Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia

Bold text==False Report== Ok guys, I finally took up the time to investigage this. It turns out the reference given "p.2778-9" has nothing to do with the subject. The subject of that page is "electoral council" and has nothign to do with persians.

What I do have read here and there on the conquest of Fars, Tabaristan, Khuzistan, Nihawand, Ahwaz and other territoria and cities - then Umar, radiallahu 'anhu, in fact was gentile with the new Muslims, preferred them to others and acted generously with the converted noble men of Persia.

So either the person who made the claim misunderstood some passage, or never bothered looking it up and simply relied on third party sources. Or maybe, they are just lying. If what they report is true, then they should refer to the Arabic text and edition, page-number etc. They should also read more about al-Tabari's sources, for example Sayf b. 'Umar, al-Waqidi, Abu Mikhnaf and others; all of them are weak, or liars. So whatever the case, what they say should be checked first from the text itself, then they should consider the context too.

So due to this fault I am taking out the blabber about racism on part of Arabs. There seems to be no evidence with regards to that. Unless anyone here can show me the text from 1st party sources, then there is no reason to believe such things and shouldn't be put in an encyclopedia. --Khawaja 17:37:39, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

Im reverting back. You cannot claim that western sources are "weak" and "liars". Zora provided several sources supporting what is written. So did I. The best you can do is add any opposing sources to the text. Not delete anything. Your post obviously demonstartes you are Sunni, and a supporter of Umar. But you are not the only person who knows Arabic here. There is specific mention of Arab cruelty against mawali in:

1. Al`Allamah Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-'anwar, vol. 9, chap. 124.
2. Shaykh 'Abbas al-Qummi, Safinat al-Bihar, (under wall), c.f. al-Kay.
3. al-Khutat by al-Maqrizi. e.g. "See that not a single person in Iran speaks Arabic, and whosoever is found speaking Arabic kill him".
4. Ibn an-Naqqash, Fatwa concerning the condition of the dhimmis, vol. 18, pp. 513-514, trans. Belin, Journal Asiatique, Vol. 18 (1851) and Vol. 19 (1852); in B. Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, pp. 184-185
5. Abd al-Rahman al-Bazzaz, "Islam and Arab Nationalism", Arab Nationalism: An Anthology, ed. S.G. Haim, pp. 176-177
6. ...

--Zereshk 23:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Weak (if not false) Reports

It is very obvious that the user "Zereshk" has no clue to the sciences of historic documentation and the methods behind it's verification and such. Yes, Tabari is one of the most respected of early Islamic historian but when reporting reports, some scholars report everything that is heard even though that particular report might be weak -- now this is assuming Tabari even reported this. This doesn't mean the entire book is weak but just merely a few reports in his history collection that is weak due due to it being falling short of the historic analaysis that it goes through. The science is known as "Jarh wa Tadeel" in arabic to muslims scientists/scholars.

And finally, due to the fact that it is a weak, if not fabricated report, it makes it contraversial and shouldn't be inserted in an "encyclopedia" due to the fact it doesn't serve any benefit and the information could be wrong. An encyclopedia's job is to give un-biased factual confirmed knowledge. Not some random sayings. You goto message boards for that. Not to an encyclopedia because that ruins it's reputation. So I request the blabber about Muslims not wanting to see persians become muslim should be removed.

As for the other user claiming racism on part of Arabs under the headline "Reluctance to let dhimmis convert" and saying "as if there is no doubts of such reports" at all and just slamming the sciences of historic analysis all together. My question is, if I make something up right now about the history of french people, how would you know it's authentic. The user does exactly the same about Arabs as if "there is no doubt" and never quotes anything but simply gives obsecure and strange incidents. I ask him to back up his claims with sufficient evidence and not to spread falsehood on this website. Keep it professional please. This is not a message board. --- Khawaja--

I didn't say the book doesn't exist. It does and the quote is mentioned in it but it is quoted from at-Tabari and the report is very weak, perhaps fabricated. - Khawaja

1. If Tabari is "fabricated" as u say, then we have to start doubting the entire history of Islam, because Tabari is among the most respected of the early Islamic historians.
2. The text is not a quote. Frye actually says this in his book.
3. Why delete the text when the text gives reference to Frye? I didnt say it. You didnt say it. Frye did. It is up to the reader to believe Frye's claim or not. That's why we have to give references for controversial sentences.--Zereshk 30 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)

I think that what you are pushing for is in fact "Jarh wa La ta'deel", because you are basically accusing Frye of reporting something that Tabari did not. That is a pretty big accusation. You are accusing a former Aga Khan Harvard Chair of lying. That's something you better have some damn good support for, other than your personal hunch. I repeat, the actual sentence is in the book, and Frye provides References to it. Furthermore, what you call "weak" (i.e. Frye's reporting) has been described as "the definitive history of Persia" by professional reviewers.

In fact, I would call this "Jarh wa Tahmeel". --Zereshk 1 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

Desire

You're really going to have to explain how you know the "desires" of men from 1.300 years ago. If You can cite a source for these "Desires" then I may beleive it's not just a POV Push.

Im taking down the POV tag. It's been a while since the tag has been left up, with no discussion. I also added text that answers the original objections.--Zereshk 21:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Sections

Separated article into sections. SouthernComfort 10:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Refrences

Someone claimed that Frye's work did not exist and were uncertain. The book is quite cheap. Bye it and read it for God's sake, b4 making ignorant statements.

And there are other sources too:

1. Tabari. Series I. p2778-9.
2. "Mohammedanische Studien" Goldziher. Vol 2 p138-9.
3. "Ansab al Ashraf" or "Fotooh al Buldan" by Baladhuri. P417.
4. Tabari. Series II p1207.
5. "Tarikh e Sistan" p82.
6. "Tarikh e Qum" p254-6.

--Zereshk 30 June 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Reluctance to let dhimmis convert

It is indeed true that in the very early history of Islam, conversion was not encouraged. The Frye book is an older source, and perhaps not the best, but there is ample evidence from later scholars, like Crone, Berkey, and Hawting, supporting the contention. The Arabs were settled in garrison towns, like Basra and Kufa, to keep them from contact with the newly conquered peoples. Any dhimmi who wished to convert was required to find an Arab patron, who would adopt him into his tribe as a client. This erased any former standing the client had, and made him into a extremely junior participant in the tribe's hierarchy. It was easier for slaves and wives/concubines to convert, but they were already in a position of subjection.

Why? There is a fair bit of evidence that many of the early Muslims believed that Muhammad was the messenger to the Arabs, who were the best of men. The older faiths were sufficient for salvation, and appropriate for those lesser beings, the dhimmis. The jizya tax paid by dhimmis was one of the main resources of the government, and was threatened by conversions. There are records of whole communities wanting to convert, and being refused.

Zereshk is perhaps wrong in thinking that this was directed against Persians. It was a general policy in every territory outside Arabia. Zora 30 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)

---

1. The page is about what was directed against Persians, not anybody else. The page is about The Conquest of Iran, not The Conquest of Africa or Byzantium.
2. Unfortunately Zora seems to think that any old source is automatically up for dismissal. With that type of thinking, we should throw away Einstein's Relativity, Newtonian Physics, etc since they are quite old. This has been a great handicap for Zora in undertsanding Iran and Islam, since most sources used (e.g. The Nahj ul-Balagheh) were written centuries ago. A new study isn't necessarily correct just because it is new.
3. That there was heavy reluctance by the Arabs to accept Persians as equals in their ranks (both religiously and socially) is indisputable fact. There is no contention to that.--Zereshk 1 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

---

Sigh. Zereshk, I agreed with you, in the main, and differed only a point of emphasis. You think that this policy was directed at Persians; I point out that it was directed against non-Arabs. Persians are non-Arabs, so they qualified for oppression. However -- it was not an anti-Persian policy. To see it as such is to read current antagonisms into the past. It's as if you were to say that the British colonials had special contempt for Persians, when in fact the racists among them would say "It's all wogs past Calais," or just claim that "white" men were better than "brown/red/yellow/black" men. Zora 1 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)

Yes, I know it was directed at non-Persians. But this page is not about Non-Perisans. It's about what was directed at the Persians.--Zereshk 1 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)

User:Khawaja

Khawaja, the issue you are disputing is sourced (i.e. a reference has been provided), and thus there is no need to dispute the neutrality of the article. You are invited to include opposing references in the article if you have additional information. Thanks. SouthernComfort 1 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)

---

How am I suppose to give opposing references to false reports and reference them? For example, If I make up a random report that someone got killed in my city by the name of John. Can you find a opposing report or article that in Toronto, John DIDN'T get killed. No, because articles aren't written on what DIDN'T happen. Similarly, how am I suppose to source and reference on a report that is weak (if not false). Just doesn't make sense. May be I should fabricate that man went to Mars yesterday and you are obliged to give me a referenced report that man didn't. After establishing the report in Tabari is weak (if not false), we shouldn't include it since it paints an inaccurate if not false account of history. Only authentic evidence should be used to explain history. Especially in a encyclopedia for God's sake! - Khawaja

Hullo, Khawaja, you can sign your messages by putting four tildes after them (a tilde is a ~).

