No, but neither is it right to stay and conquer the locals. As I understand it, you're against that sort of thing. And the Jewish population had no easy time under islam either. The people have done, and the UN is sending peacekeepers.
Until later. If I were a suspicious, critical person I'd wonder if the "liberation" of the Spanish Jews were a ruse to keep the ethnic communities at each other's throats, like some people have opined about elements of the situation in another country under occupation by a foreign power. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
More like verbal diarrhoea.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They must have really welcomed the Inquisition that freed them from the backward Muslims.
I never said you said such. You said: "It was necessary for them to gain their independence from the Persians and maintain it." And I said show me where Persia or Egypt of Syria or anywhere else the Arabs attacked had ever conquored and controlled the Arabian penisilla. They never had in the 7000 years of history. Why? Because the deserts and their nomads and their camels and dust with their few pitifully small villiages (mecca and medina) were not worth the investimnet. Ask yourself: Did the Chinese warrant their conquest by the Mongolians? Oh, how about the Muslims?" Did they deserve the be conquered by the Mongolians? By your rational, yes they did. I'm sure somewhere someone in the Indian defense department is using likewise rational as they dream of nuking Pakistan back to the stone... Oh wait .. never mind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you get the point. The Arabs had no right to invade and conquer Persia, Egypt, Syria, North Africa, Spain, Iberia, etc... You are simply too blinded by your romance with Islam that you easily dismiss the countless that perished, that were raped, that were murdered, that were slaughtered for not converting, that were sold into slavery, that died of hunger, that committed suicide because their families were roasted alive, that lost everything .... Sorry Sam, war of aggression is wrong. And the Arabs had no right to invade Persia, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Syria, etc.... Right? YES or NO The Europeans had no right to invade the Americas, Africa, India, the Pacific, China, the ME, the far East, AU, NZ, etc... Right? YES or NO If some of the people of Iraq ask for help - should the USA conquer them and make themselves the new rulers? YES or NO Are you suggesting that the UN conquer Sadan and rule it for five or six centuries? To maintain their opulence and to promote conversion perhaps they could impose a tax on anyone who isn't Atheist? Make the official language English. Murder all of the high ranking Imams... I'm positive rather than starve to death, as well as get a plumb job many will happily convert... just as the Muslims in Spain became Catholic and ate pork and the Zoroastrians in Persia became Muslim and venerated Mohammad. The question you should ask is if Islam is so wonderful and tolerant and promoted equality then why was it that the overwhelming majority of people living in Spain would rather live under a dictatorship of a Catholic King than the benevolence and equality of an Islamic Caliph? Six centuries of Islam and the indigenous people, who never wanted Islam in the first place, hated Islam so much so that they went to war to remove it from Spain. Doesn't that seem very odd to you? I mean, with the Qur'an being the actual words of the God-head the Perfect Book that one could live their life under happily - one would think they'd of all loved Islam? The perfect system with equality for ALL (well all Muslims anyway). Yet, that wasn't the case. It wasn't the case for Sicily either. Nor was it the case for Greece. Funny that? Why? And why did the Persians convert? Now imagine the amount of suffering it took to make Muslims in Spain eat pork and worship the Pope and think how much more it took for Persians to not eat pork and worship an Arab. Yeah, think about that a little. You say you are against war of aggression: ARE YOU???? REALLY? Was the Muslim conquest of Byzantine capitol Constantinople JUST or EVIL? Should it be returned to Greece? Yes or No So? Michael
You seem to be able to ignore history to reach your own fantastic conclusions. I suggest you actually read through the thread and links. The earliest known Persian Empire was around 550 BC so 7000 years is a bit off by any estimate. And it was not the Arabs that contributed to their decline, they were already on the way. And after two centuries, they came into their own again. PS the Lakhmids and the Qahtanites were Arabs who were conquered by the Persians. The Qahtanites were also conquered by the Romans and the kingdom of Aksum.
