Saif al-Arab
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,873
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
One of your favorite professors when studying history or the history of the ancient Near East was an Arab professor if I recall. Hence you know very well that what I wrote is factual and nothing else.
The Persians did not outperform anything as you cannot outperform older and more influential civilizations. Or said more precisely civilizations who shaped and influenced you greatly. Without those ancient Semitic peoples and their unprecedented civilizations there would be no Persian civilization. I have seen Iranian historians admit to this on video.
The Persian empire only arose due to internal wars in the Semitic kingdoms and heartlands as well as in Egypt. After all you use the same logic to the rise of the even more influential and bigger Arab empires (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid) etc. Or is that only allowed to use when it fits your narrative?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
I have no problem saying that the Persian Empire at its height was a great civilization. But this is not going to impress Arabs whose ancestors had more numerous ancient civilizations and more influential ones let alone bigger ones just in the Islamic era (past 1400 years). Such as the Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and empires who ruled almost as long as the successive Persian ones and were all bigger than the biggest Persian one (Achaemenids).
In fact I just look at them as slightly modified extensions of past Semitic civilizations and empires. Rightly so by all factual and historical accounts.
Fact of the matter is that ancient Semitic cultures are the backbone of Iranian culture today and in the past. Fact of the matter is that Iranian empires were absorbing culture, knowledge etc. from the newly conquered areas which is what made Persia a more inclusive culture contrary to the Roman or Greek ones although the same can be said about those at various time periods.
Most if not all of those people remained native and remained following their ancient culture (that predated the Persian one), languages (your Cyrus the Great adopted Aramaic - a lingua franca of the Arab Near East for millennia for a reason), architecture, art etc.
Yes, and modern-day Arab culture which is much more diverse and inclusive and a result of many more layers is not admired and looked down upon. Only Persian culture which to a very large extent is a extension of ancient Semitic cultures (the ancestors of most modern-day Arabs) is.
Try selling that discourse to world-renowned historians and they will laugh at you.
This is similar to how Iranian Islamists are denying Arab influences by trying to create a new Shia Islam (Wilayat al-Faqih) which is based on worshipping the Iranian Supreme Leader, diminishing the importance of Makkah and Madinah by highlighting Karbala, Najaf, Qom and Mashhad. By trying to use demonizing language by saying that modern-day Arabs are Umayyad's etc. while forgetting that the split in Islam was nothing more than a Hijazi civil war for power. Nothing more and nothing less. Yet we have Iranians here who are worshipping Arabs who actually took part in the conquest of their nation (Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) and Hussain ibn Ali (ra) comes to mind) while demonizing Najdi Hanbalis who have nothing to do with Iran.
EDIT: The truth is that the Islamic Arab conquest of Iran 1400 years ago has left a national trauma that is hard to change. Generation upon generation has been brainwashed. There is no obsession the other way around. At most a reaction to the Iranian obsession and meddling.
If just Iranians could show the same obsession about their actual mass-murderers (Mongols and Turks) who massacred millions of their ancestors and demolished half of Iran. Yet we see nothing of that despite that being fairly recent (800 years). There is a reason for that. It's called selective bias and national trauma.
In fact some 15 year old boy (Alexander the Great) likely did more harm to Iran than Arabs ever did. Or the West that caused the largest famine in modern-day Middle Eastern history 100 years ago in Iran.
If Arabs were as despised post-Iran conquest, why is it that several dynasties of Arab ancestry (even in the rebellious Caspian region of Iran) came to rule afterwards? And why ancestors of Prophet Muhammad (saws) were the most influential clergy in Iran and the most respected social class by the masses outside of the Shah? Why is the prodigy of Genghis Khan and various Turkic conquerors not worshipped?
BTW Arabs are such racists that they host the largest Iranian diaspora outside of Iran and large Lari, Baloch, Kurdish and Persian minorities. Many having intermarried and having bene assimilated centuries ago. So much for that theory.
Problems started post 1979 and there is reason why the problems of Iran began that year as well. Problems still felt to this day.
Last edited:
