Russell Brand interview with Alex Jones on Syria

http://www.endalldisease.com/russell-brand-blasts-syrian-war-information-mindblowing-interview/

1) the Russell Brand guy keeps saying none sense which is impossible to follow, just talk without any substance! no one will understand a word he says because there is nothing to understand

2) Alex Jones guy keeps acknowledging the speaker by saying that it was amazing, he was fascinated with it, intelligent guy the Russell person is, how outside the box he is, he is indeed the Thomas Jefferson himself! hooray! what a great man is on the phone!

then the outcome of 1 & 2 is some sort of social pressure on unaware listener to just pretend that they understand and that they also agree with the guest speaker (Russel Brand)

this is simply abusing human herd instinct! an unaware listener doesn't understand what is being said, but understands the repeated acknowledgements the speaker(Russell Brand) receives from the presenter(Alex Jones). So this creates the pressure for the unaware listener to join the herd and agree with whatever is being said!

Also an unaware listener doesn't want to look stupid by confessing that he actually didn't understand a word (no one will understand a word because there is nothing to understand) this is a technique effectively used by priests/mullahs for thousands of years in order to gather simple minded individuals under a faith/religion flag



Alex Jones has a reputation for being  a nutter any ways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r2w2TRxSLxw#t=12

Smiley Mullah Policy and David Cameron et al.

by: Sandbad

David Cameron has congratulated Rouhani as Iranian new president and hoped that Rouhani’s election can be an opportunity for an improvement in Iran and Britain’s relationship.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/david-cameron-iran-hassan-rouhani

And its not only Cameron who seem to be so optimistic about Iran these days. The same atmosphere of optimism is present amongst many Iranians in social media. But when it comes to regressive regime of Iran in my opinion there is little to be happy about despite all the noise Rouhani’s presidency made in media. Because in an unlikely event that Rouhani remains loyal to all his so called campaign promises there are some serious issues he never mentioned he has any plans to resolve. Some are listed below:

1) Horrendous human rights situation under Islamic regime. The suppression of human rights and women rights activists, workers and trade union activists by means of prosecution are common place under Iran's Islamic regime. Rouhani did not mention any of these in his campaign.

2) Laws and treatments such as; death penalty for homosexuals, stoning for adulterers, lashing for drinking alcohol, mandatory Islamic dress code, discriminatory laws against women and religious minorities and etc. which are part of official civil and penal code of the country and are enforced by a feared religious police and judiciary system are going to remain the same with Rouhani. He did not mention any plans to resolve these issues.

3) It is no secret that the regime in Iran is holding its grip on power by keeping a tight control over media and by leaving no space for any opposition or protest without risking a high price such as imprisonment and torture. Rouhani made no direct and clear promise to improve the situation so I expect it remains the same with him as president.

Interestingly Rouhani and Cameron both chose to remain silent about some of the serious issues which are mentioned above. Rouhani in his elections campaign and Cameron in his letter congratulating him after he so called won.

Optimism

I think the optimism expressed by many including Cameron on Iranian regime's change of political direction as a result of election  (or selection) of Rouhani is premature and misplaced and can only be a result of cherry picking the facts and ignoring the whole spectrum of Iranian political scene. Because:

1) First and foremost in Iranian political structure the Supreme Leader maintains the ultimate power and the president is just a “yes man” to him. To hope that Rouhani as president is going to change anything against Supreme Leader's wish is a hope in vain. Supreme Leader is in the position of supervising the president in Iranian political structure and has the power to dismiss him if he wishes so.

2) People who think Rouhani’s presidency is a big change in Iranian political scene because he replaced Ahmadinejad have to remember that A.N. was no exception of the rule and the Supreme Leader was also giving him directions and could change Ahmadinejad’s policies if he disagreed with them during his 8 years term as president. So if the supreme leader made no intervention during Ahmadinejad’s presidency it can only be assumed that A.N. was merely following Supreme Leader’s directions and as Supreme Leader was happy with what A.N. was doing there was no need for Supreme leader to intervene. Hence the Supreme Leader is the one to be blamed for the state of affairs in Iran not A.N. and not anyone else.

3) In fact as evidence for what mentioned in 2 the Supreme Leader gave his affirmation to Ahmadinejad’s policies especially on his nuclear and social policies on number of occasions and called them a return to revolution’s original values.

