Persia before Islam; I read on wiki about that.. but  the info. is not so good, and actually there wasn't enough info.?

I was wondering what was the system like, rights and rules, and so on?

I mean many Persians seem to believe it was the golden era for Persia, why?!

could you please give me some info. or source to read about that....

merci

I will try and explain the best way I can.

Firstly, I would like to explain that Iran after Islam was also prosporous and strong.  For example, the Safavids were one of the best dynasties of Iran.  However, after the Islamic invasions, Iran was severely weakened, and even though it had gotten its independence from the Arabs, the new Iranian dynasties were to weak to hold off the Turks.  And the Qajars were one of Iran's weakest dynasties in all of its history. So when Iranians compare their pre-Islamic history to their Islamic history, most of the successes and strong dynasties came before Islam.

But no doubt, the best Iranian dynasty was the Sassanid dynasty.

Iran under the Sassanid Empire flourished.  Iran became the richest empire in the world through the silk road (yes, even richer than Rome), the best university in the world at that time was built in Iran, religious tolerance was accepted, the Iranian military was unmatched, with the exception of the Romans, and some of Irans most stunning victories came during this time.

The Sassanids today represent what most Iranians want. The Sassanids represent an Iranian dynasty for the people, not for religion. The Sassanids represent Irans revenge against its enemies. The Sassanids represent richness and strength.  The Sassanids represented nationalism, patriotism, and love for the nation.

The Sassanids created many public works, such as damns, roads, etc... some of which survives and still works to this day.

Before the Sassanids there was another great dynasty, the Parthians.  However not much is known about them. They were certainly strong, and Iran under them was rich.  Iran however, was also under hellenistic influence during the Parthian Era due to the previous Greek dynasty.

and before the Parthians there were the Achaemenids. Since the Achaemenids are the most known of all the Iranian dynasties, I dont have much more to add on them. A simple search about them will yeild a lot of information.

 nice article Iranian41ife

i noticed that many iranians who want strong rich iran who see the Sassanids era as the ideal peiod  tend to think of everything related to that era as perfect, the shahs the religion and everything, i also think that they dont know many things about it too.

i think a good strong rich iran can be achieved without looking back, but looking forward.

-----

land of aryan,

iran was ruled by NON arab for the last 1000 years,  so 1000 years isnt enough time for them to know that Islam isnt good and Zoroasterianisim is the Best?

No persians have to look backward and they have to renew with their true identity.

and whats their "true identity"?

no, there was only one shah of iran that was religiously intolerant, and that was khosru Parvez. and he initially was against christianity because his enemy, byzantium, was christian. but after he defeated the byzantines and married a christian wife, he again restored religious freedom in iran.

the sassanid empire was a religious tolerant country for most of its history.

Azimuth and Maziar:

Why and what Iran should look forward? To enter in the globalisation? to be such as USA or england? or such UAE?

You dreaming or what? once Iran free . he will creat a new way of life based pre islamic values. Persians will creat their own economic and politic and social policy and system. Iran, israel and india will change the world mind. Iran have to be gover by Parsis. by true iranian.

disgusting

what disgustin?

 do you khnow why iranians are posting in this forum? poor Maziar you are really confused and superficial. if we post here it is because our identity is not reconized and hugely hiden. i m not telling you to see backward concerning technology, material.. but concerning philosophy, history,culture and mind. u have been arabized and westernized. stop posting, you have nothing to say in this forum. 

this is not because you speak farsi that means you are iranian. yes you right keep listening your friend azimuth.

Never never forget who you are.   

lol, mullah ganstar you are new here, you dont even know the kind of person maziar is. he isnt arabised and he is just as iranian as you or me.

you want iran to be a persian dictatorship, that is why i said your post was disgusting.

Iranian would not forget who they are, me too you fool. You even can't understand what i say. When do you want to learn to use your brain and disscuss in a civilized way? You have been warned already, this must give you to think befor you troll around again.

And you better stop to post here, go away befor you will be banned, no one of Iranian members here will miss you.

Originally posted by Mullah Ganstar yes i want iran to be govern by zoroastrian, and yes i m a persian extremist.   I think you should both stop posting because you really confused. Iranian4life you seem having 18 years old am i right? be arfahe  khale aryan goosh kon, bad nemige, pfff you baby

our iranian moderator has banned iranic extremists before, dont think you will be an exception. as maziar said, we wont miss a person like you.

pan iranism is dead, lets leave it that way, and please dont start pan persianism bs in here.

Mullah you seem to be the baby here, you cant handle any idea that is different from yours.

now please stop telling people to post or not to post thats my business, you didnt give reasons why Zoroasterian iran is the true identity of iran.

you know that iran was not isolated, their religion and clulture was influenced by they regions near by such as indian and mesopotamians.

there is no such thing as pure civilizations which done everything from scratch and that includes iran too.

Oh really? can you tell me something that I don't khnow plz.

I nerver said Persia was a pure civilization. Persian writting was related to sumerian... Zoroastrism is hugely related to vedas. I mean by true identity: an identity without islam and without arabian word in farsi. And all iranians have to reconize their aryan past as the craddle of modern monotheist religions.anyway islam will someday desepear from Iran.  

lol so its ok to have sumerian letters and indian religion but its not ok to have arabic letters and a religion came from arabia,

even though you believe that islam actully an iranian religion

are you contradicting yourself or just being racist?

I think persians hate arabs

LoL, Didn't you understand our problem with arab yet???

about Indian, 1st we were one nation, then departed

about writing, We adopted it by our will

but Arab imposed their rule, language, religion to us by SWORD
even You have never wonder about Iranian name after invasion, Arab force us to change our name to arabic one

no it seems that you dont understand the problem of your identity crisis.

as i mentioned in another thread , Arabic language became official language for all the Caliphat not only in iran and it was a decision of one caliph.

its a fact that when Arabs ruled iran there were Millions of zoroasterians still in iran and practicing their religion.

its a fact that mass force conversion to islam happened when Iranians took over from arabs and ruled themselvs.

its a fact that Iranians had the power to chose what they want and what they dont want , proofs of that they brought back Persian language as the official language of Iran, they Chose to continue using Arabic script and they Chose to keep staying muslims and chose to force other iranians to islam.

