Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Shi'a Islam, a Triadic Dogma? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
||
Spartakus 
Tsar 
terörist Joined: 22-Nov-2004 Location: Greece/Hellas Online Status: Offline Posts: 4489 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Shi'a Islam, a Triadic Dogma?Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 16:32 |
||
|
Allah, Mohammed ,His Prophet, and Ali. It is also interesting gthe theory that Persians ,as Ino-European ,adopted Shi'a Islam which was nearer in the Christian triadic dogma.
|
|||
|
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
|||
 |
|||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 16:33 |
||
|
persians were sunni for the first 600 years. until the safvids.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spartakus
Tsar
terörist Joined: 22-Nov-2004 Location: Greece/Hellas Online Status: Offline Posts: 4489 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 16:42 |
||
|
They were Sunni ,yes, but this does not mean that they did not consider themselves differenty than Arabs, a difference first expressed by the retain of Pahlavi until the 10th century, almost 2 centuries after the Islamic conquest. Irrelvant of the time of conquest, Shi'a Islam seems to express that differency, which rised with Ferdowsi. |
|||
|
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
|||
|
|||
|
Suren
Arch Duke 
Chieftain Joined: 10-Feb-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1673 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 17:03 |
||
|
Persian weren't all Sunni. specially in Mazandaran and Khurasan, there were significant Shia populations. There were a lot of shia riots after Abu muslim Khurasani (Persian commander who helped Abassid ) assassination by Al-Mansur Abassid Calip in Persia. don't forget that Mamun (Abbasid calip) Made 8th Shia Imam his crown prince.
|
|||
|
Anfører
|
|||
|
|||
|
Zagros
Emperor 
Suspended Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8792 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jun-2007 at 18:16 |
||
|
Also up to 20% were still zaroastrian up until the Safavid conversions. Also, Ottoman records show that Pahlavi was still in use in Azarbaijan up until the 16th century, the reason Iranian scholars and scientists wrote their work in Arabic was due to the Caliphate's duress since Arabic was deemed as the "divine" language. Edited by Zagros - 23-Jun-2007 at 18:20 |
|||
|
|||
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended Joined: 01-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5711 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 20:19 |
||
|
I have seen figures also which claim the Persians remained Zoroastrian in the majority for centuries after the Arab conquest.
It is interesting that after the conclusion of the Byzantine-Persian War, the Byzantines expected Christianity to gain popular appeal amongst the Persians now that the defeated Sassanids became junior partners to Heraclius and began to tolerate Christians. |
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 21:50 |
||
They did, as in Egypt and many other parts Islam only became the majority after centuries.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8792 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 18:02 |
||
|
Yes, mostly because of the Jiziyah tax and other economic and legal discrimination.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 20:15 |
||
If it were up to that then the population would have converted much faster within a generation or two, not within ten ten to twelve generations.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 02:18 |
||
|
Yes, mostly because of the Jiziyah tax and other economic and legal discrimination.
The Jiziyah tax was advantagous to the locals. They were not on the Army rolls and thus could not be conscripted. They also had their own courts and laws applicable to them. If they wanted to avoid Jiziya, all they had to do was agree to be judged by the regular courts and be on the army list. many did.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8792 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 19:36 |
||
most did, most being those in and close to urban areas, the latter areas such as the mountainous regions were the ones which converted after 10 or so geenrations or do you profess it was the all reaching divinity of Islam that did the trick? And if not then present an alternative .
And note to Spartakus, there is no such thing as Shia Islam - there is no difference among muslims on the itnerpretation of Islam, Shia Islam and Sunni Islam are fabrications without any basis in fact whatsoever. There are Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims but not A shia or sunni Islam. Edited by Zagros - 29-Jun-2007 at 19:38 |
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 02:00 |
||
Maybe just maybe some of them actually liked the religion introduced to them?
As far as the tax, it was beneficial to anyone who did not want to serve in the army. In Bosnia for example the Austro-Ottoman wars were decimating to the Muslim Bosnian population in the eighteenth century. In the early years both Christian, and Muslim noblemen participated in the armed conflicts, later on it was restricted to the Muslims, as it became more of a Islamic state. Such a tax prevented many to suffer the woes of war. So that cannot be the only reason to convert, there were duties expected of converts that they did not have previously, especially in areas under the duress of war.
It is true that it took many generations for the majority of the population of most regions including Persia to convert to Islam. It simply was not required to convert, and it was more adventegous to the upper Arab class to have a majority non-Muslim population to suplly extra income, as they already had substantial muslims for the armed forces. Those are simple economics that even the Ottomans based their policy upon.
In Bosnia the population was not majority Muslim over a century after conquest. In Egypt Persia, and many other places it was much the same.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 04:15 |
||
|
Yes, it should be remembered that the differences between Shia and Sunnis are political not religious. Indeed the very names imply that.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8792 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 08:09 |
||
|
Serving in the army is a way of life, more so then than now, I highly doubt exception from this compensated in any significant way for the tax, especially since Iranian armies were instrumental (that of Abu Muslim) in Caliphate politics. What's more, in essence there is no great difference between Zaroastrianism and Islam so why convert just like that? The switiching costs weren't high since both were so similar so the tax as well as discrimination in other areas against non-Muslims were sufficient enough motives.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 11:44 |
||
|
You answered your own statement. Serving in the army was a way of life, in fact so much that most people would not endeavor in the enterprise.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 13:19 |
||
|
Not really, there was a standing army, however in times of war new forces were raised. All towns and tribes had rolls with the names of all the militray age men. In times of war men were recruited from this. The non-muslims names were not on the lists unless they chose not to pay the taxes.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 14:52 |
||
|
Exactly my point actually. The tax protected many from not serving in the armed forces.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8792 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 15:35 |
||
|
Protected? Like I said military recruitment was pretty much normal and it was not like whole populations were recrtuited into the army anyway, just a percentage of the legible male population. Iran was a martial and warlike state before Islam and had been ravaged by a 30 years long war with Byzantium just when the Arabs attacked so it was not like the people were timid and unused to war. In fact, military recruitment was obviously preferable to paying taxes since it was the rich who would be hardest hit by the taxes and least affected by mlitary call ups and it is they who would hold sway in society so any decision they made would reverberate down the ranks of society. |
|||
|
|||
|
malizai_
Sultan 
Alcinous Joined: 05-Feb-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2252 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 15:43 |
||
|
^ How would these taxes compare with those already in place?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 15:54 |
||
|
Zagros, a militray call up is much, much more inconvinient than a tax. A man called up means possibly one less hand to till the field, to work in the trade and often also the breadearner and caregiver of a family for an indeterminate period and possibly forever. A pretty good deal if you ask me.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
