Dr. Davood Rahni is a New York resident and Iranian-American scholar and university professor. Attorney and Iranologist Johanna Sturbin interviewed Prof. Rahni for the popular web site Iranian.com on November 21, 2007. With his permission, that interview is printed here in its entirety, in two parts. Part I was posted on Feb. 21, 2008: Prof. Rahni on Iran-US Relations, Part I. This is Part II of the Interview. In this sequence of seven questions, Prof. Rahni discusses how Islam came to Iran and the unique inflection that Iranians give to Islam; the tensions within Islam, and the tensions between Arabs and Iranians; and the legacy of Iran's encounters with Russia, Great Britain, the US, and Israel. Finally, Sturbin asks Prof. Rahni for his perspective on the future of Iranian relations with the US.
Q- What are the main concerns of the Iranian people today? And what is their opinion of the Islamic regime?
Dr. Rahni:
This question is quite challenging, I must confess. I suppose it can only be answered through an independent referendum in Iran. Many of us travel frequently to Iran as we still have strong cultural and family ties there. The answer to this question may have been eluded to earlier, has it not?!
The consensus is that the majority of the Iranian people are still religious in heart and varying levels of practice, although religious reformation had already begun through its Shiite Iranian style a hundred years ago, and only accelerated post 1979. However, if a referendum were to be held in Iran, many anticipate that the people would vote for a democratic federal republican system of government, where although "reformed" Islam remains at its central core in people’s personal daily lives, Islam and its professional clergies would not play such a direct day-to-day role as currently. It is envisaged that such a popular government would commit to a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources among ALL 70 million constituents, a strong inclusive federalist nationalism that respects the various internal ethnicities as well as the of the surrounding neighbors, and the protection of human, women, children, minority, ethnic, and religious rights for all constituencies.
Q- What is the main source of the Sunni and the Shiite conflict?
Dr. Rahni:
This was also mentioned, at least, in part in the preamble. Although there are some settled minor differences between the two main branches of Islam, such divergences are not as broad as those that exist between Catholicism, Protestantism and Russian Orthodoxy in Christianity or to the extent the west wishes to portray it. Both Sunnis and Shiites believe in the same almighty universal God and his "last" holy Book the Qur’an, adhere to the same essential daily rituals, prayers and codes of conduct, and follow through the same set of religious expectations and traditions. The difference is deciphered in the political aspects of its interpretations, although if one speaks with a conservative fundamentalist from either side, he would demand that you agree that his side is the righteous one and the other side has deviated from the "truth", and could therefore be labeled as blasphemous. In Iran, Shiisim which has existed in a mild manner since the late first millennium became intertwined with Iranian nationalism in the 16th century, when used as the official religion of state by the Safavid dynasty. During this era, the Vatican and Europe, who had just rid themselves of the seven hundred years of Moslem domination in Spain (in 1492 King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella unified the country and expelled both the Moslems and the Jews), were horrified by the new Ottoman Caliphs, Sallahuddin and Suleiman the Magnificent, who seemed set to re-conquer Europe. This led the Europeans, through the still influential Vatican, to open up a dialog with the Iranians, providing them "modern, HOT" guns and cannons for the first time. The Iranian SHIITES, more zealous and politically inclined at this juncture than earlier, were encouraged to open up an eastern front against the Sunni Ottomans so as to divert the Ottoman military resources. As a result, the Ottomans were defeated at the gates of Vienna in the west. One cannot help but recognize a degree of self-flagellation and self-mutilation that then crept into the annual Shiite rituals of Ashura, commemorating the day Hossein, Mohammad’s grandson was martyred by his own ‘step’ cousin, Yazid. The Shiite fervor annually recreates the event as if it only happened yesterday through self-beating with chains and even swords, while following religious images and flags, reminding one of the same types of processions in Catholicism, especially in Spain. Besides the probable influence of Catholicism on Shiite rituals, the farm more influence on it is the historically rich Persian cultural aspects that precede Islam by a few millennia. In fact, one can hardly find any aspects of the Islamic world, that at one point included southern Europe, that is not influenced immensely by the Persian art and architecture, Persian literature and philosophy, etc.
