Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia/Archive 4

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

List of Referenced content from reliable sources removed from this article

This section is being introduced to enable recording of content with citations removed from the article . Intothefire (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

dude becoz its totally unnecessary to put it here ???? lolzz الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
A number of articels have a reflist section on the talk page. I see no reason why we should not have one here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I will message Intothefire to re-add it. warrior4321 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
he already hv added it back, i u ppl r getting defensive :-). i hv no problem with this section but was just wondering wht u gonna do with it ? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Mohammad, please use indentation and sign your name at the end of your text. It makes it more easier to read that way. warrior4321 19:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please lets have it back. Saroshp (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
i always sign dude

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets take this to Alis talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


reason cited by Wereldburger758 for deletion :cannot make any sense of it.
Would appreciate to know what you couldent make sense of , specially since the content was within the section on religion .

Intothefire (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Content removed by Wereldburger758 on 27 December without discussion 2009

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

References

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

deletion

well i agree with user wereldburger when he said while removing the content it donsn't make any sense.
Perhaps you should first try reading the whole article (or at least the last few related sections) and then figure out where your stuff fits best, i would also suggest a copy-editing of your deleted paragraph in order to adjust it to its related content. Try finding the a place for it in the article where it can be adjusted according to the context, then i will or user wereldburger will copy-edit to.
You should ask user wereldburger for his comments.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


also tht table with any temple or city name seems weird to me. wht it for, i mean whts the purpose. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Mohammad, I'd like to suggest to you that you sign your name -with- your text rather than underneath. It makes it much easier to read discussions when everyone's comment(s) are properly organized. I am requesting that you do it as such:
Text goes here. ~~~~~ rather than text goes here

~~~~

Hope you understand what I'm saying. Thanks, warrior4321 05:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

deletion2

You want to know, Intothefire, what I don't understand of what you have written. For a few lines that is quite a lot: Al Musadi, Madjus, Hind Sind and Sin, al Masudi. Those are all names that I don't know anything about. That makes the whole paragraph incomprehensible. And is this a quote: "(ed Barbier de Meynard, iv86 ) " or something else?

If you write something on this wikipedia, Intothefire, you must assume that your reader doesn't know anything about it. So use proper English and write as comprehensible as possible.

Furthermore, like Mohammad adil says, what you write must fit into the article you are writing in. Wereldburger758 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wereldburger758
  • I take your suggestions as positive to improve the content provided.
  • Provided an explanation of Al Masudi in the article and improved context by extention.
  • It is my intention to provide quotes from reliable sources without refraction and therefore the inclusion of in line citation provided by Houtama viz (ed Barbier de Meynard, iv 86).This is as per wiki conventions for quotes .
  • Will provide links for Hind and Sindh

Thankyou for your suggestions ....certainly better than unilateral deletions. Intothefire (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

i hv did some copy editing of it, i think there is no need of mentioning (ed Barbier de Meynard, iv 86) in between the quote when u are already giving a references at the end.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that is more like it. I have moved the text to make it fit into the text. Nice cooperation. Wereldburger758 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Why this stuff ................... He also added Sindh and Sin of the Indian subcontinent (Al-Hind) to the list. This general statement of al Masudi is fully supported by the medieval geographers who make mention of fire temples in most of the Iranian towns .[60] There were also large and thriving Christian and Jewish communities, along with smaller numbers of Buddhists and other groups. However, there was a slow but steady movement of the population toward Islam. The nobility and city-dwellers were the first to convert, Islam spread more slowly among the peasantry and the dihqans, or landed gentry. By the late 10th century, the majority of Persians had become Muslim. Until the 15th century, most Persian Muslims were Sunni Muslims, though today Iran is known as a stronghold of the Shi'a Muslim faith. The Iranian Muslims projected many of their own Persian moral and ethical values[citation needed] that predates Islam into the religion, while recognizing Islam as their religion and the prophet's son in law, Ali as an enduring symbol of justice.
........is under the heading Zoroastrian fire temples The above mentioned paragraph deals with religion right ? so its place is under the section religion. It has no relation in any sense to the heading of Zoroastrians fire temples.
So will u plz explain why u think it should be under the heading zoroatrian fire temples

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Some myths and inaccurate claims

Skimming through the article, i find some inaccurate claims regarding conversion of Islam to Iran. Jizya simply replaced Previous Sassanian Tax. For the average people in Iran, very little had changed after the arrival of Islam. It wasn't until 10/11th century, when Muslims became Majority. Claims like Zoroastrians were humiliated to convert to Islam are doubtful and dubious. There may be some exceptional case, but this wasn't the overall situation. Here's a PhD Thesis published from MIT University which briefly covers the Sasanian (Iranian) and Sogdian(Tajik) conversion to Islam. http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/41720/222332133.pdf?sequence=1, Chapter II - Sasanian and Sogdian conversion to Islam covers it. I hope someone can use this thesis to add some more information on this article. Thanks --Theotherguy1 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of sentence

What is meant with the sentence:"Suhail marched from Busra in 643, passing from Shiraz and Persepolis he joined with other Muslim armies and marched against Kerman,....."? Did he pass Shiraz and Persepolis? If so, where did his army join other Muslim armies? Or did other Muslim armies join him from these cities? Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit completed

As the title already makes clear, I completed the copy-edit today. Wereldburger758 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuchulain undo revisions of ArdeshirBozorg

With regards to undoing revisions on the Muslim Conquest of Persia....

