Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia/Archive 1

Don't you bother wikipedia

Persia isn't Afghanistan they didn't even speak the same language at time. Absaloute rubbish thinking don't do it I am Middle Eastern I would know guys

lol You do not even know how to transliterate your name correctly. That much about you an "Persia" Tājik 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

False Report

Ok guys, I finally took up the time to investigage this. It turns out the reference given "p.2778-9" has nothing to do with the subject. The subject of that page is "electoral council" and has nothign to do with persians.

What I do have read here and there on the conquest of Fars, Tabaristan, Khuzistan, Nihawand, Ahwaz and other territoria and cities - then Umar, radiallahu 'anhu, in fact was gentile with the new Muslims, preferred them to others and acted generously with the converted noble men of Persia.

So either the person who made the claim misunderstood some passage, or never bothered looking it up and simply relied on third party sources. Or maybe, they are just lying. If what they report is true, then they should refer to the Arabic text and edition, page-number etc. They should also read more about al-Tabari's sources, for example Sayf b. 'Umar, al-Waqidi, Abu Mikhnaf and others; all of them are weak, or liars. So whatever the case, what they say should be checked first from the text itself, then they should consider the context too.

So due to this fault I am taking out the blabber about racism on part of Arabs. There seems to be no evidence with regards to that. Unless anyone here can show me the text from 1st party sources, then there is no reason to believe such things and shouldn't be put in an encyclopedia. --Khawaja 17:37:39, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

Im reverting back. You cannot claim that western sources are "weak" and "liars". Zora provided several sources supporting what is written. So did I. The best you can do is add any opposing sources to the text. Not delete anything. Your post obviously demonstartes you are Sunni, and a supporter of Umar. But you are not the only person who knows Arabic here. There is specific mention of Arab cruelty against mawali in:

1. Al`Allamah Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-'anwar, vol. 9, chap. 124.
2. Shaykh 'Abbas al-Qummi, Safinat al-Bihar, (under wall), c.f. al-Kay.
3. al-Khutat by al-Maqrizi. e.g. "See that not a single person in Iran speaks Arabic, and whosoever is found speaking Arabic kill him".
4. Ibn an-Naqqash, Fatwa concerning the condition of the dhimmis, vol. 18, pp. 513-514, trans. Belin, Journal Asiatique, Vol. 18 (1851) and Vol. 19 (1852); in B. Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, pp. 184-185
5. Abd al-Rahman al-Bazzaz, "Islam and Arab Nationalism", Arab Nationalism: An Anthology, ed. S.G. Haim, pp. 176-177
6. ...

--Zereshk 23:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Weak (if not false) Reports

It is very obvious that the user "Zereshk" has no clue to the sciences of historic documentation and the methods behind it's verification and such. Yes, Tabari is one of the most respected of early Islamic historian but when reporting reports, some scholars report everything that is heard even though that particular report might be weak -- now this is assuming Tabari even reported this. This doesn't mean the entire book is weak but just merely a few reports in his history collection that is weak due due to it being falling short of the historic analaysis that it goes through. The science is known as "Jarh wa Tadeel" in arabic to muslims scientists/scholars.

And finally, due to the fact that it is a weak, if not fabricated report, it makes it contraversial and shouldn't be inserted in an "encyclopedia" due to the fact it doesn't serve any benefit and the information could be wrong. An encyclopedia's job is to give un-biased factual confirmed knowledge. Not some random sayings. You goto message boards for that. Not to an encyclopedia because that ruins it's reputation. So I request the blabber about Muslims not wanting to see persians become muslim should be removed.

As for the other user claiming racism on part of Arabs under the headline "Reluctance to let dhimmis convert" and saying "as if there is no doubts of such reports" at all and just slamming the sciences of historic analysis all together. My question is, if I make something up right now about the history of french people, how would you know it's authentic. The user does exactly the same about Arabs as if "there is no doubt" and never quotes anything but simply gives obsecure and strange incidents. I ask him to back up his claims with sufficient evidence and not to spread falsehood on this website. Keep it professional please. This is not a message board. --- Khawaja--

I didn't say the book doesn't exist. It does and the quote is mentioned in it but it is quoted from at-Tabari and the report is very weak, perhaps fabricated. - Khawaja

1. If Tabari is "fabricated" as u say, then we have to start doubting the entire history of Islam, because Tabari is among the most respected of the early Islamic historians.
2. The text is not a quote. Frye actually says this in his book.
3. Why delete the text when the text gives reference to Frye? I didnt say it. You didnt say it. Frye did. It is up to the reader to believe Frye's claim or not. That's why we have to give references for controversial sentences.--Zereshk 30 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)

I think that what you are pushing for is in fact "Jarh wa La ta'deel", because you are basically accusing Frye of reporting something that Tabari did not. That is a pretty big accusation. You are accusing a former Aga Khan Harvard Chair of lying. That's something you better have some damn good support for, other than your personal hunch. I repeat, the actual sentence is in the book, and Frye provides References to it. Furthermore, what you call "weak" (i.e. Frye's reporting) has been described as "the definitive history of Persia" by professional reviewers.

In fact, I would call this "Jarh wa Tahmeel". --Zereshk 1 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

Desire

You're really going to have to explain how you know the "desires" of men from 1.300 years ago. If You can cite a source for these "Desires" then I may beleive it's not just a POV Push.

Im taking down the POV tag. It's been a while since the tag has been left up, with no discussion. I also added text that answers the original objections.--Zereshk 21:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Sections

Separated article into sections. SouthernComfort 10:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Refrences

Someone claimed that Frye's work did not exist and were uncertain. The book is quite cheap. Bye it and read it for God's sake, b4 making ignorant statements.

And there are other sources too:

1. Tabari. Series I. p2778-9.
2. "Mohammedanische Studien" Goldziher. Vol 2 p138-9.
3. "Ansab al Ashraf" or "Fotooh al Buldan" by Baladhuri. P417.
4. Tabari. Series II p1207.
5. "Tarikh e Sistan" p82.
6. "Tarikh e Qum" p254-6.

--Zereshk 30 June 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Reluctance to let dhimmis convert

It is indeed true that in the very early history of Islam, conversion was not encouraged. The Frye book is an older source, and perhaps not the best, but there is ample evidence from later scholars, like Crone, Berkey, and Hawting, supporting the contention. The Arabs were settled in garrison towns, like Basra and Kufa, to keep them from contact with the newly conquered peoples. Any dhimmi who wished to convert was required to find an Arab patron, who would adopt him into his tribe as a client. This erased any former standing the client had, and made him into a extremely junior participant in the tribe's hierarchy. It was easier for slaves and wives/concubines to convert, but they were already in a position of subjection.

Why? There is a fair bit of evidence that many of the early Muslims believed that Muhammad was the messenger to the Arabs, who were the best of men. The older faiths were sufficient for salvation, and appropriate for those lesser beings, the dhimmis. The jizya tax paid by dhimmis was one of the main resources of the government, and was threatened by conversions. There are records of whole communities wanting to convert, and being refused.

Zereshk is perhaps wrong in thinking that this was directed against Persians. It was a general policy in every territory outside Arabia. Zora 30 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)

---

1. The page is about what was directed against Persians, not anybody else. The page is about The Conquest of Iran, not The Conquest of Africa or Byzantium.
2. Unfortunately Zora seems to think that any old source is automatically up for dismissal. With that type of thinking, we should throw away Einstein's Relativity, Newtonian Physics, etc since they are quite old. This has been a great handicap for Zora in undertsanding Iran and Islam, since most sources used (e.g. The Nahj ul-Balagheh) were written centuries ago. A new study isn't necessarily correct just because it is new.
3. That there was heavy reluctance by the Arabs to accept Persians as equals in their ranks (both religiously and socially) is indisputable fact. There is no contention to that.--Zereshk 1 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

---

Sigh. Zereshk, I agreed with you, in the main, and differed only a point of emphasis. You think that this policy was directed at Persians; I point out that it was directed against non-Arabs. Persians are non-Arabs, so they qualified for oppression. However -- it was not an anti-Persian policy. To see it as such is to read current antagonisms into the past. It's as if you were to say that the British colonials had special contempt for Persians, when in fact the racists among them would say "It's all wogs past Calais," or just claim that "white" men were better than "brown/red/yellow/black" men. Zora 1 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)

Yes, I know it was directed at non-Persians. But this page is not about Non-Perisans. It's about what was directed at the Persians.--Zereshk 1 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)

User:Khawaja

Khawaja, the issue you are disputing is sourced (i.e. a reference has been provided), and thus there is no need to dispute the neutrality of the article. You are invited to include opposing references in the article if you have additional information. Thanks. SouthernComfort 1 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)

---

How am I suppose to give opposing references to false reports and reference them? For example, If I make up a random report that someone got killed in my city by the name of John. Can you find a opposing report or article that in Toronto, John DIDN'T get killed. No, because articles aren't written on what DIDN'T happen. Similarly, how am I suppose to source and reference on a report that is weak (if not false). Just doesn't make sense. May be I should fabricate that man went to Mars yesterday and you are obliged to give me a referenced report that man didn't. After establishing the report in Tabari is weak (if not false), we shouldn't include it since it paints an inaccurate if not false account of history. Only authentic evidence should be used to explain history. Especially in a encyclopedia for God's sake! - Khawaja

Hullo, Khawaja, you can sign your messages by putting four tildes after them (a tilde is a ~).

The article as it stands is biased towards Iranians rather than Arabs, who are depicted as racists and oppressors (though I must admit that in the early years of the caliphate, there's a good case for this). A number of the Iranian contributors here seem to me to be cherishing hatreds stoked during the Iran-Iraq war. The article needs to be NPOVd.

It's also true that Zereshk and Southern Comfort don't have the historian's view of sources, as both necessary and to be regarded with suspicion. I have clashed with them repeatedly in other articles over their use of sources and their methods of historical argument.

Perhaps then it will make a stronger impression if I say that every academic source I've read makes the point that dhimmis were not encouraged to convert during the first few centuries of Islamic rule.

The non-Arabs were rarely asked or forced to convert; on the whole they were dissuaded. They simply had to pay for the upkeep of those who had defeated them, preferably in a manner which emphasized their twin humiliation of non-Arab ethnicity and unbelief. -- Crone, Slaves on Horses, 1980, p. 54.

By the end of the period, in spite of the initial attempt by the Arabs to keep themselves apart religiously and socially from their subjects, and in spite of the refusal of caliphs and governors to allow the non-Arabs to enjoy the advantages of acceptance of Islam, large numbers of the subject peoples had come to identify themselves as Muslims. -- Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam, 2000, p. 8.

As is well-known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs. -- Berkey, The Formation of Islam, 2003, p. 74.

These are all respected academics, and books published by university presses. All the authors are speaking on the basis of wide reading in Arab chroniclers, not just Tabari. This is probably not part of the history that is taught or emphasized in many Muslim-majority countries, but it seems well-attested to me. Zora 3 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Zora, I suggest that you stop making personal attacks and accusations of bias. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

Ok look, all these things you are quoting to show Arabs are racist are written by people in our times and they don't have any evidence for the "history". How can they know if those things happened or Arabs acted that way back then? Are they 1400 years old to witness this? The only way to know the reality or to know history is by learning it from historians back then who were recording history. This is how history works. In 3000 years from now, no one can make up the history of Japan out of nowhere. They need evidence from people now who are writing it now and perserving it. Obviously, this article is biased, racist, and is purely Iranian propaganda. You can tell by the way Zora talks and see he is just taking things off his chest and has no historic evidence. I ask for those illict comments to be removed to keep this article neutral. --Khawaja 2005-07-03 02:23:51 (UTC)

For one thing, Zora is a she.

Khawaja, you can't just refuse to believe something because it's unpleasant and shocking. I can't give you the cites from Arabic sources because I can't read Arabic -- but all those scholars CAN. They are making those assertions based on extensive reading in sources in many languages -- not just secondary sources in English, French, German, etc., but also primary sources in Arabic. I just counted -- in the 16 page bibliography at the end of Crone's book, there are 58 different Arab authors cited. This is not just relying on Tabari. Zora 3 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)

Khawaja, again, the information in this article is sourced. If you have a problem with that, please provide references from opposing scholars. If you have any doubts as to the authenticity of these sources, please feel free to peruse them for yourself. The library at U of T should have Frye's works. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

SC, please don't remove POV templates without making any attempt at resolution

SC, you've done it to me and now you're doing it to Khawaja -- she puts up the POV template and you remove it. Just like that, blam, because you can. The template is just a sign that there is no consensus, and it is supposed to stay up until the editors reach one. You are making no effort at consensus. Obviously, I don't agree completely with Khawaja, but I do agree with her that the article is biased. Please, let's work towards developing an article that will be less controversial. Zora 3 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)

Zora, an NPOV tag is only warranted if the information in the article is based on opinion or is too speculative. In this case, the information in this article is fully sourced. You know this, and Khawaja refuses to accept the sources. If Khawaja has a problem with the sources, let the editor provide opposing references as I have suggested. Then we can discuss NPOV. What do you say? SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)

SC, you seem to see only factoids, and be blind to the overall impression made by the choice of words, the choice of facts to present, the flow of the argument, etc. The overall impression is anger at Arabs. That can be fixed. It's not just a question of sources, though I hope that Khawaja will look at some of the sources cited. She doesn't have to come up with any "facts" or "sources" to prove that the article is POV ... an article can be POV just from the words used. Zora 3 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

As we have seen, this discussion and racism is based against Arabs upon Zora’s passions only. Accusing me of not believing simply because it’s shocking??? Where as I am not believing because of the single weak report in Tabari and that that makes it unsuitable to be in an unbiased encyclopedia. Go put it in your Iranian encyclopedia. You claim that the issue is so widely known out of nowhere and how there is 16 pages worth of evidence from Arabic historic text? Can you please quote something from the scholars instead of lying upon them? Show me the 16 pages! If such an issue DOES exist, then I don't mind whatsoever for anything to be written about it. Let’s write an entire section on this if it is accurate history. But unfortunately no, the report is just one in Tabari and weak. Fyre only quotes Tabari and that one report. If there were more, he would've quoted more since that’s what he is trying to criticize the Arabs for. Don't put words in people’s mouth and fabricate things. And grow up and don’t remove my tags! --Khawaja 2005-07-03 07:54:00 (UTC)

Khawaja, you're not reading carefully. I said it was a 16 page bibliography. In tiny print. And many languages. I'm not going to type it up and post it for you. The books that I cited should be in your university library, where you can consult them.

I should add another book -- one that I just dug out of the pile -- Arabs and Others in Early Islam, by Suliman Bashear, Darwin Press, 1997. It is very dense and hard reading, because it is almost exclusively quotes from early Arab sources (the author was a Palestinian and had clearly had an extensive Islamic education). You might also like it because the author is saying that from the very beginning of Islam there were two strains of thought re Islam and non-Arabs, one accepting and one rejecting non-Arabs. Bashear gives cites for both. Plus many cites re Arabs and Persians. Zora 3 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

The U of T has one of the most extensive libraries in N. America, and the Toronto central library also has plenty of reference material concerning this subject matter. Khawaja should have no problem verifying this data if s/he has any doubts as to the veracity of this article. If there are any opposing references, s/he should have absolutely no problem in tracking them down considering the wealth of material that is available there and adding them to the article. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 10:07 (UTC)

POV tag

Surena added some extremely POV anti-Arab material. I almost reverted, to get rid of it, but decided on second thought to just add the POV tag. There might be something in what Surena added that could be salvaged, so we shouldn't just throw all of it out without sifting thoroughly. Zora 12:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The additions sound a bit spiced up at times. But there are bits and pieces to be salvaged. I wouldnt keep all of it though, since its tone sounds a bit inflammatory in intention. For example, Umar also burned the Alexandria library, saying the same thing: "if it is with the Quran, we dont need it; if it is against the Quran, we must destroy it"). It wasnt just Persian libraries. Persia was overrun and massacred by Umar's armies (meaning that those events would probably not have happened, were it somebody else instead of Umar). But Surena's additions puts the blame on all "Arabs". Ali was in fact sympathetic to the Persians, and was not happy with the state of affairs of the conquest. Surena's additions can be re-written in a more professional way.

I'll leave the editing of the additions to you, Zora, if you like.--Zereshk 21:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Image

Hi folks! I noticed that the uploaded image notice states that The image published in Iran (early 1960s), titled: Arabs in Iran. No License. Can we have more explanations and information about that? Cheers -- Svest 23:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I think we should ditch it. It has no informational value.--Zereshk 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not about the message it carries. Many WP articles have images like that. I am glad you got my point. It's about WP rules about sources and copyright. Cheers Zereshk. --  ^{Wiki me up™}

Massive copyvios

I googled for further info and found to my horror that the current article is mainly a massive copyvio, assembled from the CAIS article and an Iranchamber article. I am busy rewriting the dang thing from scratch. That means losing the Tabari cites, unfortunately, since I don't have the relevant volume of Tabari in the standard English SUNY edition, and the cites seem to be translations from Arabic versions, which I can't confirm. Anyone here have the SUNY edition of the relevant Tabari volume, or access to it? You can add the cites when I put up a new version. Zora 18:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you please Zora give us your findings about copyvios? If the article is really a massive copyvio than we'd have too much work to do in this article. -- Svest 23:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

The page is copied from [1] and [http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/Post-Sasanian/after_fall.htm]. I started doing some research and found that the article as it stands is seriously deficient as HISTORY -- it doesn't give any details of the long, losing fight of Yezdegerd III against Muslims. It also lacks any broader historical context, as to why the Sassanids were so weak, etc. I'm working on a new article, but the research is taking some time. Which I can ill spare. If it seems to be taking too long, I'll put up my draft and you guys can hack away at it. Zora 23:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. -- Svest 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Re-write. But please keep the documentation and references I added in the article. We dont want to lose those. If you take those references out, we'll soon be going back to answering the same old questions and accusations again. Lets have progress, and not repeat things every couple of months.--Zereshk 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A list of POV's on the intro

I've never read beyond the intro of this article for being busy elsewhere. I am sorry to say that the intro is full of unnecessary edits from Encyclopedia Iranica mixed with some contradictions.

