Defending Iranian Democracy

Simorgh

I apologize for taking a while to respond:

Have you also observed the fallacy of the Muslims apologist arguments?

The issue is simply that a Muslim believe considers Mohammad the ideal man. Therefore they are not going to accept criticisms of him. This is just like a fundamentalist Christian and Jesus. You try to convince them otherwise and it won't work. You will depending on the person get:

• Arguments based on reason and logic. Not necessarily sound ones but an educated Muslim will use reason.
• Anger if the person is emotional or not educated. They get frustrated and mad. Maybe even get insults and violence.
• Disgust as they figure you are not changing to their point of view. Then ether walk off or do got knows what.

I do not get into these arguments with people face to face. It does no good except result in fights. But on IC I do get in the arguments at times. It is a discussion board and figure that is its purpose. For most par though people think what they will. Nothing you; I or Tabarzin say will change it unless people want to.

MG

Yes we managed to infect them with our ideas of "Messiah" and assorted BS! They got liberated by also introduced to Iranian ideas. Which have haunted the world :-) Savior; heaven; hell and all kinds of things to give kids nightmares. 

To be fair the Egyptians already had the afterlife thing worked out. So they get some of the credit for their share of the confusion. Who is counting...

Simorgh

Netanyahu's government just rammed legislation through the Israeli knesset that criminalizes any call for boycotts, political or economic, where the term "boycott" has been quite broadly defined. In essence this law criminalizes dissent against the state and its establishment. Already this law has been curtailing the independence of journalists and intellectual critics alike. So your own comparison is slightly off in light of recent developments.  It is also off in light of the example of Mordechai Zanunu (Israel's version of Akbar Ganji).

Again, the atrocities committed by the IRI has been equally perpetrated against Muslims - in fact more so against Muslims than anyone else. Over and over again you and people like you have been told that the IRI regime and its ideology does not represent the full gamut of Muslims and their beliefs. Yet over and over you and people like you come back with the same strawmen of holding the example of the IRI against Muslims who have been victimized and terrorized by it. What you and people like you are doing which you don't realize is that by identifying the Islam of the IRI or al-Qaeda as typifying Islam as a whole you are inadvertently acting as the mouthpieces of the IRI and al-Qaeda against the majority of Muslims everywhere. In essence, you are making their argument for them.

Mash_Ghasem: no question Judaism evolved in its encounter with Persians after the Babylonian captivity. I don't know whether Peter Lamborn Wilson has written about this. Are you sure it was him?

Tabarzin

I agree with you that the increasing influence if Jewish religious minority groups are destroying the secular ideals that defined the spirit of Israel including the terrible collective punishment of Gaza. However, I will not allow this perpetual and complex conflict distract from the terrible atrocities committed in Iran by Islamic fanatcism. The Suffering of Palestinians is by and large well documented by the media in the UK and Europe whereas the only thing which concerns the West is Iran's nuclear ambitions and the terrible suffering of Iranians which as far I am concerned is just as worse than Palestinains is not given the attention it deserves. There are 7 million people in Israel/Palestine combined but 65 million Iranians imprisoned, killed, mutilated, stoned, hanged and raped in the name of Islam. As I have said on numerous occasions just look at the Middle East compare the size the whole of Palestine (including Israel proper) and compare that to Iran. Compare the size of territory which you are begrudging Israel to establish their state and compare that to the territory stolen from us from Russia, Chechnya and Afghanistan. Israel isn't even the size of Darfur which most Muslims don't give a blind bit of notice about.
Your comparison of the Israeli state being the mirror image of Iran does not stand. Israel does not throw journalists and bloggers into jail and kill them. They do not stone women and mentally imapired sixteen year old girls. Well at least not to their own people

Tabarzin,wasn't there some change in Judaism after their Persian

Encounter?

If I'm not mistaken Peter Lambert Wilson had a short piece on this, and how Judaism evolved after their liberation from Babylon and all that. Do you recall such writing by Wilson?

You wouldn't get that impression

By talking to secular Jews about recent developments in Israel and the fact that far-right religious parties in the Knesset are more and more imposing a Halakha-centric legal regime upon Israel. In fact, Israel has been steadily evolving into a full-blown Jewish theocracy over the past 20 years, and now with Netanyahu at the helm that process is accelerating. Israel today is not the secular Israel of the early Zionist settlers or the Israel of the socialist Ben Gurion or Golda Meir of its founding. More and more, there is very little that distinguishes the theocratic visions of the IRI and Israel. Where it counts, these two are beginning to mirror each other.

