IDEAS
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Upside down
24-Oct-2007
While the Islamic Republic was shaping after the 1979 Revolution in Iran, Iranian students continued to resist the new dictatorship. The Islamic regime was initially cautious in its attempt to control the campuses.
Students were in control of the classroom, the physical space, and campus politics. Short after the revolution, students, employees, and professors could create democratic councils to administer their universities. Elections were held in which a majority of students rejected the IRI-dominated Islamic association.
The relatively democratic achievement was a thorn in the eye of any dictator. The newborn dictatorship in Iran could not tolerate this state of dual power.
On April 18, 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, in his Friday Prayer sermon, ordered a holy war (jihad) against the students. He accused the students of turning the campuses into “war rooms” against the Islamic state. After the prayers, armed gangs attacked three campuses. Within the next few days, the gangs wounded hundreds of students and killed at least 24. Students were driven off the campuses, and the government took over all the premises.
On April 19, 1980, the Islamic Republic of Iran launched the Cultural Revolution in Iran. It was the beginning of officially state violence to force islamisation of universities--and in the following years the whole Iranian culture.
The order to fire started with a fiery speech of President Banisadr, the first President of the IRI, following this speech; the universities in Tehran were assaulted by pro-regime students protected by pro-regime thugs.
The following decree issued by the Revolutionary Council on April 20, 1980, was meant to crush the achievements once for all:
1. Within three days, all political groups and related organisations in all universities, colleges and schools must close their offices. If they do not do so, the Revolutionary Council and all its members, including the President, will mobilise the people and go to the universities and destroy these centres of councils.
2. The universities and colleges must develop a plan to complete final examinations by June 4, 1980, and be closed from that day until the government is able to restructure the educational system based on a revolutionary Islamic philosophy and only will new students be admitted.
3. The universities must not hire any new staff.
Following this decree, in the next weeks, universities in Tehran, Shiraz, Mashhad, Rashtese, Bluchistan, Ahwaz, and Isfahan were attacked. Thousands were wounded, hundreds arrested, and more than fifty students were killed. Some of those arrested were later executed.
The universities were finally closed in June, 1980, and the purification process began. On each campus, an administrative body called the Holy Council of Reconstruction was created. Professors and employees, many with a long history of opposition to Shah’s dictatorship, were fired, forced to retire or refused their salaries. The scholarships of students abroad were revoked. According to statistics collected by Tehran Polytechnic, 40% of all professors were fired or forced to resign in the first year.
The Islamic “Holy” Councils were to immediately silence the campuses. Students not affiliated with the state run Islamic student associations were no longer allowed to form any organisations. Muslim student associations were given the mandate to spy on students. Academic freedom was completely abolished. Repression was so extensive that a student secular and democratic movement turned into clandestine or apolitical for the coming decades.
The assault on the universities was the beginning of an Islamic project baptised “the Cultural Revolution”. Khomeini appointed a Cultural Revolution Council to lead the project of integrating the universities into the Islamic state.
The reopened universities and colleges after two years became fully Islamic with medieval theological seminaries, mosques, gender discrimination, and imposed Islamic hijab. Rules were imposed to thwart any political activity of non-Islamic groups within the campus. New students were admitted only if a “local investigation” could prove that they were loyal to Islam and the Islamic regime.
Islamic student associations were in a swift growth mushroomed in the country’s universities. These bearded and veiled students not only supported the Cultural Revolution, but were all fanatically attached to the most aggressive and undemocratic values of militant Islam and its new founder, Khomeini. No independent, democratic, and secular group was tolerated on the campus anymore. Unprecedented political control over universities, the suppression or restriction of non Muslims’ students, more gender segregation, forced veil, crush of any secular attitude were the immediate measures to be taken on campuses.
Another consequence of the Cultural Revolution, which needed a two- year closure of Iranian universities, was the immigration waves of many professors and scientists left Iran to escape the Cultural Revolution and young Iranians hoping to enter universities in other countries.
Most Iranians don not voluntarily go to Islamic schools, colleges, and universities and since there is no one single free educational institution in Iran, many try to find a way to enter a university abroad.
Under the IRI, nobody is allowed to claim that students’ rights should override any religious and ideological considerations. Actually, the issue of whether Iranian students have the right to have modern and secular universities stands against the Islamic philosophy of IRI’s constitution.
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran considers educational institutions based on Islamic principles and norms. The constitution does not tolerate any modification in form and principle.
Educational system is of course exemplified by the nature of such an Islamic concept in which gender segregation remains its main characteristic. In other words, Iranian children from primary school are deprived from mixed-sex school and consequently a psychological development of their Oedipus Complex.
The long-term objective of the Cultural Revolution is to root out any aspect of non-Islamic culture from the society by introducing a greater portion of Arabo-islamisation in its place. It is to promote the existing Islamic educational system into a pure Islamic set of beliefs. What concerns the educational institutions; they should become all the relics of theocracy schools in Qom (Iranian saint city).
Based on this objective, the process included, among others, a whole change of materials, and books of higher education.-- it weakens the academic values of universities, especially in the fields of human sciences.
Although, the IRI uses experiences of cultural revolutions under other ideological dictatorships, but comparing Chinese and Iranian Cultural Revolutions through similarities of violence in process between the two is conceptually wrong. The fundamental differences are in goals and orientation: while the Chinese one in 60th was an attempt to hasten a socialist society, the one in Iran is a regression to revaluate the norms and values of primitive clan society of Arabia in the époque of Muhammad, the Prophet.
Arabo-islamisation of Iranian culture is the ideological goal of the Cultural Revolution for the coming generations in Iran. It stipulates a violent and anti-Iranian process in which any non-Islamic components, including those of pre-Islamic Persian ones, must be rooted out. The process is in fact an negation of most Iranians’ national identity--the case which was once imposed by Muslim Arabs, when they occupied Iran about fourteen centuries ago.
The IRI’s constitution has implied this goal by saying, “since the language of the Koran and Islamic texts and teachings is Arabic, and since Persian literature is thoroughly permeated by this language, it must be taught after elementary level, in all classes of secondary school and in all areas of study.” Therefore, lesson of Arabic language and reading of the Koran will gain more compulsory character despite abhor of an increasing majority of students.
