Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

Islamic conquest of Afghanistan should be merged into this article for various reasons: (1) during the Arab-Islamic conquest, all the lands from Mesopotamia to the Hindukush were known as "Persia" and belonged to the Sassanid kings; (2) there was no country known as "Afghanistan" until the late 18th century; (3) the entire Persian empire was conquered in single, decades-lasting insult by the Arabs, starting with the rule of Omar ibn al-Khattab and ending with the death of Uthman ibn al-Affan; (4) certain parts of the former Persian Empire remained hostile to Islam at least until the 12th century - not affacted by modern countries; (5) the modern boundaries between Central Asian states were created in the past 200 years and do not reflect the actual political and cultural scene of 1400 years ago. It is both, systematically as well as factually wrong to name an article "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan" and deal with it seperately from the Islamic conquest of the Persian Empire. That would be like differenciating between the Islamic conquest of India and "Islamic conquest of Pakistan". --82.83.135.55 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan existed during the time of the introduction of Islam. The Afghans lived in Afghanistan, not in Persia. Afghans are not Persians. During the 7th century AD, Arab armies made their way into the region of Afghanistan with the new religion of Islam. At this point in time Afghanistan had a multi religious population consisting of Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, as well as others. The Arabs were unable to succeed in converting the population because of constant revolts from the mountain tribes in the Afghan area. In 870 AD, Yaqub bin Laith as-Saffar, a local ruler from the Saffarid dynasty of Zaranj, conquered most of present-day Afghanistan in the name of Islam. Dupree writes:

Strong Support:In this case and on the basis of the historic methodology we should use historic name. Is there any classic historic source which shows Afghanistan has existed 7 or 8th century? --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The historic name is "Afghanistan", which was a vast region known as "Sind" and inhabited by the "Afghans". The nation that is Afghanistan today is the modern term, which began in 1747, the older Afghanistan (dating back from 1747 to the 7th century and beyond) was positioned east of the last Persian province (Khorassan). The border on the other side of the older Afghanistan was the Indus river, which is currently in Pakistan. The article Islamic conquest of Afghanistan is based on the time when Arab Muslims invaded "the territory" that was inhabited by the "Afghans", which includes most of todays Afghanistan and western-Pakistan. The word "Afghan" was recorded in history book by an Arab, during the time when Arabs were exploring the territory of the older Afghanistan. The Afghans all lived according to tribal ways, their territory was called "Afghanistan" (meaning "the land of Afghans" or "the land where Afghans live") by the Persians and by the Hindus. We know that the older Afghanistan (Sind) did not have a sole king or ruler, each tribe in that territory was then divided into clans and had own leader. Most of the people of that territory were very violent, so neighboring people from Persia and Hindustan were afraid of them and not interested in doing much business with the Afghans, nothing has changed from that time until today. I would like to see if there are any historical documents that would show that the older Afghan territory being in control of Persia during the Islamic conquests, which I don't think it did.--LloydHawk 07:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support: I am logically a proponent of merging Islamic conquest of Afghanistan into this article due to the following reasons:

  • Not only Persian Empire in the western historical terminology stands for the territory that Sassanid Persia occupied and possessed, but also the Sassanids themselves called their empire Eranshahr, which as we know denotes 'dominion of the Aryans (Iranians)' and, Afghan people - whether some Pashtuns like it or not - are of Iranian ethnicity and genetic origin (see under Genetics in article on Pashtun people).
  • Afghan nationals should be reminded that Persian is a misnomer that was first coined by the Greeks and used for the totality of Iranian empires of Aryan descent and language that ruled over the vast territories they occupied and by, Persia, we refer to Greater Iran and not modern Iran. Therefore, the word Persian, per se, does not even encompass the ethnicities, languages and cultures that exist in today's Iran.
  • Even if we realize that ancestors of today Afghans called their land by the name of Afghanistan, it had then belonged to a much larger Iranian empire that exerted military and administrative control over the realm in question - partially and completely - for over a millenium before its Arab conquest.
  • Again it is with much significance to emphasize that, in this article, we are discussing the conquest of an ancient empire that existed 14 centuries ago and not countries (nation-states or confederations) by their modern implication. By this definition, Afghanistan cannot be considered an independent entity from the Persian Empire of 7th century AD to confuse the average reader by dedicating a separate article to its conquest by Caliphate armies.

