Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia/Archive 3

The Letters the Prophet Sent

I'm pretty sure that most scholars note that the Letters sent by Mohammad to regional leaders, inviting them to submit to Islam, are recorded only by Muslim sources. No Latin, Persian or any other histories mention them. As such, their existence as more than legend is in question. Cutugno (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New article.......

Hi, i have written a new article for the Islamic/Muslim/Rashidun conquest of Persian empire, with a more detail coverage of battle and events that led to collapse and eventually conquest of Sassanid empire. More over the current article totally missed the persian conquest after Battle of Qadisiyyah and brilliantly coordinated expeditions of Caliph Umar that he sent to conquer sassanid empire during his 18 month conquest of persian empire (642-644). This article now have a detail coverage of conquest of all the persian provinces.
The article have only one war map now, and thats of Khalid's conquest of Iraq.
Following maps will be added to the article soon, i have almost completed them..

• Map of Sassanid empire at the eve of Rashidun invasion. 633 A.D
• Map detailing route of muslim army in the events from 636-638 A.D
• Map detailing the route of Muslim army and alleged route of Sassanid army for battle of Nihavand. December 641 A.D
• Map detailing route of Muslim conquest of Sassanid empire. 642-644 A.D

Edits are needed for style, grammar and cohesion. References are given for important facts in the article. as a reference i have used,

• Al-Farooq, Umar
• Muslim conquest of Persia
• Shadow in the desert

its a request for the editors to discuss here before making any serious changes in the article, regarding headings and removing any paragraph.

regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of sources / Invalid sources / Vandalism?

In earlier revisions of this article, such as this and this claim that the following 2 sources:

- Biruni. From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية). p.35, 36, 48

- al-Aghānī (الاغانی). Abū al-Faraj al-Isfahāni. Vol 4, p.423

cite the destruction of Zoroastrian shrines and prohibition of Zoroastrian worship , in this revision Mohammad Adil has changed those sources to instead claim that they support the Islamic claims of no temple destruction and the Zoroastrians being declared people of the book. It seems to be a misuse of sources / vandalism to me. FYI Beruni was a persian and will quite likely be a persian source rather than an arabic / muslim source. Can you / someone shed some light on this or possibly upload a scan of those pages / link to them on Google Books to show what that source really claims, so the genuine / NPOV information can be given in this article? Otherwise I would like to revert those sources to what the original claim was, i.e they support the claim of destruction of shrines and prohibition of Zoroastrian worship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitwoman (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your concerns are quite genuine, that was all done may be by mistake during my editing. I apologize for that. well i just checked the references, first of all Kitab al-Aghani's reference is fabricated, its a book of songs and poetry having least concern with real life history. dont know about biruni's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries, i suggest removing it all together, you should find out a modern "neutral and third party" source for citing it to the sentence that talks about destruction of zoroastrian shrines by invaders. It will be quite helpful and will be as per WP:RS. Going for the book that was written thousand year before, and when it lacks any easily available modern edition, is not a good idea. There will be problems in cross checkings in that reference.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the Al ghani reference should be removed just because it is a poem book. It still contains historical information, as the wikipedia page for it says:

"Due to the accompanying biographical annotations on the personages in Kitab al-aghani the work is an important historical and literary historical source"

It is quite likely that since those poems described historical phenomena, they described events from the Muslim conquest of Persia as well.

Regarding the Baruni reference, I would certainly consider it a neutral reference since it is written by both a persian and a muslim, if he were a persian and a zoroastrian, that might make it a biased source. Also, Baruni is a well known scientist and his books are still well respected, hence he is a reliable source. I see no point in the criteria for the reliable sources section related to how old the source is.

What are your thoughts about those two points? If you have any other objections please let me know, otherwise I would like to restore those sources to their original claims.

Also, about the following claim made in the article:

"some modern academics agree on this since Dhimmis had constitutional protection of state." For which you referenced: j John Louis Esposito, Islam the Straight Path, Oxford University Press, Jan 15, 1998, p. 34. Does that book specifically say that zoroastrians were declared Dhimmis and had state protection, or only that people who were considered Dhimmis had state protection?

digitwoman (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• The source that i have mentioned says that zoroastrians were considered dhimmis, and i can provide several other such sources, infact its a well known fact that when the muslims of rashidun caliphate, (dont know about others) encountered people of any religion, they granted them status of dhimmis, or the people of the book, it was basically beneficial for both the parties, as for muslim, dhimmis will give jazya, a source of income for state, and as for the people of that religion... when considered dhimmis, they were under islamic and state protection, free to worship no destruction of temples etc etc. Thus when hindus came in to direct contact with muslims after conquest of sindh, mohammad bin qasim declared them dhimmis and Ummayad viceroy of east, hijjaj ibn yousaf ratified it.

so there should be no doubt on this issue. As for the above mentioned early historical sources, as per WP:RS its preferable to use thrid party sources, usually when any disputed matter is under consideration, neither muslim or zoroastrians in case of muslim conquest of iran. therefore i urged u to find out some thrid party source written by any academic of west. Apparently there should not be any rejection on those sources of biruni and asfahani's. But since i dont know who put them there, and whether they were true or fabricated, as u may know there is a tradition of febricated sourcing on wikipedia to gain once own means etc etc .... these sources were not there in the original version of the article that i wrote 8 months ago. They are so rear tht u cant cross check them for verification. They seem suspicious to me because as far as i know the early muslim historians they are most likely to praise the valor and piety of early muslim warriors, so no destruction and atrocities story from there side. As for beruni, he was living in 10th century A.D and non of his work is even known on early islamic caliphate (i.e rashidun caliphate), if u want u can search for sources that gave history for early caliphate, waqidi, al-Baladhuri and tabari are the most famous. and with the exception waqidi, all were of persian descent, so wht u think of them arnt they neutral too, if going according to ur way ???? any ways, my objection on those sources is that they are not cross check-able. I would appreciate a western modern historian's views on this matter. Other wise more then 2/3 sources that tells the history of muslim conquest of persia or else where are written by persian-muslim historians.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Its quite possible that those sources (Beruni and Al-ghani) thought it part of the muslim glory that other religions' temples & shrines were destroyed, at that point people didn't have the same values they do today in the modern culture. Anyway, the right way to deal with this issue is to restore the sources to their original purpose, and add a tag to the sources, so anyone who comes across them and knows more about the sources, can remove them if needed, or remove the tag. Right now those sources are being used as muslim sources which confirm that no astrocities were committed, which is certainly not what they were intended for when whoever added them has added them. If you want, you can also add a disputed tag to that part of the article.

I hope this is acceptable to you. If not, I hope that whatever action you take will keep the article objective and non-biased.

digitwoman (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, the claim is that some temples were destroyed, and later in the article you've yourself verified this claim by adding the following source:

Lewis, Bernard (1984). The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00807-8. pg.18

So I think we're really saying the same thing and not arguing. Btw I've added the above book as a source for the claim that some temples were destroyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitwoman (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but where exactly, in Lewis' book, does it say that Zoroastrian temples were destroyed? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference says page 18 digitwoman (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

From The Jews of Islam, by Bernard Lewis,[1]

was too much to endure, and large number of them sought refuge from subjection by adopting Islam and joining the dominant faith and community. Judaism in contrast survived. Jew were more accustomed to adversity. For them, the Islamic conquest merely meant a change of masters, in most places indeed for the better, and they had already learned to adapt and endure under conditions of political, social, and economic disability. In the core countries of the Middle East, in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and to a lesser extent Iraq, Christianity showed greater endurance than in North Africa, and Christian minorities survived in significant numbers. The reason may be that in these countries that Christians enjoyed the same advantage, if we may call it that, as the Jews: experience in survival. In Iraq they had been subordinate to the dominant Zoroastrian faith; in Egypt and the Syrian lands, though sharing the Christian religion with the rulers of the Byzantine Empire, they were of different sects and subject to discrimination and even at time to persecution. For many of the adherents of the Eastern churches, the advent of Islam and the transfer of their countries from Christian to Muslim rule brought a marked improvement in their circumstances, and a greater degree of religious freedom then they had previously enjoyed. The further expansion of Islam brought the authority of the Muslim state beyond the heartlands of the Middle East and North Africa, which was also the homeland of Christianity and Judaism, into new areas where these religions had little or no impact.Buddhists and Hindus in Asia, animists in Africa south of the Sahara and of Ethiopia, now came within range of Muslim power. For the Muslim, these were polytheists and idolators, and were therefore not entitled to tolerance. For the the choice was between Islam and death which later might be commuted to enslavement at the discretion of their captors. In the vast empire which they created by conquest, the Muslims at first found themselves as a dominant but small minority. Their religion provided them with certain basic religious principles by which to rule their subject populations

--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, but can I ask why you posted that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitwoman (talk • contribs) 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I find no mention of destroyed temples. Zoroastrian is mentioned once. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. I believe User:Mohammad_adil added that reference, so perhaps he can explain this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitwoman (talk • contribs) 06:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have done some more research and found that some of the claims like mass conversion not being desired were inaccurate. Hence I have added information and sources found in the Persecution_of_Zoroastrians article, all of whom refer to modern & 3rd party sources as you earlier said should be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitwoman (talk • contribs) 07:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey the reference i gave was for the status of zoroastrians as people of book, not the temple destruction stuff and its on page number 20 of tht book not on 18, and thats my bad.

BY the way user:digitalwomen, dont u think u were suppose to discuss and have consensus, here the major changes before u just go and add wht ever u got from that article ???? For the time being i am reverting ur edits.

let us follow the rules... I have following objections on ur edits, the first one being why did u completely deleted wht was written earlier on tht section ??? wasnt tht unexplained deletion ? and wht ever was written there had a thrird party reference, making it totally ridiculous to doubt them.