The article as it stands is biased towards Iranians rather than Arabs, who are depicted as racists and oppressors (though I must admit that in the early years of the caliphate, there's a good case for this). A number of the Iranian contributors here seem to me to be cherishing hatreds stoked during the Iran-Iraq war. The article needs to be NPOVd.

It's also true that Zereshk and Southern Comfort don't have the historian's view of sources, as both necessary and to be regarded with suspicion. I have clashed with them repeatedly in other articles over their use of sources and their methods of historical argument.

Perhaps then it will make a stronger impression if I say that every academic source I've read makes the point that dhimmis were not encouraged to convert during the first few centuries of Islamic rule.

The non-Arabs were rarely asked or forced to convert; on the whole they were dissuaded. They simply had to pay for the upkeep of those who had defeated them, preferably in a manner which emphasized their twin humiliation of non-Arab ethnicity and unbelief. -- Crone, Slaves on Horses, 1980, p. 54.

By the end of the period, in spite of the initial attempt by the Arabs to keep themselves apart religiously and socially from their subjects, and in spite of the refusal of caliphs and governors to allow the non-Arabs to enjoy the advantages of acceptance of Islam, large numbers of the subject peoples had come to identify themselves as Muslims. -- Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam, 2000, p. 8.

As is well-known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs. -- Berkey, The Formation of Islam, 2003, p. 74.

These are all respected academics, and books published by university presses. All the authors are speaking on the basis of wide reading in Arab chroniclers, not just Tabari. This is probably not part of the history that is taught or emphasized in many Muslim-majority countries, but it seems well-attested to me. Zora 3 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Zora, I suggest that you stop making personal attacks and accusations of bias. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

Ok look, all these things you are quoting to show Arabs are racist are written by people in our times and they don't have any evidence for the "history". How can they know if those things happened or Arabs acted that way back then? Are they 1400 years old to witness this? The only way to know the reality or to know history is by learning it from historians back then who were recording history. This is how history works. In 3000 years from now, no one can make up the history of Japan out of nowhere. They need evidence from people now who are writing it now and perserving it. Obviously, this article is biased, racist, and is purely Iranian propaganda. You can tell by the way Zora talks and see he is just taking things off his chest and has no historic evidence. I ask for those illict comments to be removed to keep this article neutral. --Khawaja 2005-07-03 02:23:51 (UTC)

For one thing, Zora is a she.

Khawaja, you can't just refuse to believe something because it's unpleasant and shocking. I can't give you the cites from Arabic sources because I can't read Arabic -- but all those scholars CAN. They are making those assertions based on extensive reading in sources in many languages -- not just secondary sources in English, French, German, etc., but also primary sources in Arabic. I just counted -- in the 16 page bibliography at the end of Crone's book, there are 58 different Arab authors cited. This is not just relying on Tabari. Zora 3 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)

Khawaja, again, the information in this article is sourced. If you have a problem with that, please provide references from opposing scholars. If you have any doubts as to the authenticity of these sources, please feel free to peruse them for yourself. The library at U of T should have Frye's works. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

SC, please don't remove POV templates without making any attempt at resolution

SC, you've done it to me and now you're doing it to Khawaja -- she puts up the POV template and you remove it. Just like that, blam, because you can. The template is just a sign that there is no consensus, and it is supposed to stay up until the editors reach one. You are making no effort at consensus. Obviously, I don't agree completely with Khawaja, but I do agree with her that the article is biased. Please, let's work towards developing an article that will be less controversial. Zora 3 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)

Zora, an NPOV tag is only warranted if the information in the article is based on opinion or is too speculative. In this case, the information in this article is fully sourced. You know this, and Khawaja refuses to accept the sources. If Khawaja has a problem with the sources, let the editor provide opposing references as I have suggested. Then we can discuss NPOV. What do you say? SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)

SC, you seem to see only factoids, and be blind to the overall impression made by the choice of words, the choice of facts to present, the flow of the argument, etc. The overall impression is anger at Arabs. That can be fixed. It's not just a question of sources, though I hope that Khawaja will look at some of the sources cited. She doesn't have to come up with any "facts" or "sources" to prove that the article is POV ... an article can be POV just from the words used. Zora 3 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

As we have seen, this discussion and racism is based against Arabs upon Zora’s passions only. Accusing me of not believing simply because it’s shocking??? Where as I am not believing because of the single weak report in Tabari and that that makes it unsuitable to be in an unbiased encyclopedia. Go put it in your Iranian encyclopedia. You claim that the issue is so widely known out of nowhere and how there is 16 pages worth of evidence from Arabic historic text? Can you please quote something from the scholars instead of lying upon them? Show me the 16 pages! If such an issue DOES exist, then I don't mind whatsoever for anything to be written about it. Let’s write an entire section on this if it is accurate history. But unfortunately no, the report is just one in Tabari and weak. Fyre only quotes Tabari and that one report. If there were more, he would've quoted more since that’s what he is trying to criticize the Arabs for. Don't put words in people’s mouth and fabricate things. And grow up and don’t remove my tags! --Khawaja 2005-07-03 07:54:00 (UTC)

Khawaja, you're not reading carefully. I said it was a 16 page bibliography. In tiny print. And many languages. I'm not going to type it up and post it for you. The books that I cited should be in your university library, where you can consult them.

I should add another book -- one that I just dug out of the pile -- Arabs and Others in Early Islam, by Suliman Bashear, Darwin Press, 1997. It is very dense and hard reading, because it is almost exclusively quotes from early Arab sources (the author was a Palestinian and had clearly had an extensive Islamic education). You might also like it because the author is saying that from the very beginning of Islam there were two strains of thought re Islam and non-Arabs, one accepting and one rejecting non-Arabs. Bashear gives cites for both. Plus many cites re Arabs and Persians. Zora 3 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

The U of T has one of the most extensive libraries in N. America, and the Toronto central library also has plenty of reference material concerning this subject matter. Khawaja should have no problem verifying this data if s/he has any doubts as to the veracity of this article. If there are any opposing references, s/he should have absolutely no problem in tracking them down considering the wealth of material that is available there and adding them to the article. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 10:07 (UTC)

POV tag

Surena added some extremely POV anti-Arab material. I almost reverted, to get rid of it, but decided on second thought to just add the POV tag. There might be something in what Surena added that could be salvaged, so we shouldn't just throw all of it out without sifting thoroughly. Zora 12:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The additions sound a bit spiced up at times. But there are bits and pieces to be salvaged. I wouldnt keep all of it though, since its tone sounds a bit inflammatory in intention. For example, Umar also burned the Alexandria library, saying the same thing: "if it is with the Quran, we dont need it; if it is against the Quran, we must destroy it"). It wasnt just Persian libraries. Persia was overrun and massacred by Umar's armies (meaning that those events would probably not have happened, were it somebody else instead of Umar). But Surena's additions puts the blame on all "Arabs". Ali was in fact sympathetic to the Persians, and was not happy with the state of affairs of the conquest. Surena's additions can be re-written in a more professional way.

I'll leave the editing of the additions to you, Zora, if you like.--Zereshk 21:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Image

Hi folks! I noticed that the uploaded image notice states that The image published in Iran (early 1960s), titled: Arabs in Iran. No License. Can we have more explanations and information about that? Cheers -- Svest 23:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I think we should ditch it. It has no informational value.--Zereshk 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not about the message it carries. Many WP articles have images like that. I am glad you got my point. It's about WP rules about sources and copyright. Cheers Zereshk. --  ^{Wiki me up™}

Massive copyvios

I googled for further info and found to my horror that the current article is mainly a massive copyvio, assembled from the CAIS article and an Iranchamber article. I am busy rewriting the dang thing from scratch. That means losing the Tabari cites, unfortunately, since I don't have the relevant volume of Tabari in the standard English SUNY edition, and the cites seem to be translations from Arabic versions, which I can't confirm. Anyone here have the SUNY edition of the relevant Tabari volume, or access to it? You can add the cites when I put up a new version. Zora 18:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you please Zora give us your findings about copyvios? If the article is really a massive copyvio than we'd have too much work to do in this article. -- Svest 23:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

The page is copied from [1] and [2]. I started doing some research and found that the article as it stands is seriously deficient as HISTORY -- it doesn't give any details of the long, losing fight of Yezdegerd III against Muslims. It also lacks any broader historical context, as to why the Sassanids were so weak, etc. I'm working on a new article, but the research is taking some time. Which I can ill spare. If it seems to be taking too long, I'll put up my draft and you guys can hack away at it. Zora 23:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. -- Svest 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Re-write. But please keep the documentation and references I added in the article. We dont want to lose those. If you take those references out, we'll soon be going back to answering the same old questions and accusations again. Lets have progress, and not repeat things every couple of months.--Zereshk 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A list of POV's on the intro

I've never read beyond the intro of this article for being busy elsewhere. I am sorry to say that the intro is full of unnecessary edits from Encyclopedia Iranica mixed with some contradictions.

