Tajiks Worldwide Community: Who Is Your Favorite Tajik Personality? - Tajiks Worldwide Community

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox

Parsistani Icon : (04 January 2016 - 10:02 PM) Someone here?
parwana Icon : (30 April 2014 - 05:21 PM) Posted Image
Parsistani Icon : (22 July 2013 - 04:02 AM) good morning :)
Gul agha Icon : (03 May 2013 - 04:29 PM) Sohrab, Tajikam doesn't only consist of a forum. We have two major sections in this website. One is in Persian which is updated frequently and the other is in Persian (Cyrillic). Additionally, the English page is still running and has a vast amount of information on Tajiks and Persians.
Gul agha Icon : (03 May 2013 - 04:27 PM) http://www.facebook.com/Tajikamsite
Sohrab Icon : (01 May 2013 - 06:31 AM) Tajikam on facebook?
SHA DOKHT Icon : (01 May 2013 - 12:12 AM) Like our page on Facebook: https://www.facebook...541604162529143
Sohrab Icon : (29 March 2013 - 08:31 AM) H again, I thought the site would be closed, but it's still running.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:17 AM) Tajikistan was inhabited by the races of Cyrus the great (Sultan skindar Zulqarnain). The achmaniend dynasty ruled the entire region for several thousnd years.Cyrus the great's son cymbasis(Combchia)with forces migrated to Balkh ancient Bactaria or Bakhtar. Sultan Sumus the desecndant of Cyrus the great faught war against Alaxander of Macdonia in Bakhtar current tajikistan.
this ruling class was inhabited in the areas, like Balkh,fargana,alai,Tajikistan,badakhshan,Kabul,Takhar,Tashkorogan,Khutan,kashkar,Swat,Kashmir,Peshawar, hashtnager,Dir, Bajour,Gilgit,for serveral thaousand years.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:16 AM) hellow
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:00 AM) Tajikistan was inhabited by the races of Cyrus the great (Sultan skindar Zulqarnain). The achmaniend dynasty ruled the entire region for several thousnd years.Cyrus the great's son cymbasis(Combchia)with forces migrated to Balkh ancient Bactaria or Bakhtar. Sultan Sumus the desecndant of Cyrus the great faught war against Alaxander of Macdonia in Bakhtar current tajikistan.
this ruling class was inhabited in the areas, like Balkh,fargana,alai,Tajikistan,badakhshan,Kabul,Takhar,Tashkorogan,Khutan,kashkar,Swat,Kashmir,Peshawar, hashtnager,Dir, Bajour,Gilgit,for serveral thaousand years.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 09:46 AM) hellow
Gabaro_glt Icon : (25 March 2013 - 10:48 AM) Asssssssssalam o Alaikum
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:22 AM) I would like to here something from a tajik brother/sister living in Tajikstan
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:20 AM) I have traced my ancestors migrated from Panj and Balkh ancient
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:19 AM) I am desendant of Sultan behram Gabari Tajik living in GilGit pakistan
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:17 AM) Salam to all brothers
Parsistani Icon : (01 June 2012 - 10:48 AM) we are on facebook. Tajikam on facebook
Parsistani Icon : (01 June 2012 - 10:47 AM) salam guys.
Azim-khan Icon : (19 May 2012 - 11:19 AM) salom bachaho )
Resize Shouts Area

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Who Is Your Favorite Tajik Personality? Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   Rostam Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
447
Joined:
17-May 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 06:36 AM

All have died :( ...I dont have any favourite Tajik now......hate the most!
0

#22 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
1,155
Joined:
13-October 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 06:42 AM

My favorite Tajik personality is ....
.
.
.
.
.
.
hold your breath :D
.
.
.
.
.
who could it be :confused:
.
.
.
.
of course,
none other
than
the
great
.
.
.
.
NADER SHAH
;)
0

#23 User is offline   Neo Bactra Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
72
Joined:
02-March 08

Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:05 AM

[quote=Nader Shah;7316]My favorite Tajik personality is ....
.
.
.
.
.
.
hold your breath :D
.
.
.
.
.
who could it be :confused:
.
.
.
.
of course,
none other
than
the
great
.
.
.
.
NADER SHAH
;) [/quote]


Dear Nader,

Which Nader Shah are you talking about? Are you joking with Rostam jan? Do you mean yourself or you mean Nader Afshar? :) Just want some clarification.
0

#24 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
1,155
Joined:
13-October 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:20 AM

I mean the real one ... not myself of course.
0

#25 User is offline   PORS Icon

  • AZADANDESH
  • Icon
Group:
Administrators
Posts:
740
Joined:
30-May 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:39 AM

Why not yourself, first? You should be a hero and a favorite personality for yourself first. Cultivate and nurture personality you want to see in yourself and then talk about doing good deed to others, as your favorite personality did. ;) hope you won't get me wrong.

[quote=Nader Shah;7321]I mean the real one ... not myself of course.[/quote]


I like this quote by Dalai Lama: "This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." - No comment or question about religion. I don't point anything to religion here, but like the emphasis of Dalai Lama on personal wisdom and personal philosophy.
0

#26 User is offline   Rostam Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
447
Joined:
17-May 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:54 AM

Nader Shah Afshar was a Turk... ;)
0

#27 User is offline   Rostam Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
447
Joined:
17-May 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:55 AM

...............
0

#28 User is offline   Neo Bactra Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
72
Joined:
02-March 08

Posted 13 March 2008 - 08:01 AM

Dorood All,
Dorood Rostam Jan,

Cyrus The Great must have been great. Persians must have rallyed behind him. Who is a better hero: Firdowsi? or Rustam? I am sure we will say both. But did we rally behind one hero whom the enemies of both Firdowsi and Rustam murdered? He is Massoud. What would have Firdowsi said of him if he saw him in his real life playing football, reciting Hafiz, smiling, cracking jokes, speaking in his mother tongue in its purest dialect, praising education, condemning occupation, teaching freedom, preaching co-existance, displaying humility, exuding confidence and valour, and humbling down the White Bear? Aren't we contemporary Tajiks fortunate to have had a hero like him whom we can easily see at the click of the mouse? How many more do we need to have to make us stand up and fight?
0

#29 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
1,155
Joined:
13-October 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 08:02 AM

Did we not have this discussion before, with idontknow coming and calling Tajikistanis turks and mongol ? Look at paintings of Nader Shah and see if he looks Turk. I bet you are more Turk than Nader Shah was :D take a look in the mirror.
[quote=Rostam;7327]Nader Shah Afshar was a Turk... ;) [/quote]
0

#30 User is offline   Neo Bactra Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
72
Joined:
02-March 08

Posted 13 March 2008 - 09:05 AM

[quote=Hassani Sabboh;7301]Thanks my Brother Neo Bactra! I appreciate it.