Secondly if u see carefully, the mass conversion neither needed nor allowed was referenced twice, by a islamic source and a thrid party western source (Which is a brilliant book on great early islamic expansion). So it was totally unnecessary to delete it. Tell me one thing, why was there a tone in ur edits which was more emphasizing on a rather hypothetically barbarian image of muslim conquerors ???? tht was a rashidun army not the mongol army, and a fact that all military historians accept today is that it was due to muslim's liberal treatment and lower taxes that they were accepted every where easily and even rather as liberators in persia which was highly taxed by sassanid rulers out of their economic miseries. jazya was far lower then the taxes which zoroastrian sassanid ruler and eastern roman empire was charging from their people, it was a diplomatic set to win the heart of the conquered of else it would have been nearly impossible to resist the local population. History have some facts, quite logical facts beside those tales. Any ways, let me come to the objections, the second being.... you wrote or copied simply..Before this took place, however, thousands of Zoroastrian priests were executed, hundreds of temples destroyed, and religious texts burnt, and the use of the ancient Avestan as well as Persian languages was prohibited. and in a reference u gave a website ....[2] and u were talking about reliable third party source, dont tell me that website was third party or even reliable please read WP:RS, websites can only be refered for further reading they are not considered reliable. The next source is an uncheckable book called a year amoung the persians, which was written in 1893, come one, its old way to old to be able taken as reference, history have advanced since, more over its uncheck able, even i can come up with any reference saying any thing and can give a link of a book tht have no preview, will u or others gonna accept it ??? old books are not considered worth referencing check here wht wikipedia peer reviewers said to me when i sourced one of my article with Edward gibbon [3] and this [4] third... With the dhimmi status, Zoroastrians were made to pay en extra tax called Jizya, failing which they were either killed, enslaved or imprisonsed, and in reference u gave us again a website [5], is tht a thrid party source u were talking about ? or is it an anti-islamic-pro-persian nationalist source/website ! come on we cant believe any thing just any thing that any body says.... we need academic's sources for wikipedia not a website or an alleged 100 years old book. Do u know jazya was only for men (of the age that is suitable for serving in army) and women childern and old dudes were exempted ??? i mean it was totally biased tone or rather a mis-use of information, information need to be presented in a neutral dry manner so that a reader can make his/her own view on the perticular topic, its not about forcing on their mind wht any one just got from ANY website. No harsh feeling, i apologize if i was rude. Any ways, if u want these facts to be mentioned in the article please provide a third party reliable reference and feel free to add them back once u got those references. U can cross check my references (Dont bite me if i mentioned a wrong page number accidentally)

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)]

To address some of your points:

1) You can show me a reference which says that mass conversions weren't desired but when I have sources which say that mass conversions did occur, that negates the claim which says that mass conversions weren't desired. However if you must feel free to add that claim back.

2) The website I have linked from is EconomicExpert.com , it is a 3rd party website and it is completely reliable. WP:RS doesn't say that websites from reliable sources cannot be cited.

3) A book being published in 1893 does not mean that it is an invalid source.

4) The best way to solve this issue, is for us to add both sides of the story. For example, the claims I've added describe what happened to Zoroastrians. You can change it to something like this:

"According to some sources... (claims of persecution of Zoroastrians), however, Muslim sources/other sources claim.... (claims of no persecution, people being given peace, etc)"

That is the way to keep the article the most objective and to give both sides of the story without removing anyone's referenced claims.

digitwoman (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, in future, please try to format your messages and break up your points in a list so they're easy to read, its very hard to read/respond to your points when they're in a large paragraph with no line breaks.

digitwoman (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• First of all i hope u know the three revert rule of wikipedia, so plz avoid reverting my edits (The original version of the article)

until a consensus is reached here.
This is the academic source that says mass conversion was neither needed nor allowed.

Frye, R.N (1975). The Golden Age of Persia. p. 62. ISBN 1-84212-011-5., go cross check

it. and this source was already mentioned in the article.
I think u never read WP:RS, plz do your home work or its quite humiliating.....

Here is wht i was saying and its mentioned in WP:RS.
It says clearly in the section Questionable sources,.......it says.. those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

So here u go your two claims which source a website are discounted here, please do not

mention them again insteat put ur energy in finding some academic sources, and let me tell

you how wikipedia defines acedemic source so tht u may avoid bringing a crap as ur

reference... it says in WP:RS in the section Scholarship.... Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.,
check the academic press of my sources u will know wht they call a well regarded

academic press. So ur 100 years old book have any peer review ? decide if it is reliable, u

even dont know wht written in it so how can u defend it, have u read it ? try finding some

other source if u r true in ur claims.
also read this its mentioned in the section Self-published sources (online and paper) This explains why websites r not acceptable. it says Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

So wikipedia need a reliable source, it says........Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
It is mentioned here Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Make sure your source should be on this merit. And yes one thing more u seem not to

understand the meaning of "third party source". In case of Muslim conquest of persia it

means a source which is neither "muslim" nor "zoroastrian-persian-nationalist" thus they

are from west, as there will be no bias in this case. (Westerns will have no reason to be

bias here, if they are well reputed.)
So next time try giving real thrid party sources, please do not call just any source as

"third party source", it isnt a joke. Its not about wht u think is a reliable source, its about wht wikipedia need. and we r

suppose to follow the rules. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your website that u gave in the reference [6] never says that rashidun caliphs forced zoroastrians to convert to islam. So its a vandalism on your side by misinterpreting the already un-acceptable source, that was disappointing please play a fair game.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that neither of us have time to cross-check our references, find new references, or all of that. I can easily come up with similar points about your books, i.e that they're not cross-checkable or possibly fabricated. My problem is just that right now your article provides only the Muslim side of the story and it looks biased in terms of what happened. If you do a simple google search for 'zoroastrians after muslim conquest of iran' you'll find hundreds of sources which describe that all of those things, killing of priests, burning of religious books and temples, etc had happened. This is the reason many zoroastrians eventually migrated to India to escape from the discrimination.

I can go and site all of those websites here, but I don't have time to do all the research, and if I make the article only about the Zoroastrian side of story, that will also be biased. So please, lets work together on this and make the article objective in this way:

1) First of all, please change the language for 'Mass conversions weren't desired...' paragraph to 'Some sources consider that the Muslims did not desire mass conversions'.

2) Please remove the part with 'The islamic prophet Mohammed had declared.....', its very clearly biased and going on and on about how great the prophet Mohammed was. Please replace it with the actual fact of what happened, i.e just the line 'Zoroastrians were declared people of the book, and were given state protection as long as they paid the tax of Jizya. Failing to pay Jizya resulted in enslavement, execution, or imprisonment. Those who were enslaved but converted to Islam were freed. Some persian sources claim that Zoroastrians paying the tax were insulted and humiliated as they paid the tax.' I have given sources for all of these claims.

3) Where you say that no temples were destroyed and people were allowed to worship in peace, etc, please add that 'According to some sources...' before that, and then add the persian side of the sources i.e 'while other sources claim that before Zoroastrians were declared Dhimmi, many priests, temples, etc were destroyed'.

If you can't do these 3 points above, we will have to get Wikipedia:Third_opinion involved, who might raise many of the same points about the references you've provided as you've done for mine, and you might find the article changed even more. So lets resolve this amongst ourselves and just give both sides of the story.

The 3 revert rule only applies to 3 reverts done in 24 hours, but I'll hold back from reverting in hopes that you'll edit and add the information I've asked for.