I have no problem with criticism. The problem is that Islamophobes are generally unintelligent, uninformed and uncritical interlocutors straitjacketed into a very ahistorical and unnuanced form of thinking and who know very little of what they're talking about or criticizing. As such their criticisms are usually of the nature of propaganda - which in itself is informed by an underlying narrative of racism or 'clash of civilizations' - rather than valid, objective criticism.

Tabarzin

Yes, I believe that Judaism and Mosaic law is equally reprehensible although Israel  Jews and diaspora Jews do themselves a number of favours:

1) Israel is a Jewish state but does not define what 'Jewish' is. Orthodox Judaism dominates some areas of Israeli law such as marriage but Jews of every kind are allowed to practise their beliefs whether they be reform, progressive or Jews for Jesus

2) Non JewsArab Israelis (in theory) are equal under the law. They are discriminated for sure but ask an Israeli Arab whether he prfers to live in Israel or in a refugee camp in Lebanon because the government there refuses to grant  citizesnship to Palestinians cica 1948 and even their descendents!

3) Archaic and barbaric Old Testament laws are not applicable to punishment of crimes Israel. There is no stoning or capital punishment.  There is no 'eye for an eye' punishment which means no amputation of limbs, guaging eyeballs out and execution of minors

4) Freedom of expression.Israelis are free to wear what they like (unless they venture into strict Orthodox areas), openly declare themselves as athiests, criticize their government policies  (see Haaretz) whereas Islam is stuck in the past.

4) Judaism is not an apostolic religion and unlike Muslims they are not coercing or using methods of duress to force people to convert.

The 'good' thing about Jews is that  their religion, regardless of its nature, is kept strictly to themselves.  

If you are a Muslim then keep it to yourself. Flaut your religion about then you will be susceptible to criticism.  

Mutatis mutandis, Simorgh

Are you personally willing to say the same thing about Judaism and the Mosaic law? Yes or no?

Someone should still teach "Dr." some about Multi Culturalism

in the U.S. (and the world) and remind him of all the Arab, Muslim names many cities in the US have, and ....

And how to correctly spell SECULARISM. All and all this blog is more embarassing than anything else

Tabarzin

You have completely lost the plot or I think you are living.in denial. You keep trying to justify Mohammed's actions by the same old tired argumemts: 'but' we never had the Geneva Convention in the 7th century; 'but' the rules of engagement were different; 'but' marrying young children was the norm at the time etc etc.
The only difference is that Muslims consider Mohammed to be a prophet then as he is now- the last messenger of God. If God had chisen Mohammed to lay down morals and ideals about the way of life by which individuals and societies must conform to then Mohammed's comortment both in his personal affairs and dealings with adversaries should be exemplary not just for its time but forever. This is what Muslims believe and not me. So you cannot cherry pixk which teachings of Islam is relevant today and remove the ones which you are embarassed about by justifying it retrospectively.
Jesus Christ's teachings about forgiveness and turning the other cheek are timeless; and ironically Judaism and Islam are almost identical from Halal/Kosher, circumxision, the indivisibility of God, burial rites and many more.
No 'if's no 'but's, either you believe Mohammed was a prophet today and he was a man of exemplary behaviour today just as he was in the 7th century or he wasn't.

Anachronism city

The fallacy is all in the possession of the resident  Islamophobes with their uncritical typologies.

Again, you cannot apply the category of "pedophilia" to cultures that did not consider 14 year old girls to be childern but rather adults. Second, until quite recently women were not considered eligible to be placed under the rubric of pedophilia were sex crimes are concerned. Until recently pederasty and pedophilia were considered synonymous: meaning, pedophilia applied to sex crimes committed by full grown men against little boys - but not girls. Whatever Western feminists think of this, these are the facts, and it is only quite recent that pedophilia as a definition has been extended to include women as well. So given this, you can not reasonably speaking indict the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) post facto for a standard that did not exist in his culture and when Ayesha was considered by the standards of that culture to be a woman and not a child.

What the Muslims did against the Bani Qaynuqah and during the wars with the Meccans falls under the definition of engagement during a time of war. Pray tell, show me one European power who has not committed worse atrocities? The Americans have commited far worse in Vietnam and Indochina, Latin and South America, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, ad nauseum, and recently too. The genocidal behavior of the Israeli IDF in southern Lebanon in 2006 and against the Gazans is even worse than anything Muslims have done during the period in Medina.

That said, it is quite telling that Muslims are held to a standard that Jewish and rabbinic laws and perspectives are not held to. Besides, everything that is considered "barbaric" in Sha'ria law comes straight out of the OT and rabbinic law. But who amongst the Islamophobic AIPAC lobby of IC has the backbone to criticize Judaism? None.

