Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedLetters between Caliph Omar ibn Hattab and Yazdegerd III

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Letters between Caliph Omar ibn Hattab and Yazdegerd III
    Posted: 31-Jul-2005 at 21:45
From: Omar Ibn Al Khatab Khalifat Al Muslemin
To: Yazdgird III Shahanshah of Persian Empire

Yazdgird, I see not a fruitful future for you & your nation unless you accept my offer & commit Bei'at (Joining with Khalifat & bringing Islam). Once upon a time your land ruled half the known world but what has it come down to now? Your troops are defeated in all fronts & your nation is bound to collapse. I offer you a way to rescue yourself. Start praying to a mono God, a single union God, the only God who created everything in the universe. We bring you & the world his message, he who is the true God. Stop your Fire Worship, command your nation to stop their Fire Worship which is false; join us by joining the truth. Worship Allah O Akbar the only true God, The creator of universe. Worship to Allah & accept Islam as your salvation. End your Pagan ways & your false worships now & bring Islam so you can accept Allah O Akbar as your savior. By doing so, you will find the only way to your survival & peace for Persians. If you know what is best for Ajam (Arabic term for Persians meaning Retarded & Weird), you will choose this path. Bei'at is the only way.

Allah O Akbar
sign,
Khalifat Al Muslemin
Omar Ibn Al Khatab


And here is Yazdgird III, famous respond to Omar:

From: Shah of Shahs, Shah of Persia and Beyond, Shah of many Kingdoms, Shah of Aryans and Non Aryans, Shah of Persians and many other races as well as Arabs, Shahanshah of Persian Empire, Yazdgird III Sassanid

To: Omar Ibn Al Khatab, Khalifat of Tazi (Persian term for Arabs,


In the name of Ahura Mazda, creator of Life & Intelligence,

You in your letter wrote that you want to direct us towards your God, Allah O Akbar, without having the true knowledge of who we are & what do we worship! It is amazing that you occupy the position of Khalifat (Ruler) of Arabs, yet your knowledge is the same as a lowly Arab rambler, roaming in deserts of Arabia, & same as a desert tribal man!

"Little Man" ( mardak) you offer me to worship a united & single God without knowing that it has been thousands of years that Persians worship the mono God & they pray to him Five Times a day! In this land of culture & art this has been the normal path of life for years.

When we established the tradition of hospitality & good deeds in the world & we waved the flag of "Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds" in our hands, you & your ancestors were roaming the deserts, eating Lizards for you had nothing else to feed yourselves & burying your innocent daughters alive (an old Arab tradition, cause they preferred male children to female)!

Tazi people have no value for God's creatures! You behead God's children, even the POWs (Prisoners of War), Rape Women, bury your daughters alive, attack the Caravans, mass murder, kidnap people's wives & steal their property! Your hearts are made of stone, we condemn all these Evil which you do. How can you teach us Godly Ways when you commit these action?

You tell me to stop my Fire Worship! Us, Persians see the Love of Creator & power of inventor in the light of Sun & warmth of Fire. Lights & Warmth of the Sun & Fire makes us see the light of truth & warmens our hearts to the creator & to one another. It helps us to be kind to one another, it enlightens us & makes us to keep Mazda's Flame, alive in our hearts. Our lord is Ahura Mazda & it is strange that you people also, just discovered him & named him Allah O Akbar! But we are not the same as you, we are not in the same level as you. We help other human being, we spread love among humanity, we spread Good throughout the Earth, we have been spreading our culture but in respect for other cultures throughout the whole world for thousands of years, yet you in the name of Allah invade other men's land! You mass murder the people, create famine, fear & poverty for others, you create Evil in the name of Allah. who is responsible for all this catastrophe?

Is it Allah who commands you to murder, pillage & to destroy?
Is it you the followers of Allah who do this in his name?
Or Is it both?

You have risen from heat of the deserts & burnt out infertile lands with no resources, you want to teach people the love of God by your military campaigns & the power of your Swords! You are Desert Savages, yet you want to teach Urban people like us who lived in the cities for thousands of years, the love of God! We have thousands of years of culture behind us, a powerful tool indeed! Tell us? With all your military campaigns, barbarianism, murder & pillage in the name of Allah O Akbar, what have you taught to this Muslim Army? What knowledge have you taught the Muslim that you also insist on teaching it to non Muslim? What culture have you learned from your Allah, now that you want to force-teach it to others?

