- Article Written By Arvin Niknia, Independent Author
my previous article, I wrote about the Arab world and the Khalifa regime, which ended after the Mongols conquered the Arab world and killed the Khalifa in Baghdad. Unlike the Bedouins, the Mongols did not come with the ideology of ” Islam”; therefore, they were dissolved into civilizations. Unlike Bedouins, they learned Persian and Dari and extended Persian culture to India, the ” Taj Mahal.” Unlike Bedouins, they did not leave behind a language, culture, or ideology.
As I mentioned before, the Abbasids spread Sunni Islam, and in Iran, Sunni Islam was replaced by Shia by the Turkish brotherhood, the Safavids. The Safavids invited Shiitake priests from south Lebanon,” Jabal Amil,” who spread Shia Islam in Iran and Iraq. The clergy in Iran today are descendants of the Lebanese race. They learned the Persian language and chose Persian cities as surnames. In this way, they could identify each other, and they chose to marry each other. An example is Ali al-Sistani in Iraq and Ali Khamenei in Iran. They created major challenges for the modernity programs and nationalism of the nation-states.
In contrast to the Arab world, where the Khalifa s authority was challenged, in the Christian world, the Pope’s influence remained strong due to the Mongols not reaching Italy. Consequently, it was only in 1648, with the “Peace of Westphalia,” that Europeans could break free from the Pope’s power. This shift in power was significant, as Pope Alexander V had previously divided the world into East and West as early as 1493. This distinction is crucial because it was the Pope who coined the term “West” to differentiate it from the Eastern Muslim world. This creation of identity was novel, as neither the Roman Empire nor the Greeks had identified themselves as Europeans; the Greeks referred to themselves as “Hellas” or “Hellada,” and those who did not speak Greek were labeled as “barbarians.”
Is Volodymyr Zelenskyj (1978–) a Hero?
The term “hero” is not a recent addition to our vocabulary; it has been employed across various contexts. Nations often honor fallen soldiers in war by labeling them as heroes, but does this truly define heroism? Ideologies also attribute hero status to those who have passed away. For instance, within the Shiite doctrine, individuals who lose their lives due to religious beliefs are deemed martyrs or “heroes.”
In Shia Islamic propaganda, Imam Ali and his descendants are Shia Muslims who were treated unfairly “Ghadir Khumm.” As said before, Ali was neither Shia nor Sunni but Muslim. His son, Husayn ibn Ali’s martyrdom at Karbala in Iraq in 680 was not because of justice or Shia Islam but because of power. In my opinion, none of these people can be called heroes because they fought for a cause—their cause. None of them fought for a better world or freedom.
The soldiers who lose their lives in a battle lose their lives for ideology and politics. They are not fighting for a better world. I can compare Volodymyr Zelenskyj with the fictional Spanish hero El Cid (1043–999). He was paid to fight the Islamic invasion, and he defeated the Muslim army in “Al-Andalu.” Europe knows very well that it is better and cheaper for Europe to weaken Russia in Ukraine.
On the flip side, I am inclined to regard political opponents of authoritarian regimes who champion freedom as heroes. Erwin Rommel (1891–1944) gained such widespread admiration that even Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) grew wary of his popularity. While hailed as a hero by the German people, Rommel chose to dissociate himself from materialism and false ideologies. Along with several other generals, he resolved to overthrow Hitler. I do not view him as a hero because he served the dictatorship but rather because he sacrificed his life in pursuit of reason and the fight against tyranny.