By 1, 2 and 3 this is obvious the circumstances under Ahmadinejad (in terms of foreign policy, nuclear policy, economy, etc.) were what was (and perhaps is) seen as ideal by the regime and the Supreme Leader and in my opinion it is only the pressure resulting from economical sanctions which is forcing the regime to give up on its ideals (pursued during A.N.) and to put on a smiley face again and give raise to this Rouhani phenomenon.

4) My suspicion is empowered as it is not the first time the Iranian regime is following this Smiley Mullah Policy.  I can recall in 1997 when the regime was facing total international diplomatic boycott in the aftermath of Mykonos restaurant scandal the same Smiley Mullah Policy came to it's rescue when Khatami was installed under the title of a reformists as president.

        http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/10/germany.iran/ 

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khatami

5) That solved the regime’s problem at that point (1997) as international community took Khatami as a real reformist and that optimism in international scene alleviated the international boycott which was in place on Iran at the time as international community wanted to give a chance to what they saw as a possibility of reform from within to Iranian regime so all foreign representatives which had left Iran previously in protest of Iran regime’s role in Mykonos assassinations returned to Tehran when Khatami become president.  That gave the regime a breathing space to recover itself in the years that followed.

6) In Khatami’s eight years term (1997 -2005) he proved that he was no reformist. He failed or didn't want to deliver on most of his promises and by the end of his eight years term as the country’s oil revenue had increased significantly (due to increase in crude oil price in world’s markets) the regime gained an unprecedented opportunity to follow up on its lets say expansionist ideas which it left on pause in 1997 when it was forced to give raise to Khatami as a false reformer due to international pressure it faced at the time.

Thanks to extra cash which was flowing in as a result of increased oil revenues towards the end of Khatami presidency term the regime officially declared the reform period was over and under Ahmadinejad it began the period of return to real revolution values (as it was named by supreme leader himself) This return went on until it took the country to complete political and economical bankruptcy by 2013 due to economical sanctions it caused.

So in my opinion it is only under heavy economical sanctions and on the verge of collapse that the regime is initiating the second round of Smiley Mullah Policy using Rouhani to save itself again.  And I can predict Rouhani’s term isn't going to be anything but just another eight years of empty promises as it was with his predecessor's Khatami (1997 -2005 ) and on the basis of what I explained in this article I think to lay too much hope on Rouhani is simplistic if not completely stupid.

To me it seems the regime is trying the Smiley Mullah Policy again in order to alleviate the pressure it is currently under as a result of international sanctions just as it did in 1997 with Khatami. Once this goal is achieved and the sanctions were lifted it will return to its ideal Ahmadinijad-ism soon enough.

بحث با یک شخص ناسیونالیست ترک

آقا صادق! همونطور که قبلا گفتم پهلوی فرزند زمانه خودش بود! و ایران یک کشور بسیار متفرق از لحاظ قومی در اون زمانه! به شکلی که اصلا یک حکومت به سبک مدرن رو در خودش نمی تونست جا بده برای اینکه هر کدام از این قومیتها که بهشون اشاره کردم در اون زمونه ساز خودشونو می زدند. کاری که پهلوی کرداین بود که تعریف شهروندی به معنای مدرنش رو در ایران بوجود آورد. یعنی کاری کرد که آدمها قبل از اینکه خودشون رو اعضای یک قوم و یا قبیله بدونند خودشون رو شهروندهای کشور ایران بدونند.
در راستای رسیدن به این هدف شکی نیست که بسیاری از اقدامات این خاندان با تعریفهای مدرن حقوق بشر ناسازگار بود. ولی شما توجه کنید که پهلوی همونطور که من بارها گفتم فرزندان زمانه خودشون بودند. شما نمی تونید از رضاشاهی که در دوره ای که تمام دنیا تحت تسلط دیکتاتورها بود (رضاشاه هم دوره هیتلر و موسیلینی و فرانکو و غیره هست) توقع داشته باشید که یک باره خود به خود اون هم توی یک کشور عقب افتاده ای مثل اون زمان ایران یک آدم دمکرات از آب در بیاد که!

این توقع بیجایی هست دوست من! آدمها رو باید در زمینه تاریخی که بودند در موردشون قضاوت کرد. که اگر ما بخواهیم منصف باشیم رضاشاه و پهلوی برای این سرزمین خیلی کارهای مفید انجام داد. و سیاستهای اسیمیله کردن هم اگر به قول شما در پیش گرفت این رسم اون روزگار بود! این کار توی کشورهای دیگر هم انجام شده بود! 

