Support NeoGAF

[dan2026]

The fuck do all these threads degenerate into people arguing over scripture and holy books?

Its completely irrelevant.

No matter what the texts say people will make their own shitty interpretations and follow what they want and discount what they don't.

You can't argue that that book says 'EAST, because some other bastard has already decided it actually says 'WEST'.

 

[spidye]

I wished we would have stuck to Zoroastrianism.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I wished we would have stuck to Zoroastrianism.

So blame your ancestors, Islam was never forced upon Iranian and it remain a zoroastrian majority country for a long time. You still have active zoroastrian temple in Iran.

 

[spidye]

So blame your ancestors, Islam was never forced upon Iranian and it remain a zoroastrian majority country for a long time. You still have active zoroastrian temple in Iran.

the fuck you're talking about???

it was forced upon us. so yeah I'll blame the arabs for the conquest and forcing Islam upon Iranians

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

the fuck you're talking about???

it was forced upon us. so yeah I'll blame the arabs for the conquest and forcing Islam upon Iranians

First line:

The Islamization of Iran occurred as a result of the Muslim conquest of Persia. It was a long process by which Islam, though long rejected, was gradually accepted by the majority of the population.

So yes it was conquered, but the religion was not forced upon the local population just like in Spain where the vast majority of people remain christian after 800 years of muslim occupation.

Even practice like marriage between brother and sister, praised in zoroastrianism, was not outlawed.

 

[spwolf]

First line:



So yes it was conquered, but the religion was not forced upon the local population just like in Spain where the vast majority of people remain christian after 800 years of muslim occupation.

Even practice like marriage between brother and sister, praised in zoroastrianism, was not outlawed.

lol... just because people accepted it does not mean it wasnt forced... i know that here under Turkish rule, you would get a lot higher taxes if you remained Christian... and some parts of country converted more than others, but that does not mean it wasnt forced.

800 years is long time, cant blame the people for accepting religion.

 

[spidye]

First line:



So yes it was conquered, but the religion was not forced upon the local population just like in Spain where the vast majority of people remain christian after 800 years of muslim occupation.

After the Muslim conquest of Persia, Zoroastrians were given dhimmi status and subjected to persecutions; discrimination and harassment began in the form of sparse violence.[59][60] Zoroastrians were made to pay an extra tax called Jizya, failing which they were either killed, enslaved or imprisoned. Those paying Jizya were subjected to insults and humiliation by the tax collectors.[61][62][63] Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam

I don't know if they had much of a choice at first.
the arabs were intelligent though, since they didn't force their culture upon Iranians and as a proud folk persians are they would have never accepted the arabian culture.
religion was easier to accept I guess.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Wait a minute, did I honestly just read someone on this thread justify barbaric punishment because the rules surrounding it are really really specific so if you're going by the letter of the law it should never really happen? So it's fine?

#religion

The fuck do all these threads degenerate into people arguing over scripture and holy books?

Its completely irrelevant.

No matter what the texts say people will make their own shitty interpretations and follow what they want and discount what they don't.

You can't argue that that book says 'EAST, because some other bastard has already decided it actually says 'WEST'.

It's not irrelevant, because as long as there are some people that take these scriptures seriously, and as long as said scriptures contain even a hint of potential awfulness, the cycle will continue.

 

[spwolf]

No, 4 witnesses of the direct act of sexual intercourse out of marriage who should not be blood related and spying is forbidden.

26.4

So except if you indulge in adultery on the public space, it's virtually impossible to match. In fact you'll find very few cases historically.
The rest is just cultural non-sense, who don't have nothing to do with the faith, north-african jews do the exact same thing.
But every damn negative thing must be use to blame islam, right ?

so basically you are saying that they are not following Islam properly and hence its not Islam?

But that does not matter... question is how many times was that law used to stone women, not how many times they properly proved that she was cheating.

Just like this now, does not matter if this is "proper" or not proper.. in the end, women cant ride bikes in Iran anymore. That is horribly wrong.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

lol... just because people accepted it does not mean it wasnt forced... i know that here under Turkish rule, you would get a lot higher taxes if you remained Christian... and some parts of country converted more than others, but that does not mean it wasnt forced.

800 years is long time, cant blame the people for accepting religion.

Well, being forced mean the exact opposite of freely accepting. Look at Indonesia where no arab soldier never came to the country, nor was invaded by any muslim nation and they are almost all muslims.

Shi'ism as it practiced in Iran still hold a lot of zoroastrian element.

 

[LiK]

WTF

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I don't know if they had much of a choice at first.
the arabs were intelligent though, since they didn't force their culture upon Iranians and as a proud folk persians are they would have never accepted the arabian culture.
religion was easier to accept I guess.