VPK

Have you also observed the fallacy of the Muslims apologist arguments?

When Mohammed decapitated an entire tribe based on nothing more than a hunch; enslaved women and children and married minors at the ripe old age of fifty-five we are criticised for applying twenty firsy century ethics to 7th century Mesopotamia. In that case why are the tenets of Islam relevant to the 21st century? 

If beheadings, marrying pre-pubescent girls, mutilation of limbs and gouging eye balls as part of an eye-to-eye mideval punishment have to be considered in light of the era when it was committed then what is the significance of Islam today?

Which values of Islam are universal and not outdated? None of us assume for one moment that Cyrus the Great was a prophet - he unified Iran and like all Kings and great men in hisotry he probably committed wrongs as well as good deeds. And as much as this sounds pretentious- we must remove the halo from the head of saints and view history dispassionately and without bias.

 In contrast Muslims hold Mohammed hold Mohammed as a man of 'exemplary comportment' but if you dare point out controversial apects of his life, you are immediately rebuked for taking things out of context. Even when Muslims cannot defend the indefensible - the marriage of Ayesha and beheading of entire tribes they are always looking for excuses to defend their 'prophet'. For F-Sakes why are you following him then? 

I got to agree with Simorgh to some degree

The Muslim conquest of Iran was an unmitigated disaster. We all know it and I don't want to rehash the history for the millionth time

Sassanids were not as kind to previous regimes as Simorgh said. They very much loved  Achaemenid. But they pretty much hated Parthians. They viewed Parthians both as barbarians and foreigners. To be fair Sassanids were "right" in some ways. Parthians were nomadic in nature. And no where as sophisticated as Achaemenid or Sassanids. But the loss of their records is tragic. I have made it a hobby to gather as much on them as possible. Thanks to Sassanids not much is there!

No matter two wrongs do not make a right. Hence none of this excuses the destruction of Iranian heritage. By Sassanids; Arabs; or Islamic Republic. All historical treasures are valuable. To be preserved for generations on.

TL - I have to admit

that I could have been a bit more clear.  As far as cremation, I didn't choose it out of atheism.  There are some arguments about it being more environmentally sound, especially with a growing world population.  On the other hand, the fuel that is needed to burn the body does not make cremation a very environemntally friendly option.  Coming to think of it, Muslim and traditional Zoroastrian disposal of the dead are the most environmentally friendly methods of dealing with the issue.

AO, sorry, lazy quoting

from Shushtari's comment:

"...I dont' believe in all the nonsense that is preached by the akhoonds and
other reglions.....BUT THERE IS DEFINITELY A HIGHER BEING....just my
humble opinion

we will find out after we all die :) "

Then the beginning of  yours:

"

by Anonymous Observer on Thu Sep 22, 2011 03:57 PM PDT

The part about we will find out after we are dead. That will definitely be the case."

What is a girl to think? How am I supposed to know when I'm as dead as a dodo?

Thanks for your explanation of "we" though. It's a weird one. ;)Isn't it a matter of perceptions of "consciousness"?

P.S. Cremation isn't necessarily an argument for atheism; it's just a matter of a non-traditional disposal of a body and some might and  do take that as an argument for the existance of a soul beyond.Just saying...

TL- Classic example of taking a sentence out of context

Read the rest of the paragraph.  My reference to "we" in that sentence is to the human race.  As opposed to where I say the answers will be found long after "we" are gone.  In that sense, I am talking ahout the contemporary "we," i.e., those of us who are alive today.

I am, and have been for most of my adult life, and atheist.  I have no belief (and no need for a belief) in an afterlife, and have already made a will for my remains to be cremated and spread over the waters of my favorite beach on a warm sunny day, so that I can be one with the amazing natural world where I (and the rest of us) came from.  No hell, no heaven, no fairy tales...just beautiful, perpetual circle of life on this wonderful planet.     

'Your views, again, are

'Your views, again, are complete anachronisms. You are applying a contemporary, modern ethical standard upon a pre-modern one of the 7th century.'

