Talk:Rey, Iran

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


Shahrbanoo's marriage to Hussayn was forced based on the following evidence:

  • According to both Muslim and Zoroastrian claims, she was captured as she was escaping with her entourage.
  • According to Shia claims (all Ulama as well as Shia hadith is unanimous on this) her captors wanted to sell her in Madina, but Ali stepped in and said since she is daughter of a king, it is inappropriate to sell a princess as a slave, so give her a chance to choose a husband for herself.
  • According to same claim, he [Ali] then speaks to her and convices her that Islam is the right path, and then she chooses his son Husayn as her husband!! Again, accordign to unanimous Shia claim, she converts to Islam willingly and chooses Husayn on her own will. But they forget to mention a simple little fact: that Shahrbanoo didn't speak Arabic, and Ali didn't speak Persian. And somehow I doubt they both knew Esperanto. So in what language did Ali speak to this little girl to not only convince her (philosophically or otherwise) that "Islam is the right path" but also to "opt for" a husband?
  • Finally, what evidence to you have that she was not forcefully taken and given as a "gift" to Husayn? That part would be quite consistent with the rest of the history of Islam and their practices.

--Martin2000 02:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  1. You did not provide any evidence that she was forced.
  2. Ali did not need to know Esperanto. He knew Persian. This can be argued from several perspectives.
  3. Click on Shahr Banu's name for the sources I had already provided.--Zereshk

Calm down, don't exert pressure when you can talk in normal tone. Anyhow, I did provide evidence, but I guess your idea of evidence is a photograph or a video tape showing Shahrbanoo being dragged on sand by the Arabs. So Ali knew Persian, eh? I suppose you have evidence for this? The page you asked me to click says Ali knew persian and furthermore it quotes a Shia hadith which claims the following masterpiece of comedy:

Ali, then came up to the princess and asked: "What is your name?" The princess replied: "The daughter of Jahan-shah". Ali said: "and so Shahr-banuyeh you will be called" ("the bride of the land").

Do you honestly believe that?! That claim is embarrassingly stupid. So what evidence you have that Ali knew Persian? And what evidence you have that Shahrbanoo, who was clearly captured by the Arabs, married Hussayn willingly? Oh, and for your good information, there is plenty of solid historical evidence that her name was Shahrbanoo, and the Arabs didn't gave her that name. Even if an Arab knew some Persian, what are the chances he knew the subtle difference between the double meaning of "land/country and city" for "shahr"? At any rate, the Zoroastrians also call her Shahrbanoo, and if her name was given by Ali to her, the Zoros would have referred to her by her original name not by her allegedly Arab given name. Besides, didn't it occur to your brilliant mind that if Ali was going to give her a name, he would have given her an Islamic name not a Persian name? --Martin2000 06:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  1. Martin, you are the one who is applying pressure by insisting on changing the article based only on your personal beliefs. I provided specific references and documentation. Now if it seems "stupid" to you, that is simply unfortunate.
  2. My idea of evidence is precisely like what I provided: Source name, author, volume, page number. I can even give you an ISBN number, because I translated the passage myself.
  3. Yes, according to the sources, not only did Ali and Hosein know Farsi, but there is also hadith that Mohammad knew it too. Now I apologize if European historians were not around to back up these "Shia" claims.
  4. Even disregarding those documentations, this can still be seen from a pure analytical point of view by considering the following:
    1. We well know that Mohammad was eager to learn the customs, ways, language of Persia from Salman Farsi during the course of many years. This can easily be seen by how Islam borrows many of the same worldview concepts of zoroastrianism, such as Harut and Marut. (see A.Bausani. Persia Rligiosa (Milan 1959), p138-147. for further detail.)
    2. Mohammad and Ali had clear motivation to learn Farsi: They were well aware of the relatively higher cultural elevation of Persia, hence the numerous hadiths from them advising fellow arabs to highly regard Persians.
    3. Ali lived in the same household that fostered and valued these Farsi teachings.
    4. Ali is known to have participated in the conquests to Persia. He came in contact directly with the people. And it is well documented that he was sympathetic to the Persians during the conquest.
    5. Al-Kufah is quite close to "Madaen" and "Anbar". All are on the tigris/euphrates. That enough is good reason to accept that the peoples of that time in that vicinity had to be bilingual to be able to converse with neighboring villages.
    6. One of the five Shia principles is "Imamat". It means that "Ali" is fit to rule because of "esmat". A person who possesses esmat has access to esoteric and metaphysical knowledge. Knowing Farsi would thus be no formidable task for him. The Sunni Sufis also regard him likewise.
  5. Correct: The Arabs didnt give "Shahr-banoo" her name. Indeed, the reason she chose Hosein was that, accoring to the sources I mentioned, according to herself, she had previously had a dream in Madaen in which Fatima had called her with that exact name giving her tidings of this marriage. I had to shorten the text while translating for reasons of conciseness. When Ali used that name many years later, which supposedly he had no way of knowing, it illustrated to Shahr-Banu that these people were indeed the people she had seen in her dream before the fall of Madaen. Therefore Ali did not give her that name, but was actually introducing her with that name to the crowd.
  6. Yes. the fact that Ali didnt give her an Arabic name says alot. Doesnt it! Like I said, Ali, like Mohammad, was highly sympathetic to Iranians. See the following articles for more examples of Ali and Mohammad's sympathy toward Persians: [1]
  7. Ali in fact eventually lost his life partly because of this pro-Iranian tendency. Things actually go much deeper than the popular Ebne Moljam account.
  8. Interestingly, a similar account exists for the Bizantine princess Narges (Melika), the descendant of Simon the apostle, who became the mother of Mahdi (12th Imam).--Zereshk 16:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you really beleive all that Shia crap, then good luck to you, cuz you're gonna need it in life. You don't seem to have a solid grip on reality. You seem to live in your own world. Anyhow, I will give you a bit of clue free of charge. The reason there are some favourable Hadiths for Iranians is, surprise surprise, because out of the 6 main Hadith authors, 4 were Iranians, including the 3 most authoritative ones: Bukhari, Termezi and Hajjaj. Nasai was also Iranian. The first 3 were Khurasani, and Nasai was from Pars. The other 2 Hadith authors are not as major and their works are basically a copy-and-paste from the Hadith of the Iranian authors. Hajjaj was from Neyshapour but claimed to be of Qushayri origin, so that he was better accepted as some "real Arab" from an authentic Arabic origin, but there is academic information that he was indeed of Khorasani origin, and his claim of "al-Qushayri" roots is unverifiable. The most authoritative of the Hadiths is al-Bukhari (from the city of Bukhara). Having read what you wrote for me, I have reason to believe that someone like you is out of touch with reality and I am not even going to accept an edit war with someone like you. So I let you be happy by deleting the "forced" out of the article, and stay happy with your romanticism and keep thinking that Shahrbanoo indeed chose Husayn and they "lived happily ever after!", and both Ali and Muhammad knew Persian, and "Shahrbanoo realized that they had special knowledge"!! hehe no wonder your nation is the way it is today, their "educated" people are like you, I can imagine what the uneducated ones are like!!  :-) --Martin2000 22:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have resorted to name calling. Not surprising of course.
Yes, I too dont understand why there were no European historians in 8th century Persia. Hmmm...all the historians in Iran were of Iranian stock. How strange!
I provided specific documentation. Now if you think Shia beliefs and documentation are "stupid" and "un-educated", then too bad. Either provide similar documentation, or live with it.--Zereshk 22:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You have no right to display such aggressive behavior toward fellow Wikipedia contributors as to constantly revert whatever your don't like and act like a bully. Your claim that both Muhammed and Ali knew Persian langauge will only make you the laughingstock of people. Shahr Banu was by definition (by Islam's definition, that is) a slave of her Arab captors and they could do whatever they wanted with her, including using her as a sex slave. As Martin correctly indicated, she was a gift for Hussein. You wrote "Yes, according to the sources, not only did Ali and Hosein know Farsi, but there is also hadith that Mohammad knew it too." -- well, according to "sources" there is also Bigfoot and some "sources" have also reported that they saw a UFO pick up Elvis long after Elvis died. I am sure there are even books with ISBN numbers to support such claims. --Paul Chiu
Please provide those books with ISBN numbers. I will check them to verify, and I will be happy to include your view as well. Until then, I will revert back your deletion of the text, because I have provided documentation and you havent. Gossip is unacceptable as a source of Encyclopedia.--Zereshk 09:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am on Zereshk's side, since the opposing party use nothing more than their own pov and original research, something whitch is against wikipedia policies, whereas Zereshk is using outside sources. If the opposing side where right, they would have no problem sourcing their pov to an outside source.