To Rooyintanjon!!!!!!

With a deep respect to you, my Brother, I must say that you are totally mistaken about your ancestor Hassani Sabboh claiming that He was terrorist or hash smoker. It is far from justice. Before judging a person's behaviour we must scrutinise all of the social, economical factors and psychological motives which cause his behavior. Clean your mind from western christian stereotips which see in every ancient eastern movemen the elements of brutality and unhumanity. I dont know what is the reason of your deep antipathy to Hassani Sabbah, but I want you to know that He was a great man and his sacred name is written in the history of persians with an ink which will be not washed with any dirty hands of mentally deficient "professors" who want to blacken the face and the history of the great people.
And you instead of praising your ancestor who sacrificed all he had, even his two sons, and ignored the happiness of this dark world for the sake of destroying the turkish opressors and bringing the freedom for persians, keep accusing him in crimes which were far from his saint and mystical body. May God forgive you and show you the right path.

In order to put the light on the facts we must go the historical background to see how situation was. I refer to the book "The assasins of Alamut" by Anthony Campbell. Look at the title in his book:

Hasan-i-Sabbah and the revolt against the Turks

Doesnt this tell you anything. It says revolt against Turks. We should have finished this discussion after this, but we'll continue.

"""Iran in the eleventh century was part of the vast territories ruled by the Seljuq Turks (the forerunners of the later Ottoman Turks who captured Constantinople, changed the name to Istanbul, and came close to conquering Western Europe). The Seljuqs were invaders from the Asian steppes who united most of the fragmented world of the Abbasid Caliphate from the Western frontier of Afghanistan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west. Their arrival reduced the Caliph in Baghdad virtually to a figurehead with no real power.
The Seljuqs were Sunni Muslims and soon came into conflict with the Fatimid Isma'ilis, who ruled Egypt as well as much of North Africa and Syria. But the Fatimid influence was not confined to the territories under their direct domination; it had long been extended by their missionaries to many other areas, but especially to Iran. This activity continued after the arrival of the Seljuqs.

Many Isma'ili missionaries, and many Isma'ili intellectuals in Cairo, were Iranians, so it was natural that there should be a determined effort to spread Isma'ilism in Iran. However, the Seljuq Turkish conquest made this more difficult, for the Seljuqs were deeply hostile to Isma'ilism. Nevertheless, the Isma'ilis by no means lost heart; indeed, if anything, they became more ambitious. Isma'ili cells were to be found in many cities and towns throughout the country, spreading their ideas and making converts. The Ismaili term for missionary is da'i.

The Iranian Isma'ilis were preparing a revolt against the Seljuqs, but they did not intend to form a single army and march to power as the Fatimids had done in Egypt; given the different situation in Iran, this would hardly have been possible. Rather, they hoped for a multiplicity of risings planned to occur simultaneously, which would deprive the Seljuqs of their power base and be impossible to crush by virtue of their widespread nature. This revolt would have been essentially urban. But in the eleventh century the plan was to take on a different character, with a shift in emphasis from town to country. This development occurred thanks to Hasan-i-Sabbah. """"


Look, under the cloack of Ismailizm there hid nationalistic feelings. Since the ofissial seljukid ideology was sunni islam iranians should have found something differnt and counterweight-Ismailizm to enable the people raise aganst state with its ideology.

"""Hassani Sabbah was an earnest seeker after truth, and is said to have been passionately fond of study from the age of seven (a significant age), becoming learned in mathematics, astronomy (and therefore astrology), and occult matters.
At about the age of seventeen he encountered an Isma'ili missionary called Amir Zarrab. No doubt a young man of Hasan's ability seemed a fine prize, and Amir Zarrab tried hard to convert him, but Hasan-i-Sabbah was not convinced. Nevertheless, after Amir Zarrab's departure Hasan-i-Sabbah continued to read Isma'ili books and his mind was troubled.

Then, as often seems to have happened in the lives of mediaeval people, his conversion was brought about by a near-fatal illness. Alarmed at the possibility that he might die without having realized the Truth, he sought out another Isma'ili, nicknamed the Saddler, and asked for further instruction. Fully convinced at last of the truth of the Isma'ili doctrines, he took the oath of allegiance.
The senior Isma'ili in Iran, Ibn Attash, came to Ray soon after this and was impressed by Hasan. He drew him into Isma'ili activities and, a few years later, sent him to Cairo, where he was well received. However, there were political tensions in Cairo at this time, which were to have momentous consequences for Hasan-i-Sabbah some years later, and there is a suggestion that he got into some kind of difficulty there. In 1080 he returned to Iran, surviving a shipwreck on the Syrian coast in the process, and became very active as an Isma'ili propagandist. He travelled extensively, especially in the north-west of the country, and he had a large number of men under his command who covered other areas. He was by now a wanted man, but he evaded his would-be captors, and, in 1090, carried out the coup which made him famous and launched the Assassins on their romantic career: he gained possession of the Castle of Alamut. """


Look at his lofty moral qualities:


What kind of man was Hasan?[/


"""The Isma'ili missionary was a very special person. He was intensively trained in Isma'ili doctrine and was expected to lead an exemplary life so as to attract people through his piety. Any shortcomings in the missionary would not only put off potential converts but would be a threat to the very existence of the organization. He was expected to take great pains with his own spiritual advancement, punishing himself when he behaved badly and rewarding himself if he did well. He behaved in a similar manner towards the people for whom he was responsible. He had to be skilled in a number of professions - carpenter, sailor, oculist, and so forth - so that he could earn his living and also have a cover for his activities, for being an Isma'ili missionary was dangerous.
The role of the Isma'il missionary, in fact, must have been something like that of a Catholic priest in England in penal times. In those years priests were regarded by the authorities as dangerous subversives under the control of a foreign power, Rome, and if captured they were liable to be put to a very unpleasant death. From their own point of view, however, they were bringing the true religion to the people who were capable of appreciating it. The Isma'ili missionary, likewise, owed his allegiance to a hostile foreign power and saw himself as a bringer of salvation to those who were willing to listen. And both priest and missionary looked forward to the day when their religion would become the dominant belief system of the land in which they operated.

