonstration. Most Iranians just want the price of gas to be kept low and a good amount of them are actually pro-West.

fYlaIxNX01Q

w6IZpyG3fHk

I recall reading an article back at Speakeasy about how a tourist was shit-faced drunk just about every day in Iran.

http://www.drunkard.com/issues/06_06/06_06_inebriated_in_iran.html

[Zed]

XO, have you ever read "Whirlwind" by James Clavell?

[The Exorcist]

XO, have you ever read "Whirlwind" by James Clavell?

Can't say I have. Recommend it?

[Zed]

I loved it. It's set in Iran at the time the Shah was deposed. If you had read it I was going to ask whether you thought Clavell had portrayed Iran and Iranians accurately.

[The Exorcist]

I loved it. It's set in Iran at the time the Shah was deposed. If you had read it I was going to ask whether you thought Clavell had portrayed Iran and Iranians accurately.

Any particular scenes, parts, background the book mentions that you'd like clarified?

[Jaybird]

No doubt. In fact, I agree. Though I've never heard of any Christian saying racism was straight from the devil, the way these Islamic sites are all claiming.
Apparently you're not up to date on your mainstream protestantism (http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1675)

I agree, but its too bad Perun's not a member here. He made a stronger case than I first would have thought on this matter. I still didn't buy his arguments in toto, but I think somebody else could if they squinted hard enough.
No theologian here though I believe the line of thought goes that one unified Catholic Church with it's base in Europe would be far better for the West than having thousands of protestant splinter heresies who think evolution is the Devil's handiwork and bicker over who supports Israel the most.

[Zed]

Any particular scenes, parts, background the book mentions that you'd like clarified?

It's been a while since I read it. I was just wondering whether someone with better knowledge of the culture and people thought he had portrayed them accurately.