• The Bedouin Arabs who toppled the Sassanid Empire were propelled not only by a desire for conquest and plundering but also by a new religion, Islam.

-- Bedouin/Civilized is irrelevant unless it suggests something. same for Not only by but also by...

• The rich Sassanid lands of Iraq... In fact "the desire to wrest these lands from the Iranian aristocracy" provided a prime motive for "the aggressiveness" of the Arabs.

-- Muslims, or Arabs in this case, conquered both rich and poor places within a century! So the wealth of a place was definitly not the reason behind the conquest. Therefore, this claim is false.

In fact it was. Frye discusses this in detail (that the conquest was mainly driven by the desire to collect booty). Omar in fact prohibited the conversion of Persians to Islam in the first years of conquest. But after the fall of Madain' and the collected spoils, things changed. (See? Why do I have to keep going thru repeated discussions again and again? That's why we provide references. When the references are taken out, the same stupid questions are asked all over again.). Think about it, if that was NOT the case, then why conquer Persia when you dont want Persians becoming muslims anyway? The Persians were never welcomed as equals even when they converted. They always remained second class citizens. Why go to all the trouble of conquering them with such reluctance to accept them into Islam?--Zereshk 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Furthermore, Richard Nelson Frye writes that the invading Arabs were initially interested merely in the booty collected from the battles.

-- Those claims, though most probably are logical, are not different than wars and conquests of nowadays. There has never been a war w/o booty collection.

Yes, but the booty is not the primary objective and reason to go to war.--Zereshk 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• One report even claims that he stopped the victorious Arabs from invading the Iranian plateau after the battle of Jalula' because he did not wish to see Persians converted to Islam.

-- This is a referenced source and it has to be kept. My point about this is that it is contradictory to the claims above about bedouin Arabs invaded the area because of its wealth!

You can provide counter evidence. Noone has a problem with that. We'll add both. I dont think Frye is the only one here saying this thing however. It is now well known that without the resources (man-power, the divan, the governance system of the Persians, the system of revenue that came from annexing Persia), the early bani-Umayyad system would not have been able to sustain itself. The Arabs simply did not know how to govern an empire. That's why the NEED for Persian wealth is not only verifiable, but it is logical as well. Dont forget that the Abbasid and Bani Umayyid court was literally run by the captured Persians and their wealth for 3 centuries.--Zereshk 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thus, as Frye verifies, the conquest of Persia and beyond was thus frankly intended to raise new revenues.

-- Well frankly speaking, I really wanna know about Frye's verifications.

-- Svest 23:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Ask him. He was the Aga Khan chair at Harvard. The sentence is straight out of his book.--Zereshk 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Needs major clean-up

I have just looked over this article and I think it needs a major clean-up. As a start, surely something more than "The Islamic conquest of Iran led to the collapse of the Sassanid Empire, the eventual decline of the Zoroastrian religion in Iran, and the birth of Islamic civilization" can make a better intro? Like perhaps giving a date for the starting invasions and the successes and failures, etc? And what's with the bias against the Arabs in the middle sections. Let's work so that the POV tag is removed. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I have to write this so that I can reference it whenever people throw accusations at me (which happens a lot):

1. I'm a shia. And Shia's obviously think very low of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph. So dont be surprised when I take a firm anti-conquest stand on the Islamic conquest of Iran issue. The conquest happened under Umar. Many people cannot undestand that the conquest of Iran was not carried out under the banner of true Islam. Had it been Ali's decision, none of the events of the conquest would have happened the way they did. There is a reason the love for Ali and his progeny spread the way it did in Iran, despite the fcat that most Iranians were Sunnis. There would be no "second class citizens", no "racism against Persians", no "mawali" and no consequent "shu'ubiyah", if it were under Ali. The "bias" has nothing to do with Arabs as an ethnic group. It has everything to do with Umar, as head of an army of "Jahiliyah". If anyone is taking offense as an Arab, then it is they, not me, who is a "nationalist".
2. Every culture and nation has its glories and ugly moments. Iran and the Arabs are no exception. If the Arabs under Umar carried out the conquest as a means of revenue and wealth, it doesnt demean the Arabs as an ethnic group. It demeans Umar. Why? Because Persia has done similar things in its history too. When Nadir Shah invaded India, it was only done to amass and plunder wealth. A very despicable act.
3. My personal position aside, I must admit that there is a lot of bias and hatred against Arabs, ethnically, nowadays. And that is a result of the Jahiliyah tactics initiated by Umar. No surprise. However, the hatred is also both ways. Iranians still remember how many Arabs supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. Iranians remember that 600 Hajj pilghrims were massacred by Saudi Arabian Police in 87, just for shouting slogans against America. And once you see how Iranians are treated and humiliated by Arabs in airports in Saudi Arabia, you get the idea. Trust me, when youre a minority in a given population (a non-Arab among Arab muslims), it is very easy to see certain things.

So I am therefore against anyone who says there is bias here against Arabs. It is bias against Umar. And if not, we should change the article to be so.--Zereshk 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bias is no good whether it's against Arabs or against Umar, but i see it difficult for an iranian+shia to be neutral in this subject, I'm wondering what opinion an iranian sunni would have on this matter, that should balance it out!

Well Zereshk, I obviously disagree since the invasion happened earlier, formally during Abu Bakr's ascension to the caliphate when "Syaif-Allah" Khalid Ibn Walid invaded Khvârvarân (Iraq/Êrâk), but even earlier when Mohammed himself aspired to put "Ajam" under subjection, and the fact that Yemeni'ites were invaded by Mohammed, declaring war against the Sassanians by extension. No, I disagree with your designation of this whole conflict, and I specifically blame Islam for it; It is an Arab religion, and it shows very blatantly, not just in the core doctrines but also how centuries have passed by with Iranians trying to customize it for their own traditional sensibilities. What you are stating is not a given fact, I've got an M.A in military history, yet I designate this specific event as the Islamic invasion of Iran. I don't know who you are trying to fool. You can't compare apples with oranges, this war was not meant to amass territory and wealth, because the Sassanians in numerous occasions attempted to bribe off the muslims with land and wealth; The whole invasion was meant to proliferate Islam, and by extension the fulfilling of a wish expressed by an aging Mohammed ibn Abd'allah

For your information, I don't give a blue fuck about what muslims, whether Sunni or Shia feel about this issue. What I do care about are facts, non-perverted by religious agendas and ulterior motives. You think Lakhmids enjoyed being conquered by the muslims? Have you already forgotten how Christian Arabs, Armenians and Byzantines fought side by side the Sassanians?

--The Persian Cataphract 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Arab religion eh? And thats why the largest Muslim population is anywhere and anyone but Arabs? Jedi Master MIK 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because God demands one to bow down five times a day and to say prayers in Arabic. The divine language being Arabic, in spite of it being a comparatively young Semitic language adds to this image and the fact. That "Allah" linguistically is suspiciously close to the previous moon-idol Al-Ilah is another factor. That you pull the argumentum ad populum/numerum is of no consequence to the discussion; The mob may verily well even be a flock of sheep. My point still stands.--The Persian Cataphract 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you're being aggressive, nonetheless here's my response.

• According to its article, it shares many close resemblances to the common ancestor of the semitic languages, many more than most in fact.
• I'm not that far deep into theological study but I can assure you our belief includes that God can understand any language.
• strange you claim to be a learned scholar yet are reiterating the same factless, baseless rhetoric Evangelist Christians use to try and slander Islam.
• Hubal in Lunar deity is what you're thinking of: When Abu Sufyan wanted to leave he went to the top of the mountain and shouted loudly saying, "You have done a fine work; victory in war goes by turns. Today in exchange for the day (of Badr). Show your superiority, Hubal," i.e. vindicate your religion. The apostle told ‘Umar to get up and answer him and say, God [Allah] is most high and most glorious. We are not equal. Our dead are in paradise; your dead are in hell.
• Allah means God and can be used by Christians and Jews: Allah (Arabic: الله, Allāh) is the standard Arabic word for "God". The term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God. Arabic-speakers of all faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God". The Muslim and Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah'.
• The pagan Meccans probably did believe in Allah too but b/c they believed in many different Gods besides Him, they gave him small importance (in relation to Islam). One thing's for sure, He wasn't any moon God: In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity.
• Um, what???
• The mob as you call it is several East Asian countries. Jedi Master MIK 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That you perceive me as aggressive is your own concern, it bears no relevance in addressing what I have written. That Arabic, or proto-Arabic shares many common factors to a supposed Semitic core language is nothing that I have disputed. That Classical Arabic still is comparatively young in comparison to Hebrew, Hebrew-influenced Aramaic and the oldest form of Aramaic is nothing you can dispute. Age has almost little to do with specific characteristics of a language besides tracking down common aspects. Also, you do realize that you bring up a huge theological dilemma when you speak for the abilities of your God? The Qur'an in itself supposedly "God's" unperverted words of truth were written in Arabic, and the Hadith require prayers to be read in Arabic. Certainly one would derive from a deity the ability of omniscience, however there is no logical ground for this. If Arabic indeed is the divine language, there must yet be a counter to the relatively young age of the language. The latter implies that it was derived from previous languages, making the initial claim of Arabic being a divine language quite dubious.

That there are many East Asian muslim does not negate my perception of the "Ummah" being a mob. It is still a bandwagon-fallacy no matter how you twist the issue. That there are supposedly 1.5 billion muslims in the world has no effect whatsoever on my stance. May I point to the one glorious occasion where common folk shunned the heliocentric universal view for centuries? People, especially amassed in a mob, tend to be, colloquially speaking, stupid beyond belief. It's still an Arab religion, and a religious charade for Pan-Arabic nationalism; When Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah himself intends to "put the Ajam under subjection", then there is absolutely nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. --The Persian Cataphract 12:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Major revision

I completely rewrote the article, with lots of new sources. I did not remove the POV tag, as I feel other editors should agree before it is taken down.

It was a lot of research and a large article to write, and there are probably numerous wikifying errors, typos, and stylistic infelicities to correct. I hope that the other editors will agree that this article is at least a step in the right direction, more of a neutral chronicle than an essay on the evils of the conquest. Zora 03:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It would be nice to quote Firdausi's lines on the death of Yazdegerd, but I don't have a copy of the complete Shahnameh. Would anyone here be able to supply a quote? Zora 03:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I remove the POV tag? Can anyone add some lines from Firdausi? Zora 07:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm waiting for you to finish your final edit, then come in and make my evaluation. You left out all previous references that I had requested be kept. That is unfortunate.
2. I'm not sure why youre asking for a Ferdowsi quote. What is your intention?--Zereshk 03:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have to keep YOUR references? What's so special about them?

The Firdausi quote as ornamentation, I guess. When I had my friend's copy of an English translation of the Shahnameh, I read some rather sad verses on the fate of Yazdegerd. From great king to hunted fugitive ... Other people might find that instructive, or conducive to reflection. But it's certainly not necessary. Zora 21:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

My references are academic Zora. You cannot delete them.--Zereshk 22:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Paradoxic's edits

Paradoxic, you replaced what I thought was a balanced presentation with a Persian nationalist diatribe. I restored the earlier text, and tried to rewrite your text to NPOV it. I agree that your POV should be presented, but it should not be presented as the one-and-only truth.

Reference to purdah rather than chador restored. Perhaps this needs to be discussed further -- I haven't checked the purdah article. However, I believe that it's commonly accepted that the upper-class Persian, pre-Islamic institution of the anderun, the women's quarters, was taken into an Arabic culture that hadn't previously kept women indoors (as would indeed have been impossible for nomads). I'm not at all sure that the chador was Persian in origin -- however, this would take some investigation. I'm not sure that anyone has written a HISTORY of hijab, which would be an interesting topic. Zora 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Zora, due to your insufficient knowledge and bias, you have, again, deliberately deleted most of what i took from academic works from Iran by Iranian academics whom have quoted and acknowledged Frye and other well known Islamic historians. Also you selectively deleted historic narrations from Al Tabari and Ibn Khuldun in order to write some form of improvised (and yet lame) "Anti-Islamist-from-Iran-residing-in-US" POV. Works like that of Reza Aslan and other western writers writing about Islamic history are not to be taken for granted and have, in many cases, lied about Islam and its history, both intentionally or unknowingly and are not going to make pigs fly. Ive reverted the initial article since there is nothing wrong with it. It was NPOV'd and looks just fine. And no, we dont need any "Investigation" dear, its widely known the Chador is Iranian, it means Tent and that is was adapted by the rest of the Islamic world from Iran.--Paradoxic 14:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Paradoxic, you took a small section and turned it into a bloated anti-Arab rant. Wikipedia is not the place to refight the Iran-Iraq war, or to indulge anti-Arab passions. You can't just declare that your version is NPOV and argue that anyone who protests is just "biased".

As for veiling and seclusion -- I'm not sure that you can just declare that "everyone knows" they're Persian in origin and leave it at that. The incident in Medina when Muhammad's wives were put behind the veil certainly occurred before the Islamic conquest of Persia. There's evidence that this originally applied ONLY to Muhammad's wives, and that it gradually diffused outward as a custom. But was it only Persians who practiced that custom, at the time? I'm not sure that it was so. I seem to recall, vaguely, some references to it being practiced throughout the Middle East, not just in the Persian domains. It also misrepresents the phenomenon to just describe it as veiling, when the rules for the use of the veil assume a division of the world into "women's quarters", anderun, where the veil was not required, and the public sphere, where women were to be veiled. (BTW, this phenomenon has occurred in other parts of the world -- the upper-class women of Heian Japan were secluded -- but not by veils, but by reed blinds. When they had to leave their quarters, they travelled in closed litters.) Zora 19:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Paradoxic, I made an attempt to include your POV in my version; you have restored your anti-Arab rant. I suspect that you were raised and taught in such a wartime, nationalist atmosphere that you cannot see just how offensive your edits would be to an Arab reader. I'm not an Arab and I'm certainly not an Arab nationalist, but I do care about being fair.

If you don't like my version of your position, then rewrite it IN CONCISE FORM. Wikipedia is not a forum for long, meandering personal essays. People come to articles for information, not opinions. All sides of a dispute should get roughly equal space in an article. You don't give one position a short para and another a long essay.

Would you be OK with simply deleting the section? Perhaps it's a mistake to have it there. Zora 21:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, i am not Anti arab at all, quite on the contrary ..nor did i write anything anti arabic on my article, you seem to mistake me for yourself. The initial article stated "The Persians strongly resisted cultural and linguistic Arabization." This by itself is an indirect long lasting anti-arab myth. You defended this very initial article. Another example of your bias-anti Arab position can be found in another piece of text you've included, Nationalist narratives also tend to stress the initial poverty of Arab culture and the great role of Persians in creating what Arabs now cherish as their intellectual heritage. Arabs are cast as uncultured barbarians, appropriating the achievements of more advanced races.. I dont see where you get these "Rabbit out of the Hat" magical quotations, wich are mostly Cliche's found in comicbooks, but they are absolute garbage nor deserve not to be mentioned on an encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with POV or NPOV, its complete ignorance. As far as the Chador thing goes, as im aware of, Chador was worn before and after the Islamic conquest in Iran and because it complied with Modest Islamic dresscode principles it was accepted and people continued to wear it, this is not exclusive to Iran. Also you seem to not be able to realize that there are many types of Veils and the Chador being one of them. I dont see where you go around speaking about the Prophet Mohammad (s) and claiming its exclusively a "Cultural" thing and that only his wives had to wear it, no, this is jibberish and not supported by any islamic school of thought, be it Sunnite or Shia. The hejab is fard for obvious reasons, we dont need to go back into history to rehash its relevance. Refrain from omitting my quoted texts wich are all from academic works, if you wish to have refrence to them ill be glad to find them for you but do not engage in terrorizing this article with your biased ignorance. The article as stands is neither Anti arab nor anti Persian as it initially was. It's NPOV and Looks just fine unless other contributors argue the same. I am however, not at all willing to omit these obvious factual occurances based on your mere dislike of what i have quoted.--Paradoxic 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

actually, scholars who have studied the issue of hijāb (and you can read about this in any of the literature about women in islam -- see books by leila ahmed, amina wadud, ziba mir-hosseini, even karen armstrong, etc. -- and even the new book by iranian scholar Nimat Hafez Barazangi) believe that initially the concept of hijāb was restricted only to the prophet's wives (this is supported by hadīth studies of asbāb an-nazūl / circumstances of revelation, for it was revealled after his marriage to a wife and many men stayed late in his house). in fact, the arabic word hijab means curtain or separation -- the meaning of 'veil' developed later. scholars believed that muslims adopted the cultural practice common in the sāsānian empire (as well as byzantium) whereby upper-class women covered themselves. but even this adoption was gradual and depended on cultural circumstances. in fact, if you look at muslim women around the world, you will notice varying practices and observances that demonstrate it's a matter of local culture. that doesnt mean that it isnt justified by the verse about hijab, but what it does mean is that veiling is not something called for in the qur'ān or by muhammad, but a later innovation. cheers, dgl

"Obvious fact"

Paradoxic, you HAVE to allow other points of view (POVs) to be expressed. You can't just declare that your POV is the truth and that no others will be allowed. We clearly have two POVs here. One is mine, which I think is a kinda bland academic view, and one is yours, which I think must express the sentiments of many Iranians who came of age in the fervidly nationalist atmosphere of the Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. What all your teachers told you is FACT is not considered FACT outside Iran. The nationalism that seems to so right to you, and the interpretation of all of history as just a prelude to the glorious Iran of today, just seems jingoist and bathetic to someone who doesn't share those sentiments. The bedrock of Wikipedia is the NPOV policy and that means that you must allow other viewpoints to be expressed. Furthermore, they have to be expressed in terms that the holders of those views would agree are accurate. You can't just give YOUR version of the POV and say, "There, you're represented." Zora 05:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

From Proud Persian: I weep at Persia's defeat! It brings Iran today much scorn. Why do Arabs try to claim Persian work, people, etc ? Please tell me ? Are Taazis that jealous?