The Isma'ili missionary must have a deep knowledge of both the exoteric and the esoteric aspects of his religion. In character he must be kindly and compassionate, modest, reasonable, noble, generous, and truthful; he must have an outstanding intellectual capacity, be capable of keeping secrets, and be an agreeable companion, with a noble soul to lend dignity to his manner and to attract people to him and allow him to get on with them. He should associate only with ascetic and religious men and have nothing to do with the dissolute. He must not fool about or tell dirty jokes or use bad language. In short, he was expected to be a paragon of every conceivable virtue, and it is permissible to doubt if any such individuals actually existed. However, at least we know what constituted the Isma'ili ideal, and Hasan, in particular, seems to have embodied a good deal of it.

In recompense for the high demands made of him, the missionary was given a good deal of authority over his flock, but this, too was a source of possible spiritual danger and he was forbidden to use his position for his own advantage or to show favouritism. He was expected to be an affectionate but impartial father-figure. In all of this his role was that of the Imam writ small, for he was the Imam's representative and vicar on earth.


And one point. As Hassan was considered as the enemy to seljukids, the sunni ulama -the ideological suppliers did their best to discredite him in the eyes of the people in order to reduce his increasing influense. A lot of books were written wich said bad about him and many ignorant historians lead research on the base of this miserable and false books. But the wise man goes another way. He knows that those hypocrite ulama wrote books for money and degree in the palace. that is why they could not tell the truth.

""""From Isma'ili texts of the time there emerges a picture of Isma'ilism that is very different from that painted by its Sunni critics. Isma'ilism appears to have been a serious attempt to raise human consciousness to a higher plane. Whether this is possible at all, and, if so, whether the Isma'ili method was a good one for achieving that goal, are open questions, but at least we can say that the Isma'ilis were not the irreligious libertines they are often represented as being. Far from offering its adepts a holiday from morality, the Isma'ili Proclamation, as it was called, summoned people to a dedicated life of service and self-improvement. It promised a great deal, but the way was hard and the goal was a wholly spiritual one.


Hasan-i-Sabbah became known as a severe and austere ruler. He remained within his house, writing, thinking, and planning; he is said to have gone out only twice, and to have gone up on the roof only once. At one time, when things were difficult, he sent his womenfolk away to another castle, where they had to spin like the other women, and he never brought them back. He had both his sons executed, one for drinking wine, the other on a charge of murder which later proved false. Von Hammer, the nineteenth-century historian who attributed all kinds of wickedness to the Assassins, cited these sentences as evidence of Isma'ili depravity and Hasan's want of natural affection, but it seems more plausible to regard them as instances of his impartiality. They also make it clear that in Hasan's time the Muslim law (sharia) was enforced at Alamut with full rigour.

Look he had executed his son for breaking the ismaili law -prohibition of wine. After this how can you claim that he smoked hash? ??? ?


Hassan Sabbah was neither terrorist nor hash smoker. These qualities were attributed to him by ignorant sunni and christiian clerics having seen the unprecedent heroism and devotion of Hassan's followers.

"The name 'assassin' is, of course, synonymous with political murder. In 1092 the famous statesman Nizam al-Mulk was on his way to Baghdad when he was approached from a youth from Daylam (the region of Alamut) in the guise of a suppliant. The man suddenly drew a knife from his robe and wounded the minister fatally. This is generally supposed to have been the first assassination carried out by Hasan's orders. The Isma'ilis claimed it was done to avenge the death of a carpenter, but doubtless there were more important political reasons. Murder as a political weapon was not, of course, an Isma'ili invention, and indeed it appears that a number of groups in Iran were making use of it at the time. The Isma'ilis, however, undoubtedly took the trend further than most. They may have believed that it was more humane to kill one man selectively than a multitude in a battle. In this respect they were significantly different from modern terrorists. In any case, given the fact that they were so enormously outnumbered by their enemies, terrorism was a logical enough expedient.
It is usually said that a special corps of assassins - the fida'is - existed, but this is doubtful, at least until a much later date. Marco Polo, who visited the site of Alamut in the thirteenth century, after its destruction by the Mongols, relates the romantic legend of how the fida'is were trained by the Grand Master. The 'Old Man', as Marco Polo calls him, following the Crusader usage, was said to have constructed a fantastic pleasure garden, flowing with wine, honey, milk, and water, and populated by beautiful women. This was a representation of Paradise as described in the Koran. The Old Man was supposed to drug his future Assassins and bring them, unconscious, into the garden; after a time they were once again rendered insensible and brought out into the ordinary world. They were thus convinced that they had been given a foretaste of the joys to come if they obeyed the Old Man's orders, which they naturally did unquestioningly, certain that they would once more find themselves in Paradise after their death.

It need hardly be said that this is a total fantasy. There is no need to suppose that any such elaborate method of preparation was needed; like other Muslim soldiers the assassins would be told, and would unquestioningly believe, that if they were killed they would go straight to Paradise. A similar belief motivates modern suicide bombers among the Palestinians and other minority groups who lack other means of getting at their enemies. Death on an assassination mission was counted a great honour by the Isma'ilis. There is an often-repeated story of the mother of a fida'i who rejoiced greatly and put on her best clothes when she heard that her son had been killed on a mission, but changed into mourning when he came home safely after all.

The fida'is were at least not underhand in their assassinations; they did not poison their victims or stab them in the back in dark alleys, but killed them openly in public. A favourite occasion seems to have been at Friday prayers in the mosque. Publicity, in fact, was an important part of their aim, and they were successful in attaining this. Prominent men took to wearing armour under their clothes, and sometimes the Isma'ilis could achieve their purpose merely by a threat. Isma'ilis would insinuate themselves into the households of their victims, ready to assassinate them if necessary or perhaps merely to make it clear that they could do so if they wished. Sultan Sanjar made a truce with Alamut, persuaded, it is said, by a dagger thrust into the ground next to his pillow. And an amusing story concerns a professor of theology who made a practice of reviling the "heretics" of Alamut. At length, one of his students, who had impressed him by the attention he paid to his lectures, revealed himself as a fida'i and offered the professor alternative inducements to mend his ways: a dagger or a bag of gold. The professor wisely chose the gold; and, when subsequently twitted about the reason for his changed attitude to the Isma'ilis, he replied that he had been convinced of his error by arguments that were "both weighty and pointed".

In the aftermath of an assassination the Sunni population of a town would often catch and kill anyone they suspected of being an Isma'ili, so massacres were frequent at times, and were followed by further assassinations as the Isma'ilis took revenge on the leaders. In 1093 a number of suspected Isma'ilis were burned alive in Isfahan. Such events offered a chance for people to denounce others against whom they had a grudge, so doubtless many innocents perished along with the Isma'ilis. The systematic used of terror tactics helped to foster the image of the Isma'ilis as supremely wicked and capable of any imaginable infamy.

