HYPOTHETICAL

For You to Know!!!!!

2 more points: Make no mistakes, our grand parents fought against Arabs and they fought well. Only they did not have luck on their side. All the garbage these arabzadeh and arab slaves fed us and still feed us as history of why Iranians were defeated by Arabs are bunch of nonsense. New scientific research that has been going on for more than a decade finally proved why the world and especially human civilizations went thru such dramatic changes at the end of 6th and early 7th centuries (yeah you guessed right, when Islam and Arabs flourished among other barbaric people) but they weren’t the only ones, most great civilization from china to Europe, England and even south America went thru a dramatic change within the same period. The course of human history changed. and mostly nomads and barbarian tribes not living in civilizations gained power as great empires like Rome and Persia struggled and finally started to diminish. Europe went into dark ages as Rome disappeared and Persia fell to Arab savages with their backward religion and traditions. Basically as a result, the human civilization progress halted for almost 1000 years. I’ll leave the details for you to seek and find but vital to say a natural disaster struck the earth equivalent of 100000 atomic bomb in Hiroshima going off at once creating a nuclear winter condition all over the planet for almost a century long. A similar incident took place in 1883 as witnessed and recorded by scientists in much smaller scale (only 5000 nuclear bombs effect). Our forefathers stood no chance. They fought battles bravely but they had lost long before it had begun to plague, lack of food, nuclear winter like conditions and diseases.
Second point: the writer says “ Iranian who happened to be muslims …”, I have to clarify this and say there are no true Iranian who is a muslim and still believe in that Arab backward nonsense religion that has been shoved down our throat by the force of the sword for centuries. No true Iranian is a muslim any more, those who see calling themselves that are not Iranian, as they are bunch of arabzadeh/aghazadeh and soon will be purged (to hell) from our great country, Iran. We will have many Babak Khoramdin (note the name khoram din vs. siyah din for arab’s religion and culture as it used to be called in Iran after the invasion for many centuries)

The prophet raided "a"

The prophet raided "a" caravane? or many carvane(s)? And now you are saying that he raided caravanes containing properties that was confiscated from him. How could Mohamad and his few follower have so much "properties" to be confisctated in the first place?

You want your Mohamad to be a saint at the cost of any lie.

You are offended by the (L) Why?

Attaturk couldn't take Islam out of Iran because they had nothing before Islam. We did and still do.

Then you say this bit: "You are the same people who were surprised that the majority of people yelled "Allahu Akbar" during the revolution." How the hell could I have been "surprised"? I was one of them! You just have this clueless imagination about who "we" is, don't you?

Don't show off the "number" of people who showed up during Khomeini's mourning. Give me control over the oil revenue and a hungry poor country, and I'll make twice as many show up on YOUR funeral.

The basijis are the "siahi lashgar" everywhere. People in Iran even make fun of seeing the same faces in different gatherings!

Then you compare the mourning for shah and khomeini. What's your point? How many are mourning Babak's death by the Arabs? How many are celebrating his birthday? Very few I admit. But the IRI is changing all of that. The IRI has created its own anti-Islamic wave. You cannot stop it. You and IRI are committing mass suicide. Why don't you listen to some of those ayatolahs that encourgae separation of government and mosque? Maybe THAT will save your Islam.

You then say: "I have clips of party going Iranian youth in North Tehran who said that while they drink alcohol and party, they still have love for Imam Khomeini"

Do you in all honesty expect me to comment on such stupid remark? I mean re-read your own question and see how stupid it sounds. Are you this desparate and ideologically bankrupt that you have to resort to alcohol drinking north tehranis? Pathetic!

Last time I was in Iran, the MAJORITY didn't dislike, they HATED khomeini. They hated even more those who support and keep this government going. They are counting the days to tear down khomeini's shrine. Many of those are kurds, the rest are Farsis, I am sure the same is true among the Azaris and baloochis.

Payadeh bad Iran o Irani.

