Bernard Lewis, Iran in History

[Developereo]

What's actually cuter is a Shia muslim Pakistani educated in a Karachi Parsi school calling an Indian Parsi "confused."

Talk about Freudian projection.

No confusion here.

What's ironic is that, despite being a Parsi, your comments betray your brainwashing by extremist Hindutva ideology that India = Hindutva, and the absolute requirement of a single monolithic identity. What's sad is that you don't even recognize the brainwashing -- it is so thorough -- and you project that absolutist world view onto others.

You can't seem to understand that Iranians (or anyone else) can accept their Islamic and ancient heritage simultaneously. In the extremist worldview, which you espouse and promote, it is an exclusive either-or choice, but for most moderate, enlightened people, there is no such absolutism: they can take one, both, or neither. It does not make them any less "Iranian".

 

[vsdoc]

What do you keep calling Iranians Arabized, while that isn't the case? Have you even read the OP? Bernard Lewis is clearly stating that Iranians were never Arabized.

I don't claim to be a pure blood Aryan. I don't care about Aryans nor about being pure blood of any 'race'.

Do the math man.

1300 years one group remains relatively isoated genetically. No inter marriage. No conversion. No forced conversion. No jizya or all that sword BS either.

The other group suffers wave after wave of invasions. From the Arabs. Then the Turks and Mongols.

Rape. Forced conversions. Jizya. Second class citizenship. Inter marrying and harems and concubines. The whole nine yards.

You are saying you guys are the real Persians and Indian Zoroastrians are the pretenders to the ancient faith and heritage of Persia?

Go tell this to someone who is not a pure blood Aryan Mazdyasni Zrthosthi and a Athrvan at that.

You guys and your confusions and gentic delusionns of a lost past give us a communal headache the world over.

Spare us your insecurities.

You bent over.

Now either you grow a pair and take back what's yours.

Or live with it for perpetuity.

 

[Takaavar]

Are they Persian?

Or are they Muslim?

For the twain can never meet.

You don't what religion/belief means then.

 

[vsdoc]

No confusion here.

What's ironic is that, despite being a Parsi, your comments betray your brainwashing by extremist Hindutva ideology that India = Hindutva, and the absolute requirement of a single monolithic identity. What's sad is that you don't even recognize the brainwashing -- it is so thorough -- and you project that absolutist world view onto others.

You can't seem to understand that Iranians (or anyone else) can accept their Islamic and ancient heritage simultaneously. In the extremist worldview, which you espouse and promote, it is an exclusive either-or choice, but for most moderate, enlightened people, there is no such absolutism: they can take one, both, or neither. It does not make them any less "Iranian".

I'll ignore your Hindutva harangue. As an Indian I do not owe any Pakistani an explanation.

The point is not to deny any Iranian his IRANIAN heritage. His Islamic Iranian past is his alone. We did not and do not want any part of it.

We are Indian today because of that.

What is not negotiable is the Persian faith and heritage.

What right do they have to it?

More than us who are keepers of the faith?

More than us who kept our bloodlines?

Just because they stayed back on our ancient land by bending over to the invader and accpting his faith so that life would be easier?

Just because that link meant they continued to speak Persian while we adopted the language and customs of our new home?

What happened to blood and soul that they lost for good over 13 centuries of existence as a Muslim people?

What happened to the Zarthosthi faith that was nurtured and fostered on Hindu land?

Now they want their heritage back? But are too ball-less to go up against the mullas and their street thugs?

We dont do ball-less bro. Never have.

We are Aryans. We are still pure.

A turk talks to us of blood to paint the flag. We have seen our fair share.

And we are still here.

 

[Surenas]

Do the math man.

1300 years one group remains relatively isoated genetically. No inter marriage. No conversion. No forced conversion. No jizya or all that sword BS either.

The other group suffers wave after wave of invasions. From the Arabs. Then the Turks and Mongols.

Rape. Forced conversions. Jizya. Second class citizenship. Inter marrying and harems and concubines. The whole nine yards.

You are saying you guys are the real Persians and Indian Zoroastrians are the pretenders to the ancient faith and heritage of Persia?

