Translation of a Persian post commemorating the 9/11 attacks from “The Old Land“,
9/11: The day of terror and despair
September 11, 2001 was a hot day, and I remember that the heat was irritating. I was going home, so I waited in the street to get a [shared] cab. I don’t remember how long I waited for, but it was enough to irritate me even more. Just then, a cab came and I told the driver where I was going. I chose the front seat… I was able to get some air and cool off. I was tired and irritated of the heat when the driver, with his face covered by a big smile, turned to me and said “Is it right that the US is all gone?” Maybe he was not even talking to me. I had a newspaper in my hand and I was opening it to read.
I thought, well, another head of the state has probably found a vacant microphone and has probably uttered some fuss. So, with a smile of sarcasm, I said “Things happen”, meaning “Do your job and drop me where I am going”. He, on the other hand, translated my sentence as “Yes, I heave heard too!”
“And so I have to listen to the details of how the heroes of the revolution have blown up the US”, this was what I imagined. It was boring, we were actually blowing up the US couple of times every day.
I finally got home. No one even turned back from TV when I stepped in. They were watching the national television and all in shock. One was standing, one was sitting, one was pacing. I looked at the screen. The towers were falling down. I had a cold feeling in my stomach. I could not understand it. The towers fell down and fell down and fell down. The tape went on and on and on. This was the only scene I ever watched more than that fantastic goal Khodadad Azizi scored [and led to Iran's admission to World Cup 98 - Wikipedia].
My mom kept crying. She had no idea where these towers were or what the Pentagon was. She was just sad.
9/11 is my mom’s birthday. I will never forget her birthday, ever.
Dear Kamangir, first of all thanks for all your kind supports.
Here I think I made a mistake by writing the last sentence not completely clear.
9/11 is her birthday. I edited it after reading your nice translation (which I’m surprised how fast you did it!) to be clear about the meaning.
Thanks and Chakerim
Kamangir: Thanks and Chakerim, :)
Comment by Ahar — September 11, 2008 @ 11:51 am
I remember September 11th 2001 as if it were yesterday. I was watching some crap on Iranian National TV, when the breaking news reported the catastrophe. I was shocked and horrified. How could they do such a horrible thing to innocent people?! I had a strange feeling, something special was happening within my lifetime, even world war 3 seemed plausible. I was barely a teenager at the time, but even I could see that it could really have a great impact on everything. I was walking nervously from one corner of the room to the other, and all the different things coming to my mind; how many people died? What was going to happen next?
Now that I think about it, it showed the real danger of blind faith in an ideology, in this case in fanatic islam. Yes, most of them don’t become Bin laden, but the potential is there. It is not only Islam, Other backward superstitious beliefs do the same. Until recently Christians did, until they recoiled in horror from the practice. when one thinks he has all the answers in a book, and quite frankly an old stupid book, and certainly not written by a God, he would for sure causes some problems. Here I am not talking about moderate respectful Christians and Muslims, who do not take their holy books seriously, but some minority who believe in them word by word, and really do care about what they think is God’s word.
I ain’t afraid of your Yahweh
I ain’t afraid of your Allah
I ain’t afraid of your Jesus
I’m afraid of what you do in the name of your God (MP3)
Regards,
Nabavar (unbeliever)
Comment by Nabavar — September 11, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
nice job . i mean this translation .
* i used to have an english blog today and i hope it would be really helpful on my english improvement mission ! So , i added your link in my friends list .
Comment by Mrjojo — September 12, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Nabavar
“Until recently Christians did”.
Care to explain that statement.
“Until they recoiled in horror from the practice”.
What practice?
If you are talking about 1600 years ago i understand
But this is 2008.
No animosity towards you,but please explain your point of view.
I realize translations are iffy and english is not your forte.
Comment by alexb — September 13, 2008 @ 3:40 am
Alex, I think you are right. I shouldn’t use the word “recently”. It was a bit exaggerated :D, although they are some cases like anti-abortionism, anti-homosexuality, anti-contraception, anti-stem cell research, anti-science and creationist nonsense where Christian extremism still continues to damage the society. But, my point was this; Religions are at the root of many problems. Christianity was responsible for inquisition and slow rate of scientific progress in the Dark Age. Until renaissance took place in Europe and religion back off. Science and reason made the foundation of the modern world, a secular and sane world. Now, this happened to Christianity, but unfortunately it still has not happened to Islam. Some people and rulers in Muslim countries still take teachings of their holy book seriously, and the consequences are devastating. Here, Dark ages live on… This nightmare can stop only if we embrace rationalism, secularism and of course humanism, which they all have nothing to do with religion.
