Anti-Arab propaganda

   Actually there are more than only 2 Arabs in this forum. I think 7 as far as I remember. Anyhow, I don't think discrediting Islam using Salman Al Farisi is an insult to the Arab. However, if you read carefully what is posted previously, the point of insulting Islam is actually an effort to claim it is an Arab invention, turns back to Arab conquest, .....bla bla bla

  So it starts from Islam, but it goes back to Arab in an effort to proove that Islam was only an Arab invention stolen from religions around that time. That by itself is for sure an insult as someone claiming that Arab fabricated the religion of Islam. I hope you followed the logic here and it is clear to you the connection they try to build.

   Now, I don't see anything connected to Salman Al Farisi in that article. However, I do realize the raising anti-Arab propoganda around the region. For instance, I came across this:

"Only Israel, the Jewish State, has fully liberated itself - in the political sense - from this Arab/Muslim oppression, although it still suffers from physical violence against her people.."

http://old.krg.org/docs/articles/opinion-israel-support-kurd s-syria-mar04.asp

Now, you might be suprised that this is not in Mo Shmo's somebody's website. That was actually posted under the webiste of the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq!

The article goes on and on about Arab oppression since the rise of Islam without giving  evidance and end up as usually connecting Saddam Hussien as a continuation of that prosecution! Almost a similar technique where people who are trying to discredit the Arab control of the region use the brutality of the Mullah Iranian regime. All these lacks basic evidance and support even by their writers. Exactly similar to the flying parrots who repeat Salman Al Farisi taught the prophet the prayers in Islam form Zorastianism, failing to understand a basic fact that prayer was constitued in Mecca years years before even the Prophet (PBUH) immigrated to Madinah and met Salman Al Farisi .

Regardless of if there is adequate evidence to support Salman connection or not. The title of this topic is Anti-Arab propaganda and is directed to the two Arabs in this forum, so Arabs do feel they have some ownership right to Islam and someone is trying to take that away. Also, you keep connecting this whole things to Iranians and the Islamic revolution. Most of the research that has been done on this subject so far has been in western academia by non Iranians and before the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Mary Boyce was not an Iranian unhappy with Islamic revolution in her country you know

I'm fully aware of that Hulagu Han, but you cannot ignore their claims for long.

Azimuth here are the articles:

"The Coming of Islam

During the Sasanid dynasty, from the 3rd century of the Common Era to the 7th, Iran experienced a flourishing of its literary culture. New libraries were built and literature, both religious and secular, was collected. TheAvestawas reassembled from remnants and standardized during this period, and religious commentary was gathered as well. Non-religious writings included works on astronomy, mathematics, history, medicine, politics, warfare and music. During the reign of Khosrow I (531-579), foreign works of entertainment -- including Hellenistic romance literature and Indian tales, such as the legend of Barlaam and Josaphat -- were brought into Iran and translated. But all this was to change.

The single most significant event in Iranian history was the Arab invasion and the arrival of Islam in the 7th century. Islam's victory in Iran marked a dramatic break with the country's past. Following his defeat in the battle of al-Qadisiyya, in 637, Yazdegerd III, the last king of the Sasanid dynasty, was forced to flee from his winter capital, Taysafun. The city and its treasures were left to the mercy of the Arab conquerors. The vast royal palace, Taq Kisra, was occupied, and like much of the city, its library was destroyed. The city was then rebuilt, and its deserted ruins were used as building materials.

The Arabs forbade Iranians to use the Persian language. Arabic became the language of law and culture. For two centuries no books -- at least no surviving books -- were written in Persian. Despite Arab censorship, Iranians never stopped speaking their own language. The spoken word became a means of creating and preserving literature. This oral tradition is still alive today.

When one Arab commander was asked by his army what they should do with the Iranians' books, he answered that, since the Qur'an was the only book worth reading and preserving, all books in Persian should be destroyed. Other Arab commanders apparently had similar feelings. Persian works of science, poetry and prose were judged to be immoral and were banned. Arab soldiers set fire to Iran's libraries, burning books or throwing them into rivers, all to destroy the written literature, which bore witness to the defeated people's past. One group of Zoroastrian priests was able to save parts of the Avesta. Another group emigrated to India, taking with them theAvesta and other books. Today only a small part of the Avesta remains.