------------------

 you and other iranians whining all the time about that islam was forced upon your fathers and they pretended to be muslims fearing Arab swords

thinking thats defending your fathers? i see that as insulting your fathers, your fathers were far away from Arabs swords for more than 1100 years, you insulting their intellegence?

the last shah was proud iranian he called himself "light of Arayan" still his name is Muhammed Riza ! why not change it to Korosh Darushi?

-------------

it seems like some of iranians see things only to two colors black or white,

Khomeini and the current regime are not good? oh ok then everything related to them is not good, including their religion, and calling them Persian speaking arabs and calling them azaris/

why cant you admit that Iranians did most of the things by themselvs?

again Arabs gone from iran long long time ago, and they left iran with millions of zoroasterians, the rest is Iranian/Iranian thing has nothing to do with Arabs.

I'm neutral, but I think after more than 2 centuries of arabian presecution, Iranians admited islam as their own with shea. I believe arabians have still many influences in Iran. I'm agree when mullah says that Iran is a land of faith and values. I think Islam has no more its place in Iran.

i dont see any of that relevant to my post to you, actully what you posted is off topic.

what arabian gulf had to do with this?

what are you talking about me denying what you wrot? i didnt even talk about many of the things you mentioned.

i see your english is good enough to understand what i wrote, but its look like you have "extra" interpetations i didnt even say and you are accusing me of saying

hmmmm...  imagination maybe?

you better read what i wrote and understand them instead of making your own version of what i wrote, people will start calling you crazy .

now keep on topic and if you have nothing to say on my replays them better not to post at all.

thanks.

Yes i am awar of all that books were burned and spulled in water, girls and women were forced to marry arab conquestors in the same night their fathers and husbands were murdered. Water mills were driven by young Persian man's blood. But keep in mind the new generation of arabs today has nothing to do with that, what Iran suffered as Arabas muslims invaded us. So don't talk about hate, it will infect your souls. Germans today have nothing to do with the holocaust, and the upcoming generation of Serbia can't be condemned for what their fathers done to Bosnians.

If you disslike Islam, go ahead. You don't have to respect Islam or any other ideologies you disslike, but you have to respect the humans. I don't offend muslims and arabs, i respect them becouse they are humans, but i have no respect for Islam.

lol, iranians dont have an identity crisis, we know who we are. unlike arabs, who are in the habit these days of claiming everything to try and create the type of identity they want.

how would you know the truth? you are living in the same country that makes it illegal to use the term Persian Gulf, ofcourse they are going to teach you that arabs were the good guys and iranians were the bad guys and that arabs have never done anything like forcing their beliefs on others.

it is also a fact that millions had to flee iran just so they wouldnt be FORCED into islam. today, only tens of thousands of iranian zoroasters have managed to keep their religion alive.

the rest were either killed, forced into islam, or fled.

o really, under iranians, and not during the 222 year arab occupation?

no, the occupied almost never have a choice.

iran was occupied for 222 years, and some of the things forced on us stuck, other things were brought back to life.

are you saying arabs are inferior and that us by saying that you guys were able to force yourselves unto us is disgraceful?

i dont know about you, but i consider arabs the equals of all other humans, and the arabs having the upper hand for 222 years is not a disgrace to our ancestors, nor is it a disgrace for us fighting for our ancestors rights today.

you think iran went from a highly nationalistic patriotic zoroaster state under the sassanids to a muslim state because iranians wanted that to happen?

OMG, you are plain ridiculous azimuth, the 222 year arab occupation had nothing to do with it?

lol, we can tell that the arabs never forced anything on others by the way that north africa and the middle east have been arabised..... LOL but i guess they just chose to give up their identities to be arabs right? LOL

like i said, some things stay, some things dont stay. 222 years is a long long time and when people are forcing you to do one thing for so long you get used to it.

and grey...

we dont call them azari's nor do we call them persian speaking arabs.

lol, i dont know where you guys get these ideas from...

we do call them arab wannabees sometimes since they seem to care more about arabs than iranians.

but they are iranian.

everything except islam, the arabic script, arabic names, etc... but we have incorporated them into our culture now anyway, and who knows one day things might change again.

LOL, believe what ever you want, because at the end of the day we are secure enough to know the truth.

and where do you get these "millions of zoroaster" figures from?

Seems that most of you have said what you intended to say. I don't have the foggiest as to how this discussion has been productive. Personal insults have taken over legitimate issues. 

The only identity crisis I see is when you lose focus and respect for eachother. As Iranians and Arabs you will have similarities and differences. Blaiming one another for the past is a lame excuse for a country's current problems. However, this behavior seems to be the norm around here. Each country should clean up there own act. Just as each person here is responsible for himself.

ok thats strange, what Yazdgerd's letter has to do with "persian hate Arab" there was a thread about this and you guys said persians dont hate anyone! and argued with me that iam making up stuff !

you should explain what you think as an answer instead of copy/pasing an unrelated article specially if its Not self explanatory.

then you claimed that Iranians were forced by force to have islam as religion and speak arabic and have arabic names. my answer which you freaked about was to that. and i did quote your post so i dont see that my post was confusing .

i see what i wrote and i wrote more than that sentence, hope you SAW what i wrote there.

by Identity cirsis i was talking about YOU land of aryan not all iranians,

i was not intending to insult you or anything, i said that because you keep saying that since the Arab conquest of Persia, Iranians were forced to do what they are doing till today which is having islam as religion and having arab names.

thats ignornat, because i dont see an arab standing with a sword for the last 1100 years Forcing iranians to continue being muslims and continue speaking arabic and have Arabic names.

that was my point which you seem to like to ignore or misunderstand each time.

so identity crisis as i meant it was you dont know why your fellow iranians are majority muslims and many of them have arabic names, and blaming arabic conquest which happened more than 1300 years ago for that, again my question which you igonre, WHO was forcing iranians to that AFTER the arab left?

i was talking about you not all iranians,

you didnt show anything about "arab identity cirsis" you dont even know what you copied if you like to discuss it make a new thread in the intellectual forum or send a PM to me.

i did NOT say arab were inoccent , go read again what i wrote

i was NOT talking about the period when arab ruled, i was talking about the period when Arab STOPPED ruling Iran.

who were forcing iranians when arab are not ruling??

after arab left iran, arabs are not responsible of what Iranians did to iranians, from that point iranian Empires were stronger and not effected by Arabs and had the power to chose what they want and they did change many things arab forced them to do, and CHOSE to keep other things.

i honsly dont see the relation,

i dont see my "remarks" about "persian gulf" are against AE rule of Conduct, if so please show me that with explanation.

