(1/2) What I want to do is talk about Iran and its consistent

(2/2)
However, the reason for the effectiveness of Islam I think is because not only was there a political and military power vacuum, but also a cultural one. Just as the pagans in Europe converted to Christianity thus creating what we know as Western civilization, people in Egypt, the levant, north Africa, and Iran converted to Islam creating "islamic civilization". A lot of people like to criticize the islamic golden age for just riding off the achievements of previous peoples and cultures and civilizations and traditions, but the fact is that those older societies willingly came under the islamic umbrella. Which again might seem sort of strange, but consider the history of the middle East prior to Islam; Egypt, the mashriq, parts of the Arabian peninsula were all under Iran's wing for extended periods at some point. The Arabs and their conquests just acted as a catalyst or like a sort of vessel for a new middle east. That's the point I want to make, is that iran's islamophilia today and through its history (qajars, safavids, etc) isn't really exactly cucky or totally masochistic. Iran has always been a part of middle eastern culture and tradition and it continued its role by accepting and massively contributing to Islam.

One might even look at islamic and western civs like brother civilizations; in the middle east and Iran there is very significant Greek influence historically, and the roots of western civ itself are commonly traced back to Mesopotamia and Greece. Islamic and western civ share the same origin.

Actually one more thing: the Iranian diaspora are largely extremely critical of the islamic republic and are "nationalists" wanting a return to zoroastrianism at least in spirit or just increased skepticism of islam.

My fear is that these people are not actually nationalists, but simply leftists and globalists who conflate some kind of Iranian cause with anti-islam. I simply can't see Iran as inherently or "truly" not islamic though. Again, at first impression it really seems like Iran is just hopelessly cucked and can't see the light of its own culture, but its culture is simply intertwined with islam and has been for a long ass time.

My question though is this: how truly effective was arab assimilation in Iran? Obviously it didn't change the language entirely, but seeing how effective it was in other places, is there actually even such thing as a strong true Iranian identity? Is the reason why Iranians hate the politics of their diaspora because the latter think there is a national identity but the former knows it's actually just a subset of arab culture? Obviously it's middle eastern, but I want to know the real extent of Iranian identity, if it actually has survived the test of time or if it has become another lost civilization just like the babylonians or ancient egyptians or something like that, and tied itself not only to the middle east, but to arabic culture specifically

Is there an Iran or is there just some kind of geographical region called Iran with less identity than some make it out to have?

>>76068030
>>76068201
>>76068732
Zoroastrians willingly converted en-masse yet at the same time wanted to maintain their identity form the Iran we know today. Arabs are from Arabia; Iraqi's, Syrians, Egyptians aern't "Arab" in the genetic sense but have adpted most of the culture as it was seen as superior and noble due to the religion's origin. Iran had a different geography and is far from Arabia proper so it didn't really change too much. Saem with Central Asia, India etc.

>>76068030
The maintenance of Islam was pragmatic. The middle East needed to be unified by something. There was too much shared history; it was inevitable.

>>76069527
>>76069636
sure but I mean even though I realize this and I'm not some edgelord who's all about iranians being white and western or whatever, and I see islam's place in iran as wholly belonging there, it still slightly bothers me how adamant they are about it. I just wonder if Iranian identity actually did truly survive the arab conquests or if their assimilation powers were so strong that the concept of an Iranian nation or people became totally diluted, which would explain why diaspora swears there's a fully unique Iranian identity but people in Iran don't give a shit at all, mullahs and government promoting Arabic language, people have a shia allegiance rather than national or cultural allegiance, I mean shit obviously they even use arabic script with like 40% Arabic loanwords. I'm just wondering if the reason they seem like such cucks is not only because of the reasons I went over in the second post but also because there actually is close to no actual Iranian identity.

>>76072698
This is such an excellent question. Off the top of my head all that unites the people of Iran seems to be Persian and Shia Islam which you've already mentioned. Isn't that enough to separate them from Arabs?