I would demand him to fight with all he’s got and fear no death as death would be a better fate for them than what awaits them if he accept defeat from Arabs. I would advise him NOT to fight for the king or even his land/country but to fight for his dignity and freedom as 1400 years of slavery and demise would be upon him and generations to come after him. I would tell him if he fights and pushs back the invading arab savages, do not stop there and don’t make his predecessor mistake, follow the arab savages all the way to the Arabian desert and kill them all wiping out their entire f..ing, ugly race once and for all so the world would be a better place for human kinds.
And to all arab zadeha on this site and everywhere, I tell you that your time will come, thanks to IRI and haroomzadeha arab in Iran, Iranians are waking up and seeing the true ugly face of Islam and its divinity in murdering and oppressing humanity now, everything is in the open. No more holy, divine crap, no more Hassan o hossien nonsense. They will be ready and not make the same mistakes as our grand fathers did in the past. This time around arab o arab zadeh o agha zadeh will be finished for good. Don’t agree, arab lovers?? Just Wait and watch.

jamshid

During Ummayad rule the only mosques that were built were the ones in Demascus, and it was more lavish castles than mosques. We don't have a single mosque in Iran (or even Iraq) from the Ummayad period for a reason. Can you explain why you claim they were building mosques in Iran, yet the mosques that the moghuls burned down were from the Abassid period?

 And the Prophet (S) raided a caravan that was filled solely with the properties of the Muslims confiscated during the sanctions when the Muslims were forced to flee. Even the Meccans didn't claim otherwise (for you must remember that history was written during the Ummayad period, who were the same ones that had their caravans raided). If caravan raiding was a norm, they would have raided future caravans that the Meccans would transport for trade in Syria on a normal routine.  The rest of the wars were fought because of fear of influence and expansion of the Muslims and the creation of strong allies the Muslims were garnering with the people of Yathrib (Medina).

And I am not offended by your views, I am offended by your (L). It is as if I put Cyrus (L), just to provoke people. You are more intolerant than the regime you despise in Iran. Even they don't curse the pre-Islamic history of Iran, yet you think you are better than them.

You can only criticize others in their actions, if you show an example in yourself in the contrary. Otherwise why should we replace the IRI with thugs like you who are exactly the same yet opposite as them? If you say they disrespect pre-Islamic past, why do you disrespect the Islamic history?

The majority of Iranian culture is shaped by its post-Islamic roots. All the poems, literature, and even our current language (which is 60 - 70% arabic) is based on Iran's post-Islamic history.

Just as Attaturk couldn't take Islam out of Turkey, no one can take Islam out of Iran. By hating Islamic history, you are hating 1,300 years of Iran's history. Why are you reactionary? Lack of confidence in your own belief, so you must bash on other people's beliefs?

You are the same people who were surprised that the majority of people yelled "Allahu Akbar" during the revolution. You were probably the same people who were surprised that MORE people showed up wearing black mourning their great leader Imam Khomeini, than the number of people who showed up to greet him 8 years earlier at the triumph of the Islamic Revolution.

 //www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy5Cp72A-hs

You are still confused why so many people show up in the streets of Tehran when Khamenei speaks. You think they bus them in and their jobs count on them showing up? No one is even checking who showed up. You think their is a list of 200,000 people who they make sure they show up or they lose their jobs? It doesn't even make rational sense. I know those people who show up, they show up because they want to:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtce6_jbCnE&feature=related

Let us not kid ourselves. How many people mourned the death of the Shah? And see how many people mourned the passing of Imam Khomeini. Who was the leader the people of Iran loved at his death? It doesn't matter who kisses the leaders hand when he is alive, it matters how many people truly cried at his grave.

You guys in the diaspora might have been cursing him, but even secular people in Iran mourned their leader. I have clips of party going Iranian youth in North Tehran who said that while they drink alcohol and party, they still have love for Imam Khomeini. And on the same clip they criticized the current government, which means they didn't fear for their lives for saying that. They were free to criticize the current government, but said they missed Imam Khomeini. How do you haters even re-concile these things? Do you think people are coerced? You think we are all paid? You think that he people of Iran were BOUGHT into loving them?

You can claim they were ignorant or stupid. That is fine. But these ignorant and stupid people are your ham-vatan. They are what makes up IRAN. Iran is just soil, what gives it character is its people. And these people, even the youth, have deep respect that you lack.