It looks like you done so with stating your reasons. Please cite reasons as to why you think that those revisions are "not an improvement" for each and every reason. There was a good number of revisions done, in the interest of increasing the accuracy of the article.

1) Iraq is a term that is anachronistic when used to refer to the eastern portion of the Sassanid empire. The area that is now known as Iraq was under Sassanid control, and previously part of the Achaemind Persian Empire, when the Arabs invaded and then conquered the area. Many of the revisions sought to address that issue.

2) The article as, it now stands, is riddled with unsupported statements, statements that I qualified for accuracy. For example,

“Historians have propounded the idea that Persia, on the verge of the Arab invasion, was a society in decline and decay”

No support is provided for this statement, and the fact that it says “historians” seems to imply that this is the predominant belief among historians. Thus, I revised it to “some historians” which is, in fact, more correct given the fact that no historians has even been provided to support that statement.

Another example, in the same paragraph:

“However, some other authors have, for example, used exclusively Arab sources to illustrate that "contrary to the claims of some historians,

I revised this to say: “however, some other HISTORIANS have, for example…”

This was done to a) bring appropriate parallelism (historians and historians instead of historians and authors), and b) to be more accurate because a great many historians argue that the Persian fought vigorously and adamantly against Arab and Muslim influence and control. In addition, the sources provided in the article support this revision.

Therefore, I will be restoring the aforementioned revisions. Please edit each and every disputed item individually, instead of the large scale changes that you’ve assumed. Moreover please provided actual explanations and reasoning instead of using short blanket statements such “inferior edits.” Use the talk page, as well. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdeshirBozorg (talk • contribs)

ArdeshirBozorg, Wikipedia policy is that the
bold, revert, discuss editing method, the most productive approach if your change gets reverted is to go to the talk page and discuss it. Some of your changes are good, but others are not; they introduced a number of style and wording problems that weren't there before. For example, in the introduction, the capitalization was wrong in "Muslim Conquest of Persia; the style guidelines are that common nouns are not capitalized. Additionally, your change one link from "Iran" to "the Sassanid Persian Empire
" resulted in a broken link. On top of this, you also removed some sourced material.
I think we can probably be more clear that what we're talking about are the areas that are now Iraq, Iran, etc., and not to the modern countries. But I think the current usage is mostly fine.--Cúchullain t/c 00:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I implemented some of the uncontroversial changes and replaced most mentions of "Iraq" with "Mesopotamia". Hope that helps.--Cúchullain t/c 00:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to throw in and note that the "Some Iranian historians" line in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction needs a source of some sort. Right now the "exclusively Arab" portion has at least some externally verifiable source; the Iranian historian claim seems like opinion. Also, I'm going to clean the language up a bit to make it slightly more neutral.Spectheintro (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)spectheintro

Description of 2nd campaign needs serious work

I've already heavily edited the description of the Mesopotamian campaign, but it's only the beginning of a very poorly written series of paragraphs describing the Arab advance into Persia. I will try to keep editing it to make it more legible and less POV, but I would appreciate some help. Spectheintro (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)spectheintro

Improving the tone of this article as 12/4/2010

I'd like to spread it out there that this article seems to be written a bit non-historically and unencyclopedic. Would like to recommend to those interested to revise accordingly. I will be trying myself over the next few months. --GoetheFromm (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, it states the invastion was "directed by Caliph Umar from Medina several thousand miles from the battlefields in Persia". Medina is not thousands of miles from the battlefields of Persia. China is, maybe. Medina is only about one thousand kilometers from Teheran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelius99 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yazdegerd III, Mohammed's letter and questionable sources

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

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

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

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

Proposed necessity of revising "Muslim Conquest of Persia" to "Arab-Muslim Conquest of Persia"

It is important to acknowledge and state that the "Muslim conquest of Persia" was more than simply a "new" religion spreading to Persia via military methods. The individuals and culture that promoted that conquest were specifically Arab Muslims, not Jewish Arabs, not Christian Arabs, not Persian Muslims (whatever existed at the time), or any Nationality/Culture-Muslim.