Assassination as a political weapon may be hard to justify morally (although what about the bomb plot to kill Hitler?), and certainly it was this practice that made the Isma'ilis' name so execrated among both Muslims and Christians. Even so, one cannot help sensing the intensity of their devotion to their cause and the feeling of comradeship that inspired their heroism. [COLOR=red]For heroism it was: few fida'is survived, and their deaths were seldom easy
.

There is no need to comment any more.

Piruz bosh!!!!![/quote]

Shoma ham peroz basheed, Sabboh Jaan,

This is a very interesting piece. I read it all. I hope our friend responds to your post. Let's hear his thoughts.

Mofaq Basheed.
0

#31 User is offline   arshak Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
461
Joined:
12-January 08

Posted 13 March 2008 - 09:24 AM

[quote=Hassani Sabboh;7301]Thanks my Brother Neo Bactra! I appreciate it.

To Rooyintanjon!!!!!!

With a deep respect to you, my Brother, I must say that you are totally mistaken about your ancestor Hassani Sabboh claiming that He was terrorist or hash smoker. It is far from justice. Before judging a person's behaviour we must scrutinise all of the social, economical factors and psychological motives which cause his behavior. Clean your mind from western christian stereotips which see in every ancient eastern movemen the elements of brutality and unhumanity. I dont know what is the reason of your deep antipathy to Hassani Sabbah, but I want you to know that He was a great man and his sacred name is written in the history of persians with an ink which will be not washed with any dirty hands of mentally deficient "professors" who want to blacken the face and the history of the great people.
And you instead of praising your ancestor who sacrificed all he had, even his two sons, and ignored the happiness of this dark world for the sake of destroying the turkish opressors and bringing the freedom for persians, keep accusing him in crimes which were far from his saint and mystical body. May God forgive you and show you the right path.

In order to put the light on the facts we must go the historical background to see how situation was. I refer to the book "The assasins of Alamut" by Anthony Campbell. Look at the title in his book:

Hasan-i-Sabbah and the revolt against the Turks

Doesnt this tell you anything. It says revolt against Turks. We should have finished this discussion after this, but we'll continue.

"""Iran in the eleventh century was part of the vast territories ruled by the Seljuq Turks (the forerunners of the later Ottoman Turks who captured Constantinople, changed the name to Istanbul, and came close to conquering Western Europe). The Seljuqs were invaders from the Asian steppes who united most of the fragmented world of the Abbasid Caliphate from the Western frontier of Afghanistan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west. Their arrival reduced the Caliph in Baghdad virtually to a figurehead with no real power.
The Seljuqs were Sunni Muslims and soon came into conflict with the Fatimid Isma'ilis, who ruled Egypt as well as much of North Africa and Syria. But the Fatimid influence was not confined to the territories under their direct domination; it had long been extended by their missionaries to many other areas, but especially to Iran. This activity continued after the arrival of the Seljuqs.

Many Isma'ili missionaries, and many Isma'ili intellectuals in Cairo, were Iranians, so it was natural that there should be a determined effort to spread Isma'ilism in Iran. However, the Seljuq Turkish conquest made this more difficult, for the Seljuqs were deeply hostile to Isma'ilism. Nevertheless, the Isma'ilis by no means lost heart; indeed, if anything, they became more ambitious. Isma'ili cells were to be found in many cities and towns throughout the country, spreading their ideas and making converts. The Ismaili term for missionary is da'i.

The Iranian Isma'ilis were preparing a revolt against the Seljuqs, but they did not intend to form a single army and march to power as the Fatimids had done in Egypt; given the different situation in Iran, this would hardly have been possible. Rather, they hoped for a multiplicity of risings planned to occur simultaneously, which would deprive the Seljuqs of their power base and be impossible to crush by virtue of their widespread nature. This revolt would have been essentially urban. But in the eleventh century the plan was to take on a different character, with a shift in emphasis from town to country. This development occurred thanks to Hasan-i-Sabbah. """"


Look, under the cloack of Ismailizm there hid nationalistic feelings. Since the ofissial seljukid ideology was sunni islam iranians should have found something differnt and counterweight-Ismailizm to enable the people raise aganst state with its ideology.

"""Hassani Sabbah was an earnest seeker after truth, and is said to have been passionately fond of study from the age of seven (a significant age), becoming learned in mathematics, astronomy (and therefore astrology), and occult matters.
At about the age of seventeen he encountered an Isma'ili missionary called Amir Zarrab. No doubt a young man of Hasan's ability seemed a fine prize, and Amir Zarrab tried hard to convert him, but Hasan-i-Sabbah was not convinced. Nevertheless, after Amir Zarrab's departure Hasan-i-Sabbah continued to read Isma'ili books and his mind was troubled.

Then, as often seems to have happened in the lives of mediaeval people, his conversion was brought about by a near-fatal illness. Alarmed at the possibility that he might die without having realized the Truth, he sought out another Isma'ili, nicknamed the Saddler, and asked for further instruction. Fully convinced at last of the truth of the Isma'ili doctrines, he took the oath of allegiance.
The senior Isma'ili in Iran, Ibn Attash, came to Ray soon after this and was impressed by Hasan. He drew him into Isma'ili activities and, a few years later, sent him to Cairo, where he was well received. However, there were political tensions in Cairo at this time, which were to have momentous consequences for Hasan-i-Sabbah some years later, and there is a suggestion that he got into some kind of difficulty there. In 1080 he returned to Iran, surviving a shipwreck on the Syrian coast in the process, and became very active as an Isma'ili propagandist. He travelled extensively, especially in the north-west of the country, and he had a large number of men under his command who covered other areas. He was by now a wanted man, but he evaded his would-be captors, and, in 1090, carried out the coup which made him famous and launched the Assassins on their romantic career: he gained possession of the Castle of Alamut. """


Look at his lofty moral qualities:


What kind of man was Hasan?[/


"""The Isma'ili missionary was a very special person. He was intensively trained in Isma'ili doctrine and was expected to lead an exemplary life so as to attract people through his piety. Any shortcomings in the missionary would not only put off potential converts but would be a threat to the very existence of the organization. He was expected to take great pains with his own spiritual advancement, punishing himself when he behaved badly and rewarding himself if he did well. He behaved in a similar manner towards the people for whom he was responsible. He had to be skilled in a number of professions - carpenter, sailor, oculist, and so forth - so that he could earn his living and also have a cover for his activities, for being an Isma'ili missionary was dangerous.
The role of the Isma'il missionary, in fact, must have been something like that of a Catholic priest in England in penal times. In those years priests were regarded by the authorities as dangerous subversives under the control of a foreign power, Rome, and if captured they were liable to be put to a very unpleasant death. From their own point of view, however, they were bringing the true religion to the people who were capable of appreciating it. The Isma'ili missionary, likewise, owed his allegiance to a hostile foreign power and saw himself as a bringer of salvation to those who were willing to listen. And both priest and missionary looked forward to the day when their religion would become the dominant belief system of the land in which they operated.

