Mahoza, A Jewish Kingdom At War With Sassanid Iran

[SalarHaqq]

not sentenced for working and getting money from foreigners , but for acting against iran . there is a lot difference between these two

Sentenced for getting paid by enemy states to work towards overthrowing or destabilizing the Islamic Republic. Any such activity, which you advertize and promote, is entirely covered by the law and de facto proscribed under heavy penalties.

I never mentioned "working for foreigners" but doing so against the national government. This is the definition of treason and it falls under existing legal stipulations that protect national security.

again different thing otherwise according to your logic Iran declared war on Saudi Arabia and Turkiye

The user I replied to claimed that the last time some one attacked Iran, their native tongue was Arabic. That's untrue.

You suggested it was the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Incorrect as well. The last entity to attack Iran was a separatist CIA-proxy.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Sentenced for getting paid by enemy states to work towards overthrowing or destabilizing the Islamic Republic. Any such activity, which you advertize and promote, is entirely covered by the law and de facto proscribed under heavy penalties.

and you lie again.
if you go back to our discussion you see i clearly stated getting money from foreigner is not problem what you do with that money or for what activity you received it is the key point.

I never mentioned "working for foreigners" but doing so against the national government. This is the definition of treason and it falls under existing legal stipulations that protect national security.

you clearly stated receiving money from foreign entity without putting any clause or condition in your statement

The user I replied to claimed that the last time some one attacked Iran, their native tongue was Arabic. That's untrue.

You suggested it was the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Incorrect as well. The last entity to attack Iran was a separatist CIA-proxy.

that cia sponsored entity was not foreigners but iranian and iran never cancelled their nationality . ii said the last foreign entity that attacked Iran was Taliban which is correct

 

[Muhammed45]

Focus should be on addressing the argument. Putting labels on members solves nothing.

For someone who sits on place of Allah swt and punishes people with hell, you cannot bring reasons.

The attack on Iran was a wrong move since the Sassanid regime was corrupt to the roots. The anti west feelings among Iranians dates back to hundreds of years ago. Ironically non of Iranian kings had tried to attack Arabian peninsula for over 3,000 years.

Iranians would have converted to Islam in a blink of an eye because of the mentioned reason. Mongols had also conquered Iran, Alexabder too. But Iranians didn't adopt their religion. The reason why Iranians turned to Islam by majority was similarity of this religion with their own traditions. Most importantly Iranians initially were Sunnis and Iranians have served Sunni Islam more than anyone else.

Sunni Islam or Shia Islam have little differences. Sunni caliphate ends with Shia' first imam. And we don't blame the actions of Umayyads and Abbasids on Sunnis. It has its own reason too. In Iran religious conflict is zero because our ancestors were Sunnis and we don't disrespect holy figures of Sunni Islam such as mother Ayisha (RA) on the contrary, we defend them.

Point was, Khalid bin walid was a no body compared to Rashidun and he has not a holy place in our minds. He was responsible for attack on prophet in Ohod Ghazwa. And he was one of those who accepted Islam after prophet. In the Ohod and Badr Ghazwa, he had killed consider able number of prophet's loyal forces. Therefore he doesn't have the respect that Rashidun caliohs posses.

 

[SalarHaqq]

if you go back to our discussion you see i clearly stated getting money from foreigner is not problem what you do with that money or for what activity you received it is the key point.

Not at all. I came up with the Cambridge definition of treason early on, which very clearly specifies how a traitor's work is directed against their own country or supportive of its enemies.

To which you kept retorting by suggesting that this is supposedly not an issue but a legal and welcome activity in Iran.

you clearly stated receiving money from foreign entity without putting any clause or condition in your statement

I had quoted the definition of treason multiple times and the said definition does offer a descriptive characterization of the traitor's mischievous deeds.

E.g. :

https://pdf.defence.pk/threads/iranian-chill-thread.283137/post-14387444

https://pdf.defence.pk/threads/iranian-chill-thread.283137/post-14387787

https://pdf.defence.pk/threads/iranian-chill-thread.283137/post-14387735

Iranian Chill Thread

No, Cambridge Dictionary has full authority on defining what treason means in the English language, which is the language in which I referenced the term. it don't have authority on calling anybody traitor only law of the country have that In that case come out and declare in unmistakable terms...

pdf.defence.pk

that cia sponsored entity was not foreigners but iranian and iran never cancelled their nationality . ii said the last foreign entity that attacked Iran was Taliban which is correct

And my response was to a user's utterance about the last time "some one" (sic) attacked Iran.