As such, the title of the "Muslim conquest of Persia" should be changed/moved to the "Arab-Muslim Conquest of Persia" to reflect the cultural implications of the Arab-Muslim invasion. ArdeshirBozorg (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)ArdeshirBozorg

Wikipedia articles are titled following the
reliable sources. Looking at Google Books, I find 368 results for "Muslim conquest of Persia", 236 for "Islamic conquest of Persia", and 1,270 for "Arab conquest of Persia". In contrast "Arab Muslim conquest of Persia" only returns 9. I would say if anything the article should be retitled "Arab conquest of Persia".--Cúchullain t/c
18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the article can certainly be moved if there is consensus. The reason I opposed the move is for a) consistency in WP articles on the Muslim conquests b) "Arab-Muslim" appears to be a neologism and most importantly c) the Arab expansion happened because of Islam and for Islam, not because the Arabs as Arabs began it. The Arab aspect is certainly important from a cultural aspect, but the prime factor was religious motivation. Constantine ✍ 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think to a certain extent, we just have to pick between the several good options. "Muslim conquest" is fine; it is something that appears to be in regular use. But "Arab Muslim conquest" (or "Muslim Arab conquest") does not appear to be widely used, and should be avoided.--Cúchullain t/c 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


The name 'muslim conquest of persia is something that clicks. and this is the name that instantly gives you a background of that conquest i.e Muslim people ---> emergence of Islam ---> the great conquest.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Arab Muslim conquest is a neologism and not regular use. I also agree with Cuchulain that "Arab conquest of Persia," if the most common and regular should be the term used. ArdeshirBozorg (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The title Muslim conquest of Persia is not correct. It should be Arab conquest of Persia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.100.166 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Cambridge History of Iran

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

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

Rephrasing as follows:

Even though the conquestors brought with them a new religion they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted. --24.94.18.234 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So in order words, by designating special privileges for those who converted to Islam, the Muslim-Arab conquerors used discrimination to convert the Persians to Islam. What is allowed for the Muslim is not allowed for the non-Muslim...That is discrimination and coercion to convert. 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Too rosey a picture

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

merging the Topic

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

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

Farrokh is not a historian

Since Farrokh is not a historian(which is mentioned by Kmhkmh above), I have removed the him as a source including the quote. I have left information within the article, if it can be supported by a

reliable source then it should stay, if not then it should be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk
) 03:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner
:Online 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This paper shows

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

Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia
 redirect page

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

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

Would "Rashidun conquest of Persia" work as a title?

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

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

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

So, according to

talk
) 06:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi there
There are some notes :

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

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

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nle2Blz_Ic
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k_04-noSXU

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

Disclaimer: I wasn't that user in fawiki whom IranianNationalist claims[
talk
) 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@IranianNationalist: Without non-Muslim Iranians the conquest would have been hard, I'm sure you are aware of the various land owners from Faris, Khurasan and Mawarannahr who have made deals with the Rashidun and Umayyad territories, after all who killed the last Sassanid King in the great city of Marw? The point is there are many wars where the naming convention will be hard to apply. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kouhi 1. In Wiki English those watching Wales' user talk page know every thing about your complaint and that inactive admin account in WikiFa who suddenly became active to block me for 2 days. 2. Again same as WikiFa I warn you to not attribute your lies to other users because here again no one claimed about you to insulting Arabs however you said something different in Farsi discussion which was not an insult so be aware here because English admins will not support you. --IranianNationalist (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Alexis Ivanov: The final result was the Muslim Conquest of Persia whether Muslims used some other non-Muslims traitors or not. But with regard to the inflaming of Persian libraries by Rashidun or selling slaves it was absolutely an invasion (Similar to ISIS because some people helped them too). Anyway Conquest or Invasion the discussion was about Arabs or Muslims. How can an article have a completely different title in WikiFa versus WikiEn? The problem is about Arabs and it seems that you Alexis Ivanov approve that non-Arabs as you said non-Muslims helped Muslims to conquer Persia. --IranianNationalist (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@IranianNationalist: You can't be a traitor towards a failed and incompetent king. ? Did you expect them to muster an army from Khurasan, maybe in hollywood, not in real-life they just murdered him and reduced his suffering. How is Rashidun Caliphate similar to ISIS? Having the same religion and selling slaves, just simplistic categories that you intentionally cherry picked, nice move. Articles in every language Wikipedia can have different translations and meaning to different languages it occurs, it is something natural. Also How can I approve that certain people from 7th century helped another group. It just occurred I never gave any approval, maybe if I can time travel? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, as I said previously, "invasion" or "conquest" it's not important but the important case is Arabs vs Muslims. But about ISIS as we know (I hope you too) the verses 23 and 24 of Nisa' in Quran clarifies the rape of married imprisoned women by Muslims(blievers). As we know ISIS applies the fundamental of Quran, what we had (as the people of the earth) in Saudi Arabia and also in Iran(Shiraz for example) about cutting the hands of thief off and we call it as Islamic Fundamentalism (same as other current terrorist Islamic groups or Sadegh Khakhali In Iran and those who made executions in Iran). Are you a Muslim? You think different about Islam? So you are not a Muslim. I know Islam and Islamic society from inside (regardless to Islamic regimes) whether Shiite or Sunni.