So if you guys were to come back to Iran, and dare curse Imam, you will have a violent reaction from the MAJORITY, not the MINORITY.

Re: Dariushabadi

If the Arabs did not want Iranians to become moslem, then why did they burn the "atashgaahs" and why did they build mosques at every corner?

The umaayeds were no more agressive than Mohamad (L). You claim that Mohamad(L) fought only defensive wars. I disagree. Most of his "defensive" wars was because some people were "offended" at him robbing caravanes and wanted to teach Mohamad (L) a lesson.

And finally what is it with the disrespect lecture? Did you get insulted by reading my views?

Re: Jamshid

Show me historical proof that Arabs converted Persians by force to Islam. Historically Persians have been forced to change religions twice.

1) Sassanids forced non-Zoroastrians (especially Christians) to convert to Zoroastrianism by force (or face death)

 2) Safavids forced Iran into Shi'ism

Their is no imperical evidence what-so-ever that Iranians became Muslim by force after the Arab invasion. Ummayad rulers were more interested in keeping people non-Muslim so they could tax them, than allow them to become Muslim and lose taxation (and control) over them.

Persians who converted to Islam were treated harshly by the Ummayads and later Abbasid caliphs who feared reprisals and uprisings by Persian Muslims who questioned their authority.

Regarding #6, I already told you, no Muslim (Sunni or Shia) condones what the Ummayads (invading Arabs) did to their conquered subjects. We curse the Ummayads for their oppressive rule, and their aggressive wars. What does this have to do with Islam? Seperate the two issues.

And if you believe in a pluralistic future Iran, don't disrespect figures that people hold dearly, because I do not resort to cussing at you nor do I cuss people out that you may hold dearly (such as your mother, etc.). So have respect for your fellow "ham-vatan", who also cares about the people of Iran, we just have to agree we have different interpretations and methods for it. No one's intention here is to hurt the Iranian people.

A Muslim doesn't say "oh, i must worship arabs, iranians are crap." No. As Imam Ali (A) said, "You are either brothers in religion, or EQUALS IN CREATION" We must treat each other with respect.

Cameron Jan

As many of my friends have already said, Please "Stop" Smoking whatever you are before Going to Bed. My Son, such dreams are a direct result of "Bad" (Spiked) Weed, or Other Drugs :)

RE: Darisuhabadi

1. Where did I admit that Arabs did not impose their religion? They did! I have always said that.

2. So you admit that the Arabs imposed their alphabet, but you don't admit the culture part? What do you think changling Farsi alpahapet to latin based, for example, will do to Iran's culture?

3. Your use of fallacy is unbelievable. I don't have to prove that ALL Iranian women were enslaved. That is not possible. But I do claim that a good number of them, proportionate to the number of soldiers in the Arab armies were enslaved.

4. Same with men becoming gholam.

5. So you modify history whenever is convienient for you?

6. I must felicitate you for correcting second "hand" to second "class". I felicitate your mastery of English. Again, you did agree that the invading arabs treated Iranians like second class citizens. Good. Who cares about Mohamad (L)? I was talking about the "invading" arabs.

Re: Jamshid

1) Impose their religion onto others.

You admitted yourself that neither did the Arabs. Whats your point? 

2) Impose their culture onto others.

The only thing the Arabs imposed on the Persians after the invasion was their language and alphabet (yes, Iran spoke Arabic for 200 years before a revival emerged during the Abbassid era). But so did the Sassanids on their conquered people, and the Hakhamenshis before them. Whats your point again?

3) Sell the women of the conqured lands as slaves in Tisphoon.

If this was true, then you must claim that all women of Persia were slaves of the Arabs which has no historical backing. Yes, many Persian women were brought back as slaves, but this is the acts of the Ummayads who you know from history itself resembled more the pre-Islamic Arabs in action than anything Islam taught them. They were all drunkards and oppressors. We Shias (and even the Sunnis) reject their rule as oppressive and illegitimate. Their were many Sassanid and Hakhamanishi kings outside the your Cyrus and Darius that also committed many crimes against their population and the invading territories. We have so many historical documents of Sassanid Kings who declared ALL women in the kingdom as their wives. What is your point?

