On a possible lack of incest regulations in old Iran
Pacifist
Thus the Iranian sources do not merely negatively show a lack of incest
prohibitions, but positively advocate the preferential mating of
next-of-kin. Another important observation is this: On the face of it,
the Iranian texts seem to advocate next-of-kin marriages for all
Zoroastrians, and not merely for priests and rulers.
Unquote
P
===================================================================
J.S. SLOTKIN, PH.D.
On a possible lack of incest regulations in old Iran [1]
There is a consensus among anthropologists that all societies have
exogamic regulations, the violation of which is incest. However, data
exist which raise the question as to the truth of this proposition in
regard to old Iran.
The earliest text on the subject seems to be by a Greek writer, Xanthus,
and has reference to the Magi:
... he says that the Magi cohabit with their mothers and their
daughters, and according to law have intercourse with sisters; and also
that the wives are common, not by violence and stealth, but by mutual
agreement, when one wants to marry the wife of another [2].
Three other fairly early sources follow:
... they [the Magi] see no impiety in marriage with a mother or daughter
[3].
From the unholy commerce of Gellius and his mother let a Magian be born,
and learn the Persian art of soothsaying; for a Magian must be the
offspring of mother and son, if the unnatural religion of the Persians
is true, so that their child may worship the gods with acceptable hymns,
whilst melting the fat caul in the altar flame [4].
... these Magi, by ancestral custom, consort even with their mothers
[5].
The preceding passages refer to "Magi"; the succeeding ones speak of
"Persians":
Alcibiades lay with his mother, his daughter, and his sister, as
Persians do [6].
Persians have illicit intercourse with their mothers [7].
... the Persian magnates marry their mothers and regard the children of
the marriage as nobles of the highest birth, worthy, so it is said, to
hold the supreme sovereignty [8].
The Satrap [of Nautaca in Sogdiana] was Sismithres, who had two sons by
his mother; for among them it was lawful for parents to disgracefully
copulate with their children [9].
Alexander [the Great] ... persuaded ... the Persians to revere their
mothers and not to take them in wedlock [10].
An early, but unfortunately vague reference to the subject occurs in
Euripides:
Such is the whole race of the barbarians: a father is united to his
daughter, and a son to his mother, and a maid to her brother [11].
Concerning this a Byzantine scholiast explains, "All Persians have such
customs" [12], but of course this does not have the same validity as
such a statement coming from Euripides himself.
At this point let us analyze these Greek and Latin sources. A crucial
question is the relation between the "Magi" and "Persians." One
possibility is that the Magi always were the priestly division of the
Persians, and that those who speak of "Persians" in general really have
particular reference to the priestly division among the Persians [13].
If this were so, we have merely a case of incest for supernatural
reasons, which occurs in many cultures. Another possibility is that the
Magi and Persians originally had distinct cultures. In that case the
Magian culture had no incest regulations. But then what about the
Persians? The Persian datum given by Philo Alexandrinus does not
surprise an anthropologist; he is familiar with cases of incest among
rulers. However, the other sources do not limit the practice to Persians
of higher status. Thus either the quotations are vague, and when
speaking of Persians in general really refer only to the Persians of
highest status, or there were no incest regulations among the Persians.
The next set of data, chronologically speaking, comes from the Greek and
Latin Christian fathers. In my estimation these are probably all
indirect sources and not as reliable as the previous ones, for it is
doubtful if any of the writers had first-hand knowledge of Iran. For
what they are worth, I give them in chronological order:
The Greeks consider intercourse with a mother as unlawful, but this
practice is esteemed most becoming by the Persian Magi [14].
[Persian royal] children ... on reaching maturity have sexual
intercourse with sisters, and mothers, and women, wives and courtesans
innumerable [15].
... the laws ... of the Persians ... do not forbid the marriage of sons
with their mothers, or of daughters with their own fathers [16].
Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers
is allowed [17].
[Is it not] the habit of the Persians to marry their own mothers,
sisters, and daughters, while marriage with other women is called most
barbarous [18]?
The Persians, Medes, Indians, and Ethiopians ... have intercourse with
mothers and grandmothers, with daughters and granddaughters [19].
... the ancient Persians ... shamefully had intercourse with their
mothers, sisters, and even daughters [20].
Notice that there is the same ambiguity about "Magi" and "Persian" that
we found before.
Now let us turn to some Near Eastern texts. The Syriac church father
Bardaisan may be classed with the Greek and Latin fathers, but he seems
to have had access to better sources than they, and is therefore more
reliable.
... the Persians have made laws for themselves that they may take for
wives their sisters, and their daughters, and their daughters'
daughters; and there are some that go further, and take even their
mothers [21].
There are two later Christian texts, Syriac and Arabic respectively,
which represent an interesting tradition, for they hint that the incest
occurred for supernatural reasons.
... the devil said unto the priest [Idhashir], "A man cannot become a
priest and a Magian until he hath known carnally his mother, and his
daughter, and his sister." And Idhashir the priest did this, and from
that time the priests, and the Magians, and the Persians take their
mothers, and their sisters, and their daughters to wife [22].
And Nimrod came down and saw the fire and worshipped it, and he
established a man there to care for the fire and to throw frankincense
upon it. From that time on the Magi started to worship the fire and to
bow down to it. And the name of the man whom Nimrod established to care
for the fire was Andeshan, and the devil spoke to him from the mouth of
the fire, saying "No one can worship the fire and learn my religion
without his having intercourse with his mother and sister and daughter."
And Andeshan did what the devil told him, and from that time on the
priests of the Magi started to have intercourse with their mothers and
sisters and daughters [23].
It may be asked why no indigenous Iranian sources have been mentioned so
far. The reason is both simple and surprising. Such data exist, but they
are all relatively late. They deal with xvaetva-datha [24], usually
translated as "next-of-kin marriage." The subject is first discussed in
the later strata of the Avesta and in such a form that who these
"next-of-kin" are remains uncertain.
I praise at once ... the Faith of kindred marriage [25].
Yea, we sacrifice to the youth who is given to his kin and married to
his blood, the holy lord of the ritual order [26].
I summon the youth of holy thoughts, words and works, and of good
conscience; yea, the youth of good speech, given in marriage to his kin
[27].
To thee [the Law] comes ... every one who performs the next-of-kin
marriage [28].
Which is the urine wherewith the corpse-bearers shall wash their hair
and their bodies? ...
Ahura Mazda answered: It is of sheep or of oxen; not of man nor of
woman, except the two who are male and female participants in
next-of-kin marriage [29].
About all that we can gather from these Avestan passages is that
Zoroastrianism in the fourth to ninth centuries supernaturally
sanctioned next-of-kin marriages, whoever the kin involved may be.
When we reach the indigenous Pahlavi texts we are much better off. There
is no longer any doubt that father-daughter, mother-son, and
brother-sister marriage is meant, but whether these kinship terms are
classificatory or descriptive is unknown to me. An example of such a
source, and one of the justifications for such marriage, follows:
... pleased is he who has a child of his child, even when it is from
some one of a different race and different country. That, too, has then
become much delight which is expedient, that pleasure, sweetness, and
joy which are owing to a son that a man begets from a daughter of his
own, who is also a brother of that same mother; and he who is born of a
son and mother is also a brother of that same father; this is a way of
much pleasure, which is a blessing of the joy ... the family is more
perfect; its nature is without vexation and gathering affection [30].
These Pahlavi sources support next-of-kin marriage with numerous
supernatural sanctions. For instance:
For the sake of much terrifying of the demons, and much lodgement of the
blessings of the holy in one's body, next-of-kin marriage is to be
practiced [31].
Next-of-kin marriage will extirpate mortal sins [32].
The Iranian texts are confirmed by a couple of Arabic sources which
state that Bih'afrid (eighth century A.D.), a Zoroastrian reformer, was
opposed to next-of-kin marriage.
Bahafrid ... ordered them ... not to marry their mothers, daughters,
sisters, nieces [33].
Later Pahlavi texts exhort people to engage in next-of-kin marriages:
The most perfectly righteous of the righteous is he who remains in the
good religion of the Mazdayasnians, and continues the religious practice
of next-of-kin marriage in his family [34].
Such passages as these lead one to feel that the later texts are in
effect propaganda on its behalf by conservatives.
Thus the Iranian sources do not merely negatively show a lack of incest
prohibitions, but positively advocate the preferential mating of
next-of-kin. Another important observation is this: On the face of it,
the Iranian texts seem to advocate next-of-kin marriages for all
Zoroastrians, and not merely for priests and rulers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Reprinted from American Anthropologist, VOL 49, 1947, by permission
of the editors. [back]
[2] Xanthus Lydus (6th-5th cents. B.C.), frag. 28; in Fragmenta
historicorum Graecorum, ed. K. Müller (Paris, 1841-51), I, pp. 36-44;
IV, pp. 628-29. The authenticity of this fragment has been questioned by
some. [back]
[3] Sotion Alexandrinus (fl. 200-170 B.C.); quot. Diogenes Laertius, De
vitis philosophorum, ed. R.D. Hicks (London, 1925), prooem., 1.7. [back]
[4] Catullus (84?-54 B.C.), Carmina, ed. R. Ellis (Oxford, n.d.), 90;
tr. F.W. Cornish, London, 1912. [back]
[5] Strabo (63 B.C.?-24 A.D.), Geographica, ed. A. Meinecke (Leipzig,
1915-25), 15.3.20; tr. H.L. Jones, London, 1917-32. [back]
[6] Antisthenes Atheniensis (ca. 450-ca. 365 B.C.), frag. 9; in
Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum, ed. F.W.A. Mullach (Paris, 1875-81),
II, pp. 261-93. [back]
[7] Ctesias Cnidus (4 cent. B.C.), Persica, ed. J. Gilmore (London,
1888), frag. 22. [back]
[8] Philo Alexandrinus (born ca. 20 B.C.), De specialibus legibus, 3.13;
in Opera, ed. L. Cohen, et al., Berlin, 1886-1930; tr. F.H. Colson and
G.H. Whitaker, London, 1929. [back]
[9] Curtius Rufus (1 cent. A.D.), Historia Alexandri Magni, ed. E.
Hedicke (Leipzig, 1908), 8.2.8.19. [back]
[10] Plutarch (46?-120? A.D.), De Alexandri magni fortuna, 328 c; in
Moralia, ed. C. Hubert, et al., Leipzig, 1925-; tr. F.C. Babbitt and
H.N. Fowler, London, 1927-. This passage is not very reliable. [back]
[11] Euripides (5 cent. B.C.), Andromacha, 173-175; in Tragoediae, ed.
G. Murray, Oxford, 1902-09; tr. T.A. Buckley, London, 1867. [back]
[12] Scholia in Euripidem, ed. E. Schwartz (Berlin, 1887-91),
Andromacha, 174. [back]
[13] Diogenes Laertius, 9.83, states: "Persians think it not unnatural
for a man to marry his daughter." This is presumably based upon the same
authority as the referance to Sotion Alexandrinus quoted above. If so,
Diogenes Laertius is using "Magi" and "Persians" interchangeably. [back]
[14] Tatian (fl. 159-172), Oratio ad Graecos, ed. E. Schwartz (Texte und
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 4.1)
(Leipzig, 1888), 1.28; tr. J. E. Ryland, Buffalo, 1885. [back]
[15] Clemens Alexandrinus (150?-220?), Paedagogus, 1.7; in Opera, ed. O.
Stählin (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 12, 15, 17, 39)
(Leipzig, 1905-36), I; tr. W. Wilson, Buffalo, 1885. In Stromata,
3.2.11, he quotes Xanthus as given above. [back]
[16] Origen (185?-254?), Contra Celsum, 5.27; in Werke, ed. P.
Koetschau, et al. (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 2, et
passim) (Leipzig, 1899- ), I-II; tr. F. Crombie, Buffalo, 1885. [back]
[17] Minucius (fl. ca. 240), Octavius, ed. J. P. Waltzing (Leipzig,
1912), 31.3. [back]
[18] Pseudo-Clemens Romanus, Homiliae [ca. 313-325], 19.19; in
Patrologia Graeca, II, cols. 19-468; tr. T. Smith, et at., Buffalo,
1886. [back]
[19] Jerome (340?-420), Adversus Jovinianum, 2.7; in Patrologia Latina,
XXIII, cols. 205-338; tr. W. H. Freemantle, New York, 1893. [back]
[20] Theodoretus (390?-457?), Graecarum affectionum curatio, ed. J.
Raeder (Leipzig, 1904), 9.33. [back]
[21] Bar-daisan (154-222), Liber legum regionum, ed. F. Nau (Patrologia
Syriaca, 1.2) (Paris, 1907), 29; vide ibid., 40, 46; tr. W. Cureton,
London, 1855. [back]
[22] Ma'arrath gazze (The Book of the Cave of Treasures) [6th cent.?],
tr. E. A. W. Budge (London, 1927), pp. 143-144. [back]
[23] Eutychius Alexandrinus (876-940), Annales, ed. L. Cheikho (Corpus
scriptorum Christianorum orientalium, Scriptores Arabici, ser. 3, vols.