The Cultural Revolution was continued by in the following years under “the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council. It became the highest body for general islamisation of culture and education. Though, the body is not even stipulated in the Constitution, but was formed under the pressure of hardliners for more state control over student bodies, arbitrary dismissal of professors, and paving the path for further cultural revolutions.
Today’s student movement in Iran is another topic. In short, it seems a potential force with a vague and double characteristic, while it is only allowed to exist as long as it remains a relic of the IRI, at the same time, is influenced by the plight of Iranians under the plague of the same IRI.
All existing Islamic associations, from pro-Ahamadinejad Basiji students to “pro-reformists ”, have roots in various factions of the IRI. Today, three decades after the plague of the IRI, an increasing majority of Iranian students are being conscious of realities and are looking for an independent, democratic and secular student movement.
Although, in the past years, some members of Muslim student associations, by trying to demand reforms, became less docile sheep of the IRI’s cattle, and some of them were brutally punished, an independent, secular, and democratic student movement does not or cannot officially exist under the totalitarian IRI.
| Recently by Jahanshah Rashidian | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Journée Internationale des Femmes | - | Mar 08, 2010 |
| Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery | 13 | Feb 04, 2010 |
| Iran Fails United Opposition | 5 | Jan 20, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Student Movements Are NOT Solutions
by soorati on Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:57 PM PDTStudent movements are not solutions towards healthy political and social systems. All student movements, from communist Tudeh of early 20th century to Marxist-Islamist MKO/MEK of late 20th century, have resulted in dictatorships even when they were successful in overthrowing the government. A healthy political system requires participation of all components and layers of a society with leadership provided by those who produce jobs, while supporting and growing the economy. Student movements by their nature, all categorically lack social experience and are plagued by utopian ideologies impractical and inconsistent with social stability. Discussions on what type of student movements is to exist is socially non-scientific.
Student Movements Are NOT Solutions
by Soorati (not verified) on Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:16 AM PDTStudent movements are not solutions towards healthy political and social systems. All student movements, from communist Tudeh of early 20th century to Marxist-Islamist MKO/MEK of late 20th century, have resulted in dictatorships even when they were successful in overthrowing the government.
A healthy political system requires participation of all components and layers of a society with leadership provided by those who produce jobs, while supporting and growing the economy. Student movements by their nature, all categorically lack social experience and are plagued by utopian ideologies impractical and inconsistent with social stability.
Discussions on what type of student movements is to exist is socially non-scientific.
Fight back...
by jamshid on Fri Nov 02, 2007 01:52 AM PDTSomething I forgot to say: For every Iranian kid the IRI "islamize" and "un-iranianize", there is another kid that rise and who is "un-islamized". The battle is not and won't be lost just because the IRI is in power or may remain in power.
The mullahs has done incredible damage to the Iranian cultural heritage. But they have also, unknowingly and unwantedly, and much to their dismay, served it too. The world is not as it was 1400 years ago. The technology and means of communications have advanced to the point that it has become very difficult to hide the truth.
I can take this article and "instantly" send it to 10 others. They in turn can do the same. The rate of propogation is exponential. The mullahs know this and they have taken extra effort to filter the internet. I suggest to all Iranians to read the following:
Iran and how IRI filters the internet, "Must Read":
//www.rsf.org/rsf/uk/html/internet/pays_internet/iran.html
"Must read" if you want to fight back:
//iranpoliticsclub.net/club/viewtopic.php?t=51
Pass the word!
Re: Exposing methods used by Q and other Islamo-Fascists...
by jamshid on Fri Nov 02, 2007 01:49 AM PDTQ, you make my replies so much easier by what you yourself have written.
Q is the type of hezbollahi charlatan who believes in "WE can do it to you (eg, oppress you, kill you, surpress you, etc.), in fact we (hezbollahi fascists) are ENTITLED to doing to others whatever we want, but if others do the same to us, it will be wrong. In fact others are not even entitled to defend themselves." This is Q's philosophy in a nutshell.
He is a clever opportunist "bacheh soosool" who looks for the smallest opening to throw a punch at you. If he can't find one, then he'll attack your grammar or spelling, I mean any smallest opportunity...
So here he saw that I didn't leave a link to the Columbia thread and, the opportunist that he is, he grabs this small opening and says this: "he brings up the columbia discussion ... but never puts a link to it...", and then he uses this to rant about my "cowardly" character!
See what I mean? He grasps any smallest opportunity, to attack your "person". Note how he avoids the subject at hand, and how he shifts attention by attacking the "person" rather than the subject that is being discussed.
Then he says things like "he was forced to apologize to them..." Forced? And who "forced" me? YOU? Don't make me laugh. And besides, what is so wrong for one to have the character and the balls to admit to his misunderstanding and apologize for it? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? Islamists like Q are talented at taking a positive thing, deceptively manipulating and packaging it with clerverly placed words, and then delivering it as a negative! They did that a lot during the revolution and in its early years.
The problem with this "bacheh por rooye tarsso" is that he is terribly scared of answsering the questions that are asked from him. He simply ignores them, or use fallacy to dodge the answer.
Then he says something that I don't know whether I should laugh because it's childish, or I should feel pity for him because it's stupid? He says: "He (Jamshid) has decided to give me the last word. The question is, does he have the balls to stick by his own word? Or will he -yet again- have been lying?...."
Just like little children he wants to have the last word. What a "bacheh naneye loos va nonor" you are Q. Then once the last word is taken away from him, again just like a child, he throws a tantrum and with tears in his eyes he says: "But you PROMISED to let me have the last word, you PROMISED..." Should I laugh at him or feel pity for him? Which one?
One more note: Notice how he has cleverly shifted the dicussion in this thread from the main subject, which is history and religion, and in which his side is on the defensive, to personal attacks against others. Hezbollahis used this technique a lot against intellectuals during the early years of revolution to suppress and shut them.
But I agree with him in one thing. Anyone can go to the Columbia link and read my futile attempts to "debate" against this ranting charlatan. And please don't blame me and call me stupid for even trying to "debate" against this "bacheh soosoole hezbollahi wanna be".
maroon, see what I mean about debate?
by Q on Tue Oct 30, 2007 03:28 PM PDTthat's his idea of debate. I love how he brings up the columbia discussion (if it can be called that) but never puts a link to it!!! It's like he's afraid that people won't agree with his interpretation of what really happened. He's in need of mental help.