• The Bedouin Arabs who toppled the Sassanid Empire were propelled not only by a desire for conquest and plundering but also by a new religion, Islam.

-- Bedouin/Civilized is irrelevant unless it suggests something. same for Not only by but also by...

• The rich Sassanid lands of Iraq... In fact "the desire to wrest these lands from the Iranian aristocracy" provided a prime motive for "the aggressiveness" of the Arabs.

-- Muslims, or Arabs in this case, conquered both rich and poor places within a century! So the wealth of a place was definitly not the reason behind the conquest. Therefore, this claim is false.

In fact it was. Frye discusses this in detail (that the conquest was mainly driven by the desire to collect booty). Omar in fact prohibited the conversion of Persians to Islam in the first years of conquest. But after the fall of Madain' and the collected spoils, things changed. (See? Why do I have to keep going thru repeated discussions again and again? That's why we provide references. When the references are taken out, the same stupid questions are asked all over again.). Think about it, if that was NOT the case, then why conquer Persia when you dont want Persians becoming muslims anyway? The Persians were never welcomed as equals even when they converted. They always remained second class citizens. Why go to all the trouble of conquering them with such reluctance to accept them into Islam?--Zereshk 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Furthermore, Richard Nelson Frye writes that the invading Arabs were initially interested merely in the booty collected from the battles.

-- Those claims, though most probably are logical, are not different than wars and conquests of nowadays. There has never been a war w/o booty collection.

Yes, but the booty is not the primary objective and reason to go to war.--Zereshk 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• One report even claims that he stopped the victorious Arabs from invading the Iranian plateau after the battle of Jalula' because he did not wish to see Persians converted to Islam.

-- This is a referenced source and it has to be kept. My point about this is that it is contradictory to the claims above about bedouin Arabs invaded the area because of its wealth!

You can provide counter evidence. Noone has a problem with that. We'll add both. I dont think Frye is the only one here saying this thing however. It is now well known that without the resources (man-power, the divan, the governance system of the Persians, the system of revenue that came from annexing Persia), the early bani-Umayyad system would not have been able to sustain itself. The Arabs simply did not know how to govern an empire. That's why the NEED for Persian wealth is not only verifiable, but it is logical as well. Dont forget that the Abbasid and Bani Umayyid court was literally run by the captured Persians and their wealth for 3 centuries.--Zereshk 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thus, as Frye verifies, the conquest of Persia and beyond was thus frankly intended to raise new revenues.

-- Well frankly speaking, I really wanna know about Frye's verifications.

-- Svest 23:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Ask him. He was the Aga Khan chair at Harvard. The sentence is straight out of his book.--Zereshk 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Needs major clean-up

I have just looked over this article and I think it needs a major clean-up. As a start, surely something more than "The Islamic conquest of Iran led to the collapse of the Sassanid Empire, the eventual decline of the Zoroastrian religion in Iran, and the birth of Islamic civilization" can make a better intro? Like perhaps giving a date for the starting invasions and the successes and failures, etc? And what's with the bias against the Arabs in the middle sections. Let's work so that the POV tag is removed. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I have to write this so that I can reference it whenever people throw accusations at me (which happens a lot):

1. I'm a shia. And Shia's obviously think very low of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph. So dont be surprised when I take a firm anti-conquest stand on the Islamic conquest of Iran issue. The conquest happened under Umar. Many people cannot undestand that the conquest of Iran was not carried out under the banner of true Islam. Had it been Ali's decision, none of the events of the conquest would have happened the way they did. There is a reason the love for Ali and his progeny spread the way it did in Iran, despite the fcat that most Iranians were Sunnis. There would be no "second class citizens", no "racism against Persians", no "mawali" and no consequent "shu'ubiyah", if it were under Ali. The "bias" has nothing to do with Arabs as an ethnic group. It has everything to do with Umar, as head of an army of "Jahiliyah". If anyone is taking offense as an Arab, then it is they, not me, who is a "nationalist".
2. Every culture and nation has its glories and ugly moments. Iran and the Arabs are no exception. If the Arabs under Umar carried out the conquest as a means of revenue and wealth, it doesnt demean the Arabs as an ethnic group. It demeans Umar. Why? Because Persia has done similar things in its history too. When Nadir Shah invaded India, it was only done to amass and plunder wealth. A very despicable act.
3. My personal position aside, I must admit that there is a lot of bias and hatred against Arabs, ethnically, nowadays. And that is a result of the Jahiliyah tactics initiated by Umar. No surprise. However, the hatred is also both ways. Iranians still remember how many Arabs supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. Iranians remember that 600 Hajj pilghrims were massacred by Saudi Arabian Police in 87, just for shouting slogans against America. And once you see how Iranians are treated and humiliated by Arabs in airports in Saudi Arabia, you get the idea. Trust me, when youre a minority in a given population (a non-Arab among Arab muslims), it is very easy to see certain things.

So I am therefore against anyone who says there is bias here against Arabs. It is bias against Umar. And if not, we should change the article to be so.--Zereshk 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Major revision

I completely rewrote the article, with lots of new sources. I did not remove the POV tag, as I feel other editors should agree before it is taken down.

It was a lot of research and a large article to write, and there are probably numerous wikifying errors, typos, and stylistic infelicities to correct. I hope that the other editors will agree that this article is at least a step in the right direction, more of a neutral chronicle than an essay on the evils of the conquest. Zora 03:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It would be nice to quote Firdausi's lines on the death of Yazdegerd, but I don't have a copy of the complete Shahnameh. Would anyone here be able to supply a quote? Zora 03:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I remove the POV tag? Can anyone add some lines from Firdausi? Zora 07:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm waiting for you to finish your final edit, then come in and make my evaluation. You left out all previous references that I had requested be kept. That is unfortunate.
2. I'm not sure why youre asking for a Ferdowsi quote. What is your intention?--Zereshk 03:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have to keep YOUR references? What's so special about them?

The Firdausi quote as ornamentation, I guess. When I had my friend's copy of an English translation of the Shahnameh, I read some rather sad verses on the fate of Yazdegerd. From great king to hunted fugitive ... Other people might find that instructive, or conducive to reflection. But it's certainly not necessary. Zora 21:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

My references are academic Zora. You cannot delete them.--Zereshk 22:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Paradoxic's edits

Paradoxic, you replaced what I thought was a balanced presentation with a Persian nationalist diatribe. I restored the earlier text, and tried to rewrite your text to NPOV it. I agree that your POV should be presented, but it should not be presented as the one-and-only truth.

Reference to purdah rather than chador restored. Perhaps this needs to be discussed further -- I haven't checked the purdah article. However, I believe that it's commonly accepted that the upper-class Persian, pre-Islamic institution of the anderun, the women's quarters, was taken into an Arabic culture that hadn't previously kept women indoors (as would indeed have been impossible for nomads). I'm not at all sure that the chador was Persian in origin -- however, this would take some investigation. I'm not sure that anyone has written a HISTORY of hijab, which would be an interesting topic. Zora 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Zora, due to your insufficient knowledge and bias, you have, again, deliberately deleted most of what i took from academic works from Iran by Iranian academics whom have quoted and acknowledged Frye and other well known Islamic historians. Also you selectively deleted historic narrations from Al Tabari and Ibn Khuldun in order to write some form of improvised (and yet lame) "Anti-Islamist-from-Iran-residing-in-US" POV. Works like that of Reza Aslan and other western writers writing about Islamic history are not to be taken for granted and have, in many cases, lied about Islam and its history, both intentionally or unknowingly and are not going to make pigs fly. Ive reverted the initial article since there is nothing wrong with it. It was NPOV'd and looks just fine. And no, we dont need any "Investigation" dear, its widely known the Chador is Iranian, it means Tent and that is was adapted by the rest of the Islamic world from Iran.--Paradoxic 14:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Paradoxic, you took a small section and turned it into a bloated anti-Arab rant. Wikipedia is not the place to refight the Iran-Iraq war, or to indulge anti-Arab passions. You can't just declare that your version is NPOV and argue that anyone who protests is just "biased".

As for veiling and seclusion -- I'm not sure that you can just declare that "everyone knows" they're Persian in origin and leave it at that. The incident in Medina when Muhammad's wives were put behind the veil certainly occurred before the Islamic conquest of Persia. There's evidence that this originally applied ONLY to Muhammad's wives, and that it gradually diffused outward as a custom. But was it only Persians who practiced that custom, at the time? I'm not sure that it was so. I seem to recall, vaguely, some references to it being practiced throughout the Middle East, not just in the Persian domains. It also misrepresents the phenomenon to just describe it as veiling, when the rules for the use of the veil assume a division of the world into "women's quarters", anderun, where the veil was not required, and the public sphere, where women were to be veiled. (BTW, this phenomenon has occurred in other parts of the world -- the upper-class women of Heian Japan were secluded -- but not by veils, but by reed blinds. When they had to leave their quarters, they travelled in closed litters.) Zora 19:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Paradoxic, I made an attempt to include your POV in my version; you have restored your anti-Arab rant. I suspect that you were raised and taught in such a wartime, nationalist atmosphere that you cannot see just how offensive your edits would be to an Arab reader. I'm not an Arab and I'm certainly not an Arab nationalist, but I do care about being fair.