If your criticise opponents of Islam for applying modern ethical standards to 7the centruty values you have inadvertently admitted that the teaching if Islam, its customs and barbaric Shariah law belong to the era when it was established lished and therefore it has no place in todays society. When Iranian men and women are forced to wear bedouin Arabia clothes; women are forced into marriages as young as nine; when cruel and vindictive punishments such as ghisas are inflicted then it quite normal to enquire and criticise the source of such unmitigated evil, and it is evil.
As for the comparisons between the conduct ofthe prophet of Islam and those of the Sassanian and Chinese imperial dynasties who also claimed divine rule, I don't believe that either of them exist today. Furthermore, Iranians amongst us who revere our pre-Islamic heritage are not claiming for one second that Cyrus the Great was a prophet (although Orthodox Jews do in the Old Testament book of Isaiah do) or when Darius claims he was king of the universe it woukd be absurd to take it literally. In contrast Muslims not.only believe that the Koran is the undisputed word of God but that the life and behaviour of Mohammed are to be emulated which is why pre-pubescent girls are being married off and sighe is practised today.
I am quite happy to reflect on and criticise the excesses of the Sassanian dynasties during their four hundred and fifty years if rule such as the slaughter of the Mazdaks and the persecutions under the high priest Kadrir but during their very long rule there had also been extraordinary amounts if tolerance as Touraj Daryayee's book indicates especially towards Jews and Christians who were used as artisans and their skills were employed. Even the Sassanian kings such as Bahram V were Jewish. The Church of Nestor was created and by and large, except when the Byzantines started hostilities with Iran which caused the state to treat them with suspicion, they were largely tolerated and even flourished. Except for the dark times of Kadrir there were no Jayeeze racketeering, dhimmis or restrictions placed on their mode of dress or religious ceremonies. Compare that to Islam which has destroyed and tried to assimilate by force or coercion other people into their faith, and those who were accepted such as Jews or Christians (people of the book) were discriminated in every way possible including probate and inheritance matters where converts to Islam would be more privileged.
Finally, whilst fully acknowledging some of the repugnant axts of the Sassanians they never tried to destroy the civilisation or remnants of dynasties before them. In Naqse Rostam, near Persepolis, they honoured their Achaemenid forefathers by enfraving images on the wall on the same side of the mountain and they also burried their kings in the same way.
In contrast, Islam.went on a bloody rampage destroying fire temples and most of what remained fron our ancient past. So.when you see Sadegh Khalkhali

Tabarzin

The best I know most of the early Islamic conversion were by the upper class. Not the lower classes who remained Zoroastrian until forced by their leaders. A perfect example is the Samanids. 

Revolts always tend to come from middle and upper class. The lower class do not have the time; education or leadership. Marxist revolts were led by middle and upper class. So of course the revolts in Iran were from middle class.

It was not until Yagoob that a "lower" class person had a successful revolt. And that he did expelling Arab rule from most of Iran. To this day people out in remote mountains like parts of Kurdistan remain true to Zoroastrian traditions.

Anonymous Observer. slipped out?:

"The part about we will find out after we are dead."

Entertaining the possibility of an afterlife,  that's a tell tell sign, not of an atheist, but that of a theist or agnostic or agnostic theist etc.. Certainly not an atheist.

Tabarzin

"The second issue is that a cult requires a level of unified coherence
and uniform cohesiveness in order to be a cult, as that term is defined
by the social sciences."

Ha! One of the valid arguments against the premise of my "classical" definition of cult and therefore my stance of calling all religions cults, is precisely that of diversity, but even 'regional diversity' (term used very loosely, but very easily observed through different interpretations of e.g. Sufi music across the globe and its peaceful threat to extremists...), I could argue, goes under the banner of size or "volume"?

P.S. Brovva Salman farsi, LOL! As long as that pre-op brovva doesn't get PMT, we're fine!

Historical context and name calling as excuses

"concept of pedophilia does not exist in the pre-modern mind" - .........Middle Eastern and European potentates alike engaged in union and sexual relations with what by our standards are considered to be minors and children..........The Tang Emperors of China - who are contemporaneous - are well known (even documneted) for having a proclivity for pre-pubescents (and not just girls, I might add). Yet we don't hear anything by Islamophobes about the Chinese Tang emperors, who likewise were considered divine. "

Noone is accepting one form of pedophilia over another. I am concerned with issues that affect Iran not China. The truth is it still goes on in the name of religion - child marriages. Even recently as one example, Indonesia's largest Muslim organization wanted to rule in favor of underage marriages, as did some in Morocco, Yemen, etc. 

 http://journaloffeministinsight.blogspot.com/2010/09/islam-and-underage-marriage.html 

http://middleeast.about.com/od/humanrightsdemocracy/a/child-brides.htm

As far as accusations of Islamophobia, it is often used to silence critics. I have voiced support of freedom of religion and support for women who want to wear hijab on this site. Many times I have supported free speech of even Islamists.

http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/aug/france-veiled-woman-resists-arrest?page=3

http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/dr-mansur-rastani/iranians-against-islam-petition?page=2

Personally, I find spending time discussing these matters in a place like IC with familiar defensive characters who insult (name call) and make excuses unproductive. This will be my last comment here as there are better venues to discuss such matters and gain results, with experts and non religious preachers. These people's priorities are to look out for children's rights in a modern world and thankfully have a practical outlook. 

