Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia/Archive 1

message: Persia isn't Afghanistan they didn't even speak the same language at time. Absaloute rubbish thinking don't do it I am Middle Eastern I would know guys
: lol You do not even know how to transliterate your name correctly. That much about you an "Persia" Tājik 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't you bother wikipedia

message: Ok guys, I finally took up the time to investigage this. It turns out the reference given "p.2778-9" has nothing to do with the subject. The subject of that page is "electoral council" and has nothign to do with persians.
What I do have read here and there on the conquest of Fars, Tabaristan, Khuzistan, Nihawand, Ahwaz and other territoria and cities - then Umar, radiallahu 'anhu, in fact was gentile with the new Muslims, preferred them to others and acted generously with the converted noble men of Persia.
So either the person who made the claim misunderstood some passage, or never bothered looking it up and simply relied on third party sources. Or maybe, they are just lying. If what they report is true, then they should refer to the Arabic text and edition, page-number
etc. They should also read more about al-Tabari's sources, for example Sayf b. 'Umar, al-Waqidi, Abu Mikhnaf and others; all of them are weak, or liars. So whatever the case, what they say should be checked first from the text itself, then they should consider the context too.
So due to this fault I am taking out the blabber about racism on part of Arabs. There seems to be no evidence with regards to that. Unless anyone here can show me the text from 1st party sources, then there is no reason to believe such things and shouldn't be put in an encyclopedia.
--Khawaja 17:37:39, 2005-07-13 (UTC)
:Im reverting back. You cannot claim that western sources are "weak" and "liars". Zora provided several sources supporting what is written. So did I. The best you can do is add any opposing sources to the text. Not delete anything. Your post obviously demonstartes you are Sunni, and a supporter of Umar. But you are not the only person who knows Arabic here. There is specific mention of Arab cruelty against mawali in:
#Al`Allamah Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-'anwar, vol. 9, chap. 124.
#Shaykh 'Abbas al-Qummi, Safinat al-Bihar, (under wall), c.f. al-Kay.
#al-Khutat by al-Maqrizi. e.g. "See that not a single person in Iran speaks Arabic, and whosoever is found speaking Arabic kill him".
#Ibn an-Naqqash, Fatwa concerning the condition of the dhimmis, vol. 18, pp. 513-514, trans. Belin, Journal Asiatique, Vol. 18 (1851) and Vol. 19 (1852); in B. Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, pp. 184-185
#Abd al-Rahman al-Bazzaz, "Islam and Arab Nationalism", Arab Nationalism: An Anthology, ed. S.G. Haim, pp. 176-177
#...
:--Zereshk 23:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: False Report

message: You're really going to have to explain how you know the "desires" of men from 1.300 years ago.  If You can cite a source for these "Desires" then I may beleive it's not just a POV Push.
Im taking down the POV tag. It's been a while since the tag has been left up, with no discussion. I also added text that answers the original objections.--Zereshk 21:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Desire

