Sassanids vs Arabs

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Asawar    First about Jizyah. Again and again, this was a tax like any tax. Persians in the conquered areas were not muslims and so didn't fight in the Islamic armies. However if they chose to do so they didn't pay this tax nor if they were living in border areas.

Again and Again It was not like any tax than it was a religious (as can be seen anywhere throughout the ages of Arab Muslim rule) and most fo the times racist ( example of this events of the time of Hajaj ibn Yousef) plus they took 'Gharama' from cities they seized after battles plus there was 'Kharaj' and of course 'Jaziya' and a notable seizure of lands. Although it did raised after the reigns of the first four caliphs but what was happening in those times was no better than above-mentioned, as for example Umar believed that Muslims should leave themselves to soldiering in order to be always prepared and eager to invade more lands and spread the faith i.e. Jihad, and let the former landowners who submitted without fight keep their status, as merely the various taxations I named above would suffice that abundant number of the Arab tribesman receive some kind of monthly salary and thus have enough time and resource to for isntance cross Gibraltar.

Originally posted by Al Jassas As for pillaging, Arab armies, like all conquering armies, only pillaged conquered cities and from what we know no mass murder happened in the early conquests though it did happen later. Cities that gave in peacefully, like most Syrian and many Iranian cities, faced no pillaging at all in the early conquests except in Damascus and all the confiscated property and enslaved people were freed after that.

Yes though Arabs still believe those golden times of Arabs, I should firstly say that according to history pillaging before and after Islam was a habit of Arab tribes. And though they didn't destroy every city (cause they actually wanted to migrate into and around big Iranian cities) moreover they already embezzled the assets of the most conquered people save only few number of them. And secondly I should say that again you are telling a story instead of history. As again according to islamic sources cities like Ctesiphon were sacked, many of its inhabitants slaughtered and (again like we can expect from Arabs) the rest of the survivors especially women and children were taken to Medina to incorporate into the arab slavery system. The importance of the fall of Ctesiphon is somehow understimated in islamic histories yet its rich (estimated about 900 million drahmas, which attracted many merchanst at those times of war to Medina) financially insured the requirement of any further expedition, and it could be considered a financial turning point. Oh BTW thanks for remebering the readers here about sack of Damascus. 

Originally posted by Al Jassas As for murdering POWs, again I never said it didn't happen, it did but it wasn't wide spread and was only on the express orders of the Caliph. For the case that you gave, Tustur settled peacefully then rebelled that is why some POWs were killed and the city pillaged, but another source, Futuh Al-Buldan says that all those enslaved were later freed on the orders of Omar and returned to their homes.

And I say it happened on the express orders of the caliph or many time NOT!

Slaughter (specially beahding) of Iranian prisoners of war at the battle of Qadesiya until the night (a pleasure for the Arabs once they ruled)

Slaughters committed by Abu Musa Asha'ari in south western Iran.

Slaughters of the Iranian prisoners of war by Khaled ibn Walid so-called Seif al Allah at the early stages of the conquest of Hira.

Slaugter of people of the city of Estakhr under direct supervision of Umar (who according to many islamic primary sources held a mysterious htared toward Iranians)

Massacres commited by the governors of Khurasan and Hyrcania, also in Khwarazm and Transoxiana. Like Qutaiba ibn Muslim. there's a narration that Arab Muslims massacred the literates of the Khwarazm in order to hinder any future resistence.

There is another narration that one of Umayyed caliphs (I dont recall the name now) for probing their sword ordered them to be tested on Byzantine POWs.

 

So you again are wrong. heh!

Originally posted by Al Jassas Finally for the Duhqans, their power was reduced well after the conquest. After the conquest they were badly needed to administer the conquered areas and had excessive powers. After the Arabisation of administration by the time of Abdul-Malik he decided to strip them from such powers gradually. Sawad was settled and local government strengthened. Courts were established at the Kurah or county level and the need for the Duhqans was all but ended by the time of the Abbasids.

You may wish that things were as easy that you suggest here, no?

Those Dehgans who accepted the holy arab yoke and gave in without fight, just kept their land but including the various heavy taxations plus in the times of uprisings and especially times of Umayyid arabs, caliphs and their mandates and governours according to many sources seized a notable property or land without any pretext. From the early ages of Arab invasion Arabs started to seize the lands they could.(According to Istakhri the richest family amongst the landowners of Parsa - the very heart of Sassanids- was the family of Hanzala ibn Tamim from Bahrain).