مثلا کردها هم در ترکیه تحت فشار قرار داشتند تا همین چند سال پیش و به آنها ترک کوهی می گفتند ولی اتفاقی که د رترکیه افتاد این بود که اونها پیشرفت کردند و دست از وارد کردن این فشارها بالاخره برداشتند. مثلا تا همین اواخر کردها اجازه برگزاری مراسم نوروز رو در ترکیه نداشتند و به تازگی این اجازه به آنها داده شده
در مورد ترکهای قبرس یک تحقیقی بکن ببین که چقدر از اوضاع فعلیشون ناراضی هستند الان شما اطمینان داشته باشید که از نظر فرهنگی آذری ها و ترک زبان های ایران به فارسهای ایرانی بیشتر شبیه هستند تا ترکهای ترکیه! ایران خانه شماست دوست من! تیشه به ریشه این خانه نزنید

بعد هم شما صحبت هویت می کنید. هویت همه ما اینه که ما همه اول انسان هستیم. نژاد و فرهنگ و زبان و ملیت همه چیزهای نسبی هست. مطلق نیستد! به قول شما در طی فرایند آسیمیله شدن این فاکتورها می تونه عوض بشه! همونطور که آذریها در یک زمانی آسیمیله شدند و زبان مادریشون که گویشی از زبان فارسی بود رو کم کم فراموش کردند و رفته رفته ترک زبان شدند. سو تفاهم نشه من مخالف این هستم که کسی آسیمیله بشه ولی به نظر من مهمتر از اینکه من و شما با هم به چه زبانی با هم صحبت می کنیم این هست که به هم چی میگیم! 

ولی خوب اگر بخواهیم در مورد مسایل عملی زبان صحبت بکنیم و در زمینه کشور ایران من همونطور که قبلا گفتم موافق ترویج زبان ترکی در ایران هستم. به نظر من اهمیت زبان ترکی در ایران کمتر از زبان فارسی نیست!
.ولی در عین حال فکر می کنم این کار اصلا به صلاح و عاقلانه نیست که زبان فارسی از حالت رسمی و زبان اداری کشور خارج بشه! اول اینکه زبان فارسی همونقدر که به فارسها تعلق داره به مردم آذربایجان و کل ترک زبانان ایران هم متعلق هست (شما برو مقبره الشعرای تبریز رو یک نگاه بنداز چند تا شاعر فارس زبان اونجا دفن شده؟)

دوما اینکه من انتظارات برخی از دوستان رو که در اینجا حتی حاضر به گفتگو کردن به زبان فارسی نیستند رو بی معنی و خنده دار می بینم! اگر چیزی رو که این دوستان به دنبالش هستند عملی بشه – یعنی هر قومیتی توی ایران به طور متعصبانه فقط زبون خودش رو بخواد یاد بگیره و ازش استفاده کنه بعد از 30 سال وقتی یک تهرانی به تبریز می ره اونجا باید انگلیسی بلد باشه که بتونه با مردم تبریز ارتباط برقرار کنه! که اگر این اتفاق بیافته همون شاعرای مقبره اشعرای تبریزکه گفتم توی گور خودشون خواهند لرزید!

پس بی جهت به فارسی نتازید. فارسی زبانی باستانی و با ادبیاتی غنی هست. زبان شما هم هست و به بلد بودنش می ارزد.

خلاصه اینکه آقا کار ما رو به دوران قومگرایی و قبل از پهلوی برنگردونید و گرنه ایران از افغانستان بدتر میشه! اجازه بدهید به عنوان شهروندهای این کشور مدرن و قرن بیست و یکمی این مشکلاتی که هست رو با هم حل کنیم و الکی با ایده های ناسیونالیستی و سکرتارین قومگرایی راه نندازید! از قدیم گفتن یک دست صدا نداره! اجازه بدید که با هم باشیم! انقلاب مشروطه یادتان هست؟

Islamophobia is Wrong Word to Use

By: Sandbad

As a basic requirement in a society which advocates freedom of thought and speech, Islam like any other ideology or religion should be kept susceptible to criticism and must not be exempted from it.  In reality however by using this term in many occasions genuine criticism of Islam is dismissed as some sort of racist abuse and showing concern about Islamism is often taken as an exaggerated, biased and phobic reaction.