Identity crisis thing  i explained above.

i do respect your national feeling and i wasnt refereing at you nor all iranian when i said that,

it seems like there is a misunderstanding from your side to what i wrote, i did explain what i meant above to my replay to Land of Aryan. sorry if that offended , its wasnt my intention to do so.

what did i deny? what are you talking about really?

sorry if you feel offended about things i did NOT say but you should watch your imagination  and try to control it before state accusing people and make up your own scenarios.

I'm totally agree with you!

I think actually Persians are angry against arabians  because arabs see in Iran a hope for Islam. And iranians don't like arabs because arabs support the iranian regim !

I still say you make up stuff. a minority hates Arabs, yes i am awar, and if this makes you happy there are many Iranian in foreigen countries who hate Arabs. But the majority of Iranian people hate no one. Many Iranian people disslike or hate Islam, this is a fact, but no one of them hate you az humans. I am very sure this has to do with Islam and not with you.

Azimuth i hope you have read my last post, people reply respect with respect and respectlessnes with respectlessnes. Iranians here make a thread about arab invasion, you come and claime there are all lies, iranians attack arabs in generally as an reply to you, you come again and say iranian hate arabs, again iranians provoke , and again you come and say Aryan has an identity crisis, and it will go on, again and again and again. STOP IT

I don't want to prove who is here wrong or who is right, and i am asking the both side to stop this nonsens. I except from you as a moderator to try to stop it, but you flame it more and more, and Iranians do too.

religion is much harder to give up then say a script or a language. i wish iran had done a inquisition like the spanish had done after their arab occupation ended. that would have solved a lot of things, but they didnt.

but the fact still is that what started this cycle was the arabs forcing it in the first place.

much like how arabs claim that israel started the cycle of violence.

arabs dont have an identity crisis? what about claiming everything that was muslim or islamic as theirs? what about claiming the name Persian Gulf is arabian gulf?

that sounds like a BIG identity crisis to me. it seems that your governments are so insecure that they have to do such things. and remember the funny thing about dubai claiming that they invented "bad gir's" or wind catchers.

i was merely trying to show you that you cannot get a good education in a country that is so biased against iran.

i was showing you that if they ban the term Persian Gulf then they obviously have other political propaganda in the school curriculums.

why do arabs hate iranians? what have iranians ever done to you guys? please tell me.

i am not saying iranians never did that. infact, they are doing it right now (mullahs in iran).

im saying that arabs forced their language and religion onto iran through force.

where are your sources?   al jazeera.com?

like i said, religion is harder to throw out compared to language and script and culture, etc...

here is the chain:

great grand father is forced into islam -> grandfather is forced to uphold that islam -> son gains islam through father -> independence, the son, having been used to it by now and accepting it passes it on to child, and so on and so on.

if the christians had conquered arabia during the crusades and kept it for 200 years forcing everyone to adopt latin and christianity, i garuntee you that you would be worshipping jesus right now yourself.

the first few generations were forced into islam, everything happening afterward is a chain reaction to that.

my argument is that arabs forced both their language and religion on iran.

that is what we are talking about, and you are trying to deny it and change the subject to afterward.

because in the modern world, outdated things get eliminated. that outdated thing today is islam, it either has to change or it will eventually disappear.

iranians are now seeing that islam means slowing down progress.  you guys are lucky, all your leaders are secular people, therefore you dont know the consequences islam can have on a country.

no, iranians never call them azari mullahs or arab mullahs, we simply call them mullahs, or as we say in Pars: "mullah'ha"

the thing you are refering to is the when we were trying to explain to the turks who were claiming that iran is being ruled by "persian chauvinists" that the dictator of iran is azari and therefore iran could not be a persian chauvanist state.

also, they were claiming that azari's wanted to seperate, so we told them that azari's are major participants in the current government along with other ethnic groups in iran, including arabs and persians.

so your taking those comments out of context.

lol, hmm... i wonder if it was your arab teacher in the UAE?

The arabs didn't force islam really, i mean just check wikipedia, there are even articles on the arab invasion of Iran, and how they didn't want converts to receive jizya tax.

Also sorry again, they never claimed anything muslim to be theres, just fyi, sites even in the Arabic language say from where the scientists originated.

You people got worked up becuase the Arabian gulf got mentioned as a parenthesis (fyi, Persian Gulf was still there) in a friggin map, Iran banned it too

Says alot about insecure people

Also how about some sources yourself Iranian4Life?

I'd thought you'd wisen up after Mira thuroughly repulsed all your arguments in the Islam thread, but i guess you guys don't give up.

lol, i would really like to see the curriculum in arab schools.

iran banned the magazine as a boycott. and they were right to do so, and the magazine quickly changed their MISTAKE.

no matter how much money your governments throw at the world, we will eventually succed because an free iran will have more influence in the region and in the world then saudi arabia or egypt.

iran will not stay this politically weak in the world arena for ever. during the shah's time this issue would have already been taken care off, you guys are just taking advantage but you will fail. the world isnt ignorant of the truth.

your right, it does, you admit it, now hopefully azimuth will admit arab insecurity.

sources for what? the force?

i didnt participate in that discussion. and no muslim can ever make me change my mind about islam.

For reference:

http://www.alnoor.info/Scientists/zaman.asp - http://www.alnoor.info/Scientists/zaman.asp

Arabic website, i'll be damned if they claimed a persian scientist to be arab.

Is that all you have to say? I mean put some more effort. How about searching wikipedia for a change?

thats right the force.

Arab insecurity? next to pan-turanists, pan-persians are the most insecure people.