If you don't like my version of your position, then rewrite it IN CONCISE FORM. Wikipedia is not a forum for long, meandering personal essays. People come to articles for information, not opinions. All sides of a dispute should get roughly equal space in an article. You don't give one position a short para and another a long essay.

Would you be OK with simply deleting the section? Perhaps it's a mistake to have it there. Zora 21:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, i am not Anti arab at all, quite on the contrary ..nor did i write anything anti arabic on my article, you seem to mistake me for yourself. The initial article stated "The Persians strongly resisted cultural and linguistic Arabization." This by itself is an indirect long lasting anti-arab myth. You defended this very initial article. Another example of your bias-anti Arab position can be found in another piece of text you've included, Nationalist narratives also tend to stress the initial poverty of Arab culture and the great role of Persians in creating what Arabs now cherish as their intellectual heritage. Arabs are cast as uncultured barbarians, appropriating the achievements of more advanced races.. I dont see where you get these "Rabbit out of the Hat" magical quotations, wich are mostly Cliche's found in comicbooks, but they are absolute garbage nor deserve not to be mentioned on an encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with POV or NPOV, its complete ignorance. As far as the Chador thing goes, as im aware of, Chador was worn before and after the Islamic conquest in Iran and because it complied with Modest Islamic dresscode principles it was accepted and people continued to wear it, this is not exclusive to Iran. Also you seem to not be able to realize that there are many types of Veils and the Chador being one of them. I dont see where you go around speaking about the Prophet Mohammad (s) and claiming its exclusively a "Cultural" thing and that only his wives had to wear it, no, this is jibberish and not supported by any islamic school of thought, be it Sunnite or Shia. The hejab is fard for obvious reasons, we dont need to go back into history to rehash its relevance. Refrain from omitting my quoted texts wich are all from academic works, if you wish to have refrence to them ill be glad to find them for you but do not engage in terrorizing this article with your biased ignorance. The article as stands is neither Anti arab nor anti Persian as it initially was. It's NPOV and Looks just fine unless other contributors argue the same. I am however, not at all willing to omit these obvious factual occurances based on your mere dislike of what i have quoted.--Paradoxic 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

actually, scholars who have studied the issue of hijāb (and you can read about this in any of the literature about women in islam -- see books by leila ahmed, amina wadud, ziba mir-hosseini, even karen armstrong, etc. -- and even the new book by iranian scholar Nimat Hafez Barazangi) believe that initially the concept of hijāb was restricted only to the prophet's wives (this is supported by hadīth studies of asbāb an-nazūl / circumstances of revelation, for it was revealled after his marriage to a wife and many men stayed late in his house). in fact, the arabic word hijab means curtain or separation -- the meaning of 'veil' developed later. scholars believed that muslims adopted the cultural practice common in the sāsānian empire (as well as byzantium) whereby upper-class women covered themselves. but even this adoption was gradual and depended on cultural circumstances. in fact, if you look at muslim women around the world, you will notice varying practices and observances that demonstrate it's a matter of local culture. that doesnt mean that it isnt justified by the verse about hijab, but what it does mean is that veiling is not something called for in the qur'ān or by muhammad, but a later innovation. cheers, dgl

"Obvious fact"

Paradoxic, you HAVE to allow other points of view (POVs) to be expressed. You can't just declare that your POV is the truth and that no others will be allowed. We clearly have two POVs here. One is mine, which I think is a kinda bland academic view, and one is yours, which I think must express the sentiments of many Iranians who came of age in the fervidly nationalist atmosphere of the Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. What all your teachers told you is FACT is not considered FACT outside Iran. The nationalism that seems to so right to you, and the interpretation of all of history as just a prelude to the glorious Iran of today, just seems jingoist and bathetic to someone who doesn't share those sentiments. The bedrock of Wikipedia is the NPOV policy and that means that you must allow other viewpoints to be expressed. Furthermore, they have to be expressed in terms that the holders of those views would agree are accurate. You can't just give YOUR version of the POV and say, "There, you're represented." Zora 05:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

From Proud Persian: I weep at Persia's defeat! It brings Iran today much scorn. Why do Arabs try to claim Persian work, people, etc ? Please tell me ? Are Taazis that jealous?

Why are you trying so hard to re-discuss this topic, I included portions of the text and others wich were mainly bias were deleted, however you seem to not get enough of insulting both Iranians and Arabs alltogether. Not at all, it's your view against my reciting of academic works. Your POV (Wether you regard it scholarly or not, lol) is meaningless in regard to the high caliber historians and scholars who wrote extensive material about this subject and are widely accepted. I merely cited these. I was not raised as a nationalist; If trying to get personal is your way of trying to say your right, then i am sorry, but these are not my views, i cited them from academic works stemming from Iran and the middle east, by Iranians and Arabs about the Influences of Iranians towards Arab culture and vice versa in a friendly and non insultive objective manner. I have included viewpoints that were of relevance and truth and did not delete everything as you claim, however as much of what you, or someone else wrote previously was mainly based on myth and not fact, i cant let that pass. Im sorry, It was garbage. Again, I will repeat this for the last time, since you seem to have a comprehension issue; Specific works by widely accepted scholars and historians have been written about this topic, and it is very relevant that it be mentioned. You are vandalizing this page by deleting such works that are essential to the Islamic conquest of Iran. I realize you are a hindu so you might have a dislike or even a strong hatred for Islam, Arabs and Persians, but you should rather try Yoga, Tae Bo, or something else thats way more progressive than to ignorantly insult people with uttering nonsense and deceit. I know this is hard to believe, but smell the cofee; you are not above anyone here, nor do you have the authority to decide what permenently goes on the page, the poorly researched material you are desperately clinging on to is meaningless to the mainstream widely accepted scholars ive cited and contrary to what you have cited previously.--Paradoxic 23:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not being civil, Paradoxic. I'm also puzzled that you are calling my "version" garbage, when the latest thing I did was remove the whole section that was so controversial. I removed your version AND my version. Clearly, making any comments about the interaction between Arabs and Persians after the conquest is dicey, and since the article is about the conquest, not the aftermath, I figured that the best thing was to take out the section. I'm going to take it out again, and I hope you'll accept the compromise, rather than restoring your version, which seems to me to be extremely nationalistic and anti-Arab. Zora 09:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would compromise if i knew your intentions were sincere, but im very familiar with your bias against Iranians and Arabs and Islam and at your use of uncivil behavior towards people (Iranian/Arab) you disagree with. Not one but numerous people have warned me about you and your insultive views regarding Iranians, Arabs and Shiism/Islam in particular, wich is why i find no place to even discuss this matter any further. You telling people they engage in "Chest beating behaviour" can hardly be someone to take seriously. The topics mentioned such as the Chador, the usage of Persian words into the Arabic Language (wich can be elaborated on), Persian carpets being widely used have both a pre-islamic root as well as the aftermath. Besides if the aftermath is irrelevant then i dont see why the "Parsees" are mentioned going to India either. The big picture must be shown, i have quoted both Arab and Iranian scholars without adding my own oppinion, as ive told you. You cannot delete such academic works crucial to the page. I will revert any further attempt to do so since you have insufficient basis to delete what ive quoted.--Paradoxic 15:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

History

To Paradoxic: Please be more historically accurate in your edits. To Zora: Do not delete a section on your mere thinkings unless you can prove its incorrect or biased. Amir85 4:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Amir, devoting a whole section to "proving" that Persians contributed more to Islamic civilization than the Arabs is clearly biased. If you're going to turn the relatively bland section I originally wrote into an attempt to diss Arabs, then let's remove the whole dang section. I also removed the ref in Farsi, as it's of no use to the vast majority of the readers (who speak English and not Farsi). Zora 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Persian language sources with ISBN numbers

Im not going to get involved here. It'll take too much of my energy.

But I just wanted to say that Persian language sources should not be deleted, as Zora just did, because many American students, scholars, and researchers routinely seek sources in Persian language. That's why many universities and academic institutions have special collections of foreign language books or media. That's why an ISBN number is called an "International Standard Book Number, so it can be referenced from anywhere in the world. And Zarrinkoub is a well established academic author of Iran. It's OK to reference him, as long as it can be verified.--Zereshk 21:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A new tack

Putting Arab influence on the Persians and Persian influence on the Arabs in the same section seems to provoke a nationalist response, on the order of, "We influenced them more than they did us!" That is unprovable, and unhelpful, particularly as the main point of the article is the conquest, not the consequences of the conquest.