Same negative weight this term has gained itself in public opinion is holding many back from publicly expressing their opinion about Islam as they fear to be accused of Islamophobia.

But not all the criticism directed at Islam is biased and made under a racist agenda. So should we continue using this word in the same capacity as it is currently used? I think we should not.

The word Islamophobia:

Islamophobia is a compound word created by combining ‘Islam’ and ‘phobia’. The word ‘phobia’ is derived from Greek word “phobos” which means fear.  In clinical psychology ‘phobia’ is used in combination with other words in order to create names for different types of anxiety disorder (eg. Arachnophobia – fear of spiders)

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘phobia’ as: “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation”

According to this definition one expects the term Islamophobia to specifically refer to an anxiety disorder where a sufferer has a disproportionate fear, dislike or aversion from the ideology and religion of Islam however the usage of this term is often extended to refer to a racist type of hatred and/or aversion from Muslim individuals and groups.

Oxford dictionary defines ‘Islamophobia’ as “a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.”

In my opinion there are two major reasons usage of word Islamophobia has to be avoided:

Firstly this word is created by ignoring the complicated dynamic which gives shape to Islamic world by generalizing the word “Islam” in a simplistic manner.  

Secondly by using the term “phobia” it is implying that any fear from Islam is illogical and disproportionate. And by this it transfers a prejudiced and subliminal message that like any other anxiety disorder the fear of Islam is also just a phobia which worth no further investigation or discussion but treatment as an illness.

What the term Islamophobia is generalizing:

Ethnic diversity of Muslim Word: Muslim world in itself is very ethnically diverse. This is to a level that in terms of culture and ethnicity often two distinct Muslim groups have little in common.  For example an Uzbek Muslim is world apart from a Sub Saharan Muslim in terms of ethnicity, tradition, customs, language and etc.

This means as Islam is a religion followed by many ethnic groups in a vast geographical area it just doesn't make sense to use the term Islamophobia in order to refer to a type of racism.

Distinctiveness of Islamic schools of thought: Letting apart the ethnic diversity of Muslim world, the Islam in itself is a very general term which may refer to any of several Islamic schools of thought commonly practised.

Followers of each Muslim school of thought have their own distinct believes sometimes in total contrast and despise of another group. For example in Salafi school of thought followers of Shiism are considered to be heretics and are punishable for their heresy as seen adequate in Islamic penal code.

So even in ideological terms the word ‘Islam’ alone is not indicative enough to refer to a specific and defined set of beliefs.  In my opinion any generalization to this level has to be avoided as a matter of principle.

Phobia?

But is fear of Islam can be considered a phobia? For example is it really disproportionate and exaggerated to fear to be subjected to Sharia Law?

What if an apostate is aware that in Sharia Law apostates are punishable by death? What if a nine year old girl is at risk of being sold into marrying a man older than her grandfather? What if a wife is repeatedly beaten by her husband and she knows that her husband is only using his legitimate Islamic right in order to beat her up? What if the same wife is also aware that her husband is allowed to marry several other women while he is still married to her? What if a woman has to wear Hijab in 42 degrees hot summer day of Tehran?

What about discrimination against women in inheritance and divorce laws? What about homosexual and members of religious minorities? What about members of an unrecognised religious minority? (Baha’i faith in Iran) What about punishments like stoning for adultery? Flogging for drinking alcohol or body mutilation for thieves? What if ‘infidel’ people of a neighbouring territory fear their Muslim neighbours to come jihad-ing on them?

Is fear involved in any of above cases a phobic fear as term Islamophobia implies? Are these affected individuals in need of psychotherapy to be relived from their disproportionate and phobic fear of Islam? Or is it just common sense for them to fear Islam and Islamic law?

Muslim Point of View

To my experience when it comes to controversial Islamic rules (some mentioned above) Muslims disregard of their ethnicity/race and school of thought are divided in two major groups:

First group follows Quran and Hadith line by line and apply Islamic law and Islamic penal code as they were commonly and historically applied. They are ‘fundamentalists’ and have little or no concern about reaction of outside world in response to applying rules which according to modern convention of human rights are considered brutal and inhumane.

In some Islamic countries where political system is heavily influenced or completely controlled by fundamentalists (such as Iran and Saudi Arabia) citizens are regularly sentenced to flogging, stoning and body mutilation and despite all international pressure these countries resist to change their official penal code which is taken directly from Sharia Law. This is because in fundamentalist point of view Islamic law and moral code is something which cannot be disputed or changed even if it is genuinely immoral and in violation of modern standards.