Thanks

`````

• Use google books, and u can easily excess any of the source that i have mentioned, all of them, they have preview there and u can cross check them. So please dont compare my source with your websites.

I am all easy with third opinion, you can invite them any time, my source cant be discarded, they are according to wht criteria wikipedia need, and because of their preview is avalaible, they are cross check able very easily, no need to run for a library.
You said about googling the percecuation of zoroastrians, r u kidding me ???? Go search about the crusades, google will tell u there were 600,000 crusading armies lolzz and then try putting them on crusader's article, people will not stop laughing. I hv told u earlier and and i am telling u again, wikipedia dont need references from WEBSITES. So dont talk about websites every again please......
As far as your 3 points are concern, i have told u this earlier and i am telling u this again, provide me a wikipedia reliable source, i promise i will add them personally to this article.
There is no point to say ...some scholars believe this, ... some believe that... when u dont provide reference of any academic scholar who says that. So please do some research, try finding some book related to this topic written by western academics, believe me they will even change the way u once though about the muslim conquest of persia, dont make your opinion by reading one side of story or just by googling, try reading wht serious scholars think of it, hope it will help. If you dont have time, then take ur time, i am not running nor this article is, make ur mind, buy a book, read it, then add with references. It just all about following the rules.

Regards.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC) According to the criteria for Reliable sources, websites from credible sources actually are accepted, only 'personal blogs' and blatantly extremist websites / promotional websites are not accepted. Also, while you're right that the crusades were also a brutal battle during which many atrocities were committed by christians, i would not add just any website as a source, I would add only a credible source. Both of the websites which I've quoted are credible, one is an economic research journal and the other is an educational source for Zoroastrians and is actually an academic source on Zoroastrians.

Anyway, I'll add a request for 3rd opinion. In the meantime I'm removing the line about 'Islamic prophet Mohammed had declared....' because it doesn't mention about the Jizya tax the non-muslims would have to pay, and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I will leave just an objective description of what you wrote about what actually happened, i.e they were declared Dhimmis etc.

Looking forward to reaching an unbiased solution on this.

digitwoman (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Making 'Religion' section more objective

Currently the Religion section on this article seems too biased towards the Muslim side of the story and gives account of only the positive aspects of the conquest of Persia while giving little to no details about the negatives. To solve this I attempted to rewrite some of this article, as shown in this revision,

User:Mohammad_adil reverted the changes and insisted that the following sources are invalid or don't meet the criteria of WP:RS:

1. Zoroastrianism (EconomicExpert.com)
2. Edward Granville Browne, A year amongst the Persians, Adam & Charles Black, 1893, pg 594
3. HISTORY OF ZOROASTRIANS IN IRAN UNDER THE CALIPHS (642 CE To the 10th Century) (Zoreled.org)

I would like to know if these sources meet WP:RS or not, and if not, what other measures should be taken to

include the Zoroastrian side of the story into the article. Also, I'd like to know if the references given in the Current revision of the article meet criteria of WP:RS or not.

digitwoman (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like now u r making ur own rules ??? Where does wikipedia says that websites are credible sorces ?? plz show me ..... lolzz

Any ways dont be stubborn, ur act of removing the lines in the article, with reaching the consensus was really disappointing plz be patience and dont drag the situation towards the edit war, avoid editing as until the issue is settled here. As u breach breach the mutual good faith agreement of not adding/editing/reverting the section, so i think i hv the right to revert it back to original state. we r suppose to act maturely here, so avoid controversial edits until we reach a consensus otherwise there is no point of discussing issues here if u cant wait to edit. Have u requested a 3rd opinion, or should i ? regards.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have requested 3rd opinion, thanks. And ok, lets refrain from editing for now even though that particular line will likely have to go in any case. You can see the Questionable sources page, it doesn't make a distinction of a source being accepted or not based on whether its a website or a book. All personal/promotional materials whether a website or a book aren't accepted, and all academic/news sources whether books or websites are accepted. Both of the websites I gave are academic in nature. Anyhow, lets not fill this section with our chat again and try to keep it short so the 3rd person can understand what's happening :).

digitwoman (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Its mentioned in WP:RS.
  

It says clearly in the section Questionable sources,.......it says.. those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

as for wikipedia reliable sources it defines like.... Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. (WP:RS, in the section Scholarship)

It says in WP:V....... Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Be fair and check your own sources if they meet the above mentioned wikipedia criteria. More over they may be "extremist" sources since their reputation is not academic.

As for issue with the language if it sound too pro-muslim to you, request a copy-edit for this section, they will fix it.

As for adding wht you want to add (shown in the above mentioned version of yours), provide wikipedia reliable source (Not website), i promise i will add them my self, but on the terms that sources should be provided.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• there r some articles that can be built by providing references to websites, for example this List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, there is no book on this issue.

But there are certain topics e.g Jihad or this topic of our's, which are disputed between two sides by nature, and certainly they need a bias opinion which can be provided only by academic not by amateurs of websites, which are often extremist in nature due to NPOV. [7] this site is purely zoroastrian, u will never want me to provide u a link of an islamic website claiming its neutral in wht ever it says and meet wiki criteria for RS. So why the double standered ? the other website [8] does not provide sources that were used in compiling tht article.
For example, this site [9], its an article on battle of yarmouk, although it would never be considered academic and worth citing in the references of Battle of Yarmouk, yet its written on a serious website which provide sources which were used while compiling the article.
Non of ur provided websites have this quality, although even if they had it they would have not be accepted as WP:RS.
So think of them ur self now, n be fair. regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• You need to re-read the criteria, it does not say 'all websites are questionable sources', it says 'websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.' Both of the websites I've cited fall into neither of that criteria, neither of them is promotional in nature or gives any personal opinions. Anyway, there's no point of us arguing about this. Let us wait and have this resolved by a 3rd person. If these sources are found to be not reliable, I'm sure someone else will find some objective/reliable sources which give both sides of the story. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and objective, giving only one side of the story is inherently against the core values of Wikipedia.

digitwoman (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( 3rd party opinion needed to assess some sources, and for help in rewriting the 'Religion' section to make it more objective 11:32, 12 December 2009 ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Muslim conquest of Persia and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Irregardless of validity of the present sources used as references in the subject, there appears to be an opinion here at the base of the current discussion regarding the nature of the section in question. The section in question appears to require a POV check. That being said, it is my opinion that the best way to resolve this present disagreement is not to remove current content but to supplement it in a due weight fashion with any opposing reliable sourced POV that may differ from that of what is presently presented. The sources that are used in the section, as it is written now, appear to be valid on face value in regards to WP:RS.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. What are your thoughts about the 3 sources I have given above, do they meet the criteria of WP:RS? I've edited my above comments to make the sources more easy to see, I'm giving them here again so you can have a look:

1. Zoroastrianism (EconomicExpert.com)
2. Edward Granville Browne, A year amongst the Persians, Adam & Charles Black, 1893, pg 594
3. HISTORY OF ZOROASTRIANS IN IRAN UNDER THE CALIPHS (642 CE To the 10th Century) (Zoreled.org)

If these sources meet WP:RS I can edit the section and supplement it with the other side of the story.

If not, please advise how we can request a POV check on this section of the article. I don't have time/access to a library to do research, however I would like to alert others who might have such access to do the research and make the article more objective.

Thanks.

digitwoman (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• well my point is thats as per WP:RS, websites are not accepted as valid/reliable source.

So try getting some academic sources that support your apparently extreme/exceptional claims regarding the immediate aftermaths of muslim conquest of persia. regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, only the websites 'expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions' are considered 'questionable'. None of these apply to the sources I've given.

digitwoman (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1. EconomicExpert.com is not a published source and I don't find any information in regards to their historical accuracy. They list no sources of their own to support their statements and have no bibliography to even begin to check.

2. E.G.Browne's book(1893) is a published 3rd party source, however, since this is a very contentious part of history, more recent historiography would be prudent.

3. A SITE FOR ZOROASTRIAN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION TEACHERS is not 3rd party or published. They also do not give any references or bibliography.

From my own personal standpoint, I would not use any of the above 3 sources as references. IF what the 3 sources listed above state DID happen, then it should be NO problem to find modern scholarship stating these facts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• now here comes the problem, no modern scholar (academic scholar) wrote any thing which is mentioned in tht website. which can indirectly tells us website r extremist in the sense they tell some thing that is not written/supported by main stream academic. So chill its extremist as well. and as u said digitwomen, wht wikipedia (according to u) ban is extremist website. your website claims some thing exceptional and wikipedia clearly mentions it that for exceptional claims u need to provide exceptional sources. so please provide any exceptionally valid source. not website.

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1. You might be correct about EconomicExpert.com.

1. Some of the sources being used currently are also old, nowhere in WP:RS does it mention that a source being old makes it invalid. Yes, I agree that it should be no problem to find modern sources, however I don't have access to a library as I've previously stated, hence finding any kind of sources is difficult for me.

1. Doing some research on the 3rd source, I've found that the [Contact us] page of their site mentions 'FEZANA Education, Scholarship and Conference Committee'. Doing some more search shows that:

FEZANA is a non-profit religious group registered in the state of Illinois and formed to function as the coordinating organization for Zoroastrian Associations of North America. FEZANA serves as the coordinating body for 27 Zoroastrian Associations in the United States and Canada. FEZANA is registered as a non-profit, religious and charitable organization in the USA.

This can be checked here. Their address & tax info and academic scholarship info is also available. Hence I would strongly propose that this is a valid academic source.

Based on these arguments I think that apart from the 1st source, the next two sources do meet WP:RS. Any thoughts?

digitwoman (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• lolzz fezana is charitable org so is jamaat-E-Islami pakistan [10], will u accept references from their site ? they have scholars too !

we hv nothing to do whether fezana is a non profit charitable org or its any thing, wht we need is an academic reference from ur side, so plz dont waste time go find it. when every one is saying ur reference isnt a valid source then why dont u simply accept it ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 00:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Its not only charitable but it is also an academic source, it is giving academic scholarships and it 'serves as the coordinating body for 27 Zoroastrian Associations in the United States and Canada. ' That makes it quite a credible source.

As for the following:

your website claims some thing exceptional and wikipedia clearly mentions it that for exceptional claims u need to provide exceptional sources.

You're making me laugh, because it is your claim that muslims, who are known even in present day for forced conversions and discrimination against non-muslims in present day muslim nations, invaded a weak non-muslim nation and no atrocities were committed like temples being burnt and priests being killed. It is your claim which is exceptional, not mine :).

