Iran protests: Citizens told to avoid 'illegal gatherings'

[Firdousi]

There's a theory that Azeris are actually Turkicized Iranics (like Hazaras are Persianized Mongols/Turks). Most of them don't really look like Turks, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's true to some degree.

Not that any of this really matters.



Nah, I've met them in real life, and they're super annoying. I've had people try to explain to me how amazing Zoroastrianism is (despite them not even being Zoroastrian lol), and how great Iran was before Arabs ruined it, etc.

I have an Iranian sounding name, so I get mistaken for a Persian sometimes; if your name sounds more Arab or overtly Pashtun, maybe you don't encounter it as much.




Those types were anti-Islam even before the revolution, and many of them have barely even experienced life under the "Islamic" regime.

I see what you mean by Iran's government being a poor representation of Islam, but if these ultra-nationalist types have enough time to research Zoroastrianism and brag about how amazing it was (despite their ancestors freely abandoning it for Islam), they have enough time to look into Islam and realize that their government isn't exactly a great example of Islamic governance.

In truth, most of their anti-Islam feelings come from the same place that anti-Islam sentiments arise in Afghans and especially Indics: self-loathing and white envy. This is why you see these same people latch onto the Aryan label, but instead of using it for its original meaning, they take it to be a connection to Europeans.



Where does a revolution in Iran come from if not backed by the US? It can't be a homegrown Islamic movement for obvious reasons, communism is dead (and neither Russia nor China are going to support a communist revolution anyway), so where else is the support going to come from? The only options are a liberal, Western-backed regime, or a ultra-nationalist, fascist one. Unless you have a third option, but I can't think of one.

Neither are better than what's there currently.



In the future, I think the government should change. But right now, I don't think there's a better option. Until Muslims figure out a course forward that isn't merely aping the failing designs of the West, we're better off with bad governments like Iran than bad governments like Afghanistan.



Where does it even come from? I thought they had a picture of you or something, because the majority of Afghan Tajiks don't look east Asian, and Heratis especially usually look like light-skinned Iranians.

But you're right, even if you look like a Turk, so what? Turks can be good looking, just like Iranics can be ugly.



"gigolo"



They need to realize that the West will look down on them no matter what in the current climate. They're better off courting the rest of the Muslim world, and east Asia, rather than this stupid "We Wuz Aryanz" nonsense.

What we see in Iran is the failure of Islamism and nation-states. For the first time, Iran tried to implement an Islamic system in a nation-state. It turned out an utter failure. Khomeinism has failed miserably and so have done most of Islamist movements. So there is only options left for Islamic societies: either give up on Islamism or get rid of nation-states. Combination of both won't work. Its a fact.

Well, Heratis have diverse phenotype, dude. I know brown Heratis, blonde Heratis, red-haired Heratis, light skins, light eyes, brown eyes and to a very small degree, Turkic features. Lets take the term "Herati" with a grain of salt. Not all Heratis are "Tajiks" and probably up to 30-40 are Persianized Pashtuns.

In my own personal case, I am a bit brown, dark hair and beard, tall (1,84) and quite strong. I am 108 kg. Dont look like a typical Mongol honestly speaking lol

[Friends of Baloch]

What other movements are there in Iran?

In the West, pretty much the only kinds of Iranians you generally see are the extremely vain, atheist, nationalist ones, and the pro-Khomeinist Shia ones.

I know there are Kurdish and Balochi separatists, and some Sunni Arabs too, but among the Persians those are the only two kinds that you generally see.

There are no serious separatist movements in Iran, but separatist sentiments and ethnic nationalisms are not uncommon in different parts of the country. But as actual movements there are none that are a serious challenge for the state. The most serious ethnic security challange to Iran is in parts of the Kurdish provinces, but Kurds in Iran are very divided on that issue.

Azeri nationalism would propbably scare centrist forces in Tehran the most. But there isnt any real movement on the ground, just a few small groups outside of Iran that raise the topic. Azeris inside Iran who are sub nationalist are not necessarily separatist (usually they are not, but some are). Its more of an idea than any kind of 'movement'. There are no real reasons for them to separate anyway because they are as Iranian as Persians are, only their language became different and Turkic sometime after the 14th century CE, everything else of substance though is the same.

Its similar with Turkmens but they are small in number. I remember an old friend of mine was telling me that in the 1980s the Turkmens she knew didnt even call or consider themselves Iranians. But by the mid or late 90s that had changed (thats what she says anyway).