You had said there were non-Muslims helped Muslim army during the conquest of Persia, so, clearly you approved there were non-Arabs helped Muslim army, is this not the conclusion of your comment? Because the discussion is about racism and what I'm talking about is : Arabs were not the only invaders to Persia (or new name Iran as it's been said in WikiFa) in that time and the tensions between Arabs and Ajams have a background from
Ebrahim Kalantar Shirazi) and it will not change the name of that invasion or overthrow of an empire. Jizya is one of the proofs of the Islamic Invasion to Iran. --IranianNationalist (talk
) 12:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muslim conquest of Persia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The move request has gone on for six weeks with no consensus being formed over that time scale; hence, the article cannot be moved to the requested title, regardless of the problems with the current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


Muslim conquest of Persia → Arab conquest of Iran – Per the sources --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
[1]

References

  1. ^
@Rreagan007: The sources literally contradict you. It was the official name of the Sasanian Empire, and its usage even dates back to the Achaemenid period; for more detail, see Birth of the Persian Empire by Vesta Sarkhosh and Sarah Stewart. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
After a little research on the topic, you appear to be correct. Though I will say that "Persia" tends to be the common English name for the area prior to the 20th century, but I won't oppose the nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Long overdue, per
    WP:COMMONNAME
    :
  1. Jstor search: "Muslim conquest of Persia" gets 6,033 hits, "Arab conquest of Iran" gets 9,579.
  2. Google books search: "Muslim conquest of Persia" gets 37,300 hits, "Arab conquest of Iran" gets 62,100.
  3. Google scholar search: "Muslim conquest of Persia" 56.400 hits, "Arab conquest of Iran" gets 66.000.

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Louis, you can't just search for the set of words (as you have), you have to search for the exact phrase. (The results are much smaller, but they still show the same trend.) Srnec (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
For the record, the corrected Google Scholar numbers (with quotes), are: 717 for "Arab conquest of Iran", 201 for "Muslim conquest of Persia". For Google books, here are the ngrams. Colin M (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Aryzad: Where do you see the "Arab Empire" being mentioned? Neither me nor the sources which support my move makes any mention of a "Arab Empire". --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: When there is no Arab Empire, then there is no Arab conquest. When it comes to this war, we are talking about Muslims, not Arabs. Most of the Muslims were Arab at the time, but still we are talking about Muslims. Aryzad (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Wut? It was still Arabs that led the conquests though. A clear majority of them were Arabs from the Arabian penilusuela. Also the sources contradict you. HistoryofIran (talk)
Look, this was done by an Islamic Caliphate; Then this a Muslim conquest, not an Arab one. This is simple. All of those sources were written from a modern point of view. When that state wasn't called this way, why you have to move it to "Arab conquest"? The "Muslim conquest of Iran" is perfect title for this article Aryzad (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
So far you have up with nothing than your personal opinion with no source whatsoever to support you. HistoryofIran (talk)
And more than that is not needed Because:
  1. COMMONNAME
    says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The Muslim Empire was called الدوله الاسلامیه, and not الدوله العربیه; Which makes the "Arab conquest" inaccurate.
  2. We still have
    Muslim conquest of Egypt, Muslim conquest of the Maghreb, Muslim conquest of Transoxiana, Muslim conquest of Armenia
    , etc. You cannot just change title of one article, while rest of them use another one.
  3. You need reliable sources that support your claim about existence of an Arab Empire (which is the only case when "Arab conquest of somewhere" can be used), and proves that the Caliphates were called the Arab Empire by the Caliphs themselves. Majority of the soldiers of the early Muslims were Arab, but so what? Their empire was Islamic. Aryzad (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please stop to say it like that I'm making claims that it was an "Arab Empire". There are literally 8 sources and more that support the spelling, thus its pretty common and makes your personal opinion quite irrelevant. The Caliphate was still ethnically Arab per the sources. Im done here. HistoryofIran (talk)
Probably you don't understand why I say you need to prove that it was called the Arab Empire. Maybe this is because of the fact that I'm not fluent in English to explain it clearly, or for another reason. Anyway, when you changed all of those article to the "Arab conquest of ...", then feel free to change this one too. Aryzad (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It was indeed a Muslim conquest of Persia, as it is invariably referred to before the earlyish 20th century in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, before the early 20th-century. It's what it is currently called in this day and age that is important (which is indeed per the sources "Arab conquest of Iran", which some people seem to ignore..). --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. When referring to the country before the 1920s or thereabouts, it is still common to refer to it as Persia. Just as we don't refer to Istanbul before the 1920s, as it was commonly called Constantinople in the west before then. It may be seen as politically correct to refer to the country as Iran throughout its history, and some historians now do, but it is certainly not its common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, well that makes more sense. Anyways; As someone who has contributed heavily to Iranian-related articles and thus possess many sources regarding the country, I would say that I disagree, and argue that Iran more or less is used just as much pre-1920 in more recent times, if not more in some some cases. The sources are a pretty good example of that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@
WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." - LouisAragon (talk
) 13:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Simple. Many of these results refer to books that are either by Iranians (who prefer the modern name to the older European name, just as Turkish scholars tend to refer to Istanbul throughout and not Constantinople) or detail the whole history of Iran (as it is today) and therefore use Iran throughout. Proves nothing whatsoever, as these sorts of searches usually don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Many of these results refer to books that are either by Iranians (who prefer the modern name to the older European name, just as Turkish scholars tend to refer to Istanbul throughout and not Constantinople) or detail the whole history of Iran (as it is today) and therefore use Iran throughout."