4) Enslave their men as "gholaams".

Again, not true.That would have made all Persian males as slaves to the Arabs, which is not a historical truth. Yes, some were taken as slaves, but again, this is Ummayad rule you are talking about, which all Muslims reject anyway. The same way you reject bad Sassanid and Hakhameneshi rulers that committed the same if not worse crimes.

5) Burn their libraries and cities.

I remember nationalists always claiming the Umar burned our libraries. The only libraries that were burned in Persia were by 2 groups of people. The Greeks under Alexander and his successors, who burned down most of our libraries. The second group were the Sassanids that would burn the libraries of Catholics in the South of the Empire because they viewed Christianity as a threat because of the Byzantines. Umar and his story is found in revisionist history in the 1950's and 1960's, a time of the rise of the Persian nationalism under the Shah. But neither Arab nor Persian sources testify that their was any book burning after the Arab invasion.

6) Treat the conquered as second hand citizens.

First of all, its Second CLASS citizens. I agree with this, the Ummayads would put all Persians under "Arab" protectorates and would treat them harshly, especially with taxes they would levy on them. EVEN after Persians would convert to Islam, they still had to identify with an Arab tribe. This was from the racism of the pagan Arabs (the Ummayads), and you yourself know this had nothing to do with the Islam of the Prophet (S). We have so many hadith from both Sunni and Shia sources that condemn these pagan ways (tribal racism, etc.).  Even the Prophet (S) himself is always quoted as saying the Persians would be the inheritors of Islam, that the Arabs would understand little of it.  The Prophet (S)'s family constantly either fought or spoke out against the Ummayad rule and Ummayad policies. So we know that this has nothing to do with Islam, but the way of the Arabs.

You can find the equivelant in modern Persian nationalism and its views of the Arabs. Most Persian Nationalists on this forum speak about killing all the "seyeds" and all the "arab-parasts", which in my opinion is worse than Ummayad policies of that time.

Change comes from the heart, not from where you come from. Persians are just as racist as Arabs when it comes down to it. We must all break that cycle, not blame others for our own failures.

The list goes on.

Re: Dariushabadi

So you do admit that the Arab invasion was NOT cultural, that it was military? Good!

As far as Hakhamaneshis, yes, they did conquer other lands too. But they did not...

Impose their religion onto others.

Impose their culture onto others.

Sell the women of the conqured lands as slaves in Tisphoon.

Enslave their men as "gholaams".

Burn their libraries and cities.

Treat the conquered as second hand citizens.

The list goes on.

I hope this will help with your education in Iranian history. Let me know if you want me to provide referrences to further enrich your knowledge.

to jamshid

Question for you:

If the military expeditions of the Arabs were labeled as "military aggression" (and rightly so), then what do you call the military expeditions of the Sassanids against the Byzantines or the Armenians (who used to always be in the middle). Or the military expeditions of the Achamenid era that expanding Iran's territory from Egypt to India?

You are joking right? That was the rule of the game back then. You are just sorry because a bunch of Arabs came, fought the game as the Persians and Byzantines were playing it, and came out victorious. You yourself admitted that no forced conversions were played out (that Iran didn't even become a Muslim majority until 230 years later, because of Ummayad and Abbasid rule). So land was taken, rule was taken away, it was the rule of the game.

Why are you bitter, when the Persians were playing the same game? The Persians weren't mazloom in this scenario. They weren't minding their own business and all of a sudden they got attacked. The Persians were oppressing their Arab citizens in the south, and attacking their neighboring empire to the East. The Zoroastrian clergy was corrupt as ever, and the military was tired.

Yes, the Arab invasion was a military aggression. What wasn't those days? haha. Take away your double standards and put history back into its context.

Re: P.O.W. you are dodging the question

The Arab invasion 1400 years ago WAS based on military agression. You are in denial. The Sasanids could not stop them because they were in a state of internal turmoil.

You still did not answer the question I asked.