Again, although there are some settled differences between Shiism and Sunnism, none is as dramatic as what transpired after the 16th century. The conflict was further exacerbated less than three hundred years ago when the Salafi Wahabi sect of Sunnism took root in Mecca Najd, as there was no country called Saudi Arabia until later in the mid 20th century when it was founded after the oil discovery. This sect regarded the Shiites as staunch "blasphemous enemies" of Islam, and decreed that their annihilation was an expeditious route to paradise. The Saudi royal family that now includes 10,000 families belongs to the Vahabi sect. Iran annually sends 25% of the three million plus annual pilgrims to Mecca and Medina that yields the Saudis billions of dollars of revenues. The Iranian pilgrims are regarded as the most orderly and law abiding as admitted by the Saudi authorities; and yet, they are constantly harassed and intimidated by the Saudi "shorteh" the police, for bowing and kissing the black rock of Ka’abeh or the shrine of Mohammad in Medina, as the Saudis frown on such practices. Ironically, there is undeniable evidence where more than half of the so called suicide IED driven insurgents in Iraq are Saudis with their finances, whereby the rest are from other Arab nations and Pakistan but not even one from Iran.
Q- Was it the aggressive invasion by the Arabs in 650 AD? Or the attitude of the Arabs to the Iranian people in all those centuries that has generated animosity?
Dr. Rahni:
The Arabs in today’s Iraq, then the Arab Caldeans, Babylonian and Assyrians, or the Canaanites in Palestine, the Phoenicians or the people of Syrian heritage or had older civilizations than the Persian east, or the Medean Aryan Kurds in the north (non-Arab) of Iranian stock. The sparsely populated Arabian Peninsula, however, had not yet established an urban, more civilized state as their distant brethren to the north, and the west, or even the south (Yemenis). Mecca was an annual place of gathering for the worship of idols and a place of trade for these unsophisticated tribes. Every tribe worshiped its own idol which led to competition among them. The contributions of people in the region are increasingly missing from the western literature or with would only appear by the commissioning of lucratively remunerated contracts to freelance writers; nonetheless, it is attributed to "Arab" scientists and philosophers post the 7th century Islamic inception, whereas they were mostly of non-Arab and by and large Persian origins (Algorithm, Avicenna, Biruni, Khayyam, Rhazes, and Rumi to name a few).
The Iranians had an advanced state of civilization before the 7th century, having queens ruling the nation (e.g., Atoosa, Amestris and Esther), a sophisticated state of tax system, transportation, etc. The society was based on a caste system, where the majority of the people served as in essence serfs and could not be educated or marry into a higher caste. Islam, which came into Iran in 642 CE, though was not as violent as the Alexander’s or the Mongol’s invasions of the 5th century BCE or the 13th century, it, nonetheless, had its own level of destructive aggression. Women were taken as war spoils, personal and royal state proprieties were confiscated, books were burned and national treasures destroyed. The Islamic appealing message was: We are all the same in the eye of God. Later it was found that while in theory that may have been true, in practice, it deviated far from it.
The ‘fire under the ash in the brazier" animosity between the Arabs and the Persians/Iranian since antiquity, was exacerbated in 642 with the takeover of Iran in the name of Islam, and even amplified in 1979. Saddam Hussein referred to the 7th century defeat of the Persians in the Battle of "Ghadessieh" (Iranian know the place as Ctesiphon aka Madaen, the core of civilizations) to mobilize Arab public opinion when he invaded Iran in 1980. The war led to the killing of over a million, millions of injured, and an economic loss for both sides of one trillion dollars!