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

message: I googled for further info and found to my horror that the current article is mainly a massive copyvio, assembled from the CAIS article and an Iranchamber article. I am busy rewriting the dang thing from scratch. That means losing the Tabari cites, unfortunately, since I don't have the relevant volume of Tabari in the standard English SUNY edition, and the cites seem to be translations from Arabic versions, which I can't confirm. Anyone here have the SUNY edition of the relevant Tabari volume, or access to it? You can add the cites when I put up a new version. Zora 18:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please Zora give us your findings about copyvios? If the article is really a massive copyvio than we'd have too much work to do in this article. -- Svest 23:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page is copied from  and .  I started doing some research and found that the article as it stands is seriously deficient as HISTORY -- it doesn't give any details of the long, losing fight of Yezdegerd III against Muslims. It also lacks any broader historical context, as to why the Sassanids were so weak, etc. I'm working on a new article, but the research is taking some time. Which I can ill spare. If it seems to be taking too long, I'll put up my draft and you guys can hack away at it. Zora 23:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. -- Svest 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: Paradoxic, you HAVE to allow other points of view (POVs) to be expressed. You can't just declare that your POV is the truth and that no others will be allowed. We clearly have two POVs here. One is mine, which I think is a kinda bland academic view, and one is yours, which I think must express the sentiments of many Iranians who came of age in the fervidly nationalist atmosphere of the Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. What all your teachers told you is FACT is not considered FACT outside Iran. The nationalism that seems to so right to you, and the interpretation of all of history as just a prelude to the glorious Iran of today, just seems jingoist and bathetic to someone who doesn't share those sentiments. The bedrock of Wikipedia is the NPOV policy and that means that you must allow other viewpoints to be expressed. Furthermore, they have to be expressed in terms that the holders of those views would agree are accurate. You can't just give YOUR version of the POV and say, "There, you're represented." Zora 05:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you trying so hard to re-discuss this topic, I included portions of the text and others wich were mainly bias were deleted, however you seem to not get enough of insulting both Iranians and Arabs alltogether. Not at all, it's your view against my reciting of academic works. Your POV (Wether you regard it scholarly or not, lol) is meaningless in regard to the high caliber historians and scholars who wrote extensive material about this subject and are widely accepted. I merely cited these. I was not raised as a nationalist; If trying to get personal is your way of trying to say your right, then i am sorry, but these are not my views, i cited them from academic works stemming from Iran and the middle east, by Iranians and Arabs about the Influences of Iranians towards Arab culture and vice versa in a friendly and non insultive objective manner. I have included viewpoints that were of relevance and truth and did not delete everything as you claim, however as much of what you, or someone else wrote previously was mainly based on myth and not fact, i cant let that pass. Im sorry, It was garbage. Again, I will repeat this for the last time, since you seem to have a comprehension issue; Specific works by widely accepted scholars and historians have been written about this topic, and it is very relevant that it be mentioned. You are vandalizing this page by deleting such works that are essential to the Islamic conquest of Iran. I realize you are a hindu so you might have a dislike or even a strong hatred for Islam, Arabs and Persians, but you should rather try Yoga, Tae Bo, or something else thats way more progressive than to ignorantly insult people with uttering nonsense and deceit. I know this is hard to believe, but smell the cofee; you are not above anyone here, nor do you have the authority to decide what permenently goes on the page, the poorly researched material you are desperately clinging on to is meaningless to the mainstream widely accepted scholars ive cited and contrary to what you have cited previously.--Paradoxic 23:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not being civil, Paradoxic. I'm also puzzled that you are calling my "version" garbage, when the latest thing I did was remove the whole section that was so controversial. I removed your version AND my version. Clearly, making any comments about the interaction between Arabs and Persians after the conquest is dicey, and since the article is about the conquest, not the aftermath, I figured that the best thing was to take out the section. I'm going to take it out again, and I hope you'll accept the compromise, rather than restoring your version, which seems to me to be extremely nationalistic and anti-Arab. Zora 09:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would compromise if i knew your intentions were sincere, but im very familiar with your bias against Iranians and Arabs and Islam and at your use of uncivil behavior towards people (Iranian/Arab) you disagree with. Not one but numerous people have warned me about you and your insultive views regarding Iranians, Arabs and Shiism/Islam in particular, wich is why i find no place to even discuss this matter any further. You telling people they engage in "Chest beating behaviour" can hardly be someone to take seriously. The topics mentioned such as the Chador, the usage of Persian words into the Arabic Language (wich can be elaborated on), Persian carpets being widely used have both a pre-islamic root as well as the aftermath. Besides if the aftermath is irrelevant then i dont see why the "Parsees" are mentioned going to India either. The big picture must be shown, i have quoted both Arab and Iranian scholars without adding my own oppinion, as ive told you. You cannot delete such academic works crucial to the page. I will revert any further attempt to do so since you have insufficient basis to delete what ive quoted.--Paradoxic 15:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obvious fact" 

message: To Paradoxic: Please be more historically accurate in your edits.
To Zora: Do not delete a section on your mere thinkings unless you can prove its incorrect or biased. 
Amir85 4:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amir, devoting a whole section to "proving" that Persians contributed more to Islamic civilization than the Arabs is clearly biased. If you're going to turn the relatively bland section I originally wrote into an attempt to diss Arabs, then let's remove the whole dang section. I also removed the ref in Farsi, as it's of no use to the vast majority of the readers (who speak English and not Farsi). Zora 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