Go tell this to someone who is not a pure blood Aryan Mazdyasni Zrthosthi and a Athrvan at that.

You guys and your confusions and gentic delusionns of a lost past give us a communal headache the world over.

Spare us your insecurities.

You bent over.

Now either you grow a pair and take back what's yours.

Or live with it for perpetuity.

Wow, you are throwing all kind of accusations on the table with no clearly structure in your text. Let me say this:

1) Latest genetic researches show that Iranians are quite indigenous to the Iranian plateau.
2) Iranians still speak Persian.

I have a question for you. I'm an Iranian, atheist and both my names are Iranians. You tell me what does make me an Arab?

 

[Developereo]

I'll ignore your Hindutva harangue. As an Indian I do not owe any Pakistani an explanation.

The point is not to deny any Iranian his IRANIAN heritage. His Islamic Iranian past is his alone. We did not and do not want any part of it.

We are Indian today because of that.

What is not negotiable is the Persian faith and heritage.

What right do they have to it?

More than us who are keepers of the faith?

More than us who kept our bloodlines?

Just because they stayed back on our ancient land by bending over to the invader and accpting his faith so that life would be easier?

Just because that link meant they continued to speak Persian while we adopted the language and customs of our new home?

What happened to blood and soul that they lost for good over 13 centuries of existence as a Muslim people?

What happened to the Zarthosthi faith that was nurtured and fostered on Hindu land?

Now they want their heritage back? But are too ball-less to go up against the mullas and their street thugs?

We dont do ball-less bro. Never have.

We are Aryans. We are still pure.

A turk talks to us of blood to paint the flag. We have seen our fair share.

And we are still here.

Wow, just listen to yourself.

I mentioned Hindutva because the absolutist worldview you are promoting here, steeped in centuries old hatreds and demanding absolute allegiance to one ideology, is the hallmark of all extremists, Islamist, Christian, or Hindutva.

Let me clue you in: the Hindutva crowd, whose absolutist, extremist worldview you promote in the guise of lecturing everyone about their "identity", will NEVER accept you as a true Indian since your faith is an "alien" one. It doesn't matter one whit to them whether you and your faith came to India by invasion, trade or conversion. To them, you are alien -- just as alien as the Muslims and the Christians. In the end, the Indians who will defend you will be the dreaded secularists and inclusivists, not the exclusivist extremists whose ideology you defend at every turn.

As I mentioned before, enlightened, progressive people are not consumed by atavistic hatreds: they have moved on, and can accept the old and the new without conflict.

 

[Takaavar]

I'll ignore your Hindutva harangue. As an Indian I do not owe any Pakistani an explanation.

The point is not to deny any Iranian his IRANIAN heritage. His Islamic Iranian past is his alone. We did not and do not want any part of it.

We are Indian today because of that.

What is not negotiable is the Persian faith and heritage.

What right do they have to it?

More than us who are keepers of the faith?

More than us who kept our bloodlines?

Just because they stayed back on our ancient land by bending over to the invader and accpting his faith so that life would be easier?

Just because that link meant they continued to speak Persian while we adopted the language and customs of our new home?

What happened to blood and soul that they lost for good over 13 centuries of existence as a Muslim people?

What happened to the Zarthosthi faith that was nurtured and fostered on Hindu land?

Now they want their heritage back? But are too ball-less to go up against the mullas and their street thugs?

We dont do ball-less bro. Never have.

We are Aryans. We are still pure.

A turk talks to us of blood to paint the flag. We have seen our fair share.

And we are still here.

Again, you don't sh!t about what are you talking about. "bloodlines"?! The so-called "Parsis" of India are quite Indianized and they look just like other Indians.
In Sassanid era there were many Zoroastrian Arabs. In fact, you are no different than them, a non-Iranian who has adopted faith of our fathers.
Actually you are not even Zoroastrian; you can't even understand what faith/religion means.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

I think you are getting excited for nothing.

I am speaking about Iran and some Iranians.

Not about Turkey or Turks.

I am willing to disabuse you of any notions of nationalistic grandeur however if you would like to start a separate thread on your own turf.