6-7) (Beirut, 1906-09), I, p. 20. [back]
[24] The word seems to be derived from xvaetav, "belonging to one's own
group," and *vadatha, "marriage," from vad, "lead in, bring." In various
contexts xvaetav may refer to the family, the clan, the rulers, or the
religious community; vide C. Bartholomae, Altiranisches Wörterbuch
(Strassburg, 1904), s.v. [back]
[25] Avesta, tr. J. Darmsteter and L. H. Mills (Sacred Books of the
East, 4, 23, 31) (Oxford 1883-95, I, 2nd ed.), Yasna, 12.9 [4-5 cents.
A.D.]. [back]
[26] Avesta, Gah, 4.8 [6-9 cents.]. [back]
[27] Avesta, Visparad, 3.3 [6-9 cents.]. [back]
[28] Avesta, Yasht, 24.15, 17 [6-9 cents.]. [back]
[29] Avesta, Vendidad, 8.13 [6-9 cents.]; translation revised. [back]
[30] Dinkard [9 cent. A.D.], tr. E. W. West (SBE, 18, 34, 47) (Oxford,
1882-97), 3.82 (XVIII, pp. 404-405, 408-409). Other important Pahlavi
sources are: Shayast la-Shayast [7 cent.], tr. E. W. West, 18.3-4; in
SBE, V, pp. 237-406. Dina-i Mainyo-i-Khirad [9 cent.], tr. E. W. West,
4.4; 36.7; 37.12; in SBE, XXIV, pp. 1-113. Dinkard [9 cent.], 9.41.27;
9.677, 9. Manuskihar (fl. 881), Dadistan-i Dinik, tr. E. W. West, 37.82;
65; 77.6-7; 78.19; in SBE, XVIII. Zad-Sparam (fl. 881), Selections, tr.
E. W. West, 23.13; in SBE, V. pp. 153-187; XLVII, pp. 131-170; XXXVII,
pp. 401-405. [back]
[31] Dinkard, 3.195; translation revised. Vide ibid., 3.196. [back]
[32] Shayast la-Shayast, 8.18. [back]
[33] Albiruni, The Chronology of Ancient Nations [1000], tr. C. E.
Sachau (Oriental Translation Fund, Publications, 73) (London, 1879), pp.
193-194. Vide al-Shahrastani, Kitab al-Milal wa 'l-Nihal [1127], ed. W.
Cureton (London, 1842-46), I, 187. [back]
[34] Bahman Yast [12 cent.?], tr. E. W. West, 2.61; in SBE, V, pp.
189-235. An even stronger and more specific statement is found in a
Rivayat to Manuskihar, Dadistan-i Dinik, of unknown date; in SBE, XVIII,
pp. 415-423. [back]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 1998 Patrick Beherec (or original author)
Homepage: http://www.geocities.com /Athens/Olympus/9567/Index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Nima Rezai
Pacifist
news:2m9oapF...@uni-berlin.de
> hala mikham bebinam ki javabe in ro mideh...
Let me guess... It will start with "Madar Jendeh" and go on into various
sexual fantasies!!
P
sirknight67
what it would be like to be with your wife, like everyone else!
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1009eb8db3214d2612c...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
again, WHERE DOES IT SAY SO IN THE GATHAS????????WHERE DID ZARTOSHT
SAY THIS STPUID BABBLING IDIOT? STILL CAN'T COME UP WITH GATHIC
TEXTS....I guess I'm going to have to wipe my ass with you again, inch
by inch
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<50a65f96a9efcf23db3...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> Quote
>
> Thus the Iranian sources do not merely negatively show a lack of incest
> prohibitions, but positively advocate the preferential mating of
> next-of-kin. Another important observation is this: On the face of it,
> the Iranian texts seem to advocate next-of-kin marriages for all
> Zoroastrians, and not merely for priests and rulers.
>
> Unquote
It is true, incest was practiced by some Irnaians at the time of the
Sassanians. Once again, you fail to prove this as part of a RELIGIOUS
issue as opposed to an ethnic or cultural issue. LIke you said later
yourself, it was practiced also by Indians and Ethiopians and neither
were Zoroastrian...not to mention that incest was widely practiced by
Macedonian nobility.
> ... he says that the Magi cohabit with their mothers and their
> daughters, and according to law have intercourse with sisters; and also
> that the wives are common, not by violence and stealth, but by mutual
> agreement, when one wants to marry the wife of another [2].
For your information, the Magi were not the original Zoroastrian
priesthood. In fact, they weren't even IRANIAN PRIESTHOOD. THe
Iranian/Zoroastrian priesthood were called Athravan from the time of
Zarathushtra. THe Magi became entrusted wtih Zoroastrian liturgy at
the time of Dariush the Great (so therefore some 1000 YEARS AFTER
ZARTOSHT), because
1) of their ability to memorize and recite sacred religious texts
2) because of their standing and political influence in pre-Aryan
socieity in Iran, and hence their great influence and hold on the
"little" or common people including the farmers and such.
The Magians were a non-Iranian tribe which, along with the Bousaei and
four others allied itself to the Arizanti Aryan tribe to become the
Mede federation of tribes in northern Iran.Being non-Iranian, they
were also NON-ZOROASTRIAN.
It was noted since the days of Teshpish that the Magians practiced
incest as well as endogamy to keep their caste "pure.
It was also known that no while anyone from the upper Aryan upper
class of Airyaman could become Athravan, the Magian group was a CLOSED
CASTE in which one had to be born....hence the emphasis on incest and
endogamy
> From the unholy commerce of Gellius and his mother let a Magian be born,
> and learn the Persian art of soothsaying; for a Magian must be the
> offspring of mother and son, if the unnatural religion of the Persians
> is true, so that their child may worship the gods with acceptable hymns,
> whilst melting the fat caul in the altar flame [4].
first of all, there is evidence of bias here, especially when as
supposedly reputable source calls the religion of the Persians
"unatural". It is as valid as the Greeks' description of Persians as
"effeminate barbarians".
Second, while the Magians were soothsayers, deeply endoctrinated into
babylonian astrology and the art of divination, that was in NO WAY
PART OF THE ZOROASTRIAN ritual or belief system, until magians were
admited into Zoroastrianism as a priestly class.
Second, a note on the Magians. There were the nrothern Magians and
there were the southern Hirvad who were priests of the south and not
related to the northern Magians. Also, if one goes by your false
supposition that Magians were indeed to be equated with the term
"Zoroastrian priesthood", then one would wonder why MAGIANS WERE
COMPLETELY ABSENT IN THE ORIGINAL ZOROASTRIAN LANDS OF BACTRIA,
MARGIANNA, KHWARAZM, SOGHDIANNA AND FERGHANNA where Zoroastrianism
originally spread during the rule of the Kayanids.?
> ... these Magi, by ancestral custom, consort even with their mothers
> [5].
THere's the key word: ANCESTRAL and not RELIGIOUS. It was, as I said
ebfore countless times, an inherited practiced form their pre-Aryan
days, during which incest and endogamy were seen as a method to
perpetuate the caste, which could not be either maintained nor
increased through acceptance of outsiders.
> Persians have illicit intercourse with their mothers [7].>
a generalization for it was initially practiced by Magians and some
members of upper classes ONLY.
> ... the Persian magnates marry their mothers and regard the children of
> the marriage as nobles of the highest birth, worthy, so it is said, to
> hold the supreme sovereignty [8].>
THere you go...the PERSIAN MAGNATES meaning a select group among the
ruling class. and as for "Persian practice", I'm sure even an
uneducated idiot like yourself knows of the story of Oedipus, the
greek anti-hero who fell in love with his mother and killed his father
to get the competion out of the way. Eventually, he blinded himself
out of guilt. THis was widely known throughout the ancient world.
> The Satrap [of Nautaca in Sogdiana] was Sismithres, who had two sons by
> his mother; for among them it was lawful for parents to disgracefully
> copulate with their children [9].>
Who's "them"? Persians? Satraps? Soghdians?
> Such is the whole race of the barbarians: a father is united to his
> daughter, and a son to his mother, and a maid to her brother [11].
> Concerning this a Byzantine scholiast explains, "All Persians have such
> customs" [12], but of course this does not have the same validity as
> such a statement coming from Euripides himself.>
That contradicts the earlier paragraph where it clearly says "among
the Persian magnates". So which is it? the Magnates or the "whole"
Persian nation? A lot of contradiction here.
> At this point let us analyze these Greek and Latin sources. A crucial
> question is the relation between the "Magi" and "Persians." One
> possibility is that the Magi always were the priestly division of the
> Persians, and that those who speak of "Persians" in general really have
> particular reference to the priestly division among the Persians [13].>
Refer to my comments on the origin of the Magians above. I debated
enough on this issue. The Magians were originalyl neither Persian, nor
Aryan (Iranian) but descendants of the earlier pre-Aryan people of
Iran. Their customs were therefore neither "Persian" nor "Iranian".
> If this were so, we have merely a case of incest for supernatural
> reasons, which occurs in many cultures. Another possibility is that the
> Magi and Persians originally had distinct cultures. In that case the
> Magian culture had no incest regulations. But then what about the
> Persians? The Persian datum given by Philo Alexandrinus does not
> surprise an anthropologist; he is familiar with cases of incest among
> rulers. However, the other sources do not limit the practice to Persians
> of higher status. Thus either the quotations are vague, and when
> speaking of Persians in general really refer only to the Persians of
> highest status, or there were no incest regulations among the Persians.
>
Again, a great deal of ambiguity that cannot lead to any sound and
definite conclusions on whether this was a widespread practice.
> The Greeks consider intercourse with a mother as unlawful, but this
> practice is esteemed most becoming by the Persian Magi [14].
> [Persian royal] children ... on reaching maturity have sexual
> intercourse with sisters, and mothers, and women, wives and courtesans
> innumerable [15].
A practice also quite common among the Ptolemies of Egypt (including
Cleopatra's familly).
> ... the laws ... of the Persians ... do not forbid the marriage of sons
> with their mothers, or of daughters with their own fathers [16].
> Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers
> is allowed [17].>
What is the origin of this "law" WHen did it come into existence? WHo
approved it and how widespread was it? Again....absence of evidence.
> [Is it not] the habit of the Persians to marry their own mothers,
> sisters, and daughters, while marriage with other women is called most
> barbarous [18]?
> The Persians, Medes, Indians, and Ethiopians ... have intercourse with
> mothers and grandmothers, with daughters and granddaughters [19].
> ... the ancient Persians ... shamefully had intercourse with their
> mothers, sisters, and even daughters [20].
> Notice that there is the same ambiguity about "Magi" and "Persian" that
> we found before.>
Exactly...and for all this ambiguity and your ongoing failure to
associate any of these practices specifically with ZOROASTRIAN
religious texts, one can only wonder how you broke the leash and
eventually fled into the fields instead of the barn where you were
confined.
> Now let us turn to some Near Eastern texts. The Syriac church father
> Bardaisan may be classed with the Greek and Latin fathers, but he seems
> to have had access to better sources than they, and is therefore more
> reliable.
Bullshit. Bardesan was a biggot who tried desperately to conver the
Zoroastrian communities of Syria and Commagene in the first or century
after Christ and resorted to name calling. Not much of a "source"
other than a Christian zealot out to save souls.
> ... the Persians have made laws for themselves that they may take for
> wives their sisters, and their daughters, and their daughters'
> daughters; and there are some that go further, and take even their
> mothers [21].>
He is NOT reffering to PERSIANS but the descendants of Iranians who
had lived in Asia Minor since before he conquest of Alexander (See
Mary Boyce: A history of Zoroastrianism III: Under Greek and ROman
rule)> These were descendants of Iranians from all all over the
empire, who had by that time assimilated Hellenism to their core
Zoroastrian beliefs.
> ... the devil said unto the priest [Idhashir], "A man cannot become a
> priest and a Magian until he hath known carnally his mother, and his
> daughter, and his sister." And Idhashir the priest did this, and from
> that time the priests, and the Magians, and the Persians take their
> mothers, and their sisters, and their daughters to wife [22].>
Interesting...especially when it says" and for that time" suggesting
tha tthis practice was UNCOMMON and not widespread at all but that
FROM THAT TIME it became sanctioned (since Ardeshir babakan himself
was supposedly form a Magian familly). Once again, you prove that this
was a MAGIAN practice that spread in Persia ONLY after Ardeshir
because of his MAGIAN background (who had practiced endogamy and
incest for thousands of years) and NOT BECAUSE OF ZOROASTRIAN
RELIGION.
> And Nimrod came down and saw the fire and worshipped it, and he
> established a man there to care for the fire and to throw frankincense
> upon it. From that time on the Magi started to worship the fire and to
> bow down to it. And the name of the man whom Nimrod established to care
> for the fire was Andeshan, and the devil spoke to him from the mouth of
> the fire, saying "No one can worship the fire and learn my religion
> without his having intercourse with his mother and sister and daughter."
> And Andeshan did what the devil told him, and from that time on the
> priests of the Magi started to have intercourse with their mothers and
> sisters and daughters [23].
What the fuck is this bullshit????This has nothing to do with
religious texts!!!