Well, it's here, for all to read. Jamshid is a vicious liar (as he's lied many times in this threat as well), he has no respect for the opposition or any Iranian who dares calls themselves Muslim (which is unacceptable in his mind.) His fascist tactics were called out by multiple people and he was FORCED to apologize for them, which he only did half-heartedly, like a coward that he is. Read for yourself, it's all here.
//iranian.com/main/singlepage/2007/columbia-honors-shah
And then realize, as I'm sure you will, that this man's words have no value. At the end of the so-called "debate" I challenged him to at least adhere to HIS OWN promise. This is what I wrote.
------------------
He (Jamshid) has decided to "give me the last word." The question is, does he have the balls to stick by his own word? Or will he -yet again- have been lying?
------------------
Now we know the answer. He couldn't let it go and had to go on having the last word himself, just like a fascist. In the process he managed to completely ignore my own summary and repeat his deafeated arguments like a broken record. Read for youreslf and then decide. Don't take his words for it. His word, as you can see, are worthless.
Ma'aslam
maroon, see what I mean about debate?
by Q on Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:11 AM PDTthat's his idea of debate. I love how he always brings up the columbia discussion (if it can be called that) but never puts a link to it!!! It's like he's afraid that people won't agree with his interpretation of what really happened. He's in need of mental help.
Well, it's here, for all to read. Jamshid is a vicious liar (as he's lied many times in this threat as well), he has no respect for the opposition or any Iranian who dares calls themselves Muslim (which is unacceptable in his mind.) His fascist tactics were called out by multiple people and he was FORCED to apologize for them, which he only did half-heartedly, like a coward that he is. Read for yourself, it's all here.
//iranian.com/main/singlepage/2007/columbia-honors-shah
And then realize, as I'm sure you will, that this man's words have no value. At the end of the so-called "debate" I challenged him to at least adhere to HIS OWN promise. This is what I wrote.
------------------
He (Jamshid) has decided to "give me the last word." The question is, does he have the balls to stick by his own word? Or will he -yet again- have been lying?
------------------
Now we know the answer. He couldn't let it go and had to go on having the last word himself, just like a fascist. In the process he managed to completely ignore my own summary and repeat his deafeated arguments like a broken record. Read for youreslf and then decide. Don't take his words for it. His word, as you see, are worthless.
Ma'aslam
Re: Q - Ultra Islamo-Fascist...
by jamshid on Tue Oct 30, 2007 02:32 PM PDTto baaz zer zadi bacheh akhoonde hezbollaahi wanna be?
Junior, your "race" card won't work. Stop copying from Israelis propoganda machine where if you critisize ANYTHING about Israel, you are instantly labeled as a "racist" and "anti-semitic".
This technique works among Americans, BUT IT WON'T WORK AMONG IRANIANS.
And stop demonizing me and attacking my person, in order to shift and divert attention from the main subject. That won't work either junior "Eye-Ray-nian" Q.
The Ultra Islamo-Fascist says: "his (Jamshid's) intention is to cleanse Persian culture of of what he sees as racial and cultural impurity." Then he asks "Sound familiar?" Well Q, you tell me? Does it sound familiar? It sounds like what you Islamo-Fascist types are doing even now in Iran, "cleansing" Iran's culture of what you see as "impurity".
The "bacheh soosool" then uses amatorish "safsateh" to imply that I hate Arabs. Sorry but I don't hate Arabs or any ethnicity AND you have failed to show evidence to prove otherwise, you just use "safsateh". In case you have forgotten what "safsateh" is, bacheh tarsooye "eye-ray-nian", it means sophistry and fallacy, or better yet, it means "cleverly playing with words".
After I rubbed your "pooz" on dust in the "columbia" thread and caught and exposed all your lies, down to Nasrin (remember Nasrin?), you are pissed off, aren't you bacheh moft khor?
You are a pro-IRI traitor, and the "reformist" adjective won't save you from being a traitor to all Iranian freedom fighters, and to all those Iranians who are even now being tortured and violated at the hands of your Islamo-Fascist gang, and a traitor to all the Iranians masses that YOU, Q, and your gang are so heinously devastating.
To Maroon: Stop your Islamic bullcrap
by Farid L (not verified) on Tue Oct 30, 2007 01:04 PM PDTMaroon, you say, "The religion of Islam and holy figures who happened to have been arab are important to the vast majority of Iranians who are muslim by choice."
Moslem by choice? This is truly Islamic bullcrap. If Iran becomes free in choosing religion, I assure you more than 70 percent show their disgust with Islam and exit for spirituality or other religions.
Do you know as why we have not yet reached freedom of speech and freedom of press and human rights in Iran? The answer is Islam and Islamists. Islam and human rights are not compatible and Iranians are paying for it big time. Islamists are genociding Iranians.
maroon: do not encourage them
by Q on Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:54 AM PDTMaroon,
by now, I'm sure you have come the same conclusion I did. Do not encourage these racists. They live in a world of hate, revenge and racial purity. Like "bache nanes" when you show them their own racist intolerance, they can only excuse others and cry "mamma! look at him! He started it!"
Jamshid is under the mistaken impression that he is "debating." Well, I have come to realize he does not understand the concept. A debate is a resolution agreed up on by both sides where one side takes an affirmative and one side takes a negative position. It has civility and established parameters. Jamshid is not doing this. He just has a pscyhological need to combat the demons in his own life. He has never forgiven himself for supporting the revolution. Like a "teemarestani" (nut-case mental patient) he has constructed a world view where everything is the fault of Arabs and Islam. Exactly the kind of thing that racists in America do to Arabs, Mexicans and people have historically done to Jews and Gays. He thinks he is now undoing the damage to Iran by escapegoating Arabs and Islam for all the problems in History. Sorry, losers, "some of my best friends are Arab" is not getting you out of this.
He claims he's only talking about "Arabs of 1400 years ago," already a stereotype. Perhaps if he would agument "of 1400 years ago" everytime he uses the words "arab" or "muslim" that vain attempt at damage control MAY be credibal. But it's just for show. Beyond this his intention is to "cleanse" Persian culture of what he sees as racial and cultural impurity. Sound familiar? Classic, classic fascism. This is great material for me. Actually I'm hoping to write a book about this phenomenon soon. Myabe some articles first. But Jamshid has no idea what kind of help he has given me!