Divaneh said something wise in another blog: "Religious people match their wisdom to their religion…. That is why no religion could ever make people rational and having no religion and no belief in infallible god, people or organisations would be the best salvation. "

Pourshariati's book is very good

I have a copy of it sitting right here next to me.  Please turn to page 469 for a list of officers who fought during theMuslim campaign.  The only problem with that book is that almost all of its sources are Arab historians, which means that story is told through their eyes.  Nonetheless, still a good book.  I don't have Daryaee's book, but I have read a lot of his materials and I find him to be an excellent historian.

In terms of rebellions, please read History of Al-Tabari, Volume XIV, Conquest of Iran, State Univerity of New York Press.  And it's not just the wide scale rebellions.  It's the city to city and enclave to enclave battle and the resistance that Iranians put up to the Arab invasion.  The invasion took almost five years.  There were people who were traveling from Kurdestan to Isfahan to assist in the defense of the city.  This is at a time, again, where the idea  of a nation state did not have today's meaning.  It is, again quite remarkable, and demonstrates the enduring Sassanid legacy of Iranshahr that has kept Iran in one piece (for the most parts) as we see it today.

I will respond to the other points tomorrow.  It's getting late here, and I will have to finish reading my book before I fall asleep.   

Other points

On the treatment of non-Zoroastrian and heterodox Zoroastrian religious minorities under the Sassanian empire, I refer you to the excellent chapter (3) by Touraj Daryaee in his Sassanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire (I.B. Tauris, London: 2009). BTW if anyone wants a copy of either one these two books mentioned, I have both as fully searchable PDFs.

AO, leaving your subjective and uncritical appraisal of Salman Farsi aside, you say:

 Lastly, in terms of Mohammad's relation with an underage girl, here's
the distinction between him and all others that you have mentioned in
your comment, and I will assume, for the sake off this discussion, that
everything that you said about the Chinese and the Sassanids is true.
None of those that you have mentioned claimed to me messengers of God.
Mohammad claimed to be such person, and as such, it was his obligation
to be the beacon of morality for everyone else. Knowing what we know
now, sex with a child scars that child for the rest of his / her life.

Your views, again, are complete anachronisms. You are applying a contemporary, modern ethical standard upon a pre-modern one of the 7th century. Firstly, both the Chinese and Sassanian emperors considered themselves annointed by Heaven, which is, as an equivalence,  as similar a claim and notion to being the Messenger of God. All Chinese emperors were directly referred to as the "son of Heaven" and often as offspring of this or that Chinese deity. Second, once again, the notion of pedophilia vis-a-vis Ayesha does not make any sense in the context you are indicting Muhammad. The issue of solidifying tribal alliances aside (which marriage in such societies was meant to cement politically), and in a world where most people did not live past 40-50 years of age, a 9-14 year old female in all such societies is a woman. Furthermore, in societies where life was so short, biologically there is evidence that some women where menstruating as young as 10-11 years of age. Since all the sources say the marriage with Ayesha was not consummated until she was 14, this issue as an indictment falls on its face given the various contexts and subtexts to be considered here. Given this, indicting the Prophet of Islam by a standard that does not even exist in his time is downright intellectually dishonest. Again, the harems of the assorted "annointed of Heaven" emperors were full of pre-pubescents - and, indeed, these "annointed of heaven" were having sex and producing offspring by these under aged concubines. Right or wrong, this was the pre-modern world of antiquity, and pedophilia is only a recent and contemporary ethical category. 

Most of the revolts that happened in Iran during the first few centuries after the Arab conquest of Iran where coming from Dehqans and other formerly privileged elites (i.e. aristocrats) of the Sassanian empire. Barely any of these revolts came from the lower classes who had predominantly converted to Islam. This fact alone nuances the whole argument.

The evidence about Imams Hasan and Hussein (as) engaging in the kind of suppression you speak of is flimsy. Since they were the sons of a clan whom, first, the Arab Muslim chieftains displaced and then during 'Ali's (as) short caliphate were engaged in the political intrigues and wars against the Sufyani-Ummayads - and then after Siffin, the Khwarij - when exactly  were Hasan and Husayn engaged in suppressing Iranians?

Tabarzin Jan

It pains me to even read about the events of the last 50 years of Sassanids. It was not one thing; rather a whole lot of things. Khosrow Parviz and his endless wars with Rome. Then leaving no capable person to take over.

