What is an Arab?

[montelatici]

If they had anything to do with you, seriously I doubt they were intellectuals.

 

[Roudy]

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Cambridge my ass, you didn't even provide a link, sock of Monte.
.
I like that you're disputing factual undisputed history. Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland | CAIS©

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.


When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.


To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

Yeah, the defeated griping about having lost. It is true Zoroastrians were persecuted during the later Muslim era, mainly by Iranian Muslims like the Safavids, but not initially.

One interesting point, "After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows." Khalid ibn Walid never fought a "battle of Alis" although the battle of Ullais in 633 in modern Iraq bears similarities. The battle was a hard fought, "last stand" of the Sassanian army. When it finally broke the Rashidun cavalry pursued the Persians and their Arab allies, many were killed in a dry canal bed called the "river Khasseef" Khalid ordered the dam to be broken so the waters would wash the bodies away; which incidentally fulfilled an earlier oath he has made to "turn the river red with the blood of his enemies"

I use the above to illustrate the point that you can't necessarily trust writers with an agenda, and yes, that works both ways. Oh and immediately after the battle, Khalid's army captured two cities; Al-Hira and Erbil. The inhabitants surrendered and no one was killed or raped.

I didn't provide a link because the book is not available on-line, it's a book. Buy a copy or get it from a library and read it for yourself.

Nah, you're just an ignorant idiot. Not even Iranians will agree with your insane version. The Arabs were savages who invaded country after country and shoved their barbaric religion and way of life unto the people, after they slaughtered them. Iran is just one country in a long list of countries that this happened.

 

[Roudy]

Islamic Invasion Of India: The Greatest Genocide In History

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
By the time the British arrived to the shores of India and after centuries of Islamic law ruling India, the Hindu population was not behaving like their normal self; they were behaving like Muslims. There are many witness reports from the British archives of horrendous Hindu incidents that were shocking in cruelty to the British – and they therefore sometimes referred to the people as “savages”. Yes, anyone who gets contaminated by the association with Islamic ‘culture’ truly gets tainted and savaged. That is exactly why it is so detrimental and dangerous.

Today, like other cultures with a soul massacred by Islam, India is not truly a Hindu nation. India is a shadow of Islam, a Hindufied version of Islam, where every human atrocity has been emulated and adopted into a culture previously alien to such brutality. And in association with it’s foreign mohamedan pest, these Islamic habits have become adopted and accepted as a “normal” part of Indian culture. But if we look at pre-Islamic Indian culture it was a in general a benevolent culture of knowledge and learning, much more so than it is today.

From the time of the Umayyad Dynasty (711AD) to the last Mughal, Bahadur Shah Zafar (1858), so widely praised as great leaders by Indian historians themselves, entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. “Hindu slaughter.”

Again you are grouping all Muslims as a monolithic block. Arabs were not involved in conquering India, and the Hindu population were not annihilated in the year 1000. The Hindu Kush is a mountain range that was well known to be dangerous to anyone trying to cross, be it because of the weather, or terrain, or local tribes. The range became known as "Hindu killer" as a result, nothing to do with Islam.

Ha ha ha ho ho ho, it had everything to do with Islam, and why Pakistani Muslims are still at war with India. India was a Hindu nation, before the Arab Muslim invasion and susequent genocide and forced conversion of the indigenous. Arabs are barbarian invaders.

 

[irosie91]

If they had anything to do with you, seriously I doubt they were intellectuals.

I think arab nationalist Baathist Monte directed that slur against me because
I described Iranian and southeast Asian medical school graduates as,
relatively speaking, "intellectuals" in their own lands. That they were "intellectuals"
in their own lands (like Bashar Assad) had nothing to do with me-----I grew up
in the USA.

 

[Roudy]

Well Monte would for sure know what an Arab is, especially since he's had "intimate" relationships with many.

 

[Challenger]

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Cambridge my ass, you didn't even provide a link, sock of Monte.
.
I like that you're disputing factual undisputed history. Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland | CAIS©

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.


When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.


To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

Yeah, the defeated griping about having lost. It is true Zoroastrians were persecuted during the later Muslim era, mainly by Iranian Muslims like the Safavids, but not initially.

One interesting point, "After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows." Khalid ibn Walid never fought a "battle of Alis" although the battle of Ullais in 633 in modern Iraq bears similarities. The battle was a hard fought, "last stand" of the Sassanian army. When it finally broke the Rashidun cavalry pursued the Persians and their Arab allies, many were killed in a dry canal bed called the "river Khasseef" Khalid ordered the dam to be broken so the waters would wash the bodies away; which incidentally fulfilled an earlier oath he has made to "turn the river red with the blood of his enemies"

I use the above to illustrate the point that you can't necessarily trust writers with an agenda, and yes, that works both ways. Oh and immediately after the battle, Khalid's army captured two cities; Al-Hira and Erbil. The inhabitants surrendered and no one was killed or raped.

I didn't provide a link because the book is not available on-line, it's a book. Buy a copy or get it from a library and read it for yourself.

I learned the history of the arab invasion of Iran from MUSLIM IRANIANS-----
of the Shiite type-------ethnic arabs in Iran are a persecuted minority. l learned
about ZOROASTRIANS------from Zoroastrians who fled Iran to MUMBAI (the ersthwhile Bombay) Zoroastirans from Mumbai have nothing positive to say
about the musllims of MUMBAI------and Shiite muslims have nothing positive
to say about arabs or-----muslims from south east asia

Yup, I'm sure they regurgitated what they learned in their school textbooks or what granddad told them about the bad old days, but that's not objective history, that's subjective history almost always coloured by myopia and bigotry. I've spoken to veterans of the battle of El-Alemein and although they can decribe what happened to them and their units in great detail, they all failed to accurately describe the course of the battle itself. That's what hapens when you just rely on personal accounts, you get a fraction of the true picture.

 

[irosie91]

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Cambridge my ass, you didn't even provide a link, sock of Monte.
.
I like that you're disputing factual undisputed history. Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland | CAIS©

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.


When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.


To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

Yeah, the defeated griping about having lost. It is true Zoroastrians were persecuted during the later Muslim era, mainly by Iranian Muslims like the Safavids, but not initially.

One interesting point, "After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows." Khalid ibn Walid never fought a "battle of Alis" although the battle of Ullais in 633 in modern Iraq bears similarities. The battle was a hard fought, "last stand" of the Sassanian army. When it finally broke the Rashidun cavalry pursued the Persians and their Arab allies, many were killed in a dry canal bed called the "river Khasseef" Khalid ordered the dam to be broken so the waters would wash the bodies away; which incidentally fulfilled an earlier oath he has made to "turn the river red with the blood of his enemies"

I use the above to illustrate the point that you can't necessarily trust writers with an agenda, and yes, that works both ways. Oh and immediately after the battle, Khalid's army captured two cities; Al-Hira and Erbil. The inhabitants surrendered and no one was killed or raped.

I didn't provide a link because the book is not available on-line, it's a book. Buy a copy or get it from a library and read it for yourself.

I learned the history of the arab invasion of Iran from MUSLIM IRANIANS-----
of the Shiite type-------ethnic arabs in Iran are a persecuted minority. l learned
about ZOROASTRIANS------from Zoroastrians who fled Iran to MUMBAI (the ersthwhile Bombay) Zoroastirans from Mumbai have nothing positive to say
about the musllims of MUMBAI------and Shiite muslims have nothing positive
to say about arabs or-----muslims from south east asia

Yup, I'm sure they regurgitated what they learned in their school textbooks or what granddad told them about the bad old days, but that's not objective history, that's subjective history almost always coloured by myopia and bigotry. I've spoken to veterans of the battle of El-Alemein and although they can decribe what happened to them and their units in great detail, they all failed to accurately describe the course of the battle itself. That's what hapens when you just rely on personal accounts, you get a fraction of the true picture.

you have AGAIN said nothing challenger. Do you know how the Arabic alphabet and script was developed? I will help you------Zoroastrians have been LITERATE in their OWN LANGUAGE and developed script for more than 3000
years. --------Arabians are still-----overwhelming illiterate------in fact their script was
something lifted from the Zoroastrians they murdered------only coming about ----circa 1700 years. --------without written record-----a people has no more history
than a does a band of apes. Most muslims-----even today---can barely write. Talking about "ISLAMIC HISTORY"------is like talking about the history of the DRUIDS

 

[Challenger]

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Cambridge my ass, you didn't even provide a link, sock of Monte.
.
I like that you're disputing factual undisputed history. Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland | CAIS©

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.


When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.


To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

Yeah, the defeated griping about having lost. It is true Zoroastrians were persecuted during the later Muslim era, mainly by Iranian Muslims like the Safavids, but not initially.

One interesting point, "After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows." Khalid ibn Walid never fought a "battle of Alis" although the battle of Ullais in 633 in modern Iraq bears similarities. The battle was a hard fought, "last stand" of the Sassanian army. When it finally broke the Rashidun cavalry pursued the Persians and their Arab allies, many were killed in a dry canal bed called the "river Khasseef" Khalid ordered the dam to be broken so the waters would wash the bodies away; which incidentally fulfilled an earlier oath he has made to "turn the river red with the blood of his enemies"

I use the above to illustrate the point that you can't necessarily trust writers with an agenda, and yes, that works both ways. Oh and immediately after the battle, Khalid's army captured two cities; Al-Hira and Erbil. The inhabitants surrendered and no one was killed or raped.

I didn't provide a link because the book is not available on-line, it's a book. Buy a copy or get it from a library and read it for yourself.

I learned the history of the arab invasion of Iran from MUSLIM IRANIANS-----
of the Shiite type-------ethnic arabs in Iran are a persecuted minority. l learned
about ZOROASTRIANS------from Zoroastrians who fled Iran to MUMBAI (the ersthwhile Bombay) Zoroastirans from Mumbai have nothing positive to say
about the musllims of MUMBAI------and Shiite muslims have nothing positive
to say about arabs or-----muslims from south east asia

Yup, I'm sure they regurgitated what they learned in their school textbooks or what granddad told them about the bad old days, but that's not objective history, that's subjective history almost always coloured by myopia and bigotry. I've spoken to veterans of the battle of El-Alemein and although they can decribe what happened to them and their units in great detail, they all failed to accurately describe the course of the battle itself. That's what hapens when you just rely on personal accounts, you get a fraction of the true picture.

you have AGAIN said nothing challenger. Do you know how the Arabic alphabet and script was developed? I will help you------Zoroastrians have been LITERATE in their OWN LANGUAGE and developed script for more than 3000
years. --------Arabians are still-----overwhelming illiterate------in fact their script was
something lifted from the Zoroastrians they murdered------only coming about ----circa 1700 years. --------without written record-----a people has no more history
than a does a band of apes. Most muslims-----even today---can barely write. Talking about "ISLAMIC HISTORY"------is like talking about the history of the DRUIDS

Once again you allow your bigotry to cloud your mind.

The Arabic alphabet and script developed from Phoenician, which in turn had developed from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Old Persian, developed from Sumerian and Akkadian cuniform scripts. True, Persian nobles and civil servants were literate, but ironically more in Aramaic than Persian. Later Persians adopted the Phoenician/Aramaic alphabets and much later a modified Arabic alphabet.

Happy to help.

 

[Challenger]

...I grew up in the USA.

Out of curiosity then, where were you born?

 

[irosie91]

Cambridge my ass, you didn't even provide a link, sock of Monte.
.
I like that you're disputing factual undisputed history. Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland | CAIS©

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.


When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.


To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

Yeah, the defeated griping about having lost. It is true Zoroastrians were persecuted during the later Muslim era, mainly by Iranian Muslims like the Safavids, but not initially.

One interesting point, "After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows." Khalid ibn Walid never fought a "battle of Alis" although the battle of Ullais in 633 in modern Iraq bears similarities. The battle was a hard fought, "last stand" of the Sassanian army. When it finally broke the Rashidun cavalry pursued the Persians and their Arab allies, many were killed in a dry canal bed called the "river Khasseef" Khalid ordered the dam to be broken so the waters would wash the bodies away; which incidentally fulfilled an earlier oath he has made to "turn the river red with the blood of his enemies"

I use the above to illustrate the point that you can't necessarily trust writers with an agenda, and yes, that works both ways. Oh and immediately after the battle, Khalid's army captured two cities; Al-Hira and Erbil. The inhabitants surrendered and no one was killed or raped.

I didn't provide a link because the book is not available on-line, it's a book. Buy a copy or get it from a library and read it for yourself.

I learned the history of the arab invasion of Iran from MUSLIM IRANIANS-----
of the Shiite type-------ethnic arabs in Iran are a persecuted minority. l learned
about ZOROASTRIANS------from Zoroastrians who fled Iran to MUMBAI (the ersthwhile Bombay) Zoroastirans from Mumbai have nothing positive to say
about the musllims of MUMBAI------and Shiite muslims have nothing positive
to say about arabs or-----muslims from south east asia

Yup, I'm sure they regurgitated what they learned in their school textbooks or what granddad told them about the bad old days, but that's not objective history, that's subjective history almost always coloured by myopia and bigotry. I've spoken to veterans of the battle of El-Alemein and although they can decribe what happened to them and their units in great detail, they all failed to accurately describe the course of the battle itself. That's what hapens when you just rely on personal accounts, you get a fraction of the true picture.

you have AGAIN said nothing challenger. Do you know how the Arabic alphabet and script was developed? I will help you------Zoroastrians have been LITERATE in their OWN LANGUAGE and developed script for more than 3000
years. --------Arabians are still-----overwhelming illiterate------in fact their script was
something lifted from the Zoroastrians they murdered------only coming about ----circa 1700 years. --------without written record-----a people has no more history
than a does a band of apes. Most muslims-----even today---can barely write. Talking about "ISLAMIC HISTORY"------is like talking about the history of the DRUIDS

Once again you allow your bigotry to cloud your mind.

The Arabic alphabet and script developed from Phoenician, which in turn had developed from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Old Persian, developed from Sumerian and Akkadian cuniform scripts. True, Persian nobles and civil servants were literate, but ironically more in Aramaic than Persian. Later Persians adopted the Phoenician/Aramaic alphabets and much later a modified Arabic alphabet.

Happy to help.

you did not help-----in fact you did not come close to being correct. You seem to
imagine that Arabic is Amharic. It isn't. Script is a very late development
for Arabic and its origin is VERY MIXED -----just as the population of arabia was
very mixed when script finally clicked in------about 300 AD. Arabic script was developed from ------mostly Persian with elements of those earlier influences upon
Aramaic and Amharic. Arabic script turns out to be a syncresis of BOTH semitic
influences AND Indo-European (via farsi)

 

[irosie91]

...I grew up in the USA.

Out of curiosity then, where were you born?

I was born in the USA as were my parents and-----one of my grandparents----before that there was a kind of mix -----England, and Austria and----maybe one from Russia-----not sure. How about you-----do you know?

 

[Challenger]

Yeah, the defeated griping about having lost. It is true Zoroastrians were persecuted during the later Muslim era, mainly by Iranian Muslims like the Safavids, but not initially.

One interesting point, "After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows." Khalid ibn Walid never fought a "battle of Alis" although the battle of Ullais in 633 in modern Iraq bears similarities. The battle was a hard fought, "last stand" of the Sassanian army. When it finally broke the Rashidun cavalry pursued the Persians and their Arab allies, many were killed in a dry canal bed called the "river Khasseef" Khalid ordered the dam to be broken so the waters would wash the bodies away; which incidentally fulfilled an earlier oath he has made to "turn the river red with the blood of his enemies"

I use the above to illustrate the point that you can't necessarily trust writers with an agenda, and yes, that works both ways. Oh and immediately after the battle, Khalid's army captured two cities; Al-Hira and Erbil. The inhabitants surrendered and no one was killed or raped.

I didn't provide a link because the book is not available on-line, it's a book. Buy a copy or get it from a library and read it for yourself.

I learned the history of the arab invasion of Iran from MUSLIM IRANIANS-----
of the Shiite type-------ethnic arabs in Iran are a persecuted minority. l learned
about ZOROASTRIANS------from Zoroastrians who fled Iran to MUMBAI (the ersthwhile Bombay) Zoroastirans from Mumbai have nothing positive to say
about the musllims of MUMBAI------and Shiite muslims have nothing positive
to say about arabs or-----muslims from south east asia

Yup, I'm sure they regurgitated what they learned in their school textbooks or what granddad told them about the bad old days, but that's not objective history, that's subjective history almost always coloured by myopia and bigotry. I've spoken to veterans of the battle of El-Alemein and although they can decribe what happened to them and their units in great detail, they all failed to accurately describe the course of the battle itself. That's what hapens when you just rely on personal accounts, you get a fraction of the true picture.

you have AGAIN said nothing challenger. Do you know how the Arabic alphabet and script was developed? I will help you------Zoroastrians have been LITERATE in their OWN LANGUAGE and developed script for more than 3000
years. --------Arabians are still-----overwhelming illiterate------in fact their script was
something lifted from the Zoroastrians they murdered------only coming about ----circa 1700 years. --------without written record-----a people has no more history
than a does a band of apes. Most muslims-----even today---can barely write. Talking about "ISLAMIC HISTORY"------is like talking about the history of the DRUIDS

Once again you allow your bigotry to cloud your mind.

The Arabic alphabet and script developed from Phoenician, which in turn had developed from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Old Persian, developed from Sumerian and Akkadian cuniform scripts. True, Persian nobles and civil servants were literate, but ironically more in Aramaic than Persian. Later Persians adopted the Phoenician/Aramaic alphabets and much later a modified Arabic alphabet.

Happy to help.

you did not help-----in fact you did not come close to being correct. You seem to
imagine that Arabic is Amharic. It isn't. Script is a very late development
for Arabic and its origin is VERY MIXED -----just as the population of arabia was
very mixed when script finally clicked in------about 300 AD. Arabic script was developed from ------mostly Persian with elements of those earlier influences upon
Aramaic and Amharic. Arabic script turns out to be a syncresis of BOTH semitic
influences AND Indo-European (via farsi)

Aramaic and Amharic are different languagers, I said Aramaic, which was adopted as a "ligua franca" throughout the Achaemenid Persian empire including the alphabet. Aramaic developed from Phoenician, as did Arabic.

 

[Challenger]

How about you-----do you know?

Yes, thank you.

 

[irosie91]

How about you-----do you know?

Yes, thank you.

oh -----of course you need not answer if the question upsets you

 

[Challenger]

How about you-----do you know?

Yes, thank you.

oh -----of course you need not answer if the question upsets you

O.K. Not upset, just not inclined to answer as you were being prissy.

 

[irosie91]

I learned the history of the arab invasion of Iran from MUSLIM IRANIANS-----
of the Shiite type-------ethnic arabs in Iran are a persecuted minority. l learned
about ZOROASTRIANS------from Zoroastrians who fled Iran to MUMBAI (the ersthwhile Bombay) Zoroastirans from Mumbai have nothing positive to say
about the musllims of MUMBAI------and Shiite muslims have nothing positive
to say about arabs or-----muslims from south east asia

Yup, I'm sure they regurgitated what they learned in their school textbooks or what granddad told them about the bad old days, but that's not objective history, that's subjective history almost always coloured by myopia and bigotry. I've spoken to veterans of the battle of El-Alemein and although they can decribe what happened to them and their units in great detail, they all failed to accurately describe the course of the battle itself. That's what hapens when you just rely on personal accounts, you get a fraction of the true picture.

you have AGAIN said nothing challenger. Do you know how the Arabic alphabet and script was developed? I will help you------Zoroastrians have been LITERATE in their OWN LANGUAGE and developed script for more than 3000
years. --------Arabians are still-----overwhelming illiterate------in fact their script was
something lifted from the Zoroastrians they murdered------only coming about ----circa 1700 years. --------without written record-----a people has no more history
than a does a band of apes. Most muslims-----even today---can barely write. Talking about "ISLAMIC HISTORY"------is like talking about the history of the DRUIDS

Once again you allow your bigotry to cloud your mind.

The Arabic alphabet and script developed from Phoenician, which in turn had developed from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Old Persian, developed from Sumerian and Akkadian cuniform scripts. True, Persian nobles and civil servants were literate, but ironically more in Aramaic than Persian. Later Persians adopted the Phoenician/Aramaic alphabets and much later a modified Arabic alphabet.

Happy to help.

you did not help-----in fact you did not come close to being correct. You seem to
imagine that Arabic is Amharic. It isn't. Script is a very late development
for Arabic and its origin is VERY MIXED -----just as the population of arabia was
very mixed when script finally clicked in------about 300 AD. Arabic script was developed from ------mostly Persian with elements of those earlier influences upon
Aramaic and Amharic. Arabic script turns out to be a syncresis of BOTH semitic
influences AND Indo-European (via farsi)

Aramaic and Amharic are different languagers, I said Aramaic, which was adopted as a "ligua franca" throughout the Achaemenid Persian empire including the alphabet. Aramaic developed from Phoenician, as did Arabic.

why do you parrot me and then pretend that I wrote something I did not write. ?
Again you miss the mark-------the Achaemenid period-----is almost------modern
times---it kicks in circa 500 BC when BABYLON was a world center------
Actual FARSI----SPOKEN and WRITTEN already existed for thousands
of years. That Aramaic had become-----in the little world of the middle east and
Iran common language experically used in commerce does not make that semitic
language EARLY FARSI. Farsi is OLDER than that phenomenon and is
a different set up------it is indo European.. It is very reasonable to say that the
Aramaic alphabet and script DID have roots in phonecian languages-----sorta

 

[irosie91]

How about you-----do you know?

Yes, thank you.

oh -----of course you need not answer if the question upsets you

O.K. Not upset, just not inclined to answer as you were being prissy.

I am never prissy

 

[Roudy]

Cambridge my ass, you didn't even provide a link, sock of Monte.
.
I like that you're disputing factual undisputed history. Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland | CAIS©

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.


When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.


To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

Yeah, the defeated griping about having lost. It is true Zoroastrians were persecuted during the later Muslim era, mainly by Iranian Muslims like the Safavids, but not initially.

One interesting point, "After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows." Khalid ibn Walid never fought a "battle of Alis" although the battle of Ullais in 633 in modern Iraq bears similarities. The battle was a hard fought, "last stand" of the Sassanian army. When it finally broke the Rashidun cavalry pursued the Persians and their Arab allies, many were killed in a dry canal bed called the "river Khasseef" Khalid ordered the dam to be broken so the waters would wash the bodies away; which incidentally fulfilled an earlier oath he has made to "turn the river red with the blood of his enemies"

I use the above to illustrate the point that you can't necessarily trust writers with an agenda, and yes, that works both ways. Oh and immediately after the battle, Khalid's army captured two cities; Al-Hira and Erbil. The inhabitants surrendered and no one was killed or raped.

I didn't provide a link because the book is not available on-line, it's a book. Buy a copy or get it from a library and read it for yourself.

I learned the history of the arab invasion of Iran from MUSLIM IRANIANS-----
of the Shiite type-------ethnic arabs in Iran are a persecuted minority. l learned
about ZOROASTRIANS------from Zoroastrians who fled Iran to MUMBAI (the ersthwhile Bombay) Zoroastirans from Mumbai have nothing positive to say
about the musllims of MUMBAI------and Shiite muslims have nothing positive
to say about arabs or-----muslims from south east asia

Yup, I'm sure they regurgitated what they learned in their school textbooks or what granddad told them about the bad old days, but that's not objective history, that's subjective history almost always coloured by myopia and bigotry. I've spoken to veterans of the battle of El-Alemein and although they can decribe what happened to them and their units in great detail, they all failed to accurately describe the course of the battle itself. That's what hapens when you just rely on personal accounts, you get a fraction of the true picture.

you have AGAIN said nothing challenger. Do you know how the Arabic alphabet and script was developed? I will help you------Zoroastrians have been LITERATE in their OWN LANGUAGE and developed script for more than 3000
years. --------Arabians are still-----overwhelming illiterate------in fact their script was
something lifted from the Zoroastrians they murdered------only coming about ----circa 1700 years. --------without written record-----a people has no more history
than a does a band of apes. Most muslims-----even today---can barely write. Talking about "ISLAMIC HISTORY"------is like talking about the history of the DRUIDS

Once again you allow your bigotry to cloud your mind.

The Arabic alphabet and script developed from Phoenician, which in turn had developed from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Old Persian, developed from Sumerian and Akkadian cuniform scripts. True, Persian nobles and civil servants were literate, but ironically more in Aramaic than Persian. Later Persians adopted the Phoenician/Aramaic alphabets and much later a modified Arabic alphabet.

Happy to help.

Challenger, Monte's sock accusing others of bigotry and acting like he knows what he's talking about. Now that's funny. Ha ha ha

 

[Phoenall]

Arabs are invaders who shoved their barbaric religion, language, and culture down the throats of the people they conquered. After slaughtering, raping, and dehumanizing them of course. Look closely, they are still doing that today.

No they didn't, at least no more than anyone else did at the time. If anything, the Arab conquest was relatively "civilised". What Muslim extremists are guilty of today is a direct result of Western meddling since the 19th century.

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

So in other words they used force to convert as many as possible. Even your links are double whammies

 

[irosie91]

Arabs are invaders who shoved their barbaric religion, language, and culture down the throats of the people they conquered. After slaughtering, raping, and dehumanizing them of course. Look closely, they are still doing that today.

No they didn't, at least no more than anyone else did at the time. If anything, the Arab conquest was relatively "civilised". What Muslim extremists are guilty of today is a direct result of Western meddling since the 19th century.

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

So in other words they used force to convert as many as possible. Even your links are double whammies

Silly phoen-----they did not use FORCE-----to foist the filth of islam-----they simply desisted from raping and pillaging and murdering those that DID convert to islam