Ctesiphon7 16:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You and all others that support the merge are misled, you need to go by facts and not by public edits in other articles. Why are you Persian speaking people so obsessed with Afghanistan? Don't explain to me that Sassanid Empire controlled Afghanistan, that's not covincing. Show records of local leaders in Afghanistan being Persians at the time. When the Arabs came to Afghanistan, the area of Afghanistan was mostly Buddhist/Hindu, controlled by Buddhist/Hindu leaders (Kabul, Ghazni, Kandahar, even Balkh [1]). That means Persian Empire did not have control over Afghanistan at the time. After the Arab invasion or after Islam was introduced in Afghanistan, the area was controlled by Turks/Mongols/Afghans. There is no such record of Persians ruling over Afghanistan. However, there were Persian speaking people living in some parts of Afghanistan but mostly all (90%) of them were sadly whiped-out by Ghengis Khan and his army. Islamic conquest of Persia is refering to "Persia" (a land where the Persian speaking people lived OR what is today as Iran), Islamic conquest of Afghanistan is refering to "Afghanistan" (a land where the Afghan people lived OR what we know today as the nation of Afghanistan.--LloydHawk 15:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • History of Afghanistan from the 1st century to the 9th century
  • Restless nomadic tribes living in Central Asia had long been of concern to the rulers of Bactria and their relentless encroachments into the settled areas fill the pages of the area’s early history. Real nomadic political power in Afghanistan was, however, first established by the Yueh-chih who, forced from their grazing lands on the Chinese border, enter this story as a loose confederation of five clans. United under the banner of one, the Kushan, they wrote one of history’s most brilliant and exciting chapters in Afghanistan.
  • Kushan King Kanishka (c. 130 A.D.) was this dynasty’s most forceful and colorful personality. The heart of his empire centered around two capitals: the summer capital of Kapisa, north of Kabul near the modern towns of Begram and Charikar, and Peshawar, the winter capital. Far beyond this, however, from the Ganges Valley to the Gobi Desert, satellite satrapies and independent states bowed to Kushan economic and political influence.
  • The Second Century A.D. which saw the Kushan Empire reach its greatest heights was a fabulous era in world history: the time of the Caesars in Rome and the Han Emperors in China, both of whom avidly exchanged their most exotic products and greedily eyed the spices, gems and cosmetics of India and Ceylon, the gems and furs of Central Asia. Silk was the major item of this trade and it is reported that it sold for $800,000 a pound in the sybaritic markets of Rome. Situated exactly midway on the great caravan route known as the Silk Route, the Kushans exploited their position and gained vast wealth and with it, great power.
  • In addition, during the first two centuries of the A.D. era sea trade between the northern and eastern coasts of Africa and India was brisk and prosperous. Sometime in the middle of the 1st century B.C. a Greek sailor named Hippalus discovered that he could take advantage of the monsoon winds and sail from southern Arabia to India in forty days. By 24 B.C. at least 120 ships set sail annually and by the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. ships and fleets had become so large that they were “agitating the white foam,” according to Strabo the geographer. The overland Silk Route takes its name from the most prestigious commodity traded along it. The sea route could therefore be called the Pepper Route, for though the great warehouses in the Indian ports were stocked with pearls and gems, fine fabrics and perfumes, it was the tangy spice from Malabar which was valued above all. In exchange, the merchants from Greece and Alexandria brought wine, metalwork, ceramics, glassware and slaves.
  • At Kapisa, political and commercial center of the Empire, French archaeologists discovered (1939) a most magnificent Kushan treasure which represents the extent and the richness of this trade in capsule form. Here, in two small rooms, exquisitely carved ivories wrought in classic Indian style were stacked side by side with fine Chinese lacquers and an infinite variety of Roman bronzes, bas reliefs and glass from Alexandria. Obviously, Kapisa’s citizenry had fine taste, and the wealth to indulge it. (On display, National Museum, Kabul; site discussed in section (3), Chapter 5).
  • The rise to world prominence had wrought great changes on the nomadic Kushans. Having no traditions on which to build a settled way of life, they adapted what they found in ways best suited to their own personality. What emerged was a vibrant and indigenous culture born of the fusion of western-oriented Bactrian ideals with those from eastern-oriented India, interpreted by the forceful, free character born on the steppes of Central Asia. The result was vital and dynamic.
  • The massive city site of Delbarjin built on the plains northwest of Balkh during the Achaemenid/Bactrian period flourished under Kushan occupation. Wall-paintings depicting the iconography of Buddhism and Hinduism exhibit stylistic affinities with Central Asia (Chapter 21; I. Kruglikova, 1970–present). Delbarjin is a most dramatic monument to Kushan power and culture. The old city of Kandahar was also extensively occupied during this period. An unique soapstone mold depicting a winged lion on an elephant standing on a lotus includes several Buddhist motifs; a stupa/monastery stands on a spur overlooking the city.
  • The revival of the ancient religion of Buddhism by Kanishka and the attendant emergence of Gandhara art are enduring manifestations of Kushan culture. A new school of Buddhist thought stressing the miraculous life and personality of the Buddha was officially sanctioned at a great council called by Kanishka. This humanization of the Buddha led directly to a desire for a representative figure of the Buddha who had, until this time, been depicted by such symbols as a wheel, an empty throne, a riderless horse, or a foot print. East and West joined in the creation of the familiar Buddha figure and adapted it to fit Indian philosophical ideals.
  • Scores of missionaries soon travelled the world to spread the word. They followed the caravans along the Silk Route and Buddhism spread from its homeland through Afghanistan to China and the lands of the Far East where it lives today as one of the Twentieth Century’s most vibrant religions.
  • Along the route they established countless shrines and monasteries and Afghanistan’s landscape is liberally sprinkled with Buddhist Kushan sites: Hadda and Darunta near Jalalabad; Kandahar; Maranjan, Shewaki and Guldara in and near Kabul; Tope Darra, Koh-i-Mari, Shotorak, and Paitava in the Koh Daman; Tapa Sardar in Ghazni; Wardak; Fondukistan in the Ghorband Valley; Bamiyan; Takht-i-Rustam in Samangan; Durman Tapa and Chaqalaq near Kunduz, and Tapa Rustam and Takht-i-Rustam at Balkh. The most recently identified complex, dated by carbon-14 ca. 150 A.D., sits beside the lake of Ab-i-Istada, southwest of Moqor (Dupree, 1974).