digitwoman (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I have removed your re-posted WP:3O request. It would be inappropriate for another Third Opinion Wikipedian to opine now that a third opinion has been given. A third opinion having been issued, please follow "What happens next?" if you need additional assistance. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

References

I don't understand what the issue is. Is it a lack of references? If that is the case here are some reliable sources:

• [11]
• [12] warrior4321 04:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Some more references

• I have found some more neutral and academic sources which can help give the Zoroastrian side of the story:

1. BBC Religions: Zoroastrianism confirming the burning of books and cultural heritage, paying of extra taxes, and 'many other laws and social humiliations implemented to make life difficult for the Zoroastrians in the hope that they would convert to Islam.'
2. Britannica.com (Encyclopedia) entry on Zoroastrianiam: confirms mass conversions by force/persuation. Since this did occur, this negates the claim currently present that mass conversions were not desired.
3. Britannica.com entry on Gabars describes the derogatory term being used for zoroastrians under Arab rule, and confirms humiliating social restrictions such as 'being treated as an inferior race, having to wear distinctive garb, not being allowed to ride horses, or bear arms'
4. Islamic era histroy of Zoroastrians of Iran through political analysis and historical letters A well sourced article which confirms the burning of books, killing of scholars, enslavement, etc. Sources are given
5. A Year Amongst the Persians, Edward Granville Browne I have cited this book before and will cite it again as a credible published source, possibly the most authentic one available on this subject. Confirms many atrocities which were committed and many humiliating rules which were forced upon the Zoroastrians
6. HISTORY OF ZOROASTRIANS IN IRAN UNDER THE CALIPHS (642 CE To the 10th Century), from Zoreled.org which is a website operated byFederation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America, which is an academic source on Zoroastrianism, it runs various courses and offers scholarships, and 'serves as the coordinating body for 27 Zoroastrian Associations in the United States and Canada', hence it is a credible academic source on Zoroastrianism.
7. Encyclopaedia Iranica : Iran in the Islamic Period (651-1980s) A credible, 3rd party academic source started by Columbia University. See its Wikipedia article for more details. It confirms 'many violent acts' including burning of scriptures, execution of mobads.

Please reply with your objections (if any) on these sources so we can get this matter resolved. digitwoman (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Another invalid source

This is the 3rd time I've found a source to be invalid in the 'Religion' section of this article, and this makes me very doubtful about the authenticity of the other sources which are given.

The article states:

Sassanian state religion was Zoroastrianism and its worshipers were declared people of the book by Caliph Umar,[53] and were entitled to the same tolerance.

and for this the reference is given as the book 'Bat Yeʼor, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, p.45'. However, checking page 45 of this book on Google Books leaves no mention of Zoroastrians or Persia at all.

Would you like to clarify/correct this source?

digitwoman (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• OHHH MY GOD 3rd time .......... lolzzz please read my reply below, its edition difference lolzz.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Salam, I found your request for third opinion. I'm a Persian Muslim. I was active on this article and you can find my user name on the history. I haven't been active wikipedia for a while. Can I help you with the issue?Seyyed(t-c) 16:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Renaming of this article

Why is this article called 'Muslim conquest of Persia'. Conquest is a non-NPOV word. A neutral title should be 'Muslim Invasion of Persia' or something similar. I propose that this article be renamed to that or something neutral/objective.

digitwoman (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, I propose that it should not be Muslim invasion of Persia, but Rashidun Invasion of Persia. warrior4321 05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I second to 'Rashidun invasion of Persia' since it is describing the events only upto the Rashidun invasion and not the subsequent centuries. What procedure do we have to undertake to have the article renamed? digitwoman (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have initiated the procedure for moving a page below. warrior4321 08:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh  08:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Muslim conquest of Persia → Rashidun conquest of Persia — The article subject is about the campaign against the Second Persian Empire, the Sassanid Empire by the Rashiduns. Islam was the religion of the Rashidun units, but it was the Rashidun Caliphate that conquered Persia. We don't go around saying the Christian Invasion of Afghanistan for the War on Afghanistan (2001-Present), we say the American Invasion of Afghanistan. --warrior4321 08:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Not only is Rashidun invasion a more suitable title for this than Muslim conquest, 'invasion' is a more objective term compared to 'conquest'. Its only a conquest if you're a muslim, for persians it was probably 'fall of persia'.digitwoman (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objection in moving it to Rashidun invasion of Persia. But one thing, for the purpose of maintaining perfection i would suggest Rashidun conquest of Sassanid Empire. The reason is that persia proper may refer to iran only, but Wht muslim captured in 7th century consist of iraq, iran, azerbaijan, turkmenistan, afghanistan, parts of pakistan, georgia, armenia and dagesttan (now part of russia). So its proper to just say Sassanid Empire.

My reason for giving the world conquest, rather then invasion lies in the militarily different meanings of both terms, An INVASION is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory Thus invasion is actually an attempt to conquer. While conquest is defined as ... occupation of the territory by invasion, since muslims invaded sassanid persia and then captured it, so this applies to conquest, rather then a half meaning ambigious word invasion. since invasion can't define it completely, as invasion can either be successful or unsuccessful.... so using invasion will make it all ambiguous, reader will think that wht happned at last, did muslims conquered it or did they fail to conquered. Therefore a world providing a complete meaning sounds reasonable to me. see for example

• Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire.
• Conquest of the Desert
• Conquest of Gaul
• Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire
• Conquest of Chile
• Conquest of Hungary
• Conquest of Constantinople
• Muslim conquest of Egypt
• Muslim conquest of Syria
• Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent

muslims are famous for forceful conversions even today, who said tht ??? lolzz please provie any e.g !!! grow up its encyclopedia not orkut. here u gotta prove wht u say.
And yes please do not mess up ur religions bias with military terms, conquest may sound non-NPOV to you but its widely used on military article all around the world and in wikipedia. Do u have any related knowledge of military terminologies ??? no ! so try be neutral here. U cant make people to delete word conquest from military manuals just becoz they may sound NPOV to you. Grow up الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the term to conquest as it makes the most sense. However, Persia is the correct term, not Sassanid Empire. Persia did not just relate to Iran, but to the entire Persian Empire. warrior4321 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New references

• As for the reference tht is mentioned in the article, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam By Bat Yeʼor page 45, lolzz didn't u bother reading some further ????? in the link u have provided [13], its mentioned in page 46-47.
  

Difference of edition can make page numbers go up or down a little bit. So chill its real.

• Amoung the references tht u have provided followinf are websites with no bibliography at all.
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• You also provided a link to britanica [17], but it isnt helpful as it has not specified the time period excatly when the mentioned persecution occured, its says post-islamic period, and this period is 1400 years long, Arabs were muslims, truks were muslims, mongols (later) were muslims, so who did tht peosecution ? Its well known that zoroastrian suffered a lot by turks and mongols muslims, they also suffered under later ummayads, which make them help abbasids to overthrow ummayads, abbasid govt had mainly non-arab bureaucracy thus zoroastrians were at ease under early abbasids until turks allied them selfs with abbasids forming a great suljk empire. Wht every currently is written in the religion section of this article is about the immediate aftermaths of the conquest and their status under the orthodox caliph (the rashiduns), U can find sources about turko-mongol muslim persecution of zoroastrians and i hope u will find a lot of academic stuff on this topic. Then feel free to add this.

Any ways let me tell u my thoughts on the above mentioned sources,

• [18] You gave this, so again its an article in BBc's website, putting it on bbc will not make it GREAT until its cource is specified, more over websites are not accepted as WP:RS. Should i try bringing some article from Al-Jazeera's website ??? will u gonna accept it ?

• [19] this says .. they were treated as an inferior race, had to wear distinctive garb, and were not allowed to ride horses or bear arms. They were concentrated in Kermān and Yazd, but again its ambiguous time period is not specified, when did it happned, under Rashiduns, ummayds, abbasids, turks, mongols or wht ? if u can find academic source on when this happen, feel free to add this i have no objection to it, as the conquered people are usually treated like this as in british india remember ?

• [20] this is a zoroastrian website, so do want me to give references from www.islam.com ????? no ! then why doing this childish stuff again and again ????

• [21], encyclopedia iranica !!!!! lolz it rather speaks highly of islamic invasion lolz.. check this it says ... As a measure dictated by both expediency and the desirability of increasing revenues, the Zoroastrians were also treated as “the people of the book,” and this enabled a large number of Persian populations to hold on to their traditional religion.

How ever it also says....
Conversion to Islam (q.v.) was, however, only gradual. In the process, many acts of violence took place, Zoroastrian scriptures were burnt and many mobads executed. The reason as explained earlies in tht article is Even after the Arabs had subdued the country, many cities rose in rebellion, killing the Arab governor, thus these were the measures of revenge or terror tactics, Please read religion section of the article again, these things are already mentioned there.

• User:warrior4321 provided two valid sources that are accept able, 1st one is Interactive Faith: The Essential Interreligious Community-Building Handbook By Rori Picker Neiss, Dirk Ficca
  

At page 187 it says thats after fall of sassanid empire at the hands of arads in 651, an era of persecution of zoroastrians begun, they were prohibited from worshipping freely and were negated to rular villages only by 1oth century they migrated ....
It says so but again didnt provided time period, whether this happned immediatly after conquest or this happned between 7th - 10th century (300 years period). You can add this by generalizing the statement, like, over the course of time zoroastrians were persecuted, often by prohibition of free worship and social humiliation. By 1oth century most of them escaped persecution by migrating to india, mainly to Gujrat.
You can also add tht until they migrated iran was predominantly a zoroastrians country, i dont remember which one but i will check one of my source says so.

• Another apparantly a valid source tht user:warrior4321 provided was The Zoroastrians of Iran: conversion, assimilation, or persistence it have snapshot preview in in tht it says at page 90 ...Organized resistance was difficult because of the severe persecution of

Zoroastrians . On the other hand, individual resistance could be indirect or subtle ..., sounds like ambiguous, resistence against whom ??? greeks, Romans, muslims, turks or mongols ????

• Any ways over all that was a good job by user:warrior4321, try finding some more valid sources, i told u i will hv no problem with valid sources.
  

All in all your one source sits fit to WP:RS, and this is Interactive Faith: The Essential Interreligious Community-Building Handbook By Rori Picker Neiss, Dirk Ficca (though the other book is valid too but it isnt clear wht written inside it.)

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the sources:

1) BBC is a highly credible source and so is Al-jazeera. I would accept sources from Al-jazeera.

2) I accept that the Britannica.com Gabar article doesn't mention the timeline, so lets discard that source.

3) Ok, lets discard the vohuman.org article as well.

4) Encyclopedia Iranica reference will stand. It clearly mentions killing of priests and destroying of books/temples if you read it. Its absolutely incorrect to assume that only the cities in which a rebellion arose the temples were destroyed. This is not mentioned in the article and should not be assumed, just like we're not assuming that the Gabar article mentions post-islamic invasion discrimination since it doesn't give the date.

5) In the book 'Interactive Faith: The Essential Interreligious Community-Building Handbook By Rori Picker Neiss, Dirk Ficca' you said that it doesn't mention the timeline, however the timeline is mentioned very clearly. Read the sentence again:

after fall of sassanid empire at the hands of arabs in 651, an era of persecution of zoroastrians begun....

It is a joke to claim that of the sources I've provided, only one is valid. All of the following sources are valid as far as I'm concerned:

1) A year amongst persians

2) BBC article

3) Federation of Zoroastrian Associations in North America article (academic source)

4) Britannica article on Zoroastianism

5) Encyclopedia Iranica article

6) Interactive Fath, the essential Interreligious Community building handbook

If you still have problems with these, we need to request 3rd party opinion again or make a formal dispute so an admin can confirm whether the sources are valid.digitwoman (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• First of all let me make it clear, we need Wikipedia:Reliable Sources not User:Digitwomen:reliable sources :).