> It may be asked why no indigenous Iranian sources have been mentioned so
> far. The reason is both simple and surprising. Such data exist, but they
> are all relatively late. They deal with xvaetva-datha [24], usually
> translated as "next-of-kin marriage." The subject is first discussed in
> the later strata of the Avesta and in such a form that who these
> "next-of-kin" are remains uncertain.>
That translation is not the same everywhere. Many have interpreted it
differently, including the way Deev mentioned...meaning man could
ADOPT his brother or next of kin's child if infertile...others-usually
Christians- have translated it as next of kin marriage. UNless a
person actually KNOWS Avestan, it's impossible to say for sure for
different translations exist and are generally classified according to
the two "schools": One being incest and supported by Magians, and the
other being ADOPTION and generally accepted by Zoroastrians throughout
the ages. Read Mobed Azar Goshdasp's translations and you will see.
> I praise at once ... the Faith of kindred marriage [25].
> Yea, we sacrifice to the youth who is given to his kin and married to
> his blood, the holy lord of the ritual order [26].>
What is this crap" Obviously not from Zoroastrian sacred texts so
therefore, it cannot substantiate your claim.
> I summon the youth of holy thoughts, words and works, and of good
> conscience; yea, the youth of good speech, given in marriage to his kin
> [27].
> To thee [the Law] comes ... every one who performs the next-of-kin
> marriage [28].
> Which is the urine wherewith the corpse-bearers shall wash their hair
> and their bodies? ...
> Ahura Mazda answered: It is of sheep or of oxen; not of man nor of
> woman, except the two who are male and female participants in
> next-of-kin marriage [29].
Is this from Vandidad? Once agian, it is NOT in sacred scriptures.This
sounds a lot like stuff written in pahlavi, meaning AFTER THE PARTHIAN
ERA.
> About all that we can gather from these Avestan passages is that
> Zoroastrianism in the fourth to ninth centuries supernaturally
> sanctioned next-of-kin marriages, whoever the kin involved may be.>
Some members of the Zoroastrian community, true. The Zoroastrian
religion? NO. Let's look at some interesting dates here: Zoroastrian
is generally accepted to be around 3,300-3,400 years old. Sassanians
were in power between 226 and 652 AD. Hardly a sufficient amount of
time to generalize th eentire Zoroastrian religion, not to mention the
Zoroastrian communities OUTSIDE the rule of the Sassanians as
practicing the same thing.
> When we reach the indigenous Pahlavi texts we are much better off. There
> is no longer any doubt that father-daughter, mother-son, and
> brother-sister marriage is meant, but whether these kinship terms are
> classificatory or descriptive is unknown to me. An example of such a
> source, and one of the justifications for such marriage, follows:
>
As I said above. THis is frmo the Pahlavi writings...meaning, texts
that were ADDED and tempered with OVER 2,000 YEARS LATER!!!
> For the sake of much terrifying of the demons, and much lodgement of the
> blessings of the holy in one's body, next-of-kin marriage is to be
> practiced [31].
> Next-of-kin marriage will extirpate mortal sins [32].
> The Iranian texts are confirmed by a couple of Arabic sources which
> state that Bih'afrid (eighth century A.D.), a Zoroastrian reformer, was
> opposed to next-of-kin marriage.>
True, and he was killed with the help of Abu Muslim. That again is
from Pahlavi writings and DO NOT CONSTITUTE RELIGIOUS TEXTS BUT
COMMENTARIES AND INTERPRETATIONS in the same manner as you and Nima
claim that the Hadiths do not reflect the Koran and mohammad's actual
sayings.
> Bahafrid ... ordered them ... not to marry their mothers, daughters,
> sisters, nieces [33].
> Later Pahlavi texts exhort people to engage in next-of-kin marriages:
>
> The most perfectly righteous of the righteous is he who remains in the
> good religion of the Mazdayasnians, and continues the religious practice
> of next-of-kin marriage in his family [34].
> Such passages as these lead one to feel that the later texts are in
> effect propaganda on its behalf by conservatives.>
yes but conservatives of WHAT? Magian conservatives who also wanted to
preserve the worship of ancient pagan gods, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE 100%
AGAINST ZARATHUSHTRA'S TEACHINGS. What various authors including
Zaehner, Guilleming and Boyce have mentioned is that there was a
re-emergence of pagan practices in Zoroastrianism, as Zoroastrian
monotheism did not seep through all levels of society in Achamenid
times, in equal amounts. What occured was a SYMBIOSIS between
Zoroastrianism as taught by Zarathushtra, and the old pagan cults and
religions of teh Aryans and of the native people of the Iranian
Pleateau. THis is widely known and understood in the present
Zoroastrian community and, other than the OLD AVESTAN TEXTS (Gathas
and Yasna Haptangaithi), none of the Pahlavi writings are taken as
HOLY SCRIPTURES but religious commentaries dating form after the
Parthian period (after Valash King of Parthia ordered the codification
of the Avestan texts).
>
> Thus the Iranian sources do not merely negatively show a lack of incest
> prohibitions, but positively advocate the preferential mating of
> next-of-kin. Another important observation is this: On the face of it,
> the Iranian texts seem to advocate next-of-kin marriages for all
> Zoroastrians, and not merely for priests and rulers.
>
Whaat Iranian sources? Again you are merely talking about POST 4TH
CENTURY AD sources that DO NOT REFLECT UPON THE ENTIRE AND ANTIQUATED
HISTORY AND RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION OF ZOROASTRIANSIM!!!
Here's an example. Shit muslims beat their chests, bleed themselves
with knives and machettis...some like the Alavi revere Ali as a divine
figure. WHICH PART OF THIS IS IN THE KORAN? Do you accept that as
Islam or as a deviation from the original core teachings of the Koran
and Mohammad?
Likewise, NONE OF WHAT YOU MENTIONED ABOVE, including the Yasht,
Vandidad, Vispered, Bundahishn, Dinkard etc...are considered HOLY
SCRIPTURES among the Zoroastrians...I know that your stupidity
prevents you from understanding these things, especially when you
still HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN THE GATHAS AND OLD AVESTAN
TEXTS.
What you have done in your poor attempt to discredit Zoroastrianism to
stop millions form turnin away frmo Islam, is exposed a cultic
deviation and CORRUPTION of Zoroastrianism in Pahlavi scriptures, post
Arsacid era and primarily in Sassanian times. You mentione dyourself
4-9th CENTURIES. This is HARDLY representative of the 3,400 year old
history of Zoroastrianism as a whole, or of its scriptures, as
expressed in teh GATHAS AND YASNA HAPTANGAITHI, which you STILL FAIL
TO QUOTE AND THUS FAIL TO SHOW THAT INCEST IS ZOROASTRIAN SINCE IT
NEVER FIGURED IN OUR HOLY SCRIPTURES.
And I still say you are a Mongo DUMB MOHAMMEDAN SON OF A WHORE!!!
hehehehehe
When you DO read the Gathas idiot, then let me know, MORON!
sirknight67
again, WHERE DOES IT SAY SO IN THE GATHAS????????WHERE DID ZARTOSHT
SAY THIS STPUID BABBLING IDIOT? STILL CAN'T COME UP WITH GATHIC
TEXTS....I guess I'm going to have to wipe my ass with you again, inch
by inch
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<50a65f96a9efcf23db3...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> Quote
>
> Thus the Iranian sources do not merely negatively show a lack of incest
> prohibitions, but positively advocate the preferential mating of
> next-of-kin. Another important observation is this: On the face of it,
> the Iranian texts seem to advocate next-of-kin marriages for all
> Zoroastrians, and not merely for priests and rulers.
>
> Unquote
It is true, incest was practiced by some Irnaians at the time of the
Sassanians. Once again, you fail to prove this as part of a RELIGIOUS
issue as opposed to an ethnic or cultural issue. LIke you said later
yourself, it was practiced also by Indians and Ethiopians and neither
were Zoroastrian...not to mention that incest was widely practiced by
Macedonian nobility.
> ... he says that the Magi cohabit with their mothers and their
> daughters, and according to law have intercourse with sisters; and also
> that the wives are common, not by violence and stealth, but by mutual
> agreement, when one wants to marry the wife of another [2].
For your information, the Magi were not the original Zoroastrian
priesthood. In fact, they weren't even IRANIAN PRIESTHOOD. THe
Iranian/Zoroastrian priesthood were called Athravan from the time of
Zarathushtra. THe Magi became entrusted wtih Zoroastrian liturgy at
the time of Dariush the Great (so therefore some 1000 YEARS AFTER
ZARTOSHT), because
1) of their ability to memorize and recite sacred religious texts
2) because of their standing and political influence in pre-Aryan
socieity in Iran, and hence their great influence and hold on the
"little" or common people including the farmers and such.
The Magians were a non-Iranian tribe which, along with the Bousaei and
four others allied itself to the Arizanti Aryan tribe to become the
Mede federation of tribes in northern Iran.Being non-Iranian, they
were also NON-ZOROASTRIAN.
It was noted since the days of Teshpish that the Magians practiced
incest as well as endogamy to keep their caste "pure.
It was also known that no while anyone from the upper Aryan upper
class of Airyaman could become Athravan, the Magian group was a CLOSED
CASTE in which one had to be born....hence the emphasis on incest and
endogamy
> From the unholy commerce of Gellius and his mother let a Magian be born,
> and learn the Persian art of soothsaying; for a Magian must be the
> offspring of mother and son, if the unnatural religion of the Persians
> is true, so that their child may worship the gods with acceptable hymns,
> whilst melting the fat caul in the altar flame [4].
first of all, there is evidence of bias here, especially when as
supposedly reputable source calls the religion of the Persians
"unatural". It is as valid as the Greeks' description of Persians as
"effeminate barbarians".
Second, while the Magians were soothsayers, deeply endoctrinated into
babylonian astrology and the art of divination, that was in NO WAY
PART OF THE ZOROASTRIAN ritual or belief system, until magians were
admited into Zoroastrianism as a priestly class.
Second, a note on the Magians. There were the nrothern Magians and
there were the southern Hirvad who were priests of the south and not
related to the northern Magians. Also, if one goes by your false
supposition that Magians were indeed to be equated with the term
"Zoroastrian priesthood", then one would wonder why MAGIANS WERE
COMPLETELY ABSENT IN THE ORIGINAL ZOROASTRIAN LANDS OF BACTRIA,
MARGIANNA, KHWARAZM, SOGHDIANNA AND FERGHANNA where Zoroastrianism
originally spread during the rule of the Kayanids.?
> ... these Magi, by ancestral custom, consort even with their mothers
> [5].
THere's the key word: ANCESTRAL and not RELIGIOUS. It was, as I said
ebfore countless times, an inherited practiced form their pre-Aryan
days, during which incest and endogamy were seen as a method to
perpetuate the caste, which could not be either maintained nor
increased through acceptance of outsiders.
> Persians have illicit intercourse with their mothers [7].>
a generalization for it was initially practiced by Magians and some
members of upper classes ONLY.
> ... the Persian magnates marry their mothers and regard the children of
> the marriage as nobles of the highest birth, worthy, so it is said, to
> hold the supreme sovereignty [8].>
THere you go...the PERSIAN MAGNATES meaning a select group among the
ruling class. and as for "Persian practice", I'm sure even an
uneducated idiot like yourself knows of the story of Oedipus, the
greek anti-hero who fell in love with his mother and killed his father
to get the competion out of the way. Eventually, he blinded himself
out of guilt. THis was widely known throughout the ancient world.
> The Satrap [of Nautaca in Sogdiana] was Sismithres, who had two sons by
> his mother; for among them it was lawful for parents to disgracefully
> copulate with their children [9].>
Who's "them"? Persians? Satraps? Soghdians?
> Such is the whole race of the barbarians: a father is united to his
> daughter, and a son to his mother, and a maid to her brother [11].
> Concerning this a Byzantine scholiast explains, "All Persians have such
> customs" [12], but of course this does not have the same validity as
> such a statement coming from Euripides himself.>
That contradicts the earlier paragraph where it clearly says "among
the Persian magnates". So which is it? the Magnates or the "whole"
Persian nation? A lot of contradiction here.
> At this point let us analyze these Greek and Latin sources. A crucial
> question is the relation between the "Magi" and "Persians." One
> possibility is that the Magi always were the priestly division of the
> Persians, and that those who speak of "Persians" in general really have
> particular reference to the priestly division among the Persians [13].>
Refer to my comments on the origin of the Magians above. I debated
enough on this issue. The Magians were originalyl neither Persian, nor
Aryan (Iranian) but descendants of the earlier pre-Aryan people of
Iran. Their customs were therefore neither "Persian" nor "Iranian".
> If this were so, we have merely a case of incest for supernatural
> reasons, which occurs in many cultures. Another possibility is that the
> Magi and Persians originally had distinct cultures. In that case the
> Magian culture had no incest regulations. But then what about the
> Persians? The Persian datum given by Philo Alexandrinus does not
> surprise an anthropologist; he is familiar with cases of incest among
> rulers. However, the other sources do not limit the practice to Persians
> of higher status. Thus either the quotations are vague, and when
> speaking of Persians in general really refer only to the Persians of
> highest status, or there were no incest regulations among the Persians.
