Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Enlightened Follower

Exposing Farsi Fascism (My Transcript with a Secular Iranian Nationalist who hated Islam)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So I had this dialogue with an Iranian in the comments section who claimed her culture and history had nothing to do with Islam and that Islam some how destroyed her country, I debunked all her fallacious arguments and exposed her use of unsound logic(I have highlighted certain points in color coding for emphasis/or to highlight the jist of the arguments).

Also my name in the comments section was Sean Penn, the Iranian was Zaba Newsjunkie:

 

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

So I had this dialogue with an Iranian in the comments section who claimed her culture and history had nothing to do with Islam and that Islam some how destroyed her country, I debunked all her fallacious arguments and exposed her use of unsound logic(I have highlighted certain points in color coding for emphasis/or to highlight the jist of the arguments).

Also my name in the comments section was Sean Penn, the Iranian was Zaba Newsjunkie:

 

This iranians are like german nazis. Why ?

Like nazis they say they are aryans and superiors to the other races.

Like nazis they hate abrahamic religions and want to come back to old paganism religion even they dont know at all this religion.

Like nazis they are just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

This iranians are like german nazis. Why ?

Like nazis they say they are aryans and superiors to the other races.

Like nazis they hate abrahamic religions and want to come back to old paganism religion even they dont know at all this religion.

Like nazis they are just stupid.

Well the general hypothesis is there were Indo-Eurpoean peoples in Central Asia Indian subcontinent and Iran but Iranians keep referring to themselves as Aryans which makes it racist. Also these particular Iranians hate Afghans, Tajiks, and Indian, Pakistanis even though they are all "Aryans." Also they forget realize that it took 300 years in full after the Muslim armies conquered Iran for it to become majority Muslim so this hypothesis of "force-convert or die" can be discarded. Also the reason many Iranians left Zoroastrianism was because of its caste-like system similar to Hinduism, there was not much room for advancement.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2016 at 11:10 PM, Enlightened Follower said:

Also the reason many Iranians left Zoroastrianism was because of its caste-like system similar to Hinduism, there was not much room for advancement.

Can u elaborate it what u said above, coz AFAIK, persian people are way more egalitarian than i.e.Greeks that time. So by this logic, i cannot comprehend if their religion are based on segregated society like caste system that we can find its similarities in hindu society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 3:10 AM, Enlightened Follower said:

Well the general hypothesis is there were Indo-Eurpoean peoples in Central Asia Indian subcontinent and Iran but Iranians keep referring to themselves as Aryans which makes it racist. Also these particular Iranians hate Afghans, Tajiks, and Indian, Pakistanis even though they are all "Aryans." Also they forget realize that it took 300 years in full after the Muslim armies conquered Iran for it to become majority Muslim so this hypothesis of "force-convert or die" can be discarded. Also the reason many Iranians left Zoroastrianism was because of its caste-like system similar to Hinduism, there was not much room for advancement.

There wasn't any sort of caste like system in Zoroastrianism.

Back then in the final years of the Sassanids, the clergy and nobility became really corrupt and authoritarian, and never associated themselves with the common people. This in turn created animosity and hatred, and so gradually Iranians came to accept Arab Muslim rule and later converted in mass numbers decades and centuries later.

Edited by Zendegi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Murteza said:

Can u elaborate it what u said above, coz AFAIK, persian people are way more egalitarian than i.e.Greeks that time. So by this logic, i cannot comprehend if their religion are based on segregated society like caste system that we can find its similarities in hindu society.

Nope see position of Women in Sassanian society that very much functioned in the form of a caste system, also,notice for most of the Persian empire's history only a few military leaders were female so they were egalitarian in that regard but not this myth of being equal (I have bolded certain facts from the page for emphasis).

Women in the Sasanian Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 

In the Sassanid Empire, the state religion, Zoroastrianism, created the policy that dictated relationships between men and women. Zoroastrianism set what roles women would have, the marriage practices, women's privileges in Sasanian society and influenced Islam when it arose.[1] The moral standards, the structure of life and the practices of Sasanian society were found by looking at the religious writing and laws of the time.[2]

Women had legal rights, such as to real estate, but the privileges a woman had depended on what type of wife she was (privileged, subordinate, or self-entrusted/self-dependent), s did the restrictions that were placed on her.