Arabs in Iran are not all the same and speak different types of Arabic, live in different regions etc almost all in southern regions. Arabs in southwest Iran have been exposed to separatist arguments spread by Egypt and other Arab countries for like 40 or 50 years now. But when you look at the Iran-Iraq war the fact is that Arabs resisted Saddam's effort to annex them to Iraq when the Iraqis were occupying the Iranian Arab region Khuzestan from 1980 to 1982.

The Ahwaz movement as they call it is backed by many Arabs outside of Iran obviously though still to this day. On the ground i dont know how popular it is in Khuzestan but there are many Persians and other Iranians living in that region anyway. It isnt exclusively Arab.

Baloch in Iran likewise dont have any strong movements to break away. The BPP is nationalist but not separatist. It isnt strong and is all based in exile. There is no comparable rebellion of Baloch in Iran lke the situation of Baloch war against Pakiland.

Baloch fighting against Pakiland also dont trust the Iranian Baloch groups that declared war on Tehran in 2003 because all these groups like Jundallah (now extinct from the battlefield) Jaish al Adl, Ansaral Furqan etc are all linked to paki Sipah i Sahaba etc and some Arab states and have different ideological causes than BLF, BLA, BRA etc

There are only two noteworthy Baloch groups that are fighting Iran today. Jaish al Adl is what is left of Jundallah, and the Ansaral Furqan is the merger of two or three very small Baloch jihadi groups that were backed by some Arab states in the Gulf. But fact is unlike Baloch war against Pakiland which is being fought by Baloch inside their homeland, the Iranian Baloch groups are both based in paki occupied Balochistan and attack from across the border. They get all their support and some recruits from paki religious extremist groups. They are not waging war against Tehran from inside the Iranian side of Balochistan. They hit across the border and return back.

The only group in Iran i think that has any kind of credible movement for separation are Kurdish groups but many Iranian Kurds oppose it and consider themselves fully Iranian. It wouldnt succeed in all Kurdish areas if it ever happened, only in some parts. And like Baloch groups fighting Iran the Kurdish ones are not fighting Tehran inside Iran, they are fighting from across the border.

[maneatinglizard]

What we see in Iran is the failure of Islamism and nation-states. For the first time, Iran tried to implement an Islamic system in a nation-state. It turned out an utter failure. Khomeinism has failed miserably and so have done most of Islamist movements. So there is only options left for Islamic societies: either give up on Islamism or get rid of nation-states. Combination of both won't work. Its a fact.

I don't know if it's that simple. These failures aren't happening in a vacuum. There are active efforts by superpowers to curb and destroy the movements, and other than Iran, none of the failures have really had a chance. Egypt's elected government was dismantled pretty quickly by the US-backed military, and the Taliban never even managed to end the civil war before being invaded by the US.

I wont even count ISIS since they're just Khawarij and were never going to last unless they had undergone major moderation.

On the other hand, there's Turkey's government, which is somewhat Islamist and has worked out really well. Erdogan has done a very good job at holding onto and centralizing power, weakening and marginalizing the secular elite, and staving off attempted insurrections. His government has done a great job at reversing a lot of the secularization that Turkey had undergone for the last few decades.

There are also smaller states that are Islamic, though I don't know if you consider them Islamist, like Brunei and Maldives.

I'm wondering what you mean by abolishing nation-states, by the way. Do you mean things like returning to kingdoms with absolute rulers, removing strict borders, leaving the UN and other aspects of the world order? I want to know how you envision the Muslim world moving forward from the current mess. I'm not a fan of the current world order either, but I'm wondering if we have the same definition and criticism of the nation-state paradigm. For the record, I see the end-goal being an abolition of the current paradigm, but I also don't see a situation where we go straight from the world of today to a vibrant, united Islamic community. So I'm not totally opposed to changes to the current states that exist, or the creation of new ones, depending on context. While I think the target should be Islamic unity, the reality is that not everyone agrees, and temporary allies may be useful in achieving the overall end-goal.

Well, Heratis have diverse phenotype, dude. I know brown Heratis, blonde Heratis, red-haired Heratis, light skins, light eyes, brown eyes and to a very small degree, Turkic features.

Of course lol. Every area is going to have diversity. Even my own tribe, which is way smaller and should be much more uniform, has a fair bit of diversity. I was just saying that, in my experience, it seems most Heratis look a lot like people on the other side of the border, just a little lighter-skinned. I haven't actually met any Herati, or seen one on TV, that looks significantly Turkic, so the whole "flat face" thing seemed odd to me, even ignoring the stupidity of such an insult.