Why are you trying so hard to re-discuss this topic, I included portions of the text and others wich were mainly bias were deleted, however you seem to not get enough of insulting both Iranians and Arabs alltogether. Not at all, it's your view against my reciting of academic works. Your POV (Wether you regard it scholarly or not, lol) is meaningless in regard to the high caliber historians and scholars who wrote extensive material about this subject and are widely accepted. I merely cited these. I was not raised as a nationalist; If trying to get personal is your way of trying to say your right, then i am sorry, but these are not my views, i cited them from academic works stemming from Iran and the middle east, by Iranians and Arabs about the Influences of Iranians towards Arab culture and vice versa in a friendly and non insultive objective manner. I have included viewpoints that were of relevance and truth and did not delete everything as you claim, however as much of what you, or someone else wrote previously was mainly based on myth and not fact, i cant let that pass. Im sorry, It was garbage. Again, I will repeat this for the last time, since you seem to have a comprehension issue; Specific works by widely accepted scholars and historians have been written about this topic, and it is very relevant that it be mentioned. You are vandalizing this page by deleting such works that are essential to the Islamic conquest of Iran. I realize you are a hindu so you might have a dislike or even a strong hatred for Islam, Arabs and Persians, but you should rather try Yoga, Tae Bo, or something else thats way more progressive than to ignorantly insult people with uttering nonsense and deceit. I know this is hard to believe, but smell the cofee; you are not above anyone here, nor do you have the authority to decide what permenently goes on the page, the poorly researched material you are desperately clinging on to is meaningless to the mainstream widely accepted scholars ive cited and contrary to what you have cited previously.--Paradoxic 23:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not being civil, Paradoxic. I'm also puzzled that you are calling my "version" garbage, when the latest thing I did was remove the whole section that was so controversial. I removed your version AND my version. Clearly, making any comments about the interaction between Arabs and Persians after the conquest is dicey, and since the article is about the conquest, not the aftermath, I figured that the best thing was to take out the section. I'm going to take it out again, and I hope you'll accept the compromise, rather than restoring your version, which seems to me to be extremely nationalistic and anti-Arab. Zora 09:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would compromise if i knew your intentions were sincere, but im very familiar with your bias against Iranians and Arabs and Islam and at your use of uncivil behavior towards people (Iranian/Arab) you disagree with. Not one but numerous people have warned me about you and your insultive views regarding Iranians, Arabs and Shiism/Islam in particular, wich is why i find no place to even discuss this matter any further. You telling people they engage in "Chest beating behaviour" can hardly be someone to take seriously. The topics mentioned such as the Chador, the usage of Persian words into the Arabic Language (wich can be elaborated on), Persian carpets being widely used have both a pre-islamic root as well as the aftermath. Besides if the aftermath is irrelevant then i dont see why the "Parsees" are mentioned going to India either. The big picture must be shown, i have quoted both Arab and Iranian scholars without adding my own oppinion, as ive told you. You cannot delete such academic works crucial to the page. I will revert any further attempt to do so since you have insufficient basis to delete what ive quoted.--Paradoxic 15:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

History

To Paradoxic: Please be more historically accurate in your edits. To Zora: Do not delete a section on your mere thinkings unless you can prove its incorrect or biased. Amir85 4:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Amir, devoting a whole section to "proving" that Persians contributed more to Islamic civilization than the Arabs is clearly biased. If you're going to turn the relatively bland section I originally wrote into an attempt to diss Arabs, then let's remove the whole dang section. I also removed the ref in Farsi, as it's of no use to the vast majority of the readers (who speak English and not Farsi). Zora 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Persian language sources with ISBN numbers

Im not going to get involved here. It'll take too much of my energy.

But I just wanted to say that Persian language sources should not be deleted, as Zora just did, because many American students, scholars, and researchers routinely seek sources in Persian language. That's why many universities and academic institutions have special collections of foreign language books or media. That's why an ISBN number is called an "International Standard Book Number, so it can be referenced from anywhere in the world. And Zarrinkoub is a well established academic author of Iran. It's OK to reference him, as long as it can be verified.--Zereshk 21:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A new tack

Putting Arab influence on the Persians and Persian influence on the Arabs in the same section seems to provoke a nationalist response, on the order of, "We influenced them more than they did us!" That is unprovable, and unhelpful, particularly as the main point of the article is the conquest, not the consequences of the conquest.

I removed all the material re the development of Persian language and literature and all the invidious comparisons between Arabs and Persians, and re-organized slightly. The language and literature material can go in Persian language and Persian literature, if you want to put it there. Zora 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

No point arguing and dont wanna waste my energy. The same policy as in Sassanid dynasty discussion page. best wishes ! Amir85 12:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I removed the Persian language and literature discussion, the boasting about the glories of Persian culture, and the deprecation of Arabs. It is nationalist, anti-Arab, and inappropriate in an article that is not supposed to take sides! Is this REALLY the impression that you want to give non-Iranian readers? That Persians believe they are better than everyone else? That they look down on Arabs? That they like to boast? I can't believe that this is true. It's not true of the Persians I know. Zora 08:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

According to guideline how to deal with Zora I kindly ask user Zora to provide specific reference refuting those sections of the article that he/she loves to revert. Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Amir85 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may then can I know what is the point of conflict? I think both Persian and Arabian cultures benefited and got enriched by each other's influence. Do we really want to discuss that how much the influence was? Is it at all relevant?

خرم Khurram 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Use this link in your text

Please use the link to the page I just made in your texts:

• Abdolhossein Zarinkoob

Thanx.--Zereshk 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

the point

I dont think the point is about boasting or bragging. We are just trying to write an historical account here. Trying to be politically correct wont help make a better article because that's not how it actually happened.

I think we all agree that:

• The Persian empire was highly prominent in its time, both culturally and in authority.
• The empire weakened (for various socio-political reasons) by the 7th century.
• The conquest obliterated the empire.
• The flag carriers of this conquest were not benevolent, and instead implemented policies of prejudice and discrimination.
• As a result of such policies, Iranians accepted the message of Islam, but never succumbed to the discriminatory policies of the Umayyids in particular.
• Being from a higher cultural background than their captors, such discrimination left a scar that led to the enmity that we know of. (e.g. "Lizard eaters"?)

There is absolutely no doubt on the veracity of these key points. Particularly the last 3 points.--Zereshk 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a great deal of doubt as to the veracity of those points. Everything AFTER the last three points is debateable -- and has been debated. The whole issue of Arabicization is a hot one in Islamic studies.

Phrasing like "higher cultural background" is needlessly inflammatory, ethnocentric, and just plain boasting. I understand what is being said -- there is a difference between an empire with a written literature and a long history, and a recent tribal coalition with an oral literature -- but there are ways to say it that aren't as judgmental.

Moreover, we don't need to go back to the Umayyads to account for current anti-Arab prejudice. The long history of warfare between the Ottomans and the Safavids certainly has something to do with it (massacres of Shi'a in Ottoman territories), as well as the vexed history of Khuzestan, the problem of ethnic minorities in Iran, and the wounds of the Iran-Iraq war.

And vice versa, about Arab massacres and racism elsewhere. But what's the point? Those are irrelevant to the conquest.--Zereshk 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm ... thinking of dgl's work on Battle of al-Qādisiyyah -- he makes a clear distinction between the actual events of the battle, and the use that Saddam tried to make of the battle. Saddam used it as a symbol of Arab superiority to Persians. Are some of you reacting to that? We could add a section that discusses Persian (as opposed to Iranian) attitudes towards the conquest, over history. If it gets long, it could become a breakout article (as I suggested to dgl for the battle). Start with Firdausi and work up to contemporary attitudes? It's a matter of stepping back from the material and instead of saying, "This is the truth", saying "This is what many Persians believe, or believed". It's the claims to truth that are problematic. Zora 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Even the Islamist Mutahari (of all people), who constantly attacks pre-Islamic Iranian heritage, writes:

"The Umayyids revived the concept of racial and tribal prejudice, which Islam had extinguished. Their policy was one of racial enmity against Iranians in particular, more than other non-Arabs." (see his Khadamat-i mutaghanil-i Iran wa Islam, Vol 14, p583-590)

That is highly debateable. Some would say that ambivalence about Islam being universal/for the Arabs can be found in the very beginnings of Islam. Of course, that's a difficult discussion, since most Muslims believe that Muhammad and his community at Medina must have been perfect, and that therefore they couldn't have been ethnocentric. It's the academics who are making arguments against early universalism. The quote from Mutahari ASSUMES that Islam was universal in the beginning, and that the Umayyads must therefore have perverted it. Many academics would say NO. Zora 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So the question really is, how can we write the article so that it minimizes bias and subjectivity, and yet is true to history?--Zereshk 01:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Zora, you keep using the phrase "highly debatable" in answering me. This is banned in Wikipedia since it counts as "original research". We are not here to give weight to specific sources in favor of others. There is literally an ocean of sources against your claim of "Persian nationalism" (and which we see as "Arab oppression").

I've read a chunk of the academic literature, you haven't -- it's not at all original research to say that these topics are debateable. Of course you see an "ocean of sources" supporting your sense of grievance, since you're Iranian, were educated in Iran, and are most familiar with nationalist versions of history. That's all you see, because you haven't looked outside the narrow limits of what you "know". Zora 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesnt matter Zora. Simply put, it is original research for you to say that "Source X is not correct, and source Y is correct". FOR WHATEVER REASON. As simple as that. --Zereshk 10:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Motahari has written that statement, is enough by itself. You cant judge that what he's saying is "debatable". At best, you can provide sources countering him.

You cant just delete sources because they seem implausible to you. Remember, the criterion on WP is verifiability. Not the "truth".

Then why are you insisting that your beliefs are the TRUTH? If you'd just step back and say, "Most Iranians believe X" there wouldn't be any problem. Zora 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What I have said is "the truth". Yet we arent really concerned here with "the truth". What matters here is that there is more than ample evidence from numerous sources that support what your so called "Persian nationalist writers" have been writing here. And you keep deleting this view. That is not allowed. We must have both views presented, without judgement. I've said this many many times Zora.--Zereshk 10:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, I will wait a week or so. If there is no improvement or compromise on this page, I will have to jump in once again and re-write the article with an injection of a full dose of sources, references, and quotes to end "the debate".--Zereshk 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may then I would say that the article is very nicely put in its current form and only a few more bits need to be added. What we need to do is to come out of our box of perception and then look into the events with a neutral view. The cultural influence had never been one sided. When two civillizations interact, they influence each other. By the Muslim conquest in the 8th Century, the Persian, Byzantium and Arab cultures came closer and got pretty much mixed up giving a shape to what later was known as Islamic Culture that spans architecture, literature and every aspect of later lifestyle. Political problems were natural to arise in such a vast empire as it always happens but I do not think that we shall give it more importance than what it deserves. In order to mention the points of old Persian culture that influenced the later combined culture of Muslim Empire, I think we do not need to compare it. Only mentioning it will be sufficient.

خرم Khurram 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yor input is welcome and I agree with what you say. However Zora staunchly refuses to accept and even mention these two points in the article:

1. That Sassanid Persia and beduin Arabia were not cultural equals. There may have been contacts and mutual influences, but they were not equals.

Saying that the Persians were "better" than the Arabs in some absolute sense is a racist POV. You can include it in the article only as POV, not as "truth". Zora 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

WP isnt about Truth.--Zereshk 12:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The Islamic Conquest of Iran was carried out via policies of prejudice and discrimination against the "mawali" (Iranians in particular), by the likes of Hajjaj ibn Yusef and Umar ibn Khattab.

That's a grotesque simplification of a complex topic. Again, that's a POV, not truth. You can say that contemporary Iranians believe this, but you can't say that it's true. Zora 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

WP isnt about truth.--Zereshk 12:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In our discussions, Zora even openly declares that "there is no such thing as Persian culture". You can imagine what a skewed perception of things this can generate.--Zereshk 10:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no hard-edged unitary Persian culture. There are only Persian cultural elements, in an unstable shifting constellation that changes over time and fades out at the edges. That is true of all supposed "cultures", not just Persian. That's why I can't be an anthropologist any longer, because I don't accept the idea of "culture" -- which is a construct developed both in imitation of and in reaction to German cultural nationalism. I wish you'd listen, Zereshk, instead of filtering out 95% of what I say and mapping the rest onto your stereotypes of a hostile outer world. Zora 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Zora, cant you reply in a way that doesnt make my posts look like a horrible case of truncated dogpoo?

Also, I repeat, Wikipedia is not about Truth.

It is WP stated policy that:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

• "It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research.

It's not Zora's job to judge what is "true" and what isnt. What source is nationalist, which one is old, which one is academic, which one is acceptable, ad infinitum.

I dont know why is it so hard for Zora to accept this.--Zereshk 12:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, I'm the one accepting it and you're the one denying it. When you insist on stating stuff as "true" that others regard as up for question, you're breaking that rule. If you say, "X", that's a claim to truth, on which Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides. If you say "Many contemporary Iranians believe X", then that's verifiable and OK to include. Zora 21:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop lying Zora. Everyone here can see that YOU are the one who keeps deleting everyone else's edits because you dont agree with what their sources (Ibn Khaldoun, Frye, ...) are saying. In fact it was you who first deleted the entire article and replaced it and refused to accept references I or anybody else proivided.--Zereshk 23:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Global judgments

The problem with saying that Persians are "better" than Arabs, or with making any other global judgment, is that it puts everything on one scale of reference, good and bad, cultured or barbarian.

This has been an issue in the contemporary study of intelligence. People tend to make judgments like "he's smart" and "he's stupid". They interpret the usual Stanford-Binet IQ scores this way. Many researchers now believe that this is a gross over-simplification. "Intelligence" actually comprises many different skills. People can be high in reading ability, for instance, but score low in spatial judgment, or "people" skills, or many other qualities. Researchers argue about the best way to categorize "intelligences", or how much linkage there is between them. Some skills that can be measured separately tend towards co-variance; if one is high, the other is high, etc. But researchers agree that categorizing people as smart or stupid is misleading.

Well, if you're comparing groups of people, or political organizations, or bodies of literature in twe languages, you can compare them with regard to various measurable traits. So if you say that at the time of the Islamic conquest of Persia there were more literate Persians (as a percentage of the population) than there were literate Arabs, that's something that you can actually measure (or try to do so). You're not saying that literacy is "good" or "bad", you're just measuring it.

If you compared the Arab conquerors to their Persian subjects wrt a number of traits, you'd probably find some traits on which Persians scored high, and others on which Arabs scored high. Frex, it seems clear that Arabs must have scored a lot higher in military ability and political cohesion to have made the gains that they did. Does this make them "better"? No. Zora 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The above paragraphs are exactly what WP calls "original research". And it is banned.--Zereshk 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What? I'm not allowed to use examples in arguing with you on the talk page? Zereshk, I can say things on the talk page that I wouldn't put in the article. I didn't put any of that in the article. Zora 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, calm down. What is discussed here is nothing new to wikipedia. Zereshk, please understand that there's no original research when you are discussing. The concept applies to editing. I believe that what Zora said above is to be discussed and not refuted. Please, let's start again. Cheers -- Svest 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Ah, but these discussions get reflected into the tone and structure of the article. So it does count as original research because the article is written based on opinions and beliefs that are exhibited here on the talk page. Zora has been deleting sources for various reasons, and singlehandedly has been deleting the edits of a dozen or so editors (even with verifiable sources) here in the past year. That by itself is against WP policies.--Zereshk 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree about that the tone of the article is based on discussions. There should be no article w/ a tone. What I say Zereshk is that we should forget about the tones and focus on the NPOV. More important is to listen to eachother and stick to the subject; which are the paraghraphs that Zora wrote. Otherwise, there is no need to discuss anything at all. If something happened last year, it should not weigh today. If someone is removing verified sources and references than it should be solved somehow. Cheers -- Svest 01:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Um, it isn't against policy to trim an article. Frex, Zeno filled up the Dhul Qarnayn article with material about Islam and flat earth theories, which was removed. You applauded that, as I recall. Zora 01:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I revised again

Those quoted letters came with no references. I suspect that they're later inventions (pre-modern historians used to display their elegant prose in writing letters and speeches for their characters), but I could be wrong. References needed.