Do you have proof for these bold statements? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually look at the results that come up. It's pretty obvious. It's also pretty obvious that Iranian scholars are going to prefer to call the country Iran instead of the name it was given in the West for so long (again, I refer you to the case of Istanbul - you won't get many modern Turkish scholars calling the city Constantinople even pre-1920s, but we do because that's the name Western scholars tend to use and anything else would be revisionism, as here). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
If we accept your claims, by what reading of policy do they imply that we should reject the move?
WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say we should use the name most commonly used in English language reliable sources except for ones written by Iranians. If your claim is that the works by Iranian scholars are, on average, of lower quality, and that the highest quality, most reliable sources on this historical period use the current name, perhaps you could provide some positive evidence of this. Colin M (talk
) 18:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course I'm not saying Iranian sources are lower-quality. I'm saying that works by Iranian scholars are unlikely to be indicative of the name of the country as used by native English-speakers. And this is English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's just not correct. I have seen Iranian scholars use the term "Persia" as well. I'm sorry, but to me it seems like you're making a lot of bold assumptions and claims that have no weight. Even if you were correct, then that doesn't change the fact that we have
WP:COMMONNAME. And "Arab conquest of Iran" is clearly the most used version. At the end of the day, scholars, whatever their ethnicity, tend to follow the scholarly consensus, which is indeed the afromentioned spelling. --HistoryofIran (talk
) 00:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
1) To the casual reader, "Arab conquest of Iran" could very well be referring to the
Iraq-Iran War
(1980-1988), in which Arabs arguably conquered (or at least tried to conquer) parts of Iran.
2) "Arab conquest of Iran" could very well be the claim of some Iranian nationalistic media complaining about the rising influence of Arabs in Iran (how about Saudi Arabians for example?). From this point of view it sounds just like some racist/ nationalistic slogans heard in the West, like "Arabs are invading the United States" or the "Arab conquest of Great Britain", "Arab conquest of Western civilization" etc....
3) I think instances of Muslim invasions in the past often do take into account this issue of historicity in the title (but I am sure there are counter-examples): for Spain, it is "
Umayyad conquest of Hispania", not "Arab conquest of Spain", for France it is "Umayyad invasion of Gaul" not "Arab conquest of France" which would be a Marine Le Pen slogan I guess, for North Africa it is Muslim conquest of the Maghreb
etc...
4) Again I am not a specialist, but "Arab" is an ethnicity, and I am pretty certain that other ethnicities were included in this invasion (Levantines, North Africans?) as they were part of the Rashidun Caliphate. Actually, what they had in common was not ethnicity but the Muslim faith, or at the very least Islamic rule....
I am very well aware that this is apparently a heated debate, and oppose voices are being pounced on. So please be aware that this is just an uninvolved outsider's candid opinion, and that I do not intend to respond to any comment. Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Never once has the Iraq-Iran war been referrred as the "Arab conquest of Iran". The goal of the Iraqis throughout the war was to "reclaim" Khuzestan, which they ultimately failed. Anyways this is completely irrelevant and random. The same especially goes for argument 2. For argument 3, what is written or not on other Wikipedia pages is not a legit reason for inclusion, per
WP:CIRCULAR. For argument 4, no entity is "pure", however it is no secret that the bulk of the conquerors were Arab, and that the Caliphate was essentially an Arab Empire until the establishment of the Abbasids (per sources such as [2]). I would appreciate if people stopped coming up with their own personal assumptions (without even a single source to support it) and actually tried to refute my arguments and the sources up above, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk
) 15:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"The Arabs were Muslims"? But that is simply not true. Just because the Muslims at the time were Arabs, the converse doesn't hold. At the time, most Arabs were Christians, Zoroastrians, Polytheists, etc., and remained so for a while, even in areas conquered by the Muslims. Heck, many Arabs remain Christians today. Arabs and Muslims are not synonymous. I'm not sure what the relevance of Umayyads are at this point (and your point is untrue). And not sure what you mean by "impossible" for non-Muslims to convert (also untrue, and at any rate, undermines your first point; I will take it that you misspoke). Anyway, it seems evident you are confusing the terms "Arab" and "Muslim". That is precisely a danger the title of this article should avoid. This article is specifically about the Muslim conquests. Walrasiad (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Walrasiad: You're making very bold claims, could you please show some sources to back it up? Especially the "most Arabs weren't Muslim at that time" bit. It's amazing how Wikipedia users suddenly become world-renowned historians, and think their own personal opinion higher than that of an actual academic scholar. Look at the sources by me and LouisAragon up above, they all disagree with you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Walrasiad: Scholars routinely use "Arab" to designate the first Muslim state to emphasise its Arab character as opposed to later Muslims states that were dominated by non-Arabs. E.g., Hoyland, In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire; Collins, The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–797; Starr, Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. This isn't a case of mistaking all Muslims for Arabs. Srnec (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran. My claims are rather modest. We know for a fact that the Lakhmid & Ghassanid Arabs weren't Muslims. We know for a fact there were (and are) Christian, Zoroastrian, etc. Arabs during this period who did not participate or even fought against the Muslims. That should be enough to prevent this misguided attempt to rename the article.