Also if some treasonous Iranians are enabled by the CIA to attack their motherland, then the USA regime will ultimately be liable - not just from a political but also from a legal perspective. Thus in every sense of the word, an aggression by a direct CIA-proxy is an American aggression.

 

[sammuel]

Of course, the Jewish festival of Purim and the related Book of Esther in the Ancient Testament present us with another illustration as to the question at hand. While Persian emperor Xerxes (Ahasueres) is of course depicted in a favorable light owing to his marriage with Esther, the figure of Haman, an official at Khashayar's court is the reviled antagonist. So are Haman's ten sons who were hanged according to the Book of Esther, as well as 75000 Iranians killed subsequently.

Chose one paeagraph of nonsence to show what your article is worth ...

No where in the book of Esther does it say that " 75,000 Iranains where killed. "

First there where no "Iranians " than , only Persians and nations under Persaian empire.

What it does say that the Jews in the provinces killed their enemeies. It states that Xerxes ruled 120 states from India to Africa , could have been any of those nations in the persian empire.

All we know they wheredisgusting prople who looked for excuses to attack the Jews , like you do in this pointless thred.


9:16 :

" But the other Jews that were in the king's provinces gathered themselves together, and stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand, but they laid not their hands on the prey, "

~

 

[SalarHaqq]

Chose one paeagraph of nonsence to show what your article is worth ...

No where in the book of Esther does it say that " 75,000 Iranains where killed. "

First there where no "Iranians " than , only Persians and nations under Persaian empire.

Yes there were Iranians.

The Zoroastrian sacred scripture of the Avesta already contains designations for the abode or land of the Aryans (used in an ethnic sense), for instance Airyanem Vaejo. These are but ancient forms of the Modern Persian name Iran, which has the exact same etymological meaning.

Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica

The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a comprehensive research tool dedicated to the study of Iranian civilization in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent

iranicaonline.org

The idea of Iran as a religious, cultural, and ethnic reality goes back as far as the end of the 6th century B.C.E. As a political idea, we first catch sight of it in the twenties of the 3rd century C.E. as an essential feature of Sasanian propaganda (Gnoli, 1989; 1993; 1998), since it does not seem possible to trace it back any further than the reign of Ardašīr (see ARDAŠĪR i). In actual fact we cannot say that the political idea of an *ariyānām xšaθra- had ever existed before the advent of the Sasanian dynasty, though this claim has been made on several occasions (von Gutschmid, p. 123; Markwart, 1895, p. 629; Herzfeld, 1932, pp. 36-37; 1935, p. 9; 1941, p. 192; 1947, p. 700; and recently, Shahbazi, 2005, p. 105).

The inscriptions of Darius I (see DARIUS iii) and Xerxes, in which the different provinces of the empire are listed, make it clear that, between the end of the 6th century and the middle of the 5th century B.C.E., the Persians were already aware of belonging to the ariya “Iranian” nation (see ARYA and ARYANS). Darius and Xerxes boast of belonging to a stock which they call “Iranian”: they proclaim themselves “Iranian” and “of Iranian stock,” ariya and ariya čiça respectively, in inscriptions in which the Iranian countries come first in a list that is arranged in a new hierarchical and ethno-geographical order, compared for instance with the list of countries in Darius’s inscription at Behistun (see BISOTUN; Gnoli, 1989, pp. 22-23; 1994, pp. 153-54). We also know, thanks to this very same inscription, that Ahura Mazdā was considered the “god of the Iranians” in passages of the Elamite version corresponding to DB IV 60 and 62 in the Old Persian version, whose language was called “Iranian” or ariya (DB IV, 88-89). Then again, the Avesta clearly uses airya as an ethnic name (Vd. 1; Yt. 13.143-44, etc.), where it appears in expressions such as airyāfi; daiŋˊhāvō “Iranian lands, peoples,” airyō.šayanəm “land inhabited by Iranians,” and airyanəm vaējō vaŋhuyāfi; dāityayāfi; “Iranian stretch of the good Dāityā,” the river Oxus, the modern Āmū Daryā (q.v.; see ĒRĀN-WĒZ). There can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens).