As for the rest of it -- I rewrote the article so as to contrast the POVs I see warring in this article. All of them need cites, and this is where Zereshk's references could go. If you guys will LET all POVs be expressed (including the Arab), then perhaps we can all work on the accounts for our separate POVs. I certainly need some cites for the academic POV section.

Will you at least let that be a framework for the last part of the article? Zora 00:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why?

the letter of yazdegrid to umar was deleted. why is that?

Where did you get that letter? What makes you think it is authentic? Until we know, we can't put it forward as authentic. Zora 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No single reference and you are asking others why? -- Svest 01:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

As far as I'm concerned, a bunch of other authors and sources were also deleted by Zora unilaterally in the past few months. Examples: Tabari, Frye, Ignaz Goldziher, Encyclopedia Iranica, Baladhuri, Ibn Khaldoun, and the authors of the Cambridge History of Iran. I'd like an explanation for that.--Zereshk 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure as I've only been here for a few weeks. Everything notable and well sourced has to be accepted. If you think they fit into the article than of course they should not be removed. Cheers -- Svest 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Zereshk, all those sources were advanced in support of your argument that Persians were responsible for most of the Islamic intellectual achievements sometimes claimed by Arabs. Your argument should not be accepted as THE TRUTH, but described as a view common to many contemporary Iranians. In my last attempt at compromise (wiped out by Amir85 without even an explanation) I split the last part of the article into two POVs -- possibly should be three. Your sources would fit there, in the Iranian POV section. Zora 02:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, WP isnt about "the truth". Stop chastising me with that word. WP is about verifiability, NOT "THE TRUTH". Youre breaking the rules of WP in daylight.

Svest,

For example, Zora has trouble accepting this sentence, and calls it inflammatory: In fact "the desire to wrest these lands from the Iranian aristocracy" provided a prime motive for "the aggressiveness" of the Arabs. (Encyclopedia Iranica, p211), even though it is well documented.

Thanks for the explanation Zereshk. My opinion is that We don't have to copy and paste what exactly any encyclopedia says because of the same reasons Zora is stating below (POV). It is just like the case if the Jewish and Islamic encyclopedias would publish articles about each other topics! In the case above it would be like In fact "the desire According to Encyclopedia Iranica, one of the prime motives for the Arab conquest of Iran was to wrest (is there any other less POV word) the lands from the Iranian aristocracy". - I hope the idea is kept but the POV is removed. Cheers -- Svest 00:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Svest, interpreting the quote is "original research". It is not our job to interpret what is "true" and what isn't. WP clearly states it. Verifiability is the only keyword here. Furthermore, Zora has already tried accusing Encyclopedia Iranica as being POV. Unfortunately, that label doesnt fly because its authors are all westerners or western academics. All 300 of them. You cant accuse Columbia University scholars as POV. They arent (mostly) even Iranian. Cheers to you too.--Zereshk 00:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

With all my respect to it I must say Of course Encyclopedia Iranica content is POV! Same as any other one! Take the any controversial topic and see if all encyclopedias give us the same idea. What Zora is trying to say is that this article is just as others and filling up the article with references from a single side is contrary to the principle of POV. And that's what we want to avoid here. Otherwise, why not copy and paste the article from there to this one like it happened in History of the Jews in Morocco (a word by word translation from the Jewish Encyclopedia). I'll never accept to do the same thing in, let's say, Conquest of X to Y lands. Cheers -- Svest 01:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}?

I, personally would agree that one of the driving forces in the expansion of early Islam was the greed for loot and land. However, there are MANY Muslims who believe that the Islamic empire expanded only to defend itself. By unhesitatingly ascribing the conquest to greed, the Encyclopedia Iranica (which DOES have a viewpoint) is taking a controversial position. Also, using the cite the way you do implies that the Arabs directed their greed specifically at the Persians, that the Persians were uniquely wronged. Given that the Islamic conquests extended far outside what was then Persia, this is a distortion. Zora 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Or she calls such statements like this as "Iranian beliefs": Many Arab Muslims for example believed that Iranian converts should not clothe themselves as Arabs, among many other forms of discrimination that emerged. ( See "Mohammedanische Studien" Goldziher. Vol 2 p138-9.) You be the judge.--Zereshk 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree about this because you discarded thousands of references and found only one contradicting all of them. If any discrimination really emerged the way Goldziher explains than there would have never been any Avicenna, Al-Razi, and the list is long. Let's use common sense and not wait for an orientalist who lived centuries later. Any other reference? Is he the only prominent scholar who researched the topic? Cheers -- Svest 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Yes, that's true enough -- but it's true of all the converts, Jewish, Christian, Syrian, Persian. Use of that particular quote implies that only the Persians faced discrimination, which is not the case. Zora 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats EXACTLY what "original research" means. The quote specifically says IRANIAN. Not what you choose to interpret.--Zereshk 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the book from which the quote was taken, but I suspect that it's from a chapter dealing with Persia/Iran. I can't imagine that Goldziher believed that only Iranians were subject to the rules for dhimmis -- that would have been noted by other, later scholars who have read Goldziher and written on the subject of dhimmis. Suliman Bashear and Bat Yeor, experts on dhimmitude, say that the rules were applied to all dhimmis, not just Iranians. Zereshk, do you have the book? I think you might not -- the only complete copy of the English translation, Muslim Studies, that I found at ABEbooks costs $275. I don't think you can claim that you know what Goldziher meant by that quote if you don't have the context. Zora 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You dont have to buy the book Zora. There's something called an "Inter Library Loan". I use it all the time. Surely they must have it at U of H's libraries.--Zereshk 08:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Ibn Khaldun

I'm refusing now to add selective statements by Ibn Khaldun. Why are we addding pro-Persian, and not his anti-persian tirades? What about his wonderfull insightful gaze into the populace of Black Africans? They are, after all, the "only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings" having been "overcooked in the womb". What I'm saying here is that statements on race by Ibn Khaldun should be avoided. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know why do we have a dispute on this page even when we have a section on "Contemporary Historians" later in the article. I think much of the discussion and hatred is a product of Iraq - Iran war hype. Arabs conqured Persia but once they settled in and married with the Persians, what difference did remain? Do we call Imam Zain-ul-Aabideen an Arab or a Persian since his Father (RA) was an Arab and his mother was a Persian Princess? And based upon this argument whom will you say superior, Arabs, Persian or you will say that they were equal and later developments created differences which are natural in history?

خرم Khurram 16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The point isnt superiority at all. The point is that Islam under the armies of Omar was brought to Iran by the sword and bloodshed, and implemented a system of apartheid that lasted until (and even led to) the fall of the Umayyids. Zora is censoring this fact by throwing the term "Persian nationalist" at me and everyone else. She does this perhaps in hopes of being politically correct in depciting the Arabs as peaceful in the current chaos in the M.E.. Which is totally irrelevant, because just as the Arabs were tyrants during the conquest of Iran, Iranians also became tyrants during another era, in respect to others. Every tribe, nation, and culture has blood on their hands at some point in time. Everyone.--Zereshk 01:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever

you people seem to only acknowledge your own work and as soon as somebody else adds something you delete it. The letters of Umar and Yazdgird III do exist, only all the sites that hold this translation are sites you people seem to think are not authentic. so you delete them. And any ways isn't a part of this article about the Persian resistance during those periods. And isn't this letter a form of resistance to the Arabs. I don't seem to find a reasonable explanation for not including this piece of information and I am sure you cannot either. All I got to say is, you guys keep manipulating history and continue to exclude valuable information. Whatever, no real Persian or historian will believe you.

And khurram, who ever you are, the anti-arab feeling between persians is not a product of Iran-Iraq war. It goes way back in the times of the Sassanid, as you might know. The Persians have hated Arabs since their invasion in the 7th because of all the deaths, burning of important books, and pillage that Arabs did during this time. The war with Iraq fueled this hatred and arabs began to hate us. Arabs called us ajam (retarded or wierd) and we called them tazis (a breed of blood hounds). This hatred, in my opinion, will never end as the Persian are proud people and do not easily forget the mishaps of their nation.

To those Persians here, a poem done by Amir Nasseri, it's a wake up call to those Persians who have forgotten who they are:

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_9283.shtml

Sorry its a bit personal but I cant see how User Zora is denying everything. Let me ask you two Zora and Khurram, specially Zora, from the above argument it can obviously be interpreted that you find yourself in a place that you can deny works of several Professors and researchers which some of them are not Iranian at all and state your own theory and judge POV. Let me ask you a question are you a Professor or something to renounce a credible source? Do you have any researches, studies or whatsoever about Iranian history ? Just an example was Sassanid article in which with all your boasting you couldn't add a single line to it and strange enough you had a big mouth about rewriting the article. To me it clearly shows your knowledge about history of Iran and not only that, for me your actions could be interpreted as anti-Persian. My interpretation is not totally irrelevant, Someone who hates and constantly denies Persian civilization, culture under the cloak of NPOV. Just ask Zereshk he knows better.

Lets get it straight, you guys have problem about POV of for example Encyclopedia Iranica, you say it has a specific point of view, well screw wikipedia ! majority of articles related history and religion are authored from sources those favor their related article and from your point of view are not NPOV. I again apologize for my tone. All the best ! Amir85 2:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

She doesnt even speak Persian, nor Arabic.--Zereshk 09:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And khurram, who ever you are, the anti-arab feeling between persians is not a product of Iran-Iraq war. It goes way back in the times of the Sassanid, as you might know.

Yes I know that Persians didn't think Arabs anything more but people who didn't even deserve being their subjects. It is why that when these nomad people, far less in strength started defeating the best equipped force of the world at that time, the Persian denial changed to surprise. With the fall of the Sassanid Empire the Persian people adopted the new religion and its customs. It was sometime later when because of political ambitions the differences were propogated and encouraged.

The Persians have hated Arabs since their invasion in the 7th because of all the deaths, burning of important books, and pillage that Arabs did during this time.

Then how come the Persians contributed so much to the Arab litereature, architecture and most importantly got top jobs in Muslim hierarchy?

Arabs called us ajam (retarded or wierd) and we called them tazis (a breed of blood hounds). This hatred, in my opinion, will never end as the Persian are proud people and do not easily forget the mishaps of their nation.

You are right that this hatred might never end since those who has nothing to do themselves feel quite relaxed and aggressive in reciting the greatness of those who have passed thousands of years ago. We cannot turn the wheel of history back but we sure can create new myths and create a nice alibi for ourselves.

It is a fact that Muslims conquered Persia (I used the word Muslims since by the time of Persian Conquest, many people of the fighting force were non-Arabs according to the standards of those times). It is a fact that persians adopted their religion and customs. There were communal relations between the two nations, it is a fact also. The differences arose centuries later because of political ambitions among different groups. BTW the top most post in Iran today is still held by a person who is an Arab by blood. Do Persians hate him as well?

خرم Khurram 15:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, i guess i caused to much controversy and dispute by adding those letters to the article. So i am truly sorry. Also i apologize to khurram for my anti-arab tone as i was mad at the time. i hope you all the best.

I am sorry my friend if any of my words hurt you. All that I was trying to say was that Arabs and Persians did not have huge differences in the early years of Islamic Persia, it was only later that political ambitions gave rose to the differences and while we shall point out these fact as historical truth, we shall try not to take side. At his moment I would like to clear one confusion. I am not an Arab myself as you can judge from my name.

خرم Khurram 20:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Files to settle this anti-Persian dispute

On the superior culture of Sassanid Iran and how the Arabs dealt with it:

• Book: Persia, Masters of Empire.
  Book: Persia, Masters of Empire.
• Book: Iran At War with History.
  Book: Iran At War with History.
• 
  Book: Iran, A country Study

Um, none of the those books is an academic source. The first is a Time-Life book (!), the second is written by a US diplomat (not an academic historian), and the third is a US government publication. They're making assumptions (re superiority and inferiority of cultures) that no contemporary social scientist would make. Zora 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha, therefore let it be known that Zora is not accepting sources from the United States Government as acceptable. Her denial reaches new heights every day :)

Not only that, I think the current US administration officials are liars and deceivers. <g> Zora 13:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well too bad. Cuz your opinion doesnt count in the article or anywhere on WP.--Zereshk 13:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, youre breaking the rules again. Nobody appointed you to judge the worthiness of sources. That is called "original research" and it is against WP policy. I only posted the books to prove to everyone that what your opposers have been writing is not "Persian nationalist", which is the shit you keep accusing us of.

Final warning. If you do not accept to include this material in the text in some form, I will come in and start an edit war with you if I have to. Ive been very patient with your ignorance in writing about my country. I have the sources. YOU DONT.--Zereshk 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

On the brutality and racial policies of the conquerors, and the cruelty of Hajjaj:

• Dennett, Daniel Clement's "Conversion and the poll tax in early Islam."
  Dennett, Daniel Clement's "Conversion and the poll tax in early Islam."
• Book: Cambridge History of Iran
  Book: Cambridge History of Iran
• Book: Cambridge History of Iran
  Book: Cambridge History of Iran

Those are good sources and I believe what they say. They say that the Umayyads behaved like brutal racist oppressors and sent out governors who mistreated their subjects. Yes, so? That just makes it clear why the Abbasids were so successful. The Abbasid revolution wasn't just Persian mawali, it was also Arabs who felt that the Umayyads had betrayed Islam. It was a collaboration, and set the tone for an Abbasid caliphate that was a lot more accepting of all groups than the Umayyads had been.

Oh, you "believe" what they say? Who told you that the article should be based on whether or not you "believe" the sources I post? YOURE BREAKING THE LAWS ZORA! HELLLLOOOOOOO?!!--Zereshk 13:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't say that the Umayyads represented THE Arab attitude towards non-Arabs. They represented one attitude, which proved a detriment to good government in the long run, and was overthrown. Zora 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Youre dodging the fuckin point Zora. Stop giving me this irrelevant sophistry analysis. There was bloodshed and racism against the Iranians in the conquest. Period!--Zereshk 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: None of the authors are Iranian. I can find more if you like. And I didnt even use Frye's books, which gives abundant support of this position.

Oh, and btw, the reason I havent been making any changes in the text of the article is that none of what is on the current page is my work. I expect the authors of it to defend their work themselves. Zora already unilaterally erased all my contributions on this page entirely.--Zereshk 09:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's counterproductive to protect YOUR prose and ignore the larger project, which is producing a neutral, readable, informative article. Sometimes that means letting go of something you wrote. I have to do it all the time. Not that it doesn't hurt. Zora 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? How is it then that this does not apply to you? Youve been reverting every single goddamn editor on this page who opposes your biased anti-Persian POV.--Zereshk 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, do you admit what you were doing is wrong ? Amir85 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Zereshk.

---

I stumbled on yet another source today:

"The Arab invasion bore the character of a rapacious conquest."

"It was not in vain that the penniless intruders sought out countries which abounded with wealth of all kinds. Pillaging continued under the Umayyads and the oppression of the nation increased. The equality of rights proclaimed by Islam soon showed itself to be but mere propaganda."

"With the exception of religion the Arabs had nothing to offer. The Persians on the other hand had much to give."

"A highly developed culture is far too powerful a factor to be concealed or to disappear entirely."

p.126-128 of Jan Rypka's, History of Iranian Literature. Reidel Publishing Company. ASIN B-000-6BXVT-K

DP Singh has entered the chatroom

An editor with whom I'm familiar from the fracas over at Rajput added a long quote from a 150-year-old history book that is seriously biased. I removed it, but I considering whether we should add a section debunking the "conversion at the point of a sword" argument. Everything I've read -- and that Zereshk has cited -- argues that in the first century or so, the Muslims preferred jizya to converts.

I also removed all the long sections re the ultimate "victory" of Persian language and culture -- again. If that stuff goes anywhere, it should go in the Persian language and literature articles, which could then be linked to this article. We could just have one para on the failure of the Arab language to eradicate Persian, in contrast to the vast areas (Morocco to Iraq) where Arabic displaced the original languyages, and then the references to other articles. I know that "Arabization" is a hot topic in Islamic studies right now and I could try to come up with some quotes discussing the broader phenomenon. Zora 21:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora,

Don't you agree that it is near to impossible changing the pre-set minds that are close to every logic? Unfortunately, we the easterns, are reduced to praise the deeds of our elders and love to live in myth than in reality. No wonder we remain unfocused and unproductive.

Dunno. You may not think of LA Persian pop or Bollywood movies as achievements, but I do. They're alive, they're fresh, they're new. Many of the things we now regard as cultural achievements were just consumer goodies or mere entertainment when they were being made. Frex, the 18th and 19th century English novel, which is now studied in universities, was regarded as vulgar trash in its day. Zora 11:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I think that if the myths of our glorious past are taken away from us we will not survive. Off course it is easy to delve into the good and brave deeds (no matter if fake or true) of our elders and talk about them rather than trying to do something ourselves. The main loser in such a situation is always and has always been truth.

