Letters

Write for The Iranian Editorial policy

Friday
May 25, 2001

Non-existent glorious past

Dear Mr. Farahani,

I decided to send my comments immediately so that you have enough time for making any modification or enhancement in your response before its publication ["Changing historical facts"]. My comments on your points follows.

First of all, I understand your admiration of ancient Persians and I am not that much fascinated by Arab or Islamic culture anyways. What bothers me is that us Iranians are pretty much living in a non-existent glorious past in order to avoid accepting hard facts: That we are nothing more than a poor, third world nation much behind others.

First about the Arabs: the fact that some Bedouin Arabs today live the life of centuries ago does not indicate that the Arabs have always lived this way. The Arabic empire during Umavid and Abbassid was mightier and much more glorious than any previous Persian empire, with its pick during Ma'moun Abbassi. You may Refer to any major book on history of civilization to confirm this point.

--- Habib Farahani <habibf@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ctisphone, the Sassanid capital destroyed by Arabs,
> is merely a half ruined arch. The only Pre-Islamic
> literary work that escaped from hands of Arabs is
> Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrians, and the

This point has been challenged by most of historians who simply don't believe that the trace of such literary works could be completely destroyed and not reported by any Greek, Roman or other ancient historian or traveler. Mongolian conquest of Central Asia and Middle east have been the bloodiest, most damaging attack of its kind in history. However every literary or scientific work that was destroyed during their attack is still tracable through many other sources.

Can you name for me ten Iranian scientists, philosophers or writers from Sassanid Iran? How come nothing in this regard was ever reported by ancient historians and travelers? How come every nation in the world went through disasters and wars many times during the history and only "our" glorious past and literary works were disappeared?

Sorry, but I find it very hard to accept.

> However, Sassanian rulers also
> created a mighty empire rivaling that of
> Hakhamaneshian. They were constantly in war with
> Romans, from west, Turks from North East, and
> various barbaric tribes from east over territories.
> Some battles were won some battles were lost as
> shown by rock carvings and incriptions in
> Taghe-Bostan.

Sassanid empire was never able to match that of Romans, or Hakhamaneshi dynasty, in terms of civilization, order and glory. Just compare the achievements. Winning a couple of wars against Romans does not mean anything. Those barbaric eastern tribes that you mentioned did beat us several times too, but that doesn't make them civilized.

> Most Iranians converted to Islam to avoid paying the
> Islamic taxes that were imposed on them by the Arab
> rulers. Your comment: "The historical fact is that
> at the time of Arab invasion, Iran was already
> suffering under the religious Sassanid government,
> practically run by corrupted Zoroastrian clerics
> (pretty much similar to the current situation in
> Iran)." Is very true, but that does not mean that
> people wanted to change their religion dating back
> to two millennia.

Just before Arab conquest, Christianity was growing fast in Iran. many of the Iranian noble families, especially those from western and southwestern parts of the country, had already converted to Christianity. Even there were rumors about conversion of Khosrow Parviz the Sassanid king himself. It is generally believed that if Islam had not arrived, Iran would become a Christian country in a century or so. Therefore, there is no surprise that the majority of people, especially the poorest class who had no chance under Sassanid class-based rule, would eagerly adopt Islam. This would furthermore help them under the new rulers too.

> Depicts your sketchy knowledge of
> history. Arabs at no time accepted the so called
> "Persian Language", what ever it was! Once again,
> due to their inability to maintain and govern such
> huge empire they had to use the experience and
> expertise of Iranians. The language of then was
> Arabic with modified writing.

No Sir, I specifically meant Persian language with ancient Persian writing style for administrative book keeping in Iran. It was changed to Arabic language and Arabic writing later, as I explained.

> quick question; as you mentioned there is a lot of
> corruption right now in Iran, does it mean that if
> people topple the Islamic regime, they would convert
> to. I don't know. Buddaism, for example?

Yes, I do believe that will happen. Not Buddaism perhaps. But I predict Zoroastrianism and Christianity would gain lots of attraction. Although the importance of religion in today's life has very much diminished.

> Resistance:
> During Ummayad Califs and their rules, many Iranian
> uprisings took effect and eventually with the help
> of Samanian dynasty, the Abbasid Califs replaced
> Ummayads in Baghdad.

I think your dates are incorrect. The Abbassid dynasty replaced Umavi around 750 A.D. The first so-called Persian government, Taherian, was established after Ma'moun Abbassi, around 830 A.D. Samanid dynasty came to power about half a century after Taherian, around 900 A.D., by that time the Abbassid empire had passed its peak. Samanian were central Asians (Tajiks), not Persians. But it's true that they were the first promoters of Persian language and literature.

> martyrdom". In your respond: "There were a few
> Shi'i centers in Iran, including Azarbayejan,
> Qum-Kashan region and the small town of Mashhad (at
> that time). But the main Shi'i strongholds were in
> Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain until the Safavid
> conquered Iran". Aside from the region you
> mentioned, where were the main Iranian populous and
> civilization located?

Fars, Isfahan, todays Khuzestan, Lorestan (which had its own government and rulers for centuries) and Kurdestan were all as populated as Azarbayejan or more and they were all Sunnis (Isfahan was half sunni-half shia). In Khorassan only Mashad-Toos area was Shia and others were Sunni, as many of them are now. You may want to check Ibn-Batuteh's excellent book about his travels (14th Century A.D.) He specifically mentions the Shia centers. Apparently Lebanon and the central Iraq (cities of Helleh, Karbala and Najaf) were the major Shia centers at that time, and contrary to what you said, Iraq was NOT a province of Iran.

Please note that I am not saying that there was no Shia in Iran of that time. Just that the majority were still Sunni until Safavid. Safavid actually massacred thousands of Sunnis across Iran during their rule.

>The fact remains that Iranians used Shiism as
> means to separate themselves from Arabs and during
> Safavid reign, it became the official religion to
> defy the Ottoman Turks.

I accept your second statement, that Iranians adopted Shi'ism against Ottoman Turks, but not against Arab because Shi'ism was pretty much an Arab sect.

I think my comments have already gotten too long, so I cut the letter here. Thanks for your email and I certainly welcome your reply to the above points on Iranian.com.

Best Regards,

Amir Sanizadeh

Comment for The Iranian letters section