Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia

List of Referenced content from reliable sources removed from this article

This section is being introduced to enable recording of content with citations removed from the article . Intothefire (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• User Muhammad Adil has deleted reflist section on this talk page ??
  Intothefire (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

dude becoz its totally unnecessary to put it here ???? lolzz الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of articels have a reflist section on the talk page. I see no reason why we should not have one here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I will message Intothefire to re-add it. warrior4321 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

he already hv added it back, i u ppl r getting defensive :-). i hv no problem with this section but was just wondering wht u gonna do with it ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad, please use indentation and sign your name at the end of your text. It makes it more easier to read that way. warrior4321 19:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please lets have it back. Saroshp (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

i always sign dude

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets take this to Alis talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wereldburger758 deletes a referenced quote on 27 December 2009
  

reason cited by Wereldburger758 for deletion :cannot make any sense of it.

Would appreciate to know what you couldent make sense of , specially since the content was within the section on religion .

Intothefire (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Content removed by Wereldburger758 on 27 December without discussion 2009

“

In almost all the Iranian provinces , according to Al Mussadi fire temples were to be found - the Madjus he says (ed Barbier de Meynard, iv86 ) venerate many fire temples in Irak Fars, Kirman , Sidjistan , Khurasan , Tabaristan , al Djibal ,Abdharbaidjastan, Arran (He adds also in Hind Sind and Sin ). This general statement of al Masudi is fully supported by the medevial geographers who make mention of fire temples in most of the Iranian towns .

”

Intothefire (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

deletion

well i agree with user wereldburger when he said while removing the content it donsn't make any sense.

Perhaps you should first try reading the whole article (or at least the last few related sections) and then figure out where your stuff fits best, i would also suggest a copy-editing of your deleted paragraph in order to adjust it to its related content. Try finding the a place for it in the article where it can be adjusted according to the context, then i will or user wereldburger will copy-edit to.

You should ask user wereldburger for his comments.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

also tht table with any temple or city name seems weird to me. wht it for, i mean whts the purpose. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad, I'd like to suggest to you that you sign your name -with- your text rather than underneath. It makes it much easier to read discussions when everyone's comment(s) are properly organized. I am requesting that you do it as such:

Text goes here. ~~~~~ rather than text goes here

~~~~

Hope you understand what I'm saying. Thanks, warrior4321 05:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

deletion2

You want to know, Intothefire, what I don't understand of what you have written. For a few lines that is quite a lot: Al Musadi, Madjus, Hind Sind and Sin, al Masudi. Those are all names that I don't know anything about. That makes the whole paragraph incomprehensible. And is this a quote: "(ed Barbier de Meynard, iv86 ) " or something else?

If you write something on this wikipedia, Intothefire, you must assume that your reader doesn't know anything about it. So use proper English and write as comprehensible as possible.

Furthermore, like Mohammad adil says, what you write must fit into the article you are writing in. Wereldburger758 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wereldburger758

• I take your suggestions as positive to improve the content provided.
  
• Provided an explanation of Al Masudi in the article and improved context by extention.
  
• It is my intention to provide quotes from reliable sources without refraction and therefore the inclusion of in line citation provided by Houtama viz (ed Barbier de Meynard, iv 86).This is as per wiki conventions for quotes .
  
• Will provide links for Hind and Sindh
  

Thankyou for your suggestions ....certainly better than unilateral deletions. Intothefire (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

i hv did some copy editing of it, i think there is no need of mentioning (ed Barbier de Meynard, iv 86) in between the quote when u are already giving a references at the end.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that is more like it. I have moved the text to make it fit into the text. Nice cooperation. Wereldburger758 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why this stuff ................... He also added Sindh and Sin of the Indian subcontinent (Al-Hind) to the list. This general statement of al Masudi is fully supported by the medieval geographers who make mention of fire temples in most of the Iranian towns .[60] There were also large and thriving Christian and Jewish communities, along with smaller numbers of Buddhists and other groups. However, there was a slow but steady movement of the population toward Islam. The nobility and city-dwellers were the first to convert, Islam spread more slowly among the peasantry and the dihqans, or landed gentry. By the late 10th century, the majority of Persians had become Muslim. Until the 15th century, most Persian Muslims were Sunni Muslims, though today Iran is known as a stronghold of the Shi'a Muslim faith. The Iranian Muslims projected many of their own Persian moral and ethical values[citation needed] that predates Islam into the religion, while recognizing Islam as their religion and the prophet's son in law, Ali as an enduring symbol of justice.

........is under the heading Zoroastrian fire temples The above mentioned paragraph deals with religion right ? so its place is under the section religion. It has no relation in any sense to the heading of Zoroastrians fire temples.

So will u plz explain why u think it should be under the heading zoroatrian fire temples

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed necessity of revising "Muslim Conquest of Persia" to "Arab-Muslim Conquest of Persia"

It is important to acknowledge and state that the "Muslim conquest of Persia" was more than simply a "new" religion spreading to Persia via military methods. The individuals and culture that promoted that conquest were specifically Arab Muslims, not Jewish Arabs, not Christian Arabs, not Persian Muslims (whatever existed at the time), or any Nationality/Culture-Muslim.

As such, the title of the "Muslim conquest of Persia" should be changed/moved to the "Arab-Muslim Conquest of Persia" to reflect the cultural implications of the Arab-Muslim invasion. ArdeshirBozorg (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)ArdeshirBozorg

Wikipedia articles are titled following the common usage in reliable sources. Looking at Google Books, I find 368 results for "Muslim conquest of Persia", 236 for "Islamic conquest of Persia", and 1,270 for "Arab conquest of Persia". In contrast "Arab Muslim conquest of Persia" only returns 9. I would say if anything the article should be retitled "Arab conquest of Persia".--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article can certainly be moved if there is consensus. The reason I opposed the move is for a) consistency in WP articles on the Muslim conquests b) "Arab-Muslim" appears to be a neologism and most importantly c) the Arab expansion happened because of Islam and for Islam, not because the Arabs as Arabs began it. The Arab aspect is certainly important from a cultural aspect, but the prime factor was religious motivation. Constantine ✍ 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think to a certain extent, we just have to pick between the several good options. "Muslim conquest" is fine; it is something that appears to be in regular use. But "Arab Muslim conquest" (or "Muslim Arab conquest") does not appear to be widely used, and should be avoided.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The name 'muslim conquest of persia is something that clicks. and this is the name that instantly gives you a background of that conquest i.e Muslim people ---> emergence of Islam ---> the great conquest.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Arab Muslim conquest is a neologism and not regular use. I also agree with Cuchulain that "Arab conquest of Persia," if the most common and regular should be the term used. ArdeshirBozorg (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The title Muslim conquest of Persia is not correct. It should be Arab conquest of Persia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.100.166 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cuchulain undo revisions of ArdeshirBozorg

With regards to undoing revisions on the Muslim Conquest of Persia....

It looks like you done so with stating your reasons. Please cite reasons as to why you think that those revisions are "not an improvement" for each and every reason. There was a good number of revisions done, in the interest of increasing the accuracy of the article.