The Muslim need for administration is another discussion and is not only confined to the Dehgans. Muslims until the times Abdulamalik ibn Marwan and of Hajaj in Iraq had to use Iranians , their system of administration and their language for it, cause they weren't able to do it after about a half century after their successful invasions.

Again wrong. There werent actualy so much needs for Dehgans and Abbasids themselves being ascended to the throne of Arab empire with notable help of Iranians while tolerating extensivley of Iranian Dehgans, and it was not all but ended heh. In their times many Dehgans sometimes turned out to be powerful rebellion leaders and some Dehgans cooperated the Abbassid to supress some revolts.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Except for the Arab world, which was already Arab well before the conquests begun, the rest of the Islamic world kept their cultural identity, except religion of course, intact.

Is that entirely true though? You're obviously more well-read on this subject than I am, but I recall reading Hourani claim that the lands conquered by the Arabs were only gradually converted to Islam. So gradually in fact, that even centuries after the initial conquest Muslims still remained a minority many places.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Obviously this debate is going in circles but I will answer the old points you raised for the last time otherwise I will answer any new material.

Going in circles? I think obviously not as I don't agree with you on this, every time there is a point and I try to explain, however you may do whatever you wish. History can not be as it is desired like nice story. For Jaziya what matters is its role in the Arab invasions more precisely about territories held by Iranians.

The I guess this article in Encyclopaedia Britannica is more fluent than your compicated inconclusive points for readers: 

"also spelled Jizyah, Arabic Jizyah, head or poll tax that early Islāmic rulers demanded from their non-Muslim subjects.
Islāmic law made a distinction between two categories of non-Muslim subjects—pagans and dhimmis (“protected peoples,” or “peoples of the book”; i.e., those peoples who based their religious beliefs on sacred texts, such as Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians). The Muslim rulers tolerated the dhimmis and allowed them to practice their religion. In return for protection and as a mark of their submission, the dhimmis were required to pay a special poll tax known as the jizya. The rate of taxation and methods of collection varied greatly from province to province and were greatly influenced by local pre-Islāmic customs. In theory the tax money was to be used for charitable purposes and the payment of salaries and pensions. In practice, however, the revenues derived from the jizya were deposited in the private treasuries of the rulers. The Ottomans usually used the proceeds of the jizya to pay their military expenses.

A convert to Islām, in theory, was no longer required to pay the jizya. The Umayyad caliphs (661–750), however, faced with increasing financial difficulties, demanded the jizya from recent converts to Islām as well as from the dhimmis. This discrimination against converts was a cause of the Abū Muslim rebellion (747) in Khorāsān and helped to precipitate the downfall of the Umayyads."

Actually the amount of the islamic taxation which is here important is in the days of the Arab invasions, Umayyaids etc. the other point is the policy behind taxes like this which aimed into a forcible but silence conversion of the subjects of other religions.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Second, you portrait the Arabs as if they were the only people in the world who sacked cities and pillaged and massacred their inhabitants. Should I remind you about the long and glorious history of massacres and sackings done by every army in the world from the Achaemenids and Assyrians to the 21 century Americans? Have you forgotten what the Byzantines done to Ctesiphon just a decade earlier and what the Sassanids done to Jerusalem and Anatolia before? Actually when we return to history Arab conquests are probably one of the least if not the least dirty of all conquest movements till today.