  • The central shrines at these religious complexes, called stupas, were lavishly decorated with sculptured scenes from the life of the Buddha. Fashioned from stone, stucco, or, simply from mud and straw, this indigenous art style, among history’s most stimulating and inspiring forms, bears the name of Gandhara Art.
  • Kanishka’s interest in religion was, however, eclectic. On his coinage the Buddha stands as only one of a wide pantheon of gods and goddesses representing deities of Greek, Persian, Central Asian and Hindu origin. Buddhist iconography is, for instance, totally lacking at Kanishka’s own temple at Surkh Kotal, just north of the Hindu Kush. Excavations began at Surkh Kotal in 1952 under the direction of Daniel Schlumberger. They have disclosed the existence of a purely indigenous religion centered around the cult of fire which may have been dedicated to the worship of Kanishka himself.
  • A layer of ash at Surkh Kotal speaks silently of the end of this brilliant era and the beginning of an age characterized by warring petty kingdoms. With the demise of the Great Kushans, the centers of power shift outside the area and almost 900 years pass before Afghanistan swings back into the spotlight.
  • Decadence sapped the power of both China and Rome and gravely disrupted the trade upon which Kushan prosperity depended. At the same time, civil wars following Kanishka’s death so weakened the Kushans that they fell under the sway of the recently established Sasanian Empire of Persia. Reduced to provincial status by the middle of the 3rd century A.D. (241 A.D.) they were subsequently swamped by a new wave of nomadic invasions from Central Asia. The Hephthalites (White Huns) came into Afghanistan about 400 A.D. and ruled for almost 200 years but little outside their ruthless destruction of Buddhist shrines is known of their Afghan sojourn. Thousands of large and small tumuli lying outside Kunduz on the plateau of Shakh Tapa have been identified as Hephthalite tombs by exploratory excavations conducted by French archaeologists under the direction of Marc Le Berre in 1963, and they may some day reveal a fuller picture of the Hephthalites in Afghanistan. For the moment, however, we know only that local strongmen, some now Hinduized, some still adhering to Buddhism, ruled Afghanistan. Tribal independence was the fiercely protected ideal.
  • The advent of Hinduism is clouded with mystery but Chinese accounts such as Hsuan-tsang’s in the 7th century report Hindu kingdoms in the Kabul, Gardez and Ghazni areas. Accidental finds of marble statuary representing the elephant god Ganesh were found in the Koh Daman and Gardez and some scholars have advanced the theory that the concept of Ganesh actually originated in the Afghan area. The two statues now reside as the principal votive figures in two of Kabul’s largest Hindu temples. A head of Shiva and a large fragmentary piece depicting Shiva’s consort, Durga, slaying the Buffalo Demon, were accidentally retrieved from Gardez; a head of Durga, a beautifully modeled male torso and a large lingam were discovered, also accidentally, in the Tagao Valley, between Gulbahar and Sarobi. All these pieces are now in the National Museum, Kabul.
  • A sculptured piece representing the Sun God Surya was excavated by French archaeologists at Khair Khana on the outskirts of Kabul in 1934 (J. Carl, DAFA). Most recently, exciting new scientifically excavated evidence has come from the Italian excavations at Tapa Sardar in Ghazni (M. Taddei, IsMEO; section (7), Chapter 9) and the Japanese excavations at Tapa Skandar in the Koh Daman (T. Higuchi, Kyoto). The results of future excavations at these sites are eagerly awaited.
  • Just 24 km; 15 mi. southwest of Kandahar, not far from Deh Morasi Ghundai, a large cave called Shamshir Ghar, excavated by Dupree in 1950, provides a tantalizing footnote to this confused era. Occupied from the 1st century B.C. to the 13th century A.D., a particularly thick occupation level relates to the Kushano-Sasanian period from 300–700 A.D. It seems unreasonable that people would choose to live in a cave at a time when several large cities like Bost and Zaranj, numerous towns, and countless villages provided more comfortable conditions. Nor could periodic stops by nomads have contributed such a thick level of material. It would seem rather that this was a place of refuge used by the inhabitants of the area while the Hephthalites and Sasanians battled for supremacy and during the early plundering raids by the Arabs which followed. Continuous political upheavals culminating in a Mongol invasion in the middle of the 13th century, the last significant occupation level at Shamshir Ghar, are amply documented by historical accounts.
  • Arab armies carrying the banner of Islam came out of the west to defeat the Sasanians in 642 A.D. and then they marched with confidence to the east. On the western periphery of the Afghan area the princes of Herat and Seistan gave way to rule by Arab governors but in the east, in the mountains, cities submitted only to rise in revolt and the hastily converted returned to their old beliefs once the armies passed.
  • The harshness and avariciousness of Arab rule produced such unrest, however, that once the waning power of the Caliphate became apparent, native rulers once again established themselves independent. Among these the Saffarids of Seistan shone briefly in the Afghan area. The fanatic founder of this dynasty, the coppersmith’s apprentice Yaqub ibn Layth Saffari, came forth from his capital at Zaranj in 870 A.D. and marched through Bost, Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul, Bamiyan, Balkh and Herat, conquering in the name of Islam. He then marched on Baghdad (873) to chastise the Caliph for failing to adequately confirm his authority but in this he was defeated and he returned to northern Afghanistan where another local Islamic dynasty, the Samanids ruling from Bokhara (872–999), contested his authority. Yaqub succeeded in keeping his rivals north of the Oxus River but immediately after his death in 879 the Samanids moved to take Balkh from his brother. Succeeding in 900 A.D., they moved south of the Hindu Kush and extended their enlightened rule throughout the Afghan area. Unlike the dashing, opportunistic soldier-of-fortune Yaqub, the Samanids stood for law and order, orthodoxy in Islam, and a return to cultural traditions. Balkh was a prominent Samanid town, the home of numerous poets including the beautiful but tragic poetess Rabia Balkhi whose tomb was discovered in 1964. The richly decorated remains of the mosque called No Gumbad, Nine Domes, also at Balkh, is an unique and very beautiful example of the highly sophisticated, exuberant Samanid culture.
  • South of the Hindu Kush, however, allegiance to Samanid authority was vague and constantly contested by revolt, especially in Seistan where a rapid succession of Yaqub’s descendants ceaselessly jockeyed for position and power which they miraculously maintained, albeit tenuously, as provincial officials until 1163. Elsewhere the country was apportioned approximately thus: Bost, Ar-Rukhaj (i.e., Arachosia or Kandahar) and Ghazni were ruled by Turkic princes; Kabul by the Hindu Shahi dynasty; Tukharistan (from Balkh to Badakhshan) had numerous fortified towns with their own princes; and Khurasan, roughly encompassing Meshed, Merv and Balkh with Herat at its center, was governed for the Samanids by a Turkic slave general. [2]