If Arabs are and were so bad then why do our Iranian friends still have an Arab holding the top most position in their country? Why shouldn't it be taken by a Persian? Why talk about Imam Raza (RA), Imam Jaafar Sadiq (RA), Imam Zain-Al-Aabidin (RA) who were all Arabs? Don't my friends understand that when you say that "Arabs" did this you are accusing all the Arabs to it including the ones that you respect the most. Wasn't Ali (RA) an Arab and wasn't Persia a part of the Empire he ruled? Did he also comitted the attrocities that my friends so aggressively try to label on all the Arabs of today and the past?

خرم Khurram 00:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole "According to Parsees" should, too be removed, most arent compatible with what we know from general history, nor does a Parsi i speak to from india even agree with any of it. Ayatollah mutahhari adressed most of these arguments in his work and overall it seems like a whole bunch of stereotypical arguments used usually by iranians overseas to discredit iran politically. Jizya was prefered and this option was provided by Salman al Farsi, i dont even think that is disputed. fire temples werent destroyed but protected under these circumstances, etc.--Paradoxic 14:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Khorram jan,

Remember that the same Arabs that screwed Iran also slaughtered Imam Hossein, Imam Reza, and all the Shia icons you keep mentioning. Over-glorifying pre-Islamic Persia wont do us any good in the 21st century. But ignoring them (as the Islamic Republic has been doing) and forgetting our pre-Islamic past wont help us either. As our colleagues in the Miras Farhangi Organization keep stressing:

آینده از آن ملتیست که گذشته خود را میشناسد

--Zereshk 12:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk jan,

I totally agree with you that the pre-Islamic Persia and its culture are an important heritage for Iran and its people and it shall be regarded as such. Every Iranian has the justified right to marvel the accomplishments of its forefathers but we shall not be doing it by degrading others. Imam Hussain was an Arab and the ones fighting for him were all Arabs as well, we cannot say that for those fighting against him. And I think it does not matter at all. The fight has always been between the Right and the Wrong and the cause is always greater than the ones fighting for it. Instead of pointing out Arabs, we can surely mention the regimes and the rulers who did good or bad to their people without ever indulging into their nationality. Afterall Durfash-e-Kawayani was first rose against a Persian ruler and we don't say that all the Persian were bad.

خرم Khurram 19:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. That's why I keep stressing on the term "Umayyid" and on specific names like Hajjaj, Umar, etc. Zora however is even against that. She refuses to accept 'any mention of any wrongdoing by any ruler of the conquest. And that is simply historical revisionism, not to mention against Wikipedia policy. BTW, Zora is one of the most ardent pro-Sunni anti-Shia editors Wikipedia has ever seen. Ask any Shia editor here about that.--Zereshk 00:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Zershek,

I think when we mention the bad deeds of a ruler or those of a dynasty, we also need to mention the goods that they did. Also we need to seperate myth from reality. In your last post you have put me on hard grounds by talking about pro-Sunni and anti-Shia thing. I know I respect Zora for her contributions and haven't seen any bias in her work so far. What I would say is that being a Shia and being an Iranian are two completely different things and this article is about Iran and its culture as it was influenced by the Muslims and similarly the contribution of the pre-Islamic Persian culture to the Muslim Culture. The political issues are not something that shall be discussed here. Maybe what Zora is trying to tell you is that this is not the page regarding political disputes and difference. Can you please think it this way?

خرم Khurram 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What is really amusing is that we have a Sunni editor over at Succession to Muhammad who's convinced that I'm a Shi'a who hates Sunnis. Zora 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, to a Wahabi or some other extremist, you will always seem as a Shia, and I will seem, in the words of that extremist AlladdinSE, as a "militant" (hah, he forgets that every goddamn terrorist from Bin Laden to Zarqawi to the 9-11 people were all Sunnis). You did say that you doubt the existence of al-Mohsen on that very page to that very person (as if telling him "yeah I agree with you akhi, but we cant just say everything we wish to here"). That makes it quite clear your Sunni leanings.--Zereshk 06:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How the heck I can have Sunni leanings when I'm not a Muslim is beyond me. In any case, what I think personally isn't always what goes in the article. We're all supposed to be aiming at an impartial presentation, not propagandizing for our POV. (Just as when I try to do the right thing in real life, I'm supposed to think of the well-being of all involved, not just my own selfish interests.) I don't think any of us live up to that, either in terms of impartiality or unselfishness, but we should try. Z, you don't think I'm trying, but I am. Zora 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Khorram,

I'm all for mentioning the good deeds of the Arabs and the good things that came out of the conquest. But I am also persistent that we mention its not-so-good sides as well. That, is the meaning of impartiality. Without the religion brought by the Arabs, we wouldnt have had greats such as Attar or Rumi, I agree. Yet, I cant agree with making the conquest look like some girl scout trip to Iran where everyone was happy and dandy. The Arabs did not come to Iranian villages with cookies and smiles. They came with swords. There was a reason why so many revolts happened. There was a reason why people like AbuLuLu did what they did. It reminds me of the Bush team propagandists that wanted everyone to believe that "people in Iraq flocked into the streets to welcome the liberators". (Well, some did. But you get the point).--Zereshk 06:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of enterprise I'm against; Why do you appease in favour of the whims of relativist parasites like Zora? I'm not going to accept it if someone attempts to white-wash this huge historical imposing of Islam. The very moment Iranians lost the battle at Al-Qadisiyya a cultural genocide had begun, starting with caliph Umar's decree through a letter exchange with Sa'ad Ibn Abi-Vagghas, resulting in destruction of literati starting from Ctesiphon to Chorasmia. I'm especially not going to stand it when you yap around with defunct expressions like "Islamic Art" and "Islamic Science". I dare you to claim Ar-Razi's achievements as Islamic. Go on. Go on and perpetuate what muslim apologists have done for generations, stealing and taking credit from the genius of Iranian artists and scientists. Dr. Shoja'eddin Shafa was right, we don't call the Parthian Battery "Zoroastrian Science" just as we're not calling Galileo's achievements "Christian Science". Why this hypocrisy? Attar and Rumi... You speak of Sufism, Eastern mysticism superficially labelling itself "Islamic". Wasn't there something called Baha'ism which started out quite similarly? Since when did the Qur'an teach anyone to write poetry, or how to compose musical pieces?

No, the Islamic invasion was anything but a girl scout trip, but apparently there is a taboo against fully discussing how completely devastating to Iranian culture this incursion was, especially in regards to the fact that Islam forced itself upon the Iranian lands, by the sword and made sure that only Islam would prevail through mass destruction of potentially 600-800 years of Partho-Sassanian knowledge. A power that contended with Rome! That's not a joke, it's a glimpse of how extensive the destruction actually was. Nowadays we Iranian can't get enough out of lamenting what Alexander did at Persepolis over what probably was an act of intoxication, while Ctesiphon, in a far more wretched state than Persepolis gets overlooked in favour of Islamic sensibilities. That is offensive and a clear showcase of double-standard. We can't let go off the thought of yapping about movies like "Alexander" and "300" being insulting while anything relevant to Islam in Iran gets quashed. Noble people like Ahmad Kasravi were murdered for stating the truth. Ummayad? Dude, what are you hiding from? Technicalities ordained by people who don't know squat about these events, or are you just trying to fool yourself? According to Sir William Muir in his biography of Mahomet, the "prophet" himself want to subjugate the "Ajam" under Islam, and the fact is Mohammed officially declared war against the Sassanians after his arrogant daw'at was turned down. First by cursing the Sassanians at numerous occasions, and then by invading the Yemeni vassals of the Sassanians.

Sometimes, just sometimes I wish my ancestors knew better. For one, that Wahman should have pursued that bag of filth Muthanna into the heart of Arabia and razed the two accursed cities that reared the religion of the lizard-eaters after the victory at Al-Jisr, instead of being generous and sending annual caravans of surplus grain and dates to the poor Arabs. Islamic gratitude, in a nutshell. Brave Wahman died along with Rustam in Qadisiyya.

I have read all about your feuds with Zora, and I agree, she can be very annoying. Do not however turn yourself into an all-compromising personality. That is not what academia is about. Impartiality is independent from historical fact, something that Zora yet has to appreciate in her tireless attempts of censorship. If she bitches about simple facts, then let her bitch about it. I'm sure as hell not going to appease to someone who can't accept that Islam brought with itself a whole lot of shit into Iran. What are her credentials? Is she a scholar on Ancient Iran? Islamology? I couldn't give a shit about the latter, but if she is not an authority in the former field, then her words may have the weight of an educated three-year old. Please heed my advice, it is better that she remains your adversary rather than turning your back against what truly happened in Ancient Iran. You make the choice, I, in difference to a bunch of "nationalistic Iranians" do know what I'm talking about. --The Persian Cataphract 21:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a political article

Paradoxic, NO, this is not a political article, this is an article about history. I agree that contemporary Iranian attitudes towards the Islamic conquest, post-conquest history, Islam, Arabic influence on the Persian language, etc., are highly variable and conflicted. Well, start an article about THAT in particular, rather than trying to drag it all into the history article. This is an encyclopedia, not a bully pulpit for people to preach their political views. Readers who come to this article just want to know about the fall of the Sassanids, they don't want a history of Persian literature, disquisitions on contemporary Iranian politics, etc. Put that material in the proper place and LINK to it.

You might be interested in the following article, from the British Prospect magazine: [2]. Are those allegations about the Hojjatieh correct? Can that article be expanded? Zora 23:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

When one doesnt agree with a sentence or two, what you DONT do is delete the entire content, wich is what you've been doing. This is as much a political article as it is a historical one in my view. I did not start a sub-article labelled Contemporary Iranians and Arabs, etc. wich started out Saddam invoked the battle of Qadisiyyah to fight the iranians in the 80's i merely elaborated on them. I deleted these now since they Were about politics, and as you've said, we dont want to dwindle down to the political sphere. You can start different pages for those.--Paradoxic 14:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, then let's delete the whole dang thing re contemporary attitudes, OK? I tried that once and people kept reverting to express their "opinions" re the Persian vs. Arab grudge match. But if you're ready to let that go .... Zora 02:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To Zereshk

I gave this article a thorough read. The discussions as well. I think we are jeopardizing facts and historical integrity here by trying to be politically correct. Not everything needs revisioning. But I do feel certain touch ups are necessary as it seems some contributors – Zora - are just trying to force down a skewed version of history/reality in order to indulge their false sense of ‘nationalism’ (or whatever the disorder is) and pretending to be the defenders of facts and reality at the same time. Goddamn FCC. I would like to know if there are other people who think this way and in that case, and if you (Zereshk) could alter this article, as I think you already have the knowledge, references and facts for that. --LogiPhi 08:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to. But I need a little more active help from other editors for this particular page. The way it is now, there are multiple editors working on the article separately (Amir85, Paradoxic, etc). When there is consensus among editors, then it will be difficult for Zora to just come in and erase everything, as she has already done with my work in this article before. I would like to contribute, provided that Zora doesnt come in and erase it all the next day, like she always does.--Zereshk 22:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Will do my best. So what to do first? Amir85 11:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I need you to email me first: nima53@yahoo.com --Zereshk 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I created a new article

I tried moving all the contentious material re the SEQUEL to the conquest into Arabization and Islamicization in post-conquest Iran. That takes the pressure off this article, which can remain purely historical.

Amir85 won't accept that, and reverted but ... if you guys think about it, you'll have a lot more room to argue in a whole new article devoted to the subject. Zora 10:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

We can add everything there on the new page as well. But Umar's invasion of Iran is not post-conquest, and it belongs here. The massacres commited under commanders such as Ash'as al-Kindi in Azarbaijan province of Iran were not post-Conquest. The same for the events in Istakhr. They were part of the conquest.--Zereshk 18:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Not "as well" -- take it out. NO need to repeat the same material. But if you want to add "massacres" and destruction of property in the conquest of the Iranian plateau, do. That's part of the immediate history. Anything under Umar and Uthman, yes?

Since it also seems to be felt that the Umayyads, far away in Damascus, were particularily harsh in Persia, perhaps there should be an article called Umayyad rule in Iran that discusses that in some detail. Ditto for Abbasid rule in Iran. Both of those seem to be completely absent from the History of Iran article and the history of Iran template -- as is the Ilkhanate. Hammmm. Zora 21:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we make each section of this article a separate page. How's that Zora? I can even find a page title if we wanted to even separate each paragraph into its own page. Agree?--Zereshk 21:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll ignore the sarcasm. I'm protesting the use of this article as a launching pad for anti-Arab screeds and paeans to Persian nationalism. I wrote an article about one historical event -- you folks want to add all sorts of editorials about "what this event means to me" -- and you want your opinions enshrined as fact. Now IF you want to discuss the interesting fact that Persians did not in fact adopt the Arab language, there's an article where you can discuss it. At length. Zora 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

phwahaha... "Persian nationalism". Get a life Zora. It's obvious to everyone by now that Youre a Persia-phobe. I alone have provided at least 15 sources on this very page, and all you have to say is ignorant shit like "that source is not acceptable because it's from the American government" or "Holly Pittman and David Stronach are not academic". Youre on a pan-Arab agenda to distort history, and that's disgusting. An abomination for the "academia". I've had enough of this soporific sophistry.--Zereshk 07:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move

This page should be moved to Islamic conquest of Persia. It is not totally outrageous but I was thinking that I was reading and monitoring the thing related to Persia but now I made sure that I am reading Iran instead of Persia. This explains my lack of concentration but also explains the lack of knowledge of some of the editors (if not all). Page moved to Islamic conquest of Persia. Cheers -- Szvest 21:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

A Possible Compromise

Here is a proposed compromise, in the hope of ending yet another edit warring, mostly likely initiated by editors who may feel it necessary to sound more lenient than factual[3]. I hope it helps both sides though. Please stop concentrating on each other and comment on the articles; name calling like Persian nationalists are inappropriate, assume good faith.Zmmz 05:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The language question

Various editors believe very strongly that the Arab conquerors imposed the Arabic language and punished people who didn't use it. But WHY do you believe this? No one has ever given any sources.

I just spent some time flipping through the books that I have here at home and searching the Questia library -- I can't find a single source that says that the subjects of the new Islamic empire were forced to abandon their native tongue. Source after source insists that Arabic was the language of government and religion and increasingly, culture. In fact, it wasn't IMMMEDIATELY imposed as the language of government. The Arab conquererors had to depend on officials from the old Byzantine and Sassanid bureaucracies to run things for them, and those officials used the languages with which they were most familiar: Greek and Persian. It wasn't until 700 CE that the Egyptian bureaucracy was told to use Arabic rather than Greek. I can't find a date for Persia, but I would imagine that the switch would have occurred at the same time there.

Mandating one language for government use is not the same thing as banning another language. There is absolutely no evidence for a ban -- yet various editors cling to this story. Why? Zora 08:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right there is a difference between appointing one language as the official language and banning the others completely. But isn’t this the exact same word (“banned”) that the Iranians minorities are using/trying to use in their articles? After all, theirs is the exact same case; there is no restriction on talking, publishing newspaper, writing books and even having TV programs in Kurdish or Arabic but since the language of the government and that of public education is Persian, they (Iranian Kurds and Iranian Arabs) claim that their language is banned, is being oppressed and that Persian language is imposed on them. From what I remember you yourself passionately argued on their behalf! Sorry I will try to assume good faith but why is it that it bothers you in this article but not when the same thing is implied in “Arabs of Khuzestan” or clearly mentioned in “Iranian Kurdistan” articles?

If Persian is imposed on Kurdish and Arab minority of Iran, then Arabic was imposed on Persians for two hundred years. Gol 10:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course having one language be the language of government and religion is pressure -- it's just that there's a difference between "If you want to talk to the commissioner, you'll have to either speak Arabic or bring a translator" and "If I hear you speaking Persian, I'll have your tongue cut out!" You're using wording that suggests the latter, when the former is the case.

As for my own thoughts re language policy -- I'm not sure I have a position. Praps everyone should be tri-lingual: English, the new international standard, the major regional language, which in this case would be Persian, and then the language of home and family. But parents should be able to pick which languages they want their children to learn, translators should be available for all government functions, and of course publishing and broadcasting should be free of censorship, either as to content or language.

But I don't speak for any Iranian ethnic minorities, I speak for me alone. Zora 10:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, this is what the article currently states: During the reign of the Ummayad dynasty, the Arab conquerors imposed Arabic as the primary language of the subject peoples throughout their empire, displacing their native languages. Doesn't say anything about cutting out tongues or any other such behavior. SouthernComfort 11:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That formulation is just plain wrong and misleading. Primary language means the language you speak most of the time -- at home, when you're out shopping, etc. Your mother tongue. The Arabs didn't bother with that. All they said was, "All government records should be in Arabic" -- which of course meant that all government officials had to speak Arabic. That doesn't necesarily affect the daily language -- especially when you're an illiterate poor peasant and have little to do with the government. This is very much like the use of Latin in Europe in the Middle Ages. Language of the church, education, diplomacy. I was just reading an article by the English historian, Hobsbawm, and he pointed out that the the Hungarian Parliament conducted its debates in Latin until the early 19th century.

