Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List of Referenced content from reliable sources removed from this article[edit]

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

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

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


  1. ^ E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936 By M. Th. Houtsma Page 100


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)


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)

  • 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. 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"[edit]

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 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is inconsistency between the title and the opening bold text. Some stupid people might, as they sometimes do, illogically infer that Muslim is the same as Arab. EIN (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Cuchulain undo revisions of ArdeshirBozorg[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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[edit]

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., 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge History of Iran[edit]

From page 483, Amoretti writes: "The conquestors introduced a religion, as well as a language which was its most obvious vehicle, but they did not force them upon the country. This is in itself a democratic and egalitarian trait; but being conscious of his own material interests the Islamic missionary did not encourage his new subjects toward a condition of parity, while he allowed them a theoretical freedom of choice by granting them a clearly defined juridical status and thus obtained the desired economic results."

(Hint: To check, click on Google Preview in the link provided and search for the word "democratic").--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rephrasing as follows:

Even though the conquestors brought with them a new religion they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted. -- (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So in order words, by designating special privileges for those who converted to Islam, the Muslim-Arab conquerors used discrimination to convert the Persians to Islam. What is allowed for the Muslim is not allowed for the non-Muslim...That is discrimination and coercion to convert. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yazdegerd III, Mohammed's letter and questionable sources[edit]

According to a discussion in the German wikipedia (see [1]) the article contains a number inaccuracies due using less reliable, non-scholary or outdated source. In particular the historicity of Mohammed's letter and Yazdegerd's trip to China seems rather questionable and their sourcing is highly problematic.

The only sources giving for Mohammed's letter are actually historical (primary) sources rather than current scholarly (secondary) literature on the subject. That is a completely inappropriate way of sourcing.

Yazdegerd III trip to China doesn't seem to exist in other current reputable or scholarly literature (he did send envoys to China and his son later after his death fled to China, but no personal tripby himself). The source here is Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War by Kaveh Farrokh. This seems to be a popular history book rather than a scholarly work. Though the author has written several books on the subject of ancient Persia, he doesn't seems a reputable scholar in the field (nor does his education particularly qualify him as he no historian/archelogist/iranologist). Moreover his book seems rather controversial and his Wikipedia entry as well as its personal website seem to raise enough red flags not to use him as a reliable source on ancient Persia/the Sassanide Empire (see Kaveh Farrokh and ).

Hence the article ideally needs some attention by an expert to fix the affected section and general review might be needed as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Too rosey a picture[edit]

This article depicts too rosey a picture of the conquest. The only mention of the effects of the conquest on the native people is a praragraph from Bernard Lewis which in effect pertains to a long time after the conquest. The atrocities commited by Muslim Arabs during and shortly after their campaigne in Persia is well documented in the book "Two centuries of silence" by Abdolhossein Zarrinkoub whose references are mostly Arab histories such as al-Tabari. The book is in Persian but most of its references are available in English. I can provide some of them for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsch (talkcontribs) 15:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

merging the Topic[edit]

ive started some edit to merging the Conquest in Afghanistan(the Rashidun era not Mahmud Ghazni era) to the conquest of Greater Khorasan section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahendra (talkcontribs) 12:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

by the way, im also Adding 1st invasion to Sindh, which preceding the invasion by Muhammad bin Qasim to this section, its still valid to be included to this article because the battle of Rasil was happened during Rashidun eraAhendra (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Farrokh is not a historian[edit]

Since Farrokh is not a historian(which is mentioned by Kmhkmh above), I have removed the him as a source including the quote. I have left information within the article, if it can be supported by a reliable source then it should stay, if not then it should be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Muslim conquest of Persia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This paper shows significant climate cooling at the time, possibly affecting people in the region. Also, the Plague of Justinian article mentions losses in the Sassanian empire. TGCP (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia redirect page[edit]

I noticed that Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia redirects to this article, although it is mainly about Persia, not Mesopotamia. Would there be a more suitable target for this redirect page? Jarble (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That's because Mesopotamia was entirely under the Persian sway until the Arab Muslim conquest. Thus, the redirect is correct. However, the article is quality/quantity wise still in quite a dire state, and in the future a separate subsection regarding the Arab operations in Mesopotamia should be added. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit; I just checked it once again, there is already in fact a subsection on this page regarding the conquest of Mesopotamia. But as I told as it was simply a part of Sasanian Persia, and was in fact its core region (the Sasanian capital was located in Mesopotamia) there is, in my opinion, no need for a redirect to that subsection. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Would "Rashidun conquest of Persia" work as a title?[edit]

I saw some commentary by User:IranianNationalist at User talk:Jimbo Wales recently. Clearly there's something contentious about the "Arab" or "Muslim" portion of the current title, though I don't necessarily understand the issue. But it seems to me like the effect of the conquest was to put the Rashidun Caliphate in charge, so would "Rashidun conquest", with the ethnicity and religion that implies, make the most sense?