Lets take the term "Herati" with a grain of salt. Not all Heratis are "Tajiks" and probably up to 30-40 are Persianized Pashtuns.

Interesting. You really think up to 40% of the Herat population is Pashtun?

Side question: do Heratis consider themselves Tajik? I didn't really think of them as the same. To be honest, I've generally seen the designation as more political in nature than anything.

[زده کوونکی]

Why Are Iranian Diplomats Worth $1, to the Taliban? - YouTube

In this documentary there are Sunni Iranian separatists (who interestingly speak Urdu) and are allied with the Taliban.

[Friends of Baloch]

There's a theory that Azeris are actually Turkicized Iranics (like Hazaras are Persianized Mongols/Turks). Most of them don't really look like Turks, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's true to some degree.

Not that any of this really matters.

I dont think it's a theory. The original language called Azeri was an Iranian language like Persian and Kurdish is. I think it is now called something like Tat and the Turkic language started being called Azeri instead. Turkic tribes started moving in there around the 11th century CE and by the 14th or 15th century CE Turkic had replaced old Azeri as the lingua franca in the region, even though most of the people were still non-Turks. Turkic confederations were the dominant political power in Azerbaijan during those centuries, with the exception of the Mongol interlude obviously, until the Safavids merged the Turkic military orders into a Persianized Safavid state at the start of the 16th century CE. But the Turkic migrants to Azerbaijan never actually displaced the native populations in terms of numbers unlike in some parts of Khorasan and in Central Asia.

I see what you mean by Iran's government being a poor representation of Islam, but if these ultra-nationalist types have enough time to research Zoroastrianism and brag about how amazing it was (despite their ancestors freely abandoning it for Islam), they have enough time to look into Islam and realize that their government isn't exactly a great example of Islamic governance.

Persian/Iranian culture is still rooted in Zoroastrianism though so dont be suprised of their attachement to it. Islam is only fused onto it, it isnt the root. Every one of their big national cultural festivals and celebrations like Nowruz and Yalda etc is Zoroastrian, their calendar is Zoroastrian (names of the months, solar calculation etc) their national epic the Shahnameh is Sassanid Zoroastrian, the names of some of their provinces are Zoroastrian, even their original Persian names are still Zoroastrian and more popular today than Arabic/Islamic ones are (for both boys and girls).

The more you read history the clearer it becomes that Iranians have never been fully comfortable with Islam even though Persians have been the second most prominent exporters and intellectuals of it. You can see this all through Persian literature and history. That is because they didnt freely or even really abandon their original faiths like Zoroastrianism and Mazdakism etc. This is one of the biggest myths people have about Iranian history if they havent read it in big detail. You get the sense that collectively the transition was a difficult and kind of traumatic experience for them. Iranian regions if taken as a general collective did not tip from being a Zoroastrian/Mazdak/Mani to a Muslim majority until at least 300 years after the fall of the Sassanids. Most Persian conversions to Islam over these centuries came about because of economic opportunism, and because being an outward Zoroastrian or Mazdak eventually became untenable during the Abbasid era and beyond for common people that wanted a less difficult life. There were material benefits to becoming a Muslim, this is not something that is even denied in the sources from that time. There was coercion and material incentive to convert and you find accounts of Persians both taking advantage and rebelling against this (sometimes doing both!).

There are many accounts spread over the first few centuries of Arab rule in Iran from different parts of that country of Persians rebelling against both Arabs and Islam, and especially of militant religious sects propping up among Persians that were neither Zoroastrian, Mazdakite or Islamic but fusions of ideas from all. The ending of Shahnameh itself, their national epic, is arguably an example of cryptic Persian lamentations about the decline of Persia and it's Zoroastrian identity.

If i remember correctly there is an interesting historical account of an entire Yemeni tribe that had been moved to Azerbaijan and settled there for a long time being attack and wiped out by the local Iranian population who had been converted to Islam like a generation before but then 'reverted' and murdered all the Arab settlers they found (their rebellion was defeated eventually). That is just one of many examples like that during those first centuries. A famous one obviously is of the Persian slave Piroz or something who assassinated Caliph Umar and was venerated for doing so by Persians for centuries after.