Alas, Oh Alas...... that today our Persian Armies of Ahura have been defeated from your recently Allah Worshiping Armies; Now, our people have to worship the same God, the same Five times a day, but forced by the sword to call him Allah & pray to him in Arabic, cause your Allah only understands Arabic!

I suggest, you & your gang of bandits pack up & move back to your deserts where they are used to live. Take them back where they used to the burning heat of the sun, tribal life, eating Lizards & drinking Camel Milk. I forbid you to let your band of thieves loose in our fertile lands, civilized cities & our glorious nation. Don't turn these "beasts with hearts of stone" loose, to mass murder our people, kidnap our women & children, rape our wives & send our daughters to Mecca as slaves! Don't let them do these crimes in the name of Allah O Akbar, put a stop to your criminal behavior.

Aryans are forgiving, warm, hospitable, & decent people and everywhere they went, they have spread seeds of friendship, love, knowledge & truth; therefore, they shall not punish you & your people for your pirate ways & criminal acts.

I beg you to remain with your Allah O Akbar in your deserts & do not move close to our civilized cities, for your believes are "Much Fearful" & your behavior is "Most Barbaric"!

sign,


Yazdgird III Sassanid



http://www.bozorgbazgasht.com/yazdgird.html
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2005 at 23:39

 

i wonder if that original copy of Yazdgird's letter is exactly what is it said here.

looks like Yazdgird has very good knowledege of the New religion. which some new Ideas of Today's Zoroastrians

and there are some errors in the letters which does not make sense, now he admits that his armies were defeted and then he suggest Arab go back to their land and he ( Yazdgird) will forbid them from intering Persia !!

someone need to go and confirm what is wriiten in that original letter exactly .

then confirm that letter was from Yazdgird written to Caliph Umar.

 

and if there are any other sources  other than this site http://www.geocities.com/no_islam2000/ 

i guess Magaven is one of the writers there.

 

 

 



Edited by azimuth
Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 02:06
Well, as usual, Umar was a fine man with justice. He offered Persians freedom and independence under the condition of embracing Islam.
Back to Top
HulaguHan View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jan-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 370
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 02:17

If Persians accepted Islam as their religion before being overrun by Caliphate forces,  I think they would enter Hagia Sophia in a century.

Caliph Umar is a very very nice person, as far as I am concerned. Arabs should always be proud of him.

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 03:46

 

well of course Caliph Umar is considered one of the greatest rulers,

iam just not sure about the letters you posted are they real or just a made up once.

i just found another mistake there  Caliph Umar didnt Consider himself as " Khalifat Al Muslemin" and iam sure of that. because "khalifat Almuslemin" is a wrong and no one called himself that just mean "Successor of the Beliveivers" which sounds so strange. and makes me think that this "letter" was made up by Non-Arab or an Arab who is ignorant enough to write this and call it Umar's letter.

Caliph Umar was called " Khalifat Khalifat Rasul Allah" and the first to be called " Amir Al Mumeneen"

"khalifat khalifat Rasul Allah" means Successor of Massenger of God's Successor , which was Caliph Abu Baker, Caliph Abu Baker called himself "khalifat Rasul Allah" which meant the Successor of the Messenger of God. which was the Prophet Muhammed PBUH.

so Caliph Umar considered himself the Succesor of the 1st Caliph Abu Baker. so his titile was "Khalifat Khalifat Rasul Allah"

the other title was "Amir Al Mumeneen" which means The Leader of the Believers" and he was the First to have such title.

.

 

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 14:44

That letter from Yazdegerd is nonsense and probably doctored by a modern pseudo-nationalist.

It is a fact that most Iranians did not even convert to Islam until 2-300 years after the Islamic conquest.  And the only reason the Islamic invasions succeeded was because of Iranian disapproval and betrayal of the Zaroastrian priesthood and nobility which in the late Sassanid age was widely despised among the low classes.  *Salman Farsi*

Those priests were a lot like the Mullahs in Iran today are.

Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 16:06
Meh. I still think the Sassanids, and Zoroastrianism for that matter, would have survived if the Byzantines and Sassanids were not so paranoid of each other and cooperated towards a greater future. A shame.
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2005 at 21:48
Originally posted by HulaguHan

Caliph Umar is a very very nice person, as far as I am concerned. Arabs should always be proud of him.