>
Again, a great deal of ambiguity that cannot lead to any sound and
definite conclusions on whether this was a widespread practice.
> The Greeks consider intercourse with a mother as unlawful, but this
> practice is esteemed most becoming by the Persian Magi [14].
> [Persian royal] children ... on reaching maturity have sexual
> intercourse with sisters, and mothers, and women, wives and courtesans
> innumerable [15].
A practice also quite common among the Ptolemies of Egypt (including
Cleopatra's familly).
> ... the laws ... of the Persians ... do not forbid the marriage of sons
> with their mothers, or of daughters with their own fathers [16].
> Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers
> is allowed [17].>
What is the origin of this "law" WHen did it come into existence? WHo
approved it and how widespread was it? Again....absence of evidence.
> [Is it not] the habit of the Persians to marry their own mothers,
> sisters, and daughters, while marriage with other women is called most
> barbarous [18]?
> The Persians, Medes, Indians, and Ethiopians ... have intercourse with
> mothers and grandmothers, with daughters and granddaughters [19].
> ... the ancient Persians ... shamefully had intercourse with their
> mothers, sisters, and even daughters [20].
> Notice that there is the same ambiguity about "Magi" and "Persian" that
> we found before.>
Exactly...and for all this ambiguity and your ongoing failure to
associate any of these practices specifically with ZOROASTRIAN
religious texts, one can only wonder how you broke the leash and
eventually fled into the fields instead of the barn where you were
confined.
> Now let us turn to some Near Eastern texts. The Syriac church father
> Bardaisan may be classed with the Greek and Latin fathers, but he seems
> to have had access to better sources than they, and is therefore more
> reliable.
Bullshit. Bardesan was a biggot who tried desperately to conver the
Zoroastrian communities of Syria and Commagene in the first or century
after Christ and resorted to name calling. Not much of a "source"
other than a Christian zealot out to save souls.
> ... the Persians have made laws for themselves that they may take for
> wives their sisters, and their daughters, and their daughters'
> daughters; and there are some that go further, and take even their
> mothers [21].>
He is NOT reffering to PERSIANS but the descendants of Iranians who
had lived in Asia Minor since before he conquest of Alexander (See
Mary Boyce: A history of Zoroastrianism III: Under Greek and ROman
rule)> These were descendants of Iranians from all all over the
empire, who had by that time assimilated Hellenism to their core
Zoroastrian beliefs.
> ... the devil said unto the priest [Idhashir], "A man cannot become a
> priest and a Magian until he hath known carnally his mother, and his
> daughter, and his sister." And Idhashir the priest did this, and from
> that time the priests, and the Magians, and the Persians take their
> mothers, and their sisters, and their daughters to wife [22].>
Interesting...especially when it says" and for that time" suggesting
tha tthis practice was UNCOMMON and not widespread at all but that
FROM THAT TIME it became sanctioned (since Ardeshir babakan himself
was supposedly form a Magian familly). Once again, you prove that this
was a MAGIAN practice that spread in Persia ONLY after Ardeshir
because of his MAGIAN background (who had practiced endogamy and
incest for thousands of years) and NOT BECAUSE OF ZOROASTRIAN
RELIGION.
> And Nimrod came down and saw the fire and worshipped it, and he
> established a man there to care for the fire and to throw frankincense
> upon it. From that time on the Magi started to worship the fire and to
> bow down to it. And the name of the man whom Nimrod established to care
> for the fire was Andeshan, and the devil spoke to him from the mouth of
> the fire, saying "No one can worship the fire and learn my religion
> without his having intercourse with his mother and sister and daughter."
> And Andeshan did what the devil told him, and from that time on the
> priests of the Magi started to have intercourse with their mothers and
> sisters and daughters [23].
What the fuck is this bullshit????This has nothing to do with
religious texts!!!
> It may be asked why no indigenous Iranian sources have been mentioned so
> far. The reason is both simple and surprising. Such data exist, but they
> are all relatively late. They deal with xvaetva-datha [24], usually
> translated as "next-of-kin marriage." The subject is first discussed in
> the later strata of the Avesta and in such a form that who these
> "next-of-kin" are remains uncertain.>
That translation is not the same everywhere. Many have interpreted it
differently, including the way Deev mentioned...meaning man could
ADOPT his brother or next of kin's child if infertile...others-usually
Christians- have translated it as next of kin marriage. UNless a
person actually KNOWS Avestan, it's impossible to say for sure for
different translations exist and are generally classified according to
the two "schools": One being incest and supported by Magians, and the
other being ADOPTION and generally accepted by Zoroastrians throughout
the ages. Read Mobed Azar Goshdasp's translations and you will see.
> I praise at once ... the Faith of kindred marriage [25].
> Yea, we sacrifice to the youth who is given to his kin and married to
> his blood, the holy lord of the ritual order [26].>
What is this crap" Obviously not from Zoroastrian sacred texts so
therefore, it cannot substantiate your claim.
> I summon the youth of holy thoughts, words and works, and of good
> conscience; yea, the youth of good speech, given in marriage to his kin
> [27].
> To thee [the Law] comes ... every one who performs the next-of-kin
> marriage [28].
> Which is the urine wherewith the corpse-bearers shall wash their hair
> and their bodies? ...
> Ahura Mazda answered: It is of sheep or of oxen; not of man nor of
> woman, except the two who are male and female participants in
> next-of-kin marriage [29].
Is this from Vandidad? Once agian, it is NOT in sacred scriptures.This
sounds a lot like stuff written in pahlavi, meaning AFTER THE PARTHIAN
ERA.
> About all that we can gather from these Avestan passages is that
> Zoroastrianism in the fourth to ninth centuries supernaturally
> sanctioned next-of-kin marriages, whoever the kin involved may be.>
Some members of the Zoroastrian community, true. The Zoroastrian
religion? NO. Let's look at some interesting dates here: Zoroastrian
is generally accepted to be around 3,300-3,400 years old. Sassanians
were in power between 226 and 652 AD. Hardly a sufficient amount of
time to generalize th eentire Zoroastrian religion, not to mention the
Zoroastrian communities OUTSIDE the rule of the Sassanians as
practicing the same thing.
> When we reach the indigenous Pahlavi texts we are much better off. There
> is no longer any doubt that father-daughter, mother-son, and
> brother-sister marriage is meant, but whether these kinship terms are
> classificatory or descriptive is unknown to me. An example of such a
> source, and one of the justifications for such marriage, follows:
>
As I said above. THis is frmo the Pahlavi writings...meaning, texts
that were ADDED and tempered with OVER 2,000 YEARS LATER!!!
> For the sake of much terrifying of the demons, and much lodgement of the
> blessings of the holy in one's body, next-of-kin marriage is to be
> practiced [31].
> Next-of-kin marriage will extirpate mortal sins [32].
> The Iranian texts are confirmed by a couple of Arabic sources which
> state that Bih'afrid (eighth century A.D.), a Zoroastrian reformer, was
> opposed to next-of-kin marriage.>
True, and he was killed with the help of Abu Muslim. That again is
from Pahlavi writings and DO NOT CONSTITUTE RELIGIOUS TEXTS BUT
COMMENTARIES AND INTERPRETATIONS in the same manner as you and Nima
claim that the Hadiths do not reflect the Koran and mohammad's actual
sayings.
> Bahafrid ... ordered them ... not to marry their mothers, daughters,
> sisters, nieces [33].
> Later Pahlavi texts exhort people to engage in next-of-kin marriages:
>
> The most perfectly righteous of the righteous is he who remains in the
> good religion of the Mazdayasnians, and continues the religious practice
> of next-of-kin marriage in his family [34].
> Such passages as these lead one to feel that the later texts are in
> effect propaganda on its behalf by conservatives.>
yes but conservatives of WHAT? Magian conservatives who also wanted to
preserve the worship of ancient pagan gods, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE 100%
AGAINST ZARATHUSHTRA'S TEACHINGS. What various authors including
Zaehner, Guilleming and Boyce have mentioned is that there was a
re-emergence of pagan practices in Zoroastrianism, as Zoroastrian
monotheism did not seep through all levels of society in Achamenid
times, in equal amounts. What occured was a SYMBIOSIS between
Zoroastrianism as taught by Zarathushtra, and the old pagan cults and
religions of teh Aryans and of the native people of the Iranian
Pleateau. THis is widely known and understood in the present
Zoroastrian community and, other than the OLD AVESTAN TEXTS (Gathas
and Yasna Haptangaithi), none of the Pahlavi writings are taken as
HOLY SCRIPTURES but religious commentaries dating form after the
Parthian period (after Valash King of Parthia ordered the codification
of the Avestan texts).
>
> Thus the Iranian sources do not merely negatively show a lack of incest
> prohibitions, but positively advocate the preferential mating of
> next-of-kin. Another important observation is this: On the face of it,
> the Iranian texts seem to advocate next-of-kin marriages for all
> Zoroastrians, and not merely for priests and rulers.
>
Whaat Iranian sources? Again you are merely talking about POST 4TH
Mash_Ghasem
> "Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote in message
> news:2m9oapF...@uni-berlin.de
>
> > hala mikham bebinam ki javabe in ro mideh...
>
> Let me guess... It will start with "Madar Jendeh" and go on into various
> sexual fantasies!!
>
no "madar jendeh" but definitely a sexual fantasies and incest!
In Sura al-Ahzab 33:37 the following is recorded: "When thou saidst to
him whom God had blessed and thou hadst favoured, ‘Keep thy wife to
thyself, and fear God,' and thou wast concealing within thyself what
God should reveal, fearing other men; and God has better right for
thee to fear Him. So when Zayd had accomplished what he would of her,
we gave her in marriage to thee, so that there should not be any fault
in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted sons, when they
have accomplished what they would of them...."
Not to mention marriage to 6 years girl.
I wonder what the christians think about Mohmmad. Let's check!
http://www.allah-muhammad-quran.de/English/Mohamad___Sin/mohamad___sin.html
> P
Mash_Ghasem
> hala mikham bebinam ki javabe in ro mideh...
Agha Nima when it comes to Mohmmad and facts about his life style, xodeto
jer midi to disprove people but when it comes to someone posting a garbage
with 2000 years old fucking Greek references to put persians down
then it becomes a bible to you. Axeh marde hesAbi which society will
genetically survives for 2000 years with every happy family fucking
each other from grandfather to grandmothers to grandkids. Also this
practice should be prevalent among Indian Zardoshties, so why don't
you ask them and report back.
Mash_Ghasem
>
Agha Nima when it comes to Mohmmad and facts about his life style, xodeto
jer midi to disprove people but when it comes to someone posting a garbage
with 2000 years old fucking Greek references to put persians down
then it becomes a bible to you. Axeh marde hesAbi which society will
genetically survives for 2000 years with every happy family fucking
each other from grandfather to grandmothers to grandkids. Also this
practice should be prevalent among Indian Zardoshties, so why don't
you ask them and report back.
>
Mash_Ghasem
>
BTW, if your hero that madar ghahbe Omar-Ibn Khattab didn't brun
the libraries then we would have known about state of Iranian society
from Iranian sources and not some biased SOB Greeks.
Mash_Ghasem
Thanks Ardalan jAn. Good post. BTW did you see so many references
from fucking Greeks? :-) These are the same MF historians that have
written about Persian and Greek war where 300 Spartans supposedly
held 200,000 to 1,000,000 persian soldiers at Termopil pass for
several days :-) There was also reference to "Indian incest".
Well Indians were not conquered and supposedly saved by these
muslim morons so they should still contiune with this practice!
Do they? :-) all in all, ajab binAmoos hAyee peydA mishan. Toof.
>MONGO,
>again, WHERE DOES IT SAY SO IN THE GATHAS????????WHERE DID ZARTOSHT
>SAY THIS STPUID BABBLING IDIOT? STILL CAN'T COME UP WITH GATHIC
>TEXTS....I guess I'm going to have to wipe my ass with you again, inch
>by inch
>
>"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<50a65f96a9efcf23db3...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
>
>>Quote
>>
>>Thus the Iranian sources do not merely negatively show a lack of incest
>>prohibitions, but positively advocate the preferential mating of
>>next-of-kin. Another important observation is this: On the face of it,
>>the Iranian texts seem to advocate next-of-kin marriages for all
>>Zoroastrians, and not merely for priests and rulers.
>>
>>Unquote
>
>
>
>It is true, incest was practiced by some Irnaians at the time of the
>Sassanians. Once again, you fail to prove this as part of a RELIGIOUS
>issue as opposed to an ethnic or cultural issue. LIke you said later
>yourself, it was practiced also by Indians and Ethiopians and neither
>were Zoroastrian...not to mention that incest was widely practiced by
>Macedonian nobility.
>
>
>
>>... he says that the Magi cohabit with their mothers and their
>>daughters, and according to law have intercourse with sisters; and also
>>that the wives are common, not by violence and stealth, but by mutual
>>agreement, when one wants to marry the wife of another [2].