Secondly, how many users's opinion u need to understand/accept the fact that WEBSITES are not credible sources.
Thirdly, the book Interactive Faith: The Essential Interreligious Community-Building gives date of fall of sassanid empire (i.e 651, when last emperor yezdgherd III died in exile) and tells about the begining of new ERA if u know english at professional level u must under difference between era and specific period.
and finally, please do not waste my time by providing invalid references any more, if u have any valid reference then put it here otherwise its gonna be a decade long discussion with out any conclusion.
Wait for few days until a 3rd opinion is achieved, it takes them days to respond to the call.
Plz be mature have patience. Regards.
and yes as for Encyclopedia Iranica (its website by the way !), do not make ur own interpretation by saying Its absolutely incorrect to assume that only the cities in which a rebellion arose the temples were destroyed. This is not mentioned in the article and should not be assumed
Have you bothered to read tht article and understand it ??? its talks about rebellions at one point and protection of Zoroastrian's right at the other, If we assume that zoroastrians were protected (as the article mentions) then why priest and scriptures were destroyed ? on the other hand if we assume that priest were killed templed destroyed scriptures burned, then wht was protection for ?
Madam your own source seems to conflict !
So the conclusion is that priest killed, scriptures burned and temples destroyed, all this happned when cities rebelled. And this type of tactics are used every where in the warfare. If u are know the history of warfare.
And let me know wht u think about the inclusion of the sentence in the article, mentioned in my last post. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

we have this source[[22]] and this [[23]]. So it would seem that it is some book sources for this. Also The Jews of Islam refers to them being subject to frequent vexations and persecutions. And that of the three main non Muslim groups in Iran the Zoroastrians faired the worst. Human By Robert Winston says that “When the empire fell to the Muslims in the 7th century AD, further religious persecution forced some to flee to India, where they were known as Parsis”. Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for ur comments, but let me make it a bit easy for you, may be u didnt understood the situation. There is no second opinion about the persecuation against zoroastrians, it did happened (after all why they fled to india in 1oth century). But the matter under discussion here in this talk page is that wht was their immediate status after the arab conquest in 641-644. Were they declared dhimmis ? or did they suffered by mass killings, persecutions and forceful conversions ?

The sources i provided seems to reveal that under the immediate aftermaths of the conquest they were given protection by impossing an additional tax over them called jizya. But in the long term time period (from 7th century to 10th century) certain laws and social norms made life difficult for zoroastrians and with the arrival of seljuk turks muslims in 9th century, they were subjected to harsh treatment tht forced them to fled from iran and by 10th century iran was predominantly a muslims land.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

zoroastrians: their religious beliefs and practices(your source) “qutaiba thought it proper to give one half their homes to the Arabs” further on it continues “he built mosques and eradicated traces of unbelief and the precepts of the fire worshipers”. Also one by one the great urban fire temples were turned into mosques and the citizens were forced to conform or flee. “ It contains a lot more then this, but I shall not repeat it all. Also the Jews of Islam is your source. nor does it matter if they were declared dhimmis if they were also subject to the above (and your sources say they were). The formation of Islam: religion and society in the Near East, 600-1800 Page 101 “The local Muslims in 671 interceded to prevent the Arab governor from executing the local priests and extinguishing their sacred fires” It makes it clerar that in differing regions there was differing treatment of the Zorastrians in the aftermath of the conquest, ther ws no single policy (also they were not, according to this soource, officialy Dhimmis just explicitly accepted as such. Which goes some way to explain the discrepancies in treatment).Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Again we r talking about the immediate aftermaths of the conquest i.e under Rashidun Caliphate, qutaiba came 70 years later he was an ummayad general who did this after capturing city of bukhara 4th time (every time the city rebelled killing its governor and muslim population). More over this type of incidents of devastation and terror tactics after putting down the rebellion are already mentioned in the Religion section of the article.

As for the immediate aftermaths of the conquest the same source that mentioned the terrors of qutaiba, says ....a number of laws and restrictions govrning the lives of dhimmis were gradually evolved to emphasize their wholly inferior status but under the early orthodox caliphs if they paid their taxes and confermed to these laws they were sometime left very largely to themselves. Thus abu bakr enjoined " if a province or people reveive you make an agreement with them and keep your promise let them be governed by their laws and established customs and take tribute from them as is agreed betwen you. leave them in their religion and their land. its at page 146.
Hope this will clear my point. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The incident u quoted is of 671, and its ummayad period. every govt hv its own policies, caliphate had its own policies, Ummayad caliphate had their own, Abbasid caliphate had their own so did turks and Safwavids. All of them ruled iran with different policies. So dont mix up the policies of different Caliphats.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• The sentence u quoted again shows difference of policies towards zoroastrians under different governments, as it says on page 101 ..zoroastrians were explicitly accapted as dhimmis although islamic laws as later formulated betrayed a peculiar and sharpened suspicionof zoroastrians. as a result zoroastrians were not granted the same rights and status as jews and christians.

It clearly says tht at first they were given dhimmi status but later governments betrayed this status. This might be the reason of their migration to india. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No it say's they were accepted as, not granted status as. Also it adds that they were denied entance to mosques ad forbiden to use muslim bathhouse's as unclean. Also "laws they were sometimes left very largely to themselves" does not they were not presecuted it says they were sometimes not persecuted (if wew accpet the idea that being left alone means rather more then not being spat at in the street).Slatersteven (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I see no difference in being accepted or granted ??? both apply to same thing practically.

Did it says tht under rashidun caliphs they were treated like this ???? this happned later (probably when their dhimmi status came under doubt). It was rahsidun caliphs tht captured persia not ummayad and abbasids. So we were talking about rashiduns.
please do not try giving your own interpretations of wht is written in the book, tell me if it clearly says that ZOROASTRIANS WERE PERSECUTED UNDER THE ORTHODOX CALIPHS. Otherwise accept the fact as it is mentioned in the book. Thanks for showing interest. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I hope I won't have to repeat myself over and over. Please read WP:RS again. It does not say that being a website makes a source uncredible. Only the websites for whom the following criteria fits:

expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions

Are not WP:RS. This is a last effort to see if you understand, if not, I'll be making a formal dispute on this.digitwoman (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Also, please refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks. digitwoman (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• About the following comment from your last edit:

So the conclusion is that priest killed, scriptures burned and temples destroyed, all this happned when cities rebelled.

You make me laugh with this suggestion. First of all, nowhere in the Encyclopedia Iranica article can I find any mention of the Zoroastrians being protected, can you point out where this is mentioned?

Secondly, many sources point to the fact that before Zoroastrians were declared Dhimmis, many priests had already been killed, temples destroyed, etc.

Thirdly, even if they were declared Dhimmis right after the invasion, this doesn't mean that a Muslim leader in a particular city or state might not just decide he didn't like the Zoroastrians and have their temples destroyed just for his own amusement in his city.

In conclusion, unless the article specifically states that only in the places where the Zoroastrians rebelled they were prosecuted, it is incorrect to fill in the gaps yourself and say that this is what it meant. Just the same way we didn't use some of my sources which didn't mention a date period explicityly. Confirm this with any other wikipedia users if you don't think this is how it works. Remember, No original research.

About this comment,

And let me know wht u think about the inclusion of the sentence in the article, mentioned in my last post.

Which sentence was that?digitwoman (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• As for the sources, i put tht matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. and i got their verdict which is you can better read it your self.

So now i think issue of reliability has been resolved. Stick to the sources that has been suggested by the users on noticeboard. I gave the link to a book on your talk page u can prepare some stuff from that book (page 100-101 will help u). And we can give discuss that 'paragraph', thus making the scope of our discussion limited so that it may get resolved in near future.
The sectence that i proposed was Having enjoyed the status of dhimmis under conquering Rashidun Caliphs, on the terms of annual payment of Jizya, Zoroastrians were sometime very largely to themselves. Due to their financial interests, Ummayads apparently discourage the conversion of non-Arabs, as dhimmis provided them with valuable revenues (jizya). However with the course of time zoroastrians were persecuted, often by prohibition of free worship and social humiliation. Zoroastrians suffered much more with the arrival of Turks and by 1oth century most of them escaped persecution by migrating to india, mainly to Gujrat.
Whats ur thoughts on it ? its source is the book who's link i hv given to ur talk page.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 08:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Adil. I have asked for clarification on my sources on that page, let us wait to hear what they have to say to that before we make a final decision on which sources to use.

Regarding the sentence that you bring up, it is definitely an improvement to what we have right now, but I have the following points about it:

1) I remember that one of the sources, possibly the 'A year amongst persians' books mentions that before being declared Dhimmis, many Zoroastrian temples were destroyed and priests were killed, etc. If the source for this was EconomicExpert.com then ignore this, but I will have to check all the sources and see if this needs to be mentioned before the mention of them being declared dhimmis.

2) Some of the language in that sentence is not NPOV, like 'having enjoyed the status of Dhmmis' makes it sound like it was actually an enjoyable experience, which I'm not sure about :), and it also sounds biased in favor of Muslims. It would be better to simply say 'Having been declared Dhimmis and mostly given the freedom to practice their religion', etc. Also words like 'apparently' should be removed as they're ambigious.

3) I don't think we need to give details about what happened past the Rashidun conquest. Since the article is set to be renamed to Rashidun conquest, I think we should stick to only upto that part and exclude the mention of future persecution etc.

Cheers. digitwoman (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• We can heir a 3rd person to make language neutral, preferably a western, who will side non but english.

As for the source that says they were persecutted before been declared dhimmis, it was economicexpert.com, u can check it.
The word apparently is widely used in wikipedia article to give intentions of a disclaimer and to make sentence more neutral. lets see wht the 3rd person will do with it while copy-editing tht paragraph, leave it to him. (i hv no other objections on its removal).
As for mentioning the aftermaths regarding rashidun caliphate or other govrernments like abbasids turks n mongols, so its a tradition to give a bird eye view of wht happened next, who ruled next and who succeeded tht regime and its necessary to mention why did some of them migrated to india. So i think its necessary to give a little details till the end.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, you can consider me a westerner, I am not a Zoroastrian, I'm an atheist, hence I'm neither biased for Muslims nor Zoroastrians, I would just like to keep the article objective. I'm going to give only the facts and cite them.

Regarding 'apparently', its fine with me but it doesn't make grammatical sense to be used in the way you're trying to, I think 'possibly' will be a better word than 'apparently'.

Are you going to be giving a bird's eye view of the other religions that you've mentioned, like Christianity & Judiasm, etc as well? If so, its fine to mention the future prosecution of Zoroastrians etc, but if you're going to only list it for Zoroastrians it seems a bit inconsistent.

BBC & Britannica were declared WP:RS as you might've seen, and Encyclopedia Iranica will also likely be WP:RS, after that is confirmed I will find some time to make changes to the article and balance it out. We can mutually edit it until we both feel its balanced and also neutral.

digitwoman (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Being an ex-muslim u r ought to be anti-muslim in ur tone (probabaly becoz u might hate muslims). I suggest contacting an random user, if possible an admin for this task.