Every religion can be dangerous, because it teaches us to believe in the absence of evidence. Peace
Comment by Nabavar — September 13, 2008 @ 7:28 am
I told the driver “were” I was .. -> “where”
Kamangir: Thanks.
Comment by pajoohande — September 13, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
I won’t forget my birthday too.
I was born on April 26. Can you remember Chernobyl disaster?
Comment by Nim — September 14, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
[...] ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ??????. [...]
Pingback by ???? ?? ???? ??? ? ???????? ?/?? « ??? ????? — September 14, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Nabavar,
The dwindling population in Europe as a result of crop failures and disease was the root cause of Christian Europe’s porblems during the Dark Ages. Arguably, the Inquisition, and the events surrounding it, heralded a rebirth of Christianity and European power. Remember that it was immediately after the Inquisition that Spain and Portugal went on to conquer the Americas. A century later, the Netherlands, France and England were also becoming colonial powers.
Science and reason did not make the foundation of the modern world. Warfare, internecine warfare in Europe and overseas, made the foundation of the modern world. Science and reason grew quicker to support warfare or to end it.
As for your statements about anti-abortionism (not a word), anti-contraception, and anti-stem cell research…they all seem to be a bit anti-Catholic, since other Christian denominations allow for contraception, etc. There were 1.3 million abortions in the US in 2006. That is a holocaust, especially considering the US population is 300 million. One one-hundreth of the US population was aborted. The vast majority of those pregnancies were not the result of rape or incest, and were not physically endangering the physical health of the mothers. Science unequivocally has show that a foetus is fully a human being at 12 weeks of pregnancy, and the growth of the foetus from conception shows that it is very much an independent living entity, with its own DNA and pre-determined sex-characteristics. The question of contraception is not one of simply birth-control, but rather a question of personal responsibility and self-control. The Catholic Church is anti-contraception and holds that the only moral sexual relationships are martial sexual relationships. The Church is not against stem-cell research (to my knowledge). It is against using aborted foetuses for stem-cell research. There is a big difference between being against research and being against one method of carrying out research.
“Some people and rulers in Muslim countries still take teachings of their holy book seriously, and the consequences are devastating.” Some people, be they Christian or Muslim, seek to impose their INTERPRETATION of their holy books as law on a broad population. Despite all the talk of secularism in the West, the societies that grew out of the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire were rooted in a common religious tradition. The Americas are still very religious continents. Taking one’s religion or holy book seriously does not threaten society. Seeking to impose one’s personal interpretation on others through force does. There is nothing Islamic about the Islamic Republic. Velayat-e Faqih is an innovation in the history of Shi’ism, from both a legal and cultural perspective. The Muslim Brotherhood seeks political control and garners support using a religious language with which many people are comfortable. Hamas is popular because of its opposition to Israel, and its military victories, not its religious underpinnings. The same can be said of Hezbollah.
My point is this. People are the root of all problems, not religion. Religion is just one way in which people justify malevolent action. Marxism was a religion and American liberalism is becoming a religion, that is to say, movements which people fully follow and act upon out of blind faith in the righteousness of the movement. Dangerous people who espouse dangerous ideologies need to be eliminated, not religion.
Comment by Matthew — September 15, 2008 @ 3:07 am
I enjoyed reading your response, Matthew. Further, if we’re discussing the Middle-Ages in Europe, we might as well note that during the Renaissance religion played a very active part – in fact, it developed in a very Christian and religious environment, with some of the more prominent religious leaders of the time, such as Martin Luther, easily fitting the era’s changes and advances.
The Catholic Church, now… it had its ups and downs in that matter, being a progressive or regressive force depending on the time and age. Catholic priests were often scholars in their own right at one time… and in another, openly decrying literacy.
But secularism, or atheism, aren’t much of a step forward either. Like religion, they can be a progressive and a regressive force for society. Take the Cult of Reason, a secular/atheist movement founded during the French Revolution… it was a fine example of its *context*, rather than being an improvement over religious establishments, though it was more mild than the pre-Marxist Marxists in the form of the Enrages… But be that it may, the wanton destruction done by the so-called Cult of Reason targeted religion and the religious specifically as something to be cleansed, as inferior thought that should be destroyed…
I see the French Revolution as a foreshadowing of Marxism and the Russian Revolution, by and large. And both were a fine example of one group of people who were *entirely certain* that they knew what should be done better than everyone else, and went onward to “save” the rest.