Ancient forms of the name Iran then evolved into the Middle Persian Eranshahr / Eran, which was the official name of the country under the Sassanid dynasty.

Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An ethnic-national Iranian consciousness clearly existed, so did the concept of the land inhabited by Iranian tribes.

I understand the zionist regime is bent on denying Iranian nationhood and is actively engaged in attempting to provoke territorial and societal balkanization of Iran (akin to what could previously be witnessed in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) along "ethno"-linguistic lines, however truth is that the concept of Iranianhood stretches back several millennia, like it or not. Iran is one of the eldest nations and states in the world.

What it does say that the Jews in the provinces killed their enemeies. It states that Xerxes ruled 120 states from India to Africa , could have been any of those nations in the persian empire.

First of all, the historicity of the text very much stands to debate (see source below).

Secondly, as I explained earlier in this thread, what's more interesting from the contemporary perspective is how Jewish authorities as well as zionists go about interpreting it.

Various qualified rabbis do not appear to share your above expressed speculation. Here's an example of what one cleric appears to assume the ethnicity of the victims might have been according to the authors of the Book of Esther:

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/the-megillah-says-what-we-killed-75000-persians-on-purim/

This said, Iranian secular nationalists hold the belief that ancient Iranian empires treated conquered nations well. In that sense they would rather tend not to stay entirely indifferent to news of mass killings, be they focused on ethnically non-Iranian subjects of the empire. At the very least would the public in question show interest in learning more about the purported event.

Not to mention that from the perspective of the Book of Esther, chances are either way that at least a non-negligible portion of those 75000 would be deemed to have been native Iranian people.

All we know they wheredisgusting prople who looked for excuses to attack the Jews ,

I'll transmit the message to Iranian nationalists and secularists whom zionists have been recruiting in their confrontation against the Islamic Republic. That 75000 of the Achaemenid empire's inhabitants (a large number for that time, equivalent to several hundreds of thousands in the present day) deserved to be put to death for plotting to harm Jews under concocted pretexts. This would point to a very elaborate plot and a high degree of organization, involving large numbers of people (from Africa all the way to India?) against a much smaller community.

like you do

Surely you'd have been able to substantiate this accusation with some evidence if it were true.

I'd advise against twisting my words though: such an endeavor might end up making the content of the Book of Esther appear less than credible in the eyes of readers, seeing how you likened the mindset of Judeophobes depicted therein with my purely scientific analysis, to which one would be hard pressed to ascribe any form of racialist prejudice.

in this pointless thred.

On the contrary, this thread does have a very specific and important point which I duly elaborated upon in the opening post: the story of Mahoza, the Book of Esther as well as several reports of persecutions of Jews at the hands of Iranians in subsequent centuries go a long way debunking one particular zionist narrative exclusively aimed at Iranian audiences. Namely the notion that ties between Iranians and Jews on the one hand and relations between Iranians and Arabs on the other hand could be radically contrasted with each other, with the former being portrayed as invariably harmonious and the latter as lastingly conflictual.

This narrative in turn is used by exiled Iranians oppositionists as well as by in-house liberals - both of whom are being backed in various ways by NATO and the zionist regime, to take aim at the Islamic Republic's policy of Resistance against zionism, by construing "the Arab" per se as a historic foe and "the Jew" per se as a historic ally. That this typically romanticized discourse has had an impact on the representations of Iranians opposed to the Islamic Republic can readily be verified through concrete examples on this very website.

 

[Mehdipersian]

Yes there were Iranians. Eranshahr / Eran was the official name of the country under the Sassanid dynasty.

Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I understand the zionist regime is bent on denying Iranian nationhood and is actively engaged in attempting to provoke territorial and societal balkanization of Iran (akin to what could previously be witnessed in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) along "ethno"-linguistic lines, however truth is that the concept of Iranianhood stretches back several millennia, like it or not. Iran is one of the eldest nations and states in the world.



First of all, the historicity of the text very much stands to debate (see source below).

