> P has asked for facts of daily language use. You have offered him your personal philosophy


It isn't a personal philosophy. My information was based on the analysis of Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra Cambridge print. The book has much deeper analogy of Khoda's etymology. What I wrote is a conglomerate cluster of 100 pages of analysis.

> OP did not make any mention of heresy either

He did. his reply under KhosrousAnushiravan says: "some hyper religious social circles they're seeking to replace "khodafez" with "allahfez"". By talking about heresy, I meant to explain why hyper religious circles are against using 'khoda'.

> Your understanding of both Islamic and pre-Islamic Iranian theology is a fringe modern interpretation probably gleaned from poorly informed

I'm currently obtaining my masters in philosophy from UCL. My main project is actually centralised on Iran's theologists and philosophers; Rumi, Jabir ibn Hayyan and Avicenna. Admittidly, I'm more aware of Iranian theology more than you, unless you've surpassed me in academic levels of studying theology; which I doubt you do. When presented with new sets of knowledge, you can double check their validity, or engage in healthier debate on points, rather than than bashing me on being 'poorly informed'.

> The etymology you have offered for «خدا» may sound "cool" and work well with your personal philosophy but it has no grounding in linguistics.

I agree, it's cool. but it isn't personal philosophy, and it has grounding in linguistics. Read the book I've linked. You will be appreciating learning something you've completely closed your mind to.

> New Persian word «خدا» (khodā) is direct descendant of Middle Persian xwadāy which means lord, king and is widely attested in Middle Persian texts in that exact meaning.

Accurate point. But merely a repetition of the point I made. It is** a direct translation to address god. But it's origins as I mentioned, it originates from Zurvanist beliefs. I urge you to read the book if you want to know more about the connection between the religion and 'Khoda'.

> This is where other words such as kadkhodā (lord/chief of the village) and khānekhodā (master/owner of the house) also originated. There are instances of a ruler being addressed as mar khodāy (my lord) in New Persian poetry as well.

As I mentioned it in my comment, 'Khoda', has lost its original meaning, and now it is merely a translation for 'god/lord'. Hence why it's formed into titles such as the ones you mentioned. 'Allah' was a part of prophet Mohammad father's name. The name later became associated with the 'god' he introduced. It was always forbidden to put 'Allah''s name on anything, as it was deemed disrespectful. However, now, it seems 'Allah' has lost is value as well, much similar to 'Khoda'. There are people named, 'Abdullah' (servant of god), 'Ruhoullah' (spirit of god), even terrorist organisations named 'Jundullah' (army of god). It's common for such religiously sacred words to lose their weight of meaning through time. 'Khoda' isn't any more special than 'Allah'. It's lost it's original value and meaning.

> Your answer is heartfelt and personal but it is as far from accurate as one can get.

Be open to learning something new. We both get our resources from either books, or available online data bases. Your resources don't go into depth as much as my resources do. Just because I'm not close to the surface as much as you are, that doesn't mean I'm not accurate; in fact, it's quite the contrary.

>He left, doesn't follow organized religion, etc.

I don't know, if he follows or no. Recently he has written a book on Prophet of Islam.

https://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet-Peace-Clash-Empires/dp/156858783X

>That still doesn't make it any different than any other religion :)

Baha'ism is not a religion like any other religion. Come to our community (/r/exbahai) and ask a question, you will get some very enlightening replies :)

Oh and Iran has an extensive social care network including a medical care delivery system that is a world model https://www.aarp.org/health/doctors-hospitals/info-06-2010/iranian_cure_for_thedeltas_blues.html

In general, Iran is now a "Highly Developed" country with higher living standards than Turkey

http://www.ir.undp.org/content/iran/en/home/presscenter/articles/2013/03/14/global-launch-of-the-2013-human-development-report-2013-.html