Respect for the truth means "no exaggeration". It's fair to say that the Arab conquerors imposed Arabic in the bureaucracy and the mosque, and that those who wanted to advance under the new regime had to learn Arabic. That is just not the same thing as "imposing Arabic as the primary language". Zora 11:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But wasn't that your original wording to begin with? We are going to have to go back to the sources that have been used in this article (or find newer ones) to clarify the issue. Bernard Lewis' book about the Middle East might be useful as well since it addresses much of what we are discussing here in a single text. SouthernComfort 11:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that wasn't my wording. I know what "primary language" means. Zora 11:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Did I suggest that you didn't know what "primary language" means? At any rate, are you now suggesting that during the period of Arab rule (particularly under the Ummayads), that Persian language was allowed and that people continued speaking Persian as their mother tongue? And that Arabic was solely the domain of government and commerce? I thought you disagreed with this, considering all this talk of "Arabization"? I really think we should just check the various sources and see what sort of consensus arises. SouthernComfort 11:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Persian language was allowed. The same way that the conquering Normans allowed their serfs to continue speaking Anglo-Saxon. That eventually led to "Arabization" of the Persian language, just as it led to the "Frenchification" (to coin a word) of Anglo-Saxon. That's the main effect that we can identify. There are probably more but ... to judge the amount of change we'd probably have to know more about daily life under the Sassanids than we do. It's a fascinating question, really. I wish I could live to 300 to investigate stuff like that! I bet archaeology would have a lot to tell us. Zora 12:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Persian language was allowed so freely, this further suggests that the Arabs preferred to maintain a barrier of separation between themselves and the Persians, and that it was through these ethnic-based policies that Persian language and culture (and the civilization) survived. There are texts which clarify this issue, but there is so much material to wade through and compare. I am surprised that Questia does not seem to have much more information regarding these issues. SouthernComfort 12:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again and again and again....

File:Cambridge History of Iran2.jpg

From "The Cambridge History of Iran"

Zora said (March 18th edit):

"I can't find a single source that says that the subjects of the new Islamic empire were forced to abandon their native tongue.

WHY do you believe this? No one has ever given any sources."

Sources have been given in fact on this very page. Im posting this picture for the 2nd time here.

The real question is, why does Zora refuse this fact?--Zereshk 07:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The excerpt specifically says that the language of the divan -- the bureaucracy -- was changed. Not that everyone was forced to speak Arabic. I'm not refusing facts, you're misreading the excerpt. Zora 07:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, let us consider the following passage from Biruni:

وقتی قتبیه بن مسلم سردار حجاج، بار دوم بخوارزم رفت و آن را باز گشود هرکس را که خط خوارزمی می نوشت و از تاریخ و علوم و اخبار گذشته آگاهی داشت از دم تیغ بی دریغ درگذاشت و موبدان و هیربدان قوم را یکسر هلاک نمود و کتابهاشان همه بسوزانید و تباه کرد تا آنکه رفته رفته مردم امی ماندند و از خط و کتابت بی بهره گشتند و اخبار آنها اکثر فراموش شد و از میان رفت ( نقل آثار الباقیه ابوریحان بیرونی برگ 35، 36، 48)

I invite all knowledgeable editors to see if you agree with my translation:

"When Qutaibah bin Muslim under the command of Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef was sent to Khwarazmia with a military expedition and conquered it for the second time, he swiftly killed whomwever spoke the Khwarazmian native local tongue that knew of the Khwarazmian heritage, history, and culture. He then killed all their Zoroastrian priests and burned and wasted their books, until gradually the illiterate only remained, who knew nothing of writing, and hence their history was mostly forgotten." From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية of Biruni.

Thanx.--Zereshk 08:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your translation 100% Thank you for providing the source.

Gol 20:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, that para from al-Biruni only says that Qutaybah killed all the priests and scholars. It doesn't say that he killed all the Khwarazmians, or that he killed anyone who spoke that language. Again, you're misreading the text. Sure, it was horrible, as was the burning of the Sassanid libraries (and the destruction of cities and the taking of slaves). But it is not the same thing as forcing people to speak Arabic. For one thing -- there were many conquered peoples, and relatively few Arabs. Those few Arabs were, initially, settled in garrison towns. So just how were the conquered peoples supposed to learn Arabic? Zora 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I dont think anyone is claiming that "they killed all the Khwarazmians". I dont recall hearing or seeing that claim made anywhere.--Zereshk 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As per conversation with Prof. Fred M. Donner of U of Chicago (a scholar on Islamic Conquests), apparently the Arabs did not want Persians to learn Arabic at first for two important reasons: one; the Umayyad from Arabia had forbade Arabs to mix with non-Arabs, and two; they did not want the Persians to hold high governmental positions. Of course the latter did not work, and soon scientists of Persian origin were commissioned by the Caliphates to Baghdad for research, and were additionally forced to abandon their native language(s), instead, they were to use Arabic. He recommended a book by Saleh Said Agha, called `The Revolution that Overthrew the Umayyads`.Zmmz 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a fascinating book. Too bad it's $188. Zora 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge is not cheap; that’s exactly why I insist on submitting only universally accepted theories rather than ongoing/unverified research that may or may not hold some potentials. Scholars and historians have worked hard to obtain this info, so we must put any new hypothesis that is set forth in a rigorous cycle of inquiry. In general, it is best to inquire about historical events without having a prior pro or against agenda, such that they may blur the lenses, and have the truth mixed with our own pre-conceived notions. Certainly we must do all we can, so that we could not be accused of being revisionist historians. Zmmz 23:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, you've missed the point again. We include ALL notable POVs. That means non-academic POVs, if they're widespread and documented, and all the various academic POVs. We present all the best arguments for each POV and let the reader of the article decide which is the most convincing. So, if Zereshk could just present a published source that claims that the conquered peoples were forced to use Arabic, we'd include that. Even if I don't think it's true. We have to allow stuff we don't believe! Zora 23:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I`m not sure if that may be more appropriate in a newspaper article, essay, blog, or in a book, rather than in an encyclopedia: simply put, there are just too many POVs out there.Zmmz 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, have you read WP:NPOV? If not, do. Those are the ground rules. I didn't make them up. If you don't accept the NPOV policy, you should not be editing here. Zora 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it. Please refrain from incivilities, and instead try to concentrate on the article itself: assume good faith. NPOV states, correctly, that the language used when writing an encyclopedia--this one--should be neutral. It further states that one must refrain from pushing a particular POV in order to prove a point; it does not state that every single hypothesis should be mentioned in an article, just because the contents may be disputed by some users who do not agree with it. In fact, I do believe the corner stone for writing an encyclopedia is trying to be as factual as one can be, and being factual does not necessarily mean representing numerous point of views, many of which may go against the Wikipedia:No original research policy. But, of course, as historians, we must always leave a small door of possibility open for new discoveries.Zmmz 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora's dispute

Update:

Zora disputes that the Persian language was forceably attmpted to be replaced by the Arabs in Persia after the conquest.

On the Cambridge History of Iran source which I provided, she says that it is not acceptable because it only mentions the "Divan" being forced to become Arabic. Hence she claims that the official language has no relevance to the spoken language.

She does not accept the Biruni quote, saying it is only an isolated incident, despite the numerous reports we have of mistreatment of the mawali by Hajjaj and the conquerors.

Current:

Zora now says:

"if Zereshk could just present a published source that claims that the conquered peoples were forced to use Arabic, we'd include that. Even if I don't think it's true."

Well then we can put that claim to the test.

• Chapter 4 of the following text deals entirely with the replacement of Persian with Arabic: Zarrinkoub, Two centuries of silence, ISBN 964-5983-33-6
• Reports of Persian speakers being tortured is also given in: al-Aghānī. by Abū al-Faraj al-Isfahāni, [4] Vol 4, p.423

Thanks to all.--Zereshk 23:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Powells, Amazon, and ABEbooks all say that the ISBN given for the Zarrinkoub text is malformed. I also searched for the title, and the author, on those sites, as well as on WorldCat, and got no matches. As for the Abū al-Faraj al-Isfahāni -- again, no copy in English. If you want us to believe you, you're going to have to give better bibliographic info, quotes, and if the quotes are in Persian, translations. If after all that the quotes say what you think they say, we can put them into the article as one of two or more competing views. Zora 00:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Persian view should be the one that should be contested in this article, not the other way around. --Kash 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Kash, NPOV demands that all notable views be presented and that none of them should be stated as "true". It's all "A says X" and "B says Y". No "X is right" or "Y is right". A view held by a small minority may legitimately get less space, but it should still be presented neutrally.

Generally people don't worry a lot about the space given various views, but just make sure that there's enough material to adequately convey the argument. Frex, in the articles re early Islamic history, Shi'a views usually get as much space as the Sunni views, even though Sunnis are the majority. I have invoked the proportionality argument at times, notably with Striver, who felt that 70% of the Muawiya I article should be dedicated to vilifying Muawiya. But it's usually not a problem. Notability can also mean that extreme weirdo fringe views are axed. There's one editor who feels strongly that the Kaaba was originally a Hindu shrine. Every now and then he edits the Kaaba article and we revert it. If he had 10,000 followers we might include his views, but as long as it's just him, he doesn't count. Zora 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora,

Not to fear. The Library of Congress has Zarrinkoub's book registered nice and dandy: Do an Author search for Zarrinkoub. He has 42 items under his name. Item #17 is "Dū qarn-i sukūt", the book in question.

Also, the Arabic book by Isfahani was provided by the Columbia Encyclopedia. I can give the scanned original and translations. No sweat.

And finally, Amazon, Powells, and ABEbooks are for amateurs and laymen. Please upgrade your search methodology.

So Zora, the ball is in your court now. G'day.--Zereshk 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, it's not in my court. You have merely shown that the books you cited exist, not that they support your claims. We need quotes, with page numbers, and if the quotes are in Persian, you need to translate them. Then we can put them in the article as one POV. Zora 03:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I can do better than that. I can provide scans of the text, and then translate them, and put the translation to vote.

But in case youve forgotten, Im not the one contending anything here. You are. You merely asked for "a single source that says that the subjects of the new Islamic empire were forced to abandon their native tongue." I provided several. Not acceptable to you? Tough luck. I personally have no interest in the article as it is, because it is almost entirely your work. You never allow(ed) anybody else to contribute anything opposite your views, as the talk page here illustratingly attests. You may keep your monopoly as you like. I wont challenge you. I have other articles to work on. Carry on. But you will never be able to convince any Iranian that the conquest occured devoid of any bloodshed and force, if that's what youre trying to accomplish. That, you can never achieve. We know our history. You dont even respect our language and culture (belittling every Persian source I've provided as un-academic, nationalist, etc etc). But I'm sure that some day perhaps you will come to respect it. However, I feel it may probably be too late. As Ferdowsi says in his poem: "Noosh-daru pas az marg-i Sohrab" (the healing potion finally arrived, alas it was too late as Sohrab had already died).

Best of luck (on this page) to you Zora--Zereshk 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence about Arabs not allowed to marry Iranians

The follwoing sentence seems to be very POV, and it contradicts other sources like Encyclopaedia Iranica: They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature.

Encyclopaedia Iranica clearly mentions that Arabs married local women in Iran, after the conquest. Here is the exact quote:

In 730 CE, Jonayd bin Abd-al-Rahman sent 20,000 Arabs (half from Basrah and half from Kufa) to Khorasan. At the time of Qotayba bin Moslem governorship (early 8th century), there were 40,000 Basran, 7,000 Kufan troops in Khorasan, the Arabs coming from the tribes of Bakr, Tamim, Abd-al-Qays and Azd. Because of the distance from Iraq and the attractiveness of the country, large numbers of these soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province.Arab settlements in Iran, p.213 Heja Helweda 03:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See the reference section. This policy is universally well known, and was ordered during the reign of the first dynasty, which ruled before 730 CE.Zmmz 04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This sentence Mass conversions were neither desired nor allowed is also wrong. Salman al-Farsi, a Zoroastrian Persian, was allowed to convert to Islam in seventh century while Prophet was still alive, and became one of the most renowned companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Heja Helweda 00:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to include both sources in the article to make it more neutral.Heja Helweda 04:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora's edits

Zmmz's edits re the suppression of Zoroastrianism just didn't make sense, so I reverted.

I rewrote the bit re settlement in Khorasan, but it's still there. I changed from "several centuries" to one century in discussing refusal to allow conversion, as the material I've been reading on the Abbasid revolution suggests that all barriers to conversion were dropped by the Abbasids.

I kept the Encyclopedia Iranica refs. However, someone had added Donner again, even though he was already in the list.

I removed the whole controversy as to whether Arabic was "imposed" or just the language of the new ruling class and bureaucracy. I don't think that the people who are insisting that it was imposed by force have adduced ANY information supporting their views. However, it's not necessary to specify a mechanism if we just describe the result, which was an influx of Arabic vocabulary into Persian. Perhaps this question deserves a breakout article, where there's space for pros and cons. Dunno what it should be called. Zora 06:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not the editor who inserted the statement about the suppression of Zoroastrianism; however, your cyclical pattern of bringing up old discussions is unnecessary; see here please[5]. Months ago, it was settled that Encyclopedia Iranica is a mere student encyclopedia, yet, in the interest of compromise, I still allow it, but not written in the exaggerated version that was put forth, rather it was rewritten in a more neutral language. Please see, WP:NPOV & Wikipedia:Verifiability. Moreover, major encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica do not support the view mentioned by you and user Heja Helweda. Finally, multiple references were provided that confirms, naturally as any invaders did, Arabs too imposed their language upon their subjects. Please take time to review the WP:POINT policy.Zmmz 01:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added a paragraph on the process of conversion of Iranians to Islam following the conquest up to the early Abbassid period. Most of the conversions were not coercive, however there has been some evidence of destruction of Zoroastrian Fire temples, and killing of Zoroasterian priests. There is a nice article on this subject in Encyclopaedia Iranica, with the title Conversion of Iranians to Islam written by a western scholar. It seems to be quite neutral, since it does not take sides of neither Muslims nor Zoroasterians. Heja Helweda 02:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless, you can provide more major references like Columbia Encyclopedia, besides the student encyclopedia you quote, this section may be disputed.Zmmz 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You can add the phrase According to Encyclopaedia Iranica. Moreover I do not think Dr. Ehsan Yarshater, the Editor of Iranica, is a student :).Heja Helweda 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What is significant is that no major encyclopedia supports these claims, and this junior encyclopedia seems to be your sole reference. I`ll allow it, but it does not mean you can turn the section into propaganda. Write in a neutral way.Zmmz 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica IS a major encyclopedia, Zmmz, it's just a specialized one. I think it's sometimes biased, but it's generally factually reliable. Encyclopedia of Islam, put out by Brill, is also a highly regarded specialized encyclopedia. Just wish I had $300 for the CD version. There are other specialized encyclopedias out there, many of which are of high quality and perfectly acceptable as sources. Just what makes you think it's a JUNIOR encyclopedia? Zora 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not in the same league as Encyclopedia Britannica. And, it seems to be your sole reference.Zmmz 02:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no authentic sources that say, Persians converted to Islam during Muhamad`s life. If there were conversions, it was too few and unverifiable to mention. Either change this sentence, and mention this was the only case known so far, and provide at least two references, or it has to be erased, Conversion of Iranians to Islam began in Arabia when the Prophet was still alive. The most renowned of them was Salman al-Farsi. Zmmz 03:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

---

No, it's BETTER than Britannica for certain subjects. Britannica can't go into the detail that it does. I have read, or am reading, a fair number of books and articles on Islamic, Middle Eastern, and Persian history, and Encyclopedia Iranica and the Encyclopedia of Islam are cited, whereas Britannica never is. From Kennedy's 2004 book, The Prophet and the Age of Caliphates, Second Edition:

In addition the reader should refer to the two editions of The Encyclopedia of Islam.... Many of the articles are of great scholarly value and the Encyclopaedia should always be used to supplement other reading. Another important reference tool is the Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. E. Yarshater (London and New York 1985-) which contains more discursive articles and is still incomplete. (p. 386)

Hugh Kennedy is a Professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of St. Andrews. Who are you? Zora 03:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion; that is considered a junior encyclopedia by most scholars. But, the most important issue is that your claims are not in major encyclopedias like Britannica or Columbia.Zmmz 04:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I cite a publication, but that is "my opinion"? huh? So, exactly WHO are the "scholars" who regard the Iranica as a junior encyclopedia? Cites please. Zora 04:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In your own words, I think it's sometimes biased. Do any major sources like Britannica give the slightest mention that support your claims? That is a significant fact that should not be tossed aside.Zmmz 04:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have a single source to cite in support of your opinion. Zora 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source that says your source is not a universally accepted source? You make claims, you need to provide authoritative sources; not I. Thank youZmmz 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Forced conversion

It's not as if the Arab conquerors were of one mind on the subject of conversion, status of the converted, etc. During Umar's and Uthman's caliphates, when the Arab domains were expanding rapidly, commanders on the ground had a lot of leeway. Furthermore, according to Bashear, there were internal debates among the Muslims themselves as to whether Islam was just for the Arabs, or whether it was a universal religion. Most of what I've read suggests that conversion was OK as long as the converted became "mawla", clients, of an Arab tribe, adopted the Arab language and customs, etc. They lost any status they had under the old regime and became the lowest of the low. Furthermore, they had to find an Arab who would sponsor them. Whole villages who tried to convert, without a sponsor, to avoid jizya, were refused.