I agree Umar  was a just person but he should be the proud of all Muslims and not only Arabs.  No one placed himself truely under the doctorine of Islam and didn't became special in his traits from Umar to Sulayman the Law Maker.

Correction: Ajem is not a term for "retarded and weird". How can Umar address him to accept Islam but call him by that term. It is Arab Vs Ajam which means Ajam= non-Arabs simply.

Prophet Muhammed Said: "No difference between an Arab and an Ajam except with Piety"  Ajam= non Arabs basically

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 00:14

Ridiculous and stupid.

First off Iranians did not "convert" to Islam, because of Zoroastrianism being so "bad" and "horrible". In reality Zoroastrians were like any other people.

Second off why would a whole nation of people suddenly convert to a foreign relgion, foreign language, and adopt a foreign culture???

They didn't!! The fact is that many Iranians were killed by Muslims, others raped, and forced to convert or black mailed. True sizable Zoroastrian hold-outs did remain, but these were gradually extinguished by the Safavid and other dynasties. Now does this mean that all Muslims or Arabs are bad people. No! But you can't deny what happened, I don't care how many articles you have from far-off, anonymous authors!

Second Omar was a horrible person. He killed many non-Muslims. When he conquered Iran he let his men rape the women. He also proceeded to destroy all the Iranian libraries. 

He also took slaves, particularly Iranians. He had an Iranian slave named Peroz. Peroz begged of him for  just a little money to support his enslanved and empoverished family. But Omar said that he would never support a non-muslim and that Peroz should be self-sufficient as a slave. The next day at prayers Peroz stabbed Omar multiple times until Omar died. His last words were "Allah Akbar, at least I wasn't killed my a muslim." Personally the fact that Peroz killed such an evil person makes me proud to be an Iranian! 

Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 00:25

ummm

sure there were iranian deaths but dont think there were rapes, unless you consider having a presoners of war as slaves and then marrying those slaves considered rapes, well it isn't those are two different things,

you dont care about how many articls to prove you wrong? then why should we care about your solely article with no proofs or anything? just some accusations full of hatrad.

 

Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 01:59
Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

No! But you can't deny what happened, I don't care how many articles you have from far-off, anonymous authors!

I guess another ultra-nationalist has just signued up to this forum. Maybe after a while, we will tune down his ultra-nationalism as most long stayed members here

Przkonectoid, show us your resources first since "you don't care how many articles (we) have".  We got used to story and tales from many members here, we need fact now.

And Im not suprised you hate Omar to your gutts. Wasn't he who erased the Sassanids from existance? understandable.



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 05:42

As with any war, there were murders and rapes but this has definately been exaggerated without any corroborating evidence.

Taxation records show that most Iranian names were still Zaroastrian up until the 10 and 11th century so it was a gradual conversion, not "all of a sudden" and I have read that 20% of Iran's population was still Zaorastrian until the really bloody forced mass coversion to Shi'ism imposed by the Safavids in the 16th c (1500s).  The previous conversions were probably through economic pressures such as the Jaziya. Besides, Iranians such as Abu Muslim Khorassani were big proponents of Islam.

And at the same time there were anti-Caliphate heroes such as Babak Khoramdin (if I am not wrong, he was one of Abu Muslim's generals, who turned against the caliphate after they assassinated Abu Muslim for fear of his power).

Also of note were the original Assassins who were killing high ranking Abbassids and Seljuqs practically for fun.

Note for my above post: there is definately a letter from Yazdegerd, but I don't believe that those are his words above.

 

 

Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 10:35
Originally posted by azimuth

you dont care about how many articls to prove you wrong? then why should we care about your solely article with no proofs or anything? just some accusations full of hatrad.

I mean I dont care how many articles you have from anonymous authors. If it is a decent article I can respect that. But not from some random, Islamic propogandist website.

And Ultranationalist, LOL. Have you looked at Iran lately, it's more Muslim than your Arab states could wish to be under your current regimes. I love old Iranian culture just as fanatically as you like Islamic and Arabic culture. Call me crazy or w.e. you want but that's the way it goes...

OK some sources

"Arab Commander Sa'd Ibn Abi-Vaghas wrote to Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khatab about what should be done with the books at capital Tyspwn (Ctesiphon) in province of Khvarvaran (today known as Iraq). Umar wrote back: "If the books contradict the Qoran, they are blasphemous. On the other hand, if they are in agreement, they are not needed." All the books were thrown into the Euphrates.

