A Look at Dr. Shervin Vakili's Article on Cyrus

A Look at Dr. Shervin Vakili's Article on Cyrus in Mehrnameh, Dey 1395

I have divided my discussion in this critique into 6 general axes: 1. One of the key problems with the article by the scholarly friend, Dr. Shervin Vakili, is that it revolves around the duality of "lovers" and "enemies" of Cyrus, whereas in our society there is a far greater diversity that transcends such binary constructions, and there is no need to speak in such a primitive manner within the context of complex theories.

2. The second important point is the esteemed author's strong insistence on stating that his "method" is "scientific" and that he strives for an objective presentation of Cyrus—since science entails objectivity. Yet the question here is: in what age do we live? Is it the ancient age? Is it the age of religion? Is it the age of science? Is it the age of technology? What age is it that we inhabit, and what is the connection of this contemporaneity to our understanding? Merely saying that all opponents are postmodernists or petty Marxists, and so on, does not emerge from within the discourse of the discipline of history. In other words, we are not in the age of science but in the age of technique, and the meaning of this statement is not that science is unimportant, but rather that Science with a capital S has been reduced to one narrative among other narratives. Just as we are not in the age of myth, nor in the age of demonstration, nor in the age of religion... but not being in the age of religion does not mean the destruction of religion, but rather the transformation of Religion with a capital R into smaller religious narratives. In other words, in the age of technology, Dr. Vakili speaks to us using the parameters of the scientific age, and from within that, speaks of Cyrus as a "fact as it actually happened" in the real world. And speaking in this manner is not scientific, but rather storytelling in a children's theater for the amusement of infants!

3. The third point is the issue of the "importance" or relevance of Cyrus for the identity of Iran today. To say that the history of pre-Islamic Iran is important in the formation of Iranian identity is one discussion, but to say that Cyrus is our father is another discussion entirely. In other words, the author of the article initially states that his effort is to look at Cyrus within the scientific discipline of history and in the context of complex systems theories, but then suddenly makes a "Herculean leap" and from nearly three thousand years ago arrives at Aban 7, 1395 and the binary construction of lovers of Iran and enemies of Iran!

4. If history were to be considered as a science, it would have been more fitting to conduct a comparative study among the three religious cultures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and then we would clearly see the rise of Paganism or pre-Abrahamic heresies in the encounter with modernity across all three civilizational, cultural, and religious spheres, and subsequently in the European, Iranian, Arab, Turkish, and even Chinese nation-states. To put it more precisely, the analysis of Aban 7, 1395 has nothing to do with Cyrus the Great, who was the founder of the Achaemenid world empire and one of the most important pillars of ancient Iran; rather, this is a kind of paganistic identity construction that must be discussed in the context of the here and now, and has nothing to do with the discovery of two planets 2,750 years ago.

5. Regarding science; if Dr. Vakili is concerned with Cyrus as a model of governance in the ancient age and in the course of the history of human evolution—which is, by general consensus, established for the vast majority of Iranians—he should address his scientific confrontation not within Iran, but at the scientific level in the field of ancient studies globally, with European or American historians who have often "Semitized" Cyrus—that is, turned him into a Jewish figure and refer to him as Cyrus—and present his robust arguments in the common scientific languages, so that we do not witness such negligence by Hebrew-centric historians in the books on the history of religions.

6. Dr. Vakili and essentially the Mehregan circle seek to create