I'm not the one talking about how great my countries past is 24/7 just to feel good at night

Woops my bad, you guys are dime a dozen, so excuse me if i couldn't tell whose who. 

i cant read arabic...... did you expect everyone can just because its supposed to be God's language? isnt that the excuse the arabs used to force it on others?

checking wikipedia for what? what some arab has to say about what happened?

so you agree about the force? LOL

pan persianism? wow, you like making up terms dont you

there is pan turanism, pan arabism, but there is no pan persianism and there is no pan iranism.

just do a google search, nothing comes up under pan persianism, and there are only 3 pan iranist sites, 1 in english, 2 in Parsi. pan iranism has been dead for 50 years.

neither am i.

what a coincidence, so are islamists.

Its not my business you can't read or not, you just claimed that arabs claim everything is theirs, and believe me, only a minority of pan-arabs do. Which is why i linked you to this website.

What arab? do you know zereshk there? he is Iranian, and he does give a balanced view on post islamic iran.

Avoiding the question are we?

pan persianism? wow, you like making up terms dont you

Oh hey i'm making up words now, what better term is there for you guys,with all due respect of course

can you find me a site in english?

yes, i know zereshk, i didnt know that he had written it though.

you want sources? well i can show you iranian sources, but i dont think you would accept them.

Originally posted by Fizzil pan persianism? wow, you like making up terms dont you Oh hey i'm making up words now, what better term is there for you guys,with all due respect of course

 very laughable.

I can translate it. But if you want unbiased site, its probably in arabic, most english sites are biased and poorly spelled.

So long as the sources are primary, first hand accounts of historians who have collected evidence and fact during their eras. Or Secondary sources referring to primary sources.

Comes from a guy whose nick is Iranian4Life  

Honestly now, look at your sig too, if thats not nationalist then what is?

well it doesnt look like we are going to get anywhere now does it?

ok.

whats wrong with my name, i will be iranian for life, i cant change that.

and whats wrong with my signature, how is putting a quote of a guy saying he would defend iran make me a pan persian?

dont change the subject, how did you go from talking about pan persians to nationalism? maybe its because you found out you were wrong.

The Iranian Identity Crisis: Islam v. Iranian Identity

By: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/PaoloBassi.htm - Paolo Bassi
2006/04/27

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution the West has presented, with depressing consistency, a distorted image of Iran portraying it as a seething mass of Islamic fanaticism. Those unaware of Iran 's rich history could be forgiven for believing that Iran knows nothing but Islam. The reality is far more complex and hopeful. Publicly most Iranians accept their Islamic identity, however, most are also aware of their pre-Islamic Iranian identity. The tension between these competing identities has existed since the Arab-Islamic takeover of Iran in the seventh century AD.

In 632 A.D., the founder of Islam, Mohammad, died but left his new Islamic state in Arabia with a clear message to conquer, convert and subdue all other faiths. The Muslim Arabs, armed with their new Islamic faith, and hungry for land and wealth, unleashed a devastating war of conquest and within 30 years they had conquered a huge empire stretching from North Africa to N.W. India. The Arab conquerors imposed Islam so successfully that the pre-Islamic history of the conquered peoples was virtually erased from historic consciousness. The Arabs did not seek mere military conquest but also sought to conquer the culture and identity of the defeated nations. Islam was to have no rivals. The political nature of Islam demanded that a conquered people, such as the Iranians, not only convert to Islam but also to regard their past history as a time of darkness before the light of Islam came. In attacking Iranian identity, one of the most infamous acts of the Arab invaders was to burn Iranian libraries full of centuries of collected knowledge. The Islamic logic to justify this vandalism was that if this Iranian knowledge agreed with the Koran, then it was superfluous and if it contradicted the Koran, then such books should be destroyed. An unbeatable argument!

Islam adamantly required conquered people to scorn their own past and love their Islamic Arab conquerors by striving to imitate them. More importantly, the Koran is written in Arabic and Islam's sacred places, Mecca and Medina, are in Arabia. It was clear that the conquered and newly converted had to accept the primacy of the Arabic language, Arabic values and above all Arabia itself. After all, Mohammad was an Arab and since Islam regards him as the best example of a human, Arab values cannot be rejected, without implicitly rejecting Islam and Mohammad. Islam as an imperial culture brought deeper and more profound psychological changes to the cultures it conquered than European colonialism ever could. Islam struck at human identity itself. Along with Islam's cultural demands, its political ambition was to include all Muslims in an Islamic world without borders, in which the only permissible political allegiance was to the world-wide Muslim community, Allah and Mohammad. There was no place in such a world for a conquered people's pre-Islamic history or national identity.

After the arrival of Islam, Iran faced the most critical test in its history. Would its ancient, tolerant Zoroastrian culture survive or would Islam and Arab culture replace the unique Iranian identity. Alternatively, could Iran somehow transform Islam into a palatable Iranian form? These questions have characterized Iran since the Islamic takeover. It is true, Islam has become the dominant cultural force, yet Iranian identity, rooted in its Zoroastrian past, has never quite conceded defeat. The tension remains to this day. For example "no ruz" or the Iranian new year (based on a Zoroastrian practice) is condemned by the Islamic clerics as a pagan practice, yet is widely celebrated. In addition, the achievements of the ancient Achaemenian period (whose empire was conquered by Alexander the Great in the 4th Century B.C.) and its classical civilization, have never left the Iranian collective psyche. The ruins of Persepolis are a constant reminder that there was great Iranian past a thousand years before Islam was even born. Not even the mullahs can deny evidence that is carved in rock.

During the Abbassid period, Ferdowsi (b.935), perhaps Iran 's greatest amongst many great poets, wrote the epic "Shahnameh" (story of kings) and reclaimed the Iranian past and language from Arabic influence. Ferdowsi's poetry openly proclaims the superiority of Iran's culture and laments the Arab invasion. He accepts Islam itself as a fact of life without directly criticizing its teachings. However, Ferdowsi has nothing but contempt for the Arabs themselves and cannot forgive them. At times Ferdowsi's poetry even condemns the imposition of Islam itself. It is revealing that Ferdowsi's tomb is still revered by Iranians despite the ruling Islamic theocracy.