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

message: Putting Arab influence on the Persians and Persian influence on the Arabs in the same section seems to provoke a nationalist response, on the order of, "We influenced them more than they did us!" That is unprovable, and unhelpful, particularly as the main point of the article is the conquest, not the consequences of the conquest. 
I removed all the material re the development of Persian language and literature and all the invidious comparisons between Arabs and Persians, and re-organized slightly. The language and literature material can go in Persian language and Persian literature, if you want to put it there. Zora 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to guideline how to deal with Zora I kindly ask user Zora to provide specific reference refuting those sections of the article that he/she loves to revert. Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Amir85 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may then can I know what is the point of conflict? I think both Persian and Arabian cultures benefited and got enriched by each other's influence. Do we really want to discuss that how much the influence was? Is it at all relevant?
خرم Khurram 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new tack 

message: Please use the link to the page I just made in your texts:
*Abdolhossein Zarinkoob
Thanx.--Zereshk 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use this link in your text

message: The problem with saying that Persians are "better" than Arabs, or with making any other global judgment, is that it puts everything on one scale of reference, good and bad, cultured or barbarian. 
This has been an issue in the contemporary study of intelligence. People tend to make judgments like "he's smart" and "he's stupid". They interpret the usual Stanford-Binet IQ scores this way. Many researchers now believe that this is a gross over-simplification. "Intelligence" actually comprises many different skills. People can be high in reading ability, for instance, but score low in spatial judgment, or "people" skills, or many other qualities. Researchers argue about the best way to categorize "intelligences", or how much linkage there is between them. Some skills that can be measured separately tend towards co-variance; if one is high, the other is high, etc. But researchers agree that categorizing people as smart or stupid is misleading. 
Well, if you're comparing groups of people, or political organizations, or bodies of literature in twe languages, you can compare them with regard to various measurable traits. So if you say that at the time of the Islamic conquest of Persia there were more literate Persians (as a percentage of the population) than there were literate Arabs, that's something that you can actually measure (or try to do so). You're not saying that literacy is "good" or "bad", you're just measuring it. 
If you compared the Arab conquerors to their Persian subjects wrt a number of traits, you'd probably find some traits on which Persians scored high, and others on which Arabs scored high. Frex, it seems clear that Arabs must have scored a lot higher in military ability and political cohesion to have made the gains that they did. Does this make them "better"? No. Zora 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above paragraphs are exactly what WP calls "original research". And it is banned.--Zereshk 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, but these discussions get reflected into the tone and structure of the article. So it does count as original research because the article is written based on opinions and beliefs that are exhibited here on the talk page. Zora has been deleting sources for various reasons, and singlehandedly has been deleting the edits of a dozen or so editors (even with verifiable sources) here in the past year. That by itself is against WP policies.--Zereshk 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree about that the tone of the article is based on discussions. There should be no article w/ a tone. What I say Zereshk is that we should forget about the tones and focus on the NPOV. More important is to listen to eachother and stick to the subject; which are the paraghraphs that Zora wrote. Otherwise, there is no need to discuss anything at all. If something happened last year, it should not weigh today. If someone is removing verified sources and references than it should be solved somehow. Cheers -- Svest 01:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Those quoted letters came with no references. I suspect that they're later inventions (pre-modern historians used to display their elegant prose in writing letters and speeches for their characters), but I could be wrong. References needed. 
As for the rest of it -- I rewrote the article so as to contrast the POVs I see warring in this article. All of them need cites, and this is where Zereshk's references could go. If you guys will LET all POVs be expressed (including the Arab), then perhaps we can all work on the accounts for our separate POVs. I certainly need some cites for the academic POV section. 
Will you at least let that be a framework for the last part of the article? Zora 00:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I revised again 

message: I'm refusing now to add selective statements by Ibn Khaldun.  Why are we addding pro-Persian, and not his anti-persian tirades?  What about his wonderfull insightful gaze into the populace of Black Africans? They are, after all, the "only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings" having been "overcooked in the womb".  What I'm saying here is that statements on race by Ibn Khaldun should be avoided. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point isnt superiority at all. The point is that Islam under the armies of Omar was brought to Iran by the sword and bloodshed, and implemented a system of apartheid that lasted until (and even led to) the fall of the Umayyids. Zora is censoring this fact by throwing the term "Persian nationalist" at me and everyone else. She does this perhaps in hopes of being politically correct in depciting the Arabs as peaceful in the current chaos in the M.E.. Which is totally irrelevant, because just as the Arabs were tyrants during the conquest of Iran, Iranians also became tyrants during another era, in respect to others. Every tribe, nation, and culture has blood on their hands at some point in time. Everyone.--Zereshk 01:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Ibn Khaldun