Today we think of Islam as primarily two things, Sunni and Shi'a, both of which are clearly defined and easy for people to know what Islam is and what it is not. But this isnt the case for most of history. There used to be dozens if not hundreds of sects and derivatives of Islam mixed with other faiths and even multiple different versions of the Quran in Arabic. If you read about Islam's eventual replacement of Zoroastrianism in Iran you'll find that most of it was a very slow transition and that Iranians often rebelled against the changes or developed many intermediary sects between the two like Khorammdiyya etc etc before actually ever becoming more on the 'Islamic' side. But they never really abandoned the Zoroastrian roots, it's still very obvious in Persian culture and philosophy. That's why Gulf Arabs try to taunt them with the word majoos which is much more of an attack on Persians than it is on Shi'a (they dont call Arab Shi'as that). They know that Persians had a contentious history with becoming a majority Muslim nation and never fully let go of Zoroastrianism, so they call them majoos to try to taunt them.

[Firdousi]

I dont think it's a theory. The original language called Azeri was an Iranian language like Persian and Kurdish is. I think it is now called something like Tat and the Turkic language started being called Azeri instead. Turkic tribes started moving in there around the 11th century CE and by the 14th or 15th century CE Turkic had replaced old Azeri as the lingua franca in the region, even though most of the people were still non-Turks. Turkic confederations were the dominant political power in Azerbaijan during those centuries, with the exception of the Mongol interlude obviously, until the Safavids merged the Turkic military orders into a Persianized Safavid state at the start of the 16th century CE. But the Turkic migrants to Azerbaijan never actually displaced the native populations in terms of numbers unlike in some parts of Khorasan and in Central Asia.


Persian/Iranian culture is still rooted in Zoroastrianism though so dont be suprised of their attachement to it. Islam is only fused onto it, it isnt the root. Every one of their big national cultural festivals and celebrations like Nowruz and Yalda etc is Zoroastrian, their calendar is Zoroastrian (names of the months, solar calculation etc) their national epic the Shahnameh is Sassanid Zoroastrian, the names of some of their provinces are Zoroastrian, even their original Persian names are still Zoroastrian and more popular today than Arabic/Islamic ones are (for both boys and girls).

The more you read history the clearer it becomes that Iranians have never been fully comfortable with Islam even though Persians have been the second most prominent exporters and intellectuals of it. You can see this all through Persian literature and history. That is because they didnt freely or even really abandon their original faiths like Zoroastrianism and Mazdakism etc. This is one of the biggest myths people have about Iranian history if they havent read it in big detail. You get the sense that collectively the transition was a difficult and kind of traumatic experience for them. Iranian regions if taken as a general collective did not tip from being a Zoroastrian/Mazdak/Mani to a Muslim majority until at least 300 years after the fall of the Sassanids. Most Persian conversions to Islam over these centuries came about because of economic opportunism, and because being an outward Zoroastrian or Mazdak eventually became untenable during the Abbasid era and beyond for common people that wanted a less difficult life. There were material benefits to becoming a Muslim, this is not something that is even denied in the sources from that time. There was coercion and material incentive to convert and you find accounts of Persians both taking advantage and rebelling against this (sometimes doing both!).

There are many accounts spread over the first few centuries of Arab rule in Iran from different parts of that country of Persians rebelling against both Arabs and Islam, and especially of militant religious sects propping up among Persians that were neither Zoroastrian, Mazdakite or Islamic but fusions of ideas from all. The ending of Shahnameh itself, their national epic, is arguably an example of cryptic Persian lamentations about the decline of Persia and it's Zoroastrian identity.

If i remember correctly there is an interesting historical account of an entire Yemeni tribe that had been moved to Azerbaijan and settled there for a long time being attack and wiped out by the local Iranian population who had been converted to Islam like a generation before but then 'reverted' and murdered all the Arab settlers they found (their rebellion was defeated eventually). That is just one of many examples like that during those first centuries. A famous one obviously is of the Persian slave Piroz or something who assassinated Caliph Umar and was venerated for doing so by Persians for centuries after.

Today we think of Islam as primarily two things, Sunni and Shi'a, both of which are clearly defined and easy for people to know what Islam is and what it is not. But this isnt the case for most of history. There used to be dozens if not hundreds of sects and derivatives of Islam mixed with other faiths and even multiple different versions of the Quran in Arabic. If you read about Islam's eventual replacement of Zoroastrianism in Iran you'll find that most of it was a very slow transition and that Iranians often rebelled against the changes or developed many intermediary sects between the two like Khorammdiyya etc etc before actually ever becoming more on the 'Islamic' side. But they never really abandoned the Zoroastrian roots, it's still very obvious in Persian culture and philosophy. That's why Gulf Arabs try to taunt them with the word majoos which is much more of an attack on Persians than it is on Shi'a (they dont call Arab Shi'as that). They know that Persians had a contentious history with becoming a majority Muslim nation and never fully let go of Zoroastrianism, so they call them majoos to try to taunt them.