You called it straight, brother, dorood bar shoma. You asked him to have enough "ensaf" to admit his hatred of Arabs that everyone can read. The answer is he does hate them (TODAY) but he does not have ensaf. He is admitting his hatred and justifying it in his racist mind as "they started it." Sorry, hatred is hatred.
So, my solution is to not encourage them. I myself only write for the sake of others like yourself. These people are not interested in debate. They just want to satisfy some "oghdeh" that they have constructed about Arabs and islam. Let them be, maybe the angry racial outbursts will be theraputic. For the sake of their families, I hope this works.
Let us both thank God that people like that are not in charge in Iran and never will be given any power.
Re: Maroon
by jamshid on Tue Oct 30, 2007 03:33 AM PDTI read your response. Your opinion that I am prejudice against Arabs and Moslems is your own interpretation and it is incorrect.
Let's start with Arabs. I have Iranian-Arab friends and I don't have any problems with Arabs of other countries either. I don't even have a problem with Arabs of 1400 years ago who invaded Iran because they were gone and dead long ago. The fact that I think Arabs of 1400 years ago were savages does not make me a racist as much as the negative opinion the Gypsies have against Hitler and the Nazis for massacring them does not make them racist against Germans.
I am seeing this more and more that some (Iranian) moslems pull this "race" card to shift the discussion from history and facts to "racism".
For the record, you succeeded in showing that I believe the invading Arabs, 1400 years ago, were savages. I stand by that. But you have failed to show any indication of racism. If I don't like the atrocities of the Ghajars and want to talk about it, does that make me a racist agasint Turks/Azaris? Of course not. End of dicussion. I really don't think the race card will be effective.
The reason why I don't focus on Changiz Khan, Alexander, Eskandar and so on, is because their history, their atrocities, their crimes committed against Iranians and so on, were not falsified and manipulated to the extend that the Arabs' were.
I don't recall any Iranian worshiping the murderous Changiz khan or his cousins. Maybe a few here and there, but that's it.
Again I ask: WHAT IS SO WRONG to debate for example the role that Ali had in the massacre of the Iranian population of Estakhr? What is so wrong in debating the atrocities that the Arab invaders committed against Iranians? And please don't pull the race card. It won't work.
I'll tell three answers that are NOT acceptable. 1. it makes you feel uncomfortable. 2. it offends you. 3. It worries you that if unchecked Iranians will leave Islam. These are not acceptable answsers. Surpression and assasination is not the answer.
You say: "you insult them (moslems) by saying that you know better what religion they should be. You make fun of them and make angry insults". WHO ME? Are you kidding me? Havent you gotten this in reverse? Aren't fanatic moslems the ones that are constantly telling us what religion we should have? To the extend that they are commanded by Quran itself to even kill us? And now you dare and tell ME that?
I don't make fun of them nor insult them. THEY are the ones who get insulted when facts are debated. For example why do they get offeneded when I want to talk about the fact that Mohamad the prophet had sex with a nine years old girl (Ayesheh)? You said that this remark is not accurate. Isn't it? Then read what Ayotollah Montazeri had to say about it:
//www.scribd.com/doc/228770/Debate-with-Grand-Ayatollah-Montazeri
Or why should you get offended if I want to discuss Quran allowing victorious Moslems to enslave and take the women from the defeated tribes as "war prize"? Inaccurate? Then read Soorey Al-Ahzaab, Ayeye 40 to 60, it's in one of those ayehs.
Why the massacres those Arabs committed in Iran should be "hidden" and "banned" from public? Even under the Pahlavis it was illegal to touch this subject and you would be jailed for it. Now you'll get executed if you go too far.
You wrote that I said the person who killed Ali should be celebrated. And then you said: "That's like saying the romans who crucified Jesus should be celebrated" How in the world could you even make this comparision? Did jesus ever massacred an entire Roman city like Ali did with Estakhr? Inaccurate? Then why not, instead of labeling me as racist, debate it?
Why do you people become so defensive?
Then you talk about me being tolerant and having "ensaaf". Marron, again, havent' you gotten this in reverse? Look at the history of Islam in Iran. It's the story of "in-tolerance" to highest levels of extreme. If history could be interpreted differently, then I'll take you to a unrefutable source: Quran, in which "in-tolerance" is preached and even ordered.
One last thing you wrote: "... you (Jamshid) can't take revenge on arabs or mongols... set aside your hatred." Where did you get the idea that I want to revenge against Arabs or Mongols? No, really where did I indicate this? "Set aside my hatred?" How can I set aside my hatred against those who not only hate me but gladly execute me for my opinion? Again, havent you gotten this in reverse?
Re: What is Racism
by Kamangir on Tue Oct 30, 2007 02:11 AM PDTMaroon
It's true that the events discussed here (the arabic invasion of Iran) happened more than 1000 years ago. However, unfortunately we're still dealing with its consequences and that's the part you cannot see or do not want to see. The initial article here was about the 'current' arabization of iran. We don't need to go to the past, let's talk about 'now'. The harsh and fanatic Islamic regime of Iran, is the only entity to be blamed for the current Islamofobia amongst many Iranians like me. They have crossed their boundaries and they are brainwashing our children at schools, chaning our history, insulting our Persian heritage by constantly calling it corrupt and oppresive. They are gradually inyecting the Arabic language in Iran and promoting it through schools and universities. They are giving an image of Iran to the world that doesn't belong to the vast majority of Iranians. Look at a Iranian calendar and see how bizarre it looks, everyday, week and month of the year dedicated to events and personalities that were not Iranian. For couple of years the national anthem of Iran was in Arabic. I'm not going to go on about other bizarre and awakward situations and the lack of civil liberties and corruption they have created. Let's talk about now and what's happening now, this was the initial point, that many of us are convinced Iran is being arabized. Others cannot see this mainly because of their own religious believes. The islam and arab fobia created among many Iranians was and is being caused by the Fascist regime of Iran. Without them doing these things for the last 30 years, we wouldn't be going back to 1000 years ago events. We feel our Persian and Iranian identity is in serious threat, as the brainwashing in Iran is reaching biblical proportions. Enough is enough.