Identity

BE proud of who you are,history lies,we all know what excatlly has happened to us,we can not deny it.But it is never too late,we will conqure the devil,if we all stand for our indentity..

The attack on Iran was

The attack on Iran was unislamic orchestrated by arrogant pre-islamic arabic mindset. Islam DOES NOT allow invading and attaking. The only war allowed is a DEFENSIVE war where enemy imposes war. This means if enemy starts the war, you are encouraged to defend and push back the aggressor but do not transgress. Islam wants Justice to prevail and justice is for all, not just Moslems. For records, you can compare the letter of prophet and leetr of Omar to our kings - One is to invite king to Islam with peace the latter is imposing Islam by sword.

..............

I think Cameron is being smart to use analogy between Arab invasion and US invasion - Very diferent elements and values at work.
Gholam e hemmat e aanam ke zir charkh e kabood;
Ze har che rang e ta'allogh pazirad azad ast; Sneeeeeeeeeeeaky!

R: Jamshid

Our dear ancestors, a big emperor of Sassanides, and much more civilized population of persian (and higher in the term of numbers) couldn't resist a bunch of beduine "susmar khor"??. Why???
You just so stick to your 'national heritage' that can not understand that Invasion of Arabs 1400 years ago was not based on millitary aggression. It was Cultural, and good or bad, our dear ancestors accept it. Arabs didn't come from Mars. they were neighbours and a small part of Great Persia were populated by them (beinonahrein). Now don't get me wrong. I am not pro-islamist; but I laugh at a bunch of super nationalist that want to censore the 1400 years historic reality of Iran.

"Moron" oon babaye ja***te

"Moron" oon babaye ja***te ke baa oon nanaye ****at married and sh*t and a***hole like you. I was making a joke about the actors who themselves are as fanatical as any other, like you.

What would you tell him?

As usual no one understands the real crux of the matter. Ninety nine percent of the Iranian population except for the farsi language have been arabised. The religion is an arab one (shia version), most of the names are arab names,customs are arabic, all pray towards the kibla like the rest of the arabs etc.,
During the reign of the Saffavids more than half the population was still not muslims although living as second class citizens. When the Saffavids forced the Iranians to become Shia, many non muslims and muslims who preferred not to become shia fled to the Ottaman empire and preferred to serve the Ottamans rather then stay in Iran and become Shias.
Even now in Iran a black turbaned mullah is one rank above than a white turbaned mullah. The reason is the black turbaned mullah is a direct descendant of the arabs being a sayed.
The leader or the vilayat has to be a black turbaned mullah.
Alexander the great and the mongols although they conquered Iran and massacred the people did not wipe out the culture or language of the then Iranians. The mongols invaded Islamic Iran and did not force the people to change their religion to the mongol religion.
Except for Novrooz nearly all the other holidays are religious and arabic in nature such eid e ghorban, muharram,eid e fetr,etc.
Pourandokht Rostamian
North Vancouver
BC, Canada

Re: P.O.W

You say that we could fight back (against the arabs) and resist under the flag of 'Persia'. but we didn't.

We didn't???

What about all those Iranians that were butchered by the Arabs? You think that all Iranians were so "bi gheyrat" like Salman that a tribe could come along, kill our men, take our women to Medina to be sold as slaves, and the Iranians would not resist them?

That's an insult to your anecestors. But then again... I hope you are not one of those Iranians that are more "into" their arab ancestors, you know... Ali, Hossein, Hassan, etc.

Are you doped? Go back to

Are you doped? Go back to your sleep MORON! or Wake up and smell the reality.

"We will not give up our

"We will not give up our Iranianness. Iran belongs to Iranians. We will not submit. We remain Iranian forever. We wish to have our Iranian way of life in Iran. Stop Genecide of Iranians and Iranian culture by Islamists". wow, "genocide of Iranians by Islamists"? are you creating hatred, divide, and conquer? ay shaytoon balaa ("we Iranians", LOL).

Re: \0=0/

Make us submit?
What are you talking about? you are in state of disbelief. Untill you are in this state, you can not get your 'persian' identity back!