I believe you are exaggerating that by saying that iranians were just closet Zoroastrians waiting to leave orthodox Islam once right moment was there. Then explain how come Safavids had to butcher thousands of Sunni Iranians who refused to leave their faith.

Most of this anti-Islamic sentiments among Iranians is a modern construct. I recommend you to read the book "The Emergence of Iranian Nationalism" by Zia Ebrahimi and you will see hot all this was created in the last stages of the Qajar dynasty which was probably the worst and most pathetic dynasty that has ever ruled Iran. It were Ali Fateh Akhundzadeh and Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani
This story about Iranians being forced to become Muslims by Arabs its false. An utter lie. Vast majority of Old Iran became Muslim under the rule of native Iranian Islamic dynasties such as the Ghorids, Sassanids, Tahirids, Saffarids, and so on. During the Iranian Intermezzo.

Being Iranian and being Muslim are both compatible sentiments. Some of the greatest Persians in history were Muslims: Mawlana, Khayyam, Hafez, Saadi, Ibn Sina, Rudaki, Razes, harezmi, Faryabi, Juzjani. Even Ferdowsi was a practicing Shia. The greatest Islamic scholars were also Persians: Ghazzali, Bukhari, Termidhi, Abu Hanifa,.. but some reason now get these nationalist White wannabe f*ckers claiming that Iranians shouldn't be Muslims. Hilarious lol

[Firdousi]

I don't know if it's that simple. These failures aren't happening in a vacuum. There are active efforts by superpowers to curb and destroy the movements, and other than Iran, none of the failures have really had a chance. Egypt's elected government was dismantled pretty quickly by the US-backed military, and the Taliban never even managed to end the civil war before being invaded by the US.

I wont even count ISIS since they're just Khawarij and were never going to last unless they had undergone major moderation.

On the other hand, there's Turkey's government, which is somewhat Islamist and has worked out really well. Erdogan has done a very good job at holding onto and centralizing power, weakening and marginalizing the secular elite, and staving off attempted insurrections. His government has done a great job at reversing a lot of the secularization that Turkey had undergone for the last few decades.

There are also smaller states that are Islamic, though I don't know if you consider them Islamist, like Brunei and Maldives.

I'm wondering what you mean by abolishing nation-states, by the way. Do you mean things like returning to kingdoms with absolute rulers, removing strict borders, leaving the UN and other aspects of the world order? I want to know how you envision the Muslim world moving forward from the current mess. I'm not a fan of the current world order either, but I'm wondering if we have the same definition and criticism of the nation-state paradigm. For the record, I see the end-goal being an abolition of the current paradigm, but I also don't see a situation where we go straight from the world of today to a vibrant, united Islamic community. So I'm not totally opposed to changes to the current states that exist, or the creation of new ones, depending on context. While I think the target should be Islamic unity, the reality is that not everyone agrees, and temporary allies may be useful in achieving the overall end-goal.



Of course lol. Every area is going to have diversity. Even my own tribe, which is way smaller and should be much more uniform, has a fair bit of diversity. I was just saying that, in my experience, it seems most Heratis look a lot like people on the other side of the border, just a little lighter-skinned. I haven't actually met any Herati, or seen one on TV, that looks significantly Turkic, so the whole "flat face" thing seemed odd to me, even ignoring the stupidity of such an insult.



Interesting. You really think up to 40% of the Herat population is Pashtun?

Side question: do Heratis consider themselves Tajik? I didn't really think of them as the same. To be honest, I've generally seen the designation as more political in nature than anything.

Western powers will always try their best to thwart any attempt to create an alternative to the current capitalist-corporationist global system. West always tried to defeat Iran not because democracy but because the Khomeinist regime is economically isolationist (no Western corporations allowed to invest) and politically hostile to Western interventionism in the region.

BUT the Iranian regime is failure due to his own faults. West has nothing and little to do with this. Iranian economy is in tatters although Iran is rich in resources, got a great geopolitical location and Iranians are one of the most brilliant and sophisticated people out there. Its a failure.