Islam's relegation of the pre-Islamic past of the conquered non-Arab peoples, to an era of "darkness" was one of the major themes of the Indian author, V.S. Naipaul's Nobel Prize winning books, "Among the Believers' and "Beyond Belief". Naipaul proposes that conquered peoples, such as the Iranians and Indonesians, had been separated by Islam from their complete and true historical past, and removed again by European colonialism and this disconnect has resulted in an inner anxiety and crisis of identity. Take for example Islamist movements in Indonesia and Philippines, in which young Asian Muslims imitate Arabic appearance and call for Israel's destruction, yet they have no ethnic, cultural or historic connection with Palestinians. Both Islamic and subsequent western colonialism, according to Naipaul, have robbed the "conquered peoples" from their true selves, such that there is an inner loss of identity and a yearning to belong to some cause.

There have been times when Iran has dared to remember its past. In 1926, Reza Khan was crowned the first Pahlavi King of Iran and as part of his reforms he made it clear that he regarded Islam as a foreign imposed faith that should not determine Iran 's identity. As part of his attack on Islam, Reza Khan connected his new Iran with the ancient Zoroastrian past. The Farsi language was purged of Arabic words, architecture began to take inspiration from ancient Achaemenian styles and schoolbooks were re-written to enhance an Iranian identity. Cities were renamed with Iranian names, parents were encouraged to give Iranian, and not Arabic, names to their children. In 1935 Persia itself was replaced with Iran, as it was known in the days of Cyrus the Great. These reforms were of course reversed after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

It conclusion, it seems that Iranian history has swung back and forth between its Arab imposed Islamic identity and its older Zoroastrian culture. The latter simply refuses to die. Just as an individual struggles with conflicting loyalties and identities until they are reconciled, so do entire nations and cultures. As long as Iran 's ancient identity is denied and denigrated, Iranian public life will be dishonest and contradictory. According to Islam, all history before Islam was an era of "darkness" and should be discarded. This is a frightening Orwellian belief, that the world witnessed first hand with the Taliban's destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues. If the Iranian past is to regain its rightful place, it must be prepared to attack this identity-destroying aspect of Islam and re-claim its own past.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/PaoloBassi60427.htm - http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/PaoloBassi60427.htm

Jeez, get an arabic reading iranian if you want, it will probably get you somewhere

Oh wait so pan-persians are not nationalists, here is some free advice:

Get a clue buddy.

Oh and the last post, thats not a primary source, i'm talking real primary sources, like Al-Tabari or Ibn Khaldun.

Not some revisionist crap, Paolo bassi doesn't even mention a source.

Edit: off to sleep, will continue tommorow.

i didnt know you meant from iranian historians. i thought you were talking about general websites.

This is your problem of unmaturity Iranian4life. You can't even tell an Anti-Islamic propagandist website from a neutural site. A non-Iranian western guy's article can't be always balanced. 

no i can, i clearly told fizzil that my source would be from an iranian site, he told me to post it anyway. most of the authors on that site seem to be iranian.

why dont you grow up and actually READ the thread before you post.

Maziar

i did replay to your previous post, its somewhere in that long replay, i do respect iranian culture and national feelings, as anybody else i have no respect for people who dont have respect to me and my feelings.

i dont have anything else to say to Land of Aryan, if you noticed most of my replay to him is saying what i said and what i didnt say and what i meant and what i didnt mean and what he said and showing his misunderstanding.

so really there is no discussion, and i have nothing much to say.

just one more thing, Iranian41ife is making jokes about my statments and saying that i dont have sources.

i will provide the source below.

thanks for your concerns .

-----------------------------------------------------

omg Iranian41ife !

you accusing UAE education system while you clearly dont know anything about it

accusing me of saying things i didnt say,

you talk with confidence like you know what you talking about and obviously you have no clue thats called "Bluffing"!

--------------

 instead of quoting your post and showing what i said and what i didnt say and what you said and how fool that is, lets just get to the main point and give you the "source".

actully i didnt find my original source but i found even BETTER source.

so please FOCUS and learn something new about Iranian history which you are ignornat about.

it has some anti Arab statments in it but then what would you expect from a loser bluffing?

my point is that if there is anything against Arab they would certenely say it, BUT there are some FACTS that are well known that they cannot be twised even by those guys.

so here we go.

---------------------

note: if you have problem with this source, please contact  Mr. Ahmad Kamron Jabbari using the following contacts:

Iranica Institute
P.O. Box 5731
Irvine, CA 92616. USA
E-mail: mailto:info@iranicainstitute.org - info@iranicainstitute.org

Arab Rule In Iran [1]

The Arabs who conquered Iran were generally illiterate and were after Persian golds and booties, who had little or no knowledge of Mohammad's teachings. However, it appears that at first they allowed the Iranians to practice their religion so long as they paid the Jaziya (Poll Tax) and accepted Arab rule. Arab Commander Sa'd Ibn Abi-Vaghas wrote to Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khatab about what should be done with the books at capital Tyspwn (Ctesiphon) in province of Khvârvarân (today known as Iraq). Umar wrote back: "If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous. On the other hand, if they are in agreement, they are not needed." All the books were thrown into the Euphrates. Under another ruler Gotaibeh ibn Moslem in Khwarezmia, all the historians, writers, and mobeds were massacred and their books burned in fire, so that after one generation, the people became illiterate. Other libraries at Ray, Khorassan, Gay of Isphahan and University of Gondishapour were eventually destroyed. Only a few books that were translated into Arabic survived. Yazid ibn Mohlab is reputed to have ordered the decapitation of so many Iranians that their blood flowed in the water powering a millstone for one full day. There are many other massacres recorded. The Arabs called the Iranians 'Ajam' meaning mute.

The first voice of protest cam from Firouz (known to Arabs as Abu LoLo), an artisan who had been enslaved by an Arab. He assassinated Umar. Later uprisings are recognized as Abu Moslem of Khorassan, White-clads, Red-clads (led by Bâbak), Mâziyâr, Ostâdzis, Afshin, and many others. Finally, after 200 years, known as "Two Centuries of Silence", the Arabs were driven out of Iran by a man and later king from Sistan, Yaghoub Lais, the founder of Saffarid dynasty.