 

 

 

 

Another section of the Wiki page:

 

Marriage practices[edit]

In the Sasanian society, young women were deemed ready for marriage when they reached 15 or sometimes even younger, and marriage was highly regarded. It was seen as the father's religious obligation to find a suitable husband for his daughter and was recommended that the husband be intelligent and well-brought up and have productive land.[2][4] Furthermore, it was the father or guardian's duty to represent the bride and negotiate a marriage contract. The contract stipulated the money and property that belonged to the bride, defined the clout of the husband, and characterised what restrictions could be placed on the wife.[2]

Types of marriage[edit]

Privileged[edit]

The contractor lack of ir also dictated which of the three types of wives the women would be. If the woman had a contract, she was considered a privileged (patikhsahi) wife. It was the highest position for a wife because there were precise, mutual requirements between husband and wife. The women and her children from this marriage were fully incorporated into the man's agnatic group if he died, and they were also entitled to inherit from the deceased husband.[2] However, if it was proven in court that a woman disobeyed her husband, the court would issue a "certificate of disobedience", and the wife lost all of her privileges that were given in her contract.[1] Otherwise, the wife received the same amount of inheritance as the sons while daughters received half of what the sons received in inheritance. The wife was in charge of her children if her husband died, but when her oldest son reached 15, he became the guardian. A privileged wife was allowed to have relative independence. She had complete authority over "the internal running of the house, the upbringing of the children, and the organization of the other members of the household." [4] Each man could only have one patikhasi wife; any other wives were considered subordinate (chagar) wives.

Subordinate[edit]

A subordinate wife lacked the same privileges as the patikhasi wife for her husband had the right to acquire her property once they married.[2] Moreover, if a woman was widowed, an adult son or the closest agnate of her deceased husband became her guardian,[1]and neither she nor her children were entitled to her husband's wealth.[2] However, she received a "small annual income as long as she was of service in the house."[4] On the other hand, her authority over her own children was even limited.[2] Additionally as a subordinate wife, a husband could lend her to another man without her consent. That was done when a widower could not afford to take another wife, but needed a woman for sexual needs and to care for his children. Any children the woman bore were not considered her own, but they completely belonged to the husband because the Sasanians believed that a "woman is a field.... All which grows there belongs to its owner, even if he did not plant it." [1]

A woman was also considered a chagar wife if she was an unmarried woman forced to marry to conceive a child for a deceased relative. Technically, the woman was considered a privileged wife of the dead relative, and her first male child belonged to the dead relative too. Furthermore, half the children produced by the woman were entitled to the deceased relative. That responsibility could impede a woman's chances at marrying "the most suitable husband" because she would always be a secondary wife to whomever she married.[2] It also caused disadvantages for her children because they were not considered members of their real father's group. However, male children had a better chance of receiving support because they could be adopted to become an heir while the female children's only hope was for the father to provide for them. All in all, subordinate wives and their children had no means of actual support unless the husband or relatives were kind.[2]

Self-entrusted, self-dependent[edit]

Without being penalised, a woman could choose not to marry the man that her father picked out. If it occurred and the woman's father had not found a suitable husband for her by the time she was 15, the woman could marry whomever she wished without the consent of her father. Moreover, the father was not allowed to disinherit his daughter for doing so, but if the daughter still preceded in marriage her inheritance could be reduced.[2][4]

That made up the third type of wife, a self-entrusted, self-dependent (khwasray) wife. The husband of a khwasray wife was not duty-bound to support his wife. However, a khwasray wife would become a privileged wife after she produced a male child and he reached 15.[2]

Divorce[edit]

No matter what type of wife a woman would become, there was always a dowry and a bride price for her. The husband was required to "give a marriage gift of stipulated amount to his new bride." The gift was fully in her possession, including in the case of separation, and the husband had to pay the bride price.[2][4] The establishment of the practice had great significance in negotiations and requirements in marriage.[4] For divorce to occur, both parties had to be in agreement, bur there were exceptions.[1][4] The husband could call for divorce without the wife's consent if she was guilty in committing certain activities such as "prostitution, sorcery, refusal to obey an order concerning one of her duties, sinful refusal to sleep with her husband, not abstaining from intercourse during menstruation, concealment of the fact she was menstruating, adultery, or committing a deliberate sin which could afflict the body or soul."[4] Additionally, divorce was enforced when the woman had to produce heirs for a deceased relative because she would then marry an agnate of that dead relative.[1] Furthermore, a man was legally required to marry a woman if she was unmarried and he slept with her.[4]