The west and the US were excluded from Iran at this point. The American Embassy employees were taken hostage for 444 days, and the U.S. was humiliated. Next the U.S. and Europeans backed Saddam for a full invasion and occupation of Iran. The Iranians, however, somehow miraculously swept the Iraqis out of Iran’s western frontiers and survived an imposed war eight years; although many, in retrospect, concluded that Iran should have accepted a favorable peace offer made by the Arabs after two years. Others think it lasted because of provocative Ayatollah Khomeini’s statement of exporting the Islamic revolution to the majority Shiite Iraq. The latter had lived in exile and under restriction in Iraq for fifteen years and felt justified in exerting pressure against Saddam. Some believe elements in the Iranian regime had wanted to keep the war "hot" in order to consolidate its power.
Q-How do the Iranians feel today about Russia? It looks like Russia seeks a new ally in Iran?
Dr. Rahni:
The Russians and the British have played many, [mostly conniving] roles in Iranian affairs for the past 200 years. In fact, Iran was never colonized by either of them, and only partially occupied for brief periods during the World Wars. On the other hand, the historical role of the Dutch, the Belgians, the Germans, the French and even the Americans before World War I was more benign. The communist U.S.S.R. had wanted to annex a considerable part of northwestern Iran, as this had actualized by the Russian Czars in two unilaterally imposed treaties of more than 150 years ago, when most of current Central Asia and the Caucuses were dismembered from Iran and annexed by Russia. Iran, for the past two hundred years used dual or multi-lateral alliances with the Russians and the British and others until Word War II. In fact, the peoples of these regions on both sides of the Caspian Sea have mush more cultural and historical commonality with Iran than they do with Russia. To sum it up, there is an intrinsic level of mistrust against Russian intentions in Iran, although the two nations share an immense amount of historical and cultural elements, especially with the southern Russian republics. A linguist had once speculated that up to one-fifth of the Russian vocabulary had Persian roots as well!
Q- Is there still animosity against Britain, for having "colonized" or meddled in Iran during last centuries?
Dr. Rahni:
There is an old saying in Iran that everyone uses when something goes wrong in the country. "Kar, Kare inglis-hast," which translates, "Gone wrong? It is the English’s doing." The same sentiment is prevalent among the former British colonies of India and Pakistan as well as Arab countries, many successors to the dismembered Ottoman Empire by the 1921 British mandate. The Iranians attribute this to the English and not necessarily to the British (a term which includes Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.) "Divide and conquer" rule, is strongly attributed to the English in the region. However, the Iran-British relationship is a love-hate relationship in that while the people admire the technological advances, British civility in its society, their calmness and reserve, but have never forgotten the malicious, ill-conceived, and deliberate English policies of intervention in other nations, Iran included, in the name of regional security and stability for self-interest.
Some even wish that Iran had been fully colonized like India, because this would have truly awakened the Iranian conscience to stronger stride for independence and self-Reliance, for reformation and modernization. The region has become more and more unstable, thanks to external hegemonic interventions, and repressive conservative internal forces, which exploit outside meddling as a means of quenching any sustainable level of socio-cultural, political, religious and economic reforms. The last "rapture" the region of Iran needs is another military intervention, as currently contemplated by the U.S. policies. As President Carter has repeatedly stated, the policies of the current U.S. administration, somewhat supported by the English government, have not worked, but instead, have tarnished U.S. stature among all the allies in Europe and the world. Less than 30% of Americans give a cautious, conditional temporary OK to the continuation of war in Iraq, while hoping direly for an expeditious way of saving "face" and getting out. The region, in the long run, can live with several regional powers, Israel, Iraq, and Iran, as long as their sovereignty is not denied, and the aspirations of their peoples preserved.
As to Israel, the Iranians as a nation, notwithstanding the infrequent provocative statements by a few in leadership roles, have NO quarrel with either Jews or the Israelis; if anything they have had historical and fundamentally cultural ties with the Jews.In fact, Iran currently has the third highest number of Jews, after the U.S. and Israel, and even those hundred thousand Iranian Jews who left Iran for Israel or the U.S. after 1979 still have strong cultural ties to Iran. They observe the Persian cultural way of life and hold celebrations like Norouz, the Persian new-year close to their hearts!