Many Iranian noblemen had by this time picked up.Arabic/Islamic names and the new religion. They were.even more zealous in converting their fellow-Iranians.to Islam. One Iranian premier, Sahib ibn-e Obbad (900.AC) would not look in the mirror as he would see a. Zoroastrian. Publication in Persian was banned by.Abdollah ibn Tahir (Taherid Dynasty), who burned.Persian books. .

The 9th and 10th century saw the revival of Persian.literature and culture by Zoroastrian poets like Daghighi and Zarthost Bahram Pazdouh and later by Ferdowsi, Rudaki, Molavi, Nezami, Umar Khayyam and.Hafez. Ferdowsi is credited with reviving the Persian.language through his Shahnameh (the Epic of the Kings), which is almost completely devoid of Arabic words. He renewed the Iranian legend of Kâveh the blacksmith and Freydoun who vanquished the blood-thirsty Zahhak-e.Tâzi (the Arab).

Hafez wrote:
In a garden renew your Zoroastrian faith
In the monastery of the Magi, why they honor us,
The fire that never dies, burns in our hearts.

Others Iranians like Sohravardi, the founder of the school of illumination and Mansour Hallaj were martyred. When a group of fanatic Moslems destroyed the wall of a mosque and blamed the action on Zoroastrians, many Zoroastrian of Khorasan were massacred. Despite all this, by the end of the Safavid.dynasty (1400 AD) there were 3 to 5 million.Zoroastrians in Iran (nearly one fifth of Iran's pppulation).

The Caspian province of Mazandaran was ruled by a Zoroastrian dynasty known as Pâduspiân until 1006 Hijri. During the rule of Shah Abbas the Great (1587-1628 AD), many Zoroastrias of Iran were deported.to a ghetto town near Isfahan named Gabrabâd, where they lived in abject poverty.

The population of Zoroastrians in Iran at the turn of.the 18th century was estimated to be One million..Under order of the last Safavid king, Shah Sultan.Hossein (1694-1722) nearly the whole population of. Zoroastrians of capital city Isfahan and nearby towns were slaughtered or forcibly converted, according to reports by Christian priests in the area. The entire population of Gabrâbâd was wiped out. The towns of Nâyin and Anârak converted to Islam. The local language of the people there remains Persian Dari. The.customs and traditions of Abiyâneh still remain Zoroastrian.

When the rebellion Afghan warlord arrived in Kerman, they first massacred Zoroastrians. The Afghan revolt was defused by Nâdar Shah of Afsharid dynasty (1736-47). He became insane after the invasion of India. After a failed assassination attempt, he became suspicious of his son and blinded him. But when he found out that his son was totally innocent, he resorted to mass murder. By his order, all the.Zoroastrian population of Khorassan and Sistan were massacred. The few survivors had to travel on foot through the central desert to Yazd and Kerman.

The next dynasty in power was the Zand dynasty. A Zoroastrian astrologer named Mollah Goshtasp predicted the fall of the Zand dynasty to the Qajar army in.Kerman. Because of Goshtasp's forecast, the Zoroastrians of Kerman were spared by the conquering army of Agah Mohammad Khan of Qajar.

During the Quajar era (1796-1925), the walls of Zoroastrian houses could not be built taller than that.of Moslems. If any child of a family converted, he was entitled to all the heritage. If they were riding a donkey, they had to dismount upon facing a Moslem. And they were not allowed to appear in public during the rainy days because the water that had run down from their clothes and bodies may contaminate the Moslems. At times, Zoroastrian girls were kidnapped and forcefully converted and married with celebrations and fanfare. On top of all that they had to pay a heavy tax called Jaziya (Poll Tax). Under these conditions, many declared themselves as Moslems and picked up Islamic names but continued Zoroastrian practices in secret. The latter group today is called Jadid.

At first glance the name Paolo Bassi doesn't even sound iranian, so barbar is essentially right

Ooops, I fogot to add "the so called" in my previous post.

BTW, very useful source, Fizzil.  Before I also thought Iranians were forced to convert to Islam by Arabs. You know people always get misinformed if something is repeated many times by many different people.

i am secure enough to admit that iranians did most of the damage to themselves.

BUT I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ARAB OCCUPATION! WHY ARE YOU CHANGING THE SUBJECT AZIMUTH?

even ferdowsi indirectly shows his contempt for the arabs in the shahnameh. he could not attack islam or the arabs directly, but he did it indirectly.

ferdowsi did however come to be a devout muslim

Damn this world, damn this time, damn this fate,

That uncivilised Arabs have come to make me Muslim.

~Ferdowsi

so it gives it more credibility that a non-iranian wrote that!

why would a western guy care so much to write about iran and the arab occupation if it wasnt true?

You said they were forcibly converted, then Azimuth proved you wrong, and now he is changing the subject?

Also learn to read, that reply encompasses the second post of yours as well.

know, i admit that i was wrong about iranians doing most of the damage. i know when im wrong, and i am wrong right now. thanks azimuth for teaching me something.

i am not changing the subject, i am talking about the arab occupation where pagans were forced into islam or they would be killed. the only people not harrassed where the people of the book (jews and christians).  zoroasters as well as others who were not jewish nor christian were forced into islam.

would you Translate for others what does it mean at Title of page "Olamo Ol-ARAB" = ARAB scientist??

doesn't title say all are Arab???

1. it about Razi

ينتمي أبو بكر الرازي إلى القرن الثالث الهجري، ولد في مدينة الري جنوبي طهران بفارس. وعاش الرازي في أيام الخليفة العباسي عضد الدولة، وكان مجلسه من العلماء والحكماء. وقد استشاره الخليفة عندما أراد بناء المستشفى العضدي في بغداد، وذلك لاختيار الموقع الملائم له.

Would you show me the words of " Irani or Farsi Alasl " = Iranian or Persian Orgin ????