In the long term all the suffering and humiliation that the Iranian people had to endure will eventually payoff. I always considered Khomeini to be just another dirty corrupt and stupid Akhoond. But now I see that he had indeed honor. If he really was a dirty loser he would have allowed Western hegemony just like the cowards in the KSA did. But he refused. We should give him that.

Honestly speaking in the current ideological mess in the islamic world the only ideology I find a bit better than the rest is neo-ottomanism.

Not really. Abolishing nation-states would be traumatic and bloody. I prefer regional cooperation and integration that will blurry the current borders so we can eventually get rid of them. This process shall take decades. What comes after that? People should decide. I believe we won't be even alive for then. Its a long term project.

No real census has ever been conducted in Afghanistan so all these demographic claims should be taken with a grain of salt, but I do believe that Pashtun population is huge in Herat province. Plenty of districts outside Herat city are majority inhabitated-Pashtun: Adraskan, Shindand, Pashtun Zarghoon, Torghowoondi, etc. I believe 25-30% would be a correct percentage but still we don't know.

Western provinces don't even have ethnic affiliation but rather cultural and linguistic. Most of relatives can't even differentiate between a Tajik and and Persianspeaker. I am telling you this because they really believe that a Farsizabon and a Tajik are the same thing lol Pashtuns have also adopted this logic: most of them don't even use the term "Pashtun" but rather this vague local term to call themselves. "Awghon" (Afghan).

I am telling you all this because it doesn't really matter. There are people married to some relatives of mine who are Pashtuns and I never knew about it until one day they told me. Most of Heratis don't give a s*it anyway. If you speak Herati, you mingle with Heratis, and your culture is Herati.. then you are a f+cking Herati no matter if your surname is pashtunMohmand-Nurzai or Persian Ismaelzade-Azimiyaan. They just don't care. Ethnic hatred is almost inexistent in Herat.

[Friends of Baloch]

I believe you are exaggerating that by saying that iranians were just closet Zoroastrians waiting to leave orthodox Islam once right moment was there. Then explain how come Safavids had to butcher thousands of Sunni Iranians who refused to leave their faith.

I was talking about the transition period from Zoroastrianism and Mazdakism etc which was from the 7th to 10th centuries CE. Not the Safavidis which came 600 years after that. Like i said it took at least 300 years before the overall demographic landscape in Iran tipped to a Muslim majority, but even when it did tip there were huge numbers of Zoroastrians still. It was a slow process of conversion in Iran.

[Friends of Baloch]

Why is this firdousi kuni allowed to constantly call Afghanistan a British made country when it quite clearly is not? The modern being dictated by Russians and Brits does not make it an artificial country. It already existed as a state and they took land from us as Britain was given control of our foreign relations.

Probably because Herat was given to Afghanistan by the British he thinks that this is the same for every other part of the country.

[a.s.takhar]

I dont think it's a theory. The original language called Azeri was an Iranian language like Persian and Kurdish is. I think it is now called something like Tat and the Turkic language started being called Azeri instead. Turkic tribes started moving in there around the 11th century CE and by the 14th or 15th century CE Turkic had replaced old Azeri as the lingua franca in the region, even though most of the people were still non-Turks. Turkic confederations were the dominant political power in Azerbaijan during those centuries, with the exception of the Mongol interlude obviously, until the Safavids merged the Turkic military orders into a Persianized Safavid state at the start of the 16th century CE. But the Turkic migrants to Azerbaijan never actually displaced the native populations in terms of numbers unlike in some parts of Khorasan and in Central Asia.


Persian/Iranian culture is still rooted in Zoroastrianism though so dont be suprised of their attachement to it. Islam is only fused onto it, it isnt the root. Every one of their big national cultural festivals and celebrations like Nowruz and Yalda etc is Zoroastrian, their calendar is Zoroastrian (names of the months, solar calculation etc) their national epic the Shahnameh is Sassanid Zoroastrian, the names of some of their provinces are Zoroastrian, even their original Persian names are still Zoroastrian and more popular today than Arabic/Islamic ones are (for both boys and girls).