>
>
>For your information, the Magi were not the original Zoroastrian
>priesthood. In fact, they weren't even IRANIAN PRIESTHOOD. THe
>Iranian/Zoroastrian priesthood were called Athravan from the time of
>Zarathushtra. THe Magi became entrusted wtih Zoroastrian liturgy at
>the time of Dariush the Great (so therefore some 1000 YEARS AFTER
>ZARTOSHT), because
>1) of their ability to memorize and recite sacred religious texts
>2) because of their standing and political influence in pre-Aryan
>socieity in Iran, and hence their great influence and hold on the
>"little" or common people including the farmers and such.
>
>The Magians were a non-Iranian tribe which, along with the Bousaei and
>four others allied itself to the Arizanti Aryan tribe to become the
>Mede federation of tribes in northern Iran.Being non-Iranian, they
>were also NON-ZOROASTRIAN.
>It was noted since the days of Teshpish that the Magians practiced
>incest as well as endogamy to keep their caste "pure.
>It was also known that no while anyone from the upper Aryan upper
>class of Airyaman could become Athravan, the Magian group was a CLOSED
>CASTE in which one had to be born....hence the emphasis on incest and
>endogamy
>
>
>>From the unholy commerce of Gellius and his mother let a Magian be born,
>>and learn the Persian art of soothsaying; for a Magian must be the
>>offspring of mother and son, if the unnatural religion of the Persians
>>is true, so that their child may worship the gods with acceptable hymns,
>>whilst melting the fat caul in the altar flame [4].
>
>
>first of all, there is evidence of bias here, especially when as
>supposedly reputable source calls the religion of the Persians
>"unatural". It is as valid as the Greeks' description of Persians as
>"effeminate barbarians".
>Second, while the Magians were soothsayers, deeply endoctrinated into
>babylonian astrology and the art of divination, that was in NO WAY
>PART OF THE ZOROASTRIAN ritual or belief system, until magians were
>admited into Zoroastrianism as a priestly class.
>
>Second, a note on the Magians. There were the nrothern Magians and
>there were the southern Hirvad who were priests of the south and not
>related to the northern Magians. Also, if one goes by your false
>supposition that Magians were indeed to be equated with the term
>"Zoroastrian priesthood", then one would wonder why MAGIANS WERE
>COMPLETELY ABSENT IN THE ORIGINAL ZOROASTRIAN LANDS OF BACTRIA,
>MARGIANNA, KHWARAZM, SOGHDIANNA AND FERGHANNA where Zoroastrianism
>originally spread during the rule of the Kayanids.?
>
>
>>... these Magi, by ancestral custom, consort even with their mothers
>>[5].
>
>
>THere's the key word: ANCESTRAL and not RELIGIOUS. It was, as I said
>ebfore countless times, an inherited practiced form their pre-Aryan
>days, during which incest and endogamy were seen as a method to
>perpetuate the caste, which could not be either maintained nor
>increased through acceptance of outsiders.
>
>>Persians have illicit intercourse with their mothers [7].>
>
>
>a generalization for it was initially practiced by Magians and some
>members of upper classes ONLY.
>
>>... the Persian magnates marry their mothers and regard the children of
>>the marriage as nobles of the highest birth, worthy, so it is said, to
>>hold the supreme sovereignty [8].>
>
>
>THere you go...the PERSIAN MAGNATES meaning a select group among the
>ruling class. and as for "Persian practice", I'm sure even an
>uneducated idiot like yourself knows of the story of Oedipus, the
>greek anti-hero who fell in love with his mother and killed his father
>to get the competion out of the way. Eventually, he blinded himself
>out of guilt. THis was widely known throughout the ancient world.
>
>>The Satrap [of Nautaca in Sogdiana] was Sismithres, who had two sons by
>>his mother; for among them it was lawful for parents to disgracefully
>>copulate with their children [9].>
>
>
>Who's "them"? Persians? Satraps? Soghdians?
>
>>Such is the whole race of the barbarians: a father is united to his
>>daughter, and a son to his mother, and a maid to her brother [11].
>>Concerning this a Byzantine scholiast explains, "All Persians have such
>>customs" [12], but of course this does not have the same validity as
>>such a statement coming from Euripides himself.>
>
>
>That contradicts the earlier paragraph where it clearly says "among
>the Persian magnates". So which is it? the Magnates or the "whole"
>Persian nation? A lot of contradiction here.
>
>>At this point let us analyze these Greek and Latin sources. A crucial
>>question is the relation between the "Magi" and "Persians." One
>>possibility is that the Magi always were the priestly division of the
>>Persians, and that those who speak of "Persians" in general really have
>>particular reference to the priestly division among the Persians [13].>
>
>
>
>Refer to my comments on the origin of the Magians above. I debated
>enough on this issue. The Magians were originalyl neither Persian, nor
>Aryan (Iranian) but descendants of the earlier pre-Aryan people of
>Iran. Their customs were therefore neither "Persian" nor "Iranian".
>
>
>>If this were so, we have merely a case of incest for supernatural
>>reasons, which occurs in many cultures. Another possibility is that the
>>Magi and Persians originally had distinct cultures. In that case the
>>Magian culture had no incest regulations. But then what about the
>>Persians? The Persian datum given by Philo Alexandrinus does not
>>surprise an anthropologist; he is familiar with cases of incest among
>>rulers. However, the other sources do not limit the practice to Persians
>>of higher status. Thus either the quotations are vague, and when
>>speaking of Persians in general really refer only to the Persians of
>>highest status, or there were no incest regulations among the Persians.
>>
>
>Again, a great deal of ambiguity that cannot lead to any sound and
>definite conclusions on whether this was a widespread practice.
>
>
>
>>The Greeks consider intercourse with a mother as unlawful, but this
>>practice is esteemed most becoming by the Persian Magi [14].
>>[Persian royal] children ... on reaching maturity have sexual
>>intercourse with sisters, and mothers, and women, wives and courtesans
>>innumerable [15].
>
>
>A practice also quite common among the Ptolemies of Egypt (including
>Cleopatra's familly).
>
>>... the laws ... of the Persians ... do not forbid the marriage of sons
>>with their mothers, or of daughters with their own fathers [16].
>>Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers
>>is allowed [17].>
>
>
>What is the origin of this "law" WHen did it come into existence? WHo
>approved it and how widespread was it? Again....absence of evidence.
>
>>[Is it not] the habit of the Persians to marry their own mothers,
>>sisters, and daughters, while marriage with other women is called most
>>barbarous [18]?
>>The Persians, Medes, Indians, and Ethiopians ... have intercourse with
>>mothers and grandmothers, with daughters and granddaughters [19].
>>... the ancient Persians ... shamefully had intercourse with their
>>mothers, sisters, and even daughters [20].
>>Notice that there is the same ambiguity about "Magi" and "Persian" that
>>we found before.>
>
>
>Exactly...and for all this ambiguity and your ongoing failure to
>associate any of these practices specifically with ZOROASTRIAN
>religious texts, one can only wonder how you broke the leash and
>eventually fled into the fields instead of the barn where you were
>confined.
>
>
>
>>Now let us turn to some Near Eastern texts. The Syriac church father
>>Bardaisan may be classed with the Greek and Latin fathers, but he seems
>>to have had access to better sources than they, and is therefore more
>>reliable.
>
>
>Bullshit. Bardesan was a biggot who tried desperately to conver the
>Zoroastrian communities of Syria and Commagene in the first or century
>after Christ and resorted to name calling. Not much of a "source"
>other than a Christian zealot out to save souls.
>
>
>>... the Persians have made laws for themselves that they may take for
>>wives their sisters, and their daughters, and their daughters'
>>daughters; and there are some that go further, and take even their
>>mothers [21].>
>
>
>
>He is NOT reffering to PERSIANS but the descendants of Iranians who
>had lived in Asia Minor since before he conquest of Alexander (See
>Mary Boyce: A history of Zoroastrianism III: Under Greek and ROman
>rule)> These were descendants of Iranians from all all over the
>empire, who had by that time assimilated Hellenism to their core
>Zoroastrian beliefs.
>
>>... the devil said unto the priest [Idhashir], "A man cannot become a
>>priest and a Magian until he hath known carnally his mother, and his
>>daughter, and his sister." And Idhashir the priest did this, and from
>>that time the priests, and the Magians, and the Persians take their
>>mothers, and their sisters, and their daughters to wife [22].>
>
>
>Interesting...especially when it says" and for that time" suggesting
>tha tthis practice was UNCOMMON and not widespread at all but that
>FROM THAT TIME it became sanctioned (since Ardeshir babakan himself
>was supposedly form a Magian familly). Once again, you prove that this
>was a MAGIAN practice that spread in Persia ONLY after Ardeshir
>because of his MAGIAN background (who had practiced endogamy and
>incest for thousands of years) and NOT BECAUSE OF ZOROASTRIAN
>RELIGION.
>
>>And Nimrod came down and saw the fire and worshipped it, and he
>>established a man there to care for the fire and to throw frankincense
>>upon it. From that time on the Magi started to worship the fire and to
>>bow down to it. And the name of the man whom Nimrod established to care
>>for the fire was Andeshan, and the devil spoke to him from the mouth of
>>the fire, saying "No one can worship the fire and learn my religion
>>without his having intercourse with his mother and sister and daughter."
>>And Andeshan did what the devil told him, and from that time on the
>>priests of the Magi started to have intercourse with their mothers and
>>sisters and daughters [23].
>
>
>What the fuck is this bullshit????This has nothing to do with
>religious texts!!!
>
>>It may be asked why no indigenous Iranian sources have been mentioned so
>>far. The reason is both simple and surprising. Such data exist, but they
>>are all relatively late. They deal with xvaetva-datha [24], usually
>>translated as "next-of-kin marriage." The subject is first discussed in
>>the later strata of the Avesta and in such a form that who these
>>"next-of-kin" are remains uncertain.>
>
>
>That translation is not the same everywhere. Many have interpreted it
>differently, including the way Deev mentioned...meaning man could
>ADOPT his brother or next of kin's child if infertile...others-usually
>Christians- have translated it as next of kin marriage. UNless a
>person actually KNOWS Avestan, it's impossible to say for sure for
>different translations exist and are generally classified according to
>the two "schools": One being incest and supported by Magians, and the
>other being ADOPTION and generally accepted by Zoroastrians throughout
>the ages. Read Mobed Azar Goshdasp's translations and you will see.
>
>
>
>>I praise at once ... the Faith of kindred marriage [25].
>>Yea, we sacrifice to the youth who is given to his kin and married to
>>his blood, the holy lord of the ritual order [26].>
>
>
>What is this crap" Obviously not from Zoroastrian sacred texts so
>therefore, it cannot substantiate your claim.
>
>>I summon the youth of holy thoughts, words and works, and of good
>>conscience; yea, the youth of good speech, given in marriage to his kin
>>[27].
>>To thee [the Law] comes ... every one who performs the next-of-kin
>>marriage [28].
>>Which is the urine wherewith the corpse-bearers shall wash their hair
>>and their bodies? ...
>>Ahura Mazda answered: It is of sheep or of oxen; not of man nor of
>>woman, except the two who are male and female participants in
>>next-of-kin marriage [29].
>
>
>Is this from Vandidad? Once agian, it is NOT in sacred scriptures.This
>sounds a lot like stuff written in pahlavi, meaning AFTER THE PARTHIAN
>ERA.
>
>
>>About all that we can gather from these Avestan passages is that
>>Zoroastrianism in the fourth to ninth centuries supernaturally
>>sanctioned next-of-kin marriages, whoever the kin involved may be.>
>
>
>Some members of the Zoroastrian community, true. The Zoroastrian
>religion? NO. Let's look at some interesting dates here: Zoroastrian
>is generally accepted to be around 3,300-3,400 years old. Sassanians
>were in power between 226 and 652 AD. Hardly a sufficient amount of
>time to generalize th eentire Zoroastrian religion, not to mention the
>Zoroastrian communities OUTSIDE the rule of the Sassanians as
>practicing the same thing.
>
>
>
>>When we reach the indigenous Pahlavi texts we are much better off. There
>>is no longer any doubt that father-daughter, mother-son, and
>>brother-sister marriage is meant, but whether these kinship terms are
>>classificatory or descriptive is unknown to me. An example of such a
>>source, and one of the justifications for such marriage, follows:
>>
>As I said above. THis is frmo the Pahlavi writings...meaning, texts
>that were ADDED and tempered with OVER 2,000 YEARS LATER!!!
>
>>For the sake of much terrifying of the demons, and much lodgement of the
>>blessings of the holy in one's body, next-of-kin marriage is to be
>>practiced [31].
>>Next-of-kin marriage will extirpate mortal sins [32].
>>The Iranian texts are confirmed by a couple of Arabic sources which
>>state that Bih'afrid (eighth century A.D.), a Zoroastrian reformer, was
>>opposed to next-of-kin marriage.>
>
>
>True, and he was killed with the help of Abu Muslim. That again is
>from Pahlavi writings and DO NOT CONSTITUTE RELIGIOUS TEXTS BUT
>COMMENTARIES AND INTERPRETATIONS in the same manner as you and Nima
>claim that the Hadiths do not reflect the Koran and mohammad's actual
>sayings.
>
>>Bahafrid ... ordered them ... not to marry their mothers, daughters,
>>sisters, nieces [33].