2. Ghazvini (means from ghazvin, a city 120 Km far away from tehran)

هو أبو عبد الله بن زكريا بن محمد القزويني 48; ينتهي نسبه إلى أنس بن مالك عالم المد&a mp;# 1610;نة. ولد بقزوين في حدود سنة 605 للهجرة، وتوفي سنة 682 هـ، اشتغل بال&a mp;# 1602;ضاء مدة، ولكن عمله لم يلهه عن التأليف في الحقول العلمية. ففقد شغف http://www.alnoor.info/Scientists/falak.asp - ، والطبيعة 48; وعلوم الحياة، ولكن أعظم أعماله شأناً هي نظرياته في علم الرصد الجوي.

same for him, Where is " Farsi Alasl "

3. Attar neishabori ( Neishabori deleted from his name & his birth place from article, same as ghazvini, neishabouri means from neishabor)

your right aryan, and its funny how none of them commented on the ferdowsi quote, which clearly says that the arabs made iranians muslims.

i will post it again:

Damn this world, damn this time, damn this fate,

That uncivilised Arabs have come to make me Muslim.

~Ferdowsi

Land of aryan, no it didn't say all are arab, why would they include al majosi if he isn't arab?

isn't that dumb?

Let me explain, they don't mean all scientists are arab, even razi, they didn't say he was arab, or any of the scientists mentioned in your post.

Here is it in arabic proving they were farsi.

æáÏ Ýí ãÏíäÉ ÇáÑí ÌäæÈí ØåÑÇä

^can you read this?

æáÏ ÈÞÒæíä

born in ghazavin, you basically answered the question. Does it say anywhere he is arab origin? no.

Al attar was pretty brief, but did they say. and again i re-iterate did they say he was arab? no.

You also answered the last one.

Oh and by the way, it didn't say Arab Scientist(Olama Arab), if you read arabic well, they said Olama ol Arab, it means scientists that existed during caliphate times(Scinetists during the reign of Arabs).

Oh and about this

Listen up ultranationalists Land of Aryan and Iranian41ife. Whether you presented your case regarding the forced assimilation of Islam on Iran is inconclusive at best. When you share obviously biased sites as proof for your arguement makes it look more absurd. Here is the site below that Iranian41ife originally gave. I haven't read all the articles on that site but the ones I did are so far fetched that you have to be a ninny to believe in them. http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/PaoloBassi60427.htm - http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/PaoloBassi60427.htm

Calling me out to get into your petty arguements are you? I made two posts in this thread. One as a reminder for all to make this a respectable discussion and the other regarding the propaganda link that Iranian41ife gave us. So what do you do, you rationalize your bullying tactics by bringing up an issue from a closed thread and you question my reasoning behind it.

Listen, you have a problem buddy. A grudge and an axe to grind. Don't try to drag me into your illness or I will have the final say in this matter. Got it? Now that I have made myself clear about your trolling behavior and rebellious instigations against myself and Azimuth, I will expect you to follow the codes of conduct more closely.

Amazing how you two get off by calling others hateful or pan nationalist when you guys are running amok with obvious ultranationaistic agenda's of your own. I like reading about Iranian history and you have spent considerable time giving us information on that history. For that we are welcome. Yet distorting a religion or purposefully falsifying it have made you look disingenuous.

@Fizzil, what holds you here and answer very hearthly to Land Of Aryan and Iranian41ife is your Arabic nationalism, admit the truth of it. So you can't blame another people to be nationalists.

Btw, i don't see a probleme with nationalism, it is not the same as pan iranisdm or pan arabism or whatever. Nationalism means only you love your home, at least in Iranian Weltanschauung.

like i said before, i had no intention of posting that site as evidence to support my argument. I EVEN TOLD AZIMUTH THAT THE ARTICLE WOULD BE BIASED because it would be from an unfriendly source.

HE TOLD ME TO POST IT ANYWAY. get off my back, you should know as well as i do that i never use sites like that as proof for anything in any of my discussions!

i posted this because i was asked to post it! and we are suddenly ultra nationalists because we are trying to tell azimuth that the arab occupation of iran wasnt a nice little picnic in the park where arabs and iranians got along?

you accuse me of being ultra nationalist WHEN I ADMITTED THAT I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE DAMAGE WAS DONE BY IRANIANS. 

hopefully, this Caps Lock will help you read my posts more carefully.

hm... very interesting.

oh, suddenly we are hypocrits because we are saying "anti-islamic" things?

hey buddy, we can say whatever we want about islam, i dont care if its your religion, azimuths religion, or the national religion of iran.  I am not a muslim and i dont have to stop talking about islam just out of respect for the muslims in here.  Islam is a subject that needs to be talked about, its origions are violent, the only monotheistic religion to be spread by the sword from its very beginings.

and the only one going of topic here is azimuth, trying to change the subject from the arab occupation of iran to what happened afterward. i dont know what your definition of pan naitonalism is, but for me trying to explain to another person that the arabs did use force and violence is not pan nationalism, it is simply a debate about islam and its origions in iran.

it has nothing to do with the present.  its muslims like you guys, who get offended so easy, and are so intolerant of things regarding islam that gives it a bad name.  why is it that christians allow others to have a debate on their religion, and why is it that jews allow others to have a debate on their religion, but muslims not?

just because we are expressing our opinions of your religion that makes us anti arab anti islam pan nationalistic iranian?! well that doesnt make any sense!

No, i'm not a nationalist, i respect iranians, i have iranian friends in the UAE, and my descent is iranian but they were arabised long ago, my grandmother still knows Farsi, but i do not, i will at some time learn Farsi, but i'm plenty happy knowing the language that helps me most in this country. I respect Iranian4life and LandofAryan, but sometimes they spread some false messages, it was alright at first, but i had to stand up to Azimuth, first of all he is a fellow countryman and a brother, like all other Iranians and Arabs in the UAE.

