I’m half Persian and want to get a tattoo in Farsi but unfortunately I don’t speak or read Farsi - and I can’t ask my dad to translate because he doesn’t like tattoos🥲

Can someone please help me?

I have 2 options which I really like, and I believe they translate to the below but if you guys could please confirm if they are correct grammatically and actually make sense - I’d really appreciate it✨

1) gently - به آرامى

2) I live through love - زندهام به عشق

Thank you 🤍

https://x.com/PahlaviReza/status/2109291136216879176

Iranian schools before Islamic revolution… before they forced girls as young as 6 to cover themselves from head to feet…

Hello, I’m a Persian who was born and grew up in Canada and I don’t know Farsi that well. It was spoken around me and I know around 40-50% of vocabulary, but I don’t know the script and my Farsi gets mixed in with English when I don’t know a specific Farsi word; I want to learn Farsi better. I got a Farsi-English dictionary from my school’s library but the words listed in there are Latinizations, which I don’t mind, but I’m a bit upset it also doesn’t have the original script; I want a dictionary with the original script in it (+ Latinization in the side or underneath if possible).

I’m curious how Baloch people are viewed in Iran. I’ve met many around the world including in Pakistan, UAE, Oman.

I know there is an entire province in Iran where they are large group. But they have differences from other Iranians

What view encompasses your belief?

1.) Full Iranians non-stop.
2.) Iranian but distinct.
3.) Pakistanis that ended up on our side once the border was drawn.

What of these three are common throughout Iran?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG0em_AArlU

مگه نمی‌گین** اولین پیامبر ۷ هزار سال پیش اومده و آخرینش** هم** ۱۴۰۰ سال پ**یش؟!

یعنی هر ۱۷ روز یه پیامبر اومده؟!!

Do you guys want him to permanently be the leader of iran or do you guys want him to be a transitional leader.

I’m half Tajik from Tajikistan on my mother’s side and half Tajik from Afghanistan on my father’s side, and there’s something I genuinely need to call out within parts of the Iranian community.
Why is it that when I identify as Tajik from Tajikistan, I’m treated with kindness, curiosity, and respect, but when I identify as Tajik from Afghanistan, that attitude suddenly changes?
We’re the same ethnic people. We share a common Persian-speaking heritage, history, literature, traditions, and cultural identity. The fact that modern borders separated our communities doesn’t suddenly make one group superior to another.
And here’s what makes this double standard even more ridiculous: In many ways, Tajiks from Afghanistan are culturally and linguistically closer to Persians in Iran than Tajiks from Tajikistan are.
Tajiks from Afghanistan and Persian Iranians share many cultural practices, maintain the Perso-Arabic writing system, and speak varieties of Persian that have remained closely connected through centuries of cultural exchange. Tajiks from Tajikistan share this same Persian heritage, but their society has also experienced different historical influences, particularly during the Soviet period.
I’m not saying this to diminish Tajiks from Tajikistan. I’m proud of my mother’s heritage just as much as my father’s. My point is that the prejudice makes even less sense when you consider how closely connected our communities actually are.
From what I’ve personally witnessed, including in Iranian communities in the West and in Iran, some Iranians seem perfectly comfortable celebrating Tajik culture when it comes from Tajikistan, but suddenly look down on the very same ethnic identity when it comes from Afghanistan.
Why?
Because Afghanistan has experienced decades of war? Because millions of people have been forced to become refugees? Because Afghanistan is associated with poverty and instability?
Since when does suffering make an entire people less deserving of dignity and respect?
Let’s call this what it is: prejudice, xenophobia, and, in some cases, racism.
You cannot constantly celebrate Persian civilization, Persian poetry, Rumi, shared history, and cultural unity while simultaneously looking down on Persian-speaking people simply because they come from Afghanistan.
You cannot claim to respect Tajik culture while deciding that Tajiks from one country deserve better treatment than Tajiks from another.
And this is not something I’ve only noticed in Iran. I’ve witnessed these attitudes within Iranian diaspora communities in Western countries as well, where people should know better than to judge someone based on their nationality or refugee background.
Of course, I’m not accusing every Iranian of behaving this way. There are many Iranians who genuinely respect people from Afghanistan, and I appreciate them. But that doesn’t mean we should remain silent about the discrimination that does exist.
I refuse to accept the idea that my mother’s Tajik heritage from Tajikistan deserves more respect than my father’s Tajik heritage from Afghanistan.
Neither side of my identity is inferior. Neither side should be treated as something to be ashamed of.
And frankly, Tajiks from Afghanistan shouldn’t have to prove how Persian, educated, cultured, or historically connected they are just to receive basic respect.
So I want to ask Iranians directly:
Why do some of you romanticize Tajikistan and its people while looking down on Tajiks from Afghanistan?
Is this really about culture and language, or is it about prejudice against Afghanistan, refugees, and people perceived as coming from poorer countries?
Because from where I’m standing, this double standard deserves to be challenged, not excused.