Admittedly there's a problem that I see very few search results for "Rashidun conquest of Persia", and it's possible I'm just suggesting something stupid. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The proposed title looks quite bizarre to me. --Z 18:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The title doesn't look bizarre, because the word Muslims and Arabs have been the mainstream words used Historians. In discussing Rashidun and Muhammad. So I have no objection. Yet I don't think there is any racist ideas, the Iranian Wikipedia are having a discussion about the title. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Arab conquest of Persia" and "Arab conquest of Iran" are the most common titles in reliable sources. Iranica used "Arab conquest of Iran", and The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4 also used "The Arab conquest of Iran and its aftermath". These two sources are among the most reliable sources for history of Iran. Other reliable sources in Google Books also used "Arab conquest of Persia" and "Arab conquest of Iran" more than anything else:

So, according to WP:COMMONNAME, In my opinion the title should be "Arab conquest of Persia" (or Iran). -- Kouhi (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You are being lawyer/WP:LAWYER here, there shouldn't be any change not a drastic one from Muslim to Arab, or Persia to Iran. The article is fine. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
If you believe the article is fine, may I ask what's your point in saying "I have no objection [to Rashidun...]"? Also, it is not "Iranian Wikipedia", it is Persian or more natively, Farsi Wikipedia (the Persian Wikipedia has nothing to do with Iran or any other country). -- Kouhi (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Because Rashidun is just detailed form of Muslim, that is why I didn't have an objection, yet it will create a domino effect on other Muslim conquest articles, since Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid are inter connected in their conquest. Muslim conquest of Transoxiana is a great example, occurred mostly in Umayyad era and ended during the first years of Abbasid era. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The title in Persian Wikipedia is the "Arab invasion of Iran", which is the common way of refering to the event in Persian. However, it is an inaccurate title, as there have been some Arabs on the side of Persia, and as far as the English Wikipedia's article is concerned, "Rashidun ..." is not a common title either. I think "Muslim" is the best word for the English article. --Z 20:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
And there were also some non-Muslim Iranians on the side of Arab Muslims, so in the same way, "Muslim" is also inaccurate. -- Kouhi (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there
There are some notes :

  1. The title of the Farsi article is not "Arab Conquest of Persia" nor "Muslim Conquest of Persia" but it is exactly "Invasion to Iran by Arabs(or Arab people, having same meaning)". AFAIK the adjective "Arab" before the noun "Conquest" is same as Arabic Conquest not Conquest by Arabs or Arab people. I don't assume the title "Muslim Conquest of Persia" to be a racist title. It was the starting point of developing Islamic state of Muhammad(Medina Islamic government as it is approved by Iyad Jamal Al-Din during the Al Arabiya's debate too [IrN1 1][IrN1 2]) after his death(Muhammad's death) however Muslim Conquest of Levant was started during his life too.
  2. @Kouhi: Who was the non-Muslim on the side of Arab Muslims? Do you mean Salman the Persian? He was not an Arab but he was a Muslim. Were he not a Muslim? Sorry but your claim is a few weird because you say there were non-Muslims fighting in the army of Islamic state in the first Hijri century. In WikiFa you were claiming the Arab Conquest doesn't mean Arabic Conquest and you were insisting on the Invasion to Iran by Arabs but now you've used "Arab Muslims" yourself? How is it an adjective now?
  3. As I said in WikiFa repetitively Arabic tensions between Arab nations such as Lakhmids and Sassanian empire backs to more than one century before Islam thus if we say tensions between Arabs and Sassanids started by Muslims(as it's said in wikifa article) it will be wrong historically too.
  4. Muslim Conquest of Persia is a good title but it must be used in WikiFa too : تسخیر پارس توسط مسلمانان and not حمله اعراب به ایران.

I add a note : in the discussion in WikiFa we had some insult to Arab people by those were backing the title Invasion to Iran by Arabs, I'm sorry, but the partial user had said the "lizard-eater Arabs". As I know today in Iran we have a policy to Islamicize :) the Persian figures such as Cyrus (Making him a Basij figure). Similar to Safavids trying to misuse Islam politically. It is normal the statesmen in Iran having faith to Ayatollah Islamic state to try to avoid Muslim adjective in the title Muslim Conquest of Persia and insisting on Arabs. Last year, We had a famous speaking in Iranian TV channel 1 by a famous actor, Akbar Abdi who had a close relation to Islamic state of Iran about the movie Ekhrajiha and he told a story about Hajj and humiliated Arabs totally regardless of the subject that the Arabic peninsula of Saudi Arabia is not the only Arab nations and we have many Arab countrymen inside Iran. Yes I approve the respectful title Sayyid is a part of a dirty racist system but it doesn't mean to take another racist viewpoint against Arabs and it doesn't matter it is said in some partial or inaccurate sources or not. Arab and Ajam is a different discussion.

