The Sciences of the Persians

Where are the sciences of the Persians that 'Umar ordered to be wiped out at the time of the conquest ? --Ibn Khaldun

Among the Persians the intellectual sciences played a large and important role since the Persian dynasties were powerful and rules without interruption. The intellectual sciences are said to have come to the Greeks from the Persians, when Alexander killed Darius and gained control of the Achaemanid empire. At that time he appropriated the books and the sciences of the Persians.
However, when the Muslims conquered Persia and came upon an indescribably large number of books and scientific papers,

Sa'd ibn-i-Abi Waqqass wrote to 'Umar bin al-Khattab, asking him for permission to take them and distribute them as booty among the Muslims. On that occasion, 'Umar wrote him: "Throw them into the water. If what they contain is right guidance, God has given us better guidance. If it is error, God has protected us against it, Thus, the (Muslims) threw them into the water or into the fire, and the sciences of the Persians were lost and did not reach us.[1]

Emphasis is mine.


  [1]  Al-Moghadameh, Ibn Khaldun, Translated from Arabic by Franz Rosenthal, Edited by N. J. Dawood, Princeton University Press, 1967, ISBN 0691099464, p 373.

Cambyses in Egypt, کمبوجیه (کامبیز) در مصر

"The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cambyses, beloved of [the goddess] Wajet,                    شاه مصر بالا و مصر پایین ،     «کمبوجیه»      دوست داشته شدۀ الهه واژت ،
sovereign of [the town of] Imet, great, Eye of the Sun, sovereign of the Sky,                                                   خدایگان شهر ایمت ، بزرگ ، چشم خورشید ، خدایگان آسمان 
mistress of gods to whom is given life as to the Sun.                                                                                             کنیز خدایان ، که به او زندگی داده شده ، همانگونه که به خورشید



ستایش از کامبیز ، پسر ، کوروش ، پادشاه هخامنشی از نقش رسمی مهر فرعون های مصر

Pierre Briant, "From Cyrus to Alexander", pp 57, Histoire l'Empire Perse, Translated by Peter T Daniels, Library Artheme Fayard (Paris) copyright 1996,
Translation copyright 2002, Eisenbrauns


All rights reserved,


ISBN 1-575060310

Goethe on Iran - گوته درباره ایران

زمانی که ما به مردمی صلح طلب و متمدن ، پارس ها ، می نگریم ، باید (چون شعرهای آن ها بوده که انگیزه این کتاب را فراهم کرده) به کهن ترین زمان ها برگردیم تا بتوانیم وضع آن ها را در زمان های اخیر درک کنیم همیشه به نظر یک تاریخدان این شگفت انگیز می نماید که هرچند بارکه یک کشور مورد حمله ، اشغال و حتی نابودی از طرف دشمنانش قرار بگیرد همواره یک هسته مرکزی ملی در درون شخصیتش حفظ شده است که در مدت زمان کوتاهی پس از نابودی و اشغالش دوباره خودش را نشان می دهد و ما میتوانیم دوباره یک پدیده آشنای درازمدت و باستانی را ببینیم. گوته

When we now turn our attention to a peaceful, civilized people, the Persians, we must - since it was actually their poetry that inspired this work - go back to the earliest period to be able to understand more recent times. It will always seem strange to the historian that no matter how many times a country has been conquered and subjugated and even destroyed by enemies, there is always a certain national core preserved in its character and before you know it, there re-emerges a long familiar native phenomenon. -- Goethe, Noten and Abhandlungen zu besserem Verstandnis

محمد مصدق

Plutarch talks about Artaxerxes II, پلوتارک از اردشیر دوم می گوید

از کتاب پارسیان باستان نوشته جوزف فرانهوفر برگردان به انگلیسی از آلمانی از عزیزه آزادی

Ancient Persia, Joseph Wiesehofer, I.B. Tauris, (2001) page 39.