A general incompetence. The short reign of Pouran and Azarmidokht. Murder of Rostam's father by Azarmidokht in response to his marriage proposal. . Then blinding and murder of Azarnidokht by Rostam. What a mess!

No wonder there was no faith left in the system Everyone out to get on another. The total corruption of priests. Violent repression of efforts to reform the system. Does it sound familiar? Reminds me of today's IRI. Iran was lucky the war with Iraq came when people were still high on revolution. Their morale kept them from collapsing. With today's morale things may have been much worse. As I said before Mollahs are doing to Islam what Mobeds did to Zoroastrianism.

On the mutiny against Yazdigird III

Parvaneh Pourshariati The Decline and Fall of the Sassanian Empire: The Sassanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran (I.B. Tauris, London: 2008).

....With all the fanfare around the heroic posture and tragic death of Rustam, however, little attention has been paid to the fact that, in defending the Sasanians at this important juncture of Iranian history, Rustam, like his brother, Farrukhzad and their father, Farrukh Hormozd, was not merely pitching his last efforts on behalf of the Sasanians—whose legitimacy his ancestral family, the Ispahbudhan, had questioned again and again in late Sasanian period, after all—but, more importantly, was defending the rights of his family and their fiefdoms in the east and west of the Sasanian territory. Even less is known about the likelihood that the family was probably the most significant player in accommodating the conquering army and betraying the Sasanians...As both Tabarı’s and Ferdowsı’s narrative underline, therefore, the hero of the battle of Qadisiya participated in the fateful battle quite reluctantly and in spite of his preferred stratagems. In fact, according to abarı, between “the departure
of Rustam from al-Madain, his camping at Sabat., his departure from there, and his confrontation with Sa,d b. Ab¯ı Waqq¯as.’s army, four months elapsed. During this time he did not move forward and did not fight.”1287 Rustam is portrayed as “hoping that the Arabs would become disgusted with the place, [and] would become exhausted, and . . . leave.”1288 So long-lasting Rustam’s procrastination is said to have been that the Arabs, realizing his strategy, followed suit and “made up their minds to be patient and to temporize with the Persians indefinitely, in order to throw them off balance,” raiding meanwhile the Sawad and plundering “the area around them.” Once the Persians realized “that the Arabs were not going to desist,” however, they are said to have commenced their war efforts...In all our narratives the theme of Rustam’s procrastination, his insistence on having an isolated warfare strategy, and his initial refusal to start the war efforts, reflects his stance, not vis-à-vis the child king Yazdgird III, but vis-à-vis
the other factions, most importantly the Parsıg. The correspondence of Rustam with his brother Farrukhz¯ad bears witness to this. The exhaustion of the Sasanian empire in the wake of the thirty-year Byzantine–Sasanian wars, which had only recently been brought to an end, perhaps helps explain Rustam’s inclination toward placating the Arab armies. The Arab insistence on trade interests, was probably also responsible for the creation of those narratives that depict Rustam arguing for the lucidity and honorable nature of the Arab stance. All the traditions concerning Rustam’s correspondence with the Arab armies, with his brother Farrukhz¯ad, and with other factions bear witness, however, that the Parsıg were bent on all-out war. Perhaps their promotion of this strategy was itself predicated upon their knowledge that, indeed, the latter did dread Rustam and his power more than they did that of the Parsıg..."

 pp.228-231

....We recall that after the battle of Qadisiya and the battle of Jalula, Yazdgird III’s flight first carried him south, then southeast, where he probably stayed in Sıstan, possibly for five years. We can now follow his trail as he turned finally to Khurasan around 650. Some of our sources maintain that during his flight, Yazdgird III either went to the proximity of Tabaristan, or was at least invited to take refuge there. In any case, perhaps on his way to Khur¯as¯an, Yazdgird III learned about the events in Tabaristan and Gurgan1 before he finally proceeded to Khurasan, to Marv. We recall that most of our sources emphasize that the protection of the Sasanian king during his flight was undertaken by the most important scion of the Ispahbudhan family, Farrukhzad, the brother of Rustam, and the son of the Prince of the Medes, Farrukh Hormozd.