As to proportions of Muslims & non-Muslims on the Arabian peninsula itself, that's anybody's guess, since we have next to no evidence. There's no reason to assume the process of Islamisation was instant on the Arabian peninsula, whereas it took many centuries in other regions to reach Muslim majority populations. While Islamisation is commonly assumed to have been faster on the Arabian peninsula (i.e. within the 7th C.), it was certainly not complete by the time of the conquest. Given in the chronicles that many of the Arabian urban centers (esp. in east and south of the peninsula) were taken by jizya negotiations, it is safe to assume the populations remained whatever they were, at least for a while. We have Christian bishops writing about the relationship between Muslim officials and general non-Muslim populations in the Arabian peninsula, and a general synod held in eastern Arabia to regulate relations in 676, well after the conquest. So the proportions are anybody's guess. For a brief survey of (how little we know) about the pace of Islamicization on the Arabian peninsula, I'd recommend Harry Munt's article in the recent Peacock-edited volume on "Islamisation" (2017, Edinburgh UP)
Remember, after the Prophet's death in June 632, practically all tribes on the Arabian peninsula, except those around Mecca, Medina and Taif, broke from and attacked the Muslims, some even proclaiming their own prophets (e.g. Tuleiha, Musalaima, Sajah). The common start date of the invasions of Persia (February-March 633), during which some of the revolts in Arabia (esp. south) were still on-going (indeed, the very initial ventures of Muslim columns to the Persian borderlands was to serve as an early warning device to intercept and delay anticipated Persian military intervention to assist the Arab anti-Muslim forces on the Arabian peninsula; but it turns out the Persians were not organizing anything, and the columns waltzed on in unopposed into the Euphrates, and that began that). So, by the timing, you are proposing mass conversions of the entire population of the Arabian peninsula within weeks. That doesn't sound very probable.
(Of course, the conventional dating of the Muslim conquests of Persia have recently come under scholarly challenge by historians of Sassanid Persia (e.g. by Pourshariati in her 2008 book), throwing the traditional chronology off and making everything even murkier.)
@Srnec. It is not about mistaking "all Muslims as Arabs", it is about mistaking "all Arabs as Muslims".
My interest here is clarity and precision. This article deals narrowly only with the Muslim conquests. It does not deal with Lakhmid conquests. And if the recent revised Sassanid chronology gains traction, there may be more shades to account for.
There's nothing wrong with the current article title - it is accurate, precise and reflects its content. I don't see any reason and certainly no gain from renaming this article. It only promises to make it murkier and confusing, and promises more quarrels in the future to rename it back. Walrasiad (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Walrasiad Your concern is modernist. While true in the present era, that not all Arabs were Muslims, it was not true in the first centuries of Arab conquest. At that time, when the Arabs rode out of Arabia on the backs of horses and camels, to displace the weakened and corrupted (east)Roman Empire. The Arab were in fact Muslims. The then occupants of modern Syria, Iraq and Levant were ethnic any Arabs then living in the area, were polytheists and in the minority, The first Caliphs considered Islam to be an Arab only religion, any non Muslims in the Arab forces that defeated Persia were either slaves or mercenaries. It has taken centuries, for the lifting of restrictions to conversion, and only reluctantly as it would result in the loss of revenue (jizzyah). Additionally, at the time of the first two Caliphs, an Arab was a person from, or had roots in Arabia. Today it is someone whose native tongue is Arab, hence Christian Arabs.Oldperson (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
More Christian Arabs now than in 633? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculously improbable. Not only in the Ridda, the Muslim Arabs fought against non-Muslim Arabs during the conquests of Persia and Syria. The entire course of the Muslim campaigns of conquest are not comprehensible, and cannot be told, without referring to the Christian Arab armies fighting on behalf of the Sassanid and Byzantine empires. Christian Arab forces outnumbered the Muslim Arab armies at several of the great battles, sometimes (if chronicles are to be believed) manifold times larger. Please take the time to learn the facts. Attempts to portray this as an "ethnic" fight are misleading when much of the fighting was Arab vs. Arab. Walrasiad (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIranTalking of opinions. References please that prove that the Arab army that invaded and conquered Persia was made up of non Arab Muslims. Or even non Arabs.The fact is that the army of under the command of Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās, was an Arab army led by an Arab, thus the Arab conquest of Persia was completed at the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah. .Oldperson (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: You've tagged the wrong person though, I was the one who proposed this move. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Battle of al-Qādisiyyah
the army was under the command and control of an Arab, hence it was an Arab army and an Arab invasion. That there may have been non Muslims and non Arabs in the Army is irrelevant. Alexanders Army and the Roman Army and in fact most armies up until the modern state were made up of military slaves (conscripts) mercenaries and of course volunteers.
But at that time in Islamic history, there were few Muslim converts, and the citizens of the Levant were in fact non Arabs. The ethnic classification of Arab is a modern affair and is applied to all who speak Arabic as their native tongue, regardless of race or religion.