--IranianNationalist (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I wasn't that user in fawiki whom IranianNationalist claims[citation needed] insulted Arabs. And you IranianNationalist, you better keep the affairs of fawiki in fawiki. You have been already banned in fawiki for making personal attacks, so just for the sake of your account, don't involve yourself in irrelevant discussions that may end up in another blocking for you, and be more considerate to not say anything against anyone and any religion. Pages in English Wikipedia are named based on WP:NAMING, not based on a series of irrelevant statements about Islam and Iran, so just make your points based on that rules and reliable sources you have. And one another thing, I'm free to use every word and term I like and that's none of your business, nonetheless, nevermind, I don't have enough time to spare on this, specially I won't talk with you as long as you can't avoid personal attacks. So, watch your tongue or I will report you to the administrators. Good luck. -- Kouhi (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@IranianNationalist: Without non-Muslim Iranians the conquest would have been hard, I'm sure you are aware of the various land owners from Faris, Khurasan and Mawarannahr who have made deals with the Rashidun and Umayyad territories, after all who killed the last Sassanid King in the great city of Marw? The point is there are many wars where the naming convention will be hard to apply. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kouhi 1. In Wiki English those watching Wales' user talk page know every thing about your complaint and that inactive admin account in WikiFa who suddenly became active to block me for 2 days. 2. Again same as WikiFa I warn you to not attribute your lies to other users because here again no one claimed about you to insulting Arabs however you said something different in Farsi discussion which was not an insult so be aware here because English admins will not support you. --IranianNationalist (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Alexis Ivanov: The final result was the Muslim Conquest of Persia whether Muslims used some other non-Muslims traitors or not. But with regard to the inflaming of Persian libraries by Rashidun or selling slaves it was absolutely an invasion (Similar to ISIS because some people helped them too). Anyway Conquest or Invasion the discussion was about Arabs or Muslims. How can an article have a completely different title in WikiFa versus WikiEn? The problem is about Arabs and it seems that you Alexis Ivanov approve that non-Arabs as you said non-Muslims helped Muslims to conquer Persia. --IranianNationalist (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@IranianNationalist: You can't be a traitor towards a failed and incompetent king. ? Did you expect them to muster an army from Khurasan, maybe in hollywood, not in real-life they just murdered him and reduced his suffering. How is Rashidun Caliphate similar to ISIS? Having the same religion and selling slaves, just simplistic categories that you intentionally cherry picked, nice move. Articles in every language Wikipedia can have different translations and meaning to different languages it occurs, it is something natural. Also How can I approve that certain people from 7th century helped another group. It just occurred I never gave any approval, maybe if I can time travel? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, as I said previously, "invasion" or "conquest" it's not important but the important case is Arabs vs Muslims. But about ISIS as we know (I hope you too) the verses 23 and 24 of Nisa' in Quran clarifies the rape of married imprisoned women by Muslims(blievers). As we know ISIS applies the fundamental of Quran, what we had (as the people of the earth) in Saudi Arabia and also in Iran(Shiraz for example) about cutting the hands of thief off and we call it as Islamic Fundamentalism (same as other current terrorist Islamic groups or Sadegh Khakhali In Iran and those who made executions in Iran). Are you a Muslim? You think different about Islam? So you are not a Muslim. I know Islam and Islamic society from inside (regardless to Islamic regimes) whether Shiite or Sunni.
You had said there were non-Muslims helped Muslim army during the conquest of Persia, so, clearly you approved there were non-Arabs helped Muslim army, is this not the conclusion of your comment? Because the discussion is about racism and what I'm talking about is : Arabs were not the only invaders to Persia (or new name Iran as it's been said in WikiFa) in that time and the tensions between Arabs and Ajams have a background from Lakhmids and even older. But about Muslims the conclusion of the invasion to Persia by Islamic empire (Caliphate) was the Conquest of Persia (It is clear) and they might have the accompany of non-Muslims as the same thing we have about other invasions in other centuries (for example Lotf Ali Khan and Ebrahim Kalantar Shirazi) and it will not change the name of that invasion or overthrow of an empire. Jizya is one of the proofs of the Islamic Invasion to Iran. --IranianNationalist (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)