1) Iraq is a term that is anachronistic when used to refer to the eastern portion of the Sassanid empire. The area that is now known as Iraq was under Sassanid control, and previously part of the Achaemind Persian Empire, when the Arabs invaded and then conquered the area. Many of the revisions sought to address that issue.

2) The article as, it now stands, is riddled with unsupported statements, statements that I qualified for accuracy. For example,

“Historians have propounded the idea that Persia, on the verge of the Arab invasion, was a society in decline and decay”

No support is provided for this statement, and the fact that it says “historians” seems to imply that this is the predominant belief among historians. Thus, I revised it to “some historians” which is, in fact, more correct given the fact that no historians has even been provided to support that statement.

Another example, in the same paragraph:

“However, some other authors have, for example, used exclusively Arab sources to illustrate that "contrary to the claims of some historians,

I revised this to say: “however, some other HISTORIANS have, for example…”

This was done to a) bring appropriate parallelism (historians and historians instead of historians and authors), and b) to be more accurate because a great many historians argue that the Persian fought vigorously and adamantly against Arab and Muslim influence and control. In addition, the sources provided in the article support this revision.

Therefore, I will be restoring the aforementioned revisions. Please edit each and every disputed item individually, instead of the large scale changes that you’ve assumed. Moreover please provided actual explanations and reasoning instead of using short blanket statements such “inferior edits.” Use the talk page, as well. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdeshirBozorg (talk • contribs)

ArdeshirBozorg, Wikipedia policy is that the burden of evidence is on the editor introducing mater changes to defend it. Per the preferred bold, revert, discuss editing method, the most productive approach if your change gets reverted is to go to the talk page and discuss it. Some of your changes are good, but others are not; they introduced a number of style and wording problems that weren't there before. For example, in the introduction, the capitalization was wrong in "Muslim Conquest of Persia; the style guidelines are that common nouns are not capitalized. Additionally, your change one link from "Iran" to "the Sassanid Persian Empire" resulted in a broken link. On top of this, you also removed some sourced material.

I think we can probably be more clear that what we're talking about are the areas that are now Iraq, Iran, etc., and not to the modern countries. But I think the current usage is mostly fine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I implemented some of the uncontroversial changes and replaced most mentions of "Iraq" with "Mesopotamia". Hope that helps.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to throw in and note that the "Some Iranian historians" line in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction needs a source of some sort. Right now the "exclusively Arab" portion has at least some externally verifiable source; the Iranian historian claim seems like opinion. Also, I'm going to clean the language up a bit to make it slightly more neutral.Spectheintro (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)spectheintro

Some myths and inaccurate claims

Skimming through the article, i find some inaccurate claims regarding conversion of Islam to Iran. Jizya simply replaced Previous Sassanian Tax. For the average people in Iran, very little had changed after the arrival of Islam. It wasn't until 10/11th century, when Muslims became Majority. Claims like Zoroastrians were humiliated to convert to Islam are doubtful and dubious. There may be some exceptional case, but this wasn't the overall situation. Here's a PhD Thesis published from MIT University which briefly covers the Sasanian (Iranian) and Sogdian(Tajik) conversion to Islam. http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/41720/222332133.pdf?sequence=1, Chapter II - Sasanian and Sogdian conversion to Islam covers it. I hope someone can use this thesis to add some more information on this article. Thanks --Theotherguy1 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of sentence

What is meant with the sentence:"Suhail marched from Busra in 643, passing from Shiraz and Persepolis he joined with other Muslim armies and marched against Kerman,....."? Did he pass Shiraz and Persepolis? If so, where did his army join other Muslim armies? Or did other Muslim armies join him from these cities? Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit completed

As the title already makes clear, I completed the copy-edit today. Wereldburger758 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Description of 2nd campaign needs serious work

I've already heavily edited the description of the Mesopotamian campaign, but it's only the beginning of a very poorly written series of paragraphs describing the Arab advance into Persia. I will try to keep editing it to make it more legible and less POV, but I would appreciate some help. Spectheintro (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)spectheintro

Improving the tone of this article as 12/4/2010

I'd like to spread it out there that this article seems to be written a bit non-historically and unencyclopedic. Would like to recommend to those interested to revise accordingly. I will be trying myself over the next few months. --GoetheFromm (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, it states the invastion was "directed by Caliph Umar from Medina several thousand miles from the battlefields in Persia". Medina is not thousands of miles from the battlefields of Persia. China is, maybe. Medina is only about one thousand kilometers from Teheran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelius99 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)