Sorry mate i thought you was abusing me. If you could have been more clearer.

 

[vsdoc]

Wow, you are throwing all kind of accusations on the table with no clearly structure in your text.

I asked you to do the math. Undisputable historical facts.

1) Latest genetic researches show that Iranians are quite indigenous to the Iranian plateau.

That proves little in itself, as am sure you will understand. 1300 years of intermingling is enough to give you a homogeneous genetic hodge podge of Persian, Arab, Turkic, and Mongol blood, of a single population gene pool.

What you see today is what the genetics of today's Iranians is. Not what was the genetics of pure blood Persians a millenium and half ago. A lot of foreign blood has flowed in since that time my friend. None of it Aryan. Definitely none of it Persian.

On the other hand the little intermingling the Parsi community has had has been of the Indian X chromosome, historically and traditionally amongst the large land owners of Gujarat - the Sethnas, the Viariavas, the Surtis, the Bharuchas, etc.

Add to that, the Zoroastrian community of Iran also traditionally does not inter marry and has not guardedly for many centuries. What is interesting, and what puts paid to your theory, is a paper that does a detailed genetic and other marker follow up of a large number of boys and girls from the community from Kerman, Esfahan, and Tehran, and compares them to the general Iranian population (Muslim) and finds significant differences.

This in spite of the fact that all have been living on the same soil, speaking the same tongue, and having the same names. All silly points you have ut forward to claim you are the original persians and not the Zoroastrian community that moved to India.

2) Iranians still speak Persian.

I will put gangu bai and her family in iran for 100 years. They will speak as good Persian as your descendents. Will gangu bai become Persian?

I have a question for you. I'm an Iranian, atheist and both my names are Iranians. You tell me what does make me an Arab?

What makes you Persian?

 

[Vinod2070]

While we was fighting against world powers , you was fighting for the world powers in the world powers name as a colony.

That was a period of colonization and we were not the ones making those decisions.

That is what I am saying. We lost political power for a while but we didn't lose what is the most valuable thing a man and a nation can have.

Its own culture and civilization.

Your own Ataturk got it right, didn't he?

(They called him Ataturk - by Emil Lengyel, 1941, pp. 140-141)

During the early days of Kemal’s career, many of his followers were under the impression that he was a champion of Islam and that they were fighting the Christians. “Ghazi, Destroyer of Christians” was the name they gave him. Had thet been aware of his real intentions, they would have called him “Ghazi, Destroyer of Islam.”

And here is what Attaurk himself had to say about Islam -

“Islam, this theology of an immoral Arab, is a dead thing.” Possibly it might have suited tribes of nomads in the desert. It was no good for a modern progressive State.

“God’s revelation!” There was no God. That was one of the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down.

“A ruler who needs religion to help him rule is a weakling. No weakling should rule..” (p. 241: Gray Wolf)

“If only,” he once said of the Turks, with a flash of cynical insight, “we could make them Christians!” (p. 437- Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation by Lord Kinross)

"It is claimed that religious unity is also a factor in the formation of nations. Whereas, we see the contrary in the Turkish nation. Turks were a great nation even before they adopted Islam. This religion did not help the Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians and others to unite with Turks to form a nation. Conversely, it weakened the Turks’ national relations; it numbed Turkish national feelings and enthusiasm. This was natural, because Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities."

 

[vsdoc]

Again, you don't sh!t about what are you talking about. "bloodlines"?! The so-called "Parsis" of India are quite Indianized and they look just like other Indians.
In Sassanid era there were many Zoroastrian Arabs. In fact, you are no different than them, a non-Iranian who has adopted faith of our fathers.
Actually you are not even Zoroastrian; you can't even understand what faith/religion means.

Sorry bro, you don't get to lecture me on Zoroastrianism or being a Zathosthi.

You and your forefathers lost that right a long time ago.

Be happy in your Islamic Republic.

 

[Vinod2070]

It doesn't matter one whit to them whether you and your faith came to India by invasion, trade or conversion.

It does. This is the absolute difference.

India has been home to people from all over, Jews, Zoroastrians and others persecuted in their homes. They all made it their home and they became an integral part of India.