Secondly, as I explained earlier in this thread, what's more interesting from the contemporary perspective is how Jewish authorities as well as zionists go about interpreting it.

Various qualified rabbis do not appear to share your above expressed speculation. Here's an example of what one cleric appears to assume the ethnicity of the victims might have been according to the authors of the Book of Esther:

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/the-megillah-says-what-we-killed-75000-persians-on-purim/

View attachment 945753

This said, Iranian secular nationalists hold the belief that ancient Iranian empires treated conquered nations well. In that sense they would rather tend not to stay entirely indifferent to news of mass killings, be they focused on ethnically non-Iranian subjects of the empire. At the very least would the public in question show interest in learning more about the purported event.

Not to mention that from the perspective of the Book of Esther, chances are either way that at least a non-negligible portion of those 75000 would be deemed to have been native Iranian people.



I'll transmit the message to Iranian nationalists and secularists whom zionists have been recruiting in their confrontation against the Islamic Republic. That 75000 of the Sassanid empire's inhabitants (a large number for that time, equivalent to several hundreds of thousands in the present day) deserved to be put to death for plotting to harm Jews under concocted pretexts. This would point to an extremely elaborate plot and a high degree of organization, involving large numbers of people (from Africa all the way to India?) against a much smaller community.



Surely you'd have been able to substantiate this accusation with some evidence if it were true.

I'd advise against twisting my words though: such an endeavor might end up making the content of the Book of Esther appear less than credible in the eyes of readers, seeing how you likened the mindset of Judeophobes depicted therein with my purely scientific analysis, to which one would be hard pressed to ascribe any form of racialist prejudice.



On the contrary, this thread does have a very specific and important point which I duly elaborated upon in the opening post: the story of Mahoza, the Book of Esther as well as several reports of persecutions of Jews at the hands of Iranians in subsequent centuries go a long way debunking one particular zionist narrative exclusively aimed at Iranian audiences. Namely the notion that ties between Iranians and Jews on the one hand and relations between Iranians and Arabs on the other hand could be radically contrasted with each other, with the former being portrayed as invariably harmonious and the latter as tremendously conflictual.

This narrative in turn is used by exiled Iranians oppositionists as well as by in-house liberals - both of whom are being backed in various ways by NATO and the zionist regime, to take aim at the Islamic Republic's policy of Resistance against zionism, by construing "the Arab" per se as a historic foe and "the Jew" per se as a historic ally. That this typically romanticized discourse has had an impact on the representations of Iranians opposed to the Islamic Republic can readily be seen through examples on this very website.

secular iranians knew this. Most real Iranians hate israhell. But in iran we have

Baháʼíes. They call themselves patriotic persians but they are workers of Jews and America. You can't change their minds. (I think most of them are hidden jews)​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_Faith


Jews are kafir harbi now. They attack muslim lands and people.
This is important now.
All muslims should attack them for their crime but they don't attack. This is a real pain for real muslim hearts.

 

[BHAN85]

About ancient Jewish/Persia relationships, keep in the mind the next:

Cyrus the great is the only one gentile that's called anointed one in the Bible (Issaiah Book).

Cyrus the Great - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Isaiah 45:1 of the Hebrew Bible,[12] God anointed Cyrus for this task, even referring to him as a messiah (lit. 'anointed one'); Cyrus is the only non-Jewish figure in the Bible to be revered in this capacity.

That can be more interesting even in Christianity than in Jewish religion, because in Christianity, captivity of Babylon it's not just a past event, but a symbol to describe future events in the end of times.

Whore of Babylon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sammuel]

First of all, the historicity of the text very much stands to debate (see source below).

All scriptires arands to debate , you seem though to be happy yp rely on it when it fits you/

Secondly, as I explained earlier in this thread, what's more interesting from the contemporary perspective is how Jewish authorities as well as zionists go about interpreting it.

We are not governed by the mullahs ! we do'nt have " authorites " intrepreting religopus texts fpr us . You must have been living in a religous dictatorship for too long.

Various qualified rabbis do not appear to share your above expressed speculation. Here's an example of what one cleric appears to assume the ethnicity of the victims might have been according to the authors of the Book of Esther:

Clearly stated that those killed plotted with Haman to kill all the Jews in the Persian empire and Xerxes gave the Jews permission to rise up against their attackers.