پلوتارک در زندگینامه ای که از اردشیر دوم پادشاه هخامنشی نوشته مینویسد

این داستان نیز در پارس روی داد. گفته شده که یک پارسی بنام سینات به شاه اردشیر دوم در مکانی بسیار دور تر از بارگاه شاه برخورد کرد. او از این برخورد بسیار شرمنده شد و از ترس قانون و به خاطر احترام به شاه بسیار نگران گشت چون در آن لحظه نمیدانست چه کند چرا که او هدیه و پیشکشی در خور شاه نداشت و نمیخواست از پارسیان دیگر کمتر باشد و آبرویش پیش دیگران بریزد. او آغاز به دویدن کرد و تا آنجایی که میتوانست به تندی خود را به رودی در نزدیکی آنجا که نامش کوروش بود رساند. سپس خم شد و با دو دست خود از آب رودخانه برداشت و رو به شاه کرده گفت: « شاه اردشیر ، فرمانروایی تو جاودان باد ، در این آن ، من تو را گرامی می دارم به بهترین توانم ، با آب رودخانه کوروش ، من گرامیداشت خودم را به تو نشان میدهم ، پس بدون یک پیشکش گران از پیش من برو؛ اما زمانی که به اردوی خود رسیدی من تو را با بهترین چیزی که در خانه خود دارم گرامی خواهم داشت و من البته به هیچ روی از کسان دیگری که تو را با پیشکش های خود گرامی داشته اند کمتر نخواهم بود» زمانی که پادشاه به اردوگاه خود میرسد برای آن پارسی یک جامه پارسی ، یک جام زرین ، و هزار دریک می فرستد و به پیک میگوید که به آن پارسی این پیام را برساند «پادشاه میخواهد که تو از داشتن این جام زرین بهره مند شوی و از داشتن این خشنود گردی ، چرا که تو پادشاه را با این کار خود که نخواستی شاه بدون پیشکش و دست تهی برگردد ، خشنود کردی و به پادشاه بهترین چیزی که در آن لحظه در توانت بود
پیشکش کردی. این خواست پادشاه هست که تو با این جام زرین از همان آب که به پادشاه پیشکش کردی برداری و بنوشی»ی

Isa 41:2-4

Thus says Yahweh to his anointed, Cyrus whom he has taken by his right hand to subdue nations before him and strip the loins of kings, to force gateways before him that their gates be closed no more:

پس یهوه به کوروش ، برگزیده اش که او را با دست راست خود برانگیخته بود تا بر ملت ها برتری یابد ، و کمر شاهان را بشکند و دروازه ها را در پیش او بگشاید تا هیچ دری بروی او بسته نباشد گفت

I will go before you the leveling their heights. I will shatter the bronze gateways, smash iron bars. I will give you the hidden treasures, the secret hoards, that you may know that I am Yahweh.

من پیشاپیش تو میروم و بلندی های آن ها را هموار میکنم ، من دروازه های برنجی آن ها را در هم میشکنم ، من میله های آهنین را خرد می کنم. من به تو گنجینه های پنهان را نشان می دهم تا بدانی و باور کنی که من یهوه هستم

My Freedom, Your Freedom, Our Freedom

Who could argue against Freedom? It is such a beautiful concept and every one wants more of it.
That's usually where the problem starts to show itself.

People have discussed this in various contexts, mostly economic and social stuff.

I like to make some remarks about what it means in societies where a certain or several religions are being devoutly practiced to various degrees.

Consider Iran, always a religious country since thousands of years ago. In the pre-Islamic revolutionary times, I hear that, people were relatively free. A large fraction of people were practicing religion. A quite considerable fraction were not. The society especially in Tehran, was quite similar to European cities.

The Revolution was mostly about democracy and social justice, and political independence from west. As far as you can study the currents of the day and the slogans and speeches, no body was crying loud about the signs of religious depravity. Well there were some but it wasn't the main theme of the revolution.

So the question is, What was the opinion of Iranians about how much Islamic they want their society to be ?

well, we don't know, we know that a significant fraction of people truly did not like the overt exhibition of un-islamic behavior. Now how significant I do not know, but it definitely was and still is significant.