The hateful ideology was something else that imposed itself through barbarity.

 

[Developereo]

It does. This is the absolute difference.

India has been home to people from all over, Jews, Zoroastrians and others persecuted in their homes. They all made it their home and they became an integral part of India.

The hateful ideology was something else that imposed itself through barbarity.

My comment was not about historical India, but the modern Hindutva ideology which equates Indian identity with Hinduism. In any case, this thread is not about Hindutva -- I explained the context in which I mentioned it above -- so let's leave it...

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

That was a period of colonization and we were not the ones making those decisions.

That is what I am saying. We lost political power for a while but we didn't lose what is the most valuable thing a man and a nation can have.

Its own culture and civilization.

Your own Ataturk got it right, didn't he?

(They called him Ataturk - by Emil Lengyel, 1941, pp. 140-141)

During the early days of Kemal’s career, many of his followers were under the impression that he was a champion of Islam and that they were fighting the Christians. “Ghazi, Destroyer of Christians” was the name they gave him. Had thet been aware of his real intentions, they would have called him “Ghazi, Destroyer of Islam.”

And here is what Attaurk himself had to say about Islam -

“Islam, this theology of an immoral Arab, is a dead thing.” Possibly it might have suited tribes of nomads in the desert. It was no good for a modern progressive State.

“God’s revelation!” There was no God. That was one of the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down.

“A ruler who needs religion to help him rule is a weakling. No weakling should rule..” (p. 241: Gray Wolf)

“If only,” he once said of the Turks, with a flash of cynical insight, “we could make them Christians!” (p. 437- Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation by Lord Kinross)

"It is claimed that religious unity is also a factor in the formation of nations. Whereas, we see the contrary in the Turkish nation. Turks were a great nation even before they adopted Islam. This religion did not help the Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians and others to unite with Turks to form a nation. Conversely, it weakened the Turks’ national relations; it numbed Turkish national feelings and enthusiasm. This was natural, because Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities."

please read more about Ataturk before you put some quotes , he has quotes where he says religion/islam is very important thing etc but just not in the state of politics. I dont even know if they are hes quotes but i dont want to get inmore detail. However i agree with you that you did to a large extent keep your culture and language .

 

[vsdoc]

Wow, just listen to yourself.

I mentioned Hindutva because the absolutist worldview you are promoting here, steeped in centuries old hatreds and demanding absolute allegiance to one ideology, is the hallmark of all extremists, Islamist, Christian, or Hindutva.

Let me clue you in: the Hindutva crowd, whose absolutist, extremist worldview you promote in the guise of lecturing everyone about their "identity", will NEVER accept you as a true Indian since your faith is an "alien" one. It doesn't matter one whit to them whether you and your faith came to India by invasion, trade or conversion. To them, you are alien -- just as alien as the Muslims and the Christians. In the end, the Indians who will defend you will be the dreaded secularists and inclusivists, not the exclusivist extremists whose ideology you defend at every turn.

As I mentioned before, enlightened, progressive people are not consumed by atavistic hatreds: they have moved on, and can accept the old and the new without conflict.

Thanks for interjecting Vinod, but really, I can handle this.

Developer, I have crossed swords with my fair share of uncompromising OOI Hindutva fanatics my friend. I have not budged. Just like my ancestors did not in front of the Arab hordes when it came to our faith and what we believed in.

I have more than my share of muslim friends. I have said this in the past as well. One of my best friends in school was sunni muslim (the other was punjabi hindu).

My best friend today is a shia muslim/punjabi hindu.

I have no problem with muslims. I have a serious problem with intolerant and fanatic world views.

Speaking of Hindus, by and large they are chilled out and very tolerant.

In spite of a hard far right fringe, which was always there thanks to the advent of Islam, our community has always been protected.

The Shiv Sena in Mumbai will go out of its way to protect Parsis and our monuments, and even our property which is in the cross-hairs of unscrupulous builders.

We apreciate an open religious culture of live and let live.

I am sorry to say, but wherever Muslims become the majority, that culture is stifled to extinction. The world over.