There is no source telling the fate of Jews and christians in persia, and they were in iran in very little minority, if any. Iran was predominantly zoroastrian and it will be useful to explain how it became muslim. As for BBc as said on the noticeboard, it will be preferable to find books supporting its claims, i hope u gona follow their advise. Moreover as discussed earlier BBC dont give a specific time period, so wht u gonna do with time period issue ? Therefore i suggested to generalize the sentence by giving a bit detail of wht happned under other dynasties (so it will cover BBC claims). No less then 8 dynasties ruled iran during 7th-10th century including a pure native persian muslim dynasty. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Preferable doesn't mean it doesn't meet WP:RS and as long as it meets that, it can be used as a source. I don't have time to keep searching for sources, I've already spent time finding WP:RS sources like BBC & Britannica, hence I'm going to use them. If you want you can feel free to find better sources and replace the ones I give with them if you prefer.

Also, all 3 sources (BBC, Britannica and Iranica) give the time, take a look at them again. I've already omitted the sources which don't give the time.

I don't have an objection to giving the details of later persecution of zoroastrians etc, but the language will have to kept balanced so it doesn't sound like you are trying to minimize the role that the Muslims played in the prosecution.

I'm going to make changes to the article later. It is easier to directly make changes to it rather than discuss it on the talk page first. We can continue to edit until we're sure that its balanced & neutral.digitwoman (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose this

Having effectivly been recognised as dhimmis under the early Caliphs, on the terms of annual payment of Jizya, Zoroastrians were sometime very largely to themselves, but that this patern was patchy and varied from area to area. Due to their financial interests, Ummayads apparently discourage the conversion of non-Arabs, as dhimmis provided them with valuable revenues (jizya). However with the course of time zoroastrians were persecuted, often by prohibition of free worship and social humiliation.

None of the sources make mention that the Dim status was given by the Rashidun Caliphs (all we can say it that it seems to have been in the 7thC).Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• @user:digitwomen

I hope u know wht they mean when saying "preferable", its english. Where does bbc and britanica mention time period ???? plz show me. britanica article is simply about post islamic period which is u know 1400 years long. so no time period.
I suggest using a sandbox to prepare ur stuff we can edit them easily with out disordering the article.

BBc's article mention this small paragraph, The Islamic invaders treated the Zoroastrians as dhimmis (People of the Book). This meant that, like Jews and Christians, they could retain their religious practices, but must pay extra taxes. There were also many other laws and social humiliations implemented to make life difficult for the Zoroastrians in the hope that they would convert to Islam. Over time many Iranians did convert and Zoroastrianism became a minority religion in Iran.
If u do a little hard work and read tht book u will find it all in that book, its too general info. Therefore they say "book" is preferable. Regards And by the way later turks and mongols were also muslims, so there is no intention of saving their ass.

• @user:Slatersteven

I have no objection to adding tht.
The status of dhimmi was obviously given by rashidun caliphs, they were the conquerors others simple ruled them. and its also mentioned here ...
a number of laws and restrictions govrning the lives of dhimmis were gradually evolved to emphasize their wholly inferior status but under the early orthodox caliphs if they paid their taxes and confermed to these laws they were sometime left very largely to themselves. It on page 146 of Zoroastrians: their religious beliefs and practices. remmember it ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the changes suggested by Slatersteven , they sound a lot more balanced and objective. About this line: 'Zoroastrians were sometime very largely to themselves', what does that mean? I think this line should be more clear. Secondly, the following:

'However with the course of time zoroastrians were persecuted, often by prohibition of free worship and social humiliation. '

should be changed to:

'However with the course of time zoroastrians were persecuted, often by prohibition of free worship, destruction of religious texts, executions of Mobads, and social humiliation implemented to make life difficult for the Zoroastrians in the hope that they would convert to Islam. '

Citing this BBC article

and Encyclopedia Iranica page] which were passed as WP:RS.

Thoughts?

I won't be making any other changes to the 'Religion' section if we can replace the paragraph describing what happened to the Zoroastrianists with the above paragraph (with my changes added).

digitwoman (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• @ user:Slatersteven, orthodox caliphs=Rashidun Caliphs.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It does appear that al-Rashidun and Orthodox Caliphs are interchangeable. Inorder to avoid confusion (remeber we cannot all speak arabic) it might be better to use the wording in the source early orthodox caliphs).Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Zoroastrians were sometime left very largely to themselves means no bulling with them, peace.

as for this sentence ...However with the course of time zoroastrians were persecuted, often by prohibition of free worship, destruction of religious texts, executions of Mobads, and social humiliation implemented to make life difficult for the Zoroastrians in the hope that they would convert to Islam.

how about instead of this zoroastrians were persecuted, often by prohibition of free worship, destruction of religious texts, executions of Mobads, and social humiliation

using a more objective language like: .......zoroastrians were afflicted, often by religious prosecution and social humiliation.

the word religious prosecution express all those thing in a more balanced way.

I am not sure u wanna add this sentence "make life difficult for the Zoroastrians in the hope that they would convert to Islam." Sounds too bias and anti-muslim too me.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources seem to say that the Zorastrians were discuraged from conversion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with using 'afflicted' instead of 'prosecuted', because:

1) It makes the sentence confusing and makes it hard to understand what happened

2) There are sources to back up the fact that they were prosecuted

I'm open to hearing 3rd opinion on this.

Regarding the changing of the sentence, how about the following?

However with the course of time zoroastrians were persecuted, often by prohibition of free worship, destruction of religious texts, executions of Mobads, and social humiliation implemented to make life difficult for the Zoroastrians, and to persuade them to eventually convert to Islam.

How about that? It makes the language more neutral while still describing what happened.

@ Slatersteven, conversion was discouraged in Rashidun time but I believe that we're giving a long-term view of what happened to Zoroastrianism in that area. I have other sources to back the claim that eventually they were made to wear special clothes, not allowed to ride horses, etc. The BBC site gives the reason for this to make life harder for Zoroastrianists, and to coerce them to convert to islam.

digitwoman (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We can also change the language to this:

.......zoroastrians were religiously persecuted and social humimilation was implemented to persuade Zoroastrians to eventually convert to Islam..

Something like that would be acceptable to me if its acceptable to you. (Note that there's a link to Persecution of Zoroastrians here).digitwoman (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose removing 'very' from: Zoroastrians were sometime left very largely to themselves, so Zoroastrians were sometimes left largely to themselvesdigitwoman (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Afflicted, harassed, molested etc they are all synonyms of Persecution. It make no difference using either of them, but its good to use a synonym instead of persecution again and again, it looks strange.

this seems good to me ...Having effectively been recognized as dhimmis under the Rashidun Caliphs, on the terms of annual payment of Jizya, Zoroastrians were sometime left very largely to themselves, but that this pattern was patchy and varied from area to area. Due to their financial interests, Ummayads apparently discourage the conversion of non-Arabs, as dhimmis provided them with valuable revenues (Jizya). However with the course of time zoroastrians were religiously persecuted and social humiliations were implemented to make life difficult for the them and possibly to persuade them to eventually convert to Islam.

I have added probably to it to give it a bit of a balanced look.

Agreed ???

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remove 'very' from the 'very largely', 'very largely' is gramatically incorrect. Secondly, there is a source to back up the claim that they were implemented to persuade them to eventually convert to islam, hence there is no need for the 'possibly' so please remove that as well. Also I recommend that you remove the 'apparently' and just leave 'Ummayads discouraged the conversion..' or 'generaly discouraged' since you have references to back that up, right?

I have one other concern, it says that 'with the course of time they were persecuted', implying that they weren't persecuted during the Rashidun era. So the language here would need to be changed a bit. Perhaps this would be better:

Having effectively been recognized as dhimmis under the Rashidun Caliphs, on the terms of annual payment of Jizya, Zoroastrians were sometimes left largely to themselves, but that this pattern was patchy and varied from area to area. Due to their financial interests, Ummayads generally discourage the conversion of non-Arabs, as dhimmis provided them with valuable revenues (Jizya). With the course of time religious persecution of Zoroastrians increased, and social humiliations were implemented to make life difficult for the them and to persuade them to eventually convert to Islam.

This makes it clear that the persecution had begun during the Rashidun era.

Thoughts?

digitwoman (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• i have no objection to the sentence as it is now. But couldn;t understand why did u said..... This makes it clear that the persecution had begun during the Rashidun era. wht was its context ? and when u dont hv any source to claim that they were religiously persecuted in rashidun era, then why r u syaing so ? i gave a reference above from a book, called zoroastrians and their religious believes page 146, and quoted a clear sentence from it tht made it clear tht under rashidun caliphs they were left on their own. things started getting wrong from mid-ummayad period, when ummayad were frustrated from their rebellion activities. or else no one was interested in wasting their energies in demolishing a zoroastrians center (u know no bulldozers were there at tht time), they would hv prefered to expand further rather then sending their troops for bulling with zoroastrians just for FUN. hv a realistic approach.

or dont tell me u really believe on tht traditional anti-islamic believe that muslims expanded their empire to spread islam, other then the more realistic modern scholars believe tht they expanded due to economic interests. lolzz did alexander expanded his empire to spread his pagan greek faith ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have sources to back up the claim that persecution started with the Rashiduns. Both the BBC and Iranica article mention and mention the timeline. 'A year amongst persians' book also claims this clearly. There are also several quotes from Umar cited by Muslim sources which claim this. Also please see this source. Its not a matter of what I personally believe, its a matter of what happened. digitwoman (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the source does not say they were left alone, it says they were sometimes left alone. Sources have been provided showing that over the course of the 7thC the persecution of the Zorastrians grew worse. No source has been provided saying that the Zorastrians were not persecutd during the early caliphates, all the sources have said is there was no set pattern and that they were not always treated badley. PLease find a source thyat explicilty states that under the Early Caliphates the Zorastrians were not persecuted.15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are umar's quotations ???? i find non here, [24]

Also, when a source is available thats says no harm was done to them if they paid jizya, then i think there is no need to try to interpret those source molding them in once own interest. I smell a bias here. At user didgit women, I challenge u if u can show me time line in BBc ....lolzz so think before u write.

Encyclopedia iranica only mentions this ....Conversion to Islam (q.v.) was, however, only gradual. In the process, many acts of violence took place, Zoroastrian scriptures were burnt and many mobads executed (for examples, see Balāḏori, Fotuḥ, p. 421; Biruni, Āṯār, p. 35).

Do u see a time line in this ??? it only says conversion was gradual and during tht course of time many violent acts took place.

The reason why rahisuns didnt persecuted zoroastrians have a simple but thought provoking logic, Who conquered persian empire ? rashidun or ummayad, abbasids or turks ???

Rashiduns did tht, and they knew it very well how difficult was tht to conqueror their men were dieing, they knew that if they will give peace to one city giving protection to lives, property and religion of its people, and then they will breach the treaty by destroying temples killing zoroastrian nobels, No other city will gona ever surrender to them again, rather they will fight til end thinking they gonna die either way, and if this would happen then conquest of persia will take decades of warfare, Arab man power was limited they were in no position to afford it, at no point durig the reign of Caliph umar their army rise above in total of 50,000. (25,000 regulars on western front and the same on estern front. See David nicolle's The great Islamic conquest.)

I hope this will clear any doubts on ur mind as to why didnt rashiduns persecuted them.