The second group of Muslims are self proclaimed ‘progressive’ bunch who tend to believe controversial and brutal Islamic law and penal code are enforced only by fundamentalists of the first group as a result of first group’s misinterpretation of otherwise moral and advanced Islamic law. 

The progressives in second group are often apologetic about the fundamentalists’ behaviour and they often take their own interpretation of Islamic law as the correct version. An interpretation which in many occasions is unlike anything historically practised by any Muslims.
 

Members of second group are also likely to believe that the actions of first group has wrongly given a negative and scary image to Islam in public opinion and that Islam is in fact a kind and tolerant religion unlike what the fundamentalist has shown it to be.

This clash between progressives and fundamentalists is an old trend. But it is still unheard of that a progressive cleric officially rejects the brutalities historically practised by Muslims as wrong doings of early Muslims or prophet or Imams and replace them by more modern and moderate rules.

At the same time the progressive Muslim clerics chose to be vague about controversial parts of Islamic law and Islamic penal code if they are forced to talk about this subject and they apologetically try to justify them.

I leave the reader with this question:

Is it a phobia to be scared of a religion that its self proclaimed progressive movement is being intentionally vague and dishonest about its controversies instead of actively trying to clear them up?

A Quick Look at Occupy Gezi movement from an Iranian Perspective

By: Sandbad

I went to Manchester Solidarity with Occupy Gezi demonstration on 3rd of June. Main reason to go was to speak to supporters of this movement first hand in order to find out what their demands are as recent incidents in Turkey has given rise to many debates in Iranian diaspora.

Some Iranians saw this as a populist and revolutionary movement with an uncertain goal which is in total ignorance of economical achievements of Erdoğan government. In online debates on several occasions Occupy Gezi was compared to Iranian revolution of 1979 which only made the situation worse in Iran both in political and economical terms by handing the country over to unprogressive and Islamist elements of society.

Speaking to some Turkish friends who were at the solidarity event in Manchester this doesn't seem to be the case for Turkey.

What I realized today was that even though there was some degree of uncertainty about the ideal outcome of this uprising but Occupy Gezi movement was in no way after change of political regime in Turkey. Most of protesters were carrying Ataturk pictures and this was an indication that their demands however not quiet clear but was not beyond the current constitution and political structure in Turkey.

Those who I spoke with were more concerned about out of proportion reaction of Turkish police against peaceful protests in Gezi Park in Istanbul and as I was told this was not the first time in recent times that the police had reacted to peaceful protests in such a manner.

Also there was a strong worry amongst protesters that the Islamist ruling party of Erdoğan is following a crawling policy by gradually taking control of entire political structure by installing its loyal friends in important and critical positions. There was an affirmation that Erdoğan hasn't yet been in breach of any laws in doing so however the protesters were worried that he was at a stage that he could attempt breaching the law in pursue of this goals.

Some of the protesters were fearful that Erdoğan is gradually Islamizing the way of life in Turkey and they were pointing to recent limitations set on sale of alcohol and the day after birth control pills and abortion.

Also they were concerns that Erdoğan’s actions will facilitate involvement of religion in politics of the country.

There also was a strong believe that Erdoğan is abusing power by licencing people near him to develop Gezi Park to a shopping mall. Also number of demonstrators were suspicious that Erdoğan has personal interest in that project and that's why he insists on Gezi Park's development to continue despite the demonstrations..

Some of the protesters believed that Turkish media were ordered not to cover the recent demonstrations also some believed internet speed in Turkey have been intentionally lowered in order to make it harder for protesters to get in touch with the outside world.

After spending an evening with Turkish protesters in Manchester my impression is the demonstrations are justified and necessary. I don’t think there is a demand to change the political regime in Turkey and I think if there is any intention on Erdoğan side to Islamise Turkey and to take over the whole political system before the next elections this demonstrations can possibly discourage him from such endeavor. 

In addition these demonstrations will show the Islamists within Turkey that the secular demands are strong and there will be fierce resistance against their possible charge to political power.

So I am personally supportive of the demonstrations. 

The Manchester demonstration I have attended today went peacefully. The slogans were against fascism, against acts of dictatorship protesters believed was committed by Erdoğan and chants for him to resign. There was a dose of nationalism involved as well but not to a level that I feel I was amongst a group of rightists.