Since most of the Jews than lived Under the Persian Empire what Haman planned was n Genocide.

Unlikely ? Insane > well the Anciant Eguptians and the modern day Nazis did not think so. It does not surprise me you identify with them and call Hman and his followers " victims ",

 

[SalarHaqq]

All scriptires arands to debate

The Holy Qur'an doesn't since it is God's own Word.

We are not governed by the mullahs ! we do'nt have " authorites " intrepreting religopus texts fpr us . You must have been living in a religous dectatorship for too long.

What does expertise in exegesis have to do with political dictatorship? Religious scholars perform exegesis under any type of government.

I cited an example of a Jewish cleric who appeared to postulate that the 75000 mentioned in the Book of Esther would have been Persians. There are many such examples and they demonstrate my point.

Clearly stated that those killed plotted with Haman to kill all the Jews in the Persian empire and Xerxes gave the Jews permission to rise up against their attackers.

Since most of the Jews than lived Under the Persian Empire what Haman planned was n Genocide.

Similar to the rabbi quoted above, I have doubts about the story's historicity and do not take it for granted. It is interesting to see how a pro-zionist person such as yourself seemingly does though.

Unlikely ? Insane > well the Anciant Eguptians and the modern day Nazis did not think so. It does not surprise me you identify with them and call Hman and his followers " victims ",

Victim referred specifically to the killings. If someone is killed that means they fell victim to said act, whether or not it is deemed legitimate. There's no value judgement in this usage of the term.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/victim

Nuance 1 a (1) clearly differs from 1 a (2).

 

[sammuel]

About ancient Jewish/Persia relationships, keep in the mind the next:

Cyrus the great is the only one gentile that's called anointed one in the Bible (Issaiah Book).

You are talking to a person here that re-writs history and twist the texts to suit his agenda.

Just check out the whole purpose of this article , twist history create animosity between Jews and Iranians.

And since it is hard to find such examples , he found some insignificant Jewish ruler who nobody even remebers ,who fought some persians for 7 years 1500 years ago.

helps debunk a particular zionist narrative aimed at Iranian audiences: namely, that relations between Iran and Jewish potentates have throughout history been of invariably harmonious character.

Harmonies relations between the Jewish people and the Persian empire is not a " zionist narative " .

It is what is writen in the bible :

saiah 44:28​

​

That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.​

You dont see me refering to parts of the Quran as the " Islamic narrative " do you ?


Kindley show the same repect to other religous texts , as you expect others to show yours . . .


~

 

[SalarHaqq]

You are talking to a person here that re-writs history and twist the texts to suit his agenda.

This assertion is of course unsubstantiated, due to its evidently baseless nature.

Just check out the whole purpose of this article ,twist history create animosity between Jews and Iranians.

The exact opposite applies: my opening post aims at deconstructing and defusing animosity between peoples. Namely, the hostility a certain category of Iranians generally displays against Arab neighbors and vice versa, hostility which zionists have actively been engineering and promoting.

Moreover I clearly stated any notion of static animosity between peoples is absurd. In addition to expressing my agreement with user mohsen's comment that racialist views on politics are utterly naive and that the conflicts imposed on Islamic Iran have been profoundly ideological in essence.

So, the above quoted attempt at an attack directly falls flat.

And since it is hard to find such examples , he found some insignificant Jewish ruler who nobody even remebers ,

I mentioned numerous elements from history, such as:

- The mass killing of 75000 Achaemenid subjects (which Jewish sources often interpret as having been of Iranian ethnicity) at the behest of the Iranian emperor's purported Jewish wife, as conveyed by the veterotestamentary Book of Esther.
- Armed conflicts between the Jewish kingdom of Mahoza and Sassanid Iran.
- Multiple reports claiming persecution and forced conversion of Jews by Iranian authorities from Antiquity to the Qajar period.
- Iran's subjugation to zionist overlordship under the ousted Pahlavi monarchy.
- Tel Aviv's present day policy not simply against the Iranian government but against the Iranian nation itself, which the zionist regime is bent on balkanizing.