Muslim men were allowed to marry non-Muslim women, or have non-Muslim slave concubines, and there was no problem with these women converting, or with slaves converting. They were already at the bottom.

Arguing about Arab policies as if they were clear, coherent, and uniformly imposed is pointless. There are supporting data for all sides of the argument. Zora 02:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Conversion of Persians to Islam

Majority of Iranians and Persians converted to Islam in the course of 7th and 8th century. There should be some mention of this significant change of religion in the article.Heja Helweda 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is: "By the 9th century, the majority of Persians had become Muslim."--Zereshk 04:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sabaeans

The mysterious group to be tolerated, per the Qur'an, were the Sabaeans. Zoroastrians were eventually ruled to be Sabaeans, and entitled to tolerance. Not the Majoos.

I again removed the claim that the Arabs imposed Arabic. That is extremely misleading. However, rather than going into the matter, I just said that Persian did not die out as did other languages.

I'm not claiming that enforced use of one language in government, scholarship, and religion is not eventually going to erode or even displace native languages. That's the sort of thing that Native Hawaiians in my own state resent and hold responsible for the near-death of the Hawaiian language. But that is just not the same thing as forcing people to use another language (as in, "if you speak Persian I'll kill you"). We have to be accurate, not enshrine popular myths. Zora 07:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Claims that Shi'a Islam is particularly Persian

Iran wasn't Shi'a until five centuries ago. There were certainly pockets of Shi'a, but the Shi'a heartland was the present-day Iraq; that's where Jafar lived, that's where Shi'a Islam developed. Therefore I removed the unreferenced claim that Shi'a Islam is particularily Persian and reflects pre-Islamic beliefs. That should be discussed in the Shi'a Islam article in any case. Zora 07:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Professor Bernard Lewis says: "What I would like first to bring to your attention is a significant and indeed remarkable difference between what happened in Iran and what happened in all the other countries of the Middle East and North Africa that were conquered by the Arabs and incorporated in the Islamic caliphate in the seventh and eighth centuries.

These other countries of ancient civilization, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, were Islamized and Arabized in a remarkably short time. Their old religions were either abandoned entirely or dwindled into small minorities; their old languages almost disappeared. Some survived in scriptures and liturgies, some were still spoken in a few remote villages, but in most places, among most people, the previous languages were forgotten, the identities expressed in those languages were replaced, and the ancient civilizations of Iraq, Syria, and Egypt gave way to what we nowadays call the Arab world.

Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized. Persians remained Persians. And after an interval of silence, Iran reemerged as a separate, different and distinctive element within Islam, eventually adding a new element even to Islam itself. Culturally, politically, and most remarkable of all even religiously, the Iranian contribution to this new Islamic civilization is of immense importance.

The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution. In a sense, Iranian Islam is a second advent of Islam itself, a new Islam sometimes referred to as Islam-i Ajam. It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India.

The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna. A seventeenth-century Turkish visitor who went to Vienna as part of an Ottoman embassy, notes with curiosity that the language which they speak in Vienna is a corrupt form of Persian. He had of course observed the basic Indo-European kinship between Persian and German, and the fact that the Germans say ist and the Persians say ast, almost the same thing, for the verb "to be," present indicative third-person singular.

By the time of the great Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century, Iranian Islam had become not only an important component; it had become a dominant element in Islam itself, and for several centuries the main centers of Islamic power and civilization were in countries that were, if not Iranian, at least marked by Iranian civilization."

--ManiF 21:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Lewis is talking mainly about SUNNI Islam. The Ottomans were Sunni. This is not proof that Shi'ism is essentially Persian. Zora 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Majoos

ManiF, removing ALL mention of language in a discussion of effects of the Arab conquest is sweeping something under the rug, isn't it? You may not LIKE to be reminded of your Arab heritage (language, religion, possible/probabal intermarriage) but you shouldn't censor it. (Ditto Arabs not wanting to recognize Persian influence on Islam -- there's a lot of reciprocal censoring going on.)

Restoring the reference to Majoos is just ... crazy. There is no such reference in the Qur'an. There is, however, a reference to Sabaeans:

Believers, Jews, Christians and Sabaeans—all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do what is right—shall be rewarded by their Lord; they shall have nothing to fear or to regret. (2:62).

Why remove a valid reference to insert one that's both a red link and totally unverifiable? Zora 21:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to ignore your comments about "my Arab heritage" and advise you to read WP:Civil and WP:NPA again. But quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of your constant personal attacks, so next time you make such personal attacks, I'm reporting you Zora. --ManiF 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Majoos, read this: "According to historical narratives, the Prophet (pbuh) implemented the punishment of Jizya upon the Majoos. Thus, the Persians, who were generally Majoos, were also subjected to the punishment of Jizya. " --ManiF 21:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

But that website doesn't even give a hadith or tafsir reference. Nor does it disprove that some Muslims thought that the Zoroastrians were Sabaeans/Sabians. This PBS documentary [6] says:

The reference to the mysterious community of the Sabians has been a topic of some debate in Islamic history. No one has definitively concluded who they were. Some scholars maintain that they are a small, forgotten community. Others assert that that they are Zoroastrians. Still others offer a much broader interpretation, saying that the Sabians are the believers of any divinely revealed faith besides the Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

I have been flipping through my books trying to find more exact references; PBS is usually reliable, but they don't cite their sources. I can find websites saying that the Sabians have been identified with THREE groups (not including the Zoroastrians), but I can't find refs for a broader definition of Sabian, or for the exact rulings that declared the Zoroastrians (and the Hindus) to be People of the Book. I'm sure that I read somewhere that the Zoroastrians were tolerated as Sabians, but I can't find the quote now. More later. Zora 22:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was wrong! I found a ref to a Qur'an verse that apparently mentions Sabians as distinct from Zoroastrians. 22:17 --

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- Allah will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for Allah is witness of all things.

Now what is interesting is that the Magians (al-majusa) are mentioned separately from the Sabians AND the polytheists, leaving their status completely indeterminate. We have the Qur'an cite saying that the Jews, Christians, and Sabians are to be tolerated, so that's clear. The polytheists are to be converted or killed, that's clear. What about the poor majusa?

Dang, if I only had the volume of Tabari on the conquest of Persia, it might touch on this. Someone at some point had to rule that the Magians were to be tolerated. Zora 04:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is Very FLawed

I suggest that all editors have their say, not just one. You can not paint a picture; you have to describe a picture. This is not how the Islamic COnquest of Iran went. I also think the title should be changed to Arab Conquest of Iran. 69.196.164.190

The Kurds

The article states "Over the centuries, most of the Iranian peoples, including the Persians and Kurds converted to Islam, many from Zoroastrianism." This is however wrong in two aspects: 1) The Kurds were never Zoroastrians in any large numbers, they belonged to Yazdanism aka. the Cult of Angels, as 1/3 of the Kurds still belong. The belief Kurds being Zoroastrian is a common misunderstanding among Kurds today. 2) Most Kurds did convert to Islam but it's quite irrelevant to name this here, this since Islam got it's real breakthrough after the 16th century and the spread of the nomad Kurmanjs. The spread of nomadism and thus islam is due to the devestation and destruction of Kurdistan during the Ottoman-Persian Wars wich lead to that agriculture was forced to be abandoned.

The cartoon

Someone put the cartoon back. The nasty cartoon showing fierce-looking Arabs burning a palace and carrying off a beautiful Persian maiden. I removed it; it's ugly and, I think, racist. If someone wants to try to find an old Persian miniature showing a scene from the conquest, that would probably be both prettier and more historically significant. Zora 11:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Plight of Zoroastrians

How is there no mention of the Plight of Zoroastrians during the time when Zoroastrianism began it's downside? We all know how agressive the Islamic conquests where...

And hello? Wasn't there a huge migration of Zoroastrianisn that travelled to India? Heard of TATA? A Zoroastrian who became India's richest man.

Have you guys heard of Modern day Zoroastrianism? The majority live in India, 70,000 at last Indian census... look it up. Its the main hub of Zoroastrians today who migrated during 650-700AD, because of this plight.

Oh, no, AN entire faith doesnt just jump ship and travel for the sake of their lives or faith, when everything is fine and dandy? Open your eyes.

I suggest you correct this farse of an article.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.3/pocha.html

Learn something.

Please remain NEUTRAL!

Article is very biased!!

This article tends to soften the devastating Islamic conquest and suggests that Iranian peoples converted to Islam eagerly whereas thats not the case, most Christians and Jews converted to avoid the Jizya and Zorotrians were mass murdered, treated as second-class citizens and their temples were destroyed. I am going to add some material from bernard lewis's WHAT WENT WRONG?, Takhti Bukhara & ...

Actually, I don't think the article implies that people converted eagerly. Zoroastrianism was eroded rather than suppressed. Filling the article with tales of persecution and massacres turns it into a biased article. Zora 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What is truth... if you are just calling it biased. A crime against truth is a crime against God.

The truth is that the conversions weren't peaceful, Read Tarikh-i-bukhara by Abubakr Muhammad Narshakhi (69.197.208.3 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

I do not think that the article is biased. But I agree with with IP that - to some extent - this article tries to hide the darker parts of the Islamic conquests. No doubt there were many converts by free will. But - let's just be logical and honest - the vast majority was probably forced to convert, either by the might of the sword or by the necessity to survive in the Arab-dominated caliphate.

And I also think that Zora's edit, trying to delete the facts that many universities and houses of wisdom were purposely burned down by the MUslims, does not help us out.

Tājik 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tājik, please Assume good faith on other editors. If Zora did remove something, it's simply because there's no reference. -- Szvest 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

So far as I know, WP's military history articles are ordinarily rather dry. They say what happened, in broad terms, and arson, rape, pillage, and murder are assumed rather than dwelt upon emotionally. It's only when an engagement is unusually bloody that the fact rates mention. I don't think that WP is glorifying war, or hiding the terrible cost. It's just that emotionalism isn't necessary or useful in an enterprise of this kind. Especially when it's turned towards exalting one side of a conflict and denigrating the other, usually in pursuit of contemporary religious or political ends. Zora 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should probably add a section on "Contemporary views of the conquest and occupation." It still seems to be a live issue for many people. I have a strong impression that outrage at the Islamic conquest is in fact rage directed at the current Iranian government. "We wouldn't have the terrible government we have today if the dang Arabs hadn't imposed their religion on us." I note that government supporters are denigrated as "Arab-parast," Arab-lovers. If Iran had a boring ho-hum secular democracy, the conquest would be just something that happened in the past -- like the Roman conquest of Gaul, about which the French don't seem to care much. That's the basis for a comic strip! (Asterix)

Zoroastrians also have a sense of outrage at religious oppression, and contemporary Zoroastrian/Parsi views should be represented.

I've started working on a section, off-line, about contemporary views of the conquest, but I'm handicapped in that most of my knowledge is derived from reading WP comments and Iranian opinion websites. It would be much better if the editors who are trying to insert their opinions as fact would round up some published sources making those claims and perhaps some articles of political commentary? All citations given in Persian and also translation? Then the article could be a useful pointer to contemporary views, as well as a review of the drier academic version. Zora 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Asterix, You are wrong in your assumptions. This article is actually very soft compared to most Iranian articles about greek and mongolian conquests of Persia. Those "Iranian" editors that you are so blindly accusing of being biased, have been actually concealing much of the ugly part of the conquest. The historical records regarding the islamic conquest of the Byzantines are much harsher and indicate that islam was in fact spread by sword, and rapes, Massacres and destruction was what the islamic army brought to the occupied lands. why should it be any different in case of persia?? it was the same army after all. Just because today most people living in what was know as greater persia are muslims doesnt mean the truth about what really happened during the invasion can be denied. Raping the captive women was actually allowed by the Quran (4:24), Quran encourages the muslims to massacre non-muslims and it is indicated in Quran that non-muslims subjects have to pay a tax named Jizya (9:29). Pan-Islamists are trying to glorify the islamic conquest and create a fairy-tale but this article conceals much of the ugly parts of the conquest already. (64.231.247.105 05:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Anon, you are repeating prejudices. Historical research shows that the early Muslims did NOT want to convert the conquered peoples; they were worth more as jizya-paying dhimmis. Many Muslims conceived of Islam as a special club for Arabs. Non-Arabs who wanted to convert were refused. The overthrow of the Umayyads and their replacement by the Abbasids was to a great extent an overthrow of that position.

As to the bloodiness of the conquest -- any war is vile and disgusting. Any condemnation of the Arab armies applies equally to the Achaemenids, Sassanids, Safavids, Qajars, etc. Iranians have killed as much as they have been killed. "Poor us" doesn't sit well with pride in the old Persian empires. Zora 05:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And when did I victimize Persians??? And when did I say that persians didnt kill anyone in their battles?? That is irrelevant to this discussion, every battle and conquest has its own article. This article is about Islamic conquest of persian, and as I look at the history of edits that have been made, it is obvious that pan-Islamists are trying to glorify the conquest and conceal the ugly parts and that have to be prevented! (64.231.199.31 16:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Oooooh, Zora's at it yet again! Has she run out of apples and oranges to juggle with so that she starts resorting to glue and gingerbread? Yes Zora, your relativist reasoning is so fallacious it borders comical proportions. This article is biased towards Islamic sensibilities. Perhaps the most significant factor which has been quashed in the subject and common discourse is the destruction of literati and textual corpus as a result of the Islamic invasion. Ibn Khaldûn does for instance report of a letter exchange between Sa'ad Ibn Abi Vaghas and "Righteous Caliph" Umar Ibn Al-Khattab regarding what the armies should do with the academies. Another instance as recorded by Al-Tabari is a book-burning under Hajjaj Ibn Yussuf in Chorasmia. You don't get it, do you? Instead you go quoting how the French don't put too much significance to Roman conquest. Newsflash, Zora! We're neither French, nor were our bane the Romans, nor was this conquest merely geo-political; The invading muslims dismissed Sassanian attempts to negotiate terms, and constantly kept repeating their daw'at:

1 - Convert to Islam and you shall return unmolested. 2 - Pay us Jaziya and receive our "protection". 3 - Resolve this by the sword.

I'm done with you. I've followed all your debates with Nima Kasraie (Zereshk) and even though I don't find much to agree with in his perceptions, and I can safely conclude that your presence not only brings a counter-productive influence, but that you nag about stuff like this. I don't give a shit about this being "old stuff", the article clearly hasn't changed in its attitude. The fact that there even is a paragraph that says "Many historians accept that Iran embraced Islam with open arms" is dubious; Who is this historian, Nasser Pourpirar? What a joke. Most Iranologists would actually shun that postulate. This is a horribly written article, and quoting Bernard Lewis screams even more of stupidity.--The Persian Cataphract 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Gibberish

",however according to the history iranian suffered arab attacks,killings and robberies,so beside the nature of islam which encourage muslems to invade non muslem countries and make them muslem,this war would have broke out sooner or later"

I had to remove it... Typical "Muslims are evil" propaganda.

