Do Iranians take pride in their history of being part of various Caliphate?

[Sam1980]

But previously you claimed yourself as Shia at number of posts.

Maybe to frame them?

 

[Sedqal]

The ones I met here treat that part of history as a tragedy which befell the Persian empire. They are also vehemently against the Walayat-e-Faqeeh (and link that to Islam thus to Arabs) but strangely admire Ahmedi Nejad. The consensus (I'm using the term loosely) seems to be that Ahmedi Nijad somehow exposed the moral corruption of Mullahs to the nation (though no one expanded on how he did that).

 

[anonymus]

LoL another manipulation of history, did the prophet wanted Iran's resources when he sent the letter to Khosrau II
Muslim conquest of Persia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the reasons that Muslim clergy/rulers ( both were same ) seek out conquest of Persia was due to fact that transjordan was a Bedouin territory ( not politically but geographically) and Arab tribes used to go back and forth between arabia and jordan.

Less than total conversion of Arabs would have posed significant theological threat to Islam ( as it would have lead to competition from other religion,a competition which would not have been contained within geographical boundaries ) , after initial zeal would have worn off and it was required ( in political/religious ) sense to bring all bedouin areas under one political unit.

Further conquest was undertaken since both Romans and Sassanids had bled each other in series of wars which have lasted for close to 600 years and areas under both of these empires had more resources.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Everyone invaded for a particular reason :money.

But the early warriors of Islam certaintly did not think about money. They thought about converting which is why Islam spread so fast.

Go and read Islam's army commander when he wrote a letter to omar and asked permission from him for attacking iran

 

[Developereo]

Anyway, I don't believe in following people blindly however great they may be.

Buy you posted that bit about scientists rejecting God as something to support your argument?

My point about Newton was to counter your claim that anyone who understood physics would reject religion.

Religion is a complex subject and it is not straightforward to say that acceptance of religion implies lack of intelligence.

 

[Sam1980]

All joking aside, I don't know why these Imams don't share their divine powers with the humanity? Why its always the godless scientists who come up with the groundbreaking innovations and cure for diseases?

Would you choose modern medicine (science) when you fall sick or do you still believe Camel Urine (has medical benefit) or Black Cumin cure all diseases?

Sahih Bukhari 7:71:590, See also: Sahih Bukhari 8:82:796, and Sahih Muslim 16:4130
Sahih Bukhari 7:71:592, See also: Sahih Bukhari 7:71:591

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Hadith#Camel_urine_as_medicine

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Okay, point taken, but don't expect people to buy a %100 pure manipulation of history like Bozo's

One of the reasons that Muslim clergy/rulers ( both were same ) seek out conquest of Persia was due to fact that transjordan was a Bedouin territory ( not politically but geographically) and Arab tribes used to go back and forth between arabia and jordan.

Less than total conversion of Arabs would have posed significant theological threat to Islam ( as it would have lead to competition from other religion,a competition which would not have been contained within geographical boundaries ) , after initial zeal would have worn off and it was required ( in political/religious ) sense to bring all bedouin areas under one political unit.

Further conquest was undertaken since both Romans and Sassanids had bled each other in series of wars which have lasted for close to 600 years and areas under both of these empires had more resources.

 

[Sam1980]

Buy you posted that bit about scientists rejecting God as something to support your argument?

My point about Newton was to counter your claim that anyone who understood physics would reject religion.

Religion is a complex subject and it is not straightforward to say that acceptance of religion implies lack of intelligence.

Yes, I did. And the number has increased by the way. My source was an old Nature paper, published in 1998.

And I clearly stated, Newton has made a lot of mistakes as well. I posted a link clearly explaining his attempts to circumvent mathematics!

You have to consider the reality that Newton was living in 17th century and didn't know anything about String theory and consequently the Big Bang! But we do now!

 

[anonymus]

Just because someone is educated doesn't mean they have to reject religion.

In fact many educated people i know are really religious.


Abrahamic religions specially Islam in particular just make sense.

An Educated person does not move away from religion due to arrogance or pride but due to the fact that each and every religion is insufficient to explain the intricacies of nature discovered by science.


In other words religion fall short of providing an inquisitive mind with all answers.


Current science does not disprove the existence of God. What they disprove is existence of traditional god, angry vengeful and narcissist being .

 

[Sam1980]

Actually Zartoshi, or parsis in Pakistan in fact leave their dead bodies in Karachi stadium for birds to eat.

That is very true.

And many Sunni Muslims blow themselves with explosive belts, so what? Blowing thyself is not in Quran either.

 

[Developereo]

Yes, I did. And the number has increased by the way. My source was an old Nature paper, published in 1998.

You are again arguing by authority (x number of scientists think this way), which is what you said you didn't want to do.

And I clearly stated, Newton has made a lot of mistakes as well. I posted a link clearly explaining his attempts to circumvent mathematics!

You have to consider the reality that Newton was living in 17th century and didn't know anything about String theory and consequently the Big Bang! But we do now!

Physics, like all sciences, keeps advancing. It is unfair to blame Newton for not knowing 20th century science.

He is still considered to be one of the best physicists, and brilliant minds, of all time. The point is that science has not disproved the existence of God. At most it has taken a 'no comment' or 'not needed' approach to God.

P.S. Many physicists consider String 'theory' to be more philosophy than science but that's a different debate.

 

[Sam1980]

Current science does not disprove the existence of God. What they disprove is existence of traditional god, angry vengeful and narcissist being .

Well, science has actually disproved all the holy books, therefore contradicting the invalid fact that "God" is omniscience, that was why Galileo had to live under house arrest, because "...of moons orbiting Jupiter contradicted the geocentric model of Ptolemy, in which the motion of all celestial bodies was centered on the Earth." Wikipedia

 

[Hack-Hook]

One of the reasons that Muslim clergy/rulers ( both were same ) seek out conquest of Persia was due to fact that transjordan was a Bedouin territory ( not politically but geographically) and Arab tribes used to go back and forth between arabia and jordan.

Less than total conversion of Arabs would have posed significant theological threat to Islam ( as it would have lead to competition from other religion,a competition which would not have been contained within geographical boundaries ) , after initial zeal would have worn off and it was required ( in political/religious ) sense to bring all bedouin areas under one political unit.

Further conquest was undertaken since both Romans and Sassanids had bled each other in series of wars which have lasted for close to 600 years and areas under both of these empires had more resources.

What area is transjordan , this word had many definition in course of history .
But if you look at todays map north of ksa is three countries jordan ,syria and iraq and according to may understanding only southern part of jordan and south western part of iraq was traditonal land of beduins and more than 80% of those area were under roman control not iranian control .

 

[Sam1980]

You are again arguing by authority (x number of scientists think this way), which is what you said you didn't want to do.

Maybe you misunderstood me. But I had the very intention of saying that most elite scientists don't even believe in god, let alone an Abrahamic religion which is mostly based on ancient mythologies.

Physics, like all sciences, keeps advancing. It is unfair to blame Newton for not knowing 20th century science.

My intention wasn't to discredit Newton, I mean't the people now, with access to internet, online databases, etc... I emphasized on that by highlighting that he was living in 17th Century.

He is still considered to be one of the best physicists, and brilliant minds, of all time. The point is that science has not disproved the existence of God. At most it has taken a 'no comment' or 'not needed' approach to God.

He certainly was, please refer to my previous point in which I clearly talk/write about the era in which he lived in.

 

[anonymus]

Well, science has actually disproved all the holy books, therefore contradicting the fact that "God" is omniscience, that was why Galileo had to live in a house arrest, because "...of moons orbiting Jupiter contradicted the geocentric model of Ptolemy, in which the motion of all celestial bodies was centered on the Earth." Wikipedia

That is what i have quoted. Science has disproved of a traditional god as quoted by scriptures but the idea of a God (if a theist is comfortable in believing such a minimal god) as a construct responsible for creation of universe holds integrity.

Singularity could be given the status which has traditionally been reserved for gods. It is just that it would not look even remotely familiar to the idea of a traditional god.