Letters

Write for The Iranian Editorial policy

Friday
May 25, 2001

Pride in Iranian and Islamic culture

Dear Mr. Sanizadeh,

Thank you very much for your prompt response I appreciate that ["Non-existent glorious past"]. Unfortunately, it seems that you, either did not read my article correctly or you are twisting some of the points I was trying to make. First of all, throughout my letter I never intended to demean or demise Arabs or Islamic Culture and empire. I am as much proud of being a part of Islamic culture as I am Iranian.

Below you shall find my replies to issues set forth by you:

"A. Sanizadeh" <asanizadeh@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dear Mr. Farahani and Iranian Times,
>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.
>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.

My admiration is not for ancient Persians. I admire spirit of Iranian at any time in history and that was the point I made in my first letter. I am very much fond of Islamic culture and all the other culutures that introduced to Iran because that is what made us a survivor nation. I absolutely agree with you that we should not cling to our past and ancectors and fantacize about what could have and what should have! But the first phase of destruction is self loathing, not that I say it is your point, but being proud of one's heritage gives rise to self estem and self improvement.

And yes we are a third world country. In fact we have been a Third world country for over 300 years and the point I was trying to make was that Iranians and Iranian culture has risen from ashes before, and it can rise once more, and more to come.

>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.

Please do not twist my words here! I mentioned that they still live this way because that is what works for them. Put me with my laptop and a satelite internet link in Rob Al Khali and see how long I survive. The same bedouines have lived successfully that way for centuries because they have learned how to tame their nature. I also did not ever demean Islamic empire. You are right the peak of Islamic empire was during the reign of Ma'mun who ruled an empire from Spain to India, as mentioned in my previous response, a homogenous empire consisting of many different races and ethnic groups.

>This point (destruction of Ctisphone, the Sassanid capital,
and pre-Islamic books) 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.

There has not been enough research done in this field. The fact that there are so many relics remained from such an ancient time is the perfect example for the existance of literary and scientific work in Pre-Islamic Iran. As you mentioned Jondi-Shapur university was established during Sassanian period. Mongols could not ever consolidate such huge empire as Arabs did. Their empire broke down to 3 major dynasties, rather quickly, in Iran, India and China. Therefore, the process of assimilation did not take place as effectively as Arabs conquest.

>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?

I can not name any scientists because there none left. Surely you don't expect any average joe or dehati to teach in Jondi Shapur?

>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.

Once again your history knowledge proved to be sketchy. Sassanian empire, true not as mighty as Hakhamaneshian since they could not consolidate Egypt, Therace, and western anatolia, But they were definitely a great match for Romans. Did you forget Phillip the Arab? Did you forget Valerian? Again, If you had read my article carefully I mentioned that some wars were won and some were lost. Without going to details of course.

>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.

Yes Christianity was becoming popular in Iran. We can tell by the path of the three apostles who are supposedly burried some where in Saveh. Yes many pepole converted to Islam. Was it not Salman e Farsi who Aided Omars troops to cross the barrackaids of Iranian cities. Since they had not ever seen any thing like that.

>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.

I am sorry but I have no idea what you are saying here. Are you saying that Arab conquerers used , the so called, Persian Language for a while? and if they did for how long?

>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.

That remains to be seen :o)

>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.

I am sorry, If I said Samanians were persian I was wrong. I might have said Iranian, though! Tajiks are Iranian too. I also mentioned that the Iranian enclave they were rulling was in northern Afganestan and Tajikestan. Rudaki who was Iranian was from Tajikestan.

>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.

Absolutely correct specially in Kerman and that is how they made Shi'ism the official religion.

>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 did not say against Arabs. The Arabs were long gone. I said to separate them from Arabs. They already separated them from Arabs culturally, and Linguistically, now religion was the last blow to Arabs pride. I thank you so much for your comments and I think I have learned a few points in our discussion.

Habib Farahani

Comment for The Iranian letters section