The war with the arabs didn't last more than a few years so they didn't became muslims by slavery. Yes as a non-muslim minority they had to pay the jizyah and there was certainly abuse on this part, but they didn't pay the Zakat nor they needed to do the military service. Egypt took more than 800 years to became a muslim majority country, so it's not the jizyah who do that but progressive acceptation.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

so basically you are saying that they are not following Islam properly and hence its not Islam?

But that does not matter... question is how many times was that law used to stone women, not how many times they properly proved that she was cheating.

Just like this now, does not matter if this is "proper" or not proper.. in the end, women cant ride bikes in Iran anymore. That is horribly wrong.

Please follow the discussion in it's original context, i was speaking about the "blood on the sheet" type of tradition.

 

[Heshinsi]

First line:



So yes it was conquered, but the religion was not forced upon the local population just like in Spain where the vast majority of people remain christian after 800 years of muslim occupation.

Even practice like marriage between brother and sister, praised in zoroastrianism, was not outlawed.

The majority of people living in Muslim Spain did in fact become Muslim though. It was the subsequent reconquista, the expulsions, forced conversions, and inquisition that changed that. But one of the reasons many converted to Islam was due to the social and economic benefits that convertion brought.

This was also one of the reasons people rebelled against the Ummayad Caliphs in the ME, because even after converting, the Ummayads still treated non Arabs like shit. It's how the Abbasids were able to gain Shiite support in their overthrow of the Ummayads.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

The majority of people living in Muslim Spain did in fact become Muslim though. It was the subsequent reconquista, the expulsions, forced conversions, and inquisition that changed that. But one of the reasons many converted to Islam was due to the social and economic benefits that convertion brought.

This was also one of the reasons people rebelled against the Ummayad Caliphs in the ME, because even after converting, the Ummayads still treated non Arabs like shit.

Yes, i agree with the part on the Ummeyads, it's why Abbasid were so popular among non-arabs.
I read otherwise, that most of the population always remained christians in Spain.
I found this in wikipedia about the issue:

There is a long running debate about what proportion of the population of Al-Andalus that the Mozarabs formed. Some maintain that the Mozarabs were part of a historical continuum of latinised Christians that represented the majority of the population of Al-Andalus, while argue that the Christian population was relatively small in the areas under Muslim-rule. The former camp bases their position on the work of Francisco Javier Simonet, whose works Glosario de voces ibéricas y latinas usadas entre los mozárabes (1888) and Historia de los mozárabes de España supported the idea that the indigenous Christian community of Al-Andalus formed the majority of the population. Other historians argue that the work of Simonet and those who proceded him in studying this question took a non-critical view toward the sources used and the conclusions draw, citing a lack of firm historical evidence that can be used to make a definitive pronouncement on the composition of Al-Andalus society.[6]

About conversion from other religion to Islam, i think our reading of this will always be highly biaised. It's always supposition. The fact that so many people remained christians in Egypt after like 1300 years of muslim rule it's quite telling.

 

[spidye]

The war with the arabs didn't last more than a few years so they didn't became muslims by slavery. Yes as a non-muslim minority they had to pay the jizyah and there was certainly abuse on this part, but they didn't pay the Zakat nor they needed to do the military service. Egypt took more than 800 years to became a muslim majority country, so it's not the jizyah who do that but progressive acceptation.

you certainly can't deny the persecutions of Zoroastrians in the beginning of the conquest.

After the Muslim conquest of Persia, Zoroastrians were given dhimmi status and subjected to persecutions; discrimination and harassment began in the form of sparse violence.[11] Those paying Jizya were subjected to insults and humiliation by the tax collectors.[12][13][14] Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.[12]

and they were slaves too. honest question, do you know persian history?

 

[Heshinsi]

Yes, i agree with the part on the Ummeyads, it's why Abbasid were so popular among non-arabs.
I read otherwise, that most of the population always remained christians in Spain.
I found this in wikipedia about the issue:




About conversion from other religion to Islam, i think our reading of this will always be highly biaised. It's always supposition. The fact that so many people remained christians in Egypt after like 1300 years of muslim rule it's quite telling.

Hmm...I guess I missed read that. But it still doesn't disprove the gist of what I was saying in that there were reasons other than simply finding faith for people to convert. Under the Ottomans the same would happen again in places like the Balkans.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

and they were slaves too. honest question, do you know persian history?

What about reading the own link you provide ?

"Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.[12]"

The arabs-persians war only lasted a few years, the enslaved zoroastrians was the prisonniers of war, not the general population.
And yes, i know a little about persian history. The hatred for the arabs always have some kind of political agenda. Or it's because it was Omar ibn al Khattab and Abu Bakr from a shia perspective, or because they were arabs from a nationalist perspective or because they were muslims from a zoroastrian-nationalist perspective.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Thank you, Kate Beaton.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Hmm...I guess I missed read that. But it still doesn't disprove the gist of what I was saying in that there were reasons other than simply finding faith for people to convert. Under the Ottomans the same would happen again in places