message: Paradoxic, NO, this is not a political article, this is an article about history. I agree that contemporary Iranian attitudes towards the Islamic conquest, post-conquest history, Islam, Arabic influence on the Persian language, etc., are highly variable and conflicted. Well, start an article about THAT in particular, rather than trying to drag it all into the history article. This is an encyclopedia, not a bully pulpit for people to preach their political views. Readers who come to this article just want to know about the fall of the Sassanids, they don't want a history of Persian literature, disquisitions on contemporary Iranian politics, etc. Put that material in the proper place and LINK to it. 
You might be interested in the following article, from the British Prospect magazine: . Are those allegations about the Hojjatieh correct? Can that article be expanded? Zora 23:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When one doesnt agree with a sentence or two, what you DONT do is delete the entire content, wich is what you've been doing. This is as much a political article as it is a historical one in my view. I did not start a sub-article labelled Contemporary Iranians and Arabs, etc. wich started out Saddam invoked the battle of Qadisiyyah to fight the iranians in the 80's i merely elaborated on them. I deleted these now since they Were about politics, and as you've said, we dont want to dwindle down to the political sphere. You can start different pages for those.--Paradoxic 14:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then let's delete the whole dang thing re contemporary attitudes, OK? I tried that once and people kept reverting to express their "opinions" re the Persian vs. Arab grudge match. But if you're ready to let that go .... Zora 02:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, this is not a political article 

message: I gave this article a thorough read. The discussions as well. I think we are jeopardizing facts and historical integrity here by trying to be politically correct. Not everything needs revisioning. But I do feel certain touch ups are necessary as it seems some contributors – Zora - are just trying to force down a skewed version of history/reality in order to indulge their false sense of ‘nationalism’ (or whatever the disorder is) and pretending to be the defenders of facts and reality at the same time. Goddamn FCC. I would like to know if there are other people who think this way and in that case, and if you (Zereshk) could alter this article, as I think you already have the knowledge, references and facts for that. --LogiPhi 08:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to. But I need a little more active help from other editors for this particular page. The way it is now, there are multiple editors working on the article separately (Amir85, Paradoxic, etc). When there is consensus among editors, then it will be difficult for Zora to just come in and erase everything, as she has already done with my work in this article before. I would like to contribute, provided that Zora doesnt come in and erase it all the next day, like she always does.--Zereshk 22:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do my best. So what to do first? Amir85 11:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I need you to email me first: nima53@yahoo.com --Zereshk 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Zereshk 

message: I tried moving all the contentious material re the SEQUEL to the conquest into Arabization and Islamicization in post-conquest Iran. That takes the pressure off this article, which can remain purely historical. 
Amir85 won't accept that, and reverted but ... if you guys think about it, you'll have a lot more room to argue in a whole new article devoted to the subject. Zora 10:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add everything there on the new page as well. But Umar's invasion of Iran is not post-conquest, and it belongs here. The massacres commited under commanders such as Ash'as al-Kindi in Azarbaijan province of Iran were not post-Conquest. The same for the events in Istakhr. They were part of the conquest.--Zereshk 18:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that we make each section of this article a separate page. How's that Zora? I can even find a page title if we wanted to even separate each paragraph into its own page. Agree?--Zereshk 21:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: The follwoing sentence seems to be very POV, and it contradicts other sources like Encyclopaedia Iranica:
They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature. 
Encyclopaedia Iranica clearly mentions that Arabs married local women in Iran, after the conquest. Here is the exact quote:
In 730 CE, Jonayd bin Abd-al-Rahman sent 20,000 Arabs (half from Basrah and half from Kufa) to Khorasan. At the time of Qotayba bin Moslem governorship (early 8th century), there were 40,000 Basran, 7,000 Kufan troops in Khorasan, the Arabs coming from the tribes of Bakr, Tamim, Abd-al-Qays and Azd. Because of the distance from Iraq and the attractiveness of the country, large numbers of these soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province.Arab settlements in Iran, p.213 Heja Helweda 03:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the reference section.  This policy is universally well known, and was ordered during the reign of the first dynasty, which ruled before 730 CE.Zmmz 04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sentence Mass conversions were neither desired nor allowed is also wrong. Salman al-Farsi, a Zoroastrian Persian,  was allowed to convert to Islam in seventh century while Prophet was still alive, and became one of the most renowned companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Heja Helweda 00:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest to include both sources in the article to make it more neutral.Heja Helweda 04:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sentence about Arabs not allowed to marry Iranians 