The Isma'ili missionary must have a deep knowledge of both the exoteric and the esoteric aspects of his religion. In character he must be kindly and compassionate, modest, reasonable, noble, generous, and truthful; he must have an outstanding intellectual capacity, be capable of keeping secrets, and be an agreeable companion, with a noble soul to lend dignity to his manner and to attract people to him and allow him to get on with them. He should associate only with ascetic and religious men and have nothing to do with the dissolute. He must not fool about or tell dirty jokes or use bad language. In short, he was expected to be a paragon of every conceivable virtue, and it is permissible to doubt if any such individuals actually existed. However, at least we know what constituted the Isma'ili ideal, and Hasan, in particular, seems to have embodied a good deal of it.

In recompense for the high demands made of him, the missionary was given a good deal of authority over his flock, but this, too was a source of possible spiritual danger and he was forbidden to use his position for his own advantage or to show favouritism. He was expected to be an affectionate but impartial father-figure. In all of this his role was that of the Imam writ small, for he was the Imam's representative and vicar on earth.


And one point. As Hassan was considered as the enemy to seljukids, the sunni ulama -the ideological suppliers did their best to discredite him in the eyes of the people in order to reduce his increasing influense. A lot of books were written wich said bad about him and many ignorant historians lead research on the base of this miserable and false books. But the wise man goes another way. He knows that those hypocrite ulama wrote books for money and degree in the palace. that is why they could not tell the truth.

""""From Isma'ili texts of the time there emerges a picture of Isma'ilism that is very different from that painted by its Sunni critics. Isma'ilism appears to have been a serious attempt to raise human consciousness to a higher plane. Whether this is possible at all, and, if so, whether the Isma'ili method was a good one for achieving that goal, are open questions, but at least we can say that the Isma'ilis were not the irreligious libertines they are often represented as being. Far from offering its adepts a holiday from morality, the Isma'ili Proclamation, as it was called, summoned people to a dedicated life of service and self-improvement. It promised a great deal, but the way was hard and the goal was a wholly spiritual one.


Hasan-i-Sabbah became known as a severe and austere ruler. He remained within his house, writing, thinking, and planning; he is said to have gone out only twice, and to have gone up on the roof only once. At one time, when things were difficult, he sent his womenfolk away to another castle, where they had to spin like the other women, and he never brought them back. He had both his sons executed, one for drinking wine, the other on a charge of murder which later proved false. Von Hammer, the nineteenth-century historian who attributed all kinds of wickedness to the Assassins, cited these sentences as evidence of Isma'ili depravity and Hasan's want of natural affection, but it seems more plausible to regard them as instances of his impartiality. They also make it clear that in Hasan's time the Muslim law (sharia) was enforced at Alamut with full rigour.

Look he had executed his son for breaking the ismaili law -prohibition of wine. After this how can you claim that he smoked hash? ??? ?


Hassan Sabbah was neither terrorist nor hash smoker. These qualities were attributed to him by ignorant sunni and christiian clerics having seen the unprecedent heroism and devotion of Hassan's followers.

"The name 'assassin' is, of course, synonymous with political murder. In 1092 the famous statesman Nizam al-Mulk was on his way to Baghdad when he was approached from a youth from Daylam (the region of Alamut) in the guise of a suppliant. The man suddenly drew a knife from his robe and wounded the minister fatally. This is generally supposed to have been the first assassination carried out by Hasan's orders. The Isma'ilis claimed it was done to avenge the death of a carpenter, but doubtless there were more important political reasons. Murder as a political weapon was not, of course, an Isma'ili invention, and indeed it appears that a number of groups in Iran were making use of it at the time. The Isma'ilis, however, undoubtedly took the trend further than most. They may have believed that it was more humane to kill one man selectively than a multitude in a battle. In this respect they were significantly different from modern terrorists. In any case, given the fact that they were so enormously outnumbered by their enemies, terrorism was a logical enough expedient.
It is usually said that a special corps of assassins - the fida'is - existed, but this is doubtful, at least until a much later date. Marco Polo, who visited the site of Alamut in the thirteenth century, after its destruction by the Mongols, relates the romantic legend of how the fida'is were trained by the Grand Master. The 'Old Man', as Marco Polo calls him, following the Crusader usage, was said to have constructed a fantastic pleasure garden, flowing with wine, honey, milk, and water, and populated by beautiful women. This was a representation of Paradise as described in the Koran. The Old Man was supposed to drug his future Assassins and bring them, unconscious, into the garden; after a time they were once again rendered insensible and brought out into the ordinary world. They were thus convinced that they had been given a foretaste of the joys to come if they obeyed the Old Man's orders, which they naturally did unquestioningly, certain that they would once more find themselves in Paradise after their death.

It need hardly be said that this is a total fantasy. There is no need to suppose that any such elaborate method of preparation was needed; like other Muslim soldiers the assassins would be told, and would unquestioningly believe, that if they were killed they would go straight to Paradise. A similar belief motivates modern suicide bombers among the Palestinians and other minority groups who lack other means of getting at their enemies. Death on an assassination mission was counted a great honour by the Isma'ilis. There is an often-repeated story of the mother of a fida'i who rejoiced greatly and put on her best clothes when she heard that her son had been killed on a mission, but changed into mourning when he came home safely after all.

The fida'is were at least not underhand in their assassinations; they did not poison their victims or stab them in the back in dark alleys, but killed them openly in public. A favourite occasion seems to have been at Friday prayers in the mosque. Publicity, in fact, was an important part of their aim, and they were successful in attaining this. Prominent men took to wearing armour under their clothes, and sometimes the Isma'ilis could achieve their purpose merely by a threat. Isma'ilis would insinuate themselves into the households of their victims, ready to assassinate them if necessary or perhaps merely to make it clear that they could do so if they wished. Sultan Sanjar made a truce with Alamut, persuaded, it is said, by a dagger thrust into the ground next to his pillow. And an amusing story concerns a professor of theology who made a practice of reviling the "heretics" of Alamut. At length, one of his students, who had impressed him by the attention he paid to his lectures, revealed himself as a fida'i and offered the professor alternative inducements to mend his ways: a dagger or a bag of gold. The professor wisely chose the gold; and, when subsequently twitted about the reason for his changed attitude to the Isma'ilis, he replied that he had been convinced of his error by arguments that were "both weighty and pointed".