>>Later Pahlavi texts exhort people to engage in next-of-kin marriages:
>>
>>The most perfectly righteous of the righteous is he who remains in the
>>good religion of the Mazdayasnians, and continues the religious practice
>>of next-of-kin marriage in his family [34].
>>Such passages as these lead one to feel that the later texts are in
>>effect propaganda on its behalf by conservatives.>
>
>
>
>yes but conservatives of WHAT? Magian conservatives who also wanted to
>preserve the worship of ancient pagan gods, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE 100%
>AGAINST ZARATHUSHTRA'S TEACHINGS. What various authors including
>Zaehner, Guilleming and Boyce have mentioned is that there was a
>re-emergence of pagan practices in Zoroastrianism, as Zoroastrian
>monotheism did not seep through all levels of society in Achamenid
>times, in equal amounts. What occured was a SYMBIOSIS between
>Zoroastrianism as taught by Zarathushtra, and the old pagan cults and
>religions of teh Aryans and of the native people of the Iranian
>Pleateau. THis is widely known and understood in the present
>Zoroastrian community and, other than the OLD AVESTAN TEXTS (Gathas
>and Yasna Haptangaithi), none of the Pahlavi writings are taken as
>HOLY SCRIPTURES but religious commentaries dating form after the
>Parthian period (after Valash King of Parthia ordered the codification
>of the Avestan texts).
>
>>Thus the Iranian sources do not merely negatively show a lack of incest
>>prohibitions, but positively advocate the preferential mating of
>>next-of-kin. Another important observation is this: On the face of it,
>>the Iranian texts seem to advocate next-of-kin marriages for all
>>Zoroastrians, and not merely for priests and rulers.
>>
>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Footnotes:
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nima Rezai
> Not to mention marriage to 6 years girl.
doostan, har chert o perti ra tekrar nakonid:
http://www.iiie.net/Articles/AyeshasAge.html
alternatively:
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/FAQ/what_was_ayesha.htm
also good:
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
Nima
Nima Rezai
> "Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote in message
> news:<2m9oapF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> hala mikham bebinam ki javabe in ro mideh...
>
> Agha Nima when it comes to Mohmmad and facts about his life style,
> xodeto jer midi to disprove people but when it comes to someone
> posting a garbage with 2000 years old fucking Greek references to
> put persians down then it becomes a bible to you. Axeh marde hesAbi
> which society will genetically survives for 2000 years with every
> happy family fucking each other from grandfather to grandmothers to
> grandkids.
MG, our problem is that we have to understand that there is no "absolute"
truth in any history that dates back to the antiquity and older eras.
Islamic history is full of faults, often to the advantage of muslims and
sometimes for the disadvantage. The muslims focus on the advantageous
stories, no matter how flawed and wrong they were (for example arab armies
chasing away a roman army though the ratio was 1:33). The anti-muslims stick
to the burdening stories, for example the ridiculous story about khalid ibn
waleed beheading tens of thousands of iranian captives (soldiers) on a river
so that a mill could work with blood.
another interesting story is that the historian Baladhuri reports that
Khalid "reduced to rubble" the syrian town of Chalkis/Qinnasrin, while
christian historians themselves (who should have all reason to stress the
violence and the brutality of the arabs) speak of a fair truce after the
roman commander Menas had fallen against the muslims.
Walter E. Kaegi praises the behaviour of the arab armies that Abu Bakr had
sent to Syria against the Byzantines, while some muslim historian "proudly"
attributes to them brutal stories.
There are many inconsistencies.
I have gone further than Sirknight who until now cannot understand why I
sometimes quote Tabari (or other muslim and non-muslim historians) and in
some case reject his narrations.
I found out that neither Tabari nor any of the other pro- or anti-muslim
historians have been witness to the early events. They often rely on a
handful "first hand" narrators who again quote an even older group of
contemporary informers.
I went into the details and found out that there are more reliable and less
reliable narrators and that every historian prefers some narrators to the
others according to his own personal view.
We make it too easy for ourselves. sometimes we simply say that all islamic
history from muslims is unreliable because we simply reject them. on other
occasions we pick up without any differentiation even the weakest sources in
their history to use it against them.
usually, as we do with the quran and other books, we dont bother to read the
history in its entire context but rather do our usual copy and pasting from
internet sites that represent our own prejudiced opinion.
In case of this "Magi" related topic the same problem of history evaluation
exists. We cannot say that a greek source is better than an arab or persian
source, but if we start to doubt history because it does not please us, we
must be fair enough to acknowledge two things: a) that we must then doubt
also the positive reports about the past and b) that without greek history
very few has remained of the ancient persians.
We have solved the lack of persian history by a simple claim: the arabs
burned everything! a ridiculous claim based on nothing. the same claim was
done by some christians regarding umars alleged order to burn the library of
alexandria. at least christians are fair enough to admit today that those
stories were silly hoax and that the library in alexandria had burned many
times before the arabs arrived there.
by the way, pacifist posted also a persian link from a "pro-zartoshti" site
that also spoke of incest and how it is theoretically manifested in some
zoroastrian scriptures.
I have to say that I am less than unaware about zoroastrian scriptures
though I have finally bought some books Sirknight recommended. I have to
read them.
However, I have no understanding for Sirknights anger because of pacifists
"revelations". Sirknight himself quotes every dubious site and story to
prove his allegations, but gets angry when people do the same to him.
N.
Nima Rezai
> BTW, if your hero that madar ghahbe Omar-Ibn Khattab didn't brun
> the libraries then we would have known about state of Iranian society
> from Iranian sources and not some biased SOB Greeks.
how funny:
we have no dead body, and we dont find any weapon.
how comes?
"well, the murderer burned the body and buried the knife."
you claim that something existed of which you have no traces and the lack of
any evidence you blame to someone else. a very circular argumentation.
a very good refutation of invented claims:
http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=library/burn.htm
Nima Rezai
> "Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote in message
> news:<2m9oapF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> hala mikham bebinam ki javabe in ro mideh...
>
> Agha Nima when it comes to Mohmmad and facts about his life style,
> xodeto jer midi to disprove people but when it comes to someone
> posting a garbage with 2000 years old fucking Greek references to
> put persians down then it becomes a bible to you. Axeh marde hesAbi
> which society will genetically survives for 2000 years with every
> happy family fucking each other from grandfather to grandmothers to
> grandkids.
I found something which may contain some insights.
http://hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/zoroscripts/venintro_03.htm
Go to the footnote 7 of § 13, and also read the sequence immediate below it
about the nature of the Magis, ostensibly "being not persians".
Pacifist
news:9eff937e.04072...@posting.google.com
Khareh,
The fact remains that incest was being practised on a large scale in
pre-Islamic Iran.
The official religion of the then government of Iran in was
Zoroastrianism and the kings
were descendants of Zoroastrian priests and "Defenders of the Faith" to
an extent that they persecuted other religions.
Furthermore, Pahlavi texts of the era described and praised the
practice.
You can type a million words of drivel and live your life in denial but
you cannot alter the above basic facts.
P
Pacifist
news:ed4a58d6.0407...@posting.google.com
> sirknight67 wrote:
>
> Thanks Ardalan jAn. Good post. BTW did you see so many references
> from fucking Greeks? :-)
Yeah, but did you see the reference from the Avesta and Pahlavi texts
(Bahman yast, Dinkard, etc)?
Furthermore, most of the things we know about ancient Iran are from
Xenophon, Herodutus etc.
They say many good things about the Persians' truthfulness or the
greatness of Cyrus.
If you are willing to accept the praises, you should accept the
critiques too.
RBRK
news:03e868df120b09ec22f...@mygate.mailgate.org:
It is very obvious that you are trying very hard to justify your relation
with your mom and sisters ;-)
Pacifist
news:Xns952F687506...@216.77.188.18
>
> It is very obvious that you are trying very hard to justify your relation
> with your mom and sisters ;-)
It is very obvious that you are a vile, anti-Iranian ZioNazi reject who
takes
it up the ass from the blacks in America.
RBRK
news:221360b8182a25ea368...@mygate.mailgate.org:
> "RBRK" <Rafsan...@criminal.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns952F687506...@216.77.188.18
>
>
>>
>> It is very obvious that you are trying very hard to justify your
relation
>> with your mom and sisters ;-)
>
> It is very obvious that you are a vile, anti-Iranian ZioNazi reject who
> takes
> it up the ass from the blacks in America.
>
> P
>
>
>
No need for you to be angry. You must be very upset at what happened in
your family. ;-)
Pacifist
>
> No need for you to be angry. You must be very upset at what happened in
> your family. ;-)
My family are good and well. Your community were expeled! he he he!!
sirknight67
are you really that fucking stupid or are you just trying to purposely
spread lies? WHy don't you ask a Zoroastrian of your choice which they
consider their religious texts?
You truly are a patehtic dizzy fuck...your drunk daddy would have been
proud to have raised such an examplary muslim: Stupid, Blind,
repetitive, Boring, unoriginal and zealous spreader of falsehood.
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<03e868df120b09ec22f...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
read that pervert fanatic's reply about "in the ass by blacks"...yet
projecting mor eof his ultimate fantasies onto you..Imagine, that
fucking moron still trying to convert you so you'll participate in his
orgies!
RBRK <Rafsan...@criminal.com> wrote in message news:<Xns952F687506...@216.77.188.18>...
sirknight67
Iran are not...you must have some very CLOSE connections with the
Facsist Mullacracy (hence your statement about being "on loand" IE:
Spying for them)
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<d1df88d8af3bac8f47d...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
yeah, teh Greeks did exagerate our figures by a factor of ten. A
couple of historians, including Cuyler-Young mentioned this so when
they say there were 2,000,000 of us, those idiots meant 200,000,
including 30,000 Greeks who were more than glad to seel their people
and enlist in the Persian army!
At Termopylae, tehre were about 7,400 Greeks (rought figure). The
figure of 300 speaks only for the Spartan bodyguard under Leonidas.
Many Greeks fled but others chose to stay. Altogether, some 4,000
perished. Herodotus says that we lost 20,000 men but that's nonsense,
because the army's roster and strength of each regiment after that, as
given by Duncan Head shows that we never suffered the casualties
Herodotus said.
In fact, this was teh case of some sore loser who, having seen that
his people lost, wanted to say they lost but killed so many of the
enemy that they won in a way after inflicting irreplacable losses, and
having gone down after a heroic fight. In reality, they were butchered
to a man, and the Persians were the ones who were heroic, since they
threw themselves on the enemy's spears several times in order to get
through....Not to mention the cowardly flight of the Phokians posted
to guard the rear, who tucked tail and ran like rabbits when they saw
the Immortals approaching.
And as for that Binamoos Pacifst, he is just a fucking cockroach
trying to halt the tide of muslims turning Zoroastiran. He can't
realize that the hole in the dyke will require more than his tiny
shrivelled pecker to prevent teh damn from breaking!
regards
ghyath...@yahoo.com (Mash_Ghasem) wrote in message news:<ed4a58d6.0407...@posting.google.com>...
sirknight67
given by Herodotus have been DISPROVED in most circles by now. I wrote
a thesis in college on the so-called Greek and Persian wars and my
main focus was the validity of the statistics.
Xerxes' army size was ridiculously exagerated, not to mention the
figure of our losses.
The praises you mention are rightfuly due, such as the heroics of the
Persian infantrymen, in view oftheir absence of proper armor, shield
and most of all, the fact that their spears were 50% shorter than the
Greeks. Herodotus did also metnion that there were many men in the
army but few soldeirs, and that the Pesians were an effeminate lot.
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ecadbdb45720aa39770...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
that is an EXCELLENT POINT which those islamicky morons have not een
considered.
Pathian as well as Sassanian men were vibrant, virile and warlike
enough to inflict crushing defeats on Romans (over and over again
slapping the shit out of those sorry wopps), Huns, Epthalites,
Indians, Turks, Khazars, Arabs and others. That doesn't sound like a
degenerete society to me.
HOWEVER, I would like to point towards the Parsis of INDIA who are
extremely endogamous, because according to their tradition and
"ghesseye Sanjan", they made a promise to Jadi Rana when they arrived
(this story is pure fabrication and has no basis whatsoever) that they
would keep their faith to themselves.
Prior to teh British, the Parsis obviously interbred with the native
people of INdia, since the color of their skin often ressembles that
of Dravidians as do their features. After the arrival of the British
however, the parsis engaged succesfuly in trade and became very
wealthy, thanks to the patronage of the British. A a result, they
stopped accepting converts and mixed marriages, because all the
disenfrnachised low castes and untouchables sought conversion a a way
out of their lot. THis meant sharing the spoils so to speak and teh
Parsis became increasingly endogamous.
The results speak for themselves today as the Parsis have among the
highest rates of kidney disease and brain illness and deficiencies in
the world. This is a result of excessive inbreeding. We are talking
about the space of less than 300 years (since the arrival of the
British in the second half ot the 18th century).