Under another ruler Gotaibeh ibn Moslem in Khwarezmia, all the historians, writers, and mobeds were massacred and their books burned in fire, so that after one generation, the people became illiterate. Other libraries at Ray, Khorassan, Gay of Isphahan and University of Gondishapour were eventually destroyed. Only a few books that were translated into Arabic survived.

Yazid ibn Mohlab is reputed to have ordered the decapitation of so many Iranians that their blood flowed in the water powering a millstone for one full day. There are many other massacres recorded.

The occupation of Persia however was not a smooth process. Many Arab Muslims for example believed that Iranian converts should not clothe themselves as equal to Arabs, among many other forms of discrimination that emerged. ( See "Mohammedanische Studien" Goldziher. Vol 2 p138-9.) And there are various reports of brutal and inhumane treatment and massacres of Iranians by the Arab forces that are well documented. (See "Ansab al Ashraf" or "Futh al Buldan" by Baladhuri, p417. Also: Tabari. Series II p1207. Also: "Tarikh e Sistan" p82. Also: "Tarikh e Qum" p254-6.)"

 

and I didn't make this up check it out below. That is also one of the more conservative views, I could pull up more extreme documentation, but I know that would just piss you guys off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Iran



Edited by PrznKonectoid
Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 15:25

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

And Ultranationalist, LOL. Have you looked at Iran lately, it's more Muslim than your Arab states could wish to be under your current regimes.

Read again my earlier post. I didn't talk about Iran or Iranians being ultra-nationalist. I talked about YOU and the ultra-nationalists in this forum. Don't worry you will meet them one by one.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

I love old Iranian culture just as fanatically as you like Islamic and Arabic culture. Call me crazy or w.e. you want but that's the way it goes...

All of us here also love and appreciate the Iranian culture and history. However, "as fanatically as you like Islamic and Arabic culture"> If you had the time to look to some of my previous posts, or just stick with us longer, you will see that I also admit hitorical proven incidents. No fanatic here will be willing to step down to this.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

and I didn't make this up check it out below. That is also one of the more conservative views, I could pull up more extreme documentation, but I know that would just piss you guys off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Iran

You don't have to assure us that you didn't make it up. You already provided a link for the Wikipedia website.

However, I think you forgot to paste with your article this important section of the original one in your Wikipedia link:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search
 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see discussion on the talk page.

 

Finally, your paste of Wikipedia forgot this point too (under occupation & conquest section of your source):

The Islamic conquest was aided by the material and social bankruptcy of the Sassanids; the native populations had little to lose by cooperating with the conquering power. Moreover, the Muslims offered relative religious tolerance and fair treatment to populations that accepted Islamic rule without resistance.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

Second off why would a whole nation of people suddenly convert to a foreign relgion, foreign language, and adopt a foreign culture???

They didn't!! The fact is that many Iranians were killed by Muslims, others raped, and forced to convert or black mailed..

Probably you thought that this point support your argument. In fact it does the opposite. If "many Iranians" were killed and raped and forced to convert to Islam, then Islam would have spread in Iran in a matter of decades or years. Just imagine that Iran had a substantial Zoraostrain population for about 700 years till Shah Ismail and aslo Shab Abbas I forced the conversion to 4 million Zoraostrains to shia Islam during the Safavid time. If the conquest was as brutal and forcing Islam on Iranians, Shah Ismail would have not dealt with a large peopulation of Zoraostrains then after hundreds of years from the conquest. Common sense I guess.



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 16:08
Originally posted by ok ge

Read again my earlier post. I didn't talk about Iran or Iranians being ultra-nationalist. I talked about YOU and the ultra-nationalists in this forum. Don't worry you will meet them one by one.

My point was I dont have a nation to nationalist over. Iran has gone down the gutter, if you mean I am ultra-ancient Iran, then yes your right. But I still have respect for other cultures. I love Arabic music and food. 

Originally posted by ok ge

All of us here also love and appreciate the Iranian culture and history. However, "as fanatically as you like Islamic and Arabic culture"> If you had the time to look to some of my previous posts, or just stick with us longer, you will see that I also admit hitorical proven incidents. No fanatic here will be willing to step down to this.