I am not as well versed in Persian history as I would like to be, but I am always learning. My library is currently in storage, but I do recall that the poet Ferdowsi penned a phrase in the Shahnemeh that has been immortalized and repeated by the learned classes of Iran. It is a lament about Arab conquest of Persia are narrated in a moving manner where Ferdowsi himself laments over this catastrophe and over what he calls the arrival of the “army of darkness”. I wish that I had access to my library, at hand, I would quote Ferdowsi's lament.
Meanwhile my SourceOldperson (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Please do come up with (reliable) sources that support this proposal. HistoryofIran (talk)
We have two facts: the first is "Rashidun Caliphate's conquest", and the second is the conquest on "Sasanian Empire". Neither "
talk
) 15:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Your personal opinion / view doesn't count as a reliable source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Requested move is not based on encyclopedic facts. Which Arabs? Which Iran?
talk
) 16:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Huh? I'm sorry, but are you sure you know what "conquest" means? I don't recall Iraq conquering Iran. Also, could you please show a source(s) that state that the Iran-Iraq war for that matter is known as the "Arab conquest of Iran" too? These are lot of bold claims. Also, please read
WP:COMMONNAME. --HistoryofIran (talk
) 18:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is about the Islamic conquest of Iran, not just Fall of the Sasanian Empire. Much of the article is indeed about fall of the Sasanians, but not all of it. Aryzad (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We use the correct historical name for the area regardless of what the land is called now. I'm pretty sure
    Conquest of Istanbul is a redirect. All this besides the fact that Arab v Muslim is a whole 'nother can of worms. Red Slash
    04:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in Byzantine history but I'm pretty sure that "Fall of Constantinople" is more WP:Common than Conquest of Istanbul, hence why the latter is a redirect. I dont really see your point tbh. HistoryofIran (talk)
  • Oppose Like what Red Slash said, Persia has been the historical name for the area. It is true that the land has been called by its inhabitants Iran throughout historical times. However, the entire contemporaneous world knew of this country as Persia. The Iranian government had to request other countries to recognize the name Iran only in 1935. What these mean is that this country has not existed in isolation and its history is intertwined with those of others. For instance, the conquerors knew that they were invading Persia and that's what was indicated in their records. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure Red Slash's comment contradicted itself, per my comment up above. Also, what Iran was known as to the western world a century ago is not of importance, it's what is known by now that is. And the "Arab conquest of Iran" is clearly the winner here per evidence put up by me and LouisAragon. We have
WP:COMMONNAME (not only is the proposed name more common, it's also significantly more accurate), which many seems to be ignoring/not aware of. --HistoryofIran (talk
) 23:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
According to your reasoning, the title is bound to change if Iran adopts another name in the future. Darwin Naz (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"Also, what Iran was known as to the western world a century ago is not of importance, it's what is known by now that is". Interesting. So, by that reasoning, do you think we should refer to Istanbul and not Constantinople too, even when talking about the pre-modern city? Or Izmir and not Smyrna? Or Kolkata and not Calcutta? Or Mumbai and not Bombay? Or St Petersburg even when it was called Leningrad? That's revisionism. We don't do that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
What you say is Eurocentric. Why should someone care about the outdated western name of the empire? This is not the Western Wikipedia, this is the international version of Wikipedia. Iran is the only accurate and historical name of this empire; "Persia v Iran" is not the real problem here, the problem is "Arab v Muslim". Aryzad (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Why? Because that was its name in English-language sources until the 1920s/30s and the name used for the empire up to that time by many or most English-language sources even today. And this is English-language Wikipedia, not "international Wikipedia". Iranians can call it what they like in Persian-language (ironically) Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, we don't live in 1920s/30s anymore; as HistoryofIran said, "Iran" is more common in English language sources now. And English is the world language so English Wikipedia is the international Wikipedia. The point is not that this is non-English Wikipedia, the point is that this is not Western Wikipedia. So the western name is not more important than the accurate (which is also a common name too) name. Aryzad (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Necrothesp: No, because Constantinople is obviously still known in modern sources as Constantinople in Byzantine and often Ottoman related stuff. Not revionism, but simply you misunderstanding me :P (also using Iran is obviously not revisionism, look it up please, it clearly can't be compared to stuff like Constantinople/Istanbul etc). Darwin: Making guesses about what might happen in the future is irrelevant, I'm talking about now, not 100 years back in time or the future. And as of now the sources clearly show that "Arab conquest of Iran" is a winner. Gosh I just love repeating myself. HistoryofIran (talk)
No, I didn't misunderstand you. I merely quoted what you said about nobody caring what it was once called in the Western world, but only what it was called now. That suggests you think other names should be revised. Pre-1920s/30s Iran is still frequently referred to as Persia in English-language sources, just as pre-1920s Istanbul is invariably referred to as Constantinople in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"Revisionism" is a strong word for it, but there's definitely precedent for using anachronistic names for historical topics if they're the
WP:COMMONNAME. An example someone pointed out to me recently is Prince Henry the Navigator. Per the article, "No one used the nickname "Navigator" to refer to prince Henry during his lifetime or in the following three centuries." Colin M (talk
) 14:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. If they are the common names. Henry the Navigator is invariably called that and has been for many years. But many, if not most, people still refer to the pre-war incarnation of Iran as Persia. As is clear from the sources and the discussion above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, because the sources up above contradict you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Same reasons as Colin M.Oldperson (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is alright. Islam also changed the religious history of Persia but not it's ethnicity or language. Arabs and Persians also fought many wars prior to Islam, but this is more about a religious change in the country. All the scholarly research and studies published for centuries also used "Persia" first. Even the local Arab and Persian sources which later scholarly research mostly got theirs from use the term Pars and Fars meaning Persia, not the later term Iran--Persian Lad (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hate to be that annoying guy commenting on everything, but this looks like more
WP:COMMONNAME argument. --HistoryofIran (talk
) 23:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Persian Lad: How come an Arabic term from medieval Arabic-language sources should but the actual name of the Sasanian Empire (Ērān, Irân) and the common English term used in the majority of English-language RS shouldn't be considered for naming a relevant article in the English Wikipedia? Besides, it was the Arab caliphate that conquered Iran, not just any Muslim caliphate. The use of the Arabic language was also spread by the conquerors, while writing in Persian (which had already been established as the main language of Iran) was abandoned for two centuries, and terms such as ajam were coined by their time to refer to non-Arabs, especially the Persians. So the ethnic Arab character of the conquerors was not unimportant at all, if we were to argue about that.