To P.O.W.: Nice Try to still make us to submit !!

Against Genecide of Iranians and Iranian Culture by Islamists, we Iranians strongly keep uprooting our true heritage. This is what Ferdowsi thought us. We will not give up our Iranianness.

Iran belongs to Iranians. We will not submit. We remain Iranian forever.

We wish to have our Iranian way of life in Iran. Stop Genecide of Iranians and Iranian culture by Islamists.

Why insist to draw a

Why insist to draw a conclusion from a historical event that is not clear to us? we somehow accept Arab's culture and religion 1400 years ago, while we could fight back and resist under the flag of 'Persia'. but we didn't.
Ironically, under the flag of Islam, Iran fought Arabs and resist against them to occupy our land(iran - Iraq war). Are things in this Scenario straight forward?

Persia’s Most Devastating Defeat

I do my best to answer your question. I apologize for taking too much of this given space and I hope that no one will be offend in any shape or form after reading this dramatic mini essay (maybe just a little laughter and more tear; Sir Chaplin was the master at this but with more laughter).

There have been three big defeats in the history of Persians:

1) Greeks, lead by Alexander the Macedonian and as we all know it, his goal was to expand his empire and above all to defeat the Persians (the greatest empire of that era). Bare in mind, he graduated from UA (University of Athens, not to confuse with AU! :) with Magnum Cum Laude and was manicured/pedicured by professor Aristotle (his books/lectures/teachings are still being used at universities today). But after their victory, burning down Persepolis (revenge can be so catastrophic!) and Alexander’s love affair with Roxanne, ……they left……leaving our culture intact. Well, enough of the Greeks let’s move on.

2) Later came the Mongols and we all know about their atrocities (they even beheaded the cats!! So, I’ve heard!! Kalle paache??). Immensely violent with their behavior and super destructive upon their exit (don’t we all wish…if only Genghis Khan would have attended the UA as well!!! :) However……they also left……leaving our culture intact. How do you feel so far? Are you upset? These defeats effecting our history, people, heritage etc…. Now it gets ugly, are you ready for the worst? Ready to sob?

3) Then… the Arabs! Our women…children.... genocide, beyond anything comprehensible………our culture. We had optimum colleges, not only did they get burned, but all the books, art/craft, music and to sum it up our culture burned down with it…and at the end of it all…still they did not leave.

ANY TEAR NOW? Their culture is still dominating; luckily we kept our language intact with only some influence! (thanks to Hazrate Ferdowsi author of the Academy Awards winner the “Shahnameh”!).

So, long live the memory of all the heroes and heroines of our history that did not quit and became martyrs for the cause of justice, liberty and freedom.

Re: Dariushabadi

Your assumption is false. Please correct it in your future replies.

You ask "Why did NOT the Achaemanids (Hakhamanishiya) and the Sassanids "invade" their neighbors through peaceful means?" You asked this questions because I asked why Arabs did not invade Iran through peaceful means.

What you are doing here is this: X did something, so it is justified for Y to do the same. Or for example, if someone rapes a girl, he can always say in his own defense that "others" have done it too, so my crime is justified.

Besides, the hakamaneshis never imposed their religion on the invaded societies, nor did they butcher them.

#2: I totally agree with you. I never thought I could agree with you on something like this. But there it is. I also agree with your remarks about Safavids. I must say that I am totally surprised with your opinion in your last post.

Iranians' pain and suffering are ignored by Islamists.

Our Iranian way of life including our culture, our happiness, our art, our music, our family ethics, our fashion, our social conducts, our schooling, our laws, our religion, our faith, our judiciary system, our books, our customs, our calendar, our ceremonies and more all have been brutally attacked and changed by force of Islamists. Today's deed of Islamic Republic of Iran against Iranians in our own country is merciless and it is painful to us. Iranians' pain and suffering are ignored by Islamists. Imagine how horroble the action of Islamists were 1400 years ago against our Iranian ancestors.

This has been a serious on-going genocide of Iranians and our culture in the history of mankind by Islamists.