Also a quick compare of situation in Turkey with Iran, I think Erdoğan reaction is nowhere near as brutal as an Iranian possible reaction to a similar uprising in Iran could be. We remember what happened in summer 2009 in Iran so I won’t go into much detail. As an example in Turkey if Erdoğan reduces the internet speed (shall this be the case as I was told) in Iran internet and mobile networks go completely offline whenever there is slightest of political unrest.

Also even though it has been a massive and national wide protest and I have to agree the police reaction were out of proportion on occasions the cost on human life was minimal (and mainly by accident) when compare this with hundreds of Iranians who were killed during 2009 unrest (many of whom were fired at with intention to kill) I have to agree that Erdoğan's evil is in no way comparable with his Iranian counterparts.

Historical Correctness (Arab or Persian)

Written to John McHugo and raised below questions about his article on BBC website titled as:

"Coffee and qahwa: How a drink for Arab mystics went global"

Link to Article : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22190802

Link to Contact form : http://www.johnmchugo.com/contact/?contact-form-id=51&contact-form-sent=205&_wpnonce=a860bc5de6#contact-form-51

As per below:
=======================================================================

Hello Sir,

I came across your very well written article here about coffee:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22190802

Very good work indeed! However I mentioned a few points that in my knowledge had entered your article in error. Obviously I am not a historian but I guess it worth for these to be double checked and if you can clarify:

1) The Article mentions alcohol was first distilled in the Arab world in c800AD by Jabir Ibn Hayyan from Kufa in Iraq, and the word "alcohol" derives from the Arabic "al kuhul"...

To my understanding Alchohol was first distilled by al-Razi from the city of Ray. And shall this be the case al-Razi was incidentally a Persian.
You are correct with the name of Alcohol. As Arabic was Lingua franca of Islamic world, so al-Razi used it within that capacity.

2) Also there is no prove Al-Kharazmi and Jabir Ibn Hayyan were from Arabic background. Equally there is no prove they were from Persian background neither.  The reason we don’t know is it didn’t matter at their time so no one mentioned it! And it doesn’t really matter now.

But for correctness sake they were most likely to have been Persians. Because Hayyan was born in Tus in Khorasan (moved to Kufa in Iraq later on in his life) and Al-Kharazmi as name indicates was from Kharazm. So chances are bigger for them to have been Persians.

3) I am not sure who invented the 3 course meal concept. Not really that important but perhaps it worth checking if this was also done the same way in Sassanid or Byzantium courts prior to Muslim Empire emergence before we conclude this as an Arabic tradition.

I have a feeling this tradition could be adopted custom from Persian Sassanid or less likely the Byzantine court.

4) The word Cheque is said to be from Persian origin. From Middle Persian word ‘chek’ used for the same purpose. This word is said to have become popular during Aachamenid Empire (like 1000 years before Islam) and was borrowed by several languages including Arabic and European languages equally.

It had become “Cheque” in European Languages and “saqq” in Arabic.

Thanks for your attention and clarification.

Regards,

==============================================================
John McHugo's Reply:

Thank you for your interesting and informative email and for the nice things you say about my article on coffee.

You may be interested that in my book I refer to the sciences of the Middle East in the period from approx 750AD onwards as "Arabic", rather than "Arab". This is to acknowledge that many people wrote scientific treatises in Arabic but were not necessarily "Arabs" in an ethnic sense. As you know, it is sometimes hard to tell whether someone at that time was using Arabic as his native language. The great Razi to whom you refer wrote his treatises in Arabic, I believe. 

With regard to the word "cheque", I think you will find that the word came into European languages from the Arabic "saqq". The forms of "s" (the Arabic letter known as sad and "q" (the Arabic letter qaf) are sounds that do not occur in Indo-European languages, which suggests to me that it is probably a native Arabic word. It also fits naturally into the three radical letter pattern of Arabic philology.

Kind regards

John McHugo 

The Encounter

By: Sandbad

On last grade of high school back in Iran, when I was still considering myself a “Progressive Muslim” I was discussing with some of my devout Shia Muslim friends (some of them active members of Basij) about a controversial Shia Islam ceremony where Shia Muslims celebrate Omar’s (second caliph) death. 