>>76075921
Not really since there's plenty of shia arab populations elsewhere, also the farsi-speaking afghans and tajiks are sunni. Religion almost always ties itself to a cultural identity but maybe sometimes it's just more historical/political.

>>76072698
If anything Islam was more influenced by Egyptians and Persians than by the Bedouins. Mohammed spend a lot of his time in the Levant, he was a walking merchant before he became the prophet. Arabs didn't assimilate the Egyptians and Persians, it was the other way around.

>>76068030
Only pseudointellectual SJWs, starting after the WWII "Aryan" delusion, invented the idea.

And it's amusing how you have this long serious intellectual essay but your question is "are they cucks?"

And the part about "agreeing to assimilate" and "cultural vacuum" is absurd. So is your theory that Persians and the rest used Islam to gain Culture Points and change their Religion Sliders? Real life doesn't work like a Paradox strategy game.

And your other theory is this? "Just adopting the religion and nothing else means a people damaged it's culture, but not if they're adapting to the world"?

For the record, your idea that they assimilated less rapidly than the current Arab world, and therefore anyone else, is wrong. In the middle ages, Northeast Syria and North Iraq retained both the religion as the Egyptians did and the language as the Persians (and partially Egyptians) did. Arabic stopped being spoken there after the fall of the Caliphate and did not return until modern 'Arabization'. Since those people were half the scholars in Baghdad in the Golden Age, your "converting for science" theory is false. The fact that they're still there and are a top target for extremists also shows the "staggering assimilation" theory is false.

So in short, Islam is clearly part of their culture, but they're neither "cucks" nor "progressing" with it unless you see Islam itself as being 100% about Arab dominance.

>>76078352
I'm sort of using the christianization of Europe as an analogy to what happened to the middle east around the same time. By cultural vacuum I mean that, as evidenced by the course of history afterwards, two essentially new civilizations (but with roots in already existing ones) would manifest: the modern western world started with the franks and was molded in christisnity, and the modern middle east (islamic civilization) started with islam. Both civilizations have common cultural roots in greco-roman civilization. Civilizations don't last forever, and the cultural vacuum was filled by islam in the middle east and christisnity in europe.

I'm interested in iran specifically and the extent to which they were affected by the islamic conquests. So yeah I'm wondering if they're cucks because maybe they're more unique culturally than I'm assuming. Anyway obviously Islam isn't about arab domination, but the thought comes into my head a lot because of the arabization of all these other places, and you say that's something modern but something of that scale can't have happened in any short amount of time. Yeah obviously politics change quickly, baathism is now an ideology that used to never exist, but it didn't come out of nowhere.

>>76078917
There's a poster here with an american flag who always just has "Iranian" in the name field who's said some shit before like how the middle east is ethnically similar due to being under so many of the same empires, and how close of a language farsi has become to Arabic, how the middle east needs to further unite on religious grounds; the essentially anti-iranian (or is it?) attitude he espouses must be popular among other iranians or the islamic republic wouldn't exist right now, and they wouldn't have been so hard on their non-islamic populations historically.
It makes sense from a modern standpoint at least because nationalism can be seen as an extension of western enlightenment thought, which the whole islamic world has largely been rejecting (and obviously the government of iran does). But Iran has been so seemingly against itself ever since the islamic conquests. Sumerians don't exist, Romans don't exist, Phoenicians or Hittites don't exist, so perhaps persians don't exist anymore either. That's what I want to know.

>>76068732
In my experience there's a huge difference between diaspora iranians aka LA Persiafags and the acerage iranian from Iran in terms of religion. The persiafag diaspira tends to be from a class that left during the ousting of the shah and tend to be anti-islam and act like they speak for all iranians. The more recent immigrant iranians and ones living in iran (aka the ones that actually still have connection with iran) even the more liberal ones although they may be against the governmenrmt tend to accept the role of islam in iranian culture and dont act like overly nationalistic edgelord faggots.