Whereas none of the anecdotal narratives that describe Yazdgird III’s fate in Khurasan and his presumed murder at the hands of a miller, rings of historical veracity, we do have substantive information that helps us clarify the course of events. The initial conquest of Khuzistan and Fars by Asharı, we recall, took place sometime around 636–637 CE, according to our dating scheme, although some traditions maintain that this was shortly before Abu Bakr died, in 634 CE. The “real conquest of Fars and the remainder of the Sasanian empire to the east,” however, was undertaken by Abdallah b. Amir, the governor of Basrah, under ,Uthman (23–35 AH/644–656 CE),1488 when the latter sent Ahnaf at the vanguard of an army to conquer Khurasan from Tabasayn. According to Morony, it was after the second conquest of Fars that Yazdgird III moved to Kirm¯an and thence, just ahead of the Arab forces, to Sıstan and Khurasan. Yazdgird III, therefore, arrived in Khurasan sometime in 650–651 CE. If Yazdgird III was eight years old when he ascended the throne in 632, moreover, by the time of his arrival in Khuras¯an in 650–651, he was about twenty-six years old. From here on, the sources that depict the youthful Sasanian king as stubborn and thick-headed may carry some truth...And now, we are given a significant piece of information by Ferdows¯ı. After leaving the king, Farrukhz¯ad set out for Rayy. In the meantime he adopted a new posture vis-à-vis Yazdgird III: he had a change of heart (joda shod zi maghzı bad andısh mihr) and the “shepherd came to covet the throne (shaban ra hamı kard takhtarzuy).” Pretending to be ill, Farrukhzad renounced his allegiance to Yazdgird III. And so the last Sasanian king lost his last and most formidable source of support: the Pahlav Farrukhzad mutinied. While leaving the king to the care of Mahuy, Farrukhzad revealed his intent: “I have to leave for Rayy, for I do not know any longer whom I shall consider the king” of this realm...

pp.257-262

Regarding Sassanids

There is no question there was a lot of corruption towards the end of Sassanids. That was in fact the reason for their downfall. But the Arabs were not "rag tag". They were a highly organized and motivated military force.

Yazdgird III was not abandoned. Rostam Farrokhzad died on the battlefield. It was a combination of poor morale; bad leadership and bad luck. The real killer was  inability of Yazdgird III to gather another force. Iran without a doubt had the potential to mass an army ten times the size it lost at Qadisiyah. But the local governors were not willing to send young men to fight and die for Yazdgird III. A mistake many did not live to regret. After cities like Estakhr were utterly destroyed.

Zoroastrian priests were definitely corrupt and powerful. A bad combination. Reminds me of the Mollahs today. Maybe it is in the nature of priests to be corrutpt whether Zoroastrian; Muslim or any other religion. The Zoroastria priests destroyed that religion. Mollahs are destroying Islam in Iran. I predict history will repeat itself. This time Mollahs will fall and take Islam with them. What is next: I have no idea maybe no religion; maybe return to Zoroastrianism or who knows what.

Dear Oon Yaroo

There is too much SH2 gas in Islamic Mosques' toilets because of the free Gheymeh Polo and onions that can cause an explosion and burning of the private parts!

So I highly recommend my fellow Iranians to use either the restrooms at churches or synagogues, even if you have to make a contribution! 

Dear Dr. Rastani, Thanks for informing us of the openning of

this mosque!

Mosques have always had their place in the societies! You go there to relax, meditate,  but more importantly to use the facilities if you know what I mean!

Wahid - a few points

First, your historical narrative of Yazdgird, III's generals deserting him is absolutely inaccurate. By all accounts, Yazdgird's officers stood by him, most of them to their deaths. This, of course, includes Rostam Farrokhzad, who was not even a Persian, but rather a Parthian (killed in battle). Others include Bahman Jazooyeh (killed in battle in Khuzestan), Hormozan (captured and taken prisoner and then killed in cold blood by Omar) and Pirooz Nahavandi. There are many others whose names now escape me. The loyalty of these officers is quite remarkable in several respects. The first being that the concept of nation state as we know it today did not exist at the time. So, these officers could have easily switched sides or simply deserted and joined their various tribes (Rostam's being in the far northeast of Iran- quite a distance away from the battlefield). Second, the Muslim conquest took about five years, and throughout this time, these officers still remained with Yazdgird. Third, Yazdgird was quite young at the time of these battles, and had recently taken the throne after bloody infighting among the Sassanid royal court. So, the fact that these officers showed such loyalty to a newly appointed king under those circumstances is again,quite remarkable.

On the issue of Sassanid's treatment of their subjects, your accusations of mistreatment of other religions within the kingdom is belied by the fact that Yazdgird, III's own mother was a Christian named Meryam! And also the fact that at the time of the Muslim conquest, the majority of the inhabitants of Ctesiphon were Christians. The Sassanids did not even have a royal fire temple in Ctesiphon, the seat of their empire!