In the aftermath of an assassination the Sunni population of a town would often catch and kill anyone they suspected of being an Isma'ili, so massacres were frequent at times, and were followed by further assassinations as the Isma'ilis took revenge on the leaders. In 1093 a number of suspected Isma'ilis were burned alive in Isfahan. Such events offered a chance for people to denounce others against whom they had a grudge, so doubtless many innocents perished along with the Isma'ilis. The systematic used of terror tactics helped to foster the image of the Isma'ilis as supremely wicked and capable of any imaginable infamy.

Assassination as a political weapon may be hard to justify morally (although what about the bomb plot to kill Hitler?), and certainly it was this practice that made the Isma'ilis' name so execrated among both Muslims and Christians. Even so, one cannot help sensing the intensity of their devotion to their cause and the feeling of comradeship that inspired their heroism. [COLOR=red]For heroism it was: few fida'is survived, and their deaths were seldom easy
.

There is no need to comment any more.

Piruz bosh!!!!![/quote]

Let me clarify a few things:
Yes, Seljuqs were Muslim and Turkmen. They did put an end to Buyid Empire whcih was ruled by Persian Daylamite Buyid Dynasty who were Shiites. Buyid period was one of Iran's glorious periods, among the medieval persian dynasties I can tell you if we rank them by what each of these dynasties did in terms of bringing back Persian Cultures for the Persian people the so called Persian rennaissance period.
I would rank them as follow:

1. Buyid: This great dynasty was established by the 3 sons of Buyeh the fisherman from Daylam. These three brothers invaded Baghdad the capital of the Muslim world, the second time that Abbasid's capital was invaded by Persians, the first was by Taher Zolyaminayn in 809AD who did it to put half-persian Mamun on the Islamic throne. So yeah Buyids made Caliph to become subordinate to the Buyid Shahanshah. So in fact this was the first time that the page had turned and Arabs came under Persian rule once again.
Please note Yaqub Lais tried many times to conqueror Baghdad but failed!
Buyids were tolerant, they promoted Shiite Islam in Persia. Science and culture continued to grow just like Samanid times.

2.Samanid: This great dynasty revived Persian language and Culture. Just brilliant a fantastic period in Persian History. Although few negative points about Samanids was them being subordinates to Abbasid caliphs and paying taxes to them, the other being their continual use and dependancy to use Turkmen soldiers in their army at which various Turkmen generals revolted against Samanid Shahs such as Alptegin, Sebuktegin, Mahmoud Qarategin and finally Sultan Mahmoud Ghaznevi who alied with Qarakhanid ruler of Balasaghun and captured Bukhara and put an end to Samanid Dynasty! The third weakness being the Samanids desire to be the only Persian Empire and their wars against fellow Persian dynasties of Ziyarids and Saffarids.

3.Saffarid and Ziyarid: I will rank them third, Yaqub Lais was a Saffar by occupation and a Persian from Zaranj Sistan. This great man was of humble origins but he always spoke Persian and purposefully never learnt the Arabic language. Ziyarid were former zoroastrians of Tabarestan(newly converts to Islam just like the Samanids, the also were related to Persian nobility such as Bavand dynasty through marriage, they were converted to Islam by Hasanid Amirs(Shiite Arab Dynasty who were descendants of a grandson of second Shiite Imam Hasan Mojtab Ibn Ali Ib Abu Taleb) of Tabarestan) and they were some of the bravest men of Persia. Mardavij, Vashmgir & Qabus were the greatest rulers of this dynasty. The negative point about this dynasty is their continual rivalry with Samanids for ruling Khorasan(the part that is in Iran now), if they had united with Persian brothers would have been better. The other neg pt is their recognition of Abbasid caliphs and paying taxes to them.

and traitors were Abu Moslem Khorasani who was an ambitious man, served arab masters and killed any Zoroastrian Persians in the name of Islam. He did nothing for Persian people, everything he did was for himself to become an independant ruler of Khorasan. The 5 years he was in power many zoroastrians lost their lives.

Tahirids were other traitors who served Arab masters. The Tahirid rulers only spoke Arabic and never wanted to speak Persian! Why were they ashamed to be Persian!!! They did nothing for Persian Culture and persian people. Thank god Yaqub Lais arrived from Sistan and put an end to such disgraceful Persian Dynasty.
So yeah once a Mawali always a Mawali. Taher was a mawali, his father Hossein was a mawali(persian servant of an arab master) and his grandfather Musab was a mawali.
Abu Moslem was a mawali, and his father was a mawali. Afshin was a mawali and so was his dad.

Now back to Seljuq period: FYI. Nizamolmolk and Tajolmolk were great tajik Viziers of Seljuq period. Turkmen Seljuqs became persianised and the Seljuq period up until Malik Shah's death was one of the greatest period in Middle east & Central Asia. Nowrouz celebrations reached its peak in Seljuq period, science and persian culture continued to develop just like Samanid times, the current persian solar calendar(hejri Shamsi) was established as official calendar of the empire. If Nizamolmolk was assasinated by Sabah's order it surely places Sabah on my list of traitors.
The word assassin comes from Hashishiyun which was the name of Sabah's sect and group. They were known to get high on Hashish and strike the govt officials and soldiers. They killed so many innocent Persian as well as Turkmen officials in the name of Ismaili Islam...they are traitors and terrorists on my book...
0

#32 User is offline   Faridun Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
121
Joined:
15-February 08

Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:25 PM

[quote=rooyintan;7335]So yeah once a Mawali always a Mawali. Taher was a mawali, his father Hossein was a mawali(persian servant of an arab master) and his grandfather Musab was a mawali.
Abu Moslem was a mawali, and his father was a mawali. Afshin was a mawali and so was his dad.