Here a question of freedom naturally arises. The question is to achieve a semi-ideal situation what needs to be done ?

We have two groups inside the society. One group is obviously bothered by a woman walking around in her mini-skirt, the other group is obviously bothered by having to wear the islamic hejab all the time. One group is bothered by having bars and night clubs, the other group wouldn't mind having a couple of them around.

I am talking about genuine grievances. I can understand that a religious person would see a rising tide of anti-religious behavior as an assault on his way of life.
I can also understand that imposing religious life style on a person who doesn't believe in it, would most certainly cause undue discomfort.

Obviously we can't solve this problem by totally ignoring one group to the advantage of another. It's unjust, all members of a humane society are entitled to pursue their own way of life, as long as it does not cause harm and injury to another.

Each group uses Freedom as an argument in its righteousness. Sure, you would say, the person who doesn't believe that a certain behavior is wrong, and that behavior is not harming himself or herself or any one else, should be free to engage in that behavior. On the other hands, the other group claims to be offended and harmed by the behavior of the former group.

So what needs to be done ?

I have thought about this conundrum. The best solution I can think of, is to bring the two group together, and make them understand that both have to give up something.

The religious side can no longer ignore the basic humane freedoms. The non-religuous side can not ignore that certain behaviors would irritate the religious. Both have to give up some of what they want.

How much they should give up can only be resolved if the two groups, sit together and discuss, and negotiate.

A social contract would surely emerge, It could be something pretty innocuous that would not offend and inflame the average tendencies of either group, and allow each one to have a modicum of basic freedoms to which their believes is considered rational, normal and acceptable by vast majority of reasonable people.

The most important thing is that people's reasonable sensitivities should be respected to within rational and reasonable norms and extents. People's beliefs and feelings should never be exploited to amass power, authority and/or wealth.

Freedom is precious, but so is justice. We can find a balance. We have to. for the sake of the future generations.

تحول «نافرجام» موسيقي ايران زمين

اين عکس فرضيه بنده رو توضيح ميدهد که اگر سازهاي موسيقي ايران بيشتر رشد و توسعه پيدا ميکردند به سازهايي شبيه همتاهاي باختري خود تبديل ميشدند . به ويژه شکل ابتدايي تمام سازهاي يک ارکستر سمفوني در تمدن هاي خاور نزديک وجود داشته پرسش من اين هست چرا کسي به فکر تنظيم آهنگ براي ۳۰ کمانچه يا بيشتر نيافتاد ؟ يا کسي به اين فکر نيافتاد که با بيشتر از دو چکش و بکاربردن هر ده انگشت براي نواختن آنها سنتور آهنگ هاي بيشتر و پر محتوا تري را مي تواند بنوازد؟
توضيح : نگارنده این جمله ها کارشناس موسیقی نیست این ها تنها برآمده از کنجکاوي نگارنده هست

The Importance of Language

There are certain concepts that are enormously and startlingly important, but no one seems to pay attention.
One of those things is language. And by language I don't mean french or dutch, although human natural languages can be included but what I mean when I say language is any arrangement of other primitive concepts that would enable you to communicate another concept and draw conclusions.

For example, numbers, difference civilizations adopted different ways to express numbers.
But only one of these "languages" prove to be powerful enough to meet the needs of humanity.

Sure you can express numbers by Roman Numerals, or by Indian Numerals, Let's consider Roman Numerals, since, we have been told Romans had such a great "empire".

Try to multiply two Roman numerals, say MCMIIX, MMCXV, , the rules of a the game is you can not use any thing but Roman numerals to carry out the calculation.

It's very difficult to carry out this task.

Now let's do the same thing using Indian Numerals, (Notice, there is no such a thing as Arabic Numerals, Indians came up with it, and Iranians communicated it and expanded on it)

The rules are straight forward, and there are even ways to do speed calculations.

Another example, find the root of a quadratic equation, two languages, Algorithmic, and Algebraic. Needless to say, Algebraic formula is much more powerful, its power is revealed when you consider how you can simplify it, how you can use it to find sum and product of the roots.