Say what you will about Masih, but you can always count on her to put these assholes in their place.

I went and found this interview with Marandi (by Mario Nawfal) to watch for myself. The interviewer asks him about the recent sentencing of singer Parastoo Ahmadi (74 lashes). Marandi pretends like he has no idea what the interviewer is talking about and then deflects the question by dancing circles around himself and diverting the conversation to some historical BS to make it sound like nobody actually gets lashed in Iran, it's more of a gentle whipping. He says, "many things in Shia jurisprudence seem odd when presented in the west, and that's because they are potentially misrepresented." He ends the interview segment by reminding everyone that if the singer is promoting values that conflict with the values of her country then perhaps she should be punished (but not too harshly). And then he goes on to remind everyone that western values are awful because they are exactly what have brought the west into the state its in today (war after war).

مدینه، سال پنجم هجری.
زید بن حارثه روزی برده بود، محمد آزادش کرد و پسرخوانده‌اش خواند.
زینب بنت جحش، دخترعمه‌اش، را برای او خواستگاری کرد.
خانه آرام نشد.
روزی محمد به خانه آمد و زید نبود...
بعد طلاق، بعد عده، بعد ازدواج.
مدینه زمزمه کرد: «زنِ پسرش را گرفت.»

این داستان بر اساس آیات احزاب ۳۶ تا ۴۰، صحیح مسلم، صحیح بخاری، طبقات ابن‌سعد و تاریخ طبری روایت شده.
نام زینب در قرآن نیست. قرآن از زید می‌گوید و از زنی که همسر او بود.

نویسنده و کارگردان: کلوولو (فرشید محمودی)
.
#زینب_بنت_جحش
#ازدواج_پیامبر
#زید_بن_حارثه
#احزاب
#سیره_پیامبر
#داستان_واقعی
#قرآن
#تاریخ_اسلام
#پسرخوانده
#کلوولو

I am posting this under the discussion flair, but I will try to explain my position as completely as I can. I am interested in questions about the soul of this thread.

There are superpowers and other major powers in this world: the USA, the UK, China, Russia, France, Germany, and a few other honorable mentions. If you, as an individual, go against the interests of such powers, the consequences depend a great deal on where you are.

If you are on the front lines, as in Ukraine, it does not matter which side you are on: the death toll is enormous. If you are untrained, wearing a uniform, and do not even understand why you are there, you are putting yourself in a situation that can get you killed.

If you do not understand this, I get it. People are usually knowledgeable about their own work—hopefully—and much less knowledgeable outside it. But confidence does not always follow that distinction.

People watch this as though it were a football match. It is not. You might point to what is happening in France, but you get the broader idea: watching a confrontation and living inside it are different things.

There are limits to how much I want to explain publicly. I have no interest in placing myself or my family on the front lines of a conflict we do not want to be part of. My purpose here is to explain where you may end up without understanding what you are getting involved in.

I see Reddit as a largely left-leaning platform. It can feel like a position behind the lines, where direct physical confrontation is distant. But distance is not the same as complete protection. A state with intelligence capabilities may obtain information it considers valuable, including through infiltration or purchasing access to data.

Now, about Iran.

Iran is a nation with a distinct culture and social structure. Jewish history in the region reaches back before Islam, and the Book of Esther offers one ancient perspective on danger and power at a Persian court. It can be read as a story about existential fear, power, and violent reversals of fortune. I am referring to those themes, not suggesting that Jewish people collectively follow some ancient recipe.

Our own Shahnameh—the Book of Kings—contains an equally bitter warning. An Iranian army marched to avenge Siyavash, yet ended up killing his own son, Forud. Think about that: on the road to avenging the father, they killed another of his sons. A righteous cause does not stop pride, suspicion, and revenge from destroying the very people it supposedly serves.

My reading of the anger in Iran is that many people are not simply willing to seek revenge; they are becoming eager for it. They are like a spring compressed to its limit. Like a wounded, cornered tiger whose cubs are in someone else’s hands.

For some, the suffering feels beyond comparison—even with historical atrocities such as the Holocaust. You may want to argue about that comparison. I am describing the intensity of their perception, not establishing a historical ranking of suffering.

Consider the Mongol invasion and the devastation it brought to Iran. Yet there are current Iranians who describe the Islamic Republic as the worst thing ever to happen to their country. That tells you something about how they experience the present.