The Samanid period (819-999) brought a renaissance of Iranian literature. In their struggle against the Arabs for power and independence, the Samanids used the Persian language as a political weapon. They renewed Persian as a language of literature. This period saw the emergence of Modern Persian, or Farsi, which uses the Arabic alphabet and incorporates many Arabic words. The poet Rudaki revived Persian lyrical poetry. Persian books on such topics as administration, history, science and religion were written and published. Commentaries on the Qur'an were translated from Arabic to Persian.

Before long, Persian became the second major language of Islamic high culture. The intellectual vitality of the Samanid capital, Bukhara, attracted leading scholars and poets, both Persian and Arabic, and the city rivaled Baghdad as the cultural capital of Islam. Many of Bukhara's writers were bilingual and wrote their books in both languages.

The greatest literary achievement of this period was the composition of the Persian national epic, the Shahnameh (Book of Kings), a book that even today is of signal importance in Iranian cultural life. TheShahnameh was written for Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna by the poet Abu Ol-qasem Mansur Ferdowsi, who completed the work in 1010. He gathered and set to verse different prose versions, written in Pahlavi, or Middle Persian, of the histories of the kings of Persia. The epic, which was 35 years in the writing, consists of nearly 60,000 couplets, and its story spans several thousand years. It begins in mythical times and concludes with the Arab conquest.

The impact of the Shahnamehwas immense. It reminded Iranians of the country's glorious past. Even today, nearly a thousand years after its completion, this legendary masterwork is read and recited by Iranians of all walks of life, from urban intellectuals to simple village farmers. It is read in teahouses, and many illiterate people learn it by heart so that they can recite it themselves. Islamic fundamentalists do not, of course, honor the Shahnameh,because to them Iran's pre-Islamic history does not merit such regard. But even as they hate it, they are nonetheless affected by it, often in ways they are not even aware of. Its influence is pervasive in the idioms of Iranian life -- in the names, words, tales and ideas we use every day.

Over time, Arab hostility to Persian culture abated and was transformed into its opposite. In The History of Islamic Culture, the Lebanese historian Jurji Zaydan discusses the great interest the Arabs developed in learning from other nations. They translated into Arabic Greek works in science and philosophy and Persian texts in astronomy, history and music. Historians know of more than 70 Persian texts that were translated into Arabic in the 11th century alone."

http://www.honco.net/os/index_0204.html <--- above quote also comes from the same source apparently. (also read the article)

Problem is the author of the article claims its from Ibn Khalduns al Muqqadimah, and the other source is from Abu Rayhan al Biruni.

"At the time of the conquest of Iran many books of that country fell into the hands of the Arabs. Sa'd ibn Abi al-Waqqas wrote to `Umar ibn al-Khattab asking his permission to have them translated for Muslims. 'Umar wrote to him in reply that he should cast them into water, "for if what is written in those books is guidance, God has given us a better guide; and if that which is in those books is misleading, God has saved us from their evil." Accordingly those books were cast into water or fire, and the sciences of the Iranians that were contained in them were destroyed and did not reach us." <---- this one is from al Muqqadimah.

Abu Rayhan Biruni, in al-Athar al-baqiyyah, writing about Khwarizm, says: "When Qutaybah ibn Muslim reconquered Khwarizm after the apostasy of its inhabitants, he appointed Iskajmuk as its governor. Qutaybah destroyed and eliminated everyone who knew the Khwarazmi script or had some knowledge of its people and their sciences. He dispersed them in different parts of the world, and so-their traditions and conditions have remained unknown, to the extent that after the advent of Islam there remains no means to learn about the facts concerning them."

Also Abu Rayhan writes in the same book: "When Qutaybah ibn Muslim destroyed their scribes and killed their priests (hirbads) and burnt their books and writings, the people of Khwarizm were reduced to illiteracy. They were compelled to rely upon their memory in things that were needed by them. In the course of time they forgot all details pertaining to their differences and preserved in their memory only the general matters on which there was agreement among them.

Here is an article that is "considered" credible by someone who i was debating with, but it had no sources:

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iran/iranandislam.htm

I wouldn't really bother, but i'd like a proper debunk to it as well.

EDIT: oh and thanks in advance

The Persians are crying laudly, don' t care it. Zaroastrian priests were torturing them, they sided with Arabs.

Would Muslims burn books when they were ordered to read in the first place?

Would islam armies rape women when they were ordered to refrain from lust?

Would islam armies kill people who were defensless when they were ordered to keep peace?

Don't care... But I do not say the same things to Umayyads, they were harsh against Persians.

Now the thing is their noble blood can not accept trhe fact that, Arabs converted them to Islam. That is only it.