After reading this, you should realize that Afghanistan was not part of Persia from the 1st century to the 9th century. It was contested for a short time between Persian Empire and other Empires (invaded and fought for control over the territory), that does not in any way mean that it was part of Persia. That would mean as if Afghanistan was part of British in the 18th century or being part of Soviet Union in the late 1900s or being part of the United States now. It's not how you suppose to look at it. Afghanistan was the place that was not part of Persia and was also not part of India or China.--LloydHawk 19:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the plans to merge the articles. Maybe not all of it, but perhaps 2/3 of it. In the talk page of the other article, some suggested to create 3 different articles:
Afghanistan's history fully overlaps with the history of these 3 historical regions. I think that this is the best solution. We should rename this article to Islamic conquest of the Sassanian Empire and then incorporate the conquest of what is know western, central, and northern Afghanistan. The southern regions of modern Afghanistan were Islamized in the process of the conquest of India as late as the Ghaznavid period, and should be incorporated into that article. Having a separate article for the political entity known as Afghanistan which was created more than 1000 years after the Islamic conquest of the region simply does not make any sense and is un-encyclopedic. That's like having a separate article named "Islamic conquest of Pakistan". But this is not the case, and Pakistan's Islamic conquest is incorporated into the general article about the Islamic conquest of the entire Indian subcontinent.
Please write here whether you support the idea or not:
  • support 82.83.132.73 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • support --Tigeroo 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC) [copied from the other talk page]
  • support User:KevingamerKevingamer 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [copied from the other talk page]
  • support --Sa.vakilian 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC) [copied from above]
  • support --TangoingMaureen 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC) it would make research much easier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.73 (talk)
  • oppose--LloydHawk 12:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose--D-Boy 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [copied from above on talk page]
  • oppose-- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [copied from above on talk page]
  • oppose--NisarKand 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [copied from above on talk page]
  • oppose--Bakaman 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [copied from above on talk page]
  • oppose--Rayis 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [copied from above on talk page]--LloydHawk 12:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose Sakastani 21:01, 30 January 2008 (Main argument: many invaders and conquerers came to South Asia from all directions but none of them could actually overpower the local (Pashtun) tribes of Afghanistan).
I don't think vote count is helpful will the merge. You need to challenge my evidence first, show clear evidence that Afghanistan was part of Persia, then I will support the merge. When we look at Afghanistan, we do not view that nation as Persian, we view it as Afghan, a different identity from Persian and Indian. The Islamic conquest of Persia completed in the middle of the 7th century. The Islamic conquest of Afghanistan occurred from the middle of the 7th century to the 10th or even probably 11th century. That's where the difference is, also, as I mentioned in my above statement that Afghanistan is the geograghic term for the area which was inhabited by the Afghans (mainly south of the Hindu Kush, down to the Indus River, a river which is now located in Pakistan). This area was not in control of Persia at the time when Arabs invaded, it was controlled by local Buddhist-Hindu rulers, I already provided clear and convincing evidence in my above statement. When Islam was conquering this Afghan area, Persia has been already converted from Zoarostrianizm to Islam approximately 300 to 400 years earliar. What is so difficult about understanding this? The only thing I see here is some Persian nationalists trying to spread their POVs that Persia was a very huge territory, that even Afghanistan was part of Persia and has been ruled by Persians for the last couple of 1,000s years. I'm proving with clear evidence that all this is false.--LloydHawk 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Read my suggestion again. My problem with this article is that it gives the wrong impression that the modern nation "Afghanistan" which was created in 1747 (that means more than 1000 years after its Islamic conquest) was conquered and Islamized as a united entity and as a nation-state separate from its neighbours. This is simply wrong. Neither Afghanistan, nor Iran, nor Pakistan, nor any other modern nation existed back then. Created separate articles for the "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan", "Islamic conquest of Tajikistan", and "Islamic conquest of Pakistan" is unencyclopedic and scientifically wrong. You are correct that certain parts of what is now Afghanistan were once controled by Hindu Shahis. But the Hindu Shahis were only rulers of the Eastern and Southern parts, while the entire Western regions of modern Afghanistan were essentially Sassanian. In fact, the Oxus river marked at that time the border between Sassanian Persia and the Western Turkic Khaqanate. The Hindukush marked the natural border between the Zoroastrian dominated Sassanian Empire and the Hindu- and Buddhist centers of Kabul, Ghazni, and Taxilla. An "Afghan" nation did not exist back then. That's why I suggested to change the name of "Islamic conquest of Persia" to "Islamic conquest of the Sassanian Empire", and to to incorporate the article "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan" into that article, into the "Islamic conquest of the Indian subcontinet", and into the "Islamic conquest of Central Asia". That is the best and the only logical solution. Creating some kind of a "national history" for a nation that did not even exist back then is absolutely wrong and unencyclopedic. While the northern parts of Afghanistan were already Islamic under various rulers, the southern Pashtun-dominated areas were still pagan when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded the region. That is a gap of more than 400 years. This is a map of the region around the year 600 AD, shortly before the Arab conquest:
Eastern Hemisphere, 600ad.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.73 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not having hard time with understanding your suggestions, I'm telling you that you are mistaken. Your problem is that you want to use old geographic names rather then the new ones. There is nothing wrong with each modern nations having a separate article on Islamic conquest. To use old names from the 7th century instead of the current ones is unencyclopedic. Only a handful of people in the world know Sassanian Empire, at the same time Afghanistan is known by nearly everyone. Encyclopedia is suppose to be there for everyone, not just for a handful of people who are expert in history. We only recognize the modern nations of today, we don't recognize older names of these nations. Your argument is only focused that Afghanistan did not exist so we should use the old historical given names.
The names of territories during the Caliphate.
In that case you would have to change "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan" to "Islamic conquest of Sind" because Sind was the name given to the territory at the time of the Islamic conquest of what is called Afghanistan today. There is a map that shows Sind and there are several old writings which mentions that the area was called Sind. You are also arguing over some parts being controlled by Sassanians while others being ruled by Buddhist-Hindus, the only area controlled by the Sassanians were the cities of Herat and possibly Balkh, which is the northwestern area that is already covered in the Islamic conquest of Persia. The Islamic conquest of Afghanistan is the remaining parts of Afghanistan, which means the land of the Afghans. I'm sorry but Afghans are not Persians not matter how much someone might argue. Your mention of Pashtuns (ethnic Afghans) being pagans is just a theory made-up by anti-Afghan Persian speaking people of the region. Pashtuns themselves claim they are decendants of Bani Israel.--LloydHawk 11:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. We are only repeating ourselves trying to convince some already opinionated people and in the due process they call us obsessed with Afghanistan! I think they either do not understand that Afghanistan in historical, cultural and linguistic context has been and is part of Greater Iran whether it has been dominated by any of the Persian dynasties or not or they simply disregard this simple fact by reiterating that Persia is homeland of the Persian-speakers and has nothing to do with Afghanistan! Maybe Afghan people are not all Persian speakers, but they are Iranians, whether you like it or not. That is interesting that Tajik people of Tajikstan call themselves as original Iranians and we find poeple like you who recognize Afghans an non-Iranians! Even a high school student knows that Persian is only an Aryan language that has happened to become lingua franca of the Iranian people and has nothing to do with the Greek arbitrary naming of Persia. These comments just remind me of Pan-Turkic motto saying that ethnic Persians have enslaved the people of Iran! As if Persian ethnicity has ever existed.
The next point is that these people do not even want to acknowledge that about half of the people in Afghanistan speak Persian Dari dialect. Very well, proceed and talk about conquest of a country whose name does not appear in any histories that belong to that historical era with the weak pretext that common readers identify the word Afghanistan and do not understand Sassanid Empire.
BTW, I did not know that Aryan/Indo-Iranian people of Pashtun ethnicity have descended from sons of Israel. I have to admit that's quite a revolution in ethnology and history!!
One more thing, let us suggest that Iraqis also run a separate article called Islamic Conquest of Iraq because Iraq exists today and people know it more. Eventhough, it's name has originally been an Iranian name given to vast regions of ancient Persia. Ctesiphon7 (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Afghans are not Iranians, neither in the past and neither today. The name Afghanistan translates to "Land of the Afghans" and "Afghan" means "Pashtun". In modern times "Afghan" refers to the citizen, national or native of Afghanistan. The nation of Afghanistan has many different ethnic groups, majority of them are Pashtuns. These Pashtuns are not Persians, not Persian-speakers and not practicers of Persian culture. The Pashtuns have inhabited Afghanistan for a very long time. When the Arabs invaded Afghanistan (it was an area of non-Persians) there were no Persians in the Pashtun (Afghan) territory. Only Iranians or other Persian-speakers (especially Shias) keep repeating that Afghanistan was always part of Iran and their wish is to unite as one nation. We know that Afghanistan has been fought for by many people and that does not make it part of one group. The Tajiks (about 20% of the total population) are related to Iranians or Persians but their history in the region within Afghanistan starts in 1500s. Afghanistan's other ethnic groups such as the Hazaras, Turkmen, Aimaks, Baloch, Nuristanis, and others came into existance way after Islamic conquest. So don't try to say these other ethnic groups are related to Persians because they are Turks, Mongols, and other non-Persians. Whem Genghis Khan invaded Afghanistan and the nearby regions, he was whiping-out cities and provinces from Persians. Only a few dozen Persians were allowed to live and the rest were all killed. The people that are speaking the Persian language in Afghanistan are not the Persians from pre-Mongol period. They are mostly "other or unknown people" who at some point in time decided to speak the Persian language after the Persian culture was re-introduced by new Persian kings in Persia. This occurred mostly during the 14th and 15th century, after the Mongols lost power to Timurids.--Al-Afghan (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to argue with any of you because what I see here is mere zealotry and not evidence-based facts. Just a few comments to tell you how badly wrong you are about the whole idea of being Persian or more precisely Iranian:

  • Thank you for letting an Iranian know what Afghanistan means! I think I already know enough Persian to understand that. Incidentally, do you know what Iran means? Apparently not. It means "The Land of Aryans" and according to archaeological finds in Russia, Central Asia and the Middle East, Aryans or Proto-Iranians have emerged from the area between northern Afghanistan, the Aral Sea and the Urals. That makes Afghanistan initially more Iranian than Iran itself! Afghanistan and Tajikstan have also been postulated as the birthplace of Eastern Iranian language of Avestan.
  • Afghanistan and the name of a whole lot of countries surrounding Iran, with your permission, bears the well-known Persian suffix of istan. That simply tells you how deeply diseminated the Persianate societies have become throughout the history.
  • Pashtuns, Hazaras, Nuristanis, Aimaks and Balochs of Afghanistan, are Iranian peoples of Iranian lineage and/or language that all trace their decent back to 3rd millenium BCE! Read the articles about their identity and language, then come back to here claiming to establish a totally unique and original identity for any of them.
  • Good thing that you admit that before Ghengis Khan's invasion, all Iranian lands (including Afghanistan), were inhabited by vast and diverse Iranian peoples! Your comments are simply controversial and readily prove my point of view.
  • Pashtuns are people of an Eastern Iranian ethno-linguistic group! This is a fact that you cannot change, notwithstanding how much you keep repeating its opposite. Not even if you stop celebrating Norouz, purge your language of all Iranian words, and destroy anything throughout Afghanistan that somehow points to your deeply Iranian legacy.
  • Political union of today Iran with its former cultural/ethnic/linguistic territories is not sought after by merging these two articles. Adhering to the facts and avoiding falsifications is our goal, but you apparently feel too insecure about this that you come up with such uneducated and fanatical remarks. With people like you, we cannot even think of anything like an Iranian Benelux in the distant future.
  • Finally, and contrary to your presumptions, we greatly respect Pashtun, as an Iranian language. It should by all means be preserved and strengthened, as we believe other Iranian languages such as Gilaki, Kurdish and Balochi should be maintained and preserved. Persian as the lingua franca of the majority of the Iranian people, has always interacted with them and enjoyed thriving side-by-side to them. It is most fortunate that Iranian people still converse with their own languages despite the devastating effects of Islamic conquest and Arabization of the rest of the Islamic world which purged and polluted way too many cultures then.