And of course, to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs, eh… A few million eggs or so. And they did just that.
As Matthew said, this isn’t about religion. Or Atheism, for that matter. Or secularism. This is about movements that bring people together around a central ideal or idea, which they then use to justify violence and bloodshed. This can be anything from Deus Vult to the Theory of Race. *Ideas* can be dangerous, and more than anything, the people who propagate them and follow them are.
So is the solution the elimination of independent thought? Because that’s the only way to truly prevent this sort of thing, really. Or perhaps the elimination of humanity. Neither notion appeals to me, to say the least. I’ll judge individuals and groups in their own right, thank you kindly, and I won’t take an individual and judge the entire group by him, or take an idea or ideal as something to eradicate simply because some of its followers are right bastards.
Some ideals do deserve revulsion. I consider National Socialism to be a prime example of an ideal which holds hatred and violence as part of its ground basis, rather than a by-product of its followers. It was, by the way, an entirely secular ideal.
Should I hate secularism then, based on the example of National Socialism? No. I’ll judge Nazis, and them alone. And any other group by the same standard, by the individuals that make them up and their actions, and the actions that they demand. Nothing more, nothing less.
Comment by Roman Kalik — September 15, 2008 @ 8:15 am
Speaking of the French Revolution, I much recommend Stefan Zweig’s novelized biography of Joseph Fouché, a very… interesting French statesman during the French Revolution and the Minister of Police under Napoleon Bonaparte.
Comment by Roman Kalik — September 15, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Dear Matthew,
Here you are right. I could not express my point of view. Of course there were wars, slavery and exploitation. Western powers tried to dominate the world and they exploited the manpower and natural resources of the other nations. And even today they are far from being ideal. They only look at their own benefits. and I am not supporting it.
What I meant was the scientific revolution and enlightenment in the western world; the emergence of concepts such as rationalism, scientific method, critical questioning of traditional beliefs, freedom of speech and human rights, which were developed by some of the greatest minds of western civilization; People like Descartes, Galilei, Newton, Hume, Voltaire, Darwin and etc. ( I know you would say Newton and many others were christians. of course they were, people cannot easily escape the time constraints).
In the case of abortion, I think women should be able to decide by themselves. If they really want to do that, earlier the better. Abortion is not the moral equivalent of murder as some religious people say, but it should be avoided as much as possible.
For the Stem cell research, I think it is nessecary and it’s a good thing. It can be used for curing different deseases.
You,ve got a point there. I think religion should be a matter of private life only. The problem is, Islam is not a private religion. It actively tries to dominate the world.
In my opinion, Religion should not be treated any differently, no tax exemption, no especial status for parasites called clergymen. In Today world, We (and some other nations) are suffering from these parasites. It seems as if it’s their job to suck all the money, rationality and happiness from people’s life.
As you know, secularism means religious freedom for everybody. Sharia laws and religious discrimination have no place in the society.
It does not matter when or where Velayate Faghih in Shi’ism was invented. Actually the whole Shia thing is made up. One can say Muhammad himself “invented” a new religion. Once upon a time, I was a shia muslim. Shias believe that all other muslims are wrong and only they have the truth. I am telling you, they believe it sincerely. Just as sincerely as others believe in an opposite point of view. If for example you are a Christian, you should be aware that if another religion seems false and stupid too you, your religion can be seemed false and stupid to others. How one can say which religion is true and which one is wrong?? All of them are claiming that they exclusively have the truth, and they all have some beliefs which are not based on evidence.
I did not say religions are at the root of “all” problems, for sure there are many other bad ideologies too, such as Fascism, Racism and sometimes extreme Nationalism. They are always good people and bad people. I highly recommend this quote from Noble Prize Laureate Steven Weinberg:
I am going to explain it more in the next comment. I know my English sucks! but I’m trying to improve it.
peace
Comment by Nabavar — September 16, 2008 @ 5:19 am
Dear Roman Kalik,
It is an obvious fact that science flourishes where there is power and money. And on that time, power was in the hand of clergymen. The fact that western civilization has developed so much has absolutely nothing to do with religion. If you look at the phenomena in this perspective, you can say the same thing about ancient Greek philosophy. Were Zeus or Poseidon responsible for advancement of science and philosophy in ancient greece?