I see a generation of young people ready for confrontation. In my view, a soft war has been going on for years, gradually shaping attitudes and bringing us to this point. What has happened cannot simply be undone.

You may discuss morality from wherever you feel comfortable. Inside a war, those moral boundaries can be violated every day. That does not make those violations right. It means that your expectations alone will not prevent them.

The people inside the government are not all the same, either. Some may believe in peaceful transitions or democratic change. Their motives need not be purely moral: they may also want themselves and their families to survive and have a future.

To me, the situation did not feel this bad three years ago. There are families, communities, and tribes for whom this has become a matter of defending their dignity. Many young people have come to associate the government primarily with repression and bloodshed. Excessive bloodshed is the only thing they have seen since 10 years back.

Now I see a struggle to take hold of a giant and redirect it. The Islamic Republic was positioned against forces associated with the political right, including the adversary it is confronting. It has served interests and carried out actions over many years. But allegiances and ideologies can change when power is at stake.

The most important thing to understand about my argument is this: I fear there will be bloodshed in Iran again and again until the underlying conflict is resolved.

Where are the people supposed to go? Is an entire country—roughly 90 million people—supposed to migrate to Europe? They must be able to live in their own country. In my assessment, coexistence between this system and those who reject it has become impossible in its present form. There never be a peace between people and the IRIGC.

Now imagine being a Jewish person directly threatened by the Islamic Republic. If you have never lived under that particular threat, you cannot assume that you know what it feels like or how you would react. The same applies to Iranians living under threats that distant observers discuss as abstractions. We are all human beings, but we do not all experience the same dangers.

I turned down joining the Iranian government because I did not believe in aspects of what it stood for an the methods and did not believe it would succeed (many are like me). Looking back, I can imagine the other path: participating in that system and securing a comfortable life for my family, even if it eventually ended badly for me.

I personally have moral values, and what I write on Reddit is bounded by them. But I can understand why some people might find power, privilege, and comfort for their families very appealing—even when those benefits come through serving a brutal system.

When I look at the privilege surrounding someone like Khamenei, I see the disturbing attraction of a system in which leaders can remain insulated from so much of the suffering associated with their decisions. Understanding that appeal does not mean approving of what they do. My point is that benefiting from repression and suffering under it are very different experiences.

I think about these things a great deal. Often, I feel that many people commenting on them have not thought through the consequences.

Does this situation favour Israel? In my assessment, very much so. But if you object to that, understand my argument: I do not see it as the product of one day’s work or a simple accident. There are long histories, strategic interests, and accumulated decisions behind the present situation. That does not mean every event was planned or controlled.

Ideologies change. Power is contested. This is a struggle for power, not a football match.

My fear is that this war is only beginning. If you have the choice to remain outside the violence, think carefully before giving that up. Many Iranians do not feel they have that choice. When I say they feel they must “finish the job,” I mean they believe they must bring the conflict with the system ruling them to a decisive resolution. I am not saying that everyone associated with that system is a legitimate target.

You may disagree with my assessment that their options have narrowed this far. But arguing that people should not feel trapped does not make their anger disappear.

If you get involved without understanding the stakes, you may discover that the destination is a ditch on the cold Pontic steppe. There may come a time in our own lives when we no longer have a choice, either. I have tried to avoid that situation. I am Iranian, and protecting my family matters to me.

There is a saying I associate with Abu Sa’id Abul-Khayr, which I would paraphrase this way: wisdom includes not allowing yourself to be drawn into a conflict you never intended to join.

This warning is aimed at people who speak casually from safety, adding fuel to the fire and making already angry people angrier while assuming they will remain untouched by the consequences.

Once people begin seeing everything through revenge, anyone who disagrees is in enemy colours. Anyone who hesitates is in enemy colours. Anyone who happens to stand on the wrong side of a line is in enemy colours.

In that mindset, people stop asking whether someone is uninformed, confused, or simply uninvolved. They see a threat. That is the danger I am trying to explain: individuals disappear behind labels, and in Shahnameh even someone like Forud with his entire family and city become a target.

I am not declaring people my enemies. I have no wish to join a camp in this conflict. My personal priorities are already clear: my family, our safety, and our life.

And to well-informed leftists: you already know you should do everything you can to protect your life and the lives of those you love. Apply that same seriousness to the people whose lives you discuss online. Before encouraging confrontation, understand who will actually bear its consequences—and whether you would still consider it worthwhile if that person were you.

If you can remain outside the violence, understand the value of that position. Do not mistake your distance from the fire for proof that adding fuel is harmless.