I would explain to him, the concepts of time and space

Listen man,

 You must do exactly as you were going to do before you met me. The modern world as we know it has evolved as a result of the historical facts that occurred back in your time. If you change anything, I will probably cease to exist, as would my entire family. While it's true, that something "better" may have occurred if you changed your behavior, something far worst could probably have occurred too.

For example, the Sassanid Persia may have turned Christian and would easily have been colonized by the Portoguese or French in 16th and 17th centuries. Or without the unity of Shiism, we might have been easily conquored by the Ottomans and after 500 years we may now be just like any other Arab country in the middle east, in 15 pieces without central identity. Certainly, if we were not Muslim, would probably would have lost Khusestan to Arabs eventually and had no oil revenue, which would probably make us more like Afghanistan today. I don't know, but anything is possible. So, please understand, what you did or did not do in History is not an answer for me today. Your defeat allows me to live my life in my world, and it must be done exactly as it was.

The point is you did what you believed to be right at the time, and I must do the same. Iranians won many battles and lost many battles in all kinds of wars. This is not special, in fact, not nearly as violent as some other historical situations (which mysteriously no one is upset about). All of it adds to our history and culture, and I wouldn't have it any other way. The person that I am would not exist without them. Only idiots, or people who hate their own selves enormously, fantacize about going back in time and "surgically" altering facts to fit their current ideological preference on what "historical influences" are better and what ones are worst. Stop asking these stupid questions.

So, please for god's sake, don't do anything different.

Re: Areyo Barzan

I agree. Just one correction. You said that the ordinary people refused to fight the Arabs.

First, I would like to point to today instead of the distant past. Today the IRI is as incompetent as the Sassanid kings. Their verson of Islam is as terrible as the Sasanid's version of Zoroastrism. Iran's economy is depleted with useless confrontations against USA, just as with the Sasanid's useless confrontation with the Romans. People are as unhappy about the IRI government and the mullahs and how the country is run, just as people were unhappy with the Sasanids kings and the Zoroastrian priests. The parallels are many.

But if today, say East India invades Iran with the goal of taking over the oil fields AND immigrating en masse to Iran displacing the Iranians AND imposing their culture and religion on all of us AND treating Iranians as second hand human beings, then I ask you, what do you think the ordinary people despite of their unhappiness with the IRI would do?

They would fight back, despite of the corrupt mullahs and their corrupt version of Islam. Note the emphasis on the word AND in the above paragraph. 

This is exactly what they did 1400 years ago as well. There are many historical references that is testimony to their resistance as well. Iranians were massacred and butchered BECAUSE they resisted the Arabs. The idea that the Arabs were welcomed with "open arm" by Iranians is nothing but a falsehood designed by Shi'a fanatics to hide the truth about the violent conversion of Iran into Islam.

Sure they were a few traitors and also a few tribes who welcomed the Arabs with open arms. But the same would be true today under the hypothetical scenario I presented. 1400 years ago, they were and today also they would only be a small minority.

I think your saying that Iranian people did not resist the Arab invaders would make them turn in their graves. I suggest that you resist this false Shi'a doctrine.

Respectfully To: Dariushabadi

Dear Friend:
I do welcome your opinion here, but I wish you had made your comment regarding the article -and the question presented- and not towards my collateral reply.
You state "Last time I checked ( checked what?), just as their are peaceful christian missionaries, their are peaceful muslim missionaries."
Fine. If you had taken a closer look, you would have seen that I used the term "TODAY's Christian missionaries"; I was thinking of someone we all have heard of : Mother Theresa, to give the reader a picture of the kind of person I am talking about. Now is there a Muslim version of Mother Theresa out there? There may well be; but most of us have not heard from him/her.
I never made any claims about their history being great, or peaceful.
Now if you think we all can picture a TODAY's Islamic missionary, just as easy as a Christian missionary ,by all means, replace the term "Christian missionaries" in my comment with "Islamic missionaries". The point being, someone who spreads his message through preaching, being Christian missionary, Muslim missionary, Zorastrian missionary or Atheist missionary!
Having said all that, I thank you for your comment.

Stop Genocide of Iranians by Islamists

Iranians can not be Iranian in their own country.