I admit historical incidents too. If you can prove it happened I will agree.

Now what is historically proven? That is the question I ask.

Originally posted by ok ge

Probably you thought that this point support your argument. In fact it does the opposite. If "many Iranians" were killed and raped and forced to convert to Islam, then Islam would have spread in Iran in a matter of decades or years. Just imagine that Iran had a substantial Zoraostrain population for about 700 years till Shah Ismail and aslo Shab Abbas I forced the conversion to 4 million Zoraostrains to shia Islam during the Safavid time. If the conquest was as brutal and forcing Islam on Iranians, Shah Ismail would have not dealt with a large peopulation of Zoraostrains then after hundreds of years from the conquest. Common sense I guess.

Those numbers are unsubstantiated. Also you need to figure that MOST were forced to convert. Only the very rich got off the hook paying Jaziyah. Now Zagros said 20% were still Zoroastrian I disagree, but let's go with his estimate. 20%. Let's make another big estimate, let's say Jews and Christians and other made up 5%, that is way overinflated, but let's just go with it. So that means 75% were forced to convert. Now I dont know what you think is a large percentage, but certainly 75% is a huge margin. In all likelihood it was more than that. Most of the isolated holdouts were the work of Abu Muslim, Babak Khorramdin and other resistance fighters who fought for Iran's independence from the Caliphate. If the Caliph had his way all non-muslims would convert.

Also I agree that towards the end the Sassanids were not in the best of shape, but that does not mean that Iranians suddenly converted to Islam and were happy-go-lucky. Indeed much blood was shed. That article I posted from Wikipedia was one of the more moderate articles I found and even that one admitted that Arabs did commit atrocities and inequalties. Now I could have pulled some "Ultranationalist" site on you, but that would have only angered most.

Also I am had to mention that I didn't make it up, otherwise some idiot would come along, without clicking on the hyperlink, saying I made it all up.

Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 16:28

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

if you mean I am ultra-ancient Iran, then yes your right..

Ok, then I guess I wasn't that wrong in my conclusion.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

Those numbers are unsubstantiated. Also you need to figure that MOST were forced to convert. Only the very rich got off the hook paying Jaziyah. Now Zagros said 20% were still Zoroastrian I disagree, but let's go with his estimate. 20%. Let's make another big estimate, let's say Jews and Christians and other made up 5%, that is way overinflated, but let's just go with it. So that means 75% were forced to convert. Now I dont know what you think is a large percentage, but certainly 75% is a huge margin.

I haven't given a percentage in my post. Regarding if the 20% is unsubstantiated, well the whole story we are talking about now is also unsubstantiated. However, for the sake of argument, let us say 20% is correct, for a minority with that percentage, is not a small one.  No country can enforce conversion with sword and violence and leave 20% as a minority. When a conversion by force happen, you know what will happen to the demographical balance? Go see Iran now with 98.9% Muslims, which is cleary a sign of the work of Shah Ismail.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

Also I agree that towards the end the Sassanids were not in the best of shape, but that does not mean that Iranians suddenly converted to Islam and were happy-go-lucky. Indeed much blood was shed. .

You still miss the point. Iran converted grudually not suddently. Check your sources please.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

That article I posted from Wikipedia was one of the more moderate articles I found and even that one admitted that Arabs did commit atrocities and inequalties. Now I could have pulled some "Ultranationalist" site on you, but that would have only angered most. .

You are free to bring whatever rsources you like as long as you post their link or origin. This will enable us to evaulate your source. Your article you posted was evaulated already by Wikipedia itself as a disputed one.



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 18:18
Originally posted by ok ge

I haven't given a percentage in my post. Regarding if the 20% is unsubstantiated, well the whole story we are talking about now is also unsubstantiated. However, for the sake of argument, let us say 20% is correct, for a minority with that percentage, is not a small one.  No country can enforce conversion with sword and violence and leave 20% as a minority. When a conversion by force happen, you know what will happen to the demographical balance? Go see Iran now with 98.9% Muslims, which is cleary a sign of the work of Shah Ismail.

First I already said 20% was a high estimate. It was more likely 10%. In any case the reason that many got off was two-fold, One Iran is very mountainous and hard to reach on foot, so some local enclaves remained Zoroastrian. Also, Like I said, some fought back, like Abu Muslim and Babak Khorramdin. And I highly doubt the 80% suddenly just "saw the light" and converted to Islam. Also the richer Zoroastrians payed off the Muslims, the Jaziyah.