600 years later mongols conquest matched with rashidun conquest in many ways, both relied on their mobility to win the battle, and both have limited man power, while rashidun choiced to win by winning the people, mongols choiced to win by eliminating the people, they would slaughter a whole city so tht other city might submit to them with out a fight, n they will too honor their treaties like rashiduns did. The answer of the issue lies more in military diplomacy rather then religious fanaticism.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Which source says no harm was done to them if they paid jizya?Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

read this CAREFULLY [25]

The writer expreses her own views + it has a quotation from Caliph Abu Bakr (Rashidun Caliph)

So would u mind telling me which source says rashiduns did kicked zoroastrian a**.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The source says that they were sometimes left alone if they paid, not that they were allways left alone. Also Abu Bakr died in 634, persia was not conqured untill 642 10 years later. His quote is not about the Zorastrians, it is about DShi8mmisn in general. I would however sugest that this is now rtaken to arbitration as it appears to be getting a bit personel and heated. The other altertnative is to close this down, as we seem to have agreed on a compromise wording.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Zoroastrians were dhimmis werent they ? and during abu bakr's era there were already a significant population of zoroastrians in behrain and yemen. More over i see it ridiculous to fight over whether the source says "some time" or "always". It seems as a measure of caution the world "sometime" is used, and other thing which is noticeable is that the book is full of stories of persecution of zoroastrians during ummayad era, abbasid and others but it mentions non of such incident from rashidun era. So if there were such persecutions during rashidun era the writer must hv mentioned it too.

check this source,page 121-22 it says that after the conquest (for atleast 100 yaers) muslims reinstalled the local persian officials and tax collectors and they use to serve their new masters. so how was persecution possible when they were still ruled by their old officials at local level.

also check this source it explains dhimmitude in more rational and liberal way [26] and tht it was umar (rashidun caliph who conquered persia) who introduced it.

this source tells how Arabs established their control over vast non-muslim population [27] Obviously rashiduns did tht as they were the conquerors.

this source mentions zoroastrians under "righty guided caliphs" (Arabic:Rashidun Caliphs) and hv mention their status as dhimmis and hv no mention of persecution under them.[28]

also read this it gives a positive side of being a dhimmi. [29]

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I susgest that we aksed for third party assistance as this is just running round in circles now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven, I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you as well Adil. I support what Slatersteven has said, the source you gave says they were 'sometimes' left alone, not always, which means that the other sources which say that zoroastrians were persecuted are given more weight than your one source claiming they weren't.digitwoman (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

the word some time has already been added to the article. You hv failed to show any source tht says they were kick by rashduns or alteast early ummayads. So chill and accept things as they are. And all the sources seems apparently one sided, they fails to tell the muslim side of story, i.e why the hell they kick only zoroastrian a**, why jews and christians were spared ??? They try to limit the scope only to religious bias saying they wanted to convert them, lolzz so why didnt they wanted to convert christains and jews ??? dont tell me tht zoroastrians were more sexy and the invaders were gay :)

The sources didnt hv bothered to take the scope to the practical side of story, which is political aspect of their persecution which was most probably the real reason why they were persecuted, they use to rebel a lot dont they ? do you know during 648-651 almost whole of the persian empire was reconquered as most of the zoroastrians broke their treaties and killed muslim population of there cities and rebelled, often killing the christian mediators as well ???? and any such incident never happned in christians and jews land of Syria or Egypt, seems zorostrians did gave a shit to treaties which christrians and jews seems to obey rather like a religious duty. So try expanding your intellectual scope of mind, world is much more different then we usually think, every thing done generally is done for a reason. try finding out the reason beyond religious and ethnic bounds.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouold like some clarification, exaclty what is being argued about here now?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

new changes

hi following changes were made by User:Saroshp [30]

I have balanced those edits and also hv added the paragraph tht was agreed above, with general fixations to adjust it to the context of the article. check this here..[31]

didnt deleted any thing added by the above mentioned user (as it was well sourced), but put his material to the right place and adjusted it to the flow of the article.

I hv removed one of his reference tht was suspecious + it was;nt reliable, u can provide a published scource for it.

Comments !!!

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad adil,

The complete section needs restructuring at the very least, plus some re-wording. It will be quite confusing for a new reader the way its ATM.

Could you provide a link where i could possibly find the book "The Muslim conquest of Persia", in its entirety, as this article appears to have been singularly derived from the book, much like an overview or a summary.

The point that needs to be highlighted, is the fact that here was rampant, systematic, state supported religious persecution of minorities *during and after* the invasion.

Saroshp (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)saroshp

• article when i wrote it was basically derived from 3 sources, encyclopedia of islam (expansion section), which is available online on google books. The other was a book by renowned egyptian scholar Umar, Al-Farooq, having details of all the campaigns of Caliph Umar. And finally the master piece of A.I.Akram i.e Muslim conquest of Persia. Its the only book that gives a military analysis of campaign in great detail. The western references that support that book r from David nicolle's the great muslim conquest and from hugh Keneddy's the great arab conquest. Donner's books also gives a detail but i havnt read that book.

As for akram's book, muslim conquest of persia, it isnt available for free preview, u may hv to buy it to read it.

As for the fact, about presecution during the conquest, then militarily it isnt persecution its wht they call terrors of war. It happens every where when ever there is a war, i dont need to mention crusades, Punic wars, Roman expansion, Persian expqansion, and WWI n WWII. So i thin u will get my point. The word war symbolizes all such terrors so mentioning those terrors by specifically highlighting them will make the section bias and may be pro-persian/anti-islamic.

"and would u please explain adding back this reference ???Hillenbrand, R, Bearman, P.J.; Bosworth, C.E., eds., Masdjid. I. In the central Islamic lands, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill Academic Publishers, ISSN 1573-3912]
first of all simplify it, its confusing. and Would u mind giving a page number ??? who gonna search the whole book.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Religion section should be more clarified. In general it has merged persecution due to religious motivations such as Mutawakkil era with nationalist ad pan-Arabist ones which happened during Umayyad Caliphate, especially Hajjāj ibn Yusuf. In some cases such as By 9th century, under Abbasid Caliphate, status of Zoroastrians fell from dhimmis (protected community) to kafirs (non-believers) and there was significant increase in persecutions. the description isn't sufficient. As I know tough obligations enforced in Mutawakkil era. But the sentence isn't clear. I suggest reading Iranian culture after Islam which separates different trends which happened after conquest. Later another harsh policy against religious minorities happened during Ghaznavid and Seljuq era as well as late Safavid dynasty era.Seyyed(t-c) 06:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It indeed needs to be worked on as i have already stated above in response to the other contributor. In regards to the your "which" tag please see the link below

http://books.google.com/books?id=a6gbxVfjtUEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Their+Religious+Beliefs+and+Practices&ei=yFYnS-6rLaqEywTy95mOCw&cd=1#v=snippet&q=arab%20governor%20of%20iraq&f=false

In response to the "what" tag - It certainly can be elaborated, however it would do injustice to the article as the religion section is already too large for it own clarity. I think the article should focus more on the campaign rather the religious injustices that followed provided they concisely touched upon in the right spirit. If you would like to elaborate on it I am all for it.

Saroshp (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)saroshp

The section is already hv became sinfully long, i afraid it may fall in wikipedia undue weitage category. Any ways, The clarifications that user:Seyyed hv urged are important, but i suggest that u must incorporate those clarification in the article Persecution of Zoroastrians, becasue it already seems to hv mention one side of story, (mentions no reasons for those persecution, religious, economic, politic etc etc, obviously they didnt persecuted zoroastrians just for Fun of it.) The religion section of the article already have a link to Persecution of Zoroastrians, and a more interested reader will jump on tht article for clarifications, its good for religion section of this article to just mention a bird eye view of wht happned to them.

As for the story of an arab ummayad governor who ordered the destrution of temples, it need to be clearify by mentioning the whole story as it is mentioned in the books, which rather says tht incentive of this act was rather economical then religious persecution, as they demanded money from those temples and those who paid were left unharmed, it was also to check how many and how much zoroastrian centers were active/radical and this was probably to categorize to most likely future sites of revolts and rebellions, as after fall of sassanians zoroastians were now led by their religious hight priest. I going to add this all in the section to make precise n in accordance to wht the book actually intended by mentioning this incident.

regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means, you can narrate the other side of the story with supporting references. You are making me repeat myself, I never implied *anywhere* that Zoroastrians were persecuted for the FUN OF IT, as I had said it was a systematic state sponsored policy of oppression, with the ultimate aim of converting the entire populace to islam. Regulations, and policies were created, and implemented to that effect. Saroshp (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)saroshp

But the question tht revolves in my mind is that whyall this was done apparently with zoroastrians ? why not with christians and jews ? i mean they r still in a sizable numbers in their native land of fertile crescent and egypt. Zoroastrians must have did some thing tht pushed their masters to put pressure on them. May be they were responsible for instability in the land due to their occational revolts and rebellions activities, God know the best. I remember tht when Fars province of iran repeatedly rebelled during caliph Uthman's reign (644-656). Uthman finally decided to send preacher groups to persuade the nobels (who were responsible for revolts) to convert to islam and in return they may hv been given some local offices.

Any ways, my scope of interest is military history, i have really interesting battles lined up for me, waiting to be given attention to their brilliant tactics and maneuvers, so i will rather go their aid instead of putting my self in a boundless religious controversies and biases. So i neither hv time nor i am interested in narrating other side of story, may be user:Seyyed can help. As he is from iran and know his country's history better then me. Regards and take care. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Length of article and timeline of Zoroastrian persecution

After reading through all the discussion, I noticed the concern for the length of the article as well as information(regarding Zoroastrians) going beyond the typical conquest of Persia. My suggestion is that since within the article it has Conquest of Persia (642 - 644), that all information concerning Zoroastrians and their situation be limited to 644. Anything beyond that year should be placed in the Persecution of Zoroastrians article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! couldn't agree more. Saroshp (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)saroshp

Agree.

There is not much known about wht was done to zoroastrians during tht period (637-644), only info is that the invaders declared them dhimmis too (although classically dhimmis referes only to Abrahamic religions i,e jews and christians) and their rights were protected through various treaties signed with them on the terms of payment of jizya annually per able body male. How ever it is to be noted tht in iraq, as zoroastrians was religion of particularly sassanid elites, so their nobels may had suffered persecutions but those were purely on political basis, other then religious. User:Kansas Bear u can edit the religion section to limit the section in accordance to the period and conquest. Apparently it seems no one involved in discussion have any objection to it, a 3rd person who was out of discussion seem to me perfect for this job.

Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

forget every thing and read this..........

Hey, forget every thing (@user digitwomen and the other user from UK sorry i forgot ur name) and read this ......... it gives a well referenced story of wht happned with zoroastrians during rashidun conquest. [32]

start from page 99 till 101.

u will be astonished for sure.

apart from supporting almost all wht i had said in those exhausting discussions it gives some new fact which even i didnt knew. and its precisely about rashidun conquest of iran and their treatment with dhimmis.