Be fair and just. Don't let your religious feelings and believes blur your vision of what's really happeing in our country.
what is racism?
by maroon (not verified) on Tue Oct 30, 2007 01:32 AM PDTJamshid jan, it's obvious to many of us who have read your writings that you are heavily prejudiced against Arabs and muslims. definition of a racist is one who exhibits racial prejudice, in your case also religious prejudice. Your angry writing always stereotypes arabs as being blood thirsty uncivilized savages.
The religion of Islam and holy figures who happened to have been arab are important to the vast majority of Iranians who are muslim by choice. you insult them by saying that you know better what religion they should be. You make fun of them and make angry insults. You said that the person who killed Ali should be celebrated. That's like saying the romans who crucified Jesus should be celebrated. You say the prophet mohammad was a child molestor when you know full well that account is not accurate. you also said that arabs could not achieve any culture without Iranians. That's biggotry. both cultures enriched each other and we adopted many things from arabs.
.
I actually don't have a problem with any of this that you say. This is your personal belief, it's fine, but please don't pretend you are tolerant or objective about this. don't pretend you don't hate islam and the arabs that brought islam to Iran. have a little ensaf and at least admit your own feelings that is so obvious from your writing.
.
If you are truly honest with yourself about disliking arabs because of all these (exaggerated) atrocities that you keep saying "they" did to "us", you should be hating Germans who killed 6 Million jews and Americans who vaporized half a million japanese with atomic bombs. Also changeez khan who killed many more iranians. that means you are singling out arabs that means racial prejudice.
.
you also harshly attack your opponents accusing them of being IRI and muslim, for example you said this which is also racist toward arabs: //iranian.com/main/node/5165
.
"I am so disgusted at the likes of you who worship those who raped their mothers and murdered their fathers. It really is "chendesh aavar". I SAY IT AGAIN: YOU AND YOUR LIKES ARE NOT IRANIANS. You are the illegitimate children and remains of those Arab savages, and soon you will be eradicated from Iran."
.
jamshid jan. it's over for 1000 years!! historians may care but people don't care anymore. many iranians have died for many many different reasons. you can't take revenge on arabs or mongols. we must concentrate on saving lives in the future, we can't do it in the past. today many arabs like iranians and we have good relations with a lot of them. we need peace and unity in the region, not more hate and violence. set aside your hatred.
when will you join the 21st century?
I do not see any racism in Jamshid's writings
by Navid_III (not verified) on Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:37 PM PDTI have read all comments here. I do not see any racism in Jamshid's writings. My understanding is that Jamshid has done comprehensive research in search of truth. His comments are elaborations of his findings.
One thing is for sure that truth hurts.
Re: maroon
by jamshid on Mon Oct 29, 2007 09:12 PM PDTMaroon you said: "... I have to agree with others that you do show a lot of racism..." refering to racism against Arabs.
I now hand you a challenge. Go read any of my comments and find not 10, not 3, BUT JUST ONE, ONE, racist remark in my comments. I know you won't find any but yet I won't accuse of being an ignorant or a lier. It is not I who will determine that. It will be your own ability to meet my challenge that will determine it.
I do not see any racism in
by Kamangir on Mon Oct 29, 2007 08:33 PM PDTI do not see any racism in Jamshid's view point. Telling the truth as it is is not racism. We are not promoting racial profiling (very much practiced nowadays in the west) we are not against anyone who claims being a descendant of arabs or moghols, etc... we are simply against the Islamic way of life (which is arabic in origin) being "imposed" on us. I lived in Spain for more than 14 years and you have to live there to see real racism against arabic culture (Spain was under arabic rule for more than 800 years) I lived 1 year in Dublin, Ireland as well and do not see the pro-gaelic and pro-Irish attitudes as racist. We, the Persian had and have our own identity and as jamshid pointed out, all achievments after the Islam, in Iran were simply Iranian and had nothing to do with Islam, there were the result of Persian soul. If the Irish, Scotish, Basque, inhabitants of Quebec in Canada and many others in the world insist in keeping their language and identity alive, is not because of Racism, it's because they feel threatened by other dominant cultures and languages. the funniest thing is that none of the mentioned regions or people are under som much threat and danger of extinction as the Iranian culture is. The Islamo-Fascists in Iran are so much against our Persian heritage and identity that they are doing whatever they can to promote their own way of life which in other words is the arabic way of life (not the best of the arabic culture) but the backward, mediocre way of the tribes of Arabia. The main difference between Spain and Iran is, that Spain never became muslim and all the descendants of arabs, including the ones that had converted to christianism called 'Moriscos' were expelled from Spain during the inquisition. In Iran, however, the arabs stayed in large numbers, Iranians eventually became muslims, not because they liked Islam, mainly because the arabs that invaded Persia did so some 200 years before they invaded Spain, they were much wilder, savage and vicious than the ones who invaded the Iberian Peninsula, since the arabs learned some things from the Persian people. As a French historian said: Agar farhange Irani ro az Arab begiri, arab mimanad va shotorash (the historian was not a racist, he said the truth) This is a fight between the arab identity and the Iranian one. Simple.
to dear jamshid
by maroon (not verified) on Mon Oct 29, 2007 05:52 PM PDTI'm not opposed to history, but I have to agree with others that you do show a lot of racism. If you talked about English or Spanish the way you talk about Arabs you would be arrested. Even the shah had respect for Arabs and even married one of them!! You do always insult and stereotype arabs and muslims. It makes people think you are a racist person who has nothing to contribute. Sorry, I am just being honest.
Peace!
Re: Anony1
by jamshid on Mon Oct 29, 2007 05:09 PM PDTNO, I am not a pure Persian. I don't care about my or any body else's race. The discussion in this thread is NOT about race. It is about Iran, culture and Islam. If you can't answer the questions on the main subject, then don't change the subject either.
Are you a pure Persian Jamshid?
by Anony1 (not verified) on Mon Oct 29, 2007 03:43 PM PDTI am not a pure Persian. Based on my studies I definitely have some Jewish and Arab ancestors and am perfectly fine with that. Are you a pure Persian Jamshid?