*Rant Alert* You are very good at either missing the huge bold faced questions I posted, which by your answering may actually move this thread forward so that we can then see where you stand on a topic OR ... you simply started a thread in which you do not want to respond to the questions of those who cared to read YOUR thread in the first place? Why is anyone guess? Did you start this thread to do what? Bitch about the USA? Fine, then just respond to each post as thus: I don't care I don't care I don't care I don't care I don't care I don't care .. naa naa naa naa naa naa naa naa naa naa naa naa naa naa naa naa ... the USA is bad. It would save a hell of a lot of time. I type these questions into YOUR debate thread because I want to know what YOU think. Why else would I ask the God damn question? If you do not know or do not want to answer then just say so. Don't come at me with this Michael you're an ignoramus - just because you don't like the question. Just ask me: Why do you say 7000 years? Then I will answer you as I have done for every single question you have ever posted. I have tried to answer them all. I included EGYPT which is where the 7000 years old came from. Assuming people were alive 7000 years ago? Maybe you believe in the young earth theory?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Secondly, show me where Persians or the Egyptians or the Syrians or the North Africans or the Spanish or the Iberian or the Sicilian conquered the Arabian peninsula or concede the point. You keep saying the Arabs had a right to aggressive war with their neighbors because they were subjugated. PROVE IT. I maintain that the Byzantine and the Persians NEVER conquered the Arabian peninsula. Why this red hearing of a war between Byzantine and Persia? So what is your point? What? - The Persian empire was ripe for the picking and therefor Arabs had a right to pick it? You seem to understand what happens to people in War because I have read your many posts about the atrocities that have happened to the Iraqis and the Palestinians. What? You don't think that the same, if not much worse, happened in times of war 2000 years ago?!?!?! You seem to understand what it took to make Muslims in Spain eat pork and worship the Pope but you do not want to face the fact that the exact thing happened to the Persians in order to get them to not eat pork and to worship an Arab. As well as the people in Egypt and the people in Syria and the people in Babylon and Sicily and Spain and N. Africa etc... What? You think people in Persia happily gave up their culture, religion and language? No they did not. They were killed, raped, burned, starved, roasted, sold, beaten, humiliated, tortured and every other thing that happens when one people want another people want to crush them. Did the Persians deserve this? Did the Syrians? The Egyptians? The Spanish? The Iberians? The Sicilians? The answer seems to be a big fat resounding YES. Yes they did and they did because they were weak and easy for the pickings. They did because they fought one another and so they deserved it. They did because Muslims are following the only "true" Prophet. The did because Islam was good for them. The did because "fill in the f*cking blank". It just burns me. Yes, to the point of your original thread: It was wrong that the Americans attacked and conquered Iraq and it is wrong that they don't leave. I seems to me you have romanticized the Arabian wars to the point where you seem no different than a Republic bible belt redneck talking about the WMD Saddam had hidden and the freedom the Iraqi now enjoy. Silly huh? So in final analysis it appears the Iraqis deserve to be humiliated, murdered, raped and conquered because they were weak and the wonderful Golden Age they are now enjoying. Michael
This I am happy with. I would like to see some source so that I can read about it an eduukate me self!
Its a good thing you gave the rant alert. Can you tell me how many people were killed in the Arab conquest of Persia? How many were raped beaten etc? Your Iranian friends can help. You did read the part where for several centuries conversion was neither desired nor allowed by the Arabs?
Persia had conquered all Middle East except some part of present day Saudi Arabia (probably because it was all desert). Most of the Arab speaking world of the time was under the Persians. The Qahtanites were in Yemen, you can look up the location. Cyrus did not manage to get to Egypt (he died before he could, I think) but one of his descendants did. The Ghassanids (sp?) were also Arabs and were conquered by the Byzantines. PS I would answer your questions if they reflected any knowledge of history, since they are rants I will consider them as trolling/flaming and ignore them.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is said that the Arabs welcomed Mohammed because they were already familiar with the Jewish faith (the Jews were pretty much assimilated with the Arabs esp in present day Iraq, where they were sent by the Romans, I think, and were in fact a majority of the population in Yemen and are reported to have persecuted the Nestorian Arab Christians there, but I've only read that from one source, so I cannot vouch for its veracity).
I think it was probably culture shock, they also did not marry non-Arabs or read their literature or learn about their culture. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Persians must have seemed very grand to the nomadic Arabs. Perhaps they were even awed by them. They continued to live in garrisons on the outskirts of Persia and the number of Arabs who moved into Persia were very small (as they are even today). This was why the Persians after a period of recouping, were able to throw them off and come back into their own. Unfortunately Persia was too much of a hot spot at the time and the Turks and the Mongols were too powerful for them. I think its a testimony to the strength of the Iranian culture that they still speak Farsi and have maintained their Iranian-ness where the Turks and the Mongols have assimilated theirs.
Here is the largest existent of the Persian Empire. It doesn’t include any of the Arabian peninsula. The Year was 500 BCE Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Here is the Persian Empire just before being conquered by the Muslim Arabs. It touches even LESS of the Arabian Peninsula! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just what part of the World are you speaking about? The Arabian Peninsula as a whole has never been a part of the Persian Empire and even 1000 years earlier, at the largest extant of the Persian Empire the Arabian Peninsula was still free to go about their Bedouin ways. So why exactly did the Persians deserve to be slaughtered? Or is it time for a little game of Historical Revision??? [sarcasm] Why Michael, everyone knows the Muslims were welcomed with open arms by the Persians. Why them Persians were so happy to pay an extra tax to Arabs and to worship an Arab God and venerate an Arab named Mohammad – Gee, they didn’t know what to do with themselves they were so happy. They even quit speaking Farsi and started speaking Arabic. Just like them Happy Pappy Native Americans who needs Algonquian when you’ve got English! [/sarcasm] Yeah… and???? Yemen was never a part of the Persian Empire. From wiki: The Ghassanids were Arab Christians and allies of the Byzantine Empire. So? Why is it exactly you still maintain that the Muslims had the moral authority to lead a war of aggression against the Persians? The Egyptians? The Syrians? The Spanish? The Iberians? The Sicilians? etc.. etc.. etc…? Why is it that the Persians deserved to be slaughtered, raped, terrified, starved, beaten and everything else that goes along with a War of Agression? Why again? I seemed to miss it completely... Oh, yes, because they were Muslims and God said it's OK for Muslims to loot, pillage and rape. Its different when they do it. :bugeye: Michael
RE: How many Persians can one count on the head of a pin .... We don't even know how many people were murdered at Auschwitz!!! Again, you are trying to justify War of Aggression by suggesting it wasn't all that bad for the Persians and making that suggesting because no one was there to count the corpses. Hey Michael, no one knows exactly how many Persians were murdered so maybe none were! While we're rewriting history: Maybe, just maybe, the 100s of millions of native Americans that disappeared did so in a spaceship! And the same happened to the Muslims - just at the exact time the Mongolians were coming over to visit and bring them cookies! One big f*cking spaceship! Ahhhhh! MII
I noticed some parts were "edited" out.... Occupation Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature. The new non-Muslim subjects, or dhimmi, were to pay a special tax, the jizya or poll tax, which was calculated per individual at varying rates for men, women and children as determined by Muslim rules but paid collectively by the whole community. In addition, the so-called protected People-of-the-Book were subject to various restrictions of occupation, worship, and dress (Bashear 1997, p. 117). Mass conversions were neither desired nor allowed, at least in the first few centuries of Arab rule[4][5]. Later such restrictions disappeared. Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, had made it clear that the "People of the Book", Jews and Christians, were to be tolerated so long as they submitted to Muslim rule. It was at first unclear as to whether or not the Sassanid state religion, Zoroastrianism, was entitled to the same tolerance. Many Arab commanders destroyed Zoroastrian shrines and prohibited Zoroastrian worship. Many of the Zoroastrians were massacred and many fled to India to avoid persecution. According to Tarikh-i Bukhara "The residents of Bukhara became Muslims. But they renounced [Islam] each time the Arabs turned back. Qutayba b. Muslim made them Muslim three times, [but] they renounced [Islam] again and became nonbelievers. The fourth time, Qutayba waged war, seized the city, and established Islam after considerable strife....They espoused Islam overtly but practiced idolatry in secret." During the reign of the Ummayad dynasty, the Arab conquerors imposed Arabic as the primary language of the subject peoples throughout their empire, displacing their indigenous languages. However, Middle Persian proved to be much more enduring. Most of the structure and vocabulary survived, evolving into the modern Persian language. However, Persian did incorporate a certain amount of Arabic vocabulary, specially as pertains to religion, as well as switching from the Pahlavi Aramaic alphabet to one based on a modified version of Arabic characters.[6] Is this the equality you were talking about? :bugeye: Michael
Probably because they were posted two pages back. That was later rulers.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Ummayads were conquerers, they moved the capital to Damascus and used mass conversions to control the people. And this was a 100 years after the Arabs came to Persia, so apparently they did learn something from the Sassanids, who ironically did the very same thing with Zoroastrianism. You're prejudiced. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! On Zoroastrian immigration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qissa-i_Sanjan No doubt some Zoroastrians left because of persecution, but many had already left. I also find it interesting that the Persians had a caste system similar to that of Hindus.