As to Salman Farsi, all indications are that he was quite a shady character who traveled from place to place, possibly after a coup attempt in Isfahan, and found hope of capturing the Persian Empire in Mohammad and his gang.

In terms of how the Muslims treated their subject people, all you have to do is read their own accounts. And then compare that to other empires. You will see that it is far worse. And other empires didn't claim to be bringing a religion of peace.  And as far as Iranians welcoming them with open arms, that is also belied by Muslim and Arab historians own accounts of constant rebellions in all parts of Iran, which resulted in large scale military action against the rebellious Iranians.  Some of those military suppression cases were even carried out, according to Arab historians by Ali Ibn Abitalib's sons, Hassan and Hussein! 

Lastly, in terms of Mohammad's relation with an underage girl, here's the distinction between him and all others that you have mentioned in your comment, and I will assume, for the sake off this discussion, that everything that you said about the Chinese and the Sassanids is true. None of those that you have mentioned claimed to me messengers of God. Mohammad claimed to be such person, and as such, it was his obligation to be the beacon of morality for everyone else. Knowing what we know now, sex with a child scars that child for the rest of his / her life. But Mohammad should have known that through divine communications, no? In other words, God should have known what we know today about basic child psychology and communicated that to Mohammad so that he could pass it on to the rest of humanity. So, if Mohammad had sex with a nine year old, he was either untruthful about being a prophet or he could not control his sexual urges in direct violation of (presumed) God's orders. And I am not just singling out Mohammad. In my opinion, Moses and Jesus were just as bad (if not worse) than Mohammad.

Same old, same old...

Simorgh, you are rehearsing the same old, same old Islamophobic talking points: ahistorical and without context.

Firstly, as far as the Muslim conquest of the Sassanian empire goes: this is exactly what it was, a conquest. A rag-tag desert guerilla army defeated one of the super-powers of the time. Just as with every other conquest before it: to the winner goes the spoils. The Sassanians did the same - and worse! - to nations they had conquered, and every imperial power throughout history has demanded some kind of tribute by a subjugated nation. You and many Iranians like you ahistorically talk about the 7th century Mid East as if there are Geneva Conventions in place. But all things considered, the conquering Muslims treated their conquered subjects far better than other empires before them; and the Sassanian empire was already in decay: it was a corrupt, caste-ridden brutal theocracy which mercilessly persecuted all religious and political dissidents. I suggest you look into the treatment by the Sassanian state of Manichaeans, Mazdakis and Monophysite Christians before pointing fingers at the Muslims. Furthermore, as all the evidence shows, the Sassanians were heretics vis-a-vis orthodox Zoroastrianism and imposed a heretical version of the Zoroastrian creed on all their subjects. Moreover it was Yazdigird III's own generals who deserted him and betrayed their own emperor at the battlefield of Qadisiyah. Given this, contemporary Iranian romanticists of Sassanian Iran need several reality checks and serious lessons in the history of the era.

Now the accusation about the age of Ayesha's marriage to the Prophet (pbuh) is another one of the usual talking points of Iranian Islamophobes - nay, all Islamophobes. Like the whining about Qadisiyah, it too is ahistorical and de-contextualized. First, the concept of pedophilia does not exist in the pre-modern mind. Middle Eastern and European potentates alike engaged in union and sexual relations with what by our standards are considered to be minors and children. Do you think the harems of the Sassanian monarchs did not contain concubines as young as (or even younger than) that age? I have news for you, they did - and not only the Sassanians but every single potentate before them and after them whether in the Middle East, Europe or Asia! The Tang Emperors of China - who are contemporaneous - are well known (even documneted) for having a proclivity for pre-pubescents (and not just girls, I might add). Yet we don't hear anything by Islamophobes about the Chinese Tang emperors, who likewise were considered divine.

Yes, surah 4:34 (al-nisa), speaks about beating disobedient women. In the context of a race who were previously outright murdering disobedient female concubines, slaves or minor wives, or otherwise burying female children alive, that is a serious improvement. The Old Testament law about husbands and wives is, again, far worse.

The nearby land that massacred Mazdakis, Manichaeans and relentlessly persecuted Monophysites is probably the nearest land being referred to. There were in fact self-respecting Iranians such as Salman Farsi who did in fact rejoice, not to mention the thousands who deserted the Sassanians and hailed the Muslims as liberators from the cluthches of a corrupt, caste-ridden and totalitarian imperial theocracy such as the Sassanian state.

But all that said, my point about the linguistic illiteracy in classical, literary Arabic of people like yourself and the author of this blog vis-a-vis the Qur'an still stands.