RE: AnnoymousAbbas
by jamshid on Mon Oct 29, 2007 03:09 PM PDTAnonymousAbbas,
What is so "sad, pathetic and racist", as you said, about wanting to spread the truth? What is so "sad, pathetic and racist" about wanting to have the right to speak about history and to debate with Islamists without the fear of being assasinated or prosecuted?
What makes you think that wanting to talk and debate our own history is being "so hateful about the past" as you remarked?
Can't you see that avoiding the past, no, fearing the past and running away from it, which is what most Islamists do, is the thing that is "sad, pathetic"?
Yes, I agree when you say we need good vision into future, but I am not for a vision that is build on lies and falsification.
You also say that "Our greatest cultural achievements, poetry and art happened after Islam..." It would have happened without Islam too. Islam had nothing to do with it, it was the Iranian genius that made those accomplishments possible. If it was Islam, then how come the Arabs (without the positive influence of Persian culture on them) could not and would not achieve half of what Iranians did?
look at the hatred here!
by AnonymousAbbas (not verified) on Mon Oct 29, 2007 02:42 PM PDTI don't want confrontational, but there are people writing who are sad, pathetic and racist, fighting left-over 1000 years-old battle. Iran has proud Islamic and pre-Islamic mixed culture. Our greatest cultural achievements, poetry and art happened after Islam. Please do not be so hateful about the past, we need good visions into future.
Re: Anonym1
by jamshid on Mon Oct 29, 2007 01:26 PM PDTTo change Iran, no time machine is required. The only thing required is the spread of the truth. TRUTH about Islam, TRUTH about what happened to our ancestors 1400 years ago, TRUTH about how lies, falsifications and manipulations of history had been fed to the Iranians for generations.
TRUTH is the only weapon we need.
I challenge all you Islamists to one thing: Give freedom of speech to us (and yourselves too) for only one generation. Accept our challenge for debates without resorting to assasinating us or resorting to "hochigari". While your side is being heard, let our side be equally heard too. Then I promise than in only one generation, moslems will become the minority in Iran.
That challenge will never be met by you Islamists. EVER. Why? BECAUSE YOU WON'T DARE to accept this challenge! That's why! Because you know what will happen. Because you know what the light of the truth can do to your lies and falsifications. Because you know you won't stand a chance. Because you know Islam owes its existence in Iran to two things: The sword and surpression of the truth. Accepting this challenge is the same as removing the sword and the surpression, which you will never "dare" doing.
So to answer your question, NO, I am not in the process of building a time machine. I am in the process of spreading the truth. The truth which is your most feared arch enemy.
Time Machine (a question for Jamshid)
by Anonym1 (not verified) on Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:27 AM PDT"Arabs, their culture and language have been part of Iranian society for thousands of years. Like it or not..."
Jamshid said: No, we don't like it, and we will change this... Much to your dismay.
Jamshid, are you in the process of building a Time Machine?
Re: Q
by Kamangir on Mon Oct 29, 2007 06:03 AM PDTQ, it's interesting to see how you create a link between the trade and the arrival of Islam during the last years of the Sassanid empire. It's even more amazing, how quickly you categorize the Sassanid era as 'corrupt' which really puts a question mark on your knowledge of history and above all on your impartiality.
There's no doubt that there were relations between Persians and the Arabic tribes at the time, and yes there were Arab tribes living under the Sassnid territory, these arabs had served as a buffer zone between Arabia and Persia and the later removal of these tribes by Sassanid rulers, eliminated that 'buffer' or 'barrier' zone and this had a clear influence on later events. All sofisticated nations have always relied on taxes, even nowadays most Western governments and specially in North America, do rely on taxes and the vast majority of people do not like taxes and would do anything to get rid of it, but the system still applies the taxes and as far as I know, no people on earth would welccome a foreign invasion simply because of these heavy taxes. The Sassanid era was one of the most glorious and influencial times of Iran as a nation, there were many developments and trade flourished under their government. Just as Rome had become christian, zoroastrianism had become the religion of the majority of Persians, although there were many christians and jews living in the most important cities, specially in and around Ctsisphone itself. Rome and Persia were both rival empires and their wars had a huge economical cost on both nations and subsequently on Roman and Persian people. The very strong christian institution in Rome, had led to subsequent strong Zoroastrian presence in the Sassanid government. Neither Roman nor Persian people would have accepted a foreign invasion just to get rid of their rulers, regardless of their internal disputes. Now just as the Sassanid were defeated by the Arabs, Rome itself was later deated by the Germanic tribes (called barbarians, by romans) but again, these very sofisticated, centralized nations would not have 'accepted' what came upon them 'with open arms' specially the Persian people, since the invading Arabs had nothing in common with them (and this is not racism, but facts) When you mention the trades with Arabs, you seem to refer to the beautiful side of the story, ignoring in fact that Sassanid rulers had in many occasions bashed and punished the arabic tribes that were causing trouble, attacking trade routs and Caravansaras. The most notorious event is what the king Shapour did to them by piercing their shoulders with ropes and sending them to the deserts they came from to set an example. There were many events that eventually led to the collapse of once mighty Sassanid dynasty and arabs were just 'one' factor, Bizanthium had the same fate. Persian people (living in the central Iranian plateu) had never been in touch with Arabs, they had no clue of Arabic language and above all, arabs themselves had never seen anything like what they found on their way, in Persia. This resulted in a clash of huge proportions that affected all sectors and classes of the Persian society. The cultural differences were so extreme, that after the initial shock, many Persians fled to the eastern provinces of the empire, now afghanistan. Arabs were looting everything on their path, burning and destroying the most valuable centers and buildings and please note that those arab commanders in charge, had always been keen on doing so. There was no communication between the arabs and the Persian masses (and your theory of translators, isn't but laughable) they called the Iranians 'ajam' lterally meaning 'mute' and dumb, since the Persian couldn't express themselves in arabic language. Therefore there was huge cultural, social and existencial clash between the first wave of the arabs and the Persian masses. The first word Iranians learned to say to save their lives was 'salam' and that's it. Arabs didn't like Persians and vice versa, in such circumstances nothing was accepted 'with open arms' Pirooz the son of Yazdgerd was in China gathering troops and help to attack the arabs in his homeland, there were massive and bloody wars in all major cities, specially in tabarestan and