Obviously, an empire that persisted for 600 years and succeeded in
warding off the mightiest enemies of the day could not have been that
far gone as far as inbreeding is concerned and I still challenge the
Mozdoor to offer proof of this incestuous MAGIAN practice, going back
to pre-Aryan times in the Gathas of Zartosht, the ONLY ZOROASTRIAN
RELIGIOUS TEXT ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY MEMBERS OF THE ZOROASTRIAN
COMMUNITY.
ghyath...@yahoo.com (Mash_Ghasem) wrote in message news:<ed4a58d6.04072...@posting.google.com>...
sirknight67
All this stuff about Khalid Ibn walid is written in Tabari, a source
which, along with baladhuri hyou have praised as RESPECTABLE SOURCE"
in your former posts. Would you like me to dig those instances up form
my hard drive (I save such hypocrisy for such instances).
Point is you muslism are HYPOCRITES and always trying to avoid, twist
and change things around to fit your own mipoic vision of things...in
short, anything to avoid certain historical truths that contradict
your desired version. You are right, I cannot understand why you
praise one source at one sport and reject it on another, especially
when the one you prise contains your much needed "evidence" and the
one your reject is the one you deem as "unreliable" and
"anti-islamic".
Other than that, ALL historical records were not burned. Much of what
later became part of Ferdowsi's Shahname came form the Khoda nameye
Ardeshir Babakn. Various historical and anrrative works form the time
of Ardeshir to Khosro Anoshiravan survived and was later transmited in
Islamic sources , such as the invention of Mazdak's revolution in
order to discredit the nobles of Persia by Kavad and Khosro his son.
Third and most importantly, did you even pay the slightest attention
to my explanation of the difference between Magian and Persian?
Between Mogh and Athravan etc...? That idiot Pacifist's short response
and trunking of my original texts PROVES he is an asshole with an
agenda and cares nothing for the response, only his own stupidity
which he tries to pass as fact without ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCE. Read my
comments on the religious classes and the originas of Magians and then
respond to me on the subject, not on everything but the subject.
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote in message news:<2mcakjF...@uni-berlin.de>...
sirknight67
this issue? Is it not clear by now that what happened to the religion
of Zarathushtra over the millenia was a process of slow symbiosis and
seeping thruogh of ancient pagan practices and customs?
Talk to some Zoroastrians today (if you know any practicing and well
informed ones other than myself) what they think of the issue. Better
yet, contact various Zoroastrian organizations in teh world, and
address their Mobed and MObedyar. I recommend the one in California,
the California Zoraostrian Center, headed by Mobed Shahzadi, brother
of the late high priest of Iran. DOn't talke my word for it, see what
they have to say on the issue.
I NEVER denied that this took place but Pcifist the cocksucker bastard
that he is, again truncated my message, espeiclaly the end when I made
a comparaison between people flogging and beating themselves to a pul
in Shiite countries and its relevance to the Koran. Same goes with
incest which that mothefucker tires to atribute to the Zoraostrian
religion.
Another fact is that that lazy bastard, or you for that matter, have
not even bothered to mention a SINGLE REFERENCE from teh Gathas. WHy
is that? Is it because you know you won't find it there like you will
find references to young boys in paradise in the koran?
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote in message news:<2mchacF...@uni-berlin.de>...
sirknight67
evidence, let's talk about how Omar's son that piece of shit scumbag,
quickly blamed Hormuzan for the murder of his father, without tial,
without evidence and without even a bloody sword.
"Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote in message news:<2mcavoF...@uni-berlin.de>...
sirknight67
based on the surah below, can you then explain why Mohammad took
Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son and later added a surah to the
effect that any time "god's messenger" so much as looked at a woman,
she was to be his?
ghyath...@yahoo.com (Mash_Ghasem) wrote in message news:<ed4a58d6.04072...@posting.google.com>...
> "Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1009eb8db3214d2612c...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> > "Nima Rezai" <Ni...@ngi.de> wrote in message
> > news:2m9oapF...@uni-berlin.de
> >
> > > hala mikham bebinam ki javabe in ro mideh...
> >
> > Let me guess... It will start with "Madar Jendeh" and go on into various
> > sexual fantasies!!
> >
>
> no "madar jendeh" but definitely a sexual fantasies and incest!
>
>
> In Sura al-Ahzab 33:37 the following is recorded: "When thou saidst to
> him whom God had blessed and thou hadst favoured, ?Keep thy wife to
Nima Rezai
> Nima,
> based on the surah below, can you then explain why Mohammad took
> Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son and later added a surah to the
> effect that any time "god's messenger" so much as looked at a woman,
> she was to be his?
you make a mistake.
the verse says:
" And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom
you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of
(your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would
bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that
you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We
gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for
the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they
have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be
performed. "
it has nothing to do with *any time "god's messenger" so much as looked
at a woman, she was to be his*. the verse removes only the old pagan
arab habit to consider adopted sons like real sons and not marry those
"sons" ex-wives.
About the backgrounds of that marriage:
http://www.messageonline.org/2002augsept/cover3.htm
"... Zainab was a cousin of the Prophet. He persuaded her to marry his
freed slave and former "adopted son" Zaid. The apparent reason for his
encouragement, in spite of her reluctance was to break the attitude of
aristocracy where a person from a noble stock would not consider
marrying a commoner. The prophet sought to affirm the egalitarian
nature of Islam where a person should be evaluated only on the basis of
his/her qualities and moral conduct, not on the basis of his/her
socio-economic status. Marital problems between Zaid and Zainab led
eventually to divorce. The Arabs considered an adopted son, the same as
a biological son. They gave him his adopting father's name, a custom
that the Qur'an invalidated as it demanded truthful lineal identity. "
The claim that Muhammad was so fascinated by Zainabs beauty that he
took her away from Zaid is flawed since it is hard to believe that
Muhammad who had facilitated the marriage of zayd and zainab should not
have realized zainabs beauty at first sight.
One thing many "critics" tend to forget intentionally is the age of
Zainab and most other wives Muhammad married.
Zainab is said to have been 38 years old. Even with todays "oil of
olaz" an average woman has long surprassed the climax of her physical
beauty at this age.
No these critics on the one hand accuse a man of pedophily with a 6-9
years old but simultaneously want to claim that a 38 years old womans
beauty blended the same man so much that he overruled age old customes.
Another good source is
http://al-islam.org/lifeprophet/25.htm
" The case of Zainab bint Jahsh is its only example. She was a cousin
of the Prophet (daughter of his paternal aunt, and sister of 'Abdullah
ibn Jahsh, the first husband of Zainab bint Khuzaymah). She was a
widow. Islam had annulled class differences and declared that a
family's tribe, wealth, or social status are not the criteria of
distinction. Every Muslim is equal. While announcing it, the Prophet,
in the same sitting, gave his three relative ladies in marriage to
persons of "low" birth or status. It was done in order to practically
demonstrate the Islamic equality, which up to that moment, was only a
theoretical p nciple. Among them, Zainab bint Jahsh was given in
marriage to Zayd ibn Harithah, an Arab slave whom the Prophet had freed
and adopted as son. People called him Zayd ibn Muhammad. This marriage
soon turned sour. Zainab could not overlook that she was a
granddaughter of 'Abdul胞uttalib, and that Zayd was an ex-slave. No
matter how much the Prophet advised them, she did not change her
behavior, so finally Zayd divorced her. "
Nima
Nima Rezai
> that's a crock of hypocritical bullshit Nima.
> All this stuff about Khalid Ibn walid is written in Tabari, a source
> which, along with baladhuri hyou have praised as RESPECTABLE SOURCE"
> in your former posts.
For the period from 633 to 656/57 (first year of Alis caliphate after
Uthmans murder and after the battle of the Camel) Tabari almost
entirely relies on Sayf ibn Umar.
Since you say you have the Tabari history I recommend that you read the
superb foreword of the translator of Volume XI (it covers Khalids
attacks on persian ruled Iraq).
Also helpful is Petersens complicated but very well researched "Ali and
Muawija in early arabic tradition". Sayf is exposed not only as
"twister" of stories but often as an outright liar. Even Donner who
quotes Sayf in many instances dismisses the latters ridiculous claims
regarding the entirely invented battle of buwaib.
If you count Sayfs battle narratives for the 2+ years of Khalids and
later Abu Ubaid and Al Muthannas raids on sassanid iraqi soil you can
calculate more than 150-250000 killed persians.
Now if one is to believe this nonsense the question arises why the
persians are so arrogant and self-confident when the arabs emissaries
appear in Qadisya to "negotiate" with the Persians.
Imagine, an empire that has just suffered heavy territorial losses
against its east-roman rival and is shaken by internal strife simply
affords to lose several thousands of soldiers against arab tribesmen,
but still does not bother to take them serious when they appear in
Qadisya.
To me, this is pure bullshit, just like Sayfs later attributing of the
Shia ideology to a jewish convert.
You should know well that Tabari has much more informers than Sayf and
there is enough literature on the backgrounds and the "quality" of
those people.
There is no reason to claim that all that Tabari or any other historian
says is true.
Nima Rezai
> Another fact is that that lazy bastard, or you for that matter, have
> not even bothered to mention a SINGLE REFERENCE from teh Gathas. WHy
> is that? Is it because you know you won't find it there like you will
> find references to young boys in paradise in the koran?
first of all I never made any claims about the gathas that i should now
be supposed to defend.
second, there is nothing wrong about references to young boys.
it is only prejudiced peoples phantasies that extrapolates any
justification for homosexual relations with any "young boys".
Nima Rezai
> And as far as lack of
> evidence, let's talk about how Omar's son that piece of shit scumbag,
> quickly blamed Hormuzan for the murder of his father, without tial,
> without evidence and without even a bloody sword.
because ubaydullah ibn umar was a "piece of shit scumbag", and why dont
you mention how much ali insisted on ubaydullahs execution for having
spilled the blood of an innocent?
ubaydullah, that piece of shit fought on the wrong side at siffin and
rejected the 60 years old alis demand for single combat. nevertheless
that pig did not survive that battle.
Nima
Pacifist
"Stupid, Blind, repetitive, Boring, unoriginal and zealous spreader of
falsehood."
The above is a perfect but partial description of Sick67. Add to the
above some words like dirty pervert, alienated, self-hating and
anti-Iranian and you get exactly what Khrdalan Keykoskholi is all about.
Pacifist
So, we should believe Greek Historians every time they praise the
Persians but disbelieve them when they criticise the Persians or
praise the Greeks?!!
Very convenient!
LOL!
P :-))
Pacifist
> Merci Mashti jan
LOL!! This mutual khayeh maali will not get you anywhere.
I have presented facts stated by learned articles from impartial
academic sources and from Zoroastrian sources.
These are things that real Zoroastrians have accepted. Of course you
are a fake Zoroastrian and have to re-invent the religion in your own
stupid head!
P
Pacifist
> Good and well? really?
Yes. Koonet me soozeh?!
> Strange because the majority of Iranians in Iran are not...
Ha ha ha...like you would know! You left Iran as a kid and you were
from a Savaki self-hating background ashamed of being Iranian.
You have none of those good qualities that Iranian hold dear (e.g.
Hayaa, Naamoos and Gheyrat).
You do not know enough Farsi to read a Persian newspaper (by your own
admission) and you have not been to Iran for 25 years.
Yet...you have the audacity to speak on behalf the majority of Iranian!!
You Sick, deluded idiot, Khardalan Keykoskholi!!
Pacifist
> Third and most importantly, did you even pay the slightest attention
> to my explanation of the difference between Magian and Persian?
> Between Mogh and Athravan etc...?
You are a moron who doesn't pay attention. I highlighted the following
in the first post of this thread:
Quote
Thus the Iranian sources do not merely negatively show a lack of incest
prohibitions, but positively advocate the preferential mating of
next-of-kin. Another important observation is this: On the face of it,
the Iranian texts seem to advocate next-of-kin marriages for all
Zoroastrians, and not merely for priests and rulers.
Unquote
P
RBRK
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ed4f65a977f610367ca...@mygate.mailgate.org:
sirknight67
it's getting so boring seeing you trying to hide your STUPIDITY and
the fact that by your OWN admission, you are a fucking spy and traitor
for the IRI ("I'm on loan here")with pesonal attacks.
You puny, tiny dicked SON OF A WHORE. Off subject as usual. "Can't
read a Persian newspaper"? How the FUCK would you know? ANd what teh
fuck does it have to do with anything if that were the case MADAR
JENDEH?
Ok, I'm Americanized, can't read a paper and have left Iran as a
kid...YET I LOVE MY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN ENOUGH TO BE A STRUGGLING SELF
PUBLISHED WRITER ON THE CULTURE AND HISTORY OF IRAN...I LOVE MY
COUNTRY ENOUGH TO WRITE ARTICLES ON ITS HISTORY, CULTURE AND RELIGION
AND PRAISE ITS FREEDOM FIGHTERS
While YOU YOU COCKSUCKING SON OF A WHORE WHOSE FATHER TAKES IT IN THE
MUCH ABUSED ASSHOLE BY AKHOUND PARAST LIKE YOUR GOH SELF...You get FAT
in England, married to some whore, PRAISE PALESTINIANS, Don't give a
rat's ass about Iran and only travel there to have some fun and good
time while forgetting about the SUFFERING OF THE PEOPLE and keep
yapping about "KIKES" and "HONKIES" and do nothing but post on
PALESTINE..