Persia is not Afghanistan

I am from Afghanistan and I don't want this article to be merged with Afghanistan. Afghanistan is land of the Afghans...while Persia is land of the Persians. Lets keep it that way so readers don't get confused between the two. I do know that many people in my country speak Persian language but that does not make them Persians by ethnic. Afghanistan nad Persia do not have the same culture...it varies at some point here and there. Afghans have culture of their own Pashtun culture (Pashtunwali), Uzbek culture, Hazara culture, Indian culture and some others also. More importantly, Afghanistan (as a whole) was never territory of Persia....but was only "ruled" by Persian rulers (governors)...not the landlords of Afghanistan's territory.NisarKand 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're projecting current boundaries onto the past. Various empires (Seleucid, Kushan, Abbasid, Ghaznavid, etc.) have flowed and ebbed over the area that is now Afghanistan and over large parts of what are now Iran, Pakistan, and India. There was no Afghanistan. Of course, projecting the current Iran or India or Pakistan into the past is just as wrong. See Historiography and nationalism. Zora 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose-I oppose the merge. Both articles are long enough as it is. Plus, keeping the articles split helps gives picture the chronological direction and order of the invasions.--D-Boy 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as per Zora. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Support-I support the merge. There is no need to have two different articles on the SAME issue. Besides that, many parts of these two articles are practically the same. At the time of the Arab-Islamic invasion, there was no "Afghanistan" and the entire region was part of the Sassanid Empire. It's a common phenomenon in Western languages that all of the ancient kingdoms in that region are known as Persian Empires, and thus, the Islamic conquest of Persia also automatically covers the Islamic invasion of "Afghanistan" (a term that did not exist at that time; nor did the country). The Islamic conquests of India and Pakistan were also merged into one article (Islamic conquest of the Indian subcontinent). The Islamic conquest of entire north Africa was merged into ones article (Umayyad conquest of North Africa). Why should an article be named after a country that was created more than 1000 years after the main toppic of that article?! Tājik 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose....User:Zora I am well aware, like every other intelligent person who knows about past history that "Afghanistan" as a recognized nation or country did not exist in the minds of the outside world or historians. Afghanistan means in Sanskrit and Persian language Land of the Afghans...and Afghan was commonly refered to as Pashtun people during the Arab conquest and after. We are focusing on the TERRITORY not present nations. Islamic conquest of Persia is refering to the Muslim conquest of the land that was inhabited by Persians...not a country or nation called Persia. Same thing with Islamic conquest of Afghanistan...it is refering to the Arab conquest of the territory that is inhabited by the Pashtuns (which is Afghanistan and western Pakistan).--NisarKand 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Persia" in Western languages is NOT the equivalent of Land of Persians, it is the traditional name for the region since the Greek conquest. It has nothing to do with the Persian people. It is NOT the same as Fārs!
• Do you have ANY sources for your claims that there was ANY reference to "Afghans" or "Land of Pashtuns" during the Arab conquest. Most sources - including al-Biruni - agree that the Pashtuns were converted to Islam after the victories of Sultan Mahmoud of Ghazna (see here: Gankovsky, Yu. V., et al "A History of Afghanistan." Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1982. 8vo. Cloth. 359 p.). Early Muslim sources did not differenciate between "Pashtuns" and "Rajputs": "... The great Muslim historian Masudi writes that Qandahar was a separate kingdom with a non-Muslim ruler and states that 'it is a country of Rajputs'. It would be pertinent to mention here that at the time of Masudi most of the Afghans were concentrated in Qandahar and adjacent areas and had not expanded to the north. Therefore, it is highly significant that Masudi should call Qandahar a Rajput country. ..." (see source above) Tājik 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to read your lame sources. Your argument again is on the wrong track. It's very obvious to know that before Arabs invasions the Pashtun people were non-Muslim. This was the case with every other people of the region, including Persians. Persia means the territory of Persians...refering to the territory they live in. Persian Empire did not mean they owned the land that was under their control. The Pashtun territories of southern half of Afghanistan and western half of Pakistan formed one territory until it was divied in 1893 by the Durand Line. The present-day shape of Afghanistan's map is invalid because it only shows half of the original Afghanistan. Until today, the Pashtuns on both side of the Durand Line do not recognize this bogus border (check todays news for details...[http://www.pajhwok.com/ Click Here!). Again and again, Afghanistan refers to the territory of Pashtuns. In fact, the region of Herat was Persia in the past....the region of Mazari Sharif was Balkh or Bokhara in the past....both were not part of Afghanistan until the begining of the Hotaki dynasty in 1709 and beyond or in the begining of the middle of 18th century. The Abbasids conquered Persia but not Afghanistan, and you even agreed with me on this that it was Sultan Mahmud who actually conquered Afghanistan (Pashtun territory) and spread Islam. You forget that Sultan Mahmud was NOT PERSIAN OR ARAB by nationality but was native of Afghanistan, which makes him native Afghan as how most encyclopedias describe him to be. He was born in the territory that was part of the Pashtun people...and his Empire ruled from Ghazni, which is in Afghanistan. Again...Afghanistan means the territories of Pashtuns....but after the middle of the 18th century...the northern and western areas became part of Afghanistan.NisarKand 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense as always. In the Western languages (as well as in the Bible), the term "Persia" refers to all territories that were ruled by the Persian kings of the past. And in this case, the word "Persian" is the deffinition of the Western world. From the time of the Achaemenids on, the West called ALL empires in Greater Iran "Persian", although only 2 of them were REALLY Persian: Achaemenids and Sassanids. Not even the Arsacids were "Persians", they were Scythians. But "Persian" is the general term applied to all of them, the same way today America is a general term for the United States of America, although - in its actualy meaning - the word America has quite another meaning that US of A. As for the Islamic conquest: the Arabs did conquer large parts of the Pashtun territories, and many Pashtuns were converted to Islam. However, 1400 years ago, the Pashtun territories were located further south-east, in the Peshawar-Punjab area. The Pashtuns, as an ethnic people, are related to the Rajputs. It just happens that they speak an Iranian language unlike the Rajputs who speak an Indo-Aryan language. Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (who was NOT an "Afghan" as you claim but an ethnic Kipchaq or Qarluq Turk) conquered the Pashtun territories (meaning Peshawar and the areas further east and south) in the Indian wars, and he forcefully converted the Pashtuns. Later Turkic dynasties, such as the Turkic Slave-Dynasty or the Seljuqs, pushed further into Pashtun territory and converted them to Islam (this is one of the main reasons why the majority of Pashtuns today are Hanafi Sunnis, because that was the madhhab of the Turkic ghazis in Central Asia). Your entire claim is based on your belief that the Pashtuns have always been native to the region of present-day Afghanistan, which is not true. The Encyclopaedia Iranica confirms that the Pashtuns came to this region in later times, that their original homelands were further east and south (in present-day India and Pakistan), and that Tajik cities, such as Ghazni, Gardez, etc "belong to a network of old isolated Tājik settlements sparsely distributed in southeastern Afghanistan that are remnants of a time when Pashto had not yet reached the area." (Prof. D. Balland, "Gardēz", in Encyclopaedia Iranica (with reference to Wiebe, "Strukturwandlungen afghanischer Mittelpunktsiedlungen unter dem Einfluss ausländischer Infrastrukturprojekte", Germany, 1982, p. 76). Tājik 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Afghanistan is closer to south Asia, but separate pages for Conquest of PErsia, Conquest of India, and Conquest of India provide context for the invasions.Bakaman 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik is living in LA LA LAND....he now thinks Pashtuns were Hindus that came and settled in Afghanistan. That's the first time I ever heard such thing. If you go to Ghazni or Gardez, you will not find any Tajiks...all living there are Pashtuns. That idiot who wrote nonsense in the Iranian encyclopedia never visited Afghanista...he was talking sh... outta his back. I will say it again....the Arabs...even the last ones (Abbasids) did not conquer the Pashtun territories (Afghanistan). Also, you are again talking about Sultan Mahmud's Ethnic instead of his nationality. I said his Nationality (place of birth) was Afghanistan. Nationality always comes before Ethnic backgrounds. The name Afghanistan may have not been recorded in history books in those days but the name Afghan was. Let me explain better so you understand....the land of earth that was populated by the Afghans during the time of Sultan Mahmud....was a land that was called by people as Afghanistan in their own languages. When a person says that there was no Afghanistan at that time...they are also saying that there were no Afghans at that time. That's wrong because Arabs were the first people to recognize the name Afghan and their land was obviously named Afghanistan by the Arabs, Persian, Hindustanis and others of the region. Land of the Afghans in all those languages translates to Afghanistan. Right now it does not matter if you recognize it or not...the place existed. We know that in the 11th century, there was no America but the people that were living in the land that is now America are called Americans. I conclude that such a place "Afghanistan" existed at the time of Arab conquest but little information is known about it.--NisarKand 02:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand, I think that it's totally useless to try to talk to you. As you have said above, you do not want to see scholarly and reliable sources, and only believe in your own POV that you have made up. After your vandalism-attacks on various articles, your hillarious tries to "fool" the admins while you were banned for 1 week, and now your stupid insults against one of the most powerful sources on Iranian and Islamic history (Encyclopaedia Iranica which you - as a totally uneducated person - interpret as "Iranian encyclopaedia"), I think that you are not the right person to talk to, and I do not expect any prositive edits nor any good will from your side. As for Sultan Mahmud: we do not know ANYTHING about Sultan Mahmud's birthplace. All we know from sources is that he was the son of Amir Sebüktegin, and that his mother was - according to the medieval Muslim historian Ferishta - a Persian noble from Seistan (which contradicts a famous satire written by Ferdousi, which claims that Sultan Mahmud was "a slave on his mother's and father's side"). There was NO Afghanistan at that time, and his nationality was NOT Afghan. If modern nationas were the standard nationality-deffinition for historical persons, then the founder of Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Durrani, would had been a "Pakistani" because he was born in Multan. Tājik 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

From the way you're typing now...it's clearly showing that you are losing because you are wrong and will become a total loser the more you argue here. You're going around every day purposly vandalising articles and removing other people's good edits because you don't like to see them and then blame your evil acts on me and on others Wikipdia users. I was blocked last month for a week mainly because I called you very disrespectful and awful names (Example:I made User:Tajik Is A Rat...and since I am very new here...I never knew that creating additional user names was a violation. But after learning such, I've stopped. You, on the other hand, have multiple user names (User:Ariana310, User:Tajik-afghan and many others)...but you're not ashamed of it. Anyway, to this topic now...Sultan Mahmud is Afghan according to most encyclopedias so it's you against the famous encyclopedias and famous historians. What is the big mystery of Sultan Mahmud's place of birth???? If you read all historical documents relating to him, his father and his grand-father...it comes to knowing that he had to be born in Ghazni. It's a fact that his tomb and mausoleum are in Ghazni. Since there were no planes, cars and trains at that time and knowing that his grand-father immigrated to Ghazni and his father living in Ghazni....it is only one best guess that he was born there. Unless you can indicate other places where his father lived, until then the best guess remains as the place where he was born. About Ahmad Shah Durrani, he was probably born in Multan as what Britannica explains. Remember that so far only Encyclopedia Britannica made this claim. There is a website where you can check his entire family tree (before and after his birth) and it indicates that his father was a governor of Herat during the time of Ahmad Shah's birth. Anyway, during that time Multan was clearly part of Afghanistan...check map below. The only time you give someone Afghan status from the long past is when the name of a place is not recorded in history....like the case with America. Ancient Afghanistan is similar to Ancient America...a land with no given name.--NisarKand 22:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

File:Maps of Timurids and Safavids.jpg

Maps of both Timurids and Safavids Empires from the 15th century to the year 1739.

I also would like to explain something important that I am not anti-Persian. Many of my relatives married with Tajiks and have children that are half half. In fact, I have several blood relatives living in Mashad, Iran, and are citizens of that country. They speak pure Persian language and just few words of Pashto. I married Persian speaking woman and most of her family speak Persian instead of Pashto. So don't think of me as an anti-Persian...I just want to explain history as the best way so that people understand it clearly.--NisarKand 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now, NisarKand, you are the most racist person in Wikipedia. You were not only blocked because you used multiple names (even AFTER you had been blocked, you continued to create new names with other IPs), but also because you used racist names and starting insulting other nations (for example by calling all Tajiks "rats" or by replacing the word Kizilbash with "rat"). You had also vandalized my user-page!

Besides that, this is not about "losing" or "winning", but about your total lack of education, and your misrable claims that are not based on ANY relibale sources. You claim that "most historians and encyclopedias consider Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (you even used a wrong wiki-link!) an Afghan". Which encyclopedias?! Why don't you give some names?! You even claim that "most historians consider him an Afghan". Which historians?! Who?!

This is the whole problem with you. You have started to vandalize almost every article dealing with Afghanistan, and you have NEVER any sources proving your claim. You claim that "Afghanistan defeated the British Empire in 3 wars" ... this is the most hillarious thing I've ever heared. And let's simply forget the fact that you - as uneducated you are - confuse battles with wars (Afghans succeeded in only one battle, after attacking the British while they were on their retreat, killing mostly women and childern), reached a draw in another one, and lost the other (in which the British used only one fighting-plane to bomb Kabul). Afghanistan has never won ANY wars against the British; in fact, Afghanistan LOST wars, Afghanistan partially lost its independence for almost 70 years, and Afghanistan was only able to regain its independence with Russian support (which, at the end, lead to the Soviet-War 60 years later!). 99% of the time you write nonsense that you made up ... and it is really emberassing for yourself and - even more than that - for Wikipedia, because, for some unknown reason, the admins are totally unable to stop you.

Tājik 23:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a simple mistake between Sarts and Rats. Moghul Emperor Babur called all Tajiks (Sarts)...you perfectly know this and don't deny it. If not, then read Babur's memoires of 1525. He called them Sarts to insult them, which I think means "Dogs" but not sure. Anway, when I say all encyclopedias...I mean literally all encyclopedias of the world. What's so hard for you to go check these encyclopedias and history books online? Begin with Britannica, Columbia, Others and websites about Afghanistan....Afghanistan Online, Afghanland.com and others....also just type his name on any search engine and you will see many sites to choose from then read what they all say. If he is Afghan or not Afghan in terms of his nationality. Now about the British wars...why don't you go check the meanings of winning a war and losing of war. You can also check....Anglo-Afghan Wars to see who won the wars. The British only succeeded in doing was handle Afghanistan's foreign affairs from 1893 to 1919. They never established any other relations with Afghanistan. The 16,500 (entire British Army) were no children and women...they were all ARMY TROOPS. The only British civilians killed were those living in Kabul, in the British Embassy (mission). Local people from Kabul killed them not the government of Afghanistan. Afghanistan defeated Persia in 1709....then defeated British in 1842.....then defeated British in 1880....then defeated British in 1919....then defeated Soviet Union (former Russia) in 1989. This information is available world-wide, historians of the past all agree....the entire people of Afghanistan (30 million or so) claim they defeated all these empires...and finally....most people in the world all agree and say Afghanistan (Afghans) defeated these empires. So I have no idea what you're talking about? You don't need to argue with me over this....ask others to see what they think.--NisarKand 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think by know it is confirmed that majority voted for "NO MERGE" between Islamic conquest of Afghanistan and Islamic conquest of Persia. So therefore, I will kindly remove the merge tag and there should be no opposition to my removing of the merge tag.--NisarKand 21:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support:I'm not a partisan nationalist and I've work in Islamic issues more than Iran-related ones. But in this case and on the basis of the historic methodology we should use historic name. As I now what we recognize as Afghanistan today was some part of Khorasan in the past. Is there any primary source which has named Afghanistan in 7 or 8th century? --Sa.vakilian 10:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very reliable source of information on Afghanistan and they do not mention of Afghanistan ever becoming part of Khorasan. As far as I know, Khorasan was never considered a nation but was simply just a province of Persia, which is today a province of Iran. Nancy Hatch Dupree - An Historical Guide To Afghanistan - Sites in Perspective (Chapter 3)

Oppose per norm. --Rayis 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What is Persia in historic context

Persia has two meanings. Today it means Iran but in historic context it means an empire which includes too many modern countries and this is a historic article. Please don't look at this issue from nationalistic POV. If you look at the map of Sassanids empire which is called Persia in this historic article, you'll find that it includes Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan , Tajikistan, Azarbayjan and some part of Kazakhstan and Pakistan so Islamic conquest of Persia means conquest of all of this areas. When we said Persia we don't mean Iran but we mean Persian empire.--Sa.vakilian 08:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

About Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies

The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS), established in 1998 by Shapour Suren-Pahlav and Oric Basirov (Department of Art and Archaeology), under the name of "Ancient Iranian Civilization at the School of Oriental and African Studies" (AIC at SOAS) and later changed to " The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies" (CAIS at SOAS) of the University of London, to act as a forum for the exchange of information about the art, archaeology, culture and civilization of Iranian peoples. I dont know how could someone label this source as "unreliable"!!. The website contains scholarly research done by scholars and experts on the history of Iran. please refrain from removing sourced information. - Marmoulak 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is no longer associated with the University of London. It says so on its home page. The university did not want to be associated with it. It has no academic standing, and the papers it puts up on its website are not peer-reviewed. The article that you are citing has this lovely gem of a passage:

"The Arabs who conquered Iran were generally illiterate and they were after one thing, the Persian Gold and booties, who had little or no knowledge of Mohammad's teachings."

That is not good English; it is not good history; it is an uneducated rant. No academic journal in the world would accept a paper like that. Citing that article is like citing something from a blog. It is not a reliable source -- except, perhaps, to illustrate political currents in the Iranian diaspora. Zora 12:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

CAIS is a reliable source, it's written by academics. --Mardavich 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Marmoulak and Mardavich - CAIS is a reliable source, and as an academically oriented website, their responsibility is not to edit, but to convey the info, as it clearly says in their [http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/disclaimer.htm Disclaimer] page: The views and opinions expressed within this CAIS web site do not necessarily represent the views of the circle - The author (s) of the pages of this site are solely responsible for the content.., in this case Aspi Maneckjee the author of the article. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 07:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I'm a student at SOAS, and all of us here know that CAIS severed its relationship with SOAS, after SOAS decided to end the "Iranian studies", due to the pressure from Arab states and in particular the Sultan of Brunei, who is the main SOAS’ financier and hates Iranians and everything Iranian – even he forced SOAS to change the name of “Persian painting” course to “Islamic Painting”, despite the fact that 90% of the course is about “Persian painting”!! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 08:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

First, at the disclaimer, might I ask what you imply by it? Second, curiously, what do you think of the quote stated above nonetheless? Jedi Master MIK 02:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

propaganda

What propaganda!!!….Parthianshot your picture is so racists. It could be done by unknown person or probably did it yourself and published it on wikipedia [7]. Btw sultan Brunei is not officially Arab. This is typical showbiya(شعوبية). Don't worry Parthianshot this website is just for kids so I'm not even bothered.--Aziz1005 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Its also a bit inaccurate if those are arabs taking away people (thought they were in general a persian populace running for it). IIRC, the city was evacuated (at least of the higher ups) sometime before being taken by the Muslims leaving behind only their wealth and splendor. Article on Encyclopedia Iranica for reference: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v6f4/v6f4a030.html.

This is a historic article and even pictures should have notable source. Therefor I remove this picture. Sa.vakilian(t-c)--04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)