--Striver 11:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

To "Paul Ciu",

I have been monitoring your posts. You have 14 posts in total ever since you came to Wikipedia. Of those, 13 were written in attacking or questioning the integrity of Zereshk, and one was a revert of his text on this page. Other than that, you have had no contributions at all to Wikipedia. I strongly advise you to stop your smearing campaign against Zereshk, as he is one of Wikipedia's most active editors.

By the way, Martin2000 was banned by Wikipedia administrators for his attacks, by Iranian admins. --CJ Wren

Arguing about who's fairy tale is superior is comedic, but unproductive.. (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Historical fact is not the point. A cultural tradition is being presented. It has a definite form, and sourcing is the whole story. (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

5,000 Years Old ?[edit]

How can this city be 5,000 years old if the article says it was built during the Median Empire? That would put the Median Empire at the same time as the Sumerian Empire. Something needs to be reconciled... Stevenmitchell 14:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This date seems to refer to the earliest archaeologically recoverable settlement traces, which can well predate the founding of the city in the historical sense. However, all these extraordinary early dates need clarification or more precise qualification and, most importantly, good sources. (Encyclopaedia Iranica would be the first place to go.)
Particularly jarring, and betraying a serious lack of education about prehistory, is the claim of inhabitation by "Aryans" 6,000 years ago. There were no Indo-Europeans in the region at the time, let alone Indo-Iranians (according to just about any hypothesis of Indo-European origins I can muster). There seems to be general agreement that any group of people which could conceivably or at least reasonably be called Indo-Iranians or Aryans didn't even exist prior to the (late) 3rd millennium BC, and wherever their origins are to be sought, the region in question isn't exactly a popular candidate (to put it mildly). This is pure jingoistic projection of historical ethnicities back into the remote past, akin to claiming Anglo-Saxons settled in Bronze-Age Britain. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction of 1934-1936 Excavation[edit]

I also corrected the reference to a "Dr. Smith" from Philadephia University to Dr. Erich Schmidt University of Pennsylvania. I suppose it is easy to confuse "Smith" which is the most common last name in the U.S. with "Schmidt," especially if you are not as familiar with the English language. Apparently, most of information for this article was garnered almost verbatim from the website where that information is posted. Unfortunately, upon further research much of the information on that website is in error. It too is also a Wiki-like website where anyone with or without knowledge can post to. Stevenmitchell 15:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


250.000 (1996) --Englishazadipedia (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)