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/ - http://www.geocities.com/no_islam2000/  

i guess Magaven is one of the writers there.

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.

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.

.

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.

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

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! 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 "Futûh al Buldan" by Baladhuri, p417. Also: Tabari. Series II p1207. Also: "Tarikh e Sistan" p82. Also: "Tarikh e Qum" p254-6.)"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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/Abu_Muslim

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

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.

I guess Zagros corrected you regarding Abu muslim.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Read again carefully. Who said 700 years of Arab rule? Read down again what I posted carefully:

Notice the use of "Islamic Heritage" and not Arab rule. I don't know how you missed that anyhow.

Ok, Im seriously considering if you at all read what we post. You said "While if you are extremely poor,then 1.5% is a lot to pay". You have to read what we post before you answer PrznKnectoid. You even asnwered me after quoting me on this:

How do you quote me and not read it by yourself!!

Now regarding that you "believe it is much more than 1.5%" that is up to you. Jizyah under Islamic jurisdiction cannot be over 2.5% which the what the Muslims have to pay for the government as a Zakah pay. If you are lucky as earlier Islamic rules with 1.5% then it is great. If you are charged 2.5% still as much as a Muslim pay. Jizyah Islamically cannot exceed that.

Read more about it here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/jizyah.htm - http://www.answering-christianity.com/jizyah.htm

Now, did every single Islamic empire apply Jizyah fairly and according to the islamic law? that I cannot guarantee and is not my concern. After all, many Muslim empires charged their Muslim citizens even 10% taxes annually.!!!

Some Arabs hates their follow Arabs. Azeris in Azerbaijan hating some Iranians. What is your point here? Thank you anyhow for sharing that PERSONAL experience.

And then The Roman said: but we can offer you some cow blood, but Khalid refused and said: No I want a high quality Roman blood. How can you ship it?

Dude! seriously think before you post! I don't see this anywhere in any credible source so far. This is just a complete joke.

The site you provided doesn't link you directly to the quotes. Do you want me to go over the whole website to search for your own quotes?

Also in its front page, it says in wide bold font:

The author undoubtedly made some mistakes in the book and the sections above point out some of these mistakes. Therefore, it is important to read these sections before going onto the book.

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

Yes, they did have a form of religion. Read again:

The earliest religion of the Mongols was shamanism, a set of beliefs practiced across North Asia for millennia and still practiced today in many communities

http://www.asia.msu.edu/eastasia/Mongolia/religion.html - http://www.asia.msu.edu/eastasia/Mongolia/religion.html  < that is an educational instittue specilized in the Mongolian history.

You need to pack up and explain more. I never heard of forcing women to cover up. Why is alcohol being illegal an issue to you? the US banned alchohol too in their late 1920's for the same reasons. No Muslim was ruling US that time

Also, before you start throwing accusation everywhere with no support, do you know Zoroastrian women have always suffered because of purity laws concerning menstruation. They were isolated during this period and could not touch fire or water since they were regarded as impure.!!! Do you know that? That is what I call an ill-treatment of women.

Well it was up to you. You can be a Muslim and you can be not. Many Christians in Palestine and Syria and Egypt are living there since 2000 years ago. No one told them or forced them to accept the Islamic culture. And what are you talking about? Don't you talk Persian? and Turks talk turks? don't you have a persian culture? Arent you free to dress like whatever you like? I think you are confused between Persian culture and Zoraostrian culture.  If you have problem with your Mullahs, dont' put your anger here. Find a proper thread.

I'm going to be away for couple days. That should give you more time to post something seroius and credible instead of the jokes above.

Do You even understand mathematical, principles, apparently not. Just as well, Al-Khwarezm, the "Arab" who invented Algebra was actually an Iranian, and it truly shows.

If you are a millionaire and have to pay 1.5%, big deal you can still more than squeeze by. Being a poor person who barely makes enough to feed his or her family, 1.5% just adds insult to injury. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Do not forget land taxes either. many Iranians also payed extortion and money for the safety of their villages. In addition many poor Iranians that couldn't pay were supposed to be left alone. Instead many men, women and children were taken as slaves. Dont believe me, just read the story of Umar and Pirouz, who was given nothing, or perhaps read the Quran, which allowed for sex slaves, though I understand that is out of practice today.

But again, you dont actually think about what I am saying, your to eager to say your own things. Islam cultivates hatred toward non-Muslims. The Quran constantly reiterates that non-Muslims will be punished by Allah. It also rewards those who kill non-Muslims.

Just look at Jihad. I KNOW Jihad is supposed to be a war against yourself to purify your soul. But come on, how many practice it that way. Look at Muhammad himself whose wars led to the deaths of many. He destroyed the Pagan cultures before him and crushed all their culture. Now did Umar and Khalid retreat to meditation and work on "inner" Jihad, no the first thing they eyed was the wealth of Persia with Jealousy.

yeah and that is the most Muslim site I can find. My point is if even that site admits massacre and other atrocities, that site which is so pro-Islamic, then what is their to say. I gave you that site because I felt you might be more reciprical. If your not satisfied I could always give you this site which is so extreme that I dont even agree with it entirely.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-5.html - http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-5.html

Well let's set things straight first. I said Mongols did not have "much" of a religion. Their Shamanic religion did not come from one prophet and depended to a large extent on their roaming life-style, once they encountered other civilization they changed their philosophies, Zoroastrianism is a different beast all together.

Well now Im not talking about the 1920's USA am I . Stay on Topic! If I was, I would be saying the same things about them.

You are mistakenly confusing Zoroastrianism with Pre-Zoroastrianism. Those rituals were from the pre-Zoroastrian beliefs which Zoroastrianism dispelled. Were their Zoroastrians who mistreated women, undoubtedly yes, just like any other peoples. But it did not actually endorse the inferiority of women like the Quran. If you really wanna understand Zoroastrianism check out this site. And yes you have to search. If that is too much for you then im sorry. 

http://www.ancientiran.com - http://www.ancientiran.com

Yes but Iranians were forced to speak Arabic for 200 years as a proven fact. Today farsi is has still a heavy arabic component of at least 20%, some dialects have far more. Just look at the name itself, Farsi is arabic (the Persian word for it was Parsi, but Arabs cannot pronounce the P so they changed to F).

Anything else you'd like me to educate you on, just let me know. 

What is the relationship of Khawarizm and our discussion now? Or you just like to hear yourself talking?

My advice go read the post for the 4th time! and notice the figure 0. It is spelled Zero too, not a doughnut. Yes, that is zero meaning you pay nothing.

So far these are all allegations with no support. "Islam cultivate hatred"? Your ego is just what makes you blind here. Quran talks about a reward killing non-Muslims! I really doubt you are a Muslim as you claim. Anyhow, first I ask you to act as a mature person and bring evidance of your allegation. Second, I call on the moderator to follow up with your unsupported & repetitive  allegation.

I suggest you go and educate yourself more on history. The prophet was prosecuted for 13 years in Mecca and was attacked first by those Pagans you love. How peaceful you want him? evacuate Madinah and go spread the religion in the moutains maybe? Duh!

,

I think you have a deep jelously that blinds you from rational. Anyhow, nothing you can do my friend. Iran is 98% Muslim and history does not go back. Keep crying because if you cry over your old persian history, i remind you it is called "history", so no point of crying over it.

Your point is that you have no point.  Are you sure you are ok?  I told you that this site does not give you those quotes and you instead of showing me what page exactly you got them from, you give me another site?  

So now you decided to add "Much" to your old post.  Here is what you typed.

an advise: you need to think first before you type. After contradicting yourself as above, you are not sticking with the topic too. You decided to throw allegation of women getting mistreated in Islam and I had to make you feel little pain with showing you the wonderful treatment they have in Zoroastrain. No wonder Islamic conquest were so easy in that part of the world.

Well if you couldn't pay you would be put into army to defend Muslims of which you weren't even one of or into slavery. And if you had very little you still payed a a portion of it, which was what I was getting. Now if you can't understand that...

Hey only saying my interpretation of it. My "unsupported & repetitive" allegations are more supported than your comments on Zoroastrianism. Why dont you actually reply instead of complaining because you  have no evidence.

Jews and Christians who were traitors also helped those Pagans and wanted to keep Muhammad out of power. Yet their views coincide with Muhammad's and so they are considered "people of the book." Take Cyrus for example. He fought battles too. But when he entered Babylon, he being a monothiest, didn't touch any of the statues of Babylonian gods. He even kneeled in front of Marduk, their main god. He also freed Jewish slaves and built them a temple. Muhammad on the other hand did not stop with his conquest, he burned temples, and smashed idolatrous statues. But I guess they didn't teach you that one in history class

Well if your not supposed to get passionate over history what is the point of this whole forum? Iran is considered 98%, but I assure you, only half of those are true Muslims, the others are only muslim by name. That is because the government requires you to state your religion. So if your secular, you might as well put down muslim and get the added benefits the government provides.

Well I give up on giving you my sources, because you dont read them and proceed to tell me that I have no resources. I would like to see your sources for once.

Again you didn't read what I wrote

hmm.. seems like ur resolving to insulting and offensive tactics.

We have all fallen prey to conquest. First Alexander, then the Arabs, next the Mongols conquered us.

You never heard me brag about Israel defeating those poor Palestinians or Arabs being conquered by Ottomans.

And again it shows the contempt with which many people hold the atrocities of the Islamic Invasion.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid Well if you couldn't pay you would be put into army to defend Muslims of which you weren't even one of or into slavery. And if you had very little you still payed a a portion of it, which was what I was getting. Now if you can't understand that...

Yes, that thing above you call a source, where did you learn this? Im just curious? So far, no Link, no reference.

Why would I take the extra step of providing wrong what you can't prove right? sounds to me a common sense.

Do you know they are considered people of the book because they have books sent from a divine called the bible and the torah? sounds more logical for sure than "their view coincide with Muhammad's"!!

How about if you spent more time in searching for links that support your argument than sarcacism. Focusing on me won't help your arguement just in case you dont know.

None of my or your business to classify them as true Muslims or not. At the end, I've seen fanatic Iranians who would die for the Mullah's speeches and they dont even do their simpliest worship duties.

Do you think that is a good excuse.? Sorry, I don't read what is not there. Very obvious. And if you are as you claim to be a Muslim, it should be easy for you to get those sources , right?

This is a fundemental part of the Zoroastrian belief. Even during the 17th century, (hundreds of years after Islamic conquest), they still do it:

"Tavernier in 17th century made remarks about the hardship Zoroastrian women suffered because of purity laws concerning menstruation. They were isolated during this period and could not touch fire or water since they were regarded as impure. The isolation would end by bathing and a minor feast."

Here, educate yourself more on Zoroastrians http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:T-13ij-wvDEJ:www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/zoroaster_zoroastrians_in_iran.php+Zoroastrian+treat+to+women,+not+to+touch+fire&hl=en - http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:T-13ij-wvDEJ:www.iranch amber.com/religions/articles/zoroaster_zoroastrians_in_iran. php+Zoroastrian+treat+to+women,+not+to+touch+fire&hl=en

By the way, the link is direct (unlike yours which we cannot find) and it is the chamber of commerce of Iran

So, you think it is dispelled? Then prove it. Very simple. Welcome to this forum. Proof Proof Proof!

You are free to understand it as you like. However my comment was not saying that Persia was easy for Islamic conquest because Persians are inferior (which i have no clue how do you hit this assumption). Islamic conquest of Persia was easy because of what we already discussed earlier and you might have seem to forget everytime:

"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." < By the way, this is from your article too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Iran - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Iran

Unfortunately this discussion is turning into a blood feud.

PrznKonectoid, I did not see any link to your "We are a people who drink blood..." statement you assume Khalid made or the one about national affairs of the state under women either.

Such bold assumptions need proof which you did not provide. Plus I do not see why accusing eachother sheds light into this topic. Therefore, it shall be closed.