In addition to Jews, there are still several other religious minorities including Zoroastrians, Armenian and Assyrian Christians of several hundred thousands, all recognized by the Iranian constitution, which assigns at least one seat in the Parliament to each of them. The Bahai’s, not officially recognized by the government in Iran or the constitution, and persecuted harshly at times, are quasi-tolerated. Iran, against all internal odds and despite numerous external predicaments, will again achieve its deserved stature in the region and the world as it has persevered through the past several millennia from various invasions.
Q-And my last question deals with your perspectives on the aspiration and status of Iranians abroad especially those in the U.S.?
Dr. Rahni:
There are three million Iranians living abroad who have mostly emigrated after 1979. They are primarily present in central and Western Europe (London, Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Rome and Berlin) as well as a million in North America (Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, Washington, D.C., Boston and San Francisco). After having endured a rather harsh struggle to acclimate through educational achievements and capitals so successfully into the fabrics of their adopted homes, and despite their terms of endearments for some discriminatory practices against them by the government where they are denied of senior positions for which they are qualified, it is unlikely that a considerable number of them will ever return to Iran irrespective of whether or not a more democratic and hospitable government emerges there. In fact, more than half such population are born or raised outside Iran. Notwithstanding, however, the Iranians in Diaspora have been valiantly able to integrate the many aspects of their historical Persian cultures and those acquired in the west. The parents do not any longer persuade their children to become physicians or engineers as they themselves were pushed by their parents back home, but, instead, an increasing cohort are now in law, business, the arts and entertainment, etc. It is envisaged that the Iranian-American community for instance, will witness a blossoming of its ranks joining the political endeavors in the U.S. as evidenced by ever increasing presence in community and political driven projects. A number of this young, vibrant, highly educated, law abiding and financially affluent community members-that its contributions toward the U.S. annual gross domestic products (GDP) is estimated at several hundred billion dollars- aspires to be actively engaged gratis in an aspect of moving the society forward. Such activities encompass from the urgent needs of the community itself, to reaching out to the broader American or global society at-large. There is also an increasing participation subject to laws, of reaching out to the NGOs and educational institutions and the health systems back in Iran.
Moreover, it is realistic to expect from the Iranian-Americans a number of congressmen and senators as well as a higher than currently present members of the government senior executives emerge including cabinet members in U.S. in the next decade or so. The inauguration and growth of the multitude of non-for-profit organizations and institutions and the presence of thousands of American and Canadian professors and scholars of Iranian heritage will facilitate the process of achieving the above objectives. The Iranian Zoroastrians have, for fear of persecutions, emigrated in two mass exoduses to Gujarat and Mumbai on the western coast of India in the past fifteen hundred years. As an ethno-religious, highly educated and affluent minority of less than one hundred thousand there, they are regarded as Parsi aka Persians with esteemed respect and admirations by the one billion Indians; nonetheless, Yazd in Iran remains their most sacred pilgrimage site. They still preserve many aspects of their Persian heritage and pass it on to subsequent generations. In fact, the less than fifty thousand Zoroastrians in Iran are revered by the broader Iranian Moslems due to their honesty, work ethics, and their stewardship of pre-Islamic heritage. The Iranian American community or the Iranians in Diaspora will undoubtedly emulate their Zoroastrian Parsi brethrens.
To sum it up, one might surmise that the members of the Iranian-American Community seem to be living less hypocritical, more forthright with themselves and the broader society, healthier and more at peace and ease than their compatriots back home. And as to the U.S. and is role worldwide, the Americans are resilient and fair-minded people, whereby they effectively exploit the tinkering processes built into the political system to ensure that their grassroots objectives coincide with those of others’ worldwide leading to an ultimate equitable level of peace and prosperity for humanity. It is anticipated that the fully acclimated Iranian-Americans will play a vital role for bridging the east and the west together.
Q-I thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and wish you and your Community all the best.
Dr. Rahni:
You are welcome; I thank you for having provided the opportunity.
About the interviewer: Johanna Sterbin, Esq. is a Human/Women’s Rights activist and Iranologist, well regarded through the various U.N. Agencies and NGOs. She practices law and mediation/conflict resolution, and teaches college mathematics in New York.