Bulgaroctonus

Your comment about the Greek attitude towards foreigners is correct. I believe the point Swift Sword and myself are making is that if the Achaemenids occupied ancient Greece there would be little basis for Western culture. The Sassanids posed a similar, but less powerful threat to the precursors of Western culture.

Hence, Persia is no friend of Western culture.

Big K

"According to Islam, all history before Islam was an era of "darkness" and should be discarded."

this not true....in fact this is a lie...

Asim Aquil

Religions are the politics of faith :D

Nothing pure about em.

__________________
-- Administrator @
Pakistan Defence: Defence.pk

Asim Aquil

Yup. This Islamic empire took off when it conquered Alexandria and got access to the Pagan libraries. Muslims took advantage of Pagan knowledge which helped them excel beyond most of the west which was Christian and kept away from anything that was Pagan like the plague.

Muslims have used Pagan knowledge in many instances. Egypt and China, being prime examples and followed by India.

entropy

When Islam was young, it was rather tolerant and accepting. See how the Saracens accepted Christians and Jews in Jerusalem.
It was later that it fell into some kind of dark age.

Also, a religion that says that people should be whipped for holding hands on the street, drinking alcohol, and that hangs people for being homosexual is by no means pure in my eyes. Iran may be a beautiful country, but it is smitten.

__________________
If memory serves...

Asim Aquil

In most Islamic countries people in power are still not following those norms. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the only two exceptions.

An attack on the Iranian identity would not help soften that stance either. But support to it, would work. Since Iranians outside of Iran are pretty hip n modern people. Just check out the persians in America. I didn't see ONE mullah Iranian origin person in America. So they do have the right sort of mindset. But their more pressing concerns are potential large scale aerial bombing by America.

There aren't two types of Iranians, like the ones in Iran and outside of Iran. It's just their situations. Iran has been fighting for too long for social progress to take place.

entropy

Partially agreed. You have Sudan and some other countries with Sharia law.
ANd even in Maghreb countries, which have no Sharia law, the traditions of honour killings and the like is carried on.
If the people of a country totally disagree with those in power, usually some kind of social unrest will occur. A fraction of the people agreeing with those in power is required to maintain the power position. This most certainly is the case in Iran.

Agreed. I know some Iranians, all well-educated, intelligent people. Refugees from the regime.



What percentage of the Iranian population does actually support the regime? From what social layers do they come? Are they overwhelmingly elderly people or are the youngsters like that as well? Does anyone have these data or know how to obtain them? Would be of great help.


From reading A-Jads biography, his classmates and youth friends were secular, and he forced them to pray before football games (he was nicknames Imam Beckenbauer for that). So it seems to me that if people like him will keep appearing, the regime will hold for long.

Asim Aquil

Honor killings happen, but they are registered as crimes. More and more people these days are serving jail time for carrying out honor killings.

There are no public lashing of people who engage in extra-marital sex.

It's called choosing sides. Right now the call for revolution comes from America and the call to bomb the crap out of Iran comes from America too. Naturally they'd first choose to defend themselves and then worry about revolution.
I think more youngsters are like that than the elderly people. You don't even see the young in mosques any more. But that aside the question is of Iranian identity, Islam's religiosity is secondary for them. As they say, it's the question of survival. So the cool modern people HAVE TO join hands with the Mullahs, to save Iran. They can't fight Mullahs and fight America.

And you can't do crap about it.

You have a prime example of Pakistan. We had STRICT Islamic laws, a strong support from the populace. It just blew to insane levels in the 70s and the 80s, back when the Afghan jihad against the soviets was going on. It was necessary. Soviets had to be stopped at Afghanistan otherwise we would have been attacked. It took a troubled 90s period and things have completely chilled out, by comparison.

The main thing that led to Pakistan's religiosity was a series of wars in the region and with Pakistan. 60s we saw the China-India war, Pak-India war, 70s we saw the civil war, war with India, and Afghan-Soviet war.

But since then we luckily havent ever gone to a full blown out war.

Also another thing is Iranians aren't Mullah by nature, like let's say almost all Afghanis are. Afghanis strive to follow an Arabian culture. Pakistanis who have similar ethnic Afghan backgrounds also strive for an Arabian culture. But Iranians strive to do the opposite.

Iranian identity needs to be dealt with, without bringing in the Islamic factor. And not through war.

Harbinger

"The Iranian Identity Crisis: Islam v. Iranian Identity "

Isn't that the problem with all Islamic majority countries i.e. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc.
Islamic countries need to learn to separate state and religion.

Kartajan

A claim challengable at two levels:

1. A good portion of Afghans are strongly influenced by Iranian culture (Tajiks, Qizilbashis, Shia Hazaras, Kabuli Pathans). Dari is much closer to Persian than Punjabi or Urdu. A further proportion of Afghans are heavily Turkized (Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turkmen).

2. The Kandahari, Peshawari and Roh Pathans are more "Indianized Muslims" than "Arabized". The fact that they are close to the Wahabbi Arabs is better explained by their adherence to Deobandi Islam - which shares almost same beliefs as Wahabbism, but born in UP (India).

The recent striving for an "Arab" culture has more to do with them (and rest of Indian sub-continent's hard-line Muslims) not being able to find the strong patronage for their more creative impulse as they did during the Mughal Empire days.

Kartajan

In this context, I believe, the "Iranian Identity" encompasses not just the political state, but also Iranian culture, ethnicity and linguistics. A slightly interesting case because

(a) Iran has already had a religious schism with most of the "Muslim World" when it became almost exclusively Shia.

(b) Iranians have always tried to keep sovereign both the religious and the political power. For a long time, most of the "Muslim World" was politically ruled by Turkic peoples and their vassals, and religiously by the Arab and their proteges. Only Iranians tried to buck this trend under the Safavids and later Shahs (and various religious leaders).

Alamgir

Or alternatively put Tajiks are Persians and Dari is a variation of Persian. Tajiks are not Turks. The word Tajik itself was historically used by the Turks for Persian populations living in Central Asia.

I'll let an Afghan (if there are any of this forum) correct you here but simply put Afghans (the Pashtuns rather) have a culture that is very different from both Arabs and Indians. Im not sure what hat you pulled Afghans being more "Indianized" over "Arabized" out from but i know for a fact you will get strongly rebuked by any Afghan for thinking that.

__________________

Kartajan

Keep it in context of Asim's claim of Afghans being more "Mullah" because of them being "Arabized". In that context you will find that Afghans of the regions I mentioned (Kandahar, Peshawar, the Roh), were strongly influenced by radical Islam emnating first from Deoband, India. There is no need to "pull" this claim from any "hat":

Historically there has been a link between ethnic Afghans (here I speak of Pathans) ranging from Rohillkand, UP in India, through Pathan settlements in Punjab, all the way up to the three regions I mentioned in Pathan heartland of NWFP and South-East Afghanistan. Furthermore there is undeniable evidence of the Pathan tribes following clerics from Deoband in little jihads from time to time - the Hindustani Fanatics campaign being the most famous. Many of the modern-day Pakistani movements active in tribal areas are directly descended or inspired by the same school first and foremost.

Any Afghan who would "rebuke" me for this claim - in this context - is sadly unaware of his/her own history.

Ray

What he meant that they were not akin to the Bedous!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Kartajan

Well, I wanted to say something to that effect too... but that would have resulted in a "strong rebuke" from some Afghan ethnic TFTA Pakistanis, wouldn't it?