Now back to Seljuq period: FYI. Nizamolmolk and Tajolmolk were great tajik Viziers of Seljuq period. Turkmen Seljuqs became persianised and the Seljuq period up until Malik Shah's death was one of the greatest period in Middle east & Central Asia. Nowrouz celebrations reached its peak in Seljuq period, science and persian culture continued to develop just like Samanid times, the current persian solar calendar(hejri Shamsi) was established as official calendar of the empire. If Nizamolmolk was assasinated by Sabah's order it surely places Sabah on my list of traitors.
The word assassin comes from Hashishiyun which was the name of Sabah's sect and group. They were known to get high on Hashish and strike the govt officials and soldiers. They killed so many innocent Persian as well as Turkmen officials in the name of Ismaili Islam...they are traitors and terrorists on my book...[/quote]

Seeing your post I find that all of your onrushes on Abu Muslim and Hassani Sabbah are based on your negative relation to one thing - Islam. You dont even take into account a small piece of their deeds for the sake of persians and their services for the favour of persians. Please, take it easy. To be mavaly is not a sin and dont humiliate a person who suffered a lot from being mavali. And as a wise man you must not condemn person because of his social status. If you want to find betrayers I wiil show them to you. The first it was Yazdigurd himself who had his empire corrupted and preversed, upholded only the interests of his bearuacracy, separated himself from the rest of his people, made stupid and needles wars, imposed high taxes on dehqans for filling his pocket which undermined his authority, strengthened the protest of the people, betrayed the hope and wishes of persians according to which he should have been the servant of the people. To cut it short He only He with his beruacracy destroyed the stability and economical welfare of persian society which could not stand the invasion and fell to arab bedouins. How can you be proud of such a man? Now I know that it has become the mode to condemn arabs and islam in every dirty crimes, but they never ask themselves why such a great empire with monoteistic religion could not resist the ignorant and uncivilised bedouin tribes? Why?? But they dont see their past shortcomings and guilts and put the guilt on Salman Farsi and a tiny number of so called persian betrayers. If it had been a great empire It would not habe been coleapsed because of two or three betrayers.
We must analyze everything with a open mind and objectively, not from our emotions.
Regarding Abu Muslim Khorassani I told you that the ideological atmosphere cold not enable the opressed persian people to take their own under the cloack of Zoroastrizm. Zoroastrizm had already lost its past purity because of mags who were the counterpart of nowadays akhunds and mullas. At that time Islam was a newly appeared ideology without mags-mullas-akhunds which could persuade arabs to the great sacrafices. That is why all of persian revolt with zoroastrian ideas cold not achieve their aims and were easily destroyed.
And you keep saying that Abu Muslim killed mags. He did a great work. You think that there is a difference between those mags and nowadays mullahs and akhunds? ??? ?
You are mistaken. All of them are of one nature, but their means of deceiving and oppressing the people(I mean religion) have different colour. Abu Muslim knew the wicked nature of mags=mullas and saved this world from their burden. That is why your argument cannot find support in the eyes of the wise men.
Abu Muslim tore Umayad khaliphate into pieces and wanted to separete persians from arab dictatorship. But you say that he did it only for himself. How do you know that? How can you prove this? Were you with him at that time?
But lets suppose that He did it only for satisfying his arrogance. Was it not good for persians to live under arrogant persian rather than being slaves of arabs???
And else. There is no logic in your thoughts. You condemn Abu Muslim according to the criteries which Samanids did not lack. But samanids are respected by you. They also obeyed arabs, but when they began separatist actions arabs destroyed them wih the help of the turks.
About hasshish. On the basis of what sources you bravely claim that? You didnt even disapprove my arguments above? Dont use your fantazy and bring me relieble evidences and valid arguments! Here what Anthony Campball, a historian writes:

""""The Assassins were a heretical Islamic sect. They were a potent source of myth and legends; this emerges in an imaginative account written by Marco Polo, who visited the site of their castle at Alamut in Iran just after its destruction by the Mongols. He repeats the legend of how the future assassins were supposedly prepared for their missions by being drugged with hashish, brought into a secret pleasure garden, and told they had visited Paradise, to which they would return if they were killed in action.
By the time Marco Polo reached Alamut, the prevailing view of the sect as supremely wicked yet dangerously alluring was already well established in people's minds. Alamut was already well past its heyday when it fell to the Mongols, but the legend of depravity and license had arisen much earlier, when the castle was the centre of a widespread and, from the orthodox point of view, most dangerous heresy.
Even before Marco Polo, the West had encountered the Assassins through their Syrian branch, which was known to the Crusaders. The great contemporary historian of the Crusades, William of Tyre, had written about them in a way that reveals a fair amount of understanding, and a remarkable embassy from the Assassins had gone to the King of Jerusalem offering their conversion to Christianity. At one time the Syrian Assassins were in loose alliance with the Franks against Saladin, whom they attempted more than once to murder, though later -- and especially after the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187 -- they took part in the Muslim struggle against the Franks. In 1192 Conrad of Montferrat was murdered by men disguised as monks, and it is generally supposed that these were Assassins, though the English King Richard I has also been suspected of instigating the murder. From this time on, it seems, the Crusaders, already severely demoralised by the loss of Jerusalem, became more fearful of the Assassins, to whom they ascribed devilish cunning, a mastery of disguise, and a knowledge of various Frankish languages.

Stories such as these made up the legend of the Assassins that persisted in the West until quite recently. In the nineteenth century a Viennese amateur historian called von Hammer Purgstall wrote a book about the Assassins in which he ascribed to them, if not quite every conceivable form of infamy, at least most of those that could be openly referred to in print at the time. Whenever more than one possible interpretation of a statement or event existed, von Hammer automatically preferred the one that showed the Assassins in the worst possible light. His motive in writing seems to have been as much to emphasize the wickedness of all secret societies (including the Jesuits and Freemasons of his day) as to make a historical study of the Assassins, and his book has little historical value; nevertheless, it remained the standard reference work on the sect as late as the 1930s, when Freya Stark went to Alamut.
Since that time, however, much new information has come to light, some of it material preserved by descendants of the Assassins themselves. This has been extensively studied and edited by the Russian scholar W. Ivanow, who apparently has had access to a large number of documents and manuscripts that are not generally available. The other main authority on the sect is the American M.G.S. Hodgson.

From all this modern scholarship has emerged a picture of the Assassins which, if it lacks some of the lurid qualities of the legend, has at least the merit of credibility. Moreover, the truth turns out to be more enthralling than the fiction. No longer can we believe in the Old Man of the Mountain hatching his evil plots and sending forth his murderous emissaries drugged with hashish. Such a state of mind hardly seems compatible with the legendary accomplishments of the assassins -- their superlative cunning, patience, knowledge of languages, and so forth -- and in any case our modern experience of terrorism does not suggest that its perpetrators require any narcotic stronger than fanaticism itself. Besides, if the claims of modern users of hashish are to be believed, the effects of the drug tend more towards pacificism than murderousness. But there is no real evidence that the Assassins used hashish at all, at least for this purpose. (It is possible that they used it as a psychedelic agent for religious reasons, but that is another matter.) The term "hashishin", from which our word Assassin probably derives, was not used by members of the sect themselves but was a nickname applied by their enemies; even so, it was not in common use. The usual names for the Assassins were "esotericists" (batinis), Isma'ilis, or Nizaris.