Ctesiphon7 (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine-Persian alliance? Unlikely!

Under Battle of Firaz it is said that the Arabs defeated a combination of Persian and Byzantine forces. This seems very unlikely, given that the two empires were archenemies and the Arab success was partly due to the devastating war between Heraclius and Khosroes II. In 634 CE, Heraclius was definitely not a commander-in-field as is mentioned on the page for the battle. He was ill and spent much time passive, until the battle of Yarmuk in 636, and not even then was he commanding in person. If somebody could rewrite the section would be best, but else we would have to delete most of the details. The sources mentioned are in fact semi-evangelical Moslem works. With all due respect, a webplace with the name Sword of Allahhardly suggests impartial historical analyses.Sponsianus 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Well, saying that Muslims victory was just becasue of the byzantine-persian war that exausted the empire... it just an excuse to minimize the shame of roman defeat !, it not wrestling that if a wrestler wrestls and defeat its one opponent and then at once the other come, then he looses to him because he is exausted ( the same happned to John sina when he lost titile to Edge , last year lolzz), these were the empires, the most powerful i guess of there time !, more over 1st islamic invasion of persian empire was in 632 A.D it was after 5 years when the last major byzantine-persian conflict took place, 5 years are more then enough for troops to regain there might, its like if persian a guy was 14 in 627 (not suitable for fighting) then in 632 he was 19 and suitable for fight in battle field, so what exaustion you are talking about ????? the same case was with romans !