mazandaran and gilan. Large number of Persians were killed and taken as slaves to Arabia, where they were keen on Persian women and so on so forth. At a later stage Arabs brought in many arabic tribes and stablished them across Iran, in order to sofocate the insurgency. Persian people were called 'majus' and 'ajam' by these tribes, were banned from many things, they were treated as second class citizens and both Persian language and Persian customs and zoroastrianism were banned and were practiced only hidden from public view. Persians used to refer to themselves as najib zadeh and this hatred towards the harsh and primitive invaders remined up to the days of the Moghol invasion and nowadays. The mixings resulted in a sector of the population who were keen on their arab ancestors and despised anything persian and nowadays we're seeing this in Iran. You fail to mention how arabs destroyed that same trade you refer to. Iran is a 'arabzadeh' country and those of us who feel a strong connection to our Persian heritage, do not like the 'arabzadeh' and seyyed and akhoonds. I personally see them as the descendants of those arabs described above and am not surprised by their hostility towards our Persian and pre-arabic identity. I have a very strong affinity with Persian names and culture they have a meaning to me, it's part of my soul, where as , abdulah, husain and hassan and so many other arabic names, words and etc.. are foreign to me and to many other Iranians. This is a fight between the descendants of the arabs and the real and legitimate sons of Iran, the Iranians. And I'm seeing the day we clean, and desinfect our beautiful land of anything that has to do with arabic tribes who once invaded it, and yes that includes your Islam! I feel and see the Persian spirit in Iran, the same Persian imagination and art, the same Persian honesty and love that once characterized my ancestors, that once led to one of the most sofisticated societies earth has met. Telling the facts is not racism, is not hatred. Todays my homeland is being literally destroyed by islam lovers, arab history lovers (yes!, kerbala, emam reza and what ali did to hassan and who killed hussain) is not my hisory, i not Iranian history, is about arabs and their intrenal disputes. me and many other Iranians are NOT interested in that. There's a Persian identity and soul, because if it wasn't because of this, now we would be communicating in arabic, and we would not know and would not speak about our heritage and this is what the current arabo-muslim mafia in Iran wants to achieve. I'm proud of being Persian, proud of my Iranian heritage, and proud of my fellow-iranians and very ashamed of the descendants of the arabs, the likes of ahmadinejad, and all the IRI arabo-fascists. I love Persian names, full of beautiful meanings, and suggest you learn the meaning of the arabic names used in Iran. If you don't like our Persian heritage and Iranian culture, that's fine. But don't call yourself Persian, go to Arabic or some other website, talk to them, visit their countries, leave us alone, we have had enough of arabo-muslims, seyyeds and akhoonds and hezbolahi and all these arabic ramifications...
Difficult Subject
by Face the Fact (not verified) on Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:58 PM PDTDiscussing islamization of iran is a very difficult subject. I do not think anyone can be objective enough to provide a true picture even though some evidence may be there. People are either idealizing islam or the reverse. We can only conjecture that (1) no nation changes religion easily, not matter how corrupt the religion may be. We don't see iranians switching to christianity en mass today simply because the islamic regime is brutal. Same can be said about converting 1400 years ago. (2) There is enough evidence that Caliphs were brutal and corrupt to the bone, the best example is that of mass murder of family members of their endeared prophet almost as soon as he passed away. So, there is no reason to believe that they were any kinder and gentler towards iranians. (3) Today, 1400 years later, religious minorities live in shadow under the islamic regime, this must have been more severe at the beginning of islam. And we all know about jaziyeh, forced marriage and slavery of iranian women by arab invaders (legal under islamic law under certain conditions), etc. Maybe someday, when freedom blossoms in our country, researchers can objectively look at what happened, but I agree with other commenter that even shah did not want to offend mullas and therefore did not allow any criticism of the past islamic history. There are very useful resources, like from Tabari and Ebne Khaldoon, but they are very thick and hard to read for novice.
Re: theconstitutionalist
by jamshid on Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:12 PM PDT"Arabs, their culture and language have been part of Iranian society for thousands of years. Like it or not..."
No, we don't like it, and we will change this... Much to your dismay.
Re: Qumars
by jamshid on Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:34 PM PDTQmars, or is it Q or...?
As usual you attack a commentator (Kamangir) with ranting and belittling. Why am I not surprised?
Now on to exposing you. I agree with every word you wrote, until I encountered your cleverly placed sentence: "The message of Islam arrived in Iran through trade and word of mouth, well before any "Arab" armies did."
"Well before Arab armies conquered Iran"??? Let's dissect this phrase "well before" you so cleverly used in your above sentence. Shall we Qmars?
Note 1: Back in the 7th century there were no internet, no airplanes, no telephone, no means of rapid communication. Sometimes it would take months before news in one country could be reached to another. Like you yourself said, word of mouth was the common method.
Note 2: The accuracy of the following years are plus or minus a few years, as I am relying on my memory alone. But it will do.
1. Mohamad began preaching Islam about 615 AD.
2. After 15 years of local preaching and local battles, he finally conquered Mecca in 630.
3. Starting from then, Islam was no longer a small and local tribal religion because it rapidly spread into the entire Arabian Penninsila.
4. The Arab armies began invading Iran in 637.
It is safe to assume that sometimes after 630 AD words of Islam began to spread to outside of Arabia on a regular basis. The Arabs invaded Iran in 637. That leave us with 7 years for the message of Islam to spread in Iran! Even with 20th century technology such as internet that could not be possible, specally in a society where the Zoroastrian priests suppressed anything they didn't like. Some people here and there nearer the borders of Iran/Arabia, could have heard of Islam, but all Iranians already knowing Islam AND loving it in less than seven years???
Moving on...
I totally agree with you that various provinces and tribes of Iran were in "a state of constant rebellion....", as you put it, against the Sassanids. The question that begs to be asked is only one word:
"SO?"
So you want to say that those Iranians who paved the way for the Arab "liberators" were "ok" and good citizens???
What do you think of those "tribes" that today are paving the way for the American "liberators" against the "corrupt" mullahs? I suppose you think of them as hereos?
The next subject you touched was the language barrier. Kamangir was not refering to a language barrier for Arabs ruling Iranians. He was refering to a language barrier in understanding AND accepting Islam. Iranians were a fanatic Zoroastrian bunch in case you didn't know, just like today we are fanatic moslems.