While the Algebraic language is more powerful in expressing simple functional dependencies, there are other areas that it reveals its limitations. Suppose you want to explain the intricacies of chaotic systems, cellular automata, game of life or things of that nature. The Algebraic language falls short and the Algorithmic language shows its strength and flexibility.

Is there another language there ready to be discovered ? We look at the nature around us, and we see things, and we understand its beauty and universality but we can't find, express or use the universal principle behind them. Machine vision provides examples, so does the field of human natural languages.

There might be a new language needed to describe non-locality, the entire mathematics is based on the principle of locality. That what happens here and now, only depends on what is happening at that point or in some point in the past and some far place.

Do we need a new language to describe things that happen simultaneously and quite possibly affect each other at the same time ?

Some of our most difficult problems of science and technology could be simply hard to solve, because we are using an incorrect language to describe or to approach them. Just like we are trying to multiply two numbers that are described with Roman Numerals, rather than properly by Indian-Iranian numerals.

Mathematics is described by symbols, and by relations between those symbols. Is this the right language for every thing ? Is it possible to describe Mathematics by a totally different language ?
Could that language accelerate understanding and reasoning, concluding and producing new concepts, faster, easier and deeper ?

How about organization of ideas ? Is there a new language that allows you to describe the "totality of this situation" without attempting to look at parts to combine and get the "whole" ?

به ایرانیان زار وگریان شدم

وبلاگ های ایرانیان را که می خوانی دلت ریش ریش میشود. یک ژرفایی دارد اندوه انگیز.

دل من پر از خون شد و روی زرد
دهن خشک و لبها شده لاژورد

آنها که این سوی آب هستند . وبلاگ هایشان پر از اندوه دوری از میهن مادری هست و خاطره هایشان از آن میهن و مقایسه ها یشان میان این جا و آن جا و می نالند از این که میهن شان می تواند به این جا برسد و نمی رسد

کز نیستان تا مرا ببریده اند
از نفیرم مرد و زن نالیده اند

و آنهایی که در میهن خود نشسته اند
همه سرگردانند و همه نالان. مشتی هستند در آب فتاده ، هر یکی بر دیگری آویخته تا از پایین کشیدن او خود را به کرانه رهایی برساند
و نمیرسد چون کس دیگری نیز بر او می آویزد

زندگی شان به بیهودگی میگذرد و این را می بینند و درمی یابند و از این دانستن می سوزند و با این می سازند. از دورویی و از دروغ به ستوه آمده اند و برخی از آنها برای آنکه نانی بخورند جز دروغ و دورویی راهی برای خود نمی یابند و به آن تن در داده اند و از این هم در در رنجند

پیشرفت های دیگران را که می بینند در درون می سوزند و پسرفت های جامعه خود را که می بینند نمک به زخمهایشان پاشیده میشود
همه یک چیز را می خواهند همه یک آهنگ میخوانند ، همه یک مقصد دارند و با این همه از همکاری و هم اندیشی ناتوانند

ترس ، دودلی ، ناچاری ، بی چیزی ، بی اعتمادی ، نابکاری ، پستی ، بیهودگی ، پوچی همه را گرفته و همه را می رنجاند
مینای همه واژه ها دگر شده - دانشجو ، دانشمند ، سیاستمدار ، کارگردان ، کارگر ، اوباش ، اراذل ، مذهب ، دین ، فداکاری ، دلیری ، سادگی ، زرنگی ، دارایی ، نداری ، ندانم کاری ، مهارت ، تاریخ ، جغرافیا

بد ، خوب شده ، خوب بد همه چیز واژگون شده و وارونه

ستم دیده ، ستم کار شده و ستم کار ستم دیده

یا ناامید از فردا هستند یا امیدوار به دیروز . یا دلخوش از گذشته ، یا هراسان از آینده

به کجا چنین شتابان ؟

ترسم نرسی به کعبه ای ایرانی

تو پری بودی و پردیس برین جایت بود
پس چه کسی آوردت به این خراب آباد ؟