Yeah motherfucker son of a aFILTHY MOHAMMEDAN PIG WHORE, yeah, I live
in LA and take time to read and decipher a language I TAUGHT MYSELF
and yet I have more love and dedication for IRANIAN CULTURE AND LAND
than all your ARAB COCK AND SPERM SUCKING FAMILLY OF WHORES, SPIES AND
SELF-SELLING PARASITIC PROSTITUTES OF PALESTINIAN COCKSUCKER LIZZARD
EATERS
LONG LIVE IRAN, DEATH TO IRI PROSTITUTE PARASITE TROLLS LIKE YOUR SHIT
SELF
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ed4f65a977f610367ca...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
by the way, try to be original and STOP USING THE SAME VERBAL ABUISE I
TOSS AT YOU SON OF A WHORE!!!
I told you Konnet meesoozeh when EVERYONE IN THE NEWSGROUP INCLUDING
NIMA PRAISED MY ART EXCEPT YOU you jealous no talent, no job no
purpose SON OF A WHORE YOU!
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ed4f65a977f610367ca...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
for the price of one!!!
RBRK <Rafsan...@criminal.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9530988572...@216.77.188.18>...
sirknight67
those are good words to describe you FAT FUCK FARZIN MOHATARIAN SAVAM BASTARD...
You forgot to add IRI spy and FILTHY SON OF A WHORE
you son of a whore you!!!
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<daad05100c8752deae3...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
is that you are an anti-Irnaian Palestinian cocksucker transplanted in
UK with the blood money of the IRI..
What I also believe (and maybe Greek historians didn't mention this),
there is a history of self-selling and self prositituting in your
familly you fucking low life piece of shit hater of Iran
MADAR JENDEH SON OF A FILTHY PALESTINIAN WHORE YOU
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<834b9650923479d183b...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
khaye mal is your drunk father who hasn't got the balls to say it
"hurts" when akhounds put it up his fat wasted ass..instead he prises
their cocks in the hope that they will bust a nut and be done so he
can go home and bring home the cheap vodka your whore mother so
desperately needs in order to stupefy herself when Israeli cocks gang
fuck her mouth
FILTHY SON OF AWHORE
you don't fool anyone..In two years' time, you managed to alienate
EVERYONE ON THIS GROUP excet for a couple of lowlife sons of whore
slike your goh MOZODOOR self
fucking fat fuck spy living in the UK with a whore for a wife SON OF A
WHORE YOU!
PS MADAR JENDEH obviously a lot of incest going on in your familly,
that's probably where you fat bastard father got his firts sexual
experience: Fucking his dead mother after the old hag was dead and
buried!!!
CHEAP IRI ANTI-IRANIAN WHORE SON OF A WHORE YOU!!!!
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a1fb8805b0ca9d13824...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
marital problems...can you provide some proof of this and secondly, if
you stop dating your girlfriend right now, would you want your best
friend to start going out wtih her right off the bat?
"Nima Rezai" <rezai...@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:<2mdimcF...@uni-berlin.de>...
Nima Rezai
action and decision based on very few information I have.
Regarding proof, noone can prove it or prove the contrary.
I may remind you of many speculative allegations your faction has
raised here, namely rape and pedophily. You cannot prove any of these
and yet you continue presenting it as facts.
All we are doing here (and "we" includes all of us) is to a big portion
speculation.
May I mention the story of Zartosht? Is there anything absolutely clear
about his person? when he lived, where he was born, etc.?
Does this mean that one should not talk about him or his ideology?
definitely not.
You talk about proof. What proof has been brought forward regarding the
book burnings in Iran and Egypt?
Or does the lack of existence of something automatically mean that it
is due to its destruction?
As you know you and me will never achieve agreement on any islam
related topics. So, I regard it a waste of time to present and
counterpresent the very same arguments, opinions, claims, etc.
Nima
Pacifist
LOL! more Goftar e Neek from our resident fake-Zartoshti!!
I reckon the only reason you decided to become a fake-Zartoshti was
because
you wanted to fuck your own mother and sister.
Sadly for you, you have had to wait your turn after the entire male
black population of South Central L.A.
This is the main reason you have ended up so bitter and angry.
P ;-)
Pacifist
> what I do believe MADAR JENDEH
Ah you believe you are a Madar Jendeh. At least you have given up the
pretence of believing in Zartosht and have begun to understand yourself.
LOL!
P
Mash_Ghasem
> what I would want or not, is secondary. I can not judge someone elses
> action and decision based on very few information I have.
> Regarding proof, noone can prove it or prove the contrary.
> I may remind you of many speculative allegations your faction has
> raised here, namely rape and pedophily.
Amoo Nima;
Unlike you who truly believes in Islam , Pacifist is a man with mission and
defending Islam is the last thing in his mind. He is an IRI agent and
provocateur. Don't be his cheerleader. We have gone over these issues
so there is no reason to repeat them.
cheers;
MG
Nima Rezai
> Unlike you who truly believes in Islam , Pacifist is a man with
> mission and defending Islam is the last thing in his mind. He is an
> IRI agent and provocateur. Don't be his cheerleader. We have gone
> over these issues so there is no reason to repeat them.
Mash Jan,
I am not interested in getting involved in any personal comments. I attack
or defend the content and not the poster.
Personally I do not share your thoughts about Pacifist but this is OK since
I am not in a position to support or "forbid" personal opinions.
I recommend though that we discuss topics without labeling people.
Nima
sirknight67
I see your fantasies about watching your whore mother getting gang
banged by Arabs have now evolved into strong Black men sliding their
thick meat inside that whore, ever horny mother of yours ey?
And as far as WHY I became Zartoshti Jeegar, is for the pleasure of
seeing Koon sookhte like YOU get all worked up and angry...that is
definitely worth the trouble hehehehe!!!
And as for fucking mothers, well, as long as that whor emother for
yours keeps blowing me and my buddies, and takes it in every one of
her stretched holes (yes, you can ask her, I AM on the THICK SIDE!!!)
, no reason to look elsewhere. As they say in America, "if it ain't
broken, don't fix it" and your WHORE MOTHER definitely ain't broken
yet!!!!!
HEHEHEHE
FILTHY SON OF An ARAB, ISRAELI AND BLACK COCK CRAVING WHORE YOU!!!!
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<985160f8f667ed57e83...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
Mash_Ghasem
> Personally I do not share your thoughts about Pacifist
That is your problem.
sirknight67
obviously too MONGO to come up with anything better...I am no longer
of the opinion and belief that you are a FILTHY SON OF A WHORE...i NOW
HAVE PROOF!!!
VILE SON OF MY THICK COCK CRAVING WHORE YOU!!!!!!!
HEHEHEHEHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ajab koneto daram jer meedam!
"Pacifist" <mushr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<029791d992381bebf42...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
sirknight67
It is your interpretation that twists this around and makes it sound
ok to have sex with pre-teen boys who are virgins and have never been
touched yet. Maybe Muslims like to indulge in child molestation from
time to time, but in the free world, child molestation is illegal.
Homosexuality? Well, that's up to the individual and people are free
to make their own choices. One of my best friends happens to be gay. I
have a problem when people such as yourself defend taking young kids
as lovers and then try some twisted "logic" to try and rationalize it
or make it pass as something else, like consentual sex with young men
rather than young boys (the latter implies pre-teens).
Don't bother giving me references from the Koran, I already have seen
them and the references to shy young boys who dare not look you in the
eyes and lie in the "pavillions' in wait for the "companions of the
right hand". I know you'll have your own rational way of explaining
that too.
Lastly, I never claimed you had read the Gathas. On the contrary,
that's the problem with people making claims about Zoroastrianism. I
didn't say you did, I said that idiot pacifist did and if anyone's
going to make a case out of someone's religion, ideology, political
stance etc...all I'm saying is that they should at least bother to
gather the relevant material from the relevant source, not the
commentaries as you don't see me gathering material from the Hadiths,
for even in my eagerness to denounce Islam, I am impartial enough to
understand that these could be the interpretations of jurists and
religious figures who are giving their own input and passing it as
fact, as you so often have pointed out against Sahib Bukhari for
instance.
"Nima Rezai" <rezai...@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:<2mdjl8F...@uni-berlin.de>...
sirknight67
blood of an innocent? As far as I know, Islamic law prohibits a muslim
from testifying against an "infidel" even though Hormuzan had
superficially "accepted" islam to save his life (since the other
choice was death on the spot for having inflicted heavy casualties on
the arabs at the battle of Tustar).
I seriously doubt you will find any unbiased source to prove this.
"Nima Rezai" <rezai...@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:<2mdjq0F...@uni-berlin.de>...
sirknight67
harbor to defend a bunch of fucking lizzard eating arab scum.
Check out jamshid CHocksy's conflict and cooperation for a reference,
quoting a muslim historian who refered to the conquest of Khwarazm by
Qutaiba Ibn Muslim for instance, who personally ordered the
destruction of all of Khwarazm's religious, literrary and scientific
books in order to destroy teh scholarchip and knowledge of Khwarazm,
so that the next generation, having been robbed of its religious and
linguistic heritage would be forced to adopt Islam and Arabic.
Also refer to Frye's "the Golden Age of Persia" as well as references
in the Cambridge History of Iran, the chapter on the Islamic conquest
of Persia.
120,000 books on science, anatomy, law, education, language, history
etc..were burned!!!!
Stop making excuses for arabs and see the light, and the hatred you
have in yourself for Iran, which in my mind only explains why you keep
making excuses for those fucking criminals. It must be a form of pride
that prevents you from accepting that Arabs intentionally destroyed
pre-Islamic culture.
And let's not forget the destruction of teh Sassanian Avesta which
then contained 21 books. Only about a quarter of it now survives.
Well, have you decided if you love Iran or Arabs more yet?
"Nima Rezai" <rezai...@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:<2mhrddF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> >> that she was a granddaughter of 'AbdulMuttalib, and that Zayd was
sirknight67
ghyath...@yahoo.com (Mash_Ghasem) wrote in message news:<ed4a58d6.04072...@posting.google.com>...
Nima Rezai
> Do you have proof that Ali ordered his execution for spilling the
> blood of an innocent? As far as I know, Islamic law prohibits a
muslim
> from testifying against an "infidel" even though Hormuzan had
> superficially "accepted" islam...
proof? for what other reason should ali require the execution of the
dying caliphs son when not because he (the son) had killed an innocent?
Besides, no matter whether "superficial" or not, Hormozan was accepted
as muslim and he received high payments from Umars Diwan (registry),
just like the elite persian units ("asawirah") who had switched side to
the muslims before Nahavand.
> I seriously doubt you will find any unbiased source to prove this.
what would be an "unbiased source"? a non-muslim non-arab writer? hard
to find any such person regarding events that took place in the middle
of muslim medina in 644 AD.
from Tabari, Vol.XIV, page 162: "A helper called ziyad ..recited the
following..:>>Ah, you have no way of escape, Ubaydallah, no place of
refuge...you spilled blood indeed, completely unlawfully-and killing
al-Hurmuzan is a dangerous matter...<<..."
Nima (I have not yet read the passages in Baladhuri)
Mash_Ghasem
> You really make me sad, I cannot believe teh amount of self hatred you
> harbor to defend a bunch of fucking lizzard eating arab scum.
> Check out jamshid CHocksy's conflict and cooperation for a reference,
> quoting a muslim historian who refered to the conquest of Khwarazm by
> Qutaiba Ibn Muslim for instance,
These people are asking for proof of existance of somthing that they have
burned 1500 years ago!!!! Isn't that convenient?!!! I guess 10 years
from now they are going to ask for proof of existance of twin towers.
> > >> that she was a granddaughter of 'Abdul胞uttalib, and that Zayd was
sirknight67
there was an instance in Islamic history that topped it all. I read
this in a book by Huart on Iran, as well as Wilbur's "Iran past and
present".
According to these, there was a conflict between Zoroastrians and
muslims in Herat (as a matter of fact, such conflicts existed between
the two communities everywhere throughout Iranshar, from Shiraz to
Bukhara).
According to Islamic law which forbids that a building or place of
worship of a non-believer exceeds in height that of a muslims building
or place of worship (which is why the law persisted in Persia to the
end of the 19th century...see Boyce "Zoroastrian houses of Yazd").
A mullah gathered a mob of muslim thugs, armed with "chomagh" and
bricks and incited them to attack a fire temple whose height exceeded
a muslim mosque and supposedly cast a shadow on on a muslim building.
The entire building was razed to the ground. The Zoroastrian Mobed
gathered a few faithful and then took the complaint all the way to the
governor. When teh case was presented to him, he asked for the guilty
parties to be named and they were.
Because of Islamic law, no "infidel" can offer testimony in court
against a Muslim and so, the governor asked that muslim "witnesses"
present themselves and attest that such an occurence did in fact take
place. The Mullah's supporters then brought in a 1,000 "witnesses" who
swore to God that NO SUCH BUILDING HAD EVER EXISTED!
The case was then dismissed.....
There you have it.
ghyath...@yahoo.com (Mash_Ghasem) wrote in message news:<ed4a58d6.04072...@posting.google.com>...