I eagerly await your reply Q. It will be fun.
Arabization? Hee, hee!!!!!!!!!
by theconstitutionalist on Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:03 PM PDTThe same arguments could be used about the Farsification of 20 million Azeri Turks, 6 million Kurds, Arabs, Armenians, Jews, Baluchi etc......And you have to remember which Pahlavi shah invaded these lands and forced his own culture and language on them like any other petty tyrrant in history.
Why is Ahmadinejad trying to "cleanse" the Farsi language of "foreign" words if what you say is true? New, more farsi sounding words are being intorduced or current Arabic and Turkic words' structures will be changed to make them more Farsi sounding. The same thing is being done to names of cities, parks and monuments. Several provinces with majority ethnic minorities have been separated, renamed and added to adjoining Fars provinces in the last 80 years.
Yes. Iran through the sword of a corrupt Islamic empire was forced into submission, but that was 1500 years ago. Most of the issues inside Iran today, especially concerning minority groups, have to do with Persian chauvanism and attempting to forcefully assimilate millions of non-Farsi people into the Iranian main stream.
Whole libraries were burned down during the first decade of Pahlavi rule both in Azeri cities as well as Kurdish towns. Oppression of media expression in Kurdistan and Azerbaijan is a daily battle for the regime. These media wars have been waged since the 1920's.
Evidence shows that the most spoken language in the Persian empire under Cyrus was Aramaic not Persian. Persian was used only by the ruling class not the common people. The same can be said today as everyone in Tehran(power center of Iran) speaks Farsi, but almost no one chooses Farsi in rural farming/peasant areas.
Arabization has come and gone a long time ago. Arabs, their culture and language have been part of Iranian society for thousands of years. Like it or not.
Are you serious Kamangir?
by Qumars B. (not verified) on Sun Oct 28, 2007 09:17 PM PDTDear Kamangir,
Your understanding of history is FRIGHTENINGLY poor. We are talking about the year 700AD, not 10,000 BC. At the time Persian empire was a loose confederation of many peoples. Many of the tribes we now call Arabs were in fact what you call "Persian" at the time. The rule over the tribes in mesopotemia had already changed hands several times between Persian and Byzantine Empires just within the last few decades before the Arab conquest.
There were established trade routes, relationships, cultural exchanges and even intermarriages. Arabs had access to people that through trade and other means had travelled well BEYOND the limits of the Persian empire, all the way to China, Indonesia and Europe. The people of the fertile crescent themselves had been well aware of each other for thousands of years. The message of Islam arrived in Iran through trade and word of mouth, well before any "Arab" armies did.
The tribes of mesopotemia were in a state of constant rebellion for the past 200 years. As they were being passed around between the two empires, being forced to pledge allegiance and pay taxes to one side or another they welcomed the Arabs and helped them get established and supplied. The Syrians did the same, cooperating with the Arab armies and joining them against the Byzantines, and what we call "Iraqis" today, did the same against Persians. Along the way many local rulers joined the growing rebellion against the corrupt Sassanids.
In many cases, the Arabs only dealt with local authorities who turned control over to them, and assigned religious officials. No one turned Muslim overnight, the process took centuries.
Language was not a problem. There were plenty of people who could translate. There are literally HUNDREDS of examples of such cultural/religious influence accross linguistic boundaries at that time or even older. 1200 years BEFORE the invasion of Arabs, the Persian ruled Egypt, cooperated with the local rulers and even contributed to pyramid constructions. In fact there was constant trade between Iran, Europe, Middle East and China continuously. Yes, that kind of cultural exchange started well before there was such thing as a PERSIAN in Mesopotemia. Now you throw around the ABSOLUTELY REDICULOUS notion that Arabs could not communicate with Iranians? Are you insane?
There is only one explanation for this kind of ignorance. You are so convinced of Arabs' inferiority that you cannot conceive of a well executed, well thought-out plan to undermine and take over a huge Empire with essentially no resources. A key to the conquest was intense cultural communication, understanding of the local politics and making concessions to gain allies.
Re: Kamangir
by jamshid on Sun Oct 28, 2007 08:52 PM PDTKamangir, I agree with you. Islam was forced on Iranians. The fact of this matter is that this is not thought in "hoozeye elmieye ghom". In there, they falsely teach to the "talabehs" that Islam was accepted with "open arms" by the absolute majority of Iranians. Those mullahs are not at fault. After years of brain washing, they HONESTLY believe that this is how it happened! Then they in turn, teach and brainwash other Iranians, and the chain continues.
Although under the Pahlavi regime, Iran was introduced to its past pre-Islam glory, unfortunately, it was illegal and punishable to publish anti-Islamic materials. Any book that would touch the sensitive subject of Arab atrocities and the forced conversion of Iranians into Islam would immediately be censored and banned.
However, the Pahlavis have done half of the job: Reintroducing Iranianism to Iranians. The other half, which is exposing Islam and spreading the truth about how Iran became a moslem country still remains a work in progress.
Iran's cultural indpendence, freedom, democracy and progress can be accomplished only when all of the "akhoonds", the factories in which these "akhoonds" are manufactured (hoozeye elmieh) and their fianancial arm, bazar, is anihilated in such a devastating manner that it would make even anti Islamists like Reza Pahlavi the 1st or even Ahamad Kasravi look like a couple of Islam lovers. That's how utterly devatating the blow should be.
The Big Myth Again!
by Kamangir on Sun Oct 28, 2007 04:26 AM PDTDear Jamshid/Midsway
A very simple question:
How could Iranians accept or like the 'message' of islam if they were unable to understand a single word of it? How did the Persian masses 'communicate' with those arabs who brought Islam upon them? Can you explain this to me? How on earth did this happen?
My own answer is: Arabs massacred as many Perians as they could. They brought in as many Arabic tribe as they could. Only after having destroyed the first generation 'clash generation' and after many many years of heavy mixing with Persians, is when the half arab half persian generation was created with no clear background or identity, with a twisted spoken arabic and twisted spoken persian (just like the ones we speak nowadays) so Islam was NOT accepted, it was 'inyected' by force, and whatever is forced, isn't genuine or real. But my first question still stands.