پس شما سنی هستید و واسه همین از صحبتهای بنده خوشتون نیومد. خوب حالا که شما اعتقادی به مقدسات ۷۰ میلیون ایرانی*** ندارید، لطفا به آن توهین نکنید. روحانیت در پیشه مردم ایران مقدس هست و عشق ایرانیان به روحانیت بر میگرده به سالهای خیلی*** قدیم. حالا شما آنرا قبول ندارید ، دلیل نمیشه که بیاین اینجا و بگین سحرت و پرت می***گویند !!! شما حتما اببکر رو هم به حضرت علی*** ترجیح میدید و یا امام حسین رو هم قبول ندارید !!! از همون اول معلم بود که شما دنبال چی*** هستید و هدفتون از هواداری از سبز چی*** بده. خیلی*** ممنون که آمدید و اینرا برای همه آشکار کردید. همانطور که قبلان هم عرض کردم من خیلی*** دلم می***خواد بدونم که تحصیلات دینی شما در چه هادی هست و چه قدر به زبان عربی***، دستور زبان عربی*** اشنا هستید.
I'm definitely in agreement with you that questions are now being asked, yet I believe that in a free and democratic Iran, the great majority of Iranians will still identify as Muslims whether they practice or not. There will be a minority doesn't believe in God and are atheist, but I think that with regarding religion, Iranians are more like Americans in that even if they don't practice and don't go to church, they still believe in God in some manner.
Personally I have more than a few questions. For example, praying in Arabic never made sense to me. Another issue is Ramadan. It's an amazing positive action, yet so many around the world stuff themselves before dawn that they actually end up eating more during Ramadan than other months. I don't think this makes sense. Another issue is 4 wives. It made sense back in those days to have this rule when people would have 10 or 20 wives, but nowadays 1 wife should be the limit.
Regarding wars for religion, one of the parts of Islam I like is how it says that the real Jihad is within. This is unfortunately not practiced by most Muslim cultures and societies, since jihad is always seen as a war against "infidels" and other such nonsense. Instead, the way I see it is that it means a war against your anger, or against your ways of thinking, to change who you are within.
Religion should be questioned and changed. To be honest, religion doesn't even need to exist so long as a person has good morals. But religion could simply mean exploring meditation or a martial art or something new, not necessarily the organized religions. Personally I like some of the teachings and stories, like when Ali was dying and he prayed for God to forgive his murderer. This shows real courage when most people might instead be angry and want revenge.
As long as people aim to improve themselves in an honest manner, that's a true faith in and of itself.
Personally I have more than a few questions. For example, praying in Arabic never made sense to me. Another issue is Ramadan. It's an amazing positive action, yet so many around the world stuff themselves before dawn that they actually end up eating more during Ramadan than other months. I don't think this makes sense. Another issue is 4 wives. It made sense back in those days to have this rule when people would have 10 or 20 wives, but nowadays 1 wife should be the limit.
Regarding wars for religion, one of the parts of Islam I like is how it says that the real Jihad is within. This is unfortunately not practiced by most Muslim cultures and societies, since jihad is always seen as a war against "infidels" and other such nonsense. Instead, the way I see it is that it means a war against your anger, or against your ways of thinking, to change who you are within.
Religion should be questioned and changed. To be honest, religion doesn't even need to exist so long as a person has good morals. But religion could simply mean exploring meditation or a martial art or something new, not necessarily the organized religions. Personally I like some of the teachings and stories, like when Ali was dying and he prayed for God to forgive his murderer. This shows real courage when most people might instead be angry and want revenge.
As long as people aim to improve themselves in an honest manner, that's a true faith in and of itself.
I agree, if Moses and Jesus and Muhammad came to the present time, they would probably laugh and cry over what's being done in their names.
Religion has nowadays become an extension of human tribal conflicts and a way to answer all our questions rather than just saying "I don't know." Plus they're all so seeped in their regional culture that it's become part and parcel with religion, with one example being roosari and chador which were used in the region before Islam but are now seen as being a "rule" of religion.
One of the greatest movies I saw that touched on these issues is The Man From Earth. Go to mininova and download this, it's amazing.
Religion has nowadays become an extension of human tribal conflicts and a way to answer all our questions rather than just saying "I don't know." Plus they're all so seeped in their regional culture that it's become part and parcel with religion, with one example being roosari and chador which were used in the region before Islam but are now seen as being a "rule" of religion.
One of the greatest movies I saw that touched on these issues is The Man From Earth. Go to mininova and download this, it's amazing.
Agreed, and here perfectly put by Hermann Hesse in Siddharta:
Slower, he walked along in his thoughts and asked himself: “But what is this, what you have sought to learn from teachings and from teachers, and what they, who have taught you much, were still unable to teach you?” And he found: “It was the self, the purpose and essence of which I sought to learn. It was the self, I wanted to free myself from, which I sought to overcome. But I was not able to overcome it, could only deceive it, could only flee from it, only hide from it. Truly, no thing in this world has kept my thoughts thus busy, as this my very own self, this mystery of me being alive, of me being one and being separated and isolated from all others, of me being Siddhartha! And there is no thing in this world I know less about than about me, about Siddhartha!”
Since childhood, we are thought to look to the book of the religion and its prophet that has all the answers. Instead of looking into our self and learning about this unique individual. We look outward for acceptance and changing our self to fit into the box that has been created before us, thus loosing who we are. Many loose themselves and cannot fit into this box and become crazy, problematic, criminals, etc..
Instead of trying to become a Budha, a Muhamad, a Jesus, by learning about oneself, experiences, etc.. We become followers, trying to live within experience of others.
Slower, he walked along in his thoughts and asked himself: “But what is this, what you have sought to learn from teachings and from teachers, and what they, who have taught you much, were still unable to teach you?” And he found: “It was the self, the purpose and essence of which I sought to learn. It was the self, I wanted to free myself from, which I sought to overcome. But I was not able to overcome it, could only deceive it, could only flee from it, only hide from it. Truly, no thing in this world has kept my thoughts thus busy, as this my very own self, this mystery of me being alive, of me being one and being separated and isolated from all others, of me being Siddhartha! And there is no thing in this world I know less about than about me, about Siddhartha!”
Since childhood, we are thought to look to the book of the religion and its prophet that has all the answers. Instead of looking into our self and learning about this unique individual. We look outward for acceptance and changing our self to fit into the box that has been created before us, thus loosing who we are. Many loose themselves and cannot fit into this box and become crazy, problematic, criminals, etc..
Instead of trying to become a Budha, a Muhamad, a Jesus, by learning about oneself, experiences, etc.. We become followers, trying to live within experience of others.
As deerouz pointed out, these "resAleh" (aka tozih ol masaael") are not the works of Khomeini or else. Futhermore -and correct me if I am wrong- these writing are reportedly responses given by a marjaa to a question raised by a follower. You can't blame a Marjaa for responding to a sick follower who, for example, might emjoy fucking a goat in between his daily prayers or while fasting. 
BTW jenAbe General, you kept referring some posters to Khomeini's moghalled's in some of your previous posts. Akheh az shomA ke dar elme fegh-h dar in hadd dAnesh dArid ba'eed bood. Akheh jAnam, marajaa-e mordeh moghalled nemitooneh daashteh basheh ke kesi bere azashoon soaal koneh!
BTW jenAbe General, you kept referring some posters to Khomeini's moghalled's in some of your previous posts. Akheh az shomA ke dar elme fegh-h dar in hadd dAnesh dArid ba'eed bood. Akheh jAnam, marajaa-e mordeh moghalled nemitooneh daashteh basheh ke kesi bere azashoon soaal koneh!
Wow! I respectfully disagree with you. No man of God in his 50's would sleep with a 9-year old. That's rape, regardless of when it was done. No man of God would have human slaves. No man of God would draw a sword and kill other human beings for not accepting his God. This religion is planted so deeply that even some really intelligent people buy into some lame justifications.
A 9-year old cannot give consent because of her brain power, whether it was 2500 years ago or today. You would think God knows that and would have asked Gabriel to tell Mohammad about it.
A 9-year old cannot give consent because of her brain power, whether it was 2500 years ago or today. You would think God knows that and would have asked Gabriel to tell Mohammad about it.
roozbeh jaan.. chand taa post kardy.. khayly haal kardam! lol .. i was actually going to write something similar to your first post but obviously you wrote it much better than i could anyway!
guys.. whether you believe in islam or not.. it's quite important than you don't try and change this movement to islam vs anti-islam.. because 1-iri is not islamic 2-most of the people carrying the movement are actually muslims (practicing or not!) .. obviously it's fine to discuss religion but not in a way to alienate yourself from the movement or to put islam and iri together as the target of your attacks.. because that would just cause our divide which will ultimately be where we fall!
guys.. whether you believe in islam or not.. it's quite important than you don't try and change this movement to islam vs anti-islam.. because 1-iri is not islamic 2-most of the people carrying the movement are actually muslims (practicing or not!) .. obviously it's fine to discuss religion but not in a way to alienate yourself from the movement or to put islam and iri together as the target of your attacks.. because that would just cause our divide which will ultimately be where we fall!
That's ok, it's great to disagree and do so respectfully, and so I agree to disagree with you. I don't look at this issue in such a black and white manner, to apply the same rules of today to thousands or millions of years ago, just like I'm sure that thousands or millions of years from now the people then might look at our actions as being barbaric or backwards.
Zoroastrian Persians in those days also had lots of customs that we today consider wrong and have put aside, including marrying first cousins.
I personally don't look at Mohammad as a Superhero you think we have to look at him as. I love and respect the message he brought out, and from what I know about Iranians and the Persian identity, it's obvious that various groups have conquered the Persian Empire throughout history, but the people in Persia had to accept their ideas. They accepted Islam even though they didn't accept Arabic, which goes to show that people of that time thought and felt Islam was a progressive way forward for them. Considering the Zoroastrian teachings back then which were forced on many people by a government that was corrupt and taking advantage of religion to legitimize itself(remind you of anyone today?), the Muslims of Arabia back then were seen as providing an alternative that was a breath of fresh air at the time.
Today, we consider a 30-year old marrying a 14-year old rape.
100 years ago, in Iran, most of the middle east, and even many non-Muslim countries around the world, this was seen as ok or normal.
Today, we consider a 50-year old marrying a 9-year old who is physically a woman as rape.
1,000 years ago, in most of the world, this was something normal and not at all shunned.
Today, we consider spreading your ideas, whether philosophical or religious or social, through waging war, as being backwards or violent.
1,000 years ago the Christians who did the Crusades in the name of God didn't think this was wrong.
Today, gay people are accepted as a part of society and even welcomed in governments and leadership positions.
100 years ago, being gay was illegal in most countries around the world.
1,000 years ago, if somebody was gay he would most likely be immediately killed.
Today, marriage before sex is ok in most societies, at least among the younger generation.
100 years ago, all around the world, people were only allowed to have sex after marriage.
So I don't see Muhammad in the context of this day and age, and I don't put the same standards of today and equate it to 1000 years ago or 1000 years from now. Back in Muhammad's time, around the world, and I'm venturing to guess even in Native American cultures in the US and Canada that were worlds away from that culture of the middle east, when a woman reached puberty she was given by her parents to the best husband they could find for her. Nowadays, marriage before the age of 18 should not be done, and in my own personal view, marriage before the age of 21 shouldn't be allowed either since most of those teen marriages are emotional decisions that result in divorce nowadays.
Islam, all religions, and all ideologies have to adapt to the times. Abdolkarim Souroush put it best when he said that we don't practice the same chemistry, medicine or physics today that we did 1000 or 2000 years ago. Similarly religion and ideologies have to change.
I don't view the Prophet Muhammad as an angel or as a devil, but simply as a human being who attained a level of spirituality and taught what he could about what he understood in a manner such that the people back then could understand. I think it's quite possible that he sinned, had bad thoughts, and had an ego as well. But like he himself says, Islam isn't about Muhammad but about the message. And that message has to be improved upon and take a more spiritual and private realm in my honest opinion, rather than a public and physical embodiment.
Listen, I know you won't agree with me. I can already imagine your response:
"NO, rape is rape whether it was back then or now. A 9-year old doesn't know any better and he was definitely not a man of God if he raped a child."
But even though I know I would never be able to convince you, I'm merely expressing my views in a free and open manner. I don't agree that it was rape, because of the customs and culture of the time. I don't think it was right, but at the same time, given the culture and time of when he grew up, I don't feel it takes away from his spiritual attainment or the message he gave. I don't look at "Prophets" as Superheros to be worshiped, and even Muhammad himself pointed this out by banning people from idolizing his image. Of course, now this has been taken as meaning that you can't draw a picture of Muhammad or portray him in a film, which isn't what I think he intended.
At the end of the day, I'm cool with what Muhammad had to say and I love learning and understanding it better, like the jihad within that I talked about earlier, which could be used to have more discipline, or be less angry or other ways of self-improvement. But do I think he, or Buddha, or Zoroaster, or Moses or Jesus were perfect people? No. I think they may have really made some big mistakes even, and even seriously sinned, even according to their own cultures at the time, it's definitely possible. But do I love and respect them for what they taught, and showing a new way? Of course, just like I love and respect Einstein, Hafez, Tschaikovsky, Nietsche, Henrik Ibsen, Omar Khayyam, Leonardo DaVinci, Johann Cruyff, Mozart, and many many others.
I think what the "Prophets" have done on the spiritual scale is amazing and something whereby only learning a tiny percentage can help a person improve their lives. It doesn't mean I force others to do so, but it also doesn't mean I hold a black-and-white view that causes me to instantly see the Elephant as a snake, like in the story of the blind man and the Elephant. Nonetheless I respect your view on not being Muslim or accepting what Muhammad had to say, just like I disagree with yet respect Westi's view that Maradona was better than Pele. :cheers:
Zoroastrian Persians in those days also had lots of customs that we today consider wrong and have put aside, including marrying first cousins.
I personally don't look at Mohammad as a Superhero you think we have to look at him as. I love and respect the message he brought out, and from what I know about Iranians and the Persian identity, it's obvious that various groups have conquered the Persian Empire throughout history, but the people in Persia had to accept their ideas. They accepted Islam even though they didn't accept Arabic, which goes to show that people of that time thought and felt Islam was a progressive way forward for them. Considering the Zoroastrian teachings back then which were forced on many people by a government that was corrupt and taking advantage of religion to legitimize itself(remind you of anyone today?), the Muslims of Arabia back then were seen as providing an alternative that was a breath of fresh air at the time.
Today, we consider a 30-year old marrying a 14-year old rape.
100 years ago, in Iran, most of the middle east, and even many non-Muslim countries around the world, this was seen as ok or normal.
Today, we consider a 50-year old marrying a 9-year old who is physically a woman as rape.
1,000 years ago, in most of the world, this was something normal and not at all shunned.
Today, we consider spreading your ideas, whether philosophical or religious or social, through waging war, as being backwards or violent.
1,000 years ago the Christians who did the Crusades in the name of God didn't think this was wrong.
Today, gay people are accepted as a part of society and even welcomed in governments and leadership positions.
100 years ago, being gay was illegal in most countries around the world.
1,000 years ago, if somebody was gay he would most likely be immediately killed.
Today, marriage before sex is ok in most societies, at least among the younger generation.
100 years ago, all around the world, people were only allowed to have sex after marriage.
So I don't see Muhammad in the context of this day and age, and I don't put the same standards of today and equate it to 1000 years ago or 1000 years from now. Back in Muhammad's time, around the world, and I'm venturing to guess even in Native American cultures in the US and Canada that were worlds away from that culture of the middle east, when a woman reached puberty she was given by her parents to the best husband they could find for her. Nowadays, marriage before the age of 18 should not be done, and in my own personal view, marriage before the age of 21 shouldn't be allowed either since most of those teen marriages are emotional decisions that result in divorce nowadays.
Islam, all religions, and all ideologies have to adapt to the times. Abdolkarim Souroush put it best when he said that we don't practice the same chemistry, medicine or physics today that we did 1000 or 2000 years ago. Similarly religion and ideologies have to change.
I don't view the Prophet Muhammad as an angel or as a devil, but simply as a human being who attained a level of spirituality and taught what he could about what he understood in a manner such that the people back then could understand. I think it's quite possible that he sinned, had bad thoughts, and had an ego as well. But like he himself says, Islam isn't about Muhammad but about the message. And that message has to be improved upon and take a more spiritual and private realm in my honest opinion, rather than a public and physical embodiment.
Listen, I know you won't agree with me. I can already imagine your response:
"NO, rape is rape whether it was back then or now. A 9-year old doesn't know any better and he was definitely not a man of God if he raped a child."
But even though I know I would never be able to convince you, I'm merely expressing my views in a free and open manner. I don't agree that it was rape, because of the customs and culture of the time. I don't think it was right, but at the same time, given the culture and time of when he grew up, I don't feel it takes away from his spiritual attainment or the message he gave. I don't look at "Prophets" as Superheros to be worshiped, and even Muhammad himself pointed this out by banning people from idolizing his image. Of course, now this has been taken as meaning that you can't draw a picture of Muhammad or portray him in a film, which isn't what I think he intended.
At the end of the day, I'm cool with what Muhammad had to say and I love learning and understanding it better, like the jihad within that I talked about earlier, which could be used to have more discipline, or be less angry or other ways of self-improvement. But do I think he, or Buddha, or Zoroaster, or Moses or Jesus were perfect people? No. I think they may have really made some big mistakes even, and even seriously sinned, even according to their own cultures at the time, it's definitely possible. But do I love and respect them for what they taught, and showing a new way? Of course, just like I love and respect Einstein, Hafez, Tschaikovsky, Nietsche, Henrik Ibsen, Omar Khayyam, Leonardo DaVinci, Johann Cruyff, Mozart, and many many others.
I think what the "Prophets" have done on the spiritual scale is amazing and something whereby only learning a tiny percentage can help a person improve their lives. It doesn't mean I force others to do so, but it also doesn't mean I hold a black-and-white view that causes me to instantly see the Elephant as a snake, like in the story of the blind man and the Elephant. Nonetheless I respect your view on not being Muslim or accepting what Muhammad had to say, just like I disagree with yet respect Westi's view that Maradona was better than Pele. :cheers:
Roozbeh jaan, you can write a lot. I cannot compete with that. We just have to agree to disagree.
Mohammad said he was the last Prophet and the laws and the rules that he set forth were from God and would survive till the end. Are you saying that he did not follow his own laws? If he did, then it's OK to sleep with a 9-year old, and that's exactly what Khomeini said in his book. If you disagree with that, then you disagree that the laws and the rules that he set forth were from God. The main problem today is that some Iranians think they know Islam better than Khomeini and other ayatollahs, and they want to give it a new look and say that things have changed over time. If things are supposed to change, then he should not have been the last Prophet, and a new Prphet should come and tell us how to live today and that it is no longer OK to sleep with a 9-year old. Lastly, we are not talking about a person who lived in Saudi Arabia 1400 years ago, we are talking about God' Messenger, someone that God sends very rarely and he was also the last of them. I may have totally lost it, but I just expected a lot more from a Prophet, but I understand that you have a lot lower expectation.
Mohammad said he was the last Prophet and the laws and the rules that he set forth were from God and would survive till the end. Are you saying that he did not follow his own laws? If he did, then it's OK to sleep with a 9-year old, and that's exactly what Khomeini said in his book. If you disagree with that, then you disagree that the laws and the rules that he set forth were from God. The main problem today is that some Iranians think they know Islam better than Khomeini and other ayatollahs, and they want to give it a new look and say that things have changed over time. If things are supposed to change, then he should not have been the last Prophet, and a new Prphet should come and tell us how to live today and that it is no longer OK to sleep with a 9-year old. Lastly, we are not talking about a person who lived in Saudi Arabia 1400 years ago, we are talking about God' Messenger, someone that God sends very rarely and he was also the last of them. I may have totally lost it, but I just expected a lot more from a Prophet, but I understand that you have a lot lower expectation.
This turned into a great thread. Although, it will be hard to go back and find out what Muhamad, the extraordinary human who brought many great teaching to the arabia of the time, did 1400 years ago, and whether he really did marry a 9 years old, I must add:
In every culture, everything is defined by the language. There has been period of time when putting people in concentration camp, burning people alive, stoning people to death, taking people to be slaves, raping, massacring other races, etc.. have been considered common sense and the right thing to do.
However, one will expect that a prophet of god, taking direct orders and message from the mighty god to be an example for all to follow. Are we saying that the one mighty god, the creator of the universe sanctions the laws at times set by some criminal man, such as Hitler or Stalin, etc???? That the mighty god at times will sanction the rape of another woman, the rape of a child, or massacre of a people? All in the name of the culture of the time. So, he sanctioned slavery because of the culture of the time?
Did the mighty god not sent Muhamad with a book as the laws of men and universe to follow? Will not the mighty god want the prophet to be an example for all men? Does this mighty god not realize that sleeping with a child is wrong, although, it took ordinary men 1400 years to find out.
I say the mighty god is the god of all men and will not stand for the suffering of any at the cost of another. So, I there say that the mighty god will have not stand for a child being led to bed by a man over 50 years of age, regardless if that man was another god. That is what makes a god. A follower of justice and not a flip-flopper.
In every culture, everything is defined by the language. There has been period of time when putting people in concentration camp, burning people alive, stoning people to death, taking people to be slaves, raping, massacring other races, etc.. have been considered common sense and the right thing to do.
However, one will expect that a prophet of god, taking direct orders and message from the mighty god to be an example for all to follow. Are we saying that the one mighty god, the creator of the universe sanctions the laws at times set by some criminal man, such as Hitler or Stalin, etc???? That the mighty god at times will sanction the rape of another woman, the rape of a child, or massacre of a people? All in the name of the culture of the time. So, he sanctioned slavery because of the culture of the time?
Did the mighty god not sent Muhamad with a book as the laws of men and universe to follow? Will not the mighty god want the prophet to be an example for all men? Does this mighty god not realize that sleeping with a child is wrong, although, it took ordinary men 1400 years to find out.
I say the mighty god is the god of all men and will not stand for the suffering of any at the cost of another. So, I there say that the mighty god will have not stand for a child being led to bed by a man over 50 years of age, regardless if that man was another god. That is what makes a god. A follower of justice and not a flip-flopper.
That's indeed a key point to consider for any muslim who is thinking of reforming or modernizing Islam. The fact is that Mohammad himself did not order or suggest that the laws he was applying in Arabia of the time should survive to the end. He said Quran would survive, but there is no mentioning of most of these laws in Quran. His last comment to his followers was: "follow my traditions". And the muslims in general took it as if all rules and laws of Mohammad should be followed with no change forever. However, traditions need not include such details as most muslim scholars believe.
So a first step would be to do away with most of Sunnah (which includes Sharia), and instead apply the essence of the teachings to modern world ("What would he have done today" instead of "what did he do 1400 years ago"). That would address most but not all of the problems, because Quran itself includes many points that are not accepted in a modern world (such as "Beat them..." etc). It would then require a re-interpretation of Quranic texts as well, to separate verses that might have been addressed to Arabs of those times from the verses that are applied today. Down that road, the new Islam would become as different from the current Islam as reform Judaism is from ortodox judaism.
So a first step would be to do away with most of Sunnah (which includes Sharia), and instead apply the essence of the teachings to modern world ("What would he have done today" instead of "what did he do 1400 years ago"). That would address most but not all of the problems, because Quran itself includes many points that are not accepted in a modern world (such as "Beat them..." etc). It would then require a re-interpretation of Quranic texts as well, to separate verses that might have been addressed to Arabs of those times from the verses that are applied today. Down that road, the new Islam would become as different from the current Islam as reform Judaism is from ortodox judaism.
My premise is based on what historians have said (and I can list several of them), and what Khomeini and other ayatollahs say in their books based on Mohammad's marriage with Ayesheh. What's your reasearch based on?
The problem is that even if Mohammad was in his 50's and had sex with her at the age of 9, some here still think it was OK, because it happended 1400 years ago. They don't think that a Messenger of God should've been any different than those who performed these acts 1400 years ago. What do you think? Regardless of her age, do you think a Messenger of God should act according to what God considers to be right or he should act like those in his time?
The problem is that even if Mohammad was in his 50's and had sex with her at the age of 9, some here still think it was OK, because it happended 1400 years ago. They don't think that a Messenger of God should've been any different than those who performed these acts 1400 years ago. What do you think? Regardless of her age, do you think a Messenger of God should act according to what God considers to be right or he should act like those in his time?