—Rye-96 (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rye-96: So actual name of the Sassanian Empire is important (which is important indeed), but the actual name of the Islamic Caliphate is not important? Aryzad (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@
WP:COMMONNAME clearly supports this move.
—Rye-96 (talk
) 12:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@
WP:COMMONNAME
also says: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."
"Arab" is both ambiguous and inaccurate here. Aryzad (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You could say the same about "Muslim". A lot of people are making claims here that have no basis in actual sources, primary or secondary. There are no contemporary Muslim sources for the conquest of Persia/Iran. Here is
Robert Hoyland, whom I've already cited, defending the use of "Arab" over "Islamic":

I will speak of "Arab" conquests rather than "Islamic" conquests. Both terms are to some degree inaccurate, since the conquerors were neither all Arabs nor all Muslims, and the meaning of both terms was in any case evolving in the immediate aftermath of the conquests. Nevertheless, contemporary observers mostly referred to the conquerors in ethnic rather than religious terms, and even if some of the conquerors were not Arabs their descendants often came to think of themselves as such, and so it seems preferable to use the term "Arab," while bearing in mind that we are not talking about a nationalist endeavor nor an immutable racial category. . . Furthermore, if we use the term "Islamic conquests" we cannot distinguish between the many different conquests achieved over the centuries by many Muslim groups (Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Berbers, etc.). This causes much confusion among students, and among quite a few experts too, for it tends to be assumed that the Arabs conquered most or all of the lands that are majority Muslim today, whereas a large proportion of them were actually conquered much later, by local Muslim dynasties, of non-Arab origin, or were Islamized slowly by traders, missionaries, and wandering ascetics.

Srnec (talk
) 14:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@
IC/SIS use a similar name, because they consider themselves successors of the early Caliphate. Besides, the term Al-fath-al-Islamiah (the Islamic conquest), which is used by the Muslims themselves to refer early Islamic conquests, is not related the "many different conquests achieved over the centuries by many Muslim groups" at all. Aryzad (talk
) 14:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. If it had a name in the 7th century, we don't know what it was. Srnec (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm talking about all of conquests of early Caliphate. Those conquests are called the Islamic conquests by the Muslims. Aryzad (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This is pure
Wikipedia:OR. The sources contradict you, Aryzad. Which name you like the most is not of any importance. It is what the historians favour that is of actual importance, which is indeed the the proposed name. --HistoryofIran (talk
) 20:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why this is hard to understand: Conquest of somewhere by the Islamic Caliphate is an Islamic conquest. Like a Roman conquest, British conquest, French conquest, German conquest, etc. This is not about ethnic or religion. This is about the name of the empire. In Anglo-Persian war, the British soldiers were Indians. Do you think that one should be changed to Indo-Persian war? Aryzad (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh no, I understand you, just doesn't change it from being
Wikipedia:OR and that the sources contradict you (also those comparisons don't make sense in this context). --HistoryofIran (talk
) 21:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
So the historical name should be ignored and we should use another name because of the fact that it was used by some modern sources? Interesting!
I think this conversation is pointless. Read your comments again and see so many people said many thing but you only said "this is
WP:COMMONNAME" and nothing more. Anyways, I'm done here, do whatever you like. Aryzad (talk
) 21:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Well,
Wikipedia:OR per the rules. --HistoryofIran (talk
) 21:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

I cant find the discussion of merge

It says at the top of the article that there is a merge discussion. I am not able to find this discussion. Can anyone help me? Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I clicked Ctrl-F and searched this talk page for the word "merge" and I only found one mention -excluding my comment- of the word merge and it is the closed RM discussion. I have removed the merge tag.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_Persia/Archive_4&oldid=1137028877"