Originally posted by ok ge

You still miss the point. Iran converted grudually not suddently. Check your sources please.

You still miss my point that I am making. The people that did not convert at the beginning of the the Islamic invasion were in ISOLATED enclaves or PAYED a lot of money to stay non-muslim. Otherwise the rest were converted and Iranians were forced to speak Arabic for 200 years. This small minority which remained Muslim were gradually converted by the Safavids or by today's regime. But by and large the majority were forced to convert during the Arab invasion. Why would a whole nation convert to another religion when it has its own religion with a long history. The same thing happened in Mexico and in Europe with the Pagans.

Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Oct-2005 at 19:14

Abu Muslim actually installed the Abassid Caliphate after he ousted the Ummayads. He did not fight against the Caliphate, but served as a vassal, he was assassinated by the Abassids who feared his power, it was at that point Babak Khoramdin rebelled against Islam and the Caliphate. His last name actually means "Joyous Religion".

And that figure of 20%, I am just mentioning it as a possibility, I read it a couple of years ago and am unsure of its veracity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Muslim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babak_Khorramdin

Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 02:23

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

In any case the reason that many got off was two-fold, One Iran is very mountainous and hard to reach on foot, so some local enclaves remained Zoroastrian.

Maybe. However, we are talking about 700 hundreds years of Islamic heritage before the Safavid and Zoroastrains were 20% or 10% or whatever. I think after 700 years, every single region will be subjegated by Islam. Mountains wont help for 700 years, especially that the central government of caliphate was Baghdad which is a close distance to Iran for sure.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

. Also, Like I said, some fought back, like Abu Muslim and Babak Khorramdin. And I highly doubt the 80% suddenly just "saw the light" and converted to Islam.

I guess Zagros corrected you regarding Abu muslim.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

Also the richer Zoroastrians payed off the Muslims, the Jaziyah.

This is a wrong statement for various reasons.

 1- Jizyah is a percentage of 1.5% and  is not a fixed sum of money that is required. Thus, a rich man can pay his 1.5% as 1000 gold coin, and a poor one can have his 1.5% to ony one gold coin.

2- 1.5% Jizyah on "free available money and property". If you are so poor that you have no outstanding money and no property, then obviously you have your Jizyah as 1.5%* 0= 0

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

You still miss my point that I am making. The people that did not convert at the beginning of the the Islamic invasion were in ISOLATED enclaves or PAYED a lot of money to stay non-muslim. Otherwise the rest were converted and Iranians were forced to speak Arabic for 200 years.

Multiple mistakes here that I will address:

1- When you are taking about having t pay a lot of money to stay non-Muslims, do you know that while Muslims are require to pay 2.5% Zakah to the Caliphate of Baghdad, non-Muslims get to pay Jizyah of only 1.5%? What "a lot of money" that you are talking about? Don't forget too that that Jiziyah means in Arabic "compensation" which explains the reason of Jizyah. a Zoroast or a pagan in Persia will pay 1.5% of his "free available money or property" in exchange of: 1- not paying 2.5% Muslim Zakah 2-not being drafted in the Muslim Army 3- still, they are given the freedom to worship and stay on their religion 4- protection of the state of their lives, properties, and worship places. I cannot think of any better deal than Jizyah to a Zoroastrain. It is actually even better where a Muslim might serve the army, might be paying 2.5% zakah...etc

2-the other mistake is your claim that "Arabic was forced". You have not supported that notion indenpendantly, plus why would they force Arabic on Persia but not on Egypt? Egypt stayed for 400 years a Coptic country before it started to assimilate in the Arab culture.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

. Why would a whole nation convert to another religion when it has its own religion with a long history. The same thing happened in Mexico and in Europe with the Pagans.

A nation might convert for various many reasons, which will include finding a better religion, politics..etc

Turks converted by their own to Islam. Mongols who defeated the caliphate of Baghdad and oppressed Muslims in Persia and central asia for decades converted to islam at the end. You need more reasons? Not every conversion from an older religon to a newer one is a forced conversion.

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2005 at 12:12
Originally posted by ok ge

Maybe. However, we are talking about 700 hundreds years of Islamic heritage before the Safavid and Zoroastrains were 20% or 10% or whatever. I think after 700 years, every single region will be subjegated by Islam. Mountains wont help for 700 years, especially that the central government of caliphate was Baghdad which is a close distance to Iran for sure.

