Christina Patterson, a columnist with The Independent, writes an article about Iran:

The fact is that Islam was an Arab import to a culture whose central religion – Zoroastrianism – was non-proselytising and based around a transcendent, non-personal, non-patriarchal God. It was Shah Abbas (the flowerings of whose civilisation are on display at the British Museum) who imposed Shiism on a then Sunni country. As with all Iran’s leaders, his religious refinements were for political ends.

This is silly. Christianity was ‘imported’ into Europe, but it would be a bit stupid to say something called ‘Christianity’ had nothing do with how Europeans thought and acted for hundreds of years. A dozen other ideas, beliefs, religions, etc can be said to have been ‘exported’ or ‘imported’ around the world — this comes with conquest, empires, and the movement of people. I don’t see anything remarkable about this.

There is too much available in print and on the web about the relationship between ‘Islam’ and ‘Iran’. Even someone regarded as ‘anti-Islam’ has noted this relationship. I will only note that a lot of scholars (of whatever subject and whatever theological or sectarian persuasion) we talk about today, whether they are ‘orthodox’ like Al-Ghazali or ‘heterodox’ like Ibn Sina, were of Iranian origin.

Patterson should have stuck to attacking the political aspects of the contemporary Iranian state (the ugly, oppressive, mixing of religion and state), rather than trying to make some sort of profound historical-cultural argument which makes no sense. (And why is Patterson anymore a judge of ‘piety’ than the Iranian state?)

She ends her article with a quote from Jalaluddin Rumi. Maybe Patterson is too lazy to check her sources, but Rumi was, and is regarded as, an orthodox Sunni. (I will side step the arguments between Iranians and Turks to claim Rumi’s legacy!)