Next-of-kin marriages[edit]

Zoroastrian religion in the Sasanian society also led to the rise of next-of-kin marriage (khevtuk-das).[2] Men were allowed to marry their daughters, sisters, and mother. It was "not merely tolerated, but indeed regarded as acts of piety and great merit, and even efficacious against the demonic forces."[1] The religious leaders of the time promoted marriage within the family, claiming it imitated the creation. Moreover, priests claimed that incestuous marriage "produced stronger males, more virtuous females, and higher quality and quantity of children, and it protected the purity of the race and propagated it."[2] That was met by much resistance and led to more conversions from Zoroastrians to Christianity, and is thought to have led to the downfall of the Zoroastrian religion.[2]

Polygamy[edit]

Finally, the number of wives a man had depended on the means of the man. Thus, there was less polygamy in the lower classes than in the wealthy class because it was expensive.[4]

Summary[edit]

All in all, women could be three different types of wives in the Sasanian society. Which wife a woman was decided what privileges she would get, what restrictions could be placed on her and how much support she would get from her husband and his agnatic group. Women also had to give consent to be married.[2] For women to divorce, they needed mutual consent from their husbands, but husbands could divorce their wives without consent when certain actions were committed. Moreover, women had to be completely obedient to their husbands.[1][2][4]

 

Link/resource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Sasanian_Empire


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zendegi said:

There wasn't any sort of caste like system in Zoroastrianism.

Back then in the final years of the Sassanids, the clergy and nobility became really corrupt and authoritarian, and never associated themselves with the common people. This in turn created animosity and hatred, and so gradually Iranians came to accept Arab Muslim rule and later converted in mass numbers decades and centuries later.

Actually that's not true the Umayyads wanted all conquered people to stay Non-Muslim whether Persian or Berber/North African as they made revenue based off of taxes, so you can see through history it took 300 years for Iran to become a majority Muslim state even then there was a significant Zoroastrian population. So this forced, convert or die hypothesis can go right out the window.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Murteza said:

Can u elaborate it what u said above, coz AFAIK, persian people are way more egalitarian than i.e.Greeks that time. So by this logic, i cannot comprehend if their religion are based on segregated society like caste system that we can find its similarities in hindu society.

Salam brother,

as I said the Iranians were more egalitarian and provided more room for education and advancement of their women I was simply trying to disprove these Iranians who say Zoroastrianism was more equal for woman's rights than Islam. Also, you are right there was no segregation that much is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Semiramis said:

With all due respect, if this gender equality in Iran came into question after Islam ergo why other Muslim women in other countries haven't got our freedoms?

Salam sister,

Due to cultural prejudices i.e. Greek and Roman laws and governmental systems also Muslims turning their backs on the Sunna, and Caliph Umar starting the segregation of genders in Masjids.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Semiramis said:

With all due respect, if this gender equality in Iran came into question after Islam ergo why other Muslim women in other countries haven't got our freedoms?

Also, if you notice where all areas where woman's rights are not doing very well, the literacy and education rates also aren't very high, additionally, the infrastructure of those countries is very bad or Western colonial powers have invaded and destroyed those countries i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan.

Kabul Afghanistan 1970's before the Soviet invasion

135

article-2543902-1ADEBEBF00000578-108_634

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Semiramis said:

With all due respect, if this gender equality in Iran came into question after Islam ergo why other Muslim women in other countries haven't got our freedoms?

Also, I never said Zoroastrianism was sexist or non-equal it was egalitarian I am not denying that, it was 100x better than living as a woman in Greece, Rome, or China but I was merely stating that these secular Iranians who have a deeply passionate hatred for Islam cannot make this point as even in Zoroastrian society men had some influence.

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Semiramis said:

With all due respect, if this gender equality in Iran came into question after Islam ergo why other Muslim women in other countries haven't got our freedoms?

Also, sister I did not mean to derail you or offend the Iranian people I just wanted to disprove those who go forward with hatred and ignorance.

P.S.

I also have a very deep care/respect for Zoroastrianism I believe the fall of the Sassanian Empire was partly due to their changing of the original teachings of Zoroaster to fit their own agendas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites