IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
History Of Jihad Against The Zoroastrians Of Iran (634-651)
chase
post 07/29/07 05:12 PM
Post #1


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



History of Jihad against the Zoroastrians of Iran (634-651)

After the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula had been subjugated, the Muslims turned on their northern neighbors the Persians and the Byzantines.

Today when the Mullahs and Ayatollahs rule Iran, we might tend to think that they have always been characteristic of Iran. Not many know that Iran was the first nation that waged a short but bloodied campaign of battles with the Jihadi hounds that were unleashed on an unsuspecting world by Mohammed.



As they had done to provoke the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were now dealing with a settled civilization.

So the Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the depredations of the Muslim Arabs.


Iran was the first country that lay blocking the path of these bloodthirsty maniacs who were out to impose their Islamic creed on all those who succumbed to their ruthless march. The Persians (and the Byzantines) were both unfit to defeat the Muslim Arabs, as till then in human history nowhere had a people been worked into a frenzy to go out defeat the adversary and convert the defeated and weak to a creed that imposed the same paranoia of converting still others who were unfortunate and weak to fall before the bloodthirsty Islamic Jihad.

Till the rise of the murderous creed of Islam, the world had known only imperial conquests, where the conqueror, be he Alexander, Cyrus, Julius Caesar, Hannibal or any other, the war took place between the opposing armies. The fate of the battle was decided on the battlefield alone. The common people, the unarmed civilians were not in danger of a victorious adversary imposing anything more than new taxes and new administrators.

How Islam changed the rules of warfare making the entire civilian population of a defeated adversary, into a victim of tyranny

The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world. Those who fell victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their lives by becoming Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty.


Those who fell victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their lives by becoming Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty like the Muslims.

The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world.


Islam was, and still is, a curse on humankind from the word go. At the pain of death, Islam spread like wildfire into Persia, making the Persians also into bloodthirsty wolves like the Muslim Arabs. It was the Persians who a hundred years later were to take this bloodthirsty creed to the Turks and the Turks in turn a few hundred years after that were to attack Byzantine and the Balkans.

Today the Persians (Iranians) have faint memories of their pre-Islamic past. The glories of Cyrus and Darius, of Pasargade, Persepolis, Ctesiphon, of Zarathushtra, and the Shah-Nameh. The student community is becoming increasingly aware of their pre-Islamic past mainly through the websites on the Internet, that tell the true story of Iran. And this adds fuel to the restlessness of the young among the Iranian population.

Today, they must realize that the twilight of the Mullahs is the last twilight before the dawn of the post-Islamic Iran. Iranians, need to not only overthrow the Mullah regime, but also discard Islam and return to their pre-Islamic Zoroastrian roots. Here we shall trace the struggle waged by Iran (Persia) against the Arab Hordes who forcibly imposed Islam on the defeated Persians at the pain of death and torture.

The Battles of Namraq and Kasker (12 A.H. 634 C.E.)

As they had done to provoke the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were now dealing with a settled civilization.

So the Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the depredations of the Muslim Arabs. The king sent a reconnaissance force under the command of a general named Jaban. This force first approached the town of Hira that had been occupied by the Arabs. On seeing the Persians approach, the Arab force withdrew towards the desert into the oasis town of Namraq (modern Kufa) to draw the Persians into the desert, a terrain that the Arabs were familiar with, but the Persians were not.

The Arabs were on camels in addition to their infantry. The Persians were on horseback. While cavalry gave an advantage while fighting on normal terrain, they were a liability in the desert. With the Persians in the desert, the Arab force caught up with it and inflicted a defeat, and forced it to withdraw. The Persian reconnaissance force then withdrew to join the main Persian army at a town called Kasker.

Here another Persian general named Narsi had assembled a good concentration of forces. This town was well away from the border. Kaskar was so far away from the Muslim camp that Narsi felt that no Muslim attack could be imminent. But Abu Ubaid, the Muslim commander, thought otherwise. He thought that it would have a good psychological effect if in the wake of the battle of Namaraq itself, the Muslims rushed to Kaskar and deal with the Persian forces there before the forces under Jalinus, another Persian general could come to their assistance. This shows the Muslim daredevilry, which we must outmatch with our cowboy spirit, if we are to destroy Islam and win the war on terror.


When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with the barefooted Arab lizard eaters, coming at his doorstep as victors, sent out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:

"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."

Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could decide the issue between them. This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim.


Abu Ubaid accordingly ordered a march across the Suwad to Kaskar. Dashing across the Suwad the Muslim forces appeared at Kaskar before the astonished Persians. The Persians hurriedly brought their military into formation and the two forces faced each other at Saqatia a few miles from Kaskar.

The strategy of the Persians had been to defer action till the arrival of the force under another Persian general named Jalinus who had set off with additional forces. The strategy of the Muslims was to press the attack and force immediate decision. With this element of surprise, the Arabs kept the initiative in their hands and fell upon the Persians as soon as they reached the Persian camp. With this momentum, the Arabs were able to overwhelm the Persians at Kasker too and force them to retreat to the east, beyond the Euphrates.

Lessons from the Battles of Namraq and Kasker

The Arabs took these battles in their favor due to their guile in forcing the Persians into hostile and unfamiliar terrain and keeping the initiative in their hands, by pouncing upon the adversary the minute they sighted the Persians. These first defeats set the tone for future Arab-Persian battles and the ultimate defeat of Persia by the Arabs.

The lesson here is to keep the initiative always in our hands if the aim is to stun and defeat the Muslims. In the modern context, the 9/11 attacks on America were meant to stun America as the Arabs had stunned the Persians at their first battles at Namraq and Kasker. So after 9/11 if President Bush had immediately seized the initiative by taking out a couple of cities in the Muslim world using Neutrons or Nukes, this would have delivered a strong message to the beastly Muslims that they could not mess around with America. By going about a slow and conventional start, America has emboldened the Muslims to carry out attacks on other Western targets, as the Sassanid Persians did by their dithering and letting the Arabs take the initiative at the Battle Kasker, conveyed to the Arabs that they could overwhelm and stun the Persians if they kept the initiative in their hands.

Although the Muslims today cannot defeat the West, the West is giving them a lifeline by allowing the initiative to slip. On the other hand, the Muslims by staging dramatic attacks on Western targets like those at London, Beslan Madrid after 9/11, are living up to their tradition of keeping the initiative in their hands and hitting at their adversaries where they least expect to be hit. The lesson which these first battles between the Persians and Arabs give us today is to keep the initiative in the war on terror completely in the hands of the West and to hit the enemy where it hurts most – by nuking Mecca during Hajj. And carrying out large scale attacks during Ramzan and regular attacks to coincide with the Friday noon prayers across the most populous towns in the Islamic crescent.


When the battle of Nihavend started going the way of the Persians, the Arabs faced certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play.

Ali who was Mohammed’s son-in-law and the husband of the Child Persian Princess Shahrbanu (Princess of the Town - of Ctesiphon), suggested a base move to the Arab Muslim commander Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. After the battle of Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were taken as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. Among the unfortunate children who were left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King Yazdgard. When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three years old) they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn gifted her to Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali. At that time Ali was thirty two years old and he decided to take a three year old child princess as his concubine!

Now at the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive child wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he offer the Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to leave its fortified position and walk into an Arab trap. According to Ali’s advise, on the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed the captured Persian child princess to the assembled Persians and said that he would kill the princess on the battle field and of the Persians had the courage, they could come and save her. As a reaction, and against their commanders’ orders the front ranks of the Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs leaving the fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.

Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions Mugheera ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell upon them from three sides. This way using foul tactics the Arabs, could annihilate the Persians once again. The carnage of Nihavend was the break the back of the Persian resistance to Islam and the remaining history of Persia is that of Arabization and Islamization.


Lessons of the Battle of the Bridge (Al Jisr) - 14 A.H. 636 C.E.

At the next major clash which is known as the Battle of the Bridge between the Persians and the Arab Muslims, the Persians used elephants for the first time, which were new for the denizens of the desert the Bedouin Arab Muslims. At the battle of the Bridge (the Battle of Al Jisr in Arab chronicles), the Persians used their elephants to trample over the Arab attackers. They even trampled the Arab general, due to which there was panic among the Arab army which stared retreating. The Persians chased the Arabs up to the Bridge on the Tigris river, which then marked the boundary between the Persian empire and the domain of the Arabs.

The Persians stopped at the bridge and chased the Arabs across it, but did not follow the Arabs into the Arabian desert. The Persians wasted an opportunity to utterly defeat the Muslims by going right into Arabia and hunting down the Muslim Arabs in their homeland and slaughtering them in the same manner in which the Arab Muslims slaughtered all their adversaries and speaking to the Muslims in the only language they understand – that of blood and death.

This the Persians did, as that was how battles had been fought from time immemorial till the beastly Muslims came on the scene. Alexander did not slaughter his adversaries, neither did he forcibly convert them into Greeks. Nor did the Romans do this neither did the Byzantines, nor did the Persians.

The Persians and the Byzantines had been fighting for four hundred years till before the Arab Muslims invaded both their empires, but neither the Persians nor the Byzantines exterminate each armies to the last man, nor did they torment each other’s civilian populations, and less so did they try to convert each other’s civilian population to their own faiths the way the Arab Muslims were to do with both. Today we find no Zoroastrians in Iran, Afghanistan or Baluchistan, which were ruled by the Zoroastrian Persian dynasties like the Hakkamanishiya (Acheamenian) and the Sassanids. As we do not find any Christians in any significant number in Syria, Jordan or Turkey which were Byzantine provinces.

With the Arabs it was going to be different. The Muslims were to slaughter all defeated armies to the last man, and then terrorize the civilian population to embrace Islam. Had the Persians known this and had they decided to respond in the same way, they should have slaughtered he entire fleeing Arab army at the Battle of Al Jisr (Battle of the Bridge) and then they should have gone into nook and cranny of Arabia (as Mohammed had done) to convert the newly converted Arab Muslims to any religion, but the vicious creed of Islam.


The tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of sedition, cheating, bribery, betrayal and foul tactics that included shooting arrows at the steeds, slashing their feet to bring the riders down while they were engaged with another attacker, so much for Arab Muslim valor in winning wars!

During the Muslim aggression against Sassanid Persia, Arab chroniclers tell us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man, perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made his face look like that of a camel which has a protruding lower lip. This Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to pin him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could only defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian’s thumb so hard that he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.


The Persians cannot be blamed for not doing this, since they did not know the kind of enemy that they were facing, so they allowed the retreating Muslim army to flee. An army that was to come back again to slaughter the entire Persian army at Qadissiyah and in all other battles where the Arab Muslims faced the Persians and all other adversaries, after which they were to terrorize the civilian population to embrace Islam.

But while the Persians can be forgiven for not having done that to the Muslims, today when we know what Islam is all about and we have the track record of Islam to see, it is foolish and suicidal not to do this. By “this” we mean to not just defeat Islam on the battlefield, but to forcibly convert the Muslims to any other religion, but their accursed creed of Islam by giving them a choice of giving up Islam or death. This is the lesson for us of the battle of Al Jisr (the battle of the Bridge).

An opportunity to do this was lost by the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers in 732, by the Austrians and Poles at the battle of Vienna in 1683 by the Hindus at the Battle of Tarain in 1191 at the Battle of the Bridge by the Persians in 634, and more recently at the six day war in 1967 by the Israelis; the liberation of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, after which we should have forced the defeated Muslims to choose between abjuring Islam, or embracing death. But for this the non-Muslim do not yet have an understanding of their enemy – the Muslims.

We have not yet realized what can defeat Islam, once and forever. And so we have repeated the folly of letting a defeated Muslim army and nations go scot free at all these and at and countless other battles at which the victorious non-Muslims had the Muslims at their mercy. The lesson for us to learn fast is never to allow the murderous Muslims to retreat unmolested after they have been defeated, but to press on with consolidating the victory by giving the Muslim the choice of abjuring Islam or embracing death. Inhuman as this may sound, it is the only workable way of defeating Islam once and forever.

All our acts of letting Islam survive after every defeat were costly mistakes that came back to haunt humankind time and again the last time spectacularly on 9/11, and which is bound to repeat itself over and over again till the world decides that enough is enough and puts a full and final end to the menace called Islam.


It was at the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.), that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into retreat and defeat. During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the Persian general Rustam by sneaking into the Persian camp disguised as wounded Persian soldiers, and once they set their hands on him, they beheaded him much in the same way as Zarqawi does today with his Western captives. The Arabs displayed Rustam’s decapitated body to the Persian army at the morning of the fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah (Cadesia).

The grisly sight of their general’s headless body riddled with arrows lying on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not used to. This sealed the fate of the battle and the Arabs could make short shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the next target of the attacking Muslims.

The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in the Muslims – an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use nuclear weapons to reduce the enemy to radioactive dust across the entire swath of the Islamic crescent from Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago.


The seminal Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)

At this seminal battle fought over four days, the Persians were led by a capable general named Rustam-e-Farrokhzad (Farokh Hormazd), and only the foul tactics of Saad-Ibn-Waqas, the Arab Muslim commander could bring defeat and death to Rustam and the Persian army. Under Saad-ibn-Waqas, the Muslims very effectively used the tactic of luring the Arab contingent to defect from the Persian army, join the Arab Muslims and betray their non-Muslim Zoroastrian paymasters. This way the Muslims could get to know the weaknesses of the Persian army and devise tactics to trick and defeat the Persians.

One of these tactics was the cutting off the girdles of the Howdas (seats) of those who were riding the elephants, so that the howdas along with the riders would fall and thus the elephant would become directionless. The elephants played havoc on the Arabs at beginning of the first day of the battle. But when the Arab contingent who had defected, betrayed the Persian paymasters and told the Arab Muslims to cut the girdles of the elephants, the elephants became directionless and useless. This was one foul tactic that the Muslims used to defeat their more superior Persian adversary.

The second tactic told by the defectors was to blind the elephants in one eye only, so that they would lose direction and flee away from the direction, of its attackers. When this gruesome act was done, the elephants turned around away from the Arab-Muslim tormentors and broke through the Persian ranks, causing disorder in the Persian army and opened up passages for the Muslims to advance into the Persian ranks. This was the second tactic which the defectors told the Arab Muslims to use, due to which the tide of the battle turned in favor of the Muslim - so much for Allah giving them victory.

The Arabs and Persians had agreed at the beginning of the battle not fight after sundown, but when the tide of the battle began to turn against the Persians on the third day of the battle, the Arabs attacked the Persians all through the night, shouting Allah-o-Akbar. This was the Night of Clangor, which sealed the fate of the battle in favor of the deceitful and barbaric Muslim Arabs.

The victory was a result of deceit, which the adversaries of the Muslims today need to remember when fighting the Muslims. Today the Muslims try to deflect the American effort at war, by many such tactics based on their mean psychology of deceit. They say that the 9/11 attacks were the handiwork of the Jews (sic). They say that they are fighting in self-defense and so they kill innocent civilians, women and children (at Beslan). They march in droves in the “Peace Rallies” in which they are encouraged by their socialist and communist 5th columnist bedmates – those accursed snakes in the grass.

This kind of deceit has been used by the Muslims in all their encounters all through the 1400 years of their existence. This base and mean mentality of the Muslims will have to borne in mind and countered if we are to finally defeat the Muslims in our generation and to permanently end the menace of Islam.

Lessons from the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Quadsiyyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)

It was at this battle that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into retreat and defeat – something which neither Alexander, nor Cyrus, nor Darius, nor Julius Caesar, nor Hannibal had done.

During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the Persian general Rustam, and once they set their hands on him, they beheaded him much in the same way as Zarqawi does today with his Western captives. After this Arabs displayed Rustam’s decapitated body to the Persian army at the next morning of the fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah (Cadesia).

The grisly sight of their general’s headless body riddled with arrows lying on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not used to. This sealed the fate of the battle, and the Arabs could make short shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the next target for the attacking Muslims.

The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in the Muslims – an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use all the weapons in our arsenal including nuclear weapons, to reduce the enemy to radioactive dust across the entire swath of the Islamic crescent from Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago.


After the battle of Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were marched off as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. This rapacious behavior was to be repeated over and over again at Jerusalem (636), Damascus (637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650), Tripoli (651), Constantinople (1453) and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on their non-Muslim adversaries.

How Islamic deceit made single combat a deathly struggle for its adversaries

The Persians, who were one of the first non-Arab people, on whom the Muslims fell upon, had a tradition of single combat, which they used in many battles. The strongest person from each army would fight the champion of the adversary’s army. The winner’s army would be deemed to have won the battle, and the actual battle was not then fought, as both the armies were honor-bound to abide by the result of the duel.

The duel was a test of strength and skill. The opponents were not bound to kill their adversary, but only to defeat him, and in most cases the defeated champion was allowed to return to his camp, and his army withdrew thus preventing a battle and saving of many lives. The Persians, the pre-Islamic Turks, the Greeks and Romans had used this practice of single-combat to settle the result of many a battle. This practice was fine as long as both the adversaries were bound by honor.

But with the coming of the dishonorable Muslims, the single combat, became a farce. It was now one more tool to humiliate the enemy and to demoralize it before the actual combat could begin. Even if the Arab Champion was defeated, the Arabs would nevertheless attack the opposing army. And if the Arab champion was victorious, he would not just defeat the opposing adversary but kill him, after which the Arab army would thereupon fall on the opposing army and a carnage would follow.

The Arabs never allowed their adversaries to escape by retreating. They found sadistic glee in slaughtering their defeated opponents to the last man. The Persians were the first to bear the brunt of this beastly mentality of the Muslim Arabs.

The Persians had specialized a practice wherein they nurtured champions who were called Hazar Mard (A thousand men), which meant that these champions had the strength of a thousand men and who would fight off a champion from the opposing army to stave off the need for an actual battle.

Arab chroniclers have gloated about the heap of bones that marked every encounter of the Persians and the Arabs. At the battle of Al Madain (Tessfoon or Ctesiphon) the capital of the Sassanids, Arab chroniclers tell us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man, perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made his face look like that of a camel which also has a protruding lower lip.

This Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to pin him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could only defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian’s thumb so hard that he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.


The Arch of Chosroes (Takht-e-Kisra) is all that remains of the awesome grandeur of the White Palace at Ctesiphon capital of the Sassanian Empire. After the Muslims captured Ctesiphon, they were befuddled by its shear beauty and opulence. Desert nomads that they were, they could not figure out what they could do with an imperial capital with its palaces, carpets, baths, terrace gardens, orchards. The abominably cruel and violent bare-footed, lizard-eating Muslim Arabs had no use for these trappings of a civilized life, they stripped the city of all moveable items like jewelry, carpets, ornate furniture and then they reduced the city to rubble and carried away its residents to slavery in to the sandy wastes of Arabia. The tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of destruction, vandalism, savagery that included burning down libraries, destroying fire-temples (Zoroastrian places of worship), slaughter of captured civilians to ensure that civilization would never rise up again after an Islamic victory.

The Muslim Capture of the Persian capital Ctesiphon revealed the nature of the Islamic threat

After the Arabs has slaughtered two thirds of the Persian army at Qadissiyah, they did not stop, but continued to march to the Persian capital Ctesiphon (Teesfoon). The Arabs were not interested in a border war but were intent in defeating Persia utterly by marching into the nook and corner of that country. The prize – the Persian capital was the first in their path. When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with the barefooted Arab lizard eaters, coming to his doorstep as victors, sent out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:

"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."

Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could decide the issue between them.

After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam, or death. This is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were converted to Islam.

This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the Muslims survive – both cannot survive!

You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.


After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam, or death.


After this they brought each of the Persian noblemen who had the misfortune to having fallen in to the hands of the Arab Muslims as prisoners in front of the Saad-ibn-Wagas, the Muslim gangster who now occupied the throne of the Persian Emperor and gave the prisoners a choice of Islam or death. This is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were converted to Islam.

This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the Muslims survive – both cannot survive!

You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.


After the disastrous defeat at Qadsiyah and the occupation of his capital Ctesiphon, the Hapless Persian emperor Yazgard, withdrew to the fortress of Hulwan, from there to Rayy and finally to Merv, near the border of the Persian empire with the domain of the Central Asian Turks, where he died fighting the Muslims in 651 – seventeen years after the Arabs had first attacked Persia. But before this had to happen, the Persians put up one final major resistance to the Muslims at Nihavend (Nihawand).

Lessons from the battle of Nihavend

After the disastrous defeat at Qadisiyah, the Persians regrouped under a new Commander-in-Chief named Pirojan. The first step that Pirojan took was to re-organize the Persian army in the light of the foul tactics that the Arabs used. He purged the Persian army of all Arab contingents, and provided the entire Persian army with mail armor. The Persians had a burning desire in them to liberate Persia that was being slowly occupied by the Arabs after their victory at Qadisiyah.

The Persians took the oath by the holy fire that they will die, but not let the Arabs occupy the Persia. With this new resolution, the Persians regrouped their forces at Nihavend. When the two armies faced each other, the Persians had taken a vantage position on the slope of a hill. The Arab historians describe the Persian army as a ‘Mountain of Steel’. The determined Persians put up a stiff resistance under the leadership of their general Mardanshah and the Arabs could not make any headway.

The battle of Nihavend was going the way of the Persians and the Arabs faced certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play once again.

Ali who was Mohammed’s son-in-law and the husband of the child Persian Princess Shahrbanu, suggested a base move to the Arab Muslim commander Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. At the battle of Qadisiyah, when the Persians has hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were taken as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. This rapacious behavior was to be repeated over and over again at Jerusalem (636), Damascus (637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650), Constantinople (1453) and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on their non-Muslim adversaries.

At the Persian capital Ctesiphon, among the unfortunate children who were left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King Yazdgard. When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three years old) they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn gifted her to Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali as maal-e-ganimat (slaves obtained by Muslims after a war).

At that time Ali was thirty two years old and he decided to take the three year old child princess as his concubine! In doing this he was following the illustrious (sic) footsteps of his lecherous father-in-law Mohammed. The lecherous Mohammed had married and consummated his marriage with a seven year old girl named Ayesha in addition to many other unfortunate young and beautiful ladies who had been captured by the Muslim gangsters in the numerous wars at Badr, Uhud, Trench, Autas in the Arabian peninsula.

It was from this "marriage" of Ali to Princess Shahrbanu, that he fathered his two sons Hassan and Husain, who were later murdered in Battle of Karbala in October of AD 680. Ali himself had been murdered in 39 A.H. (661 C.E.). The descendants of Hassan and Hussain were to be the Shiite Imams who founded the Shia sect of Islam that had mixed Persian (royal Sassanid) and Arab ancestry. (Arab historians deliberately attribute the motherhood of these two sons of Ali to Fatima, another of Ali’s wives, and the daughter of Mohammed.

But the reason for such attribution is to keep the ancestry of Husain and Hassan purely to Arabs and to suppress the royal Sassanid Persian element of their ancestry.

The historical fact is that Shahrbanu the Persian princess was the mother of Hassan and Hussain. So the descendants of Hussain and Hassan from whom came many of the Shiite Imams had royal Sassanid Persian ancestry. A fact that the Muslim historians try to hide by wrongly claiming that Sharbanu was a young princess of marriagable age when she had been captured by the Arabs.

We know that the battle of Qadisiyah had been fought in the year 637, and Yazdgard had ascended the throne in the year 634, when his age was 21 - twenty one. So in 637 when he fled his capital leaving behind his daughter he was 24. How could a King aged 24 have a daughter who herself was a teenager or a young lady?

The Muslim historians have us believe that Shahrbanu was honorably married off by Ali to his son Hussain from whom she begot Ali's grandon Ali Zayn al Abidin (the fourth Shia Imam) in 658 CE.

But we know that princess Shahrbanu was abducted in the year 637, and according to Arab accounts she gave birth to a son in 658. If she was a young lady when she was abducted in 637 then why did she have to wait for 21 years till 658 before she could beget? Especially so considering that the Muslims force their wives to procreate as soon as they can lay their hands on them!? The Arab Muslims and their Iranian Muslim cohorts are practising their ritual deception taqiya to mislead us and give a veneer of hanorablity to the abduction and rape of Shahrbanu by Ali when he lustfully took the Persian princess into his harem as his rightful property (maal-e-ganimat) won after a war as per the henious Muslim custom.

This is the reason why most Persians are Shias. The Persian converts to Islam saw in the Shiite Imams a continuation of their pre-Islamic royal Sassanid lineage as the Shiite Imams were descended from the union of Ali with Shahrbanu (or of Hussain with Shahrbanu in which case too the royal Sassanid Persian element of the ancestry of the Shiite Imams remains). The Zoroastrian converts who yearned for a return to the Sassanid days saw in Ali, Hussain, Hassan and the Shiite Imams, the successors to their Sassanid emperor Yazgard by virtue of Ali (or by some accounts his son Hussain) being the husband of their princess Shahrbanu.

The Shias who are mainly Persian, Iraqi and Bahraini converts to Islam came from those parts which constituted the Sassanid empire before being overrun by the Muslims. These converts saw in Hussain and Hassan, the continuation of their old Sassanid royal lineage thru the Sassanid princess Shahrbanu along with the ancestry of Mohammed, as Ali her husband, the father of Hussain and Hassan, was Mohammed’s cousin. So they formed a cult within Islam separate from that of the Sunnis who came from the Arab Peninsula that was not a part of the Sassanid empire. Thus in today’s Shia-Sunni divide we can see the expression of the Persian-Arab divide that existed before the birth of Islam.

Coming back to the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive child wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he offer the Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to leave its fortified position and walk into an Arab trap.

According to Ali’s advise, on the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed the captured Persian child princess to the assembled Persians and said that he would kill the princess on the battle field and if the Persians had the courage, they could come and save her.

The astonished Persians took some time to recognize the princess. But once they recognized her as their own princess, who had been captured by the Arabs after the battle of Qadsiyyah four years back, they went into a frenzy of rescuing her. Against their commanders’ orders the front ranks of the Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs leaving the fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.

Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions, Mugheera ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell upon them from three sides. Weighed down by their armor and being chained to each other, the Persians had little room for maneuvering in the narrow valley where the Arabs had hemmed them in. After a valiant but futile battle, what followed was a carnage of the Persian army all through the day. By nightfall the remnants of the Persian army retreated in the dark and many of the retreating Persians fell into the steep cliff, behind the hill on which they had assembled to attack the Arabs from the high ground.

This way using foul tactics the Arabs, could annihilate the Persians once again. The carnage of Nihavend was the break the back of the Persian resistance to Islam and the remaining history of Persia is that of Arabization and Islamization. The Persia we next hear of is the Islamic Persia of Muslim dynasties the Samanids, and the Safavids of Muslim kings like Shah Abbas and Nader Shah. Although the Persian were forced to become Muslims, they preserved the faint memory of their pre-Muslim past, that was captured by poets, historians and bards in their works, of which Firdawsi’s Shah-nameh is the most famous example.

Using imagery we can say that Zoroastrian Sassanian Persia was like a strong horse, who had been caught unawares by the Islamic tiger prowling around it, and when the tiger pounced on the horse and caught it by its neck, the struggle of the strong horse was not enough to save itself from the vice-like grip of the tiger’s fangs. The horse had to meet its end, in becoming the first major victim of the Islamic Jihad. It is up to the Iranians of today to realize what happened to their ancestors in history and repudiate the bloodied creed that the bare-footed lizard eaters of the desert imposed on their refined ancestors.

How the Muslims forcibly converted the Zoroastrians of Iran to Islam

Today we do not have an idea of how a merciless jihad transformed Iranian Zoroastrian society into a Muslim one. We have definitive assessments of those few Zoroastrian communities which survived the devastating jihadist conquests of the mid 7th through early 8th centuries. All through the Muslim Arab occupation of Iran, the Zoroastrians experienced an ongoing, inexorable decline over the next millennium due to constant sociopolitical and economic pressures exerted by their Muslim rulers, and neighbors.

This gradual, but continuous process was interspersed with periods of accelerated decline resulting from paroxysms of Muslim fanaticism- pogroms, forced conversions, and expropriations – throughout the millennium beginning from the year 637. Boyce describes these complementary phenomena based on an historical analysis, and her personal observations living in the (central Iranian) Yezd area during the 1960s:

”In the mid nineteenth century disaster overtook Turkabad, in the shape of what was perhaps the last massed forcible conversion in Iran. It no longer seems possible to learn anything about the background of this event; but it happened, so it is said, one autumn day when the dye-madder - then one of the chief local crops - was being lifted. All the able-bodied men were at work in teams in the fields when a body of Moslems swooped on the village and seized them. They were threatened, not only with death for themselves, but also with the horrors that would befall their women and children, who were being terrorized at the same time in their homes; and by the end of the day of violence most of the village had accepted Islam.

To recant after a verbal acknowledgement of Allah and his prophet meant death in those days, and so Turkabad was lost to the old religion. Its fire-temple was razed to the ground, and only a rough, empty enclosure remained where once it had stood.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 07/29/07 05:17 PM
Post #2


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



CONTINUED:


We shall give our blood for you Khamenei – Iranian Basij militia march through Tehran during the bloodied Shiite festival of Ashura. Display of their cruel and blood-thirsty mentality is a matter of pride for Muslims.

A similar fate had overtaken many Iranian villages in the past, among those which did not willingly embrace Islam; and the question seems less why it happened to Turkabad than why it did not overwhelm all other Zoroastrian settlements. The evidence, scanty though it is, shows, however, that the harassment of the Zoroastrians of Yazd tended to be erratic and capricious, being at times less harsh, or bridled by strong governors; and in general the advance of Islam across the plain, through relentless, seems to have been more by slow erosion than by furious force. The process was still going on in the 1960s, and one could see, therefore, how it took effect.

Muslim techniques of forced conversions to Islam

Either a few Moslems settled on the outskirts of a Zoroastrian village, or one or two Zoroastrian families adopted Islam. Once the dominant faith had made a breach, it pressed in remorselessly, like a rising tide. More Muslims came, and soon a small mosque was built, which attracted yet others. As long as Zoroastrians remained in the majority, their lives were tolerable; but once the Moslems became the more numerous, a petty but pervasive harassment was apt to develop.

This was partly verbal, with taunts about fire-worship, and comments on how few Zoroastrians there were in the world, and how many Moslems, who must therefore posses the truth; and also on how many material advantages lay with Islam. The harassment was often also physical; boys fought, and gangs of youth waylaid and bullied individual Zoroastrians. They also diverted themselves by climbing into the local tower of silence and desecrating it, and they might even break into the fire-temple and seek to pollute or extinguish the sacred flame.

Those Muslims with heightened criminal leanings, which were natural to them, found too that a religious minority provided tempting opportunities for theft, pilfering from the open fields, and sometimes rape and arson. Those Zoroastrians who resisted all these pressures often preferred therefore in the end to sell out and move to some other place where their co-religionists were still relatively numerous, and they could live at peace; and so another village was lost to the old faith.

Several of the leading families in Sharifabad and forebears who were driven away by intense Moslem pressure from Abshahi, once a very devout and orthodox village on the southern outskirts of Yazd; and a shorter migration had been made by the family of the centenarian ‘Hajji’ Khodabakhsh, who had himself been born in the 1850s and was still alert and vigorous in 1964. His family, who were very pious, had left their home in Ahmedabad (just to the north of Turkabad) when he was a small boy, and had come to settle in Sharifabad to escape persecution and the threats to their orthodox way of life. Other Zoroastrians held out there for a few decades longer, but by the end of the century Ahmedabad was wholly Moslem, as Abshahi become in 1961. [Boyce's footnote: The last Zoroastrian family left Abshahi in 1961, after the rape and subsequent suicide of one of their daughters.]

It was noticeable that the villages which were left to the Zoroastrians were in the main those with poor supplies of water, where farming conditions were hard.

Now we examine the tall boasts that Muslims make about themselves in heralding the Islamic Renaissance when the Western world was in the Dark Ages.

Exposing the Myth of Islamic Science

Much is said about the Islamic Renaissance at Baghdad, specially under the caliphate of Harun-al–Rashid. In the Arabian peninsula (jazeera), the Arabs had lived in a hardy and barren area, which was not conducive to the growth of civilization. But this lack of a civilized life among the Arabs has no ethnic reason. The same Semitic Arabs, who lived in the fertile crescent in Mesopotamia had developed advanced civilizations of Babylon (the Mesopotemians and the Assyrians). But for those others who lived in the desert, the arid fastness precluded them from developing any substantial civilization in Arabia itself. And we need to note that Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, not Mesopotamia. So the way of life associated with Islam was based on the same meager barren desert life of Arabia.

Hence Islam was a simple religion, as it was born in an environment where people lived at subsistence, in an extreme climate which made them temperamental – this is the root of Muslim fanaticism. A trait that was passed on to all the peoples from different climates and geographic environments who were forced to accept Islam.


Today - The Village Idiot represents the Great Persian Empire. Cyrus must be turning in his grave

There was in fact a forced Arabization of the Persians (in Iran, Afghanistan), North African Hamitic people (in Egypt, Libya, Sudan) the North African Berbers (in Algeria, Morocco), the Negros (in Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, Niger) the Turks (in Turkey, Turkmenistan, Chechnya) the Mongols (in Uzbekistan, Kazakistan, Tajikistan), Hindus (in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka), Slavs (in Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania) etc.

But the converted Persians, Hindus and North Africans had cultured and civilized pre-Islamic pasts. They had developed advanced civilizations of Egypt, India and Persia. So when these people were militarily defeated and forcibly converted to Islam, they brought in cultured traits and a tradition of learning into Islam.

In fact the first codified grammar of Arabic was written by a Persian. The Arabs were unlettered, Mohammed (yimach shmo ve-zichro - may his name and memory be obliterated) himself was completely unlettered and illiterate, although he was quite cruel, cunning and ruthless.

The much vaunted Islamic renaissance was in fact a renaissance of the Persian (Zoroastrian) converts to Islam during the Persianized Abbasiad Caliphate. During the first four caliphs Abba Bakr, Umar, Uthmad and Ali (the last three who were murdered) and the Ummayad caliphate at Damascus, there was no such thing like the Islamic Renaissance, it was the Persian and Egyptian converts who had a pre-Islamic legacy of being civilized, which they carried forward after being converted to Islam.

In fact Islam tried to smother their pre-Islamic legacy of culture and civilization, and so it was only after the initial flush of Islamic savagery had passed over, that the newly converted people could after four to five generations again pick up the threads of a civilized life. The Islamic Renaissance happened not due to Islam, but in spite of Islam being around. The Islamic Renaissance was not a triumph of Islam, but a triumph of the human spirit over Islam.

After having subjugated Persia, the Arabs turned their full fury on the other adversary the Byzantine Christians. The Jihad against Byzantines went on for a much longer period. While Persia fell in seventeen years from 634 to 651, the jihad against Byzantium started in 635 but went up to 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Muslim Turks.

Although the Arab Muslims had attacked the Byzantines in 635 at Yarmuk, they could not immediately make forays deep into the Byzantine territory into Syria, Anatolia or Egypt. But with Persia subjugated, it was now the turn of the Byzantine Christians to shed their blood to resist the Islamic Jihad.

Select Bibliography

Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher

Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries (Hardcover) by Paul Fregosi

The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World by Srdja Trifkovic

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer

Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam) by David Cook

Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq

Onward Muslim Soldiers by Robert Spencer

Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'Or

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Yeor

What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary by Ibn Warraq

Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad by Mark A. Gabriel, Mark A. Gabriel

A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer

The Great Divide: The failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West by Marvin Olasky

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims by Robert Spencer

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones

The Koran (Penguin Classics) by N. J. Dawood

Don't Keep me Silent! One Woman's Escape from the Chains of Islam by Mina Nevisa

Christianity And Islam: The Final Clash by Robert Livingston

Holiest Wars : Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden by Timothy R. Furnish

The Last Trumpet: A Comparative Study in Christian-Islamic Eschatology by Samuel, Ph.D. Shahid

Unleashing the beast: How a fanatical islamic dictator will form a ten-nation coalition and terrorize the world for forty-two months by Perry Stone

Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature (Religion and Politics) by David Cook

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle by Mark A., Ph.D. Gabriel

The Challenge of Islam to Christians by David Pawson

The Prophetic Fall of the Islamic Regime by Glenn Miller, Roger Loomis

Prophet of Doom : Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words by Craig Winn

The False Prophet by Ellis H. Skolfield

The Approach of Armageddon: An Islamic Perspective by Muhammad Hisham Kabbani

The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God by George Weigel

Infiltration : How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz

Unveiling Islam : An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs by Ergun Mehmet Caner

Perfect Soldiers : The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry McDermott

Islam Revealed A Christian Arab's View Of Islam by Anis Shorrosh

Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out by Ibn Warraq

The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book by Ibn Warraq
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 07/29/07 08:02 PM
Post #3


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



First Charter of Human Rights

The charter of Cyrus the Great, a baked-clay Aryan language (Old Persian) cuneiform cylinder, was discovered in 1878 in excavation of the site of Babylon. In it, Cyrus the Great described his human treatment of the inhabitants of Babylonia after its conquest by the Iranians.

The document has been hailed as the first charter of human rights:

"May Ahura Mazda protect this land, this nation, from rancor, from foes, from falsehood, and from drought". Selected from the book "The Eternal Land".


I am Cyrus. King of the world.

When I entered Babylon... I did not allow anyone to terrorise the land... I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... I put an end to their misfortune.

From The First Charter of the Rights of Nations

Portrait of Cyrus King of PersiaCyrus (580-529 BC) was the first Achaemenid Emperor. He founded Persia by uniting the two original Iranian Tribes- the Medes and the Persians. Although he was known to be a great conqueror, who at one point controlled one of the greatest Empires ever seen, he is best remembered for his unprecedented tolerance and magnanimous attitude towards those he defeated.

Upon his victory over the Medes, he founded a government for his new kingdom, incorporating both Median and Persian nobles as civilian officials. The conquest of Asia Minor completed, he led his armies to the eastern frontiers. Hyrcania and Parthia were already part of the Median Kingdom. Further east, he conquered Drangiana, Arachosia, Margiana and Bactria. After crossing the Oxus, he reached the Jaxartes, where he built fortified towns with the object of defending the farthest frontier of his kingdom against nomadic tribes of Central Asia.

The victories to the east led him again to the west and sounded the hour for attack on Babylon and Egypt. When he conquered Babylon, he did so to cheers from the Jewish Community, who welcomed him as a liberator- he allowed the Jews to return to the promised Land. He showed great forbearance and respect towards the religious beliefs and cultural traditions of other races. These qualities earned him the respect and homage of all the people over whom he ruled.

Introduction

My purpose in compiling this article is to make the ideas and concepts expressed in the fundamental human rights documents of mankind easily accessible and useful. I did it especially for the young Iranians on whom will fall most of the burdens of ending the Islamist regime in their country and replacing it with something that better meets their aspirations.

More power to them.



Cyrus Cylinder

Cyrus the Great of Persia completed his conquest of the Chaldaean empire of Babylonia in 538 BC. He treated his new subjects with enlightened tolerance and respect. This is recorded in cuneiform script on a clay cylinder from that time that is known as the Cyrus Cylinder. The original Cylinder is housed at the British Museum. A replica has a place of honor at the United Nations Building in New York City.

" I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters ..."

Sovereignty resided in the person of the king. Cyrus's subjects were very fortunate that he was such an enlightened and benevolent king. In many other times and places people were not so lucky.

"... whose rule Bel and Nabu cherish, whose kingship they desire for their hearts' pleasures."

Cyrus claimed to have the approval of the Babylonian gods Bel (also known as Marduk) and his son Nabu. He did not try and impose his Persian god(s) on the Babylonians.

"Marduk, the great God, caused the big-hearted inhabitants of Babylon to...me. I sought daily to worship him."

Cyrus, the recent conqueror of Babylonia, honored and worshipped Marduk who as city god of Babylon was king of the gods of Babylonia.

"I did not allow any to terrorize the land of Sumer and Akkad. I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well being. The citizens of Babylon... I lifted their unbecoming yoke. Their dilapidated dwellings I restored. I put an end to their misfortunes."

Cyrus did not allow his army to plunder and loot the newly conquered country. He promoted the welfare of his new Babylonian subjects and supported their religious temples (sanctuaries).

"From ... to the cities of Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshnuna, the cities of Zamban, Meurnu, Der, as far as the region of the land of Gutium, the holy cities beyond the Tigris whose sanctuaries had been in ruins over a long period, the Gods whose abode is in the midst of them. I returned to the places and housed them in lasting abodes ... The Gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus had, to the anger of the Lord of the Gods, brought into Babylon, I at the bidding of Marduk, the great Lord, made to dwell in peace in their habitations, delightful abodes."

During their conquests the Babylonians had destroyed the temples of people whom they defeated and had brought the idols (gods) to Babylon. Cyrus restored these ruined temples and returned the idols to them.

"I gathered together all their inhabitants and restored to them their dwellings."

A Farsi translation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen may be seen at http://www.ashti.org/

A question for Iranian Muslims

The foundation of the modern concept of human rights is that these rights are sacred and senior to any government authority. In fact the people delegate power to the government and the purpose of government is to promote the common interests of the people.

In other words, sovereignty resides in the people and the proper function of government is to serve the people.

Democracy was implemented in the U.S., and later in European and other countries, for the very purpose of upholding, defending and safeguarding the human rights of the people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is founded on the premise that sovereignty resides in Allah. Allah delegates power to the clergy, the Olama, and the Olama appoint the Rahbar. So the proper function of the Rahbar is to rule the people and the proper function of the people is to serve and obey the Rahbar.

This is similar to the concept of the "divine right of kings" that prevailed in Europe up until the 1700s and the Rahbar is in a way a Priest-King, a Caliph.

The view of the world that Islamic authority must rule every political, legal and social aspect of all peoples lives is called Islamism and people who think this way are called Islamists.

All Islamists are Muslims. Not all Muslims are necessarily Islamists

The foundation of human rights and democracy is completely different to the foundation of Islamism.

Islamism is completely incompatible with human rights and democracy. Islamic democracy has never existed, does not exist and never will exist. Islamic democracy is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

So if you are a Muslim then you need to decide: are you also an Islamist?

If you are an Islamist then human rights and democracy are not for you.


Let me close with Article 16 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen:

"Any society in which (human) rights are not guaranteed, nor the scope of (government) power determined, has no Constitution."
http://www.pcpages.com/ani/pages/humrts/HumRts00.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 07/29/07 08:45 PM
Post #4


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17




"O, man, whoever thou art and whensoever thou comest, for I know that thou wilt come.

I am Cyrus, and I won for the Persians their empire.

Do not, therefore, begrudge me this little earth which covers my body."





King Cyrus a Just Ruler

[...]

Cyrus showed great respect for conquered peoples' religious and cultural beliefs. At that time, every tribe or kingdom had its own gods and rites.

While it was customary for conquerors to deface the idols and religious statues of those they defeated, Cyrus forbade that practice. When it did occur, he quickly remedied it.

"Large numbers of foreign captive divinities gave further opportunity for royal benevolence," Olmstead wrote. That earned him the respect and homage of the races over whom he ruled.

Cyrus' biggest conquest was Babylonia, a wildly rich and powerful kingdom in the fertile crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. It was, however, in decline. Babylonian king Nabu-naid was unpopular with many segments of his population. He had alienated the high priests and captured and enslaved ten of thousands of Jews.

Cyrus took Babylon, the greatest city of the ancient world, in 539 B.C. He did so to the cheers of its citizens, who welcomed him as ruler because of word of his just treatment.

He lived up to that reputation, freeing more than 40,000 enslaved Jews and allowing them to return to Palestine. He is mentioned 22 times in the Bible for these and similar deeds.

Cyrus always took pains to convey that he was not a foreign king and conqueror, but a liberator and, therefore, a legitimate holder of the crown.

For example, after conquering Babylon, he immediately addressed its citizens in their own language and added "King of Babylon" to the top of his long list of titles. It was an unheard of gesture of respect.

"In the eyes of his Babylonian subjects, Cyrus was never an alien king," Olmstead wrote. "The proclamation of Cyrus to the Babylonians, issued in their own language, was a model of persuasive propaganda."

He also left in place most of the existing government and allowed most midlevel officials to retain their positions.

Cyrus was a great learner. He observed the customs and traditions of the cultures he conquered and made sure the best elements were put to use for all of Persia's benefit.

Cyrus invented, or appropriated and improved upon, the idea of the postal system, according to the Greek historian Xenophon. Figuring out how far a horse could travel in one day, Cyrus built a series of posting stations, each one day's ride apart, across his empire. The system ensured the efficient flow of information between him and his satraps.
http://www.farsinet.com/cyrus/cyrus_just_ruler.html


Engineering an Empire:

The Persians - Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKN-gZuSH2o

The Persians - Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdqmdB_Sbtc

Part III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bykHGRD_BZ4

Part IV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWmaMTTesI

Part V
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFPoe06ThRU


Awesome series.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 07/29/07 09:23 PM
Post #5


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



God Calls King Cyrus by Name
This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: I will go before you and will level the mountains; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. I will give you the treasures of darkness, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the LORD, the God of Israel, who summons you by name. For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. "You heavens above, rain down righteousness; let the clouds shower it down. Let the earth open wide, let salvation spring up, let righteousness grow with it; I, the LORD, have created it. Isaiah 45:1-8



Persian Kings in the Bible

The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi were written during the time of the early Persian Kingdom. The following are some of the early Persian Kings according to listed books of Bible:

Cyrus 539-530 Koorush Cyrus Isaiah 45, Daniel, Ezra 1-3

Cambysses 530-521 Cambujieh Ahasruerus Ezra 4-6

Pseudo Smerdis 521 Berooyeh Doroughi Artaxerxes Ezra 4:7-23

Darius the Great 521-486 Darryoosh Darius Ezra 5,6

Xerxes 486-465 Khashayarshah Ahasurerus Esther 1-10

Artaxerxes I 464-423 Ardeshier Deraz Dast Artaxerxes Nehemiah 1 - 13, Ezra 7-10


1. Cyrus was the founder of the Mede-Persian Empire. He conquered the Media, Lydia, and Babylonain Empires. Because he was a gracious liberator, he permitted the conquered nations to worship their own gods. He was benevolent toward various captive people who hadsuffered under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. The Jews were allowed toreturn to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple and Cyrus even gave financial help. Also, he built Parargardae, a royal residence 100 miles north of Shiraz.

2. Cambysses was the son of Cyrus and was given the task of conquering Egypt. He assumed the throne after his father's death and conquered Egypt. However, on the way home from his conquest he heard that a pretender has taken the throne pretending to be another son of Cyrus called Smerdis. Cambysses died on his return trip.

3. Pseudo Smerdis, the imposter, ruled for several months. He gained a large followingby remitting taxes for three years throughout the empire. However, Darius kept the loyalty of the Persian army and eventually captured and killed Pseudo Smerdis.

4. Darius, after killing Pseudo Smerdis, defeated 9 kings (local uprisings) in 19 battlesin 2 years. These victories are recorded in the famous Behistun Inscription carved in rock some 30 miles from Kermanshah. Darius began the great work of Persepolis located 30 milesnorth of Shiraz. The main hall has the inscription, "I am Darius, great king, king of kings, king of lands -- who constructed this palace." Darius was a good organizer of his kingdom. He defeated the Greeks partially and organized an efficient postal service.

5. Xerxes was Darius's son. He continued the war against the Greeks and continued building at Persepolis.

6. Artaxerxes was the son of Xerxes who continued building at Persepolis.
http://www.farsinet.com/iranbibl/kings.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 07/29/07 10:53 PM
Post #6


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17




Cyrus 580 - 529 BC - First Charter of Human Rights


Ahmadwhatever....2007 - Death to the Jews. Death to America. Death to everybody.



Cyrus II allowing Hebrew minority pilgrims to return to and rebuild Jerusalem



Persecution of the minorities (Baha'is) in Iran 19the Century
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
concheet
post 08/02/07 07:41 PM
Post #7


Member
*******

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 10,158
Joined: 03/22/05 11:30 AM
From: US
Member No.: 16



Cyrus was not called "The Great" for nothing.

Thanks for giving us that tragic history of Persia ...

It is an education.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jam
post 08/09/07 02:14 AM
Post #8


Poster 100
***

Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 124
Joined: 03/17/07 11:02 PM
Member No.: 3,310
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: Zazas, Alevis and all Iranic People (Arian)



Iranians used like the Jews they even freed them from captivity in Babylon.

Today Iranian Government hates Israel and is ready to destroy Israel forever.

The filth of Islam is creating hate between Iran and Israel.

Now Israelis should help Iranians to be free in their own country and get rid of this dirty Islamic rule.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jam
post 08/09/07 02:16 AM
Post #9


Poster 100
***

Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 124
Joined: 03/17/07 11:02 PM
Member No.: 3,310
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: Zazas, Alevis and all Iranic People (Arian)



QUOTE(chase @ 07/29/07 10:53 PM) [snapback]114450[/snapback]

Ahmadwhatever....2007 - Death to the Jews. Death to America. Death to everybody.


You shouldn't expect from a garbage remover to respect other people...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 08/09/07 03:09 PM
Post #10


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17







Iranian kids – Paint-ball not War:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1467683

An interesting video about the under 30's in Iran. They want their freedom and as 2/3 pop. are under 30 - it's only a matter of time - hopefully.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 08/15/07 06:22 AM
Post #11


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17




When I entered Babylon... I did not allow anyone to terrorise the land... I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... I put an end to their misfortune.


"There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind."
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234...42013173859.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 08/28/07 11:04 PM
Post #12


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



Zoroastrians

Introduction:

The religion was founded by Zarathushtra (Zoroaster in Greek; Zarthosht in India and Persia). Conservative Zoroastrians assign a date of 6000 BCE to the founding of the religion; other followers estimate 600 BCE. Historians and religious scholars generally date his life sometime between 1500 and 1000 BCE on the basis of his style of writing.

He lived in Persia, modern day Iran. Legends say that his birth was predicted and that attempts were made by the forces of evil to kill him as a child. He preached a monotheism in a land which followed an aboriginal polytheistic religion. He was attacked for his teaching, but finally won the support of the king. Zoroastrianism became the state religion of various Persian empires, until the 7th Century CE.

When Muslim Arabs invaded Persia in 650 CE, a small number of Zoroastrians fled to India where most are concentrated today. Those who remained behind have survived centuries of persecution, systematic slaughter, forced conversion, heavy taxes, etc. They now number only about 18,000 and reside chiefly in Yazd, Kernan and Tehran in what is now Iran. The Canadian 1991 census counted 3,190 Zoroastrians in that country. The actual number is believed to be much higher. According to the Fezana Journal survey, published quarterly by the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America, there are about 11,000 Zoroastrians in the United States, 6,000 in Canada, 5,000 in England, 2,700 in Australia and 2,200 in the Persian Gulf nations.


Membership:

There are fewer than 200,000 Zoroastrians in the world today. In spite of its relatively few members, its importance to humanity is much greater than its current numbers might suggest, because:
bullet Their theology has had a great impact on Judaism, Christianity and other later religions, in the beliefs surrounding God and Satan, the soul, heaven and hell, savior, resurrection, final judgment, etc.
bullet It is one of the oldest religions still in existence,
bullet It may have been the first monotheistic religion.

According to the New York Times:

"While Zoroastrians once dominated an area stretching from what is now Rome and Greece to India and Russia, their global population has dwindled to 190,000 at most, and perhaps as few as 124,000, according to a survey in 2004 by the Fezana Journal The number is imprecise because of wildly diverging counts in Iran, once known as Persia -- the incubator of the faith."

'' 'Survival has become a community obsession,' said Dina McIntyre, an Indian-American lawyer in Chesapeake, Va., who has written and lectured widely on her religion."

"The Zoroastrians' mobility and adaptability has contributed to their demographic crisis. They assimilate and intermarry, virtually disappearing into their adopted cultures. And since the faith encourages opportunities for women, many Zoroastrian women are working professionals who, like many other professional women, have few children or none." 1

Zoroastrian Sacred Text:

The Zorastrian holy book is called the Avesta. This includes the original words of their founder Zarathushtra, preserved in a series of five hymns, called the Gathas. The latter represent the core text of the religion. The Gathas are abstract sacred poetry, directed towards the worship of the One God, understanding of righteousness and cosmic order, promotion of social justice and individual choice between good and evil. The Gathas have a general and even universal vision.

At some later date (most scholars say many centuries later), the remaining parts of the Avestas were written. These deal with laws of ritual and practice, with the traditions of the faith. The Zoroastrian community is sharply divided between those who would follow mostly (or exclusively) the teachings of the original Gathas, and those who believe that the later traditions are important and equally divinely inspired.

Zoroastrian Beliefs:

Beliefs include:
A single god Ahura Mazda who is supreme. Communication between Himself and humans is by a number of Attributes, called Amesha Spentas or Bounteous Immortals. Within the Gathas, the original Zoroastrian sacred text, these Immortals are sometimes described as concepts, and are sometimes personified.
One school of thought promotes a cosmic dualism between:
An all powerful God Ahura Mazda who is the only deity worthy of being worshipped, and
An evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu, who opposes Ahura Mazda.

The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity who is required to choose which to follow. Evil, and the Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time. Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all.
Another school of thought perceives the battle between Good and Evil as an ethical dualism, set within the human consciousness.
Asha is a form of righteous, all encompassing, natural law.
Legends, which are probably not those of Zarathushtra's original teachings are:
After death, the urvan (soul) is allowed three days to meditate on his/her past life. The soul is then judged by a troika Mithra, Sraosha and Rashnu. If the good thoughts, words and deeds outweigh the then the soul is taken into heaven. Otherwise, the soul is led to hell.
The universe will go through three eras:
creation;
the present world where good and evil are mixed. People's good works are seen as gradually transforming the world towards its heavenly ideal;
and a final state after this renovation when good and evil will be separated.

Eventually, everything will be purified. Even the occupants of hell will be released.
bullet A Saoshyant (savior) will be born of a virgin, but of the lineage of the Prophet Zoroaster who will raise the dead and judge everyone in a final judgment.

Zoroastrian Practices:

Their worship includes prayers and symbolic ceremonies.
Members are dedicated to a three-fold path, as shown in their motto: "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds."
Members can pray at home instead of going to a temple if they wish. 1
Zoroastrians do not generally accept converts. One has to be born into the religion. This belief is disputed by some members. Jehan Bagli, a retired chemist in Toronto who is a mobed (priest), and president of the North American Mobed Councilsaid:

''They feel that the religion is not universal and is ethnic in nature, and that it should be kept within the tribe This is a tendency that to me sometimes appears suicidal. And they are prepared to make that sacrifice.'' 1

The traditional wing of Zoroastrianism discourages and does not recognize inter-faith marriages. More details.
They do not proselytize. 1
Zoroastrians use three calendars: Shenshai, Qadimi and Fasli. On 1992-MAR-21, the spring equinox and first day of the Zoroastrian year, all three calendars coincided. This is an even that only occurs only once every 120 years. Many Zoroastrian organizations recommended that the membership switch to the Falsi Calendar on that day. This has been reasonably successful. 2

New Year's Day and the importance of light in Zoroastrianism:

Zoroastrian rituals are conducted before a sacred fire. Some outsiders believe that they actually worship fire. This is not true. They regard fire as a symbol of their God, and they cherish the light that it produces. Light is seen as energy, a natural force that is powerful and necessary for survival.

Hannah M.G. Shapero "...a visual artist deeply devoted to Zoroastrian scholarly studies" writes:

"Noruz is the Iranian New Year, which is celebrated each year at the Spring Equinox, around March 21. It is the most important holiday in the Zoroastrian calendar, and brings with it a wealth of symbolism, history, myth, and joyous festivities. There are many layers of meaning to Noruz: astronomical, mythical, historical, ritual, and spiritual."

"The word Noruz, in Persian, means "New Day," and the primal origin of the festival is in the universal rhythms of Earth and nature. In the "temperate" zones of the Northern Hemisphere, including Iran, the spring equinox signals the beginning of warmer weather and the growing season. In ancient Iran, it was the time to begin plowing fields and sowing seeds for crops. The equinox also marks the moment when, in the twenty-four hour round of the day, daylight begins to be longer than night."

"From its earliest origins Zoroastrianism has honored these natural rhythms and cycles, both with agricultural festivals and with cosmic commemorations of yearly astronomical events. The world, fashioned by the Wise Lord, shows forth the divine in all aspects of nature, and that divine Immanence is honored in festivals like Noruz, in which divine symbolism is joined with a celebration of the renewal of the earth in spring."

"In Zoroastrianism, light is the great symbol of God and Goodness, whether in the light of the sun or in the sacred fire. The Spring Equinox and the lengthening of the days is thus a symbol of the victory of Light over the cold and darkness of winter." 3

References:
bullet Farhand Mehr, "The Zoroastrian Tradition", Element Books, (1991)
bullet Duchesne-Guilemin (translated by Henning), "Wisdom of the East" C.E. Tuttle (1992)
bullet Avesta -- Zoroastrian Archives is an extensive resource of Zoroastrian information at: http://www.avesta.org/avesta.html
bullet The Stanford University Zoroastrian Group maintains a home page with a large collection of links at: http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/
bullet The Zoroastrian Association of Shiraz promotes the Zoroastrian religion, teachings and culture to the world at: http://shiraz.freeservers.com/
bullet The Ancient Iranian Cultural & Religious Research & Development Center maintains a Canadian web site to promote the teachings of Zarathushtra. See: http://www.ancientiran.com
bullet Dinyar's Zoroastrian Web Page is at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3417/
bullet Zoroastrian Home Page is part of the ReligionQuest.com home page. See: http://www.religionquest.com/Zoroastrian_home.htm
bullet Twilit Grotto has an overview of the Avesta language, a Zoroastrian wedding ceremony, Zoroastrian scriptures and much more at: http://www.avesta.org/
bullet The Zoroastrianism Page has information on the Zoroastrian calendar, festivals and much more at: http://coulomb.ecn.purdue.edu/~bulsara/ZOROASTRIAN/

Reference used:
1. Laurie Goodstein, "Zoroastrians Keep the Faith, and Keep Dwindling," New York Times, 2006-SEP-06, at: http://select.nytimes.com/
2. "Zoroastrian Calendar," at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/
3. Hannah M.G. Shapero, "Noruz, The Fire of Spring," at: http://www.vohuman.org/
Copyright © 1996 to 2007 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2007-AUG-20
Author: B.A. Robinson


Parsi Navjote ceremony (rites of admission into the Zoroastrian faith)



Ahunavaiti Gatha

Song Four

Transliterated Text (Form I):

ýę âyat ashavanem
divamnem hôi aparem xshyô
daregęm âyű temanghô
dushhvarethęm avaętâs vacô
tęm vâ ahűm dregvańtô
shyaothanâish hvâish daęnâ naęshat.

Transliterated Text (Form II):

yay aayat ashavanem
divamnem hoi aparem khshyo
daregem aayoo temangho
dushhvarethem avaetaas vacho
tem vaa ahoom dregvanto
shyaothanaaish hvaaish daenaa naeshat.

Translated Text:

Whoever goes over to the righteous,
enjoys a bright future.
But the wrongful lives a long life of darkness,
evil splendor and woeful words,
because it is on account of his deeds,
that his conscience leads him to it.
(Gathas: Song 4 - stanza 20)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 09/03/07 08:56 AM
Post #13


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17




580-529 BC -"When I entered Babylon... I did not allow anyone to terrorise the land... I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... I put an end to their misfortune."



2007 - "My worshippers shall inherit the earth."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 09/03/07 09:05 AM
Post #14


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17




580-529 BC -"When I entered Babylon... I did not allow anyone to terrorise the land... I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... I put an end to their misfortune."



Circa 2006 - “I will stop Christianity in this country.”
Circa 2005 - “[...]to youthful Basijis (members of a volunteer militia formed to enforce strict Islamic codes) preparing to join suicide missions that "non-Muslims are sinful animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mordoth
post 09/08/07 09:03 PM
Post #15


TURKIST
*******

Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 2,409
Joined: 11/08/05 12:31 PM
From: WESTERN TURKISTAN
Member No.: 262



Arabs had catastrophic methods while spreading islam ,that was an unacceptable case , yes.

But as i see, this articles are COMPLETELY biased.

Secondly , Mrs Chase , I could not understand your view . Do you want to Attack Iran politically ? Or you want to say how Persians are Islamized ? Which one ?

You did both of them in the same topic !

I do not appreciate what Arabs did . But article wrote " Bloodthirsty maniacs " , so is the author of this sick thread .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 09/11/07 08:10 AM
Post #16


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



QUOTE(Mordoth @ 09/08/07 09:03 PM) [snapback]116097[/snapback]
Arabs had catastrophic methods while spreading islam ,that was an unacceptable case , yes.

But as i see, this articles are COMPLETELY biased.

Secondly , Mrs Chase , I could not understand your view . Do you want to Attack Iran politically ? Or you want to say how Persians are Islamized ? Which one ?

You did both of them in the same topic !

I do not appreciate what Arabs did . But article wrote " Bloodthirsty maniacs " , so is the author of this sick thread .


One can't separate Islam from politics. Islam is a political, cultural and religious entity. Islam is Machiaveilian in nature which creates a FEAR SOCIETY and all that goes along with it.

Cyrus the Great, the father of first Human Rights declaration over 2500 years ago, the abolition of slavery and national or racial discriminations, freedom to choose one's place of residence, freedom of religious beliefs, and establishing peace amongst nations. Such ideas are still alive and clearly esteemed by all those who believe in human dignity and his rights. The Iranians regarded Cyrus The Great as The Father, the Babylonians as The Liberator, the Greeks as the Law-Giver, and the Jews as the Anointed of the Lord. According to Prof. Richard Frye from Harvard University “surely the concept of One World, .... the fusion of peoples and cultures in one 'Oecumen' was one of their important legacies”. Therefore Cyrus the Great is considered as one of the greatest political leader and liberator of all time throughout human history.

Compare with the Persia of today!

The founding fathers - George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams.....impressive revolutionaries … research by historians state that Cyrus The Great book by Xenophon and The Prince book by Machiavelli were required reading by the American Revolutionary Founding Fathers and the personal copies of these books owned by Founding Fathers exists in Library of Congress (along with others) . The drafting of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution was greatly influenced by Cyrus The Great's leadership and vision. The Great Leadership Vision is based on Free Society, Human Rights, moral values and high code of ethics versus Machiaveili which is based on a Fear Society, the masses beaten down into submission.


Iranians are one of the most affluent and educated minority group in the USA. If they set their minds to it, they could literally change the world. I hope all Iranians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, resolve to finally unite in an effort to redeem the reputation of their ancestors.

Take Iran back from the Arabs. Islam is the religioius, political and cultural entity of the Arabs and does not belong to the Great Persians.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 09/12/07 11:03 PM
Post #17


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



QUOTE
" Bloodthirsty maniacs "



I concur with the author!

Iran: September 5th 2007...


You're in denial mordoth...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 09/13/07 06:26 AM
Post #18


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



Iran hanged 17 people in one day:


Tehran, Iran, Sep. 05 – Iranian authorities hanged 17 men on Wednesday, the latest in a spate of group executions.

State media said that the 17 were hanged in the north-eastern province of Khorassan Razavi.

“Following legal procedures, 17 individuals were hanged for drug smuggling in Khorassan Razavi province this morning”, state television reported.

Iranian authorities routinely execute dissidents on bogus charges such as armed robbery and drug smuggling.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...p?storyid=12304
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 09/13/07 05:15 PM
Post #19


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17







Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran Sep. 12 – Iranian authorities hanged seven individuals in public on Wednesday in the south-eastern town of Mahan, state media reported:


New York Times: The Iranian government confirmed Tuesday that a man was executed by stoning last week for committing adultery, and said that 20 more men would be executed in the coming days on morality violations:


Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Sep. 12 – The hands of four men were chopped off as punishment for robbery in north-west Iran, state media reported on Wednesday:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=5

It's a never ending blood bath from the "blood thirsty maniacs"!.


There but for the grace of God go I....

Thank you to our Founding Fathers

Thank you US service men and women.

Freedom, it's a beautiful thing.


God bless these youngsters - there's not much one can do for them except pray and expose their despotic government for the dictatorial thugs that they are..... Muslims know it's wrong and like mordoth are in denial or FEAR for their lives. Some are so brain-washed they even support it. These public hangings are done as a warning....keep your mouths shut and do exactly as we tell you to do or else..... icon_evil.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 09/24/07 06:43 AM
Post #20


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



Message from Caliph Omar's Ultimatum to Persian King - Yazdgird III


Text of the ultimatum from Omar Ibn-Khat'tab the Calif of Islam to the Iranina Sovereign, Yazdgerd III:

Bism-ellah Ar'rahman Ar'rhim To the Shah of the Fars

I do not foresee a good future for you and your nation save your acceptance of my terms and your submission to me. There was a time when your country ruled half the world, but see how now your sun has set. On all fronts your armies have been defeated and your nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path whereby you might escape this fate. Namely, that you begin worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the only god who created all that is. I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the false worship of fire and to join us, that they may join the truth.

Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your only option. Allah u Akbar.

Allah O Akbar

signed,

Khalifat Al-Muslemin

Omar Ibn Al-Khatab

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Response of the Persian King:


In the name of Ahuramazda, the Creator of Life and Wisdom,.

In your letter you summon us Iranians to your god whom you call "Allah-u-Akbar"; and because of your barbarity and ignorance, without knowing who we are and Whom we worship, you demand that we seek out your god and become worshippers of "Allah-u-Akbar".

How strange that you occupy the seat of the Arab Caliph but are as ignorant as any desert roaming Arab! You admonish me to become monotheistic in faith. Ignorant man, for thousands of years we Aryaee have, in this land of culture and art, been monotheistic and five times a day have we offered prayers to God's Throne of Oneness. While we laid the foundations of philanthropy and righteousness and kindness in this world and held high the ensign of "Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds", you and your ancestors were desert wanderers who ate snakes and lizards and buried your innocent daughters alive.

You Arabs who have no regard for God's creatures, who mercilessly put people to the sword, who mistreat your women and bury you daughters alive, who attack caravans and are highway robbers, who commit murder, who kidnap women and spouses; how dare you presume to teach us, who are above these evils, to worship God?

You tell me to cease the worship of fire and to worship God instead! To us Iranians the light of Fire is reminiscent of the Light of God. The radiance and the sun-like warmth of fire exuberates our hearts, and the pleasant warmth of it brings our hearts and spirits closer together, that we may be philanthropic, kind and considerate, that gentleness and forgiveness may become our way of life, and that thereby the Light of God may keep shining in our hearts.

Our God is the Great Ahuramazda. Strange is this that you too have now decided to give Him a name, and you call Him by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar".

But we are nothing like you. We, in the name of Ahuramazda, practice compassion and love and goodness and righteousness and forgiveness, and care for the dispossessed and the unfortunate; But you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar" commit murder, create misery and subject others to suffering! Tell me truly who is to blame for your misdeeds? Your god who orders genocide, plunder and destruction, or you who do these things in his name? Or both?

You, who have spent all your days in brutality and barbarity, have now come out of your desolate deserts resolved to teach, by the blade and by conquest, the worship of God to a people who have for thousands of years been civilized and have relied on culture and knowledge and art as mighty supports.

What have you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar", taught these armies of Islam besides destruction and pillage and murder that you now presume to summon others to your god?

Today, my people's fortunes have changed. Their armies, who were subjects of Ahuramazada, have now been defeated by the Arab armies of "Allah-u-Akbar". And they are being forced, at the point of the sword, to convert to the god by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar". And are forced to offer him prayers five times a day but now in Arabic; since your "Allah-u-Akbar" only understands Arabic.

I advise you to return to your lizard infested deserts. Do not let loose upon our cities your cruel barbarous Arabs who are like rabid animals. Refrain from the murder of my people. Refrain from pillaging my people. Refrain from kidnapping our daughters in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar". Refrain from these crimes and evils.

We Aryaee are a forgiving people, a kind and well-meaning people. Wherever we go, we sow the seeds of goodness, amity and righteousness. And this is why we have the capacity to overlook the crimes and the misdeeds of your Arabs.

Stay in your desert with your "Allah-u-Akbar", and do not approach our cities; for horrid is your belief and brutish is your conduct.

signed,

Emperor Yazdgird III of Sasanid


- - The Original copy of this letter (632 AD - 651 AD) is in London Museum - -

http://meganima.blogspot.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 09/24/07 07:32 PM
Post #21


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



Message from President Ahmadinejad to President Bush

by Amil Imani

15 May, 2006

[...]

Most recently, President Ahmadinejad has baffled the world by his 18-page letter addressed to President George W Bush. Lay people and experts alike are at a loss in their attempt to understand and decipher the significance, if any, of the letter -- a hodgepodge of religious, philosophical, historical and victimization phraseology that seem to bear very little relation to the present difficulties confronting the Islamic Republic of Iran on one side and the United States of America and much of the free world on the other.

The enigma is not hidden in the letter. It's in the act of writing it. The mere sending of the letter--to the most powerful man on earth (President Bush) has epochal historical precedence.


In my view, President Ahmadinejad's letter can be better understood when examined within his frame of mind and system of belief. The letter constitutes another exercise in a series of summons, invitations or ultimatums from a person who considers himself a spokesman for Islam to a wayward ruler...in this instance President Bush.

This approach dates back to Prophet Muhammad himself who first called upon the infidels to embrace his faith or face his violent wrath. President Ahmadinejad believes he is doing what the Prophet Mohammad commands him to do. He also revered point of emulation, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, also addressed a similar letter to another infidel, contemporary ruler, of his time; the former Secretary General of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Khomeini suggested that Gorbachev embrace Islam.

The founder of Islam Muhammad has ordained; "Invite them to embrace Islam. If they refuse, then war upon them." Employing this practice, Islam subdued Persia and other parts of the world by the force of the sword. Perhaps Iran's new presidential letter to President Bush follows the same strategy where he challenges him and the people of the United States to renounce the Christian faith and attain salvation by embracing Islam. "Will you not accept this invitation?" asks President Ahmadinejad in the letter.

President Bush has repeatedly called Islam a "religion of peace." Has this mistaken idea emboldened Mr. Ahmadinejad? Has this acknowledgement by President Bush caused Iran's president to issue his summons?. Is history repeating itself? Is a summon of convert ideology a prelude to use of force, as has been the case in numerous Islamic conquests?

What makes matters terribly dangerous are the modern instruments of force and the willingness to use them. Centuries ago, the sword in the hand of the Islamists carved a huge empire. Now, with the weapons of mass destruction, the entire world is at peril.

If we dig a little deeper into the history books, we observe such an invitation was also sent (at the time considered to be a powerful man) the King of Kings, the Light of Aryans, Yazdgird the III, King of Persia. Perhaps that was the defining moment for Islam and its conquest of the world.

It is said nearly 1,400 years ago that Umar Ibn Al Khattab, the second of four Islamic Caliphs sent a letter to King Yazdgird III of Persia to commit Bei'at (Joining with caliph and accepting Islam.) Umar wrote, "Once upon a time your land ruled half the known world but what has it come down to now? Your troops are defeated on all fronts and your nation is bound to collapse. I offer you a way to rescue yourself. Start praying to Allah, a single union God, the only God who created everything in the universe. We bring you and the world his message. Worship, Allah the only true God."

If we replace King Yazdgird III, with President Bush, Persia with the United States, and Persians with United States citizens, and the signature of Umar with Ahmadinejad, the new president of the Islamic Republic, the outcome could look horrific.

But there was also King Yazdgird III response to Umar. Mentally replace Yazdgird's name with President Bush and Ahura Mazda with Jesus Christ, and then you'll get the picture:

"In the name of Ahura Mazda, creator of Life and Intelligence:

You, in your letter wrote that you want to direct us towards your God, Allah without having the true knowledge of who we are and who we worship. It is amazing that you occupy the position of Caliph (Ruler) of Arabs, yet your knowledge is the same as a lowly Arab rambler, roaming in deserts of Arabia , and the same as a desert tribal man!

"You suggest we worship a united and single God without knowing that for thousands of years Persians have worshiped the mono God and they pray to him five times a day!

"When we established the tradition of hospitality and good deeds in the world and we waved the flag of Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds, in our hands, you and your ancestors were roaming the deserts, eating lizards, for you had nothing else to feed yourselves and burying your innocent daughters alive." (An old Arab tradition, because they preferred male children to female)

"You behead God's children, even the prisoners of war, rape women, attack the caravans, mass murder, kidnap people's wives and steal their property! Your hearts are made of stone; we condemn all these evils which you do. How can you teach us Godly Ways when you commit these actions"?

"Is it Allah who commands you to murder, pillage and to destroy? Is it you the followers of Allah who do this in his name? Or is it both"?

"Tell us. With all your military campaigns, barbarianism, murder and pillage in the name of Allah O Akbar, what have you taught to this Muslim Army? What knowledge have you taught the Muslims that you also insist on teaching it to non-Muslims? What cultures have you learned from your Allah, now that you want to force teach it to others?"

"I beg you to remain with your Allah O Akbar in your deserts and do not move close to our civilized cities, for your beliefs are 'much fearful' and your behavior is 'Most Barbaric'!"


Thus the war began and the Arab army under its ruthless commander, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas approached. The Persian Army was defeated in the decisive "Battle of Qadisiyah". Rostam Farokhzad, the courageous Iranian general was murdered and Yazdgird's last attempt to gather forces to counter attack fell short, hence Islam's defining moment was born.

The Arabs had come to convert the Persians by hook or by crook. "La ilah ilallah Mohammed

ur Rasulallah" (There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet.)

Those who resisted uttering those words were faced with death or burdened with heavy taxes and other unjust punishments.

It is the belief in the same 'Allah' that brought upon the Iranian people the greatest catastrophe of the Islamic revolution. This is also the same belief that brought the twin towers down in the United States of America.

This belief in this Allah will not stop until the entire world bows to its will.

Will America follow Persia? In many ways, America resembles the great, ancient Persian Empire. Like the ancient Persian Empire once was, the United States is now the greatest government in the world. Like the Persians who were the first world managers and the most tolerant empire-builders, America, with its rich constitution, is also the most tolerant and benevolent nation in the world.

Ancient Persian kings released the Jews from Babylonian captivity, financed the reestablishment of their nation, and restored their national religion. The United States has basically done the same. The United States is the reincarnation of Persia, an extension of the Achaemenid Empire.

Tyrannical Islam eviscerated the spiritual life of tolerant old Persia. Is history going to repeat itself? It has taken decades for the Persians (modern Iranians) to recover their spirit. Zoroastrianism, the original Iranian religion, was not an effective barrier against the radical religion from the Arabian Desert.

Is Christianity going to withstand Islam on its second rush of world conquest?

The United States as it stands for democracy is the last haven of hope for which humanity can flourish. Today, after 1,400 years, Islam is again the greatest threat to the existence of the free world and the civilization of Christianity. Persians underestimated the destructive power of Islam; let us hope and pray that the United States does NOT underestimate the destructive power of Islam the second time.
http://www.islam-watch.org/AmilImani/IranLetter2Bush.htm
Amil Imani is an Iranian born, pro-democracy activist who resides in the United States of America. He is a poet, writer, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. Amil Imani's Home Page: www.amilimani.com

The more things change the more they stay the same....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mordoth
post 09/26/07 09:39 PM
Post #22


TURKIST
*******

Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 2,409
Joined: 11/08/05 12:31 PM
From: WESTERN TURKISTAN
Member No.: 262



QUOTE(chase @ 09/11/07 09:10 AM) [snapback]116161[/snapback]
One can't separate Islam from politics. Islam is a political, cultural and religious entity. Islam is Machiaveilian in nature which creates a FEAR SOCIETY and all that goes along with it.


Islam does not involve both " politics " and " religion " within itself .
There may be some publics like Iranians (Faresee) that are abusing a religion by opressing it to all of its citizens. Today , Persians govern Iran not TURKs despite their majority.

QUOTE
Cyrus the Great, the father of first Human Rights declaration over 2500 years ago, the abolition of slavery and national or racial discriminations, freedom to choose one's place of residence, freedom of religious beliefs, and establishing peace amongst nations. Such ideas are still alive and clearly esteemed by all those who believe in human dignity and his rights. The Iranians regarded Cyrus The Great as The Father, the Babylonians as The Liberator, the Greeks as the Law-Giver, and the Jews as the Anointed of the Lord. According to Prof. Richard Frye from Harvard University “surely the concept of One World, .... the fusion of peoples and cultures in one 'Oecumen' was one of their important legacies”. Therefore Cyrus the Great is considered as one of the greatest political leader and liberator of all time throughout human history.

Compare with the Persia of today!

The founding fathers - George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams.....impressive revolutionaries … research by historians state that Cyrus The Great book by Xenophon and The Prince book by Machiavelli were required reading by the American Revolutionary Founding Fathers and the personal copies of these books owned by Founding Fathers exists in Library of Congress (along with others) . The drafting of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution was greatly influenced by Cyrus The Great's leadership and vision. The Great Leadership Vision is based on Free Society, Human Rights, moral values and high code of ethics versus Machiaveili which is based on a Fear Society, the masses beaten down into submission.


You've written whole of this crap just to defamate pro-ISlamic period of Iran ?

LoL , let you know that ARabs have racially, politically and morally corrupted IRAN after Jihadi incursion in 9th century. And blondy , colored eyed offsprings are replaced with Ahmedinejad-like dark hair and skin.
It is because of vile urbans( desert Arabs , rapists ), i know , but also know that I HATE IRAN as well as you do .
QUOTE
Iranians are one of the most affluent and educated minority group in the USA. If they set their minds to it, they could literally change the world. I hope all Iranians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, resolve to finally unite in an effort to redeem the reputation of their ancestors.

Take Iran back from the Arabs. Islam is the religioius, political and cultural entity of the Arabs and does not belong to the Great Persians.
Iran has no Arabic influence upon it , just Persian.

When Turks re-dominate as in the era of Ilkhanade , Shah Esmael ; it will proceed a true peace upon the Iranic lands .
- Well , Iran is the name of the lands , not name of one nation. There are numerous numbers of ethnic groups living in Iran. Turks and Persians are competing to dominate lawfully and peacefully , that's why you do not see so much bloody conflicts at all .

Southern Azerbaican is still under occupation of Iran ,i condemn that state because of its vile policies and i hate it. But i do not like to defamate another like this, even they are my true-enemies .

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chase
post 10/06/07 12:29 PM
Post #23


Member
*******

Group: MEIC Members/Donors
Posts: 6,042
Joined: 03/22/05 02:20 PM
From: NYC, USA
Member No.: 17



QUOTE
(Mordoth @ 09/08/07 09:03 PM) *Arabs had catastrophic methods while spreading islam ,that was an unacceptable case , yes.But as i see, this articles are COMPLETELY biased.Secondly , Mrs Chase , I could not understand your view . Do you want to Attack Iran politically ? Or you want to say how Persians are Islamized ? Which one ?You did both of them in the same topic !I do not appreciate what Arabs did . But article wrote " Bloodthirsty maniacs " , so is the author of this sick thread



QUOTE(chase @ 09/13/07 05:15 PM) [snapback]116236[/snapback]




Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran Sep. 12 – Iranian authorities hanged seven individuals in public on Wednesday in the south-eastern town of Mahan, state media reported:


New York Times: The Iranian government confirmed Tuesday that a man was executed by stoning last week for committing adultery, and said that 20 more men would be executed in the coming days on morality violations:


Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Sep. 12 – The hands of four men were chopped off as punishment for robbery in north-west Iran, state media reported on Wednesday:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=5

It's a never ending blood bath from the "blood thirsty maniacs"!.
There but for the grace of God go I....

Thank you to our Founding Fathers

Thank you US service men and women.

Freedom, it's a beautiful thing.

God bless these youngsters - there's not much one can do for them except pray and expose their despotic government for the dictatorial thugs that they are..... Muslims know it's wrong and like mordoth are in denial or FEAR for their lives. Some are so brain-washed they even support it. These public hangings are done as a warning....keep your mouths shut and do exactly as we tell you to do or else..... icon_evil.gif


You argued the article was biased because it stated "bloodthirsty maniacs ". I gave you just a few examples of why the article was correct yet you didn't respond but skipped to another topic claiming there's a separation within Islam of politics and religion which is yet another untruth. Please respond to this one first mordoth and then we can move on to your latest claim.

The truth is Islam is the religion of the Arabs and Islam. Are you aware that the Qur'an really says that Islam is the religion of the Hijazi Arabs and insofar as I know you ain't no Arab! Arabic-Islamic imperialism brutalized your ancestors yet you persistently support this same political ideology - your ancestors are rolling in their graves - revert back to being a peaceful Zoroastrian and let your ancestors rest in peace.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaff Sassani
post 11/22/07 08:46 PM
Post #24


Poster 200
****

Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 284
Joined: 11/21/07 10:15 AM
Member No.: 3,513
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: Plight of Sassanian people in Kurdistan region of Iraq and Iran



Chase

We are two million people in Iraq and Iran, one million of us living under Mr. Jalal Talabani rule they are in very bad codition because he is tacking all the budget for his family, We are Sassanian origin Kurd, look at the history of Kurd we are not there, Sharafnamia (The first Kurdish history book did not record us because always we called our self Sassanian.

Today we are dying by thousand because of the effect of the chemical attack by Saddam Government and contaminated water plus running open sewage among the houses in our cities.

We really need help from US Government and Congress in our area, I hope some one will help our people, your writing are very good I read it and appreciate your knowledge.

Thank you for your time
here is our email please keep in touch
I hope you write about our misrable life in liberated Kurdistan.
jaff.skdc@googlemail.com

SKDC
Nov-22-07


QUOTE(chase @ 07/29/07 06:12 PM) [snapback]114434[/snapback]
History of Jihad against the Zoroastrians of Iran (634-651)

After the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula had been subjugated, the Muslims turned on their northern neighbors the Persians and the Byzantines.

Today when the Mullahs and Ayatollahs rule Iran, we might tend to think that they have always been characteristic of Iran. Not many know that Iran was the first nation that waged a short but bloodied campaign of battles with the Jihadi hounds that were unleashed on an unsuspecting world by Mohammed.



As they had done to provoke the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were now dealing with a settled civilization.

So the Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the depredations of the Muslim Arabs.


Iran was the first country that lay blocking the path of these bloodthirsty maniacs who were out to impose their Islamic creed on all those who succumbed to their ruthless march. The Persians (and the Byzantines) were both unfit to defeat the Muslim Arabs, as till then in human history nowhere had a people been worked into a frenzy to go out defeat the adversary and convert the defeated and weak to a creed that imposed the same paranoia of converting still others who were unfortunate and weak to fall before the bloodthirsty Islamic Jihad.

Till the rise of the murderous creed of Islam, the world had known only imperial conquests, where the conqueror, be he Alexander, Cyrus, Julius Caesar, Hannibal or any other, the war took place between the opposing armies. The fate of the battle was decided on the battlefield alone. The common people, the unarmed civilians were not in danger of a victorious adversary imposing anything more than new taxes and new administrators.

How Islam changed the rules of warfare making the entire civilian population of a defeated adversary, into a victim of tyranny

The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world. Those who fell victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their lives by becoming Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty.


Those who fell victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their lives by becoming Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty like the Muslims.

The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world.


Islam was, and still is, a curse on humankind from the word go. At the pain of death, Islam spread like wildfire into Persia, making the Persians also into bloodthirsty wolves like the Muslim Arabs. It was the Persians who a hundred years later were to take this bloodthirsty creed to the Turks and the Turks in turn a few hundred years after that were to attack Byzantine and the Balkans.

Today the Persians (Iranians) have faint memories of their pre-Islamic past. The glories of Cyrus and Darius, of Pasargade, Persepolis, Ctesiphon, of Zarathushtra, and the Shah-Nameh. The student community is becoming increasingly aware of their pre-Islamic past mainly through the websites on the Internet, that tell the true story of Iran. And this adds fuel to the restlessness of the young among the Iranian population.

Today, they must realize that the twilight of the Mullahs is the last twilight before the dawn of the post-Islamic Iran. Iranians, need to not only overthrow the Mullah regime, but also discard Islam and return to their pre-Islamic Zoroastrian roots. Here we shall trace the struggle waged by Iran (Persia) against the Arab Hordes who forcibly imposed Islam on the defeated Persians at the pain of death and torture.

The Battles of Namraq and Kasker (12 A.H. 634 C.E.)

As they had done to provoke the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were now dealing with a settled civilization.

So the Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the depredations of the Muslim Arabs. The king sent a reconnaissance force under the command of a general named Jaban. This force first approached the town of Hira that had been occupied by the Arabs. On seeing the Persians approach, the Arab force withdrew towards the desert into the oasis town of Namraq (modern Kufa) to draw the Persians into the desert, a terrain that the Arabs were familiar with, but the Persians were not.

The Arabs were on camels in addition to their infantry. The Persians were on horseback. While cavalry gave an advantage while fighting on normal terrain, they were a liability in the desert. With the Persians in the desert, the Arab force caught up with it and inflicted a defeat, and forced it to withdraw. The Persian reconnaissance force then withdrew to join the main Persian army at a town called Kasker.

Here another Persian general named Narsi had assembled a good concentration of forces. This town was well away from the border. Kaskar was so far away from the Muslim camp that Narsi felt that no Muslim attack could be imminent. But Abu Ubaid, the Muslim commander, thought otherwise. He thought that it would have a good psychological effect if in the wake of the battle of Namaraq itself, the Muslims rushed to Kaskar and deal with the Persian forces there before the forces under Jalinus, another Persian general could come to their assistance. This shows the Muslim daredevilry, which we must outmatch with our cowboy spirit, if we are to destroy Islam and win the war on terror.


When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with the barefooted Arab lizard eaters, coming at his doorstep as victors, sent out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:

"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."

Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could decide the issue between them. This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim.


Abu Ubaid accordingly ordered a march across the Suwad to Kaskar. Dashing across the Suwad the Muslim forces appeared at Kaskar before the astonished Persians. The Persians hurriedly brought their military into formation and the two forces faced each other at Saqatia a few miles from Kaskar.

The strategy of the Persians had been to defer action till the arrival of the force under another Persian general named Jalinus who had set off with additional forces. The strategy of the Muslims was to press the attack and force immediate decision. With this element of surprise, the Arabs kept the initiative in their hands and fell upon the Persians as soon as they reached the Persian camp. With this momentum, the Arabs were able to overwhelm the Persians at Kasker too and force them to retreat to the east, beyond the Euphrates.

Lessons from the Battles of Namraq and Kasker

The Arabs took these battles in their favor due to their guile in forcing the Persians into hostile and unfamiliar terrain and keeping the initiative in their hands, by pouncing upon the adversary the minute they sighted the Persians. These first defeats set the tone for future Arab-Persian battles and the ultimate defeat of Persia by the Arabs.

The lesson here is to keep the initiative always in our hands if the aim is to stun and defeat the Muslims. In the modern context, the 9/11 attacks on America were meant to stun America as the Arabs had stunned the Persians at their first battles at Namraq and Kasker. So after 9/11 if President Bush had immediately seized the initiative by taking out a couple of cities in the Muslim world using Neutrons or Nukes, this would have delivered a strong message to the beastly Muslims that they could not mess around with America. By going about a slow and conventional start, America has emboldened the Muslims to carry out attacks on other Western targets, as the Sassanid Persians did by their dithering and letting the Arabs take the initiative at the Battle Kasker, conveyed to the Arabs that they could overwhelm and stun the Persians if they kept the initiative in their hands.

Although the Muslims today cannot defeat the West, the West is giving them a lifeline by allowing the initiative to slip. On the other hand, the Muslims by staging dramatic attacks on Western targets like those at London, Beslan Madrid after 9/11, are living up to their tradition of keeping the initiative in their hands and hitting at their adversaries where they least expect to be hit. The lesson which these first battles between the Persians and Arabs give us today is to keep the initiative in the war on terror completely in the hands of the West and to hit the enemy where it hurts most – by nuking Mecca during Hajj. And carrying out large scale attacks during Ramzan and regular attacks to coincide with the Friday noon prayers across the most populous towns in the Islamic crescent.


When the battle of Nihavend started going the way of the Persians, the Arabs faced certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play.

Ali who was Mohammed’s son-in-law and the husband of the Child Persian Princess Shahrbanu (Princess of the Town - of Ctesiphon), suggested a base move to the Arab Muslim commander Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. After the battle of Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were taken as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. Among the unfortunate children who were left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King Yazdgard. When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three years old) they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn gifted her to Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali. At that time Ali was thirty two years old and he decided to take a three year old child princess as his concubine!

Now at the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive child wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he offer the Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to leave its fortified position and walk into an Arab trap. According to Ali’s advise, on the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed the captured Persian child princess to the assembled Persians and said that he would kill the princess on the battle field and of the Persians had the courage, they could come and save her. As a reaction, and against their commanders’ orders the front ranks of the Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs leaving the fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.

Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions Mugheera ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell upon them from three sides. This way using foul tactics the Arabs, could annihilate the Persians once again. The carnage of Nihavend was the break the back of the Persian resistance to Islam and the remaining history of Persia is that of Arabization and Islamization.


Lessons of the Battle of the Bridge (Al Jisr) - 14 A.H. 636 C.E.

At the next major clash which is known as the Battle of the Bridge between the Persians and the Arab Muslims, the Persians used elephants for the first time, which were new for the denizens of the desert the Bedouin Arab Muslims. At the battle of the Bridge (the Battle of Al Jisr in Arab chronicles), the Persians used their elephants to trample over the Arab attackers. They even trampled the Arab general, due to which there was panic among the Arab army which stared retreating. The Persians chased the Arabs up to the Bridge on the Tigris river, which then marked the boundary between the Persian empire and the domain of the Arabs.

The Persians stopped at the bridge and chased the Arabs across it, but did not follow the Arabs into the Arabian desert. The Persians wasted an opportunity to utterly defeat the Muslims by going right into Arabia and hunting down the Muslim Arabs in their homeland and slaughtering them in the same manner in which the Arab Muslims slaughtered all their adversaries and speaking to the Muslims in the only language they understand – that of blood and death.

This the Persians did, as that was how battles had been fought from time immemorial till the beastly Muslims came on the scene. Alexander did not slaughter his adversaries, neither did he forcibly convert them into Greeks. Nor did the Romans do this neither did the Byzantines, nor did the Persians.

The Persians and the Byzantines had been fighting for four hundred years till before the Arab Muslims invaded both their empires, but neither the Persians nor the Byzantines exterminate each armies to the last man, nor did they torment each other’s civilian populations, and less so did they try to convert each other’s civilian population to their own faiths the way the Arab Muslims were to do with both. Today we find no Zoroastrians in Iran, Afghanistan or Baluchistan, which were ruled by the Zoroastrian Persian dynasties like the Hakkamanishiya (Acheamenian) and the Sassanids. As we do not find any Christians in any significant number in Syria, Jordan or Turkey which were Byzantine provinces.

With the Arabs it was going to be different. The Muslims were to slaughter all defeated armies to the last man, and then terrorize the civilian population to embrace Islam. Had the Persians known this and had they decided to respond in the same way, they should have slaughtered he entire fleeing Arab army at the Battle of Al Jisr (Battle of the Bridge) and then they should have gone into nook and cranny of Arabia (as Mohammed had done) to convert the newly converted Arab Muslims to any religion, but the vicious creed of Islam.


The tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of sedition, cheating, bribery, betrayal and foul tactics that included shooting arrows at the steeds, slashing their feet to bring the riders down while they were engaged with another attacker, so much for Arab Muslim valor in winning wars!

During the Muslim aggression against Sassanid Persia, Arab chroniclers tell us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man, perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made his face look like that of a camel which has a protruding lower lip. This Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to pin him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could only defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian’s thumb so hard that he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.


The Persians cannot be blamed for not doing this, since they did not know the kind of enemy that they were facing, so they allowed the retreating Muslim army to flee. An army that was to come back again to slaughter the entire Persian army at Qadissiyah and in all other battles where the Arab Muslims faced the Persians and all other adversaries, after which they were to terrorize the civilian population to embrace Islam.

But while the Persians can be forgiven for not having done that to the Muslims, today when we know what Islam is all about and we have the track record of Islam to see, it is foolish and suicidal not to do this. By “this” we mean to not just defeat Islam on the battlefield, but to forcibly convert the Muslims to any other religion, but their accursed creed of Islam by giving them a choice of giving up Islam or death. This is the lesson for us of the battle of Al Jisr (the battle of the Bridge).

An opportunity to do this was lost by the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers in 732, by the Austrians and Poles at the battle of Vienna in 1683 by the Hindus at the Battle of Tarain in 1191 at the Battle of the Bridge by the Persians in 634, and more recently at the six day war in 1967 by the Israelis; the liberation of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, after which we should have forced the defeated Muslims to choose between abjuring Islam, or embracing death. But for this the non-Muslim do not yet have an understanding of their enemy – the Muslims.

We have not yet realized what can defeat Islam, once and forever. And so we have repeated the folly of letting a defeated Muslim army and nations go scot free at all these and at and countless other battles at which the victorious non-Muslims had the Muslims at their mercy. The lesson for us to learn fast is never to allow the murderous Muslims to retreat unmolested after they have been defeated, but to press on with consolidating the victory by giving the Muslim the choice of abjuring Islam or embracing death. Inhuman as this may sound, it is the only workable way of defeating Islam once and forever.

All our acts of letting Islam survive after every defeat were costly mistakes that came back to haunt humankind time and again the last time spectacularly on 9/11, and which is bound to repeat itself over and over again till the world decides that enough is enough and puts a full and final end to the menace called Islam.


It was at the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.), that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into retreat and defeat. During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the Persian general Rustam by sneaking into the Persian camp disguised as wounded Persian soldiers, and once they set their hands on him, they beheaded him much in the same way as Zarqawi does today with his Western captives. The Arabs displayed Rustam’s decapitated body to the Persian army at the morning of the fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah (Cadesia).

The grisly sight of their general’s headless body riddled with arrows lying on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not used to. This sealed the fate of the battle and the Arabs could make short shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the next target of the attacking Muslims.

The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in the Muslims – an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use nuclear weapons to reduce the enemy to radioactive dust across the entire swath of the Islamic crescent from Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago.


The seminal Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)

At this seminal battle fought over four days, the Persians were led by a capable general named Rustam-e-Farrokhzad (Farokh Hormazd), and only the foul tactics of Saad-Ibn-Waqas, the Arab Muslim commander could bring defeat and death to Rustam and the Persian army. Under Saad-ibn-Waqas, the Muslims very effectively used the tactic of luring the Arab contingent to defect from the Persian army, join the Arab Muslims and betray their non-Muslim Zoroastrian paymasters. This way the Muslims could get to know the weaknesses of the Persian army and devise tactics to trick and defeat the Persians.

One of these tactics was the cutting off the girdles of the Howdas (seats) of those who were riding the elephants, so that the howdas along with the riders would fall and thus the elephant would become directionless. The elephants played havoc on the Arabs at beginning of the first day of the battle. But when the Arab contingent who had defected, betrayed the Persian paymasters and told the Arab Muslims to cut the girdles of the elephants, the elephants became directionless and useless. This was one foul tactic that the Muslims used to defeat their more superior Persian adversary.

The second tactic told by the defectors was to blind the elephants in one eye only, so that they would lose direction and flee away from the direction, of its attackers. When this gruesome act was done, the elephants turned around away from the Arab-Muslim tormentors and broke through the Persian ranks, causing disorder in the Persian army and opened up passages for the Muslims to advance into the Persian ranks. This was the second tactic which the defectors told the Arab Muslims to use, due to which the tide of the battle turned in favor of the Muslim - so much for Allah giving them victory.

The Arabs and Persians had agreed at the beginning of the battle not fight after sundown, but when the tide of the battle began to turn against the Persians on the third day of the battle, the Arabs attacked the Persians all through the night, shouting Allah-o-Akbar. This was the Night of Clangor, which sealed the fate of the battle in favor of the deceitful and barbaric Muslim Arabs.

The victory was a result of deceit, which the adversaries of the Muslims today need to remember when fighting the Muslims. Today the Muslims try to deflect the American effort at war, by many such tactics based on their mean psychology of deceit. They say that the 9/11 attacks were the handiwork of the Jews (sic). They say that they are fighting in self-defense and so they kill innocent civilians, women and children (at Beslan). They march in droves in the “Peace Rallies” in which they are encouraged by their socialist and communist 5th columnist bedmates – those accursed snakes in the grass.

This kind of deceit has been used by the Muslims in all their encounters all through the 1400 years of their existence. This base and mean mentality of the Muslims will have to borne in mind and countered if we are to finally defeat the Muslims in our generation and to permanently end the menace of Islam.

Lessons from the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Quadsiyyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)

It was at this battle that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into retreat and defeat – something which neither Alexander, nor Cyrus, nor Darius, nor Julius Caesar, nor Hannibal had done.

During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the Persian general Rustam, and once they set their hands on him, they beheaded him much in the same way as Zarqawi does today with his Western captives. After this Arabs displayed Rustam’s decapitated body to the Persian army at the next morning of the fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah (Cadesia).

The grisly sight of their general’s headless body riddled with arrows lying on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not used to. This sealed the fate of the battle, and the Arabs could make short shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the next target for the attacking Muslims.

The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in the Muslims – an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use all the weapons in our arsenal including nuclear weapons, to reduce the enemy to radioactive dust across the entire swath of the Islamic crescent from Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago.


After the battle of Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were marched off as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. This rapacious behavior was to be repeated over and over again at Jerusalem (636), Damascus (637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650), Tripoli (651), Constantinople (1453) and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on their non-Muslim adversaries.

How Islamic deceit made single combat a deathly struggle for its adversaries

The Persians, who were one of the first non-Arab people, on whom the Muslims fell upon, had a tradition of single combat, which they used in many battles. The strongest person from each army would fight the champion of the adversary’s army. The winner’s army would be deemed to have won the battle, and the actual battle was not then fought, as both the armies were honor-bound to abide by the result of the duel.

The duel was a test of strength and skill. The opponents were not bound to kill their adversary, but only to defeat him, and in most cases the defeated champion was allowed to return to his camp, and his army withdrew thus preventing a battle and saving of many lives. The Persians, the pre-Islamic Turks, the Greeks and Romans had used this practice of single-combat to settle the result of many a battle. This practice was fine as long as both the adversaries were bound by honor.

But with the coming of the dishonorable Muslims, the single combat, became a farce. It was now one more tool to humiliate the enemy and to demoralize it before the actual combat could begin. Even if the Arab Champion was defeated, the Arabs would nevertheless attack the opposing army. And if the Arab champion was victorious, he would not just defeat the opposing adversary but kill him, after which the Arab army would thereupon fall on the opposing army and a carnage would follow.

The Arabs never allowed their adversaries to escape by retreating. They found sadistic glee in slaughtering their defeated opponents to the last man. The Persians were the first to bear the brunt of this beastly mentality of the Muslim Arabs.

The Persians had specialized a practice wherein they nurtured champions who were called Hazar Mard (A thousand men), which meant that these champions had the strength of a thousand men and who would fight off a champion from the opposing army to stave off the need for an actual battle.

Arab chroniclers have gloated about the heap of bones that marked every encounter of the Persians and the Arabs. At the battle of Al Madain (Tessfoon or Ctesiphon) the capital of the Sassanids, Arab chroniclers tell us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man, perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made his face look like that of a camel which also has a protruding lower lip.

This Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to pin him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could only defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian’s thumb so hard that he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.


The Arch of Chosroes (Takht-e-Kisra) is all that remains of the awesome grandeur of the White Palace at Ctesiphon capital of the Sassanian Empire. After the Muslims captured Ctesiphon, they were befuddled by its shear beauty and opulence. Desert nomads that they were, they could not figure out what they could do with an imperial capital with its palaces, carpets, baths, terrace gardens, orchards. The abominably cruel and violent bare-footed, lizard-eating Muslim Arabs had no use for these trappings of a civilized life, they stripped the city of all moveable items like jewelry, carpets, ornate furniture and then they reduced the city to rubble and carried away its residents to slavery in to the sandy wastes of Arabia. The tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of destruction, vandalism, savagery that included burning down libraries, destroying fire-temples (Zoroastrian places of worship), slaughter of captured civilians to ensure that civilization would never rise up again after an Islamic victory.

The Muslim Capture of the Persian capital Ctesiphon revealed the nature of the Islamic threat

After the Arabs has slaughtered two thirds of the Persian army at Qadissiyah, they did not stop, but continued to march to the Persian capital Ctesiphon (Teesfoon). The Arabs were not interested in a border war but were intent in defeating Persia utterly by marching into the nook and corner of that country. The prize – the Persian capital was the first in their path. When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with the barefooted Arab lizard eaters, coming to his doorstep as victors, sent out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:

"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."

Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could decide the issue between them.

After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam, or death. This is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were converted to Islam.

This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the Muslims survive – both cannot survive!

You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.


After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam, or death.


After this they brought each of the Persian noblemen who had the misfortune to having fallen in to the hands of the Arab Muslims as prisoners in front of the Saad-ibn-Wagas, the Muslim gangster who now occupied the throne of the Persian Emperor and gave the prisoners a choice of Islam or death. This is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were converted to Islam.

This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the Muslims survive – both cannot survive!

You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.


After the disastrous defeat at Qadsiyah and the occupation of his capital Ctesiphon, the Hapless Persian emperor Yazgard, withdrew to the fortress of Hulwan, from there to Rayy and finally to Merv, near the border of the Persian empire with the domain of the Central Asian Turks, where he died fighting the Muslims in 651 – seventeen years after the Arabs had first attacked Persia. But before this had to happen, the Persians put up one final major resistance to the Muslims at Nihavend (Nihawand).

Lessons from the battle of Nihavend

After the disastrous defeat at Qadisiyah, the Persians regrouped under a new Commander-in-Chief named Pirojan. The first step that Pirojan took was to re-organize the Persian army in the light of the foul tactics that the Arabs used. He purged the Persian army of all Arab contingents, and provided the entire Persian army with mail armor. The Persians had a burning desire in them to liberate Persia that was being slowly occupied by the Arabs after their victory at Qadisiyah.

The Persians took the oath by the holy fire that they will die, but not let the Arabs occupy the Persia. With this new resolution, the Persians regrouped their forces at Nihavend. When the two armies faced each other, the Persians had taken a vantage position on the slope of a hill. The Arab historians describe the Persian army as a ‘Mountain of Steel’. The determined Persians put up a stiff resistance under the leadership of their general Mardanshah and the Arabs could not make any headway.

The battle of Nihavend was going the way of the Persians and the Arabs faced certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play once again.

Ali who was Mohammed’s son-in-law and the husband of the child Persian Princess Shahrbanu, suggested a base move to the Arab Muslim commander Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. At the battle of Qadisiyah, when the Persians has hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were taken as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. This rapacious behavior was to be repeated over and over again at Jerusalem (636), Damascus (637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650), Constantinople (1453) and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on their non-Muslim adversaries.

At the Persian capital Ctesiphon, among the unfortunate children who were left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King Yazdgard. When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three years old) they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn gifted her to Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali as maal-e-ganimat (slaves obtained by Muslims after a war).

At that time Ali was thirty two years old and he decided to take the three year old child princess as his concubine! In doing this he was following the illustrious (sic) footsteps of his lecherous father-in-law Mohammed. The lecherous Mohammed had married and consummated his marriage with a seven year old girl named Ayesha in addition to many other unfortunate young and beautiful ladies who had been captured by the Muslim gangsters in the numerous wars at Badr, Uhud, Trench, Autas in the Arabian peninsula.

It was from this "marriage" of Ali to Princess Shahrbanu, that he fathered his two sons Hassan and Husain, who were later murdered in Battle of Karbala in October of AD 680. Ali himself had been murdered in 39 A.H. (661 C.E.). The descendants of Hassan and Hussain were to be the Shiite Imams who founded the Shia sect of Islam that had mixed Persian (royal Sassanid) and Arab ancestry. (Arab historians deliberately attribute the motherhood of these two sons of Ali to Fatima, another of Ali’s wives, and the daughter of Mohammed.

But the reason for such attribution is to keep the ancestry of Husain and Hassan purely to Arabs and to suppress the royal Sassanid Persian element of their ancestry.

The historical fact is that Shahrbanu the Persian princess was the mother of Hassan and Hussain. So the descendants of Hussain and Hassan from whom came many of the Shiite Imams had royal Sassanid Persian ancestry. A fact that the Muslim historians try to hide by wrongly claiming that Sharbanu was a young princess of marriagable age when she had been captured by the Arabs.

We know that the battle of Qadisiyah had been fought in the year 637, and Yazdgard had ascended the throne in the year 634, when his age was 21 - twenty one. So in 637 when he fled his capital leaving behind his daughter he was 24. How could a King aged 24 have a daughter who herself was a teenager or a young lady?

The Muslim historians have us believe that Shahrbanu was honorably married off by Ali to his son Hussain from whom she begot Ali's grandon Ali Zayn al Abidin (the fourth Shia Imam) in 658 CE.

But we know that princess Shahrbanu was abducted in the year 637, and according to Arab accounts she gave birth to a son in 658. If she was a young lady when she was abducted in 637 then why did she have to wait for 21 years till 658 before she could beget? Especially so considering that the Muslims force their wives to procreate as soon as they can lay their hands on them!? The Arab Muslims and their Iranian Muslim cohorts are practising their ritual deception taqiya to mislead us and give a veneer of hanorablity to the abduction and rape of Shahrbanu by Ali when he lustfully took the Persian princess into his harem as his rightful property (maal-e-ganimat) won after a war as per the henious Muslim custom.

This is the reason why most Persians are Shias. The Persian converts to Islam saw in the Shiite Imams a continuation of their pre-Islamic royal Sassanid lineage as the Shiite Imams were descended from the union of Ali with Shahrbanu (or of Hussain with Shahrbanu in which case too the royal Sassanid Persian element of the ancestry of the Shiite Imams remains). The Zoroastrian converts who yearned for a return to the Sassanid days saw in Ali, Hussain, Hassan and the Shiite Imams, the successors to their Sassanid emperor Yazgard by virtue of Ali (or by some accounts his son Hussain) being the husband of their princess Shahrbanu.

The Shias who are mainly Persian, Iraqi and Bahraini converts to Islam came from those parts which constituted the Sassanid empire before being overrun by the Muslims. These converts saw in Hussain and Hassan, the continuation of their old Sassanid royal lineage thru the Sassanid princess Shahrbanu along with the ancestry of Mohammed, as Ali her husband, the father of Hussain and Hassan, was Mohammed’s cousin. So they formed a cult within Islam separate from that of the Sunnis who came from the Arab Peninsula that was not a part of the Sassanid empire. Thus in today’s Shia-Sunni divide we can see the expression of the Persian-Arab divide that existed before the birth of Islam.

Coming back to the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive child wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he offer the Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to leave its fortified position and walk into an Arab trap.

According to Ali’s advise, on the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed the captured Persian child princess to the assembled Persians and said that he would kill the princess on the battle field and if the Persians had the courage, they could come and save her.

The astonished Persians took some time to recognize the princess. But once they recognized her as their own princess, who had been captured by the Arabs after the battle of Qadsiyyah four years back, they went into a frenzy of rescuing her. Against their commanders’ orders the front ranks of the Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs leaving the fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.

Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions, Mugheera ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell upon them from three sides. Weighed down by their armor and being chained to each other, the Persians had little room for maneuvering in the narrow valley where the Arabs had hemmed them in. After a valiant but futile battle, what followed was a carnage of the Persian army all through the day. By nightfall the remnants of the Persian army retreated in the dark and many of the retreating Persians fell into the steep cliff, behind the hill on which they had assembled to attack the Arabs from the high ground.

This way using foul tactics the Arabs, could annihilate the Persians once again. The carnage of Nihavend was the break the back of the Persian resistance to Islam and the remaining history of Persia is that of Arabization and Islamization. The Persia we next hear of is the Islamic Persia of Muslim dynasties the Samanids, and the Safavids of Muslim kings like Shah Abbas and Nader Shah. Although the Persian were forced to become Muslims, they preserved the faint memory of their pre-Muslim past, that was captured by poets, historians and bards in their works, of which Firdawsi’s Shah-nameh is the most famous example.

Using imagery we can say that Zoroastrian Sassanian Persia was like a strong horse, who had been caught unawares by the Islamic tiger prowling around it, and when the tiger pounced on the horse and caught it by its neck, the struggle of the strong horse was not enough to save itself from the vice-like grip of the tiger’s fangs. The horse had to meet its end, in becoming the first major victim of the Islamic Jihad. It is up to the Iranians of today to realize what happened to their ancestors in history and repudiate the bloodied creed that the bare-footed lizard eaters of the desert imposed on their refined ancestors.

How the Muslims forcibly converted the Zoroastrians of Iran to Islam

Today we do not have an idea of how a merciless jihad transformed Iranian Zoroastrian society into a Muslim one. We have definitive assessments of those few Zoroastrian communities which survived the devastating jihadist conquests of the mid 7th through early 8th centuries. All through the Muslim Arab occupation of Iran, the Zoroastrians experienced an ongoing, inexorable decline over the next millennium due to constant sociopolitical and economic pressures exerted by their Muslim rulers, and neighbors.

This gradual, but continuous process was interspersed with periods of accelerated decline resulting from paroxysms of Muslim fanaticism- pogroms, forced conversions, and expropriations – throughout the millennium beginning from the year 637. Boyce describes these complementary phenomena based on an historical analysis, and her personal observations living in the (central Iranian) Yezd area during the 1960s:

”In the mid nineteenth century disaster overtook Turkabad, in the shape of what was perhaps the last massed forcible conversion in Iran. It no longer seems possible to learn anything about the background of this event; but it happened, so it is said, one autumn day when the dye-madder - then one of the chief local crops - was being lifted. All the able-bodied men were at work in teams in the fields when a body of Moslems swooped on the village and seized them. They were threatened, not only with death for themselves, but also with the horrors that would befall their women and children, who were being terrorized at the same time in their homes; and by the end of the day of violence most of the village had accepted Islam.

To recant after a verbal acknowledgement of Allah and his prophet meant death in those days, and so Turkabad was lost to the old religion. Its fire-temple was razed to the ground, and only a rough, empty enclosure remained where once it had stood.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaff Sassani
post 11/22/07 08:46 PM
Post #25


Poster 200
****

Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 284
Joined: 11/21/07 10:15 AM
Member No.: 3,513
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: Plight of Sassanian people in Kurdistan region of Iraq and Iran



Chase

We are two million people in Iraq and Iran, one million of us living under Mr. Jalal Talabani rule they are in very bad codition because he is tacking all the budget for his family, We are Sassanian origin Kurd, look at the history of Kurd we are not there, Sharafnamia (The first Kurdish history book did not record us because always we called our self Sassanian.

Today we are dying by thousand because of the effect of the chemical attack by Saddam Government and contaminated water plus running open sewage among the houses in our cities.

We really need help from US Government and Congress in our area, I hope some one will help our people, your writing are very good I read it and appreciate your knowledge.

Thank you for your time
here is our email please keep in touch
I hope you write about our misrable life in liberated Kurdistan.
jaff.skdc@googlemail.com

SKDC
Nov-22-07


QUOTE(chase @ 07/29/07 06:12 PM) [snapback]114434[/snapback]
History of Jihad against the Zoroastrians of Iran (634-651)

After the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula had been subjugated, the Muslims turned on their northern neighbors the Persians and the Byzantines.

Today when the Mullahs and Ayatollahs rule Iran, we might tend to think that they have always been characteristic of Iran. Not many know that Iran was the first nation that waged a short but bloodied campaign of battles with the Jihadi hounds that were unleashed on an unsuspecting world by Mohammed.



As they had done to provoke the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were now dealing with a settled civilization.

So the Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the depredations of the Muslim Arabs.


Iran was the first country that lay blocking the path of these bloodthirsty maniacs who were out to impose their Islamic creed on all those who succumbed to their ruthless march. The Persians (and the Byzantines) were both unfit to defeat the Muslim Arabs, as till then in human history nowhere had a people been worked into a frenzy to go out defeat the adversary and convert the defeated and weak to a creed that imposed the same paranoia of converting still others who were unfortunate and weak to fall before the bloodthirsty Islamic Jihad.

Till the rise of the murderous creed of Islam, the world had known only imperial conquests, where the conqueror, be he Alexander, Cyrus, Julius Caesar, Hannibal or any other, the war took place between the opposing armies. The fate of the battle was decided on the battlefield alone. The common people, the unarmed civilians were not in danger of a victorious adversary imposing anything more than new taxes and new administrators.

How Islam changed the rules of warfare making the entire civilian population of a defeated adversary, into a victim of tyranny

The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world. Those who fell victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their lives by becoming Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty.


Those who fell victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their lives by becoming Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty like the Muslims.

The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world.


Islam was, and still is, a curse on humankind from the word go. At the pain of death, Islam spread like wildfire into Persia, making the Persians also into bloodthirsty wolves like the Muslim Arabs. It was the Persians who a hundred years later were to take this bloodthirsty creed to the Turks and the Turks in turn a few hundred years after that were to attack Byzantine and the Balkans.

Today the Persians (Iranians) have faint memories of their pre-Islamic past. The glories of Cyrus and Darius, of Pasargade, Persepolis, Ctesiphon, of Zarathushtra, and the Shah-Nameh. The student community is becoming increasingly aware of their pre-Islamic past mainly through the websites on the Internet, that tell the true story of Iran. And this adds fuel to the restlessness of the young among the Iranian population.

Today, they must realize that the twilight of the Mullahs is the last twilight before the dawn of the post-Islamic Iran. Iranians, need to not only overthrow the Mullah regime, but also discard Islam and return to their pre-Islamic Zoroastrian roots. Here we shall trace the struggle waged by Iran (Persia) against the Arab Hordes who forcibly imposed Islam on the defeated Persians at the pain of death and torture.

The Battles of Namraq and Kasker (12 A.H. 634 C.E.)

As they had done to provoke the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were now dealing with a settled civilization.

So the Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the depredations of the Muslim Arabs. The king sent a reconnaissance force under the command of a general named Jaban. This force first approached the town of Hira that had been occupied by the Arabs. On seeing the Persians approach, the Arab force withdrew towards the desert into the oasis town of Namraq (modern Kufa) to draw the Persians into the desert, a terrain that the Arabs were familiar with, but the Persians were not.

The Arabs were on camels in addition to their infantry. The Persians were on horseback. While cavalry gave an advantage while fighting on normal terrain, they were a liability in the desert. With the Persians in the desert, the Arab force caught up with it and inflicted a defeat, and forced it to withdraw. The Persian reconnaissance force then withdrew to join the main Persian army at a town called Kasker.

Here another Persian general named Narsi had assembled a good concentration of forces. This town was well away from the border. Kaskar was so far away from the Muslim camp that Narsi felt that no Muslim attack could be imminent. But Abu Ubaid, the Muslim commander, thought otherwise. He thought that it would have a good psychological effect if in the wake of the battle of Namaraq itself, the Muslims rushed to Kaskar and deal with the Persian forces there before the forces under Jalinus, another Persian general could come to their assistance. This shows the Muslim daredevilry, which we must outmatch with our cowboy spirit, if we are to destroy Islam and win the war on terror.


When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with the barefooted Arab lizard eaters, coming at his doorstep as victors, sent out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:

"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."

Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could decide the issue between them. This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim.


Abu Ubaid accordingly ordered a march across the Suwad to Kaskar. Dashing across the Suwad the Muslim forces appeared at Kaskar before the astonished Persians. The Persians hurriedly brought their military into formation and the two forces faced each other at Saqatia a few miles from Kaskar.

The strategy of the Persians had been to defer action till the arrival of the force under another Persian general named Jalinus who had set off with additional forces. The strategy of the Muslims was to press the attack and force immediate decision. With this element of surprise, the Arabs kept the initiative in their hands and fell upon the Persians as soon as they reached the Persian camp. With this momentum, the Arabs were able to overwhelm the Persians at Kasker too and force them to retreat to the east, beyond the Euphrates.

Lessons from the Battles of Namraq and Kasker

The Arabs took these battles in their favor due to their guile in forcing the Persians into hostile and unfamiliar terrain and keeping the initiative in their hands, by pouncing upon the adversary the minute they sighted the Persians. These first defeats set the tone for future Arab-Persian battles and the ultimate defeat of Persia by the Arabs.

The lesson here is to keep the initiative always in our hands if the aim is to stun and defeat the Muslims. In the modern context, the 9/11 attacks on America were meant to stun America as the Arabs had stunned the Persians at their first battles at Namraq and Kasker. So after 9/11 if President Bush had immediately seized the initiative by taking out a couple of cities in the Muslim world using Neutrons or Nukes, this would have delivered a strong message to the beastly Muslims that they could not mess around with America. By going about a slow and conventional start, America has emboldened the Muslims to carry out attacks on other Western targets, as the Sassanid Persians did by their dithering and letting the Arabs take the initiative at the Battle Kasker, conveyed to the Arabs that they could overwhelm and stun the Persians if they kept the initiative in their hands.

Although the Muslims today cannot defeat the West, the West is giving them a lifeline by allowing the initiative to slip. On the other hand, the Muslims by staging dramatic attacks on Western targets like those at London, Beslan Madrid after 9/11, are living up to their tradition of keeping the initiative in their hands and hitting at their adversaries where they least expect to be hit. The lesson which these first battles between the Persians and Arabs give us today is to keep the initiative in the war on terror completely in the hands of the West and to hit the enemy where it hurts most – by nuking Mecca during Hajj. And carrying out large scale attacks during Ramzan and regular attacks to coincide with the Friday noon prayers across the most populous towns in the Islamic crescent.


When the battle of Nihavend started going the way of the Persians, the Arabs faced certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play.

Ali who was Mohammed’s son-in-law and the husband of the Child Persian Princess Shahrbanu (Princess of the Town - of Ctesiphon), suggested a base move to the Arab Muslim commander Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. After the battle of Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were taken as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. Among the unfortunate children who were left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King Yazdgard. When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three years old) they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn gifted her to Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali. At that time Ali was thirty two years old and he decided to take a three year old child princess as his concubine!

Now at the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive child wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he offer the Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to leave its fortified position and walk into an Arab trap. According to Ali’s advise, on the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed the captured Persian child princess to the assembled Persians and said that he would kill the princess on the battle field and of the Persians had the courage, they could come and save her. As a reaction, and against their commanders’ orders the front ranks of the Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs leaving the fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.

Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions Mugheera ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell upon them from three sides. This way using foul tactics the Arabs, could annihilate the Persians once again. The carnage of Nihavend was the break the back of the Persian resistance to Islam and the remaining history of Persia is that of Arabization and Islamization.


Lessons of the Battle of the Bridge (Al Jisr) - 14 A.H. 636 C.E.

At the next major clash which is known as the Battle of the Bridge between the Persians and the Arab Muslims, the Persians used elephants for the first time, which were new for the denizens of the desert the Bedouin Arab Muslims. At the battle of the Bridge (the Battle of Al Jisr in Arab chronicles), the Persians used their elephants to trample over the Arab attackers. They even trampled the Arab general, due to which there was panic among the Arab army which stared retreating. The Persians chased the Arabs up to the Bridge on the Tigris river, which then marked the boundary between the Persian empire and the domain of the Arabs.

The Persians stopped at the bridge and chased the Arabs across it, but did not follow the Arabs into the Arabian desert. The Persians wasted an opportunity to utterly defeat the Muslims by going right into Arabia and hunting down the Muslim Arabs in their homeland and slaughtering them in the same manner in which the Arab Muslims slaughtered all their adversaries and speaking to the Muslims in the only language they understand – that of blood and death.

This the Persians did, as that was how battles had been fought from time immemorial till the beastly Muslims came on the scene. Alexander did not slaughter his adversaries, neither did he forcibly convert them into Greeks. Nor did the Romans do this neither did the Byzantines, nor did the Persians.

The Persians and the Byzantines had been fighting for four hundred years till before the Arab Muslims invaded both their empires, but neither the Persians nor the Byzantines exterminate each armies to the last man, nor did they torment each other’s civilian populations, and less so did they try to convert each other’s civilian population to their own faiths the way the Arab Muslims were to do with both. Today we find no Zoroastrians in Iran, Afghanistan or Baluchistan, which were ruled by the Zoroastrian Persian dynasties like the Hakkamanishiya (Acheamenian) and the Sassanids. As we do not find any Christians in any significant number in Syria, Jordan or Turkey which were Byzantine provinces.

With the Arabs it was going to be different. The Muslims were to slaughter all defeated armies to the last man, and then terrorize the civilian population to embrace Islam. Had the Persians known this and had they decided to respond in the same way, they should have slaughtered he entire fleeing Arab army at the Battle of Al Jisr (Battle of the Bridge) and then they should have gone into nook and cranny of Arabia (as Mohammed had done) to convert the newly converted Arab Muslims to any religion, but the vicious creed of Islam.


The tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of sedition, cheating, bribery, betrayal and foul tactics that included shooting arrows at the steeds, slashing their feet to bring the riders down while they were engaged with another attacker, so much for Arab Muslim valor in winning wars!

During the Muslim aggression against Sassanid Persia, Arab chroniclers tell us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man, perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made his face look like that of a camel which has a protruding lower lip. This Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to pin him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could only defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian’s thumb so hard that he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.


The Persians cannot be blamed for not doing this, since they did not know the kind of enemy that they were facing, so they allowed the retreating Muslim army to flee. An army that was to come back again to slaughter the entire Persian army at Qadissiyah and in all other battles where the Arab Muslims faced the Persians and all other adversaries, after which they were to terrorize the civilian population to embrace Islam.

But while the Persians can be forgiven for not having done that to the Muslims, today when we know what Islam is all about and we have the track record of Islam to see, it is foolish and suicidal not to do this. By “this” we mean to not just defeat Islam on the battlefield, but to forcibly convert the Muslims to any other religion, but their accursed creed of Islam by giving them a choice of giving up Islam or death. This is the lesson for us of the battle of Al Jisr (the battle of the Bridge).

An opportunity to do this was lost by the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers in 732, by the Austrians and Poles at the battle of Vienna in 1683 by the Hindus at the Battle of Tarain in 1191 at the Battle of the Bridge by the Persians in 634, and more recently at the six day war in 1967 by the Israelis; the liberation of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, after which we should have forced the defeated Muslims to choose between abjuring Islam, or embracing death. But for this the non-Muslim do not yet have an understanding of their enemy – the Muslims.

We have not yet realized what can defeat Islam, once and forever. And so we have repeated the folly of letting a defeated Muslim army and nations go scot free at all these and at and countless other battles at which the victorious non-Muslims had the Muslims at their mercy. The lesson for us to learn fast is never to allow the murderous Muslims to retreat unmolested after they have been defeated, but to press on with consolidating the victory by giving the Muslim the choice of abjuring Islam or embracing death. Inhuman as this may sound, it is the only workable way of defeating Islam once and forever.

All our acts of letting Islam survive after every defeat were costly mistakes that came back to haunt humankind time and again the last time spectacularly on 9/11, and which is bound to repeat itself over and over again till the world decides that enough is enough and puts a full and final end to the menace called Islam.


It was at the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.), that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into retreat and defeat. During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the Persian general Rustam by sneaking into the Persian camp disguised as wounded Persian soldiers, and once they set their hands on him, they beheaded him much in the same way as Zarqawi does today with his Western captives. The Arabs displayed Rustam’s decapitated body to the Persian army at the morning of the fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah (Cadesia).

The grisly sight of their general’s headless body riddled with arrows lying on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not used to. This sealed the fate of the battle and the Arabs could make short shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the next target of the attacking Muslims.

The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in the Muslims – an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use nuclear weapons to reduce the enemy to radioactive dust across the entire swath of the Islamic crescent from Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago.


The seminal Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)

At this seminal battle fought over four days, the Persians were led by a capable general named Rustam-e-Farrokhzad (Farokh Hormazd), and only the foul tactics of Saad-Ibn-Waqas, the Arab Muslim commander could bring defeat and death to Rustam and the Persian army. Under Saad-ibn-Waqas, the Muslims very effectively used the tactic of luring the Arab contingent to defect from the Persian army, join the Arab Muslims and betray their non-Muslim Zoroastrian paymasters. This way the Muslims could get to know the weaknesses of the Persian army and devise tactics to trick and defeat the Persians.

One of these tactics was the cutting off the girdles of the Howdas (seats) of those who were riding the elephants, so that the howdas along with the riders would fall and thus the elephant would become directionless. The elephants played havoc on the Arabs at beginning of the first day of the battle. But when the Arab contingent who had defected, betrayed the Persian paymasters and told the Arab Muslims to cut the girdles of the elephants, the elephants became directionless and useless. This was one foul tactic that the Muslims used to defeat their more superior Persian adversary.

The second tactic told by the defectors was to blind the elephants in one eye only, so that they would lose direction and flee away from the direction, of its attackers. When this gruesome act was done, the elephants turned around away from the Arab-Muslim tormentors and broke through the Persian ranks, causing disorder in the Persian army and opened up passages for the Muslims to advance into the Persian ranks. This was the second tactic which the defectors told the Arab Muslims to use, due to which the tide of the battle turned in favor of the Muslim - so much for Allah giving them victory.

The Arabs and Persians had agreed at the beginning of the battle not fight after sundown, but when the tide of the battle began to turn against the Persians on the third day of the battle, the Arabs attacked the Persians all through the night, shouting Allah-o-Akbar. This was the Night of Clangor, which sealed the fate of the battle in favor of the deceitful and barbaric Muslim Arabs.

The victory was a result of deceit, which the adversaries of the Muslims today need to remember when fighting the Muslims. Today the Muslims try to deflect the American effort at war, by many such tactics based on their mean psychology of deceit. They say that the 9/11 attacks were the handiwork of the Jews (sic). They say that they are fighting in self-defense and so they kill innocent civilians, women and children (at Beslan). They march in droves in the “Peace Rallies” in which they are encouraged by their socialist and communist 5th columnist bedmates – those accursed snakes in the grass.

This kind of deceit has been used by the Muslims in all their encounters all through the 1400 years of their existence. This base and mean mentality of the Muslims will have to borne in mind and countered if we are to finally defeat the Muslims in our generation and to permanently end the menace of Islam.

Lessons from the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Quadsiyyah) with the Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)

It was at this battle that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into retreat and defeat – something which neither Alexander, nor Cyrus, nor Darius, nor Julius Caesar, nor Hannibal had done.

During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the Persian general Rustam, and once they set their hands on him, they beheaded him much in the same way as Zarqawi does today with his Western captives. After this Arabs displayed Rustam’s decapitated body to the Persian army at the next morning of the fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah (Cadesia).

The grisly sight of their general’s headless body riddled with arrows lying on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not used to. This sealed the fate of the battle, and the Arabs could make short shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the next target for the attacking Muslims.

The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in the Muslims – an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use all the weapons in our arsenal including nuclear weapons, to reduce the enemy to radioactive dust across the entire swath of the Islamic crescent from Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago.


After the battle of Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were marched off as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. This rapacious behavior was to be repeated over and over again at Jerusalem (636), Damascus (637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650), Tripoli (651), Constantinople (1453) and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on their non-Muslim adversaries.

How Islamic deceit made single combat a deathly struggle for its adversaries

The Persians, who were one of the first non-Arab people, on whom the Muslims fell upon, had a tradition of single combat, which they used in many battles. The strongest person from each army would fight the champion of the adversary’s army. The winner’s army would be deemed to have won the battle, and the actual battle was not then fought, as both the armies were honor-bound to abide by the result of the duel.

The duel was a test of strength and skill. The opponents were not bound to kill their adversary, but only to defeat him, and in most cases the defeated champion was allowed to return to his camp, and his army withdrew thus preventing a battle and saving of many lives. The Persians, the pre-Islamic Turks, the Greeks and Romans had used this practice of single-combat to settle the result of many a battle. This practice was fine as long as both the adversaries were bound by honor.

But with the coming of the dishonorable Muslims, the single combat, became a farce. It was now one more tool to humiliate the enemy and to demoralize it before the actual combat could begin. Even if the Arab Champion was defeated, the Arabs would nevertheless attack the opposing army. And if the Arab champion was victorious, he would not just defeat the opposing adversary but kill him, after which the Arab army would thereupon fall on the opposing army and a carnage would follow.

The Arabs never allowed their adversaries to escape by retreating. They found sadistic glee in slaughtering their defeated opponents to the last man. The Persians were the first to bear the brunt of this beastly mentality of the Muslim Arabs.

The Persians had specialized a practice wherein they nurtured champions who were called Hazar Mard (A thousand men), which meant that these champions had the strength of a thousand men and who would fight off a champion from the opposing army to stave off the need for an actual battle.

Arab chroniclers have gloated about the heap of bones that marked every encounter of the Persians and the Arabs. At the battle of Al Madain (Tessfoon or Ctesiphon) the capital of the Sassanids, Arab chroniclers tell us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man, perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made his face look like that of a camel which also has a protruding lower lip.

This Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to pin him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could only defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian’s thumb so hard that he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.


The Arch of Chosroes (Takht-e-Kisra) is all that remains of the awesome grandeur of the White Palace at Ctesiphon capital of the Sassanian Empire. After the Muslims captured Ctesiphon, they were befuddled by its shear beauty and opulence. Desert nomads that they were, they could not figure out what they could do with an imperial capital with its palaces, carpets, baths, terrace gardens, orchards. The abominably cruel and violent bare-footed, lizard-eating Muslim Arabs had no use for these trappings of a civilized life, they stripped the city of all moveable items like jewelry, carpets, ornate furniture and then they reduced the city to rubble and carried away its residents to slavery in to the sandy wastes of Arabia. The tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of destruction, vandalism, savagery that included burning down libraries, destroying fire-temples (Zoroastrian places of worship), slaughter of captured civilians to ensure that civilization would never rise up again after an Islamic victory.

The Muslim Capture of the Persian capital Ctesiphon revealed the nature of the Islamic threat

After the Arabs has slaughtered two thirds of the Persian army at Qadissiyah, they did not stop, but continued to march to the Persian capital Ctesiphon (Teesfoon). The Arabs were not interested in a border war but were intent in defeating Persia utterly by marching into the nook and corner of that country. The prize – the Persian capital was the first in their path. When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with the barefooted Arab lizard eaters, coming to his doorstep as victors, sent out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:

"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."

Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could decide the issue between them.

After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam, or death. This is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were converted to Islam.

This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the Muslims survive – both cannot survive!

You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.


After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam, or death.


After this they brought each of the Persian noblemen who had the misfortune to having fallen in to the hands of the Arab Muslims as prisoners in front of the Saad-ibn-Wagas, the Muslim gangster who now occupied the throne of the Persian Emperor and gave the prisoners a choice of Islam or death. This is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were converted to Islam.

This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the Muslims survive – both cannot survive!

You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.


After the disastrous defeat at Qadsiyah and the occupation of his capital Ctesiphon, the Hapless Persian emperor Yazgard, withdrew to the fortress of Hulwan, from there to Rayy and finally to Merv, near the border of the Persian empire with the domain of the Central Asian Turks, where he died fighting the Muslims in 651 – seventeen years after the Arabs had first attacked Persia. But before this had to happen, the Persians put up one final major resistance to the Muslims at Nihavend (Nihawand).

Lessons from the battle of Nihavend

After the disastrous defeat at Qadisiyah, the Persians regrouped under a new Commander-in-Chief named Pirojan. The first step that Pirojan took was to re-organize the Persian army in the light of the foul tactics that the Arabs used. He purged the Persian army of all Arab contingents, and provided the entire Persian army with mail armor. The Persians had a burning desire in them to liberate Persia that was being slowly occupied by the Arabs after their victory at Qadisiyah.

The Persians took the oath by the holy fire that they will die, but not let the Arabs occupy the Persia. With this new resolution, the Persians regrouped their forces at Nihavend. When the two armies faced each other, the Persians had taken a vantage position on the slope of a hill. The Arab historians describe the Persian army as a ‘Mountain of Steel’. The determined Persians put up a stiff resistance under the leadership of their general Mardanshah and the Arabs could not make any headway.

The battle of Nihavend was going the way of the Persians and the Arabs faced certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play once again.

Ali who was Mohammed’s son-in-law and the husband of the child Persian Princess Shahrbanu, suggested a base move to the Arab Muslim commander Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. At the battle of Qadisiyah, when the Persians has hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were taken as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. This rapacious behavior was to be repeated over and over again at Jerusalem (636), Damascus (637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650), Constantinople (1453) and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on their non-Muslim adversaries.

At the Persian capital Ctesiphon, among the unfortunate children who were left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King Yazdgard. When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three years old) they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn gifted her to Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali as maal-e-ganimat (slaves obtained by Muslims after a war).

At that time Ali was thirty two years old and he decided to take the three year old child princess as his concubine! In doing this he was following the illustrious (sic) footsteps of his lecherous father-in-law Mohammed. The lecherous Mohammed had married and consummated his marriage with a seven year old girl named Ayesha in addition to many other unfortunate young and beautiful ladies who had been captured by the Muslim gangsters in the numerous wars at Badr, Uhud, Trench, Autas in the Arabian peninsula.

It was from this "marriage" of Ali to Princess Shahrbanu, that he fathered his two sons Hassan and Husain, who were later murdered in Battle of Karbala in October of AD 680. Ali himself had been murdered in 39 A.H. (661 C.E.). The descendants of Hassan and Hussain were to be the Shiite Imams who founded the Shia sect of Islam that had mixed Persian (royal Sassanid) and Arab ancestry. (Arab historians deliberately attribute the motherhood of these two sons of Ali to Fatima, another of Ali’s wives, and the daughter of Mohammed.

But the reason for such attribution is to keep the ancestry of Husain and Hassan purely to Arabs and to suppress the royal Sassanid Persian element of their ancestry.

The historical fact is that Shahrbanu the Persian princess was the mother of Hassan and Hussain. So the descendants of Hussain and Hassan from whom came many of the Shiite Imams had royal Sassanid Persian ancestry. A fact that the Muslim historians try to hide by wrongly claiming that Sharbanu was a young princess of marriagable age when she had been captured by the Arabs.

We know that the battle of Qadisiyah had been fought in the year 637, and Yazdgard had ascended the throne in the year 634, when his age was 21 - twenty one. So in 637 when he fled his capital leaving behind his daughter he was 24. How could a King aged 24 have a daughter who herself was a teenager or a young lady?

The Muslim historians have us believe that Shahrbanu was honorably married off by Ali to his son Hussain from whom she begot Ali's grandon Ali Zayn al Abidin (the fourth Shia Imam) in 658 CE.

But we know that princess Shahrbanu was abducted in the year 637, and according to Arab accounts she gave birth to a son in 658. If she was a young lady when she was abducted in 637 then why did she have to wait for 21 years till 658 before she could beget? Especially so considering that the Muslims force their wives to procreate as soon as they can lay their hands on them!? The Arab Muslims and their Iranian Muslim cohorts are practising their ritual deception taqiya to mislead us and give a veneer of hanorablity to the abduction and rape of Shahrbanu by Ali when he lustfully took the Persian princess into his harem as his rightful property (maal-e-ganimat) won after a war as per the henious Muslim custom.

This is the reason why most Persians are Shias. The Persian converts to Islam saw in the Shiite Imams a continuation of their pre-Islamic royal Sassanid lineage as the Shiite Imams were descended from the union of Ali with Shahrbanu (or of Hussain with Shahrbanu in which case too the royal Sassanid Persian element of the ancestry of the Shiite Imams remains). The Zoroastrian converts who yearned for a return to the Sassanid days saw in Ali, Hussain, Hassan and the Shiite Imams, the successors to their Sassanid emperor Yazgard by virtue of Ali (or by some accounts his son Hussain) being the husband of their princess Shahrbanu.

The Shias who are mainly Persian, Iraqi and Bahraini converts to Islam came from those parts which constituted the Sassanid empire before being overrun by the Muslims. These converts saw in Hussain and Hassan, the continuation of their old Sassanid royal lineage thru the Sassanid princess Shahrbanu along with the ancestry of Mohammed, as Ali her husband, the father of Hussain and Hassan, was Mohammed’s cousin. So they formed a cult within Islam separate from that of the Sunnis who came from the Arab Peninsula that was not a part of the Sassanid empire. Thus in today’s Shia-Sunni divide we can see the expression of the Persian-Arab divide that existed before the birth of Islam.

Coming back to the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive child wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he offer the Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to leave its fortified position and walk into an Arab trap.

According to Ali’s advise, on the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed the captured Persian child princess to the assembled Persians and said that he would kill the princess on the battle field and if the Persians had the courage, they could come and save her.

The astonished Persians took some time to recognize the princess. But once they recognized her as their own princess, who had been captured by the Arabs after the battle of Qadsiyyah four years back, they went into a frenzy of rescuing her. Against their commanders’ orders the front ranks of the Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs leaving the fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.

Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions, Mugheera ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell upon them from three sides. Weighed down by their armor and being chained to each other, the Persians had little room for maneuvering in the narrow valley where the Arabs had hemmed them in. After a valiant but futile battle, what followed was a carnage of the Persian army all through the day. By nightfall the remnants of the Persian army retreated in the dark and many of the retreating Persians fell into the steep cliff, behind the hill on which they had assembled to attack the Arabs from the high ground.

This way using foul tactics the Arabs, could annihilate the Persians once again. The carnage of Nihavend was the break the back of the Persian resistance to Islam and the remaining history of Persia is that of Arabization and Islamization. The Persia we next hear of is the Islamic Persia of Muslim dynasties the Samanids, and the Safavids of Muslim kings like Shah Abbas and Nader Shah. Although the Persian were forced to become Muslims, they preserved the faint memory of their pre-Muslim past, that was captured by poets, historians and bards in their works, of which Firdawsi’s Shah-nameh is the most famous example.

Using imagery we can say that Zoroastrian Sassanian Persia was like a strong horse, who had been caught unawares by the Islamic tiger prowling around it, and when the tiger pounced on the horse and caught it by its neck, the struggle of the strong horse was not enough to save itself from the vice-like grip of the tiger’s fangs. The horse had to meet its end, in becoming the first major victim of the Islamic Jihad. It is up to the Iranians of today to realize what happened to their ancestors in history and repudiate the bloodied creed that the bare-footed lizard eaters of the desert imposed on their refined ancestors.

How the Muslims forcibly converted the Zoroastrians of Iran to Islam

Today we do not have an idea of how a merciless jihad transformed Iranian Zoroastrian society into a Muslim one. We have definitive assessments of those few Zoroastrian communities which survived the devastating jihadist conquests of the mid 7th through early 8th centuries. All through the Muslim Arab occupation of Iran, the Zoroastrians experienced an ongoing, inexorable decline over the next millennium due to constant sociopolitical and economic pressures exerted by their Muslim rulers, and neighbors.

This gradual, but continuous process was interspersed with periods of accelerated decline resulting from paroxysms of Muslim fanaticism- pogroms, forced conversions, and expropriations – throughout the millennium beginning from the year 637. Boyce describes these complementary phenomena based on an historical analysis, and her personal observations living in the (central Iranian) Yezd area during the 1960s:

”In the mid nineteenth century disaster overtook Turkabad, in the shape of what was perhaps the last massed forcible conversion in Iran. It no longer seems possible to learn anything about the background of this event; but it happened, so it is said, one autumn day when the dye-madder - then one of the chief local crops - was being lifted. All the able-bodied men were at work in teams in the fields when a body of Moslems swooped on the village and seized them. They were threatened, not only with death for themselves, but also with the horrors that would befall their women and children, who were being terrorized at the same time in their homes; and by the end of the day of violence most of the village had accepted Islam.

To recant after a verbal acknowledgement of Allah and his prophet meant death in those days, and so Turkabad was lost to the old religion. Its fire-temple was razed to the ground, and only a rough, empty enclosure remained where once it had stood.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 04/17/14 01:12 AM