I removed all the material re the development of Persian language and literature and all the invidious comparisons between Arabs and Persians, and re-organized slightly. The language and literature material can go in Persian language and Persian literature, if you want to put it there. Zora 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

No point arguing and dont wanna waste my energy. The same policy as in Sassanid dynasty discussion page. best wishes ! Amir85 12:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I removed the Persian language and literature discussion, the boasting about the glories of Persian culture, and the deprecation of Arabs. It is nationalist, anti-Arab, and inappropriate in an article that is not supposed to take sides! Is this REALLY the impression that you want to give non-Iranian readers? That Persians believe they are better than everyone else? That they look down on Arabs? That they like to boast? I can't believe that this is true. It's not true of the Persians I know. Zora 08:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

According to guideline how to deal with Zora I kindly ask user Zora to provide specific reference refuting those sections of the article that he/she loves to revert. Your cooperation is highly appreciated. Amir85 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may then can I know what is the point of conflict? I think both Persian and Arabian cultures benefited and got enriched by each other's influence. Do we really want to discuss that how much the influence was? Is it at all relevant?

خرم Khurram 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Use this link in your text

Please use the link to the page I just made in your texts:

• Abdolhossein Zarinkoob

Thanx.--Zereshk 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

the point

I dont think the point is about boasting or bragging. We are just trying to write an historical account here. Trying to be politically correct wont help make a better article because that's not how it actually happened.

I think we all agree that:

• The Persian empire was highly prominent in its time, both culturally and in authority.
• The empire weakened (for various socio-political reasons) by the 7th century.
• The conquest obliterated the empire.
• The flag carriers of this conquest were not benevolent, and instead implemented policies of prejudice and discrimination.
• As a result of such policies, Iranians accepted the message of Islam, but never succumbed to the discriminatory policies of the Umayyids in particular.
• Being from a higher cultural background than their captors, such discrimination left a scar that led to the enmity that we know of. (e.g. "Lizard eaters"?)

There is absolutely no doubt on the veracity of these key points. Particularly the last 3 points.--Zereshk 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a great deal of doubt as to the veracity of those points. Everything AFTER the last three points is debateable -- and has been debated. The whole issue of Arabicization is a hot one in Islamic studies.

Phrasing like "higher cultural background" is needlessly inflammatory, ethnocentric, and just plain boasting. I understand what is being said -- there is a difference between an empire with a written literature and a long history, and a recent tribal coalition with an oral literature -- but there are ways to say it that aren't as judgmental.

Moreover, we don't need to go back to the Umayyads to account for current anti-Arab prejudice. The long history of warfare between the Ottomans and the Safavids certainly has something to do with it (massacres of Shi'a in Ottoman territories), as well as the vexed history of Khuzestan, the problem of ethnic minorities in Iran, and the wounds of the Iran-Iraq war.

And vice versa, about Arab massacres and racism elsewhere. But what's the point? Those are irrelevant to the conquest.--Zereshk 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm ... thinking of dgl's work on Battle of al-Qādisiyyah -- he makes a clear distinction between the actual events of the battle, and the use that Saddam tried to make of the battle. Saddam used it as a symbol of Arab superiority to Persians. Are some of you reacting to that? We could add a section that discusses Persian (as opposed to Iranian) attitudes towards the conquest, over history. If it gets long, it could become a breakout article (as I suggested to dgl for the battle). Start with Firdausi and work up to contemporary attitudes? It's a matter of stepping back from the material and instead of saying, "This is the truth", saying "This is what many Persians believe, or believed". It's the claims to truth that are problematic. Zora 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Even the Islamist Mutahari (of all people), who constantly attacks pre-Islamic Iranian heritage, writes:

"The Umayyids revived the concept of racial and tribal prejudice, which Islam had extinguished. Their policy was one of racial enmity against Iranians in particular, more than other non-Arabs." (see his Khadamat-i mutaghanil-i Iran wa Islam, Vol 14, p583-590)

That is highly debateable. Some would say that ambivalence about Islam being universal/for the Arabs can be found in the very beginnings of Islam. Of course, that's a difficult discussion, since most Muslims believe that Muhammad and his community at Medina must have been perfect, and that therefore they couldn't have been ethnocentric. It's the academics who are making arguments against early universalism. The quote from Mutahari ASSUMES that Islam was universal in the beginning, and that the Umayyads must therefore have perverted it. Many academics would say NO. Zora 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So the question really is, how can we write the article so that it minimizes bias and subjectivity, and yet is true to history?--Zereshk 01:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Zora, you keep using the phrase "highly debatable" in answering me. This is banned in Wikipedia since it counts as "original research". We are not here to give weight to specific sources in favor of others. There is literally an ocean of sources against your claim of "Persian nationalism" (and which we see as "Arab oppression").

I've read a chunk of the academic literature, you haven't -- it's not at all original research to say that these topics are debateable. Of course you see an "ocean of sources" supporting your sense of grievance, since you're Iranian, were educated in Iran, and are most familiar with nationalist versions of history. That's all you see, because you haven't looked outside the narrow limits of what you "know". Zora 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesnt matter Zora. Simply put, it is original research for you to say that "Source X is not correct, and source Y is correct". FOR WHATEVER REASON. As simple as that. --Zereshk 10:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Motahari has written that statement, is enough by itself. You cant judge that what he's saying is "debatable". At best, you can provide sources countering him.

You cant just delete sources because they seem implausible to you. Remember, the criterion on WP is verifiability. Not the "truth".

Then why are you insisting that your beliefs are the TRUTH? If you'd just step back and say, "Most Iranians believe X" there wouldn't be any problem. Zora 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What I have said is "the truth". Yet we arent really concerned here with "the truth". What matters here is that there is more than ample evidence from numerous sources that support what your so called "Persian nationalist writers" have been writing here. And you keep deleting this view. That is not allowed. We must have both views presented, without judgement. I've said this many many times Zora.--Zereshk 10:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, I will wait a week or so. If there is no improvement or compromise on this page, I will have to jump in once again and re-write the article with an injection of a full dose of sources, references, and quotes to end "the debate".--Zereshk 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may then I would say that the article is very nicely put in its current form and only a few more bits need to be added. What we need to do is to come out of our box of perception and then look into the events with a neutral view. The cultural influence had never been one sided. When two civillizations interact, they influence each other. By the Muslim conquest in the 8th Century, the Persian, Byzantium and Arab cultures came closer and got pretty much mixed up giving a shape to what later was known as Islamic Culture that spans architecture, literature and every aspect of later lifestyle. Political problems were natural to arise in such a vast empire as it always happens but I do not think that we shall give it more importance than what it deserves. In order to mention the points of old Persian culture that influenced the later combined culture of Muslim Empire, I think we do not need to compare it. Only mentioning it will be sufficient.

خرم Khurram 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yor input is welcome and I agree with what you say. However Zora staunchly refuses to accept and even mention these two points in the article:

1. That Sassanid Persia and beduin Arabia were not cultural equals. There may have been contacts and mutual influences, but they were not equals.

Saying that the Persians were "better" than the Arabs in some absolute sense is a racist POV. You can include it in the article only as POV, not as "truth". Zora 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

WP isnt about Truth.--Zereshk 12:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The Islamic Conquest of Iran was carried out via policies of prejudice and discrimination against the "mawali" (Iranians in particular), by the likes of Hajjaj ibn Yusef and Umar ibn Khattab.

That's a grotesque simplification of a complex topic. Again, that's a POV, not truth. You can say that contemporary Iranians believe this, but you can't say that it's true. Zora 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

WP isnt about truth.--Zereshk 12:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In our discussions, Zora even openly declares that "there is no such thing as Persian culture". You can imagine what a skewed perception of things this can generate.--Zereshk 10:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no hard-edged unitary Persian culture. There are only Persian cultural elements, in an unstable shifting constellation that changes over time and fades out at the edges. That is true of all supposed "cultures", not just Persian. That's why I can't be an anthropologist any longer, because I don't accept the idea of "culture" -- which is a construct developed both in imitation of and in reaction to German cultural nationalism. I wish you'd listen, Zereshk, instead of filtering out 95% of what I say and mapping the rest onto your stereotypes of a hostile outer world. Zora 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Zora, cant you reply in a way that doesnt make my posts look like a horrible case of truncated dogpoo?

Also, I repeat, Wikipedia is not about Truth.

It is WP stated policy that:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

• "It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research.

It's not Zora's job to judge what is "true" and what isnt. What source is nationalist, which one is old, which one is academic, which one is acceptable, ad infinitum.