read this and chill have a drink or some thing and sleep tight. Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

also read this its really good, it takes the more realistic approach and explains why zoroastrians became extinct.

[33]

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

excalty were in your first source does it disprove that the Zorastrians were persecuted in the days of the early Calphates. it says that toleration must have been greater in medival times, not that persecution did not exsist. Also the source makes it clear that massacres occured, as a result of resistance but its not clear if this was allways the case. It also mentions forced conversion, one case is given as an exampple, but there is nothing in the test to indicate that this is a notable exception. Your second source does not seem to contain a great deal about the early Caliphates. nor does it say they were not presecuted in this period, it seems to mainly be talkiing about the Umayyad Caliphate. But it does mention that until 661 the Zorastrian Iranians and the Arabs were still in a state of war.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

IF we implement the proposed recommendations under Length of article and timeline of Zoroastrian persecution, then all this concern over Zoroastrian persecution can either be substantiated as occurring by 644 or else it should be moved to the Persecution of Zoroastrians article. Do you agree? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping a concise paragraph addressing the issue from both POV within the context and timeline of the article. For further info readers can always go to Persecution of Zoroastrians page. ...thanx Saroshp (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I believe the problem is:

We are trying to replace the current paragraph about Zoroastrian religion in the religion section of the article with the following:

Having effectively been recognized as dhimmis under the Rashidun Caliphs, on the terms of annual payment of Jizya, Zoroastrians were sometimes left largely to themselves, but that this pattern was patchy and varied from area to area. Due to their financial interests, Ummayads generally discourage the conversion of non-Arabs, as dhimmis provided them with valuable revenues (Jizya). With the course of time religious persecution of Zoroastrians increased, and social humiliations were implemented to make life difficult for the them and to persuade them to eventually convert to Islam.

Its my understanding that Adil agrees with everything, except the sentence 'With the course of time, religious persecution of Zoroastrians increased', he thinks it should be 'With the course of time, religious persecution of Zoroastrians "started", and he is saying that we don't have sources which say that the persecution had already begun in the Rashidun era.

Here is the 1st source:

'By 651, most of the urban centers in Iranian lands, with the notable exception of the Caspian provinces and Transoxiana, had come under the domination of the Arab armies. Many localities in Persia staged a defense against the invaders, but in the end none was able to repulse the invasion. Even after the Arabs had subdued the country, many cities rose in rebellion, killing the Arab governor or attacking their garrisons, but reinforcements from the caliphs succeeded in putting down all these rebellions and imposing the rule of Islam. The violent subjugation of Bukhara (q.v.) after many uprisings is a case in point. Conversion to Islam (q.v.) was, however, only gradual. In the process, many acts of violence took place, Zoroastrian scriptures were burnt and many mobads executed (for examples, see Balāḏori,Fotuḥ, p. 421; Biruni, Āṯār, p. 35).

Encyclopedia Iranica, Iran in the Islamic Period (651-1980s)

2nd source:

When, in the seventh century, the warlike followers of the Arabian prophet swept across Iran, overwhelming, in their tumultuous onslaught, an ancient dynasty and a venerable religion, a change, apparently almost unparalleled in history, was in the course of a few years brought over the land. Where for centuries the ancient hymns of the Avesta had been chanted, and the sacred fire had burned, the cry of the mu'ezzin summoning the faithful to prayer rang out from minarets reared on the ruins of the temples of Ahura Mazda. The priests of Zoroaster fell by the sword; the ancient books perished in the flames; and soon none were left to represent a once mighty faith but a handful of exiles flying towards the shores of India, and a despised and persecuted remnant in solitary Yezd and remote Kirman. Truly it seemed that a whole nation had been transformed, and that henceforth the Aryan Persian must not only bear the yoke of the Semitic "lizard-eater" whom he had formerly so despised, but must further adopt his creed, and almost, indeed, his language.

A YEAR AMONGST THE PERSIANS, EDWARD GRANVILLE BROWNE, pg 133-134

In the light of those sources I don't see any further reason to hold back making the edit we've been discussing for almost a week. Please reply if you support or object. digitwoman (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are perfectly valid references, please go ahead and make the appropriate edits in light of the sources. The complete book can be accessed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=xqVJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q=&f=false Saroshp (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No one is trying to remove that sentence lolzzz user:digitwomen u wasted time for nothing assuming tht i was trying to remove tht. any ways. A year amoungest the persian give no time line, u can all see, its a general statement describing the extinction of zoroastrians, right from 7th century till their migration to india (300 years). its too general and bias in its tone, so is not helpful in solving the issue tht whether they were persecuted by rashiduns (as by abbasids and turks) or not.

As for encyclopedia iranica, its says ...'Conversion to Islam (q.v.) was, however, only gradual. In the process, many acts of violence took place, Zoroastrian scriptures were burnt and many mobads executed.

It simple digitwomen, it talks about during the couse of conversion and its 1400 years long period, do u understand english ???? poor pakistani schools ????

The Source tht i provided (encyclopedia of islam) mentions in detail all the major happenings of the conquest of persia. its reliable as its thrid party and have a well referenced prose. It tells about the massacres in case of resistence (the thing tht i had already mentioned in the article before the discussion begun). And other then tht it says nothing, so nothing means nothing, do not try to be smart n try to put ur on thoughts on the source. It mentions about the treaties with subdued persians in which their fire temples were given protection and tht these treaties were honored. So wht else do u need ? This is a most detailed account of the treatment of persians under rashiduns conquerors and if u dispute tht we can hv a thrid opinion on this.

As for forceful conversion, it only one example, i.e persian general Hurmozan (lolzz u know this guy was later involved in assasination of Caliph Umar, the one who converted him and took him as his personal advisor on persian issues.). And its totally POV and original research to assume that there were more such conversions, if there may be then the source would definitely had mentioned it. The source says it straight that islam was rather preached in zoroastrian areas like azerbaijan and armenia, where a large number of jews, christians and zoroastrians were converted. So wht do u think ?, no offenses but u seem to read only those things tht satisfy you, read the whole story. Dude !

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 08:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as the source meets the wiki standards it can be included ...PERIOD. end of discussion. Saroshp (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)saroshp

Adil, any more personal attacks from you and I will be making a complaint against you. FYI I scored 8/9 in IELTS, given the quality of your grammar and reading comprehension I'm positive its far more than you would score.

Secondly, read the entire sentence again, and then read the rest of the article on Iranica. The paragraph begins with 'By 651...' and then it goes on to describe what happened in the beginning of the conquest, i.e the Rashidun period. The events which happened in later periods are described in the next few paragraphs, again, try reading the article again.

With the second source 'A year amongst the persians', again it is quite clear that it is talking about the beginning of the conquest, the paragraph begins with 'In the 7th century...' and later on it says 'a change, apparently almost unparalleled in history, was in the course of a few years brought over the land.'

I'm not sure how much non-islamic books in english you have read, but usually when I say something like: Last week I had a very bad flue, and I became sick, and had to see the doctor, it means the same thing as Last week I had a very bad flue, and last week I became sick, and last week I had to see the doctor although I have mentioned 'last week' only once in the sentence. The same goes regarding the other 2 sources I've given, they both mention at the start that they're talking about the late 6th century - early 7th century, so please do not try to distort their meaning just because they haven't repeated the date in every sentence.

Anyhow, you said you don't dispute adding the paragraph as I showed it in my last edit, so what exactly are you in dispute about? I will add the paragraph to the article now and give the sources.digitwoman (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks lolzz

Well i am in dispute about the same thing u r saying again and again, and it is that the slow and steady govt. backed persecution begun during rashidun caliphate.

While my source (the link to encyclopedia tht i gave) gives a details account of treatment with persian during prophet Mohammad and Rashidun Era, it dont mention any of those persecutions in rashidun era that were did to them later in 8th century. (wht do u mean by late 6th century ??? late 6th century was the zenith of Sassanid rule see Khousro II.) I hope u under stand wht detail account is, if not then read page 99-101 of the book who's link i gave in the begining of this new section. if there were persecutions then why did tht source which gives such a detail account, mentioned any of those persecutions ???? thats a BIG question.

And please stop interpreting the sources in your own way, its POV right ?

So if u hv any source tht says it loud and clear tht their persecution started with the conquest and during rashidun era, then Show it to me, other wise i dont need ur interpretations and assumptions based on those ambiguous statements.

Do as i do, i am giving u sources that says every thing loud and clear, they dont need ridiculous explainations. So i expect u to do the same in good faith, produce a source which says it all clear. As for the year amoungest persian and encyclopedia iranica's statement, lets have a third opinion on it from some admin or a well reputed contributor of history military history, about whether they says it begun during rashidun era (also early ummayad till 700) and does it gives a specific timeline or is it too general.

I had already explained why zorostrians were persecuted, i think u didnt read my tht post above in the new references section.

So again to explain in a nut shell, hv u every bothered to though why only zoroastrians were persecuted ??? why not jews and christians, they lived chill under all muslim rulers.

And why there was always stress upon converting zoroastrians to islam ? dont tell me they were sexy or some thing and muslims were gay. When Fars province of iran rebelled repeatedly during caliph uthman's reign, he then sent a preacher mission to fars who persuaded some zoroastrian nobels/ex-Sassanid nobels to convert to islam and were given local official posts in return, this curbed the rebellious activities of them by a great margin.

There were political reasons behind all this, Zoroastrianism was closely associated with sassanid elite class and after fall of sassanid govt. they were led by their high priest.

Zoroastrians were declared dhimmis so were jews and christians, then why not jews and christains became extinct in their native land ??? the reason lies in wht zoroastrians did they provoked their new masters to kick their a**. Unlike jews and christians who when signed treaties used to obey it like rather a religious obligations, zoroastrians didnt gave a shit to those treaties and use to rebelled frequently do u know during 648-653 almost whole of the persian empire was reconquered by Rashidun Caliph Uthman only because zorostrians broke their peace treaties killing the muslim governors, however in the christians and jew land of syria, mesopotamia and egypt, there were no such rebellions not a single one .... so who had that worm in their a** ????

Its obvious when u rebel ur masters bust ur a**, as in case of indians during the war of independent in 1857 (british call it a rebellion, two sides of same pic).

So these were some simple facts tht a person who hv some knowledge of military history can easily understand (i fear u hardly know them).

so i see no difficulty in understanding the fact that all those rebellions and "terrorism" (again two sides of same pic as in case of british india) with the course of time pissed off the masters of zorostrians and they started thinking of getting rid of them, by occational forceful conversion (thinking their kids will be true muslims in future) and other social humiliations and also by encouraging sufi saints to convert them to islam.

With the course of time and political changes, govts changes their policies (remember pak govt's U-turn for afghan taliban policy after 9/11 )

So wht i stress is tht their persecution were more political then religious.

And under rahidun caliphs and early ummayads there were no political reasons for those persecutions, frustrations increased with time and so did persecutions.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this since I think you've accepted my last edit, is that correct? If so I think we no longer have a dispute and no more need to discuss this (finally) :). I personally don't have a problem with the fire temple paragraph being removed but if another user added it they might have an issue. digitwoman (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Okey so end of discussion, it was nice experience. Take care

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

copy-edit of this article

I copy-edited this article as far as "Second invasion of Mesopotamia (636)". The rest is still to be done. Wereldburger758 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)