I argued with them maybe caliph Omar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar) wasn’t as bad as we Shia people like to think because according to the book which I recently read about Mohammad's life (محمد پیامبری که از نو باید شناخت) once Omar who was a dominate and known figure in Mecca at the time converted to Islam this was such a significant event in social terms and such a breakthrough for the new religion of Islam that the pagan non-Muslims which were conspiring to get rid of Muhammad by killing him at the time had to phase out that option because they were afraid of Omar’s reaction.

So I was telling a bunch of Shia Muslims who were indoctrinated to hate Omar (due to his disputed role in killing Prophet’s daughter from Shia perspective) that Omar by converting to Islam saved Islam from annihilation on its early stages because otherwise the Muhammad enemies would have killed him before he had a chance to propagate his religion.

My friends reaction was one of doubt and uncertainty and so they referred me to our religious studies teacher for him as a Shia Muslim clergyman to answer my doubts and questions.  And so we went to visit him outside school hours in a ceremony organized by some of my classmates in a friend’s house in commemoration of some Shia Imam’s Martyrdom (هیات)

We attended from beginning and finally after all chest beating and mourning and crying was over in front of everyone (mostly other kids from our school) I got the chance to ask our clergyman teacher what I thought about Omar and why I thought the way I did. So I argued that if Omar hadn't converted to Islam at that very early stage of Islam the prophet’s enemies probably would have killed him and no Islam would ever come to exist that we now argue about the Sunni or Shia of it.

In response by totally ignoring the historical context I was giving him he carried on with emphasizing on why Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali) was a more important figure in history of Islam by mentioning some of the great things he had achieved in service of Islam.

I already knew what he was saying about Ali and obviously the importance of Ali wasn't a reason to convince me why Omar wasn't important “enough” to be appreciated or at least not hated by Shiites. So I acknowledged what he said about the significance of Ali but I also asked that maybe Omar doesn't deserve the hatred we are meant to give him as Shia Muslims because of his role in saving Prophet Mohammed’s life in early days of Islam.

I could read from the clergyman’s face that he already had enough. He tried to stay calm and he attempted again to convince me by emphasizing on Ali’s importance (totally ignoring my question was concerning Omar’s role)

This time he made a totally irrelevant example about when Mohammed paid to compensate Abu Bakr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr) when he helped him to flee Mecca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(Islam) ) while he didn't pay Ali at all even though during the same escape Ali also helped him (by sleeping in his bed made the besiegers think Mohammad was still at home and bought time for him to escape) he argued this was because Ali was meant to be a part of Islam so therefore Prophet didn't have to pay him while Abu Bakr wasn't meant to be a part of Islam so the Prophet had to pay him off for his help!!!

To this I first acknowledged that Ali was meant to be successor of Prophet and part of Islam as he was saying but in addition argued that Ali was Mohammad’s cousin and still very young and Mohammad was also like a father to him but Abu Bakr was a mature man who had family and a few wives to feed. Maybe that was why Abu Bakr was paid and Ali wasn’t?

This was the last straw. He looked back at me completely frustrated and angry and shouted that:

“Omar has taken the ‘Light’ from us. Don’t you understand?” 

From the ‘Light’ I knew he means prophet’s daughter Fatima which Shia believe was unjustly killed by caliph Omar.  He then continued by urging the attendants to say ‘Salavat’ multiple times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him_(Islam)) while I was so daunted by the possible consequences of the mess I stupidly put myself in that I blended in with the ‘Salavat’ frenzy and shouted ‘Salavats’ as loud as everyone else.  And I made sure my angry clergyman teacher saw me while I was responding to his call for ‘Salavat’

When ‘Salavat’ session was over, deep down I was still not convinced with insignificance of Caliph Omar in Islamic history and that I needed to hate him as a historical figure from a Shia perspective.  But fearing the clergyman’s worst reaction if I continued questioning I pretended that I was convinced with his “has taken the light” argument and walked out as soon as I could without offending anyone.

This encounter didn't make me to leave Islam. It didn't even make me to stop calling myself a Shia Muslim. At the time I didn't even know enough about fallacies to understand the teacher was avoiding my question about Caliph Omar by emphasizing Ali’s role all the time. But I could feel there was something wrong.

That night when I was walking back home I explained it to myself that the clergyman was a backwardly Muslim and I was a progressive one so that was why he couldn't understand all the progressive things I had to say! And in my thoughts I blamed him and people like him for putting others off from "Progressive Islam"

The progression which in my opinion now will inevitably ends in Atheism ...