I dont know why is it so hard for Zora to accept this.--Zereshk 12:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, I'm the one accepting it and you're the one denying it. When you insist on stating stuff as "true" that others regard as up for question, you're breaking that rule. If you say, "X", that's a claim to truth, on which Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides. If you say "Many contemporary Iranians believe X", then that's verifiable and OK to include. Zora 21:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop lying Zora. Everyone here can see that YOU are the one who keeps deleting everyone else's edits because you dont agree with what their sources (Ibn Khaldoun, Frye, ...) are saying. In fact it was you who first deleted the entire article and replaced it and refused to accept references I or anybody else proivided.--Zereshk 23:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Global judgments

The problem with saying that Persians are "better" than Arabs, or with making any other global judgment, is that it puts everything on one scale of reference, good and bad, cultured or barbarian.

This has been an issue in the contemporary study of intelligence. People tend to make judgments like "he's smart" and "he's stupid". They interpret the usual Stanford-Binet IQ scores this way. Many researchers now believe that this is a gross over-simplification. "Intelligence" actually comprises many different skills. People can be high in reading ability, for instance, but score low in spatial judgment, or "people" skills, or many other qualities. Researchers argue about the best way to categorize "intelligences", or how much linkage there is between them. Some skills that can be measured separately tend towards co-variance; if one is high, the other is high, etc. But researchers agree that categorizing people as smart or stupid is misleading.

Well, if you're comparing groups of people, or political organizations, or bodies of literature in twe languages, you can compare them with regard to various measurable traits. So if you say that at the time of the Islamic conquest of Persia there were more literate Persians (as a percentage of the population) than there were literate Arabs, that's something that you can actually measure (or try to do so). You're not saying that literacy is "good" or "bad", you're just measuring it.

If you compared the Arab conquerors to their Persian subjects wrt a number of traits, you'd probably find some traits on which Persians scored high, and others on which Arabs scored high. Frex, it seems clear that Arabs must have scored a lot higher in military ability and political cohesion to have made the gains that they did. Does this make them "better"? No. Zora 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The above paragraphs are exactly what WP calls "original research". And it is banned.--Zereshk 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What? I'm not allowed to use examples in arguing with you on the talk page? Zereshk, I can say things on the talk page that I wouldn't put in the article. I didn't put any of that in the article. Zora 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, calm down. What is discussed here is nothing new to wikipedia. Zereshk, please understand that there's no original research when you are discussing. The concept applies to editing. I believe that what Zora said above is to be discussed and not refuted. Please, let's start again. Cheers -- Svest 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Ah, but these discussions get reflected into the tone and structure of the article. So it does count as original research because the article is written based on opinions and beliefs that are exhibited here on the talk page. Zora has been deleting sources for various reasons, and singlehandedly has been deleting the edits of a dozen or so editors (even with verifiable sources) here in the past year. That by itself is against WP policies.--Zereshk 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree about that the tone of the article is based on discussions. There should be no article w/ a tone. What I say Zereshk is that we should forget about the tones and focus on the NPOV. More important is to listen to eachother and stick to the subject; which are the paraghraphs that Zora wrote. Otherwise, there is no need to discuss anything at all. If something happened last year, it should not weigh today. If someone is removing verified sources and references than it should be solved somehow. Cheers -- Svest 01:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Um, it isn't against policy to trim an article. Frex, Zeno filled up the Dhul Qarnayn article with material about Islam and flat earth theories, which was removed. You applauded that, as I recall. Zora 01:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I revised again

Those quoted letters came with no references. I suspect that they're later inventions (pre-modern historians used to display their elegant prose in writing letters and speeches for their characters), but I could be wrong. References needed.

As for the rest of it -- I rewrote the article so as to contrast the POVs I see warring in this article. All of them need cites, and this is where Zereshk's references could go. If you guys will LET all POVs be expressed (including the Arab), then perhaps we can all work on the accounts for our separate POVs. I certainly need some cites for the academic POV section.

Will you at least let that be a framework for the last part of the article? Zora 00:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why?

the letter of yazdegrid to umar was deleted. why is that?

Where did you get that letter? What makes you think it is authentic? Until we know, we can't put it forward as authentic. Zora 01:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No single reference and you are asking others why? -- Svest 01:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

As far as I'm concerned, a bunch of other authors and sources were also deleted by Zora unilaterally in the past few months. Examples: Tabari, Frye, Ignaz Goldziher, Encyclopedia Iranica, Baladhuri, Ibn Khaldoun, and the authors of the Cambridge History of Iran. I'd like an explanation for that.--Zereshk 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure as I've only been here for a few weeks. Everything notable and well sourced has to be accepted. If you think they fit into the article than of course they should not be removed. Cheers -- Svest 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Zereshk, all those sources were advanced in support of your argument that Persians were responsible for most of the Islamic intellectual achievements sometimes claimed by Arabs. Your argument should not be accepted as THE TRUTH, but described as a view common to many contemporary Iranians. In my last attempt at compromise (wiped out by Amir85 without even an explanation) I split the last part of the article into two POVs -- possibly should be three. Your sources would fit there, in the Iranian POV section. Zora 02:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, WP isnt about "the truth". Stop chastising me with that word. WP is about verifiability, NOT "THE TRUTH". Youre breaking the rules of WP in daylight.

Svest,

For example, Zora has trouble accepting this sentence, and calls it inflammatory: In fact "the desire to wrest these lands from the Iranian aristocracy" provided a prime motive for "the aggressiveness" of the Arabs. (Encyclopedia Iranica, p211), even though it is well documented.

Thanks for the explanation Zereshk. My opinion is that We don't have to copy and paste what exactly any encyclopedia says because of the same reasons Zora is stating below (POV). It is just like the case if the Jewish and Islamic encyclopedias would publish articles about each other topics! In the case above it would be like In fact "the desire According to Encyclopedia Iranica, one of the prime motives for the Arab conquest of Iran was to wrest (is there any other less POV word) the lands from the Iranian aristocracy". - I hope the idea is kept but the POV is removed. Cheers -- Svest 00:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Svest, interpreting the quote is "original research". It is not our job to interpret what is "true" and what isn't. WP clearly states it. Verifiability is the only keyword here. Furthermore, Zora has already tried accusing Encyclopedia Iranica as being POV. Unfortunately, that label doesnt fly because its authors are all westerners or western academics. All 300 of them. You cant accuse Columbia University scholars as POV. They arent (mostly) even Iranian. Cheers to you too.--Zereshk 00:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

With all my respect to it I must say Of course Encyclopedia Iranica content is POV! Same as any other one! Take the any controversial topic and see if all encyclopedias give us the same idea. What Zora is trying to say is that this article is just as others and filling up the article with references from a single side is contrary to the principle of POV. And that's what we want to avoid here. Otherwise, why not copy and paste the article from there to this one like it happened in History of the Jews in Morocco (a word by word translation from the Jewish Encyclopedia). I'll never accept to do the same thing in, let's say, Conquest of X to Y lands. Cheers -- Svest 01:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}?

I, personally would agree that one of the driving forces in the expansion of early Islam was the greed for loot and land. However, there are MANY Muslims who believe that the Islamic empire expanded only to defend itself. By unhesitatingly ascribing the conquest to greed, the Encyclopedia Iranica (which DOES have a viewpoint) is taking a controversial position. Also, using the cite the way you do implies that the Arabs directed their greed specifically at the Persians, that the Persians were uniquely wronged. Given that the Islamic conquests extended far outside what was then Persia, this is a distortion. Zora 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Or she calls such statements like this as "Iranian beliefs": Many Arab Muslims for example believed that Iranian converts should not clothe themselves as Arabs, among many other forms of discrimination that emerged. ( See "Mohammedanische Studien" Goldziher. Vol 2 p138-9.) You be the judge.--Zereshk 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree about this because you discarded thousands of references and found only one contradicting all of them. If any discrimination really emerged the way Goldziher explains than there would have never been any Avicenna, Al-Razi, and the list is long. Let's use common sense and not wait for an orientalist who lived centuries later. Any other reference? Is he the only prominent scholar who researched the topic? Cheers -- Svest 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Yes, that's true enough -- but it's true of all the converts, Jewish, Christian, Syrian, Persian. Use of that particular quote implies that only the Persians faced discrimination, which is not the case. Zora 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats EXACTLY what "original research" means. The quote specifically says IRANIAN. Not what you choose to interpret.--Zereshk 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the book from which the quote was taken, but I suspect that it's from a chapter dealing with Persia/Iran. I can't imagine that Goldziher believed that only Iranians were subject to the rules for dhimmis -- that would have been noted by other, later scholars who have read Goldziher and written on the subject of dhimmis. Suliman Bashear and Bat Yeor, experts on dhimmitude, say that the rules were applied to all dhimmis, not just Iranians. Zereshk, do you have the book? I think you might not -- the only complete copy of the English translation, Muslim Studies, that I found at ABEbooks costs $275. I don't think you can claim that you know what Goldziher meant by that quote if you don't have the context. Zora 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You dont have to buy the book Zora. There's something called an "Inter Library Loan". I use it all the time. Surely they must have it at U of H's libraries.--Zereshk 08:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Ibn Khaldun

I'm refusing now to add selective statements by Ibn Khaldun. Why are we addding pro-Persian, and not his anti-persian tirades? What about his wonderfull insightful gaze into the populace of Black Africans? They are, after all, the "only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings" having been "overcooked in the womb". What I'm saying here is that statements on race by Ibn Khaldun should be avoided. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know why do we have a dispute on this page even when we have a section on "Contemporary Historians" later in the article. I think much of the discussion and hatred is a product of Iraq - Iran war hype. Arabs conqured Persia but once they settled in and married with the Persians, what difference did remain? Do we call Imam Zain-ul-Aabideen an Arab or a Persian since his Father (RA) was an Arab and his mother was a Persian Princess? And based upon this argument whom will you say superior, Arabs, Persian or you will say that they were equal and later developments created differences which are natural in history?