And you portrait the Arabs as if they were the saviours of the world?! Wrong again, cause I'm not giving portrait of Arabs rather than telling a bit of what they've done, which is of course according to islamic primary sources. Yes the Arabs were like other invaders and plunderers, but millions of people today are not awrae of it and millions of Arabs inauagurate those invasions, the key figures, still curse those who resisted Arab invasions. And Arabs did but mere plunder like for example Mongols but organized, afterall interesting is the particular deeds in their invasion of Iran ( that of course nowadays is being seriously studied all over the world, shedding light upon the obscurities they caused) their cultural supression policies and their uncaused hatred toward Iranians which showed itself in the very images they had of Iranians even before starting their invasions.
About brief capture of Jerusalem by Iranian armies with alliance of Jews. this comparison just shows some of your weakpoints about 7th century world events, as it was not a religious war rather than political and the aim was not to fight Christianity but weaken the Byzantines and a stage in the Iranian Byzantine wars. Ctesiphon was not sacked only some of its whereabouts to push the Sassanian new king to accept the desired peace agreement of Herakelios. And it was Arabs who sacked it(who thought of this city as home to evil and thus didnt choose to reside in it) just to extinguish their fire of racist envy of Iranians and more importantly to take its treasury for the good of establishing their own Arab empire. Ibn Khaldun said: " before the Arabic invasion of Iran, they (Iranians) possessed vast lands with a lot of populace, yet after that Arabs subdued them by means of sword, they faced such ravage and spoil like they never existed. Because it is the natural tendency of the Arabs to seek to live their lives relying on the head of their spears and if they ever attain either power or rule, then they would know no limit for their habit of plunder, therefore the civilization of their conquered disappears and this was exactly what happened about Iran"

Without commenting on the above citation, I'd say that one can see that how was the Arab view on their invasions, conquests etc.

Al-Masudi told of the denomination of the Battle of Jalula, which took place little after sack of Ctesiphon (Some Arab muslims under order of Umar pursue the fleeling Iranians composed of soldiers, inhabitants of Ctesiphon i.e. women, children and the elderly and Arabs reached them, broke their resistence and massacre many, enslaving many of the people - most of the women prisoners were sold by incredible low prices in Medina- Thus after that bloody massacre the battlefield started to be called Jalula which in Arabic means "covered" due to the plentifulness of the dead bodies of the Iranians.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Except for the Arab world, which was already Arab well before the conquests begun, the rest of the Islamic world kept their cultural identity, except religion of course, intact. Iranians still celebrate Nuruz more than they celebrate Ashura or any Islamic festival for that matter. They still read Attar and Ferdowsi more than they read the quran or hadith and still yearn for the empire they once had which is a legitimate desire. Hardly any cleansing of the population.

Very off topic and I don't see any points in responding this very not professional saying.

Originally posted by Al Jassas As for what happened in Iran during the conquests well read history well before going on judging it. It is the 7th century not the 21st. In the 7th century when you submitt, then you revolt and kill the garrison, you lost your right to live, as unfortunate and unhumane as it is this was the rule of war back then and those unfortunates suffered the consequences that they fully knew about. The Mongols did it after and the Persians before weren't so generous with the christians of Jerusalem. Finally for the POWs killed and you mentioned particularly the first three incidents, could you please tell me where I could find them because I just wasted one hour searching for them in my books and I found nothing. And Qutaibah didn't conquere Khwarism nor even reach it, he went to Ferghana vally and Shash regions.

I know all of this what you're trying to imply, I know the differences between 21st and 7th century. But still many people still support the holiness of the Arab invasions.
About the sources you can finally go and read al-Dinavari, Tabari, Tarikh-i-Bukhara, al-Baladhuri and others.



Edited by Asawar Hazaraspa - 19-Oct-2008 at 01:49

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Asawar   I told you this argument is going in circles. I quote to you one of the most distinguished jurist in Islam and a guy who is extremist even by the standards of those days and you go and bring an encyclopedia article.

Originally posted by Reginmund if learning was suspended in the highest parts of Heaven the Persians would attain it

To inofrm you I should this is kind of saying that is not Ibn Khaldun's own words but the words that according to Arab tradition of Hadith according to some right or wrong backs to prophet Muhammad himself.

despite all of this his works are considered primary sources and I don't think there were any take for the miserable conditions of Iran of those days. As for many primary muslim sources Iranians are regarded as group of heathen and the authors' views are absolutely against them yet they are important sources for Sassanian era.

Keep in mind none of those things are commanded in the bible and those people chose to do that of their own free will.

Topic stick-ied

Persian Empire or Chinese Empire don't exist as a single entity across the history. There are persian or chinese civilization-culture, which show from time to time a polytical face which we call empire. There were sucessive persian and chinese empires, in plural, borning and diying.

Originally posted by Nickmard The Arab conquest of Persia makes me want to cry every time I think about it. So many Iranians beheaded and our glorious culture stained forever.

Well if you weren't wearing such expensive hats we wouldn't have been after your heads. Duh!