message: Zmmz's edits re the suppression of Zoroastrianism just didn't make sense, so I reverted. 
I rewrote the bit re settlement in Khorasan, but it's still there. I changed from "several centuries" to one century in discussing refusal to allow conversion, as the material I've been reading on the Abbasid revolution suggests that all barriers to conversion were dropped by the Abbasids. 
I kept the Encyclopedia Iranica refs. However, someone had added Donner again, even though he was already in the list. 
I removed the whole controversy as to whether Arabic was "imposed" or just the language of the new ruling class and bureaucracy. I don't think that the people who are insisting that it was imposed by force have adduced ANY information supporting their views. However, it's not necessary to specify a mechanism if we just describe the result, which was an influx of Arabic vocabulary into Persian. Perhaps this question deserves a breakout article, where there's space for pros and cons. Dunno what it should be called. Zora 06:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just added a paragraph on the process of conversion of Iranians to Islam following the conquest up to the early Abbassid period. Most of the conversions were not coercive, however there has been some evidence of destruction of Zoroastrian Fire temples, and killing of Zoroasterian priests. There is a nice article on this subject in Encyclopaedia Iranica, with the title Conversion of Iranians to Islam written by a western scholar. It seems to be quite neutral, since it does not take sides of neither Muslims nor Zoroasterians. Heja Helweda 02:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Encyclopedia Iranica IS a major encyclopedia, Zmmz, it's just a specialized one. I think it's sometimes biased, but it's generally factually reliable. Encyclopedia of Islam, put out by Brill, is also a highly regarded specialized encyclopedia. Just wish I had $300 for the CD version. There are other specialized encyclopedias out there, many of which are of high quality and perfectly acceptable as sources. Just what makes you think it's a JUNIOR encyclopedia? Zora 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition the reader should refer to the two editions of The Encyclopedia of Islam.... Many of the articles are of great scholarly value and the Encyclopaedia should always be used to supplement other reading. Another important reference tool is the Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. E. Yarshater (London and New York 1985-) which contains more discursive articles and is still incomplete. (p. 386)
Hugh Kennedy is a Professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of St. Andrews. Who are you? Zora 03:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: It's not as if the Arab conquerors were of one mind on the subject of conversion, status of the converted, etc. During Umar's and Uthman's caliphates, when the Arab domains were expanding rapidly, commanders on the ground had a lot of leeway. Furthermore, according to Bashear, there were internal debates among the Muslims themselves as to whether Islam was just for the Arabs, or whether it was a universal religion. Most of what I've read suggests that conversion was OK as long as the converted became "mawla", clients, of an Arab tribe, adopted the Arab language and customs, etc. They lost any status they had under the old regime and became the lowest of the low. Furthermore, they had to find an Arab who would sponsor them. Whole villages who tried to convert, without a sponsor, to avoid jizya, were refused. 
Muslim men were allowed to marry non-Muslim women, or have non-Muslim slave concubines, and there was no problem with these women converting, or with slaves converting. They were already at the bottom. 
Arguing about Arab policies as if they were clear, coherent, and uniformly imposed is pointless. There are supporting data for all sides of the argument. Zora 02:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced conversion 

message: Majority of Iranians and Persians converted to Islam in the course of 7th and 8th century. There should be some mention of this significant change of religion in the article.Heja Helweda 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is: "By the 9th century, the majority of Persians had become Muslim."--Zereshk 04:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion of Persians to Islam 

message: The mysterious group to be tolerated, per the Qur'an, were the Sabaeans. Zoroastrians were eventually ruled to be Sabaeans, and entitled to tolerance. Not the Majoos. 
I again removed the claim that the Arabs imposed Arabic. That is extremely misleading. However, rather than going into the matter, I just said that Persian did not die out as did other languages. 
I'm not claiming that enforced use of one language in government, scholarship, and religion is not eventually going to erode or even displace native languages. That's the sort of thing that Native Hawaiians in my own state resent and hold responsible for the near-death of the Hawaiian language. But that is just not the same thing as forcing people to use another language (as in, "if you speak Persian I'll kill you"). We have to be accurate, not enshrine popular myths. Zora 07:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabaeans 

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

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

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

message: What propaganda!!!….Parthianshot your picture is so racists. It could be done by unknown person or probably did it yourself and published it on wikipedia . Btw sultan Brunei is not officially Arab. This is typical showbiya(شعوبية). Don't worry Parthianshot this website is just for kids so I'm not even bothered.--Aziz1005 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a historic article and even pictures should have notable source. Therefor I remove this picture. Sa.vakilian(t-c)--04:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  propaganda