Islamic
Barbarian Theocracy: Invaders and Occupiers of Iran
Amir Arsalan
nnasseri@cox.net
I have come across some sentiment that depicts the current Islamic
Regime as a foreign occupying force in Iran. The term "second
Arabo-Islamic invasion of Iran" has gained popularity. Are
these sentiments based on the truth, or are they baseless and just
rhetoric?
Indeed, these
barbarians can only be thought of as foreign invaders. They call
themselves Iranians, but are they really Iranians?
What does
it mean to be Iranian? It means to hold dear the traditions,
ideology, and ways of life of Iran. It means to love Iran itself,
and more importantly, the citizens of Iran.
As we all know,
Iran (land of the Aryans) is a country with very old and deep rooted
traditions, going back at least 7500 years. A nation which is that
old cannot be expected to remain static. Change is of course inevitable
in its history. But what type of change can be deemed acceptable
and simply an evolution of a society, and what type of change is
deemed unacceptable and antagonistic to the foundations of that
society?
Those changes
that act to advance a society, both technologically as well as morally,
while staying true to the basic principles of that society will
be considered acceptable and should be integrated into that society. Those that set a society back, either technologically or morally,
and are antagonistic to the founding principles of that society
must be considered unacceptable.
So, let's examine
Iran's history from the perspective of who in our history was a
legitimate Iranian regime and who was merely a foreign occupying
force. Let's review who merely brought changes that aimed to
build upon and improve our existing Iranian culture, versus who brought changes that were designed to undermine and destroy
the Iranian culture and Iran. As always, a historical perspective
will help clarify the present circumstance.
The Achaemenians built upon the existing cultures of the Elamites and Medes. They
accepted them as their own, stayed true to their tradition for the
most part, and accelerated that society in an amazing way. There
was technological, economic, military, as well as moral acceleration.
Their impact was so great, and so positive, that they not only expanded
Iranian culture but also became its primary defining feature.
After Alexander's
conquest, Iran fell under a foreign occupying force. The subsequent Seleucid Empire was obviously not Iranian, but Greek. They
did not arrive with the intent of evolving Iranian culture, but
rather to dominate it, use it, and overwhelm it with another culture:
Greek. Some of the results were positive, in so much as Greek culture
is as rich as ours and has much to offer. Nevertheless, since it
set out to overwhelm and subjugate Iranian culture instead of simply
enriching its foundations, it can be viewed only as a foreign occupation.
Fortunately, it did not succeed.
The Parthians,
another Iranian tribe, drove out the Seleucids and restored Iranian
culture. They remained true to the spirit and culture of Iran, and
did their best to make positive contributions. Though their contributions
were limited (although it may have been more involved than we think,
only because our historical records regarding this period are so
relatively scant), because they were loyal to Iranian citizens and
culture, they must be viewed as players in the advancement of the
nation.
The Sassanids,
second only to the Achaemenids in their service to Iran were also
a major defining feature of Iranian culture and identity. They considered
themselves the direct descendants of the Achaemenids, and obviously
sought to preserve Iranian culture and identity while serving their
nation. They took a great role in advancing the foundations of Iranian
civilization in many different aspects.
Then came a
major turning point in our history: the Taazi barbarian invasion
of our Iran. This was the second of many foreign occupying forces
to dominate Iran. With the Taazi invasion, Iran was again faced
with an enemy from within which aimed to undermine its civilization
and identity. The first factor used to destroy a national identity
was an attack on its predominant religion: Zoroastrianism. With
physical and economic coercion, the Taazi barbarians were able to
convert a large portion of Zartoshdtis to Islam. The Taazi language
and customs were also forced on the native Iranians. The ruling
Umayyads and Abbassids were Taazi dynasties, with loyalties only
to themselves, their Taazi tribesmen, and their Taazi culture and
religion. Iran was to them only a commodity, used for its natural
resources and its people. The moral system that the Arabs brought
with them was much more primitive and barbaric compared to the system
which already existed under the Sassanids. And those Arabs were
clearly determined to wipe out as much as they could from the Iranian
culture and collective memory. Magnificent artworks were destroyed,
and the Arabs had themselves a good old fashioned "book burning."
You may recall the old Taazi edict "We need no other book other
than the Quran." Clearly, this invasion served as a devolution
of Iranian culture. Fortunately, the Arabs did not completely succeed
in their goal of destroying Iranian identity. It is noteworthy that
Iran was the only nation to be dominated by Taazi rule for so long
yet retain its identity as non-Taazi. Others were not as fortunate.
One of the greatest of ancient civilizations, Egypt, never recovered
from the barbarian invasion and has remained Arabic forever. In
that respect, Egypt's place in history remains very lamentable.
After the Taazi
occupation, the Saffarids retained control over Iran. They
identified themselves as Iranians, sought to regain Iranian culture
and tradition, and aimed to serve the citizens of Iran instead of
using them as a commodity for a foreign power. Yaqoub Saffarid
made it a point to restore Persian language by making it the mandatory
language of his court. The fact that we don't speak Arabic today
is owed to the Saffarids and none other than Ferdowsi. The Saffarids
kept the language alive long enough for it not to be completely
extinguished, but were not able to completely restore it. However,
they played a very important role, because they kept it alive long
enough for a genius like Ferdowsi to come along centuries later
and use it in such a way that only an epic poem can do. In doing
so, he ignited a flame in all common Iranians to regain their language.
A multitude
of different dynasties followed, most of which were foreign: Turkish, Mongol, etc. The vast majority of these had no interests
in building upon the existing Iranian culture, and again, can only
be viewed as foreign occupying forces with only self serving motives.
The Saffavids followed, which served a very important role. Their role in Iranian
identity and culture was very ambivalent. They wished to promote
an Iranian agenda and revive Persian culture. In that, they were
quite successful. But in pushing for Persian unity, they used Shiite
Islam as a tool. Forced conversions were implemented, as well as
religious persecutions. Because of them, islam was here to stay.
Since islam is clearly a foreign ideology and not at all conducive
to Iranian culture and identity, as well as morally inferior to
the original Iranian way of life, this act of the Saffavids unintentionally
had very clear anti-Iranian results in the long term. Hence the
ambivalent role of the Saffavids to truly serving Iranian identity
and culture. Nonetheless, in intent the Saffavids cannot be viewed
as a foreign occupying force, and overall served the Iranian purpose.
A number of
other mediocre dynasties followed: Afshar, Zand, Qajar,
which were Iranian and clearly not foreign occupiers. Though Iranian,
their contributions to Iran (with the exception of a few noteworthy
individuals such as Amir Kabir, who was actually not a king) were
minimal to none. It was a time of great incompetence and stagnation,
which left Iran greatly vulnerable again to foreign interests in
the twentieth century.
Enter the Pahlavi
dynasty: the greatest Iranian dynasty since the Sassanids and
Saffarids in my opinion. The Iranian patriotism and service of this
father and son to the Iranian nation, culture, and identity is unquestionable.
After a millennium and a half, they were the first to truly recognize
the important role that our pre-islamic heritage and civilization
serve in our identity. They sought to rebuild Iran where the Sassanids
had left off. They catapulted Iran forward by two centuries in a
matter of half a century. The manner by which they served the traditions,
culture, and citizens of Iran can only be viewed as a great evolutionary
step forward. Unfortunately, their efforts were halted, undermined,
and greatly reversed with the Revolution.
This was more
a Revolution from without than a Revolution from within. Regardless
of its origins, the result was obvious: a ruling theocratic Islamic
regime from hell. Power was handed to Islamic Mullahs, people whose
only intellectual interest is the religion that spurted from an
Arabic, tribal, nomadic way of life. A religion which developed
and has remained in medieval times. The mullahs and their
Islamic followers' allegiance is understandably only to themselves
and their ideology which binds them to Arabo-Muslims. Their
education (if you can call it that) and upbringing had always been
in relation to this foreign religion, which can only identify with
the Taazi mentality and cause.
Their upbringing
is Taazi, their thoughts are Taazi, their traditions are Taazi,
their culture is Taazi, their religion is Taazi, their clothes are
Taazi, their language is Taazi, and unfortunately, their morality
is Taazi.
Are we really
surprised that their allegiance is Taazi?
Now let's
review part of the role that this theocracy has played in the last
27 years.
1. Changed
the national flag. The lion and sun, which is unrelated to monarchy
but represents ancient Iran, was replaced with the double swords
of a Sikh symbol. What's a Sikh symbol doing on our flag?
2. Implemented
religious persecution of any minority non-islamic (and even sometimes
Islamic) religious group.
3. Persisted
on the use and knowledge of the Arabic language, while de-emphasizing
Farsi. Coercing students to learn Arabic if they wish to get an
education.
4. Attacked
ancient Persian cultural monuments and archeological sites. If not
for the resistance of brave Iranians, Persepolis would have been
demolished by now.
5. Insisted
by coercion on naming Iranian newborns using foreign Taazi names
instead of proud Iranian names, by refusing to issue birth certificates
to those with purely Iranian names.
6. Attempted
to suppress the ancient traditions of Nowruz and Chaharshanbeh Souri
commemorating the Persian new year. Fortunately, this was yet another
unsuccessful and pitiful attempt to subdue Iranian culture.
7. Falsely
changed history books, giving misinformation to young students regarding
Iran's history. Deceitfully and purposefully depicted the Iranian
nationalists, patriots and kings as tyrannical while glorifying
and legitimizing the barbarian Taazi invaders and their descendants
as heroes.
8. Neglected
Iran's citizens and infrastructure, while using its natural and
human resources to achieve their goals: self-serve, and propagation
and support of Arabo-Islamo-Fascism and terrorism.
Let's also not
forget that Khomeini barely spoke any Farsi; Arabic was his first
language. He always called for propagation, preservation, and expansion
of Islam; he never said a caring or positive word about Iran. The
only times he mentioned Iran was in relation to how it could serve
Islam and the Islamic agenda. Iran has been made Islam's commodity
since 1979.
Have the
current ruling mullahs behaved any differently than the Umayyads
or Abbassids? Are they any less a foreign occupying force? Have
they tried any less to destroy Iranian culture, identity and heritage?
Have they oppressed and terrorized the legitimate Iranian citizens
any less? Have they used Iran's human and natural resources in order
to serve a foreign interest and ideology any less?
The name Islamic
Republic of Iran is a misnomer. There is nothing Iranian about this
regime, and these terrorists should not be allowed to use the word
"Iran" to describe their regime. From now on, I refuse
to refer to this illegitimate, tyrannical, barbaric, immoral, and
foreign occupying force as "IRI," and will simply refer
to it as "IR," or the Islamic Republic (and even the term
Republic is a misnomer, since this regime is not represented by
its people).
Back to History Index
|