Again i'm not a nationalist, just stating simple facts about me, i do not disrespect iranians or spread false messages about them, and i never will, this is as simple as i will put it.

infact, i remember that in another forum, azimuth or another one of his arab friends told me that I HAD TO LEARN HOW TO SPEAK ARABIC BECAUSE IT WAS THE LANGUAGE OF GOD!

if they have this type of mentality now, just imagine the mentality they had 1600 years ago! and now they are denying that they ever forced anyone into islam and that they did not commit massacres and mass book burnings. and like aryan said, the dynasty that azimuth claimed to be iranian was actually arab, the tahirids, who burned many bookd and killed many iranians.

again, fizzil and azimuth are avoiding the quote by ferdowsi, that clearly shows that arabs made iranians convert to islam.

you asked for quotes by the people of the time, and i showed you one, why dont you reply to it? was ferdowsi lying too?

So your last line of defence is ferdowsi's poem? why didn't he resist if he didn't like to become muslim?

And where is the proof he was forced? didn't you say he was a devout muslim?

the irony of his peom is pretty immense if you ask me.

he did become a very devout muslim, that is undeniable, he was muslim till his death and was religious. but the fact remains that he indirectly says that iranians were made to be muslims. obviously they eventually came to accept that fact and become very devout muslims.

Originally posted by Land of Aryan @Fizzli: it didn't say Arab Scientist(Olama Arab), if you read arabic well, they said Olama ol Arab, it means scientists that existed during caliphate times(Scinetists during the reign of Arabs). Don't make me fool man there is Yahoo massenger with Arab rooms, I asked people all answer me Olama ol Arab = Arab Scientist by the page title Olama ol arab, indirectly all remarked as Arab, & yes I read Tehran or Ghazvin, but you didn't said me where is Farsi Alasl in the articles as Majosi??? Go ahead, post parsi websites, not like they are angels or unbiased. hey I'm not fool, someone is here thet really want to ban me, I don't give him pretext   9.Excessive posting in other languages. English is the official language in all the forum sections except the "Non-English Board".

No you ain't a fool, but i hold to what i said.

And if a yahoo messenger IM group is all you can rely on then best of luck. Becuase the argument was beaten to death already.

But he didn't say by force

he said uncivilised arabs made him muslim, and thats it.

In comparison to Azimuth's article he is the one with the more credible argument, and guess what his article is far more anti-arab than ferdowsi

Iranian41ife you presented your article as a response to Fizzil. You chose a biased article. It wasn't accepted by him either.

Iranian41ife's response to Fizzil (below):

So long as the sources are primary, first hand accounts of historians who have collected evidence and fact during their eras. Or Secondary sources referring to primary sources.

Ok.

__________

Iranian41ife gave this post as his response:

The Iranian Identity Crisis: Islam v. Iranian Identity

By: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/PaoloBassi.htm - Paolo Bassi http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11276&am p;PN=1&TPN=3 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11276&am p;am p;PN=1&TPN=3

Obviously, you selectively chose to present that article as your initial response, now you are saying that someone told you to post it? Is this your way of expressing your opinion of Islam? From a biased site? Then expect us to take your concerns seriously. Hmmm!

__________________________________________________________

Land of Aryan, you seem to have a problem with moderators on this fora. I will not get into a debate with you on this matter. I already have said what was necessary. I see that you continue to present your complaints in the meeting hall under this thread: AE Rules for Mods! Though you have that right I also have the right to keep order in this thread and expect no more contraventions of rules. 

nothing will satisfy you guys because everything i post you will say is anti islam. the fact is that that is what actually happened! its not anti islamic, its the truth.

anything that you think is remotely against islam you guys will lable  as anti islamic!

Iranian41ife,

How you post articles is your business. Just don't expect to recieve a serious debate on it when you refer to propaganda sites. That site is so wrong on many Islamic accounts, and it reflects your biased opinions nonetheless. 

The forcefull influence of Islam by Arabs on Iran is inconclusive, as I had said before. Your whole purpose appear to make us believe that the religion was forced. Now you only accepted the Iranian role in distorting Islam after members here debated your facts. That is not anti anything but common sense. Choose your accusations carefully.

LOA, Fizzil appears to repeat himself clearly for you guys. He stressed that Ferdozi wasn't forced and Fizzil did not accept an internet IM as proof of your arguement.

LOA, this is one of the points Fizzil made. He talks about Iranian41ife using it as a defense in his arguement. Your article on scientists is not what I based my concerns on, but the page of dialoque before that! He did not discuss Ferdozi with you but the scientists. Can I make this any eaisier for you to understand?

Here is his interaction with you on it:

Land of Aryan wrote: @Fizzli: Quote: it didn't say Arab Scientist(Olama Arab), if you read arabic well, they said Olama ol Arab, it means scientists that existed during caliphate times(Scinetists during the reign of Arabs). Don't make me fool man there is Yahoo massenger with Arab rooms, I asked people all answer me Olama ol Arab = Arab Scientist by the page title Olama ol arab, indirectly all remarked as Arab, & yes I read Tehran or Ghazvin, but you didn't said me where is Farsi Alasl in the articles as Majosi??? Quote: Go ahead, post parsi websites, not like they are angels or unbiased. hey I'm not fool, someone is here thet really want to ban me, I don't give him pretext   Quote: 9.Excessive posting in other languages. English is the official language in all the forum sections except the "Non-English Board".

LOA, first post:

No proof of forced conversion.

Second post:

Take my explanation or leave it.

Olama al Arab is differen from Olama Arab. Previously the website used to have "Olama Arab wa Muslimeen" in it, but they decided to shorten the title. Also why did they mention Majosi? doesn't that contradict the entire article?

Thats the final time i explain it.

Also fyi, most of these scientists mentioned of writing and talking in arabic, the term is not ethnic(again not ethnic) but general, but you guys always seem to make it an ethnic issue. Wikipedia has more on the issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Arab_scientists_an d_scholars

So please don't take it out of context.

Why Must I repeat my post always???
& I said you, by your view Iranian & Fizzil are equal:

& your action agianst us since some months ago, espesialy against myself & call me Ultranationalist & Rebel concern me

LOA, when you troll out of the blue and drag me into this arguement you need to know that I do not take such behavior lightly.

You have presented your pro Iranian stance many times. NO problem. Yet your material is often portrayed in a light where it is one sided.

When you call for the heads of Moderators, yes it concerns me. When you share my PM's in public it concerns me. Hence a rebel.