My friend, make your emotion be the servant of your mind. Ther is no logic in your words: you condemn persian AbuMuslim in being mavali but at the same time you praise seljukid turks in flourishing of not persian-zoroastrian culture, but of persian-muslim culture. There is no difference between them and Abu Muslim. Both of them were muslims. But the priveleige of Abu Muslim is to have been true persian. No logic.
You say that Seljukid did not destroy persian culture. Monghols also did not do that, They even adapted to the culture. But before that they had cut millions of persian head off. I mean dont mix political, military and economical issues with the cultural one. The turks had not their own great culture and this persuaded them to get adapted to persian one and to promote its flourishing.
But at the same time millions of persians suffered under the oppresion of turks, millions were tortured, millions were deprived of their lands for the favour of turkish soldiers.

And only the clean and soft heart of Hassani Sabbah could perseive the great pain of the persians, the big economical and moral burden on the back of the oppressed persians. He only He handed his hand to persians to reliefe their sufferings with a smiling face and kind eyes.

And you,after many years, allow your tounge utter such bad words about him?! You have lost your way and you need to be saved from the instigation of those people who khow nothing to do but, sitting in the warm place with a fed stomach, accuse such great men like Hassani Sabbah and Abu Muslim in murdering and drugging. I hope God will not let ahriman to lead you to the wrong way and will show you the right path.
0

#33 User is offline   Faridun Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
121
Joined:
15-February 08

Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:48 PM

[quote=Rostam;7315]All have died :( ...I dont have any favourite Tajik now......hate the most![/quote]


If all have died, both of us are alive!! :) Now You are my favourite, but after Abu Muslim and Hassani Sabbah of course. But your privielege is that You are alive, my "Rahbar". :) What is your order, Rahbar?

Az Rahbar yak ishorat, az mo ba sar davidan!!! :)
0

#34 User is offline   PORS Icon

  • AZADANDESH
  • Icon
Group:
Administrators
Posts:
740
Joined:
30-May 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 06:00 PM

After all, I found two things about us. First, one that separates us; and this is religious misconception. Second, one that unites us; and this is our wisdom and knowledge that we use quite seldom.
0

#35 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:09 PM

[quote=PORS;7353]After all, I found two things about us. First, one that separates us; and this is religious misconception. Second, one that unites us; and this is our wisdom and knowledge that we use quite seldom.[/quote]

That is the most stupid of us to be divided because of religion. it doesnt matter what we believe but should still stick toghether. we have to respect each other and our beliefs to achieve this unity.
0

#36 User is offline   Rostam Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
447
Joined:
17-May 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:30 PM

[quote=Hassani Sabboh;7349]If all have died, both of us are alive!! :) Now You are my favourite, but after Abu Muslim and Hassani Sabbah of course. But your privielege is that You are alive, my "Rahbar". :) What is your order, Rahbar?

Az Rahbar yak ishorat, az mo ba sar davidan!!! :) [/quote]
Brothar......you are also my favourite with this mentality :)
But point is ...that majority of us :( ....specially Tajiks of Afghanistan! Its just too sad for words!

Hassani gerami, I just want to meet you....so we can talk live :)
Probably that will be in 2010 ;) ....if both of us...alive!
You are a great patriot and person!
0

#37 User is offline   PORS Icon

  • AZADANDESH
  • Icon
Group:
Administrators
Posts:
740
Joined:
30-May 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:48 PM

Dear Rika Khanae arjmand:

With all my respect to you and others, I think it is not good to blame others or even ourselves, for just being stupid. It is better for us to focus on positive things and talk more about what unites us. Of course, we shall talk openly about negative and dangerous things to Persians, be it Persians of Afghanistan, Persians of Iran, and/or Persians of Tajikistan, and be aware of their negative consequences. However, I think it is more productive when we concentrate on positive, stay positive, and do positive things for ourselves. I hope everybody here in this forum will leave with positive thought about Persians and will eventually do something for the prosperity of Persians. Thank you for your comment.

Pedrood,




Pors.

[quote=Rika Khana;7357]That is the most stupid of us to be divided because of religion. it doesnt matter what we believe but should still stick toghether. we have to respect each other and our beliefs to achieve this unity.[/quote]
0

#38 User is offline   Kambiz Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
720
Joined:
13-January 08

Posted 13 March 2008 - 08:34 PM

Hassane Sabbah, Rostam, Rooyintan, Pors and all other Persian/Iranian participants of this thread. I love you all as my next of kins and my patriot brothers. That's why I'd like to ask some of you to restrain from deviding us into patriots vs non-patriots, islamophils vs islamophobes etc. The only thing we need right now is unity against those who hate all of us regardless of our stance. And I'd love to see all of you in 2010 as proposed by Rostam-jan. All the best dustane gerami.
0

#39 User is offline   Rostam Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
447
Joined:
17-May 07

Posted 13 March 2008 - 08:53 PM

[quote=Darius;7366]Hassane Sabbah, Rostam, Rooyintan, Pors and all other Persian/Iranian participants of this thread. I love you all as my next of kins and my patriot brothers. That's why I'd like to ask some of you to restrain from deviding us into patriots vs non-patriots, islamophils vs islamophobes etc. The only thing we need right now is unity against those who hate all of us regardless of our stance. And I'd love to see all of you in 2010 as proposed by Rostam-jan. All the best dustane gerami.[/quote]

Dear Darius,

I absolutely do not agree....with NOT dividing into patriots and non-patriots!
I do believe we should NOT divide....due to...personal believe, looks or whatever!

But yes we have to divide into PATRIOSM!


The patriot Persian/Tajik is ALIVE and PROUD....the non-patriot is DEATH and ASHAMED!
Thats the difference!
0

#40 User is offline   Faridun Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
121
Joined:
15-February 08

Posted 14 March 2008 - 01:26 AM

[quote=PORS;7353]After all, I found two things about us. First, one that separates us; and this is religious misconception. Second, one that unites us; and this is our wisdom and knowledge that we use quite seldom.[/quote]

I totally agree with you, my Brother!! We must not let our religious feelings prevail during our discussion and during judging historical issues. Thoug I am religious but I am secularist at the same time. I accept past non-muslim great tajiks- Zardusht, Muqana, Bobak and etc., as my eternal Heroes. I dont mind wheather they were in my belief or not. But some zoroastrians deny great muslim tajiks just because of their belief and claiming them to be traitor and something like that. It is not good. They must take into account that most of our past great ancestors were muslims and must respect them.
0

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users