Your goal is to try and perpetuate the romanticized fake narrative of permanent harmony between Iran and Jewish potentates prior to the 1979 victory of the Islamic Revolution - narrative usually juxtaposed by its proponents to the equally shaky myth of constant conflict between Iran and Arab entities, for this twin propaganda happens to suit the zionist regime's agenda.

who fought some persians for 7 years 1500 years ago.

Because the Iranian empire prevented it from fighting on, by nipping it in the bud.

Harmonies relations between the Jewish people and the Persian empire is not a " zionist narative " .

It is what is writen in the bible :

saiah 44:28​

​

That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. ​

Selective citation which obfuscates the role attributed to a general as well as to 75000 subjects of the Iranian empire in the veterotestamentary tale of Esther.

Furthermore you twisted my words again: I spoke of invariably harmonious ties. This is a myth, and one which meanwhile has successfully been busted.

Kindley show the same repect to other religous texts , as you expect others to show yours . . .

Noticing that the Hebrew Bible narrates the story of a bloody incident opposing Iranians and Jews is not disrespectful towards any religious scripture. Nor is studying the ways in which adherents of a political current, zionism, have been reading the story in question.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Not at all. I came up with the Cambridge definition of treason early on, which very clearly specifies how a traitor's work is directed against their own country or supportive of its enemies.

To which you kept retorting by suggesting that this is supposedly not an issue but a legal and welcome activity in Iran.

Cambridge definition worth nothing it's our laws that count

 

[Blue In Green]

This assertion is of course unsubstantiated, due to its evidently baseless nature.



The exact opposite applies: my opening post aims at deconstructing and defusing animosity between peoples. Namely, the hostility a certain category of Iranians generally displays against Arab neighbors and vice versa, hostility which zionists have actively been engineering and promoting.

Moreover I clearly stated any notion of static animosity between peoples is absurd. In addition to expressing my agreement with user mohsen's comment that racialist views on politics are utterly naive and that the conflicts imposed on Islamic Iran have been profoundly ideological in essence.

So, the above quoted attempt at an attack directly falls flat.



I mentioned numerous elements from history, such as:

- The mass killing of 75000 Achaemenid subjects (which Jewish sources often interpret as having been of Iranian ethnicity) at the behest of the Iranian emperor's purported Jewish wife, as conveyed by the veterotestamentary Book of Esther.
- Armed conflicts between the Jewish kingdom of Mahoza and Sassanid Iran.
- Multiple reports claiming persecution and forced conversion of Jews by Iranian authorities from Antiquity to the Qajar period.
- Iran's subjugation to zionist overlordship under the ousted Pahlavi monarchy.
- Tel Aviv's present day policy not simply against the Iranian government but against the Iranian nation itself, which the zionist regime is bent on balkanizing.

Your goal is to try and perpetuate the romanticized fake narrative of permanent harmony between Iran and Jewish potentates prior to the 1979 victory of the Islamic Revolution - narrative usually juxtaposed by its proponents to the equally shaky myth of constant conflict between Iran and Arab entities, for this twin propaganda happens to suit the zionist regime's agenda.



Because the Iranian empire prevented it from fighting on, by nipping it in the bud.



Selective citation which obfuscates the role attributed to a general as well as to 75000 subjects of the Iranian empire in the veterotestamentary tale of Esther.

Furthermore you twisted my words again: I spoke of invariably harmonious ties. This is a myth, and one which meanwhile has successfully been busted.



Noticing that the Hebrew Bible narrates the story of a bloody incident opposing Iranians and Jews is not disrespectful towards any religious scripture. Nor is studying the ways in which adherents of a political current, zionism, have been reading the story in question.

Well said Salar-Jan!

 

[Beny Karachun]

- The mass killing of 75000 Achaemenid subjects (which Jewish sources often interpret as having been of Iranian ethnicity) at the behest of the Iranian emperor's purported Jewish wife, as conveyed by the veterotestamentary Book of Esther.

>Be Haman
>Plan to kill all Jews, set a date for the massacre to happen
>Jewish wife of Nebuchadnezzar, the Persian king, tells Haman's plan to him
>King executes Haman and all of his family, releasing a royal edict allowing the Jews to defend themselves without consequences
>bunch of Persians try to kill Jews that day but they died in battles

Muh Jews enemies of Persians!