خرم Khurram 16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The point isnt superiority at all. The point is that Islam under the armies of Omar was brought to Iran by the sword and bloodshed, and implemented a system of apartheid that lasted until (and even led to) the fall of the Umayyids. Zora is censoring this fact by throwing the term "Persian nationalist" at me and everyone else. She does this perhaps in hopes of being politically correct in depciting the Arabs as peaceful in the current chaos in the M.E.. Which is totally irrelevant, because just as the Arabs were tyrants during the conquest of Iran, Iranians also became tyrants during another era, in respect to others. Every tribe, nation, and culture has blood on their hands at some point in time. Everyone.--Zereshk 01:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever

you people seem to only acknowledge your own work and as soon as somebody else adds something you delete it. The letters of Umar and Yazdgird III do exist, only all the sites that hold this translation are sites you people seem to think are not authentic. so you delete them. And any ways isn't a part of this article about the Persian resistance during those periods. And isn't this letter a form of resistance to the Arabs. I don't seem to find a reasonable explanation for not including this piece of information and I am sure you cannot either. All I got to say is, you guys keep manipulating history and continue to exclude valuable information. Whatever, no real Persian or historian will believe you.

And khurram, who ever you are, the anti-arab feeling between persians is not a product of Iran-Iraq war. It goes way back in the times of the Sassanid, as you might know. The Persians have hated Arabs since their invasion in the 7th because of all the deaths, burning of important books, and pillage that Arabs did during this time. The war with Iraq fueled this hatred and arabs began to hate us. Arabs called us ajam (retarded or wierd) and we called them tazis (a breed of blood hounds). This hatred, in my opinion, will never end as the Persian are proud people and do not easily forget the mishaps of their nation.

To those Persians here, a poem done by Amir Nasseri, it's a wake up call to those Persians who have forgotten who they are:

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_9283.shtml

Sorry its a bit personal but I cant see how User Zora is denying everything. Let me ask you two Zora and Khurram, specially Zora, from the above argument it can obviously be interpreted that you find yourself in a place that you can deny works of several Professors and researchers which some of them are not Iranian at all and state your own theory and judge POV. Let me ask you a question are you a Professor or something to renounce a credible source? Do you have any researches, studies or whatsoever about Iranian history ? Just an example was Sassanid article in which with all your boasting you couldn't add a single line to it and strange enough you had a big mouth about rewriting the article. To me it clearly shows your knowledge about history of Iran and not only that, for me your actions could be interpreted as anti-Persian. My interpretation is not totally irrelevant, Someone who hates and constantly denies Persian civilization, culture under the cloak of NPOV. Just ask Zereshk he knows better.

Lets get it straight, you guys have problem about POV of for example Encyclopedia Iranica, you say it has a specific point of view, well screw wikipedia ! majority of articles related history and religion are authored from sources those favor their related article and from your point of view are not NPOV. I again apologize for my tone. All the best ! Amir85 2:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

She doesnt even speak Persian, nor Arabic.--Zereshk 09:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And khurram, who ever you are, the anti-arab feeling between persians is not a product of Iran-Iraq war. It goes way back in the times of the Sassanid, as you might know.

Yes I know that Persians didn't think Arabs anything more but people who didn't even deserve being their subjects. It is why that when these nomad people, far less in strength started defeating the best equipped force of the world at that time, the Persian denial changed to surprise. With the fall of the Sassanid Empire the Persian people adopted the new religion and its customs. It was sometime later when because of political ambitions the differences were propogated and encouraged.

The Persians have hated Arabs since their invasion in the 7th because of all the deaths, burning of important books, and pillage that Arabs did during this time.

Then how come the Persians contributed so much to the Arab litereature, architecture and most importantly got top jobs in Muslim hierarchy?

Arabs called us ajam (retarded or wierd) and we called them tazis (a breed of blood hounds). This hatred, in my opinion, will never end as the Persian are proud people and do not easily forget the mishaps of their nation.

You are right that this hatred might never end since those who has nothing to do themselves feel quite relaxed and aggressive in reciting the greatness of those who have passed thousands of years ago. We cannot turn the wheel of history back but we sure can create new myths and create a nice alibi for ourselves.

It is a fact that Muslims conquered Persia (I used the word Muslims since by the time of Persian Conquest, many people of the fighting force were non-Arabs according to the standards of those times). It is a fact that persians adopted their religion and customs. There were communal relations between the two nations, it is a fact also. The differences arose centuries later because of political ambitions among different groups. BTW the top most post in Iran today is still held by a person who is an Arab by blood. Do Persians hate him as well?

خرم Khurram 15:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, i guess i caused to much controversy and dispute by adding those letters to the article. So i am truly sorry. Also i apologize to khurram for my anti-arab tone as i was mad at the time. i hope you all the best.

I am sorry my friend if any of my words hurt you. All that I was trying to say was that Arabs and Persians did not have huge differences in the early years of Islamic Persia, it was only later that political ambitions gave rose to the differences and while we shall point out these fact as historical truth, we shall try not to take side. At his moment I would like to clear one confusion. I am not an Arab myself as you can judge from my name.

خرم Khurram 20:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Files to settle this anti-Persian dispute

On the superior culture of Sassanid Iran and how the Arabs dealt with it:

• Book: Persia, Masters of Empire.
  Book: Persia, Masters of Empire.
• Book: Iran At War with History.
  Book: Iran At War with History.
• 
  Book: Iran, A country Study

Um, none of the those books is an academic source. The first is a Time-Life book (!), the second is written by a US diplomat (not an academic historian), and the third is a US government publication. They're making assumptions (re superiority and inferiority of cultures) that no contemporary social scientist would make. Zora 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha, therefore let it be known that Zora is not accepting sources from the United States Government as acceptable. Her denial reaches new heights every day :)

Not only that, I think the current US administration officials are liars and deceivers. <g> Zora 13:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well too bad. Cuz your opinion doesnt count in the article or anywhere on WP.--Zereshk 13:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, youre breaking the rules again. Nobody appointed you to judge the worthiness of sources. That is called "original research" and it is against WP policy. I only posted the books to prove to everyone that what your opposers have been writing is not "Persian nationalist", which is the shit you keep accusing us of.

Final warning. If you do not accept to include this material in the text in some form, I will come in and start an edit war with you if I have to. Ive been very patient with your ignorance in writing about my country. I have the sources. YOU DONT.--Zereshk 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

On the brutality and racial policies of the conquerors, and the cruelty of Hajjaj:

• Dennett, Daniel Clement's "Conversion and the poll tax in early Islam."
  Dennett, Daniel Clement's "Conversion and the poll tax in early Islam."
• Book: Cambridge History of Iran
  Book: Cambridge History of Iran
• Book: Cambridge History of Iran
  Book: Cambridge History of Iran

Those are good sources and I believe what they say. They say that the Umayyads behaved like brutal racist oppressors and sent out governors who mistreated their subjects. Yes, so? That just makes it clear why the Abbasids were so successful. The Abbasid revolution wasn't just Persian mawali, it was also Arabs who felt that the Umayyads had betrayed Islam. It was a collaboration, and set the tone for an Abbasid caliphate that was a lot more accepting of all groups than the Umayyads had been.

Oh, you "believe" what they say? Who told you that the article should be based on whether or not you "believe" the sources I post? YOURE BREAKING THE LAWS ZORA! HELLLLOOOOOOO?!!--Zereshk 13:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't say that the Umayyads represented THE Arab attitude towards non-Arabs. They represented one attitude, which proved a detriment to good government in the long run, and was overthrown. Zora 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Youre dodging the fuckin point Zora. Stop giving me this irrelevant sophistry analysis. There was bloodshed and racism against the Iranians in the conquest. Period!--Zereshk 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: None of the authors are Iranian. I can find more if you like. And I didnt even use Frye's books, which gives abundant support of this position.

Oh, and btw, the reason I havent been making any changes in the text of the article is that none of what is on the current page is my work. I expect the authors of it to defend their work themselves. Zora already unilaterally erased all my contributions on this page entirely.--Zereshk 09:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's counterproductive to protect YOUR prose and ignore the larger project, which is producing a neutral, readable, informative article. Sometimes that means letting go of something you wrote. I have to do it all the time. Not that it doesn't hurt. Zora 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? How is it then that this does not apply to you? Youve been reverting every single goddamn editor on this page who opposes your biased anti-Persian POV.--Zereshk 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, do you admit what you were doing is wrong ? Amir85 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Zereshk.