i would like to tell you that after the civil war of Muslims that lasted 5 years from 656-661 and muslims lost about 50,000-70,000 soldiers in it, but by 663 Muslims under new dynasty Umayyads started the war of conquest again though it was far slower as compair to the time of Rashidun Caliphate, no persians, no romans tried to regain what they lost after the muslims civil war nor during the muslim civil war ! i will not forget that during civil war the byzantine emperor tried to sent an expedition to regain levent and Mauwyah I sent him letter saying if you dare to come then i swear i will make peace with my kinsmen ( reffering to Calipah Ali who was his cousin and political rival as well) and we will together perish you . i cant say what westerns gonna think about this letter, but yes this letter has weight and only this can give answer why byzantines never came again to syria though this time muslims were exausted ( if going according to western theory of exaustion ! ) just 10 years after it muslims laid the 1st siege of contantinople ! , weren't muslims exausted ???? so i really cant understand this theory of Exaustion  !!!!, and yes it is mentioned in Tabari ( one of early muslim source that is consider to be most authentic ) that the reference Tabari: Vol. 2, page. 582-83. this says that byzantines and persian garrision decided to deal with Khalid ibn Walid's army together because at Firaz ( which is near modern town of Abu Kamal in Syria near south bank of euphrates) being a border town, Muslims target were both persian and romans, so why cant they unite ???, i think they could. more over as it is mention in the article of the battle that battle was very desicie and on large scale, but i disagree with it, i read in A.I. Akram's book, he wrote that the battle was not of any importance , but it was only to clear the western iraq from the persian garrison of firaz to ensure that muslims will not be attacked from thewre rear or flank in central iraq. and yes the site swordofallah.com is not just a site made by ametures, it is actually english translation of the book "Allah ki talwar" writen by a pakistani military general in 1969 A.D ---- A.I. Akram, The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin al-Waleed, His Life and Campaigns, Nat. Publishing. House, Rawalpindi (1970) ISBN 0-71010-104-X.----after long research of 5 year. as it was originally in Urdu language, there fore its style is like a novel, as most of the literature in urdu is writen in this style.. so being in novel style dosent mean it not reliable !, it even recommanded in command and staff college of pak-army for further reading ! Mohammad Adil 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Mohammad Adil,

much as this is an interesting topic, note that I wrote that the Moslem successes were"partly due to" the exhaustion of the Byzantine and Persian empire. As for the Byzantines, their resources were indeed exhausted, because their European territories were also flooded by the invading Slavs during the wars with the Persians. The state that the Arabs defeated was only a small remnant of the former Eastern Roman empire. Finally, in that state there were severe civil wars going on, mostly for religious reasons, which made the Arab conquests far easier - Libya was for instance taken by the Arabs, not from the Byzantine emperor, but from a weak secessionist ruler called Gregory. The empire had simply fallen apart.

As for the later Moslem "exhaustion" I do not see why this should be the case. The Arabs had expanded over a territory ten times their original dominions in the mid 7th century, and were indeed able to recover from even high losses by accepting new soldiers from throughout their empire. All I know is that there was a slight decline in Caliphate power when it gave half of Cyprus back to the Byzantines, who for their part were still busy with wars on other frontiers (and highly impopular in Syria and Egypt for their religious persecutions)and in no position to exploit the civil wars in the Caliphate.

If there is an actual Arab contemporary source for the battle of Firaz as you say, that is very fine; in that case it seems possible that some Persian and Byzantine forces (the Persians were disunited and some of them could indeed have sided with the Byzantines temporarily) fought together. But as you pointed out, the description of the battle from the website "Sword of Allah" is highly exagerrated, perhaps because that is a semi-evangelical Moslem site, not primarily a history site. And we do indeed agree that the emperors were nowhere near the fields of Firaz.

The Byzantines under Heraclius gathered their main army for the battle of Yarmuk in 636 CE. My source John Norwich (Byzantine History) mentions only that a minor force sent against the Arabs earlier was annihilated - that could be the battle of Firaz. So in fact a smaller battle, not anything like 150 000 Persians and Byzantines. Could you please change that or shall I?

Also, if the book by general Akram is written like a novel it is unfortunately not acceptable as a historical source, for we cannot blur the line between fact and fiction. A novelist can make up uncertain passages to continue the plot, where a proper historian has to stop and discuss several hypotheses.