But it was NOT 700 years of Arab rule. If you do not remember, Yaqoob-e-Leis kicked the caliphate out of Iran. Ferdowsi also wrote the Shahnameh in a bid to preserve Iranian culture. So it was not 700 years of Arab rule for the religion to sink in.

Originally posted by ok ge

I guess Zagros corrected you regarding Abu muslim.

True. But there was Babak Khorramdin. THere were many others too, particularly in the Zagros and Elbroz mountains, like Hormuz Vanak who fought against Arab rule. Khorramdin's forces killed thousands of Muslim forces before he himself was caught and executed.

Originally posted by ok ge

This is a wrong statement for various reasons.

 1- Jizyah is a percentage of 1.5% and  is not a fixed sum of money that is required. Thus, a rich man can pay his 1.5% as 1000 gold coin, and a poor one can have his 1.5% to ony one gold coin.

2- 1.5% Jizyah on "free available money and property". If you are so poor that you have no outstanding money and no property, then obviously you have your Jizyah as 1.5%* 0= 0

I believe it was more, but, going with 1.5%, if you are rich 1.5% is not as big a deal. While if you are extremely poor, even 1.5% is a lot to pay. But the Arab leadership would regularly extort more than that from the people. And this is common to all empires throughout history. Also much discrimination was practiced against non-Muslims. They could not hold positions of high power, they could not dress the same, and were treated as second-class citizens.

Originally posted by ok ge

Multiple mistakes here that I will address:

1- When you are taking about having t pay a lot of money to stay non-Muslims, do you know that while Muslims are require to pay 2.5% Zakah to the Caliphate of Baghdad, non-Muslims get to pay Jizyah of only 1.5%? What "a lot of money" that you are talking about? Don't forget too that that Jiziyah means in Arabic "compensation" which explains the reason of Jizyah. a Zoroast or a pagan in Persia will pay 1.5% of his "free available money or property" in exchange of: 1- not paying 2.5% Muslim Zakah 2-not being drafted in the Muslim Army 3- still, they are given the freedom to worship and stay on their religion 4- protection of the state of their lives, properties, and worship places. I cannot think of any better deal than Jizyah to a Zoroastrain. It is actually even better where a Muslim might serve the army, might be paying 2.5% zakah...etc

2-the other mistake is your claim that "Arabic was forced". You have not supported that notion indenpendantly, plus why would they force Arabic on Persia but not on Egypt? Egypt stayed for 400 years a Coptic country before it started to assimilate in the Arab culture.

Do you honestly believe that Muslims were taxed more than non-Muslims!? The Jaziyah was much more than 1.5%. Also their wre other taxes and extortion was common.

And Arabs had an intense hatred for non-Muslims. I come from a Muslim family, it is still this way today.

This is what Mohammad said when, God forbid, a woman was next on the throne

"A nation will never prosper that entrusts its affairs to a woman!"

here is what Khalid said to a Roman

Mahan: "We know that it is hardship and hunger that have brought you out of your lands. We will give every one of your men ten dinars, clothing and food if you return to your lands, and next year we will send you a similar amount."

Khalid: "Actually, what brought us out of our lands is that we are a people who drink blood, and it has reached us that there is no blood tastier than Roman blood."

Here is what the Arabs said or Hormuz

"We did trample Hormuz with fury"

Here is the site I got it off, and even this pro-Muslim, highly Arabic site agrees that Arabs killed many people and commited much genocide. And that having been said, this site blames Iranians for the war, and is pro-Arab

http://www.swordofallah.com/front.htm

Originally posted by ok ge

A nation might convert for various many reasons, which will include finding a better religion, politics..etc

Turks converted by their own to Islam. Mongols who defeated the caliphate of Baghdad and oppressed Muslims in Persia and central asia for decades converted to islam at the end. You need more reasons? Not every conversion from an older religon to a newer one is a forced conversion.

Mongols did not have a religion, or much of a civilized history. Iranians did.  How a religion which forces women to cover up, makes alcohol illegal, and is very controlling is "a better religion". I dont know.

If I came to you with "a better religion", on the condition that you learn my language, my dress, and culture, I doubt you would reject your Arab and Muslim heritage for me.

Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.