You are right. And as I said earlier, power and money was in the hand of religion. So the best way to study science was to use those resources.
As you probably know, secularism is not atheism, and atheism is not religion. Of course there are good and bad people that are irreligion. But the thing is that Atheism is not a Religion. It does not have any rule, any book or anything that can be categorized as religion.
Speaking of destroying religion, as I said earlier, religion is a private matter. And I don’t mind if religions exist or not as long as they do not impose it on me, or they interfere with science.
You do the right thing. But, sometimes there is something in a book that is a pain in the ass! It’s not about followers, it’s inside the book. For example Science has shown the stories of creation and the flood to be false. I am aware that many religious people have no problem accepting evolution, but when there is respect for this kind of beliefs which are not based on evidence, there can always be some people who do not handpick some verses from their holy book and accept it fully (I consider them as true Christians, Muslims …). This has caused and will cause serious problems.
Or even not talking about science, there are many unethical verses in Quran or other holy books. What can we do about that? I know that many educated and well-informed religious people simply ignore all the cruelties in the book and stick to the good points. But these texts are there to damage. And if some religious people impose it to their children from an early age, and they say this book has no problem at all, those children have the potential to accept everything in the book, good and evil.
Thanks for introducing the book about French revolution.
Peace
Comment by Nabavar — September 16, 2008 @ 6:13 am
Nabavar,
For the Stem cell research, I think it is nessecary and it’s a good thing. It can be used for curing different deseases.
The question that remains is not about stem cell research in and by itself – it is the means of the research that is in question. Take organ donation for example – organ donation should be voluntary, and without a cash incentive Why? Because the alternative is organ trade, which leads to organ harvesting from those deemed… unrequited, so to speak. Or simply weak. It leads to the deterioration of the value of human life as a general ideal.
And yet it would save lives. Having cheap organs available could save hundreds. Thousands. Hundreds of thousands.
But is it worth it?
Or genetic engineering of conceived fetuses before pregnancy. Another concept with a slippery slope in it. A fairly steep one as well. The benefits are high, just as the negative effects on society are – would *you* give parents the ability to engineer the appearance of their children? To make them perfect and all alike…
Or perhaps we should explore the wonderful world of cloning… *shudder*
The same reasoning applies to using aborted fetuses for stem cell research. It encourages the cheapening of human life in exchange for the “offsetting” benefits. It encourages abortion for money, and abortion for comfort.
And this is *without* entering other moral or religious considerations therein on the definition of a living human being.
In my opinion, Religion should not be treated any differently, no tax exemption, no especial status for parasites called clergymen. In Today world, We (and some other nations) are suffering from these parasites. It seems as if it’s their job to suck all the money, rationality and happiness from people’s life.
Religion, like it or not, is very important for some of us out there. And like it or not, we have our own views on how religion, religious institutions, and representatives of said institutions should be treated. Human beliefs are important – and while it’s very easy to disregard the beliefs of a segment of the population you do not belong to, it isn’t exactly the most moral course, or one which is likely to lead to a stable society.
Religion isn’t a profit-based venture. And priests provide a service to the populace for which said populace is often unable to provide a salary *and* finance the house of worship. Donations are very nice, but the governments still take their cuts from our salaries and profits – and religious people prefer seeing the governments giving at least *some* respect, if not support, to something that is central to their lives.
Religion is a central aspect of the lives of many people, so central in fact that it *does* deserve at least some special treatment. It is, by definition, not mundane, after all.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
An interesting quote, though not really true. Religion is not required, really – any ideal or set of ideals is. Any ideal at all.
Communism was founded and run by people who were *certain* that they had the best for humanity at heart. Same with Fascism, an ideology of the betterment of humanity through focusing on strength, growth, conquest, and weeding out the weak.
I can think of dozens of reasons that can be used to justify murdering people – for the Good of Society, to elevate the weak and needy, for stability, for cultural advancement toward a brighter future, to strengthen my nation, to honorably serve my liege, to sacrifice the few for the survival of the many, to develop a life-saving cure or to advance technology…
For the best. Always for the best. As the Soviet Spetznaz (special-ops commandos) used to say – never trust a man who wants to help you.
There are so many ways for a man to have clean conscience and to make the greatest of evils… For him and his, his conscience is clean. He is a hero. A savior. A good man. And it doesn’t require religion – merely believing in an *ideal*.
So is the alternative having no ideals or moral codes whatsoever? No. Neither is it judging ideals solely by some of the utter fools who happen to support them.
It is an obvious fact that science flourishes where there is power and money. And on that time, power was in the hand of clergymen. The fact that western civilization has developed so much has absolutely nothing to do with religion. If you look at the phenomena in this perspective, you can say the same thing about ancient Greek philosophy. Were Zeus or Poseidon responsible for advancement of science and philosophy in ancient greece?
*nod* And yet, religion was not a negative force *by its definition*.
As you probably know, secularism is not atheism, and atheism is not religion. Of course there are good and bad people that are irreligion. But the thing is that Atheism is not a Religion. It does not have any rule, any book or anything that can be categorized as religion.
Atheism is not a religion, but it *is* a belief system around which several unsavory organized ideological groups have been constructed over the past two centuries, be it during the French Revolution, the Russian one, or the Chinese.
It does need books. All it needs is people who consider theirs to be an ideal that would bring humanity forward, and anyone who doesn’t hold it to be an opposing force to the advancement of humanity. The rest is just a matter of numbers, organized groups, and time. The past two centuries had seen enough evidence of that.
But is Atheism dangerous, in and by itself? No, it is not. Neither is religion. It can be taken either way by the sway of people who identify themselves under such a shared banner, nothing more.
Speaking of destroying religion, as I said earlier, religion is a private matter. And I don’t mind if religions exist or not as long as they do not impose it on me, or they interfere with science.
But what happens when science interferes with religious people, and their moral codes? What happens when science crosses lines that the religious take as dangerous? Will you disregard their views?
And if you do, why should they bother with considering yours as worth listening to? A liberal society is based on the sum total of its members, and in a liberal and democratic society moral, ethical, or simply issues deemed of sufficient import are decided by all – not by a few who share a certain set of beliefs. Secular Humanism is still just *one* ideal – it has no precedence or right to dictate to those of its citizenry what course society will take, save if society in its entirety (or near-entirety) approves of such a path.
Anything less reduces both the liberalism and the democratic level of society – regardless of how liberal or democratic Secular Humanists take themselves to be.
You do the right thing. But, sometimes there is something in a book that is a pain in the ass! It’s not about followers, it’s inside the book. For example Science has shown the stories of creation and the flood to be false. I am aware that many religious people have no problem accepting evolution, but when there is respect for this kind of beliefs which are not based on evidence, there can always be some people who do not handpick some verses from their holy book and accept it fully (I consider them as true Christians, Muslims …). This has caused and will cause serious problems.
Or even not talking about science, there are many unethical verses in Quran or other holy books. What can we do about that? I know that many educated and well-informed religious people simply ignore all the cruelties in the book and stick to the good points. But these texts are there to damage. And if some religious people impose it to their children from an early age, and they say this book has no problem at all, those children have the potential to accept everything in the book, good and evil.
The analytic, logic-driven path is not the sole path of society, and “handpicking verses” is not what most people do – the majority of religions have numerous interpretations to each and every verse, and the acceptable ones may change depending on majority view.
And quite frankly, the logic-driven path can no more disprove the faith-based one, as the faith-based path can make the logic-driven one go away. They’re parallel, almost entirely so in fact – and they can both work out just fine in the same person.
As for the dangers of religious books… need I mention the dangers of cold machine-logic? It is very easy for people to view other human beings as simply a means to an end, to do with as they will. It is very easy to experiment, torture, kill, maim, and do all those lovely things that human beings seem to so easily do to other people… if it means achieving some kind of scientific goal, For the Good of Society and The Advancement of Science. Dr. Joseph Mengale is a fine example of a person who didn’t hold a single human scruple when it came to human lab-rats, as he saw them. And you don’t need to be a Nazi to be cold-hearted bastard.
There are more than enough of them out there. With no scruples whatsoever regarding what it takes to advance in their path.
Thanks for introducing the book about French revolution.
My pleasure.
Comment by Roman Kalik — September 18, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
*it doesn’t need books
Hopefully that clears up a rather confusing mistake on my part.
Comment by Roman Kalik — September 18, 2008 @ 6:02 pm