Similar books are of course written in the West too. The best example is perhaps Robert Graves' I, Claudius, which also was based on thorough historical research but is still only an artistic interpretation. It would be best if you could give a reference to the actual 7th century source that Akram used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponsianus (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC) Sponsianus 17:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • hi, dude you seem to get all things wrong !, well first let me deal with the book, "sword of Allah" as i mentioned that the book was originally writen in urdu, and therefore when translated in english it give impression of a novel, but its ins't indeed. As far as i have read the books of military history of early musim conquest this book was the most researched one ! may be this is strange for you, but yes this book is writen by a military general and historian who remained a teacher in command and staff college of army in the department of history, dont just see the style see the stuff in it, have you read it ??? if not then try to read it and try to get only what info is given in it, its narrations are taken from mainly "tabari" and "waqdi". so it is not suitable to decleared this book as a crap of history only on the basis of its style, as style means nothing all that means is "stuff in it and reseaerch". check this ....[3] may it will give a bit releaf to your doubts.
  • now lets deal with the battle of firaz, first go and check the "discussion" of it and see what i have writen there, also check the "date" its before even when you have readed this aeticle. i doubted there about the strangth of armies, and casualties, many muslim sources says that there were large byzantine -persian troops but .... akram suggest thete its is unlikly that persian may have a large garrison on the frontier town of firaz when whole of its southern and central iraq was lost to muslims, he suggest that it was a minor battle, in which the border garrsons of byzatine and persian armies allied and attacked the muslims and were defeated and routed.... thats it. The article was made by me but most of its edits were done by an other user, "Jagged" who bosted up the strength upto 150,000 and said that it was one of the desicive battle and major battle fought by legandary muslim general Khalid ibn Walid, though it was not at all.... i edited the strength and minimized it upto 15,000 but he reverted it again !!!! so that the problem... and check here what Akram suggest in his book about the battle of firaz ...[4]. hope it will satisfy your doubts. According to Akram and early muslim sources the most desicive battle fought between persians and muslims were 1st Battle of Ullais then qddasiyyah and the the last nihavand, and i suggest that in this article battle of firaz must be replaced by battle of ullais, as the most strongest of the imperial persian army was destroyed there...even khalid praied the bravery of persian and christian arab soldiers at the battle saying that he have never came across soldiers like there were at ullais.

Mohammad Adil 19:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • And let me remind you that the Rashidun Caliphate's victories against the byzantine army were not because the empire was weakend by the persian - byzantrine wars, but they were becasue the superior tactics used by the Muslim generals to deal with the numerically and technologicaly superior byzantine army. and byzantine commanders totally failed to deal with the strategies of muslim commanders porbably they were underestimating them, and this led to there total lost of Levant and innihilation of there troops by the Rashidun army. The empire was weakend not the troops !, remmember it. And let me tell you an other nice info... Byzantine could recruit any one from the empire as there soldiers, not the Muslim could, though there empire expanded but "only muslims were allowed to jojn army", not the non-muslims. Actually byzantine failed to counter tactic against the invading Muslim armies.

Mohammad Adil 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mohammad Adil,

my doubts regarding the book Sword of Allah were partially due to your own assertions that it was written in a style like a novel. This is a valid criticism and the book is perhaps not up to the standard of a real historical work. Still, the part about the battle of Firaz seems reasonable enough: the general discusses the sources in a critical manner, not at all in the style of a novel!

We seem to agree on the battle of Firaz (I have indeed read your posts there). It would be great if you again reverted back to your edit (no emperor/Great King participating, smaller forces - you can write perhaps "Unknown - up to 150 000 according to legend"). If Jagged protests I will discuss that with him.

Regarding the rest of your post, I have not protested against anything of it! The concept of "exhaustion" regards only the mid-7th century Byzantine empire, not later periods, when the fortunes of war waged back and forth on the Caliphate-Byzantine front. Sponsianus (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)213.64.166.67 22:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis misquoted?

The "Aftermath" section of the article quotes Bernard Lewis from http://www.tau.ac.il/dayancenter/mel/lewis.html. As quoted, the passage starts with "[Arab Muslims conquests] have been variously seen in Iran..." and ends with "...This islam with it's Arab roots was brought by arabs to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Arab civilization to the walls of Vienna…"

The quoted passage corresponds to the URL Lewis up through the phrase, "... In a sense, Iranian Islam is an ..."

After this point, the Lewis URL and the "Aftermath" section versions diverge.

(1) The Lewis URL version says: "In a sense, Iranian Islam is a second advent of Islam itself, a new Islam sometimes referred to as Islam-i Ajam. It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna."

Whereas:

(2) The "Aftermath" section version says: "In a sense, Iranian Islam is an arab islam and not to be called as Islam-i Ajam, since it's a shia islam whom scholars are arabs (shia Islam was introduced to Iran in the 15th century). This islam with it's Arab roots was brought by arabs to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Arab civilization to the walls of Vienna…"

I thought it best not to fix this myself as I am a Wikipedia newbie, not a scholar of Iranian history, and have no independent way to corroborate the URL Lewis material. Frozennorth (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph should be deleted and not modified. In my whole life this is the first time I hear about "Islam-i Ajam", and it is not that I don't read. The term is not accurate at all. Islam is either sunni or shia, not arab and ajam. Maybe "sometimes" Bernard Lewis call it that way.SheriKan (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_Persia/Archive_2&oldid=1142335165"