The UN made a comparative graph of Iran's development compared to other countries
http://www.ir.undp.org/content/dam/iran/img/News/March%202013/14%20March%202013-%20Global%20launch%20of%20the%202013%20Human%20Development%20Report%202013/iran-trend%20hdr2013.jpg

Here's a book on the topic
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Revolution-Politics-Welfare-State/dp/0520280822/

Despite high educational attainment, women are still underrepresented in the workplace, this has a lot to do with a social system of values that encourages families and women as mothers however women in Iran aren't marrying as young nor having as many babies and are instead becoming independent http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-unmarried-snap-story.html

Oh and BTW as far as having modern cancer wards etc, Iran has a long history in medicine and medical education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gondishapur and social emphasis on higher ed

>Yes, that's true, some nationalist Kurds take it to that point, especially on the day of Nevruz (which is a Zoroastarian holiday) they prepare big fire and jump over it, they want to preserve the tradition. The Turkish government is based on Turkish nationalism and this is seen as a "separative movement" hence the celebrations are mostly escalating to clashes between the police and the Kurd in the region. However, as far as I know, non-Muslim Kurds have their own religion killed Yezidi, which resembles Zoroastarianism, but like a Kurdish version or I don't know. Maybe you know better than I do.

That's kind of sad actually, Nowruz is dearly celebrated in Iran and I'm happy that Kurds in Turkey remember it as well. But the fact that it causes problems is sad. I will be honest with you here, reading some of the comments Kurds and Turks make against each other online, I'm not sure there is scenario in the future where they can peacefully coexist within the same borders. The situation was never this bad in Iran. I was once in r/Turkey, and there was a video posted of a kid being beaten up because he held a Turkish flag, a kurd had commented something in lines of "good, he's a traitor". This level of hatred and animosity is fucked up. I mean really fucked up, I don't even hate ISIS that much.

Oh and nope, I've got no clue about Yazidis.


>All in all I believe 300 made us know about the big Persian empire which ruled Middle-East, Anatolia, Iran, Egypt. We came to know that it even went to Europe. So these lands saw such a vast empire, this we got to know.

Well then that's cool, there is a saying in Persian عدو شود سبب خیر اگر خدا خواهد, which means "an enemy might end up doing you a favor if God wills it so. Maybe we've been depicted so negatively by Hollywood that we've become a bit paranoid.

I don't think they actually had an agenda, I think they were more trying to create an all powerful enemy which the hero stands up to. Ancient Greece was a great civilization, not Sparta though, Sparta was shit-tier! Read this book if you want to know why: http://www.amazon.com/The-Shadow-Sparta-Stephen-Hodkinson/dp/0415104130


>It's not about Saudi Arabia, it is about "who will have the control over the resources?" thing. Turkey sides with the US, which sides with Arabs. Hence, the cooperation is as the US-Qatar-Turkey versus Russia-Iran-Iraq-Syria. I am sure you heard of the pipeline which is going to be built after the Syrian war, that is the big picture. Erdoğan himself doesn't give a fuck about Saudis, but he does whatever it takes to reach the resources. If it means to ally the Saudis.

I don't thing it's actually about oil either, I think Erdogan wants to help create a kurdish puppet state in Iraq to cut off the supply and support to Turkey's kurds. It's actually a good plan, but I don't it's going to work, you have no friends in Iraq, America or Nato won't help you carve up a part of another country, Russia will help us prevent it, your men have no reason to die in a barren desert over oil which is becoming cheaper than water, we have every reason to fight such a war.

You see,Iraqis are brave Arabs, they're not a bunch of useless cunts like the Khalijis or the Saudis, if we leave them alone, if we let them out of sphere of influence, they come up with a new Saddam or a new Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. So we will keep them in a semi-protectorate state of existence for as long as we can.

Sorry, but it is your attitude that is wrong. Which can be seen here.

There is a big difference between discussing and randomly ranting without evidence.

Regarding the Islamic Republic

Every government needs a mirror of their actions. If we forbid criticism, we are not able to improve as a society nor in terms of economics.