DP Singh has entered the chatroom

An editor with whom I'm familiar from the fracas over at Rajput added a long quote from a 150-year-old history book that is seriously biased. I removed it, but I considering whether we should add a section debunking the "conversion at the point of a sword" argument. Everything I've read -- and that Zereshk has cited -- argues that in the first century or so, the Muslims preferred jizya to converts.

I also removed all the long sections re the ultimate "victory" of Persian language and culture -- again. If that stuff goes anywhere, it should go in the Persian language and literature articles, which could then be linked to this article. We could just have one para on the failure of the Arab language to eradicate Persian, in contrast to the vast areas (Morocco to Iraq) where Arabic displaced the original languyages, and then the references to other articles. I know that "Arabization" is a hot topic in Islamic studies right now and I could try to come up with some quotes discussing the broader phenomenon. Zora 21:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora,

Don't you agree that it is near to impossible changing the pre-set minds that are close to every logic? Unfortunately, we the easterns, are reduced to praise the deeds of our elders and love to live in myth than in reality. No wonder we remain unfocused and unproductive.

Dunno. You may not think of LA Persian pop or Bollywood movies as achievements, but I do. They're alive, they're fresh, they're new. Many of the things we now regard as cultural achievements were just consumer goodies or mere entertainment when they were being made. Frex, the 18th and 19th century English novel, which is now studied in universities, was regarded as vulgar trash in its day. Zora 11:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I think that if the myths of our glorious past are taken away from us we will not survive. Off course it is easy to delve into the good and brave deeds (no matter if fake or true) of our elders and talk about them rather than trying to do something ourselves. The main loser in such a situation is always and has always been truth.

If Arabs are and were so bad then why do our Iranian friends still have an Arab holding the top most position in their country? Why shouldn't it be taken by a Persian? Why talk about Imam Raza (RA), Imam Jaafar Sadiq (RA), Imam Zain-Al-Aabidin (RA) who were all Arabs? Don't my friends understand that when you say that "Arabs" did this you are accusing all the Arabs to it including the ones that you respect the most. Wasn't Ali (RA) an Arab and wasn't Persia a part of the Empire he ruled? Did he also comitted the attrocities that my friends so aggressively try to label on all the Arabs of today and the past?

خرم Khurram 00:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole "According to Parsees" should, too be removed, most arent compatible with what we know from general history, nor does a Parsi i speak to from india even agree with any of it. Ayatollah mutahhari adressed most of these arguments in his work and overall it seems like a whole bunch of stereotypical arguments used usually by iranians overseas to discredit iran politically. Jizya was prefered and this option was provided by Salman al Farsi, i dont even think that is disputed. fire temples werent destroyed but protected under these circumstances, etc.--Paradoxic 14:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Khorram jan,

Remember that the same Arabs that screwed Iran also slaughtered Imam Hossein, Imam Reza, and all the Shia icons you keep mentioning. Over-glorifying pre-Islamic Persia wont do us any good in the 21st century. But ignoring them (as the Islamic Republic has been doing) and forgetting our pre-Islamic past wont help us either. As our colleagues in the Miras Farhangi Organization keep stressing:

آینده از آن ملتیست که گذشته خود را میشناسد

--Zereshk 12:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk jan,

I totally agree with you that the pre-Islamic Persia and its culture are an important heritage for Iran and its people and it shall be regarded as such. Every Iranian has the justified right to marvel the accomplishments of its forefathers but we shall not be doing it by degrading others. Imam Hussain was an Arab and the ones fighting for him were all Arabs as well, we cannot say that for those fighting against him. And I think it does not matter at all. The fight has always been between the Right and the Wrong and the cause is always greater than the ones fighting for it. Instead of pointing out Arabs, we can surely mention the regimes and the rulers who did good or bad to their people without ever indulging into their nationality. Afterall Durfash-e-Kawayani was first rose against a Persian ruler and we don't say that all the Persian were bad.

خرم Khurram 19:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. That's why I keep stressing on the term "Umayyid" and on specific names like Hajjaj, Umar, etc. Zora however is even against that. She refuses to accept 'any mention of any wrongdoing by any ruler of the conquest. And that is simply historical revisionism, not to mention against Wikipedia policy. BTW, Zora is one of the most ardent pro-Sunni anti-Shia editors Wikipedia has ever seen. Ask any Shia editor here about that.--Zereshk 00:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Zershek,

I think when we mention the bad deeds of a ruler or those of a dynasty, we also need to mention the goods that they did. Also we need to seperate myth from reality. In your last post you have put me on hard grounds by talking about pro-Sunni and anti-Shia thing. I know I respect Zora for her contributions and haven't seen any bias in her work so far. What I would say is that being a Shia and being an Iranian are two completely different things and this article is about Iran and its culture as it was influenced by the Muslims and similarly the contribution of the pre-Islamic Persian culture to the Muslim Culture. The political issues are not something that shall be discussed here. Maybe what Zora is trying to tell you is that this is not the page regarding political disputes and difference. Can you please think it this way?

خرم Khurram 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What is really amusing is that we have a Sunni editor over at Succession to Muhammad who's convinced that I'm a Shi'a who hates Sunnis. Zora 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, to a Wahabi or some other extremist, you will always seem as a Shia, and I will seem, in the words of that extremist AlladdinSE, as a "militant" (hah, he forgets that every goddamn terrorist from Bin Laden to Zarqawi to the 9-11 people were all Sunnis). You did say that you doubt the existence of al-Mohsen on that very page to that very person (as if telling him "yeah I agree with you akhi, but we cant just say everything we wish to here"). That makes it quite clear your Sunni leanings.--Zereshk 06:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How the heck I can have Sunni leanings when I'm not a Muslim is beyond me. In any case, what I think personally isn't always what goes in the article. We're all supposed to be aiming at an impartial presentation, not propagandizing for our POV. (Just as when I try to do the right thing in real life, I'm supposed to think of the well-being of all involved, not just my own selfish interests.) I don't think any of us live up to that, either in terms of impartiality or unselfishness, but we should try. Z, you don't think I'm trying, but I am. Zora 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Khorram,

I'm all for mentioning the good deeds of the Arabs and the good things that came out of the conquest. But I am also persistent that we mention its not-so-good sides as well. That, is the meaning of impartiality. Without the religion brought by the Arabs, we wouldnt have had greats such as Attar or Rumi, I agree. Yet, I cant agree with making the conquest look like some girl scout trip to Iran where everyone was happy and dandy. The Arabs did not come to Iranian villages with cookies and smiles. They came with swords. There was a reason why so many revolts happened. There was a reason why people like AbuLuLu did what they did. It reminds me of the Bush team propagandists that wanted everyone to believe that "people in Iraq flocked into the streets to welcome the liberators". (Well, some did. But you get the point).--Zereshk 06:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not a political article

Paradoxic, NO, this is not a political article, this is an article about history. I agree that contemporary Iranian attitudes towards the Islamic conquest, post-conquest history, Islam, Arabic influence on the Persian language, etc., are highly variable and conflicted. Well, start an article about THAT in particular, rather than trying to drag it all into the history article. This is an encyclopedia, not a bully pulpit for people to preach their political views. Readers who come to this article just want to know about the fall of the Sassanids, they don't want a history of Persian literature, disquisitions on contemporary Iranian politics, etc. Put that material in the proper place and LINK to it.

You might be interested in the following article, from the British Prospect magazine: [3]. Are those allegations about the Hojjatieh correct? Can that article be expanded? Zora 23:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

When one doesnt agree with a sentence or two, what you DONT do is delete the entire content, wich is what you've been doing. This is as much a political article as it is a historical one in my view. I did not start a sub-article labelled Contemporary Iranians and Arabs, etc. wich started out Saddam invoked the battle of Qadisiyyah to fight the iranians in the 80's i merely elaborated on them. I deleted these now since they Were about politics, and as you've said, we dont want to dwindle down to the political sphere. You can start different pages for those.--Paradoxic 14:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, then let's delete the whole dang thing re contemporary attitudes, OK? I tried that once and people kept reverting to express their "opinions" re the Persian vs. Arab grudge match. But if you're ready to let that go .... Zora 02:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To Zereshk

I gave this article a thorough read. The discussions as well. I think we are jeopardizing facts and historical integrity here by trying to be politically correct. Not everything needs revisioning. But I do feel certain touch ups are necessary as it seems some contributors – Zora - are just trying to force down a skewed version of history/reality in order to indulge their false sense of ‘nationalism’ (or whatever the disorder is) and pretending to be the defenders of facts and reality at the same time. Goddamn FCC. I would like to know if there are other people who think this way and in that case, and if you (Zereshk) could alter this article, as I think you already have the knowledge, references and facts for that. --LogiPhi 08:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)