The more you read history the clearer it becomes that Iranians have never been fully comfortable with Islam even though Persians have been the second most prominent exporters and intellectuals of it. You can see this all through Persian literature and history. That is because they didnt freely or even really abandon their original faiths like Zoroastrianism and Mazdakism etc. This is one of the biggest myths people have about Iranian history if they havent read it in big detail. You get the sense that collectively the transition was a difficult and kind of traumatic experience for them. Iranian regions if taken as a general collective did not tip from being a Zoroastrian/Mazdak/Mani to a Muslim majority until at least 300 years after the fall of the Sassanids. Most Persian conversions to Islam over these centuries came about because of economic opportunism, and because being an outward Zoroastrian or Mazdak eventually became untenable during the Abbasid era and beyond for common people that wanted a less difficult life. There were material benefits to becoming a Muslim, this is not something that is even denied in the sources from that time. There was coercion and material incentive to convert and you find accounts of Persians both taking advantage and rebelling against this (sometimes doing both!).

There are many accounts spread over the first few centuries of Arab rule in Iran from different parts of that country of Persians rebelling against both Arabs and Islam, and especially of militant religious sects propping up among Persians that were neither Zoroastrian, Mazdakite or Islamic but fusions of ideas from all. The ending of Shahnameh itself, their national epic, is arguably an example of cryptic Persian lamentations about the decline of Persia and it's Zoroastrian identity.

If i remember correctly there is an interesting historical account of an entire Yemeni tribe that had been moved to Azerbaijan and settled there for a long time being attack and wiped out by the local Iranian population who had been converted to Islam like a generation before but then 'reverted' and murdered all the Arab settlers they found (their rebellion was defeated eventually). That is just one of many examples like that during those first centuries. A famous one obviously is of the Persian slave Piroz or something who assassinated Caliph Umar and was venerated for doing so by Persians for centuries after.

Today we think of Islam as primarily two things, Sunni and Shi'a, both of which are clearly defined and easy for people to know what Islam is and what it is not. But this isnt the case for most of history. There used to be dozens if not hundreds of sects and derivatives of Islam mixed with other faiths and even multiple different versions of the Quran in Arabic. If you read about Islam's eventual replacement of Zoroastrianism in Iran you'll find that most of it was a very slow transition and that Iranians often rebelled against the changes or developed many intermediary sects between the two like Khorammdiyya etc etc before actually ever becoming more on the 'Islamic' side. But they never really abandoned the Zoroastrian roots, it's still very obvious in Persian culture and philosophy. That's why Gulf Arabs try to taunt them with the word majoos which is much more of an attack on Persians than it is on Shi'a (they dont call Arab Shi'as that). They know that Persians had a contentious history with becoming a majority Muslim nation and never fully let go of Zoroastrianism, so they call them majoos to try to taunt them.

Being an Indian Dravidian yourself you must have spent quite a lot of time studying stuff that is nothing much to do with you.

[Firdousi]

I was talking about the transition period from Zoroastrianism and Mazdakism etc which was from the 7th to 10th centuries CE. Not the Safavidis which came 600 years after that. Like i said it took at least 300 years before the overall demographic landscape in Iran tipped to a Muslim majority, but even when it did tip there were huge numbers of Zoroastrians still. It was a slow process of conversion in Iran.

You mixed Pre-islamic Iran with modern Iran but for some reason you decide to skip the Safavids which was a turning point in the history of Iran and the rest of the region.

Nobody is denying the Zoroastrian roots of Iran and the heavy influence in the modern Iranian culture. Nobody is denying also how many Iranians created alternative sects in order to reject orthodox Islam: Khorramdinaan, Ustad Sis, Al Muqanaan, Sunpadh and Behafarid are good example of this (most of them were Khorasanis BTW).

BUT the narrative that you are telling here is biased and make things look to simple. Not all Iranians opposed Arabs. Many of them were actually happy because the out-dated and rigid Zoroastrian system was obsolete for many of them. Just like now plenty of Iranians are eager to spread their legs and allow the Muricans in as long as that ends the Khomeinist regime. Many iranians indeed converted due to economic and other reasons as you pointed out. Their conversion wasn't sincere, but their sons and great-sons became real Muslims.

You are just cherry-picking history just to make it fit into your own narrative. Thats a disloyal practice.

[Firdousi]

Probably because Herat was given to Afghanistan by the British he thinks that this is the same for every other part of the country.

Most of Heratis were actually quite happy to join Afghanistan. Our religious identity beat our cultural and ethnic identity. Qajar regime had become to hostile toward the Sunni Heratis so it was better for Heratis to join the Sunni Afghan state instead of the oppressive Shia Qajar state. Brits ceding Herat to Afghanistan after the Anglo-Persian war was a matter of justice for most of Heratis were happy about.

HERAT vi. THE HERAT QUESTION – Encyclopaedia Iranica

You guys are nuts. For the sake of your emotions and sentiments you are even willing to diminish the fact that nation-states were imposed by foreigners and not founded/developed by local people. Get over it.

[Firdousi]

I mean as usual you are just spitting out stupid ****. But I guess that is to be understood considering the amount of Iranian ass you are licking.

You are hurting my feelings, bro

[Friends of Baloch]

You mixed Pre-islamic Iran with modern Iran but for some reason you decide to skip the Safavids which was a turning point in the history of Iran and the rest of the region.

Nobody is denying the Zoroastrian roots of Iran and the heavy influence in the modern Iranian culture. Nobody is denying also how many Iranians created alternative sects in order to reject orthodox Islam: Khorramdinaan, Ustad Sis, Al Muqanaan, Sunpadh and Behafarid are good example of this (most of them were Khorasanis BTW).

BUT the narrative that you are telling here is biased and make things look to simple. Not all Iranians opposed Arabs. Many of them were actually happy because the out-dated and rigid Zoroastrian system was obsolete for many of them. Many iranians indeed converted due to economic and other reasons as you pointed out. Their conversion wasn't sincere, but their sons and great-sons became real Muslims.

You are just cherry-picking history just to make it fit into your own narrative. Thats a disloyal practice.

What a joker. My narrative? It's history. It is not "my" narrative.

You are the one with a simplistic view of things, not just history. That is why i called you out as a simpleton before and a "moghol". You think you can just read a bit about the elites and dynasties and that their history and lives is the same history and experiences of the ordinary common peoples that they ruled over. This is your simpleton and flawed understanding of things.

Let me reiterate in very simple terms. maneatinglizard remarked that Iranians freely abandoned their old religions for Islam, but that is not the case. They never freely abondoned their old religions. It took over 300 years for Iran become a Muslim majority, during which you find many examples all over Iranian regions like Fars/Pars, Tabarestan, Azerbaijan, Yazd etc of rebellions, reversions etc and Mazdakite and Zoroastrian sects re-emerging among Iranian communities that had already been 'converted' a generation or two before. The Zoroastrian and Mazdakite consciousness was strong and deep rooted in the Iranian psyche, culture and way of life. It did not go away freely or quietly during those first 300 years of Islamic rule in Iran. You find many examples of it re-emerging during those centuries and of commoners resisting Islam or opportunistically converting for material gain but still keeping Zoroastrian traditions that did not conflict with the new religion. It was a long, slow and contentious transition from Zoroastrian/Mazdakite/Pagan and heterogeneous Islam to anything close to 'orthodox' Islam in Iran for the commoners. That is all.

[Firdousi]

What a joker. My narrative? It's history. It is not "my" narrative.

You are the one with a simplistic view of things, not just history. That is why i called you out as a simpleton before and a "moghol". You think you can just read a bit about the elites and dynasties and that their history and lives is the same history and experiences of the ordinary common peoples that they ruled over. This is your simpleton and flawed understanding of things.

Let me reiterate in very simple terms. maneatinglizard remarked that Iranians freely abandoned their old religions for Islam, but that is not the case. They never freely abondoned their old religions. It took over 300 years for Iran become a Muslim majority, during which you find many examples all over Iranian regions like Fars/Pars, Tabarestan, Azerbaijan, Yazd etc of rebellions, reversions etc and Mazdakite and Zoroastrian sects re-emerging among Iranian communities that had already been 'converted' a generation or two before. The Zoroastrian and Mazdakite consciousness was strong and deep rooted in the Iranian psyche, culture and way of life. It did not go away freely or quietly during those first 300 years of Islamic rule in Iran. You find many examples of it re-emerging during those centuries and of commoners resisting Islam or opportunistically converting for material gain but still keeping Zoroastrian traditions that did not conflict with the new religion. It was a long, slow and contentious transition from Zoroastrian/Mazdakite/Pagan and heterogeneous Islam to anything close to 'orthodox' Islam in Iran for the commoners. That is all.

All this 300 years story seems to be like a big deal to you LOL

It took 300 years Iran to become Muslim.. SO WHAT? There was no internet back then, no modern means, no modern states, nothing. Of course it took 300 years what did you expect?. India was under Islamic rule for almost eight centuries and even today most of Indians are not Muslims. China went from a rural communist society to a urban capitalist society transformation took 5 decades. And still nowadays the transformation is not complete yet. SO WHAT?

Of course it took centuries until Iranians became Muslims, nobody said otherwise. Its only you who is making a big fuss of it. So once again.. WHATS YOUR POINT?