Thinking that Iran is doing perfectly fine, is a mistake many people on this sub are doing. Yes, Iran is doing great in some areas. But also doing utterly bad in others. Because we Iranians love to make some metaphors:

>If you are studying and you forbid someone to give you feedback about your work. How are you able to improve?

There are many areas where Iran needs to improve. So we should allow criticism:

• Fuel Smuggling in Iran is costing billions of dollars each year.
  
• Renewables are helping Iran to reduce water usage and reliance on oil & gas.
  
• Why letting China in Iran is not a good thing.
  
• Iran's water crisis due its self-sufficiency policy.
  
  

  Regarding Shah
  

  
  Talking about the time of Shah is always very complex, since information is only in books, statistics or through hearsay available. It is not like the time of the IR where you are whelmed with information.
  
  When you look at every discussion about Shah, people often look at the arguments as "Pro-Shah" or "Anti-Shah" - which prevents having meaningful discussions. These are exact the same group that we have today: "Pro-IR" or "Anti-IR". We need to start to look at the facts instead of letting our emotions in.
  
  Shah's time was a very difficult one. People always forget that Iran was at war back then and often don't understand the economic situation Iran was facing. Saudi Arabia was also playing a significant role in the IR revolution.
  
  The Oil Kings is a good starter for those, who are interested in the time of Shah with a relation to Iran's current situation. It looks at the economic point of view. Here is an excerpt of the last years - thanks to u/FirstMaybe
  
  >In 1977, one year before the outbreak of revolutionary unrest in Iran, oil markets had been paralyzed by a bitter split among members of OPEC over how much to charge consumers. The Shah of Iran had proposed a 15 percent price hike for the coming year. King Khalid of Saudi Arabia had resisted the Shah’s entreaties and argued that no price increase was warranted at a time when Western economies were mired in recession. The Shah won the day and persuaded the rest of OPEC to join him in adopting a double-digit price increase for 1977.
  >
  >The Saudi response was swift and ruthless. Riyadh announced it would take drastic steps to ensure that Iran’s new price regime never took effect. It would do this by exceeding its production quota, pumping surplus oil onto the market, and undercutting the higher price offered by its competitors. Overnight, Iran lost billions of dollars in anticipated oil revenue. The Shah’s government, reeling from the blow, was forced to take out a bridge loan from foreign banks. It made deep cuts to domestic spending in an attempt to balance the books and implemented an austerity plan that threw tens of thousands of young Iranian men out of work and into the streets. The economic chaos that ensued helped turn Iranian public opinion against the royal family.''
  
  And here is why the Shah wanted to increase the oil price:
  
  

• Why the Shah was not backed by the West anymore. (which includes some interviews and statistics)
  
  

  Conclusion
  

  
  Again: We need to look at the facts instead of letting our emotions in and preventing us from having a meaningful discussion. Almost every user on r/Iran needs to get approval from the moderator to be able to post something. If it contradicts the view of the mods, it will be deleted. I don't see that here u/faloodehx and I hope I won't see that, since it helps us to improve our understanding of our history by discussing about it.
  
  ​
  
  Just want to have some input from you guys, am I right or wrong about my view?
  
  u/ralad
  
  u/Freak2121
  
  u/Probably_A_Box
  
  u/Mr_Pollos
  
  u/CYAXARES_II

All the way

>
Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Better-Judgment-History/dp/149591092X

No because I've saved up a maple syrup supply.

Also by sheer weight of numbers one of these days they will launch one ICBM by accident and flatten a city and then nobody will be laughing, not even the aliens.

So your point is: my version of what it means to be Iranian is more correct than yours; hence cutting off your head is ok. Your way of thinking is toxic, I'll leave it here since it will amount to nothing but mud-slinging at this point.

Look up this book please.

Because the Zionist claim on Greater Israel is hardly a secret. In fact they initially rejected the 1948 Partition plan since it didn't give them all of the "Greater Israel" that they demanded which included Jordan. Anyone who knows anything about history knows this.
That's why to this day Israel is not declared her borders. Ben Gurion spefically said that it would go from Damascus to the Sinai, and the Litani https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0887282350/

Futhermore the idea that Israel is "just trying to protect itself" is already discredited by even Israeli historian given access to the new documentation, who point out that Israel rejected multiple peace offers by the same neighbors in favor of conflict and expansionism
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20War%20of%20the%20Israeli%20Historians.html

Love me more than the others : selected poetry of Iraj Mirza

I suggest reading a meta analysis of Iranian nationalism, to give you a more complete picture of how different, competing nationalisms formed Iran throughout the modern period.


Imaging Iran: The Tragedy of Subaltern Nationalism delves into this, and explains why despite there being a romantic nationalism that has existed since the time of Mirza Fath Ali Akhundzadeh, it has never been able to hegemonize itself with any ruling Iranian state. No Iranian government has yet been able to create a government that fully matches the desires, culture, and mythologies of Iranians. The IR has come close, but if it fails to pursue reforms, it'll go down the same path as other governments.


Since you already have some familiarity with nationalist writers, I think you'll appreciate this analysis.


Edit: Added book link

The author of this piece is Tom Cooper, who has written many history books about Aerial combat in the Middle East and Africa.

Like 1, 2, and 3

Cooper's newest release is this book about the early stages of the war: https://www.amazon.com/Iran-Iraq-War-Khuzestan-September-1980-May/dp/1911096567

> Arabs never settled Iran in large enough numbers for it to be Arabized.

This is equally true of the Europeans in the Americas.

> There was basically no chance that Arabization was gonna happen after Arabs got kicked out in the 9th century

Meanwhile the designation of Persians as Ajam and being denoted to second class citizens in their own country persisted with Arab elites being in charge (and before you say anything, the concept of an Arab Elite is similar to that of British Elites in India - where Indians were used as proxy rulers by British external forces).

> There was basically no chance that Arabization was gonna happen after Arabs got kicked out in the 9th century, and attributing the Persian language's survival to a single guy in the 11th century is exactly the kind of hyperbole I'm taking about

A 300 year occupation is significant. Prior to the works of Ferdowsi and Daqiqi, Farsi was outlawed within Iran. The bans were specifically lifted due to a handful of Sultans in succession with an affinity for poetry. It was only legalised for use in poetry - so Iranians started to just talk to eachother through couplets and in prose. As a result, what survived of old Farsi, is conjugated verbs that rhyme very, very easily and a rhythmic style to our language. (It's also why we have so many damn proverbs).

> Stories about burning of libraries are also discredited.

"If the books contradict the Qur'an, they are blasphemous. On the other hand, if they are in agreement, they are not needed, as for us Qur'an is sufficient." - Umar

Now here's some sources:

On Umar and early Islamic colonisation into Iran (specifically the persecution of Zoroastrians, the destruction of Estakhr and the remnants of Parsa, and the destruction of Zoroastrian texts)

On the destruction of the Library of Avicenna in Isfahan by Sultan Mas'ud I

This fantastic text also touches briefly on the replacement of Farsi with Arabic in Iran during Arab occupation

On al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf's official decree to ban the use of Farsi at the risk of a death penalty or the removal of one's tongue

[On the Ummayad Dynasty's denotion of non-Arabs as a client status of "mawali" meaning "slave" or "lesser"] (https://www.amazon.com/Karaite-Historical-Understanding-Comparative-Religion/dp/1570035180)


The question had to do with why Iranian's have disdain for Arabs. Again, I, personally do not. But these are very real historically proven and factual events that lend credibility to the disdain of many towards them. Let me say again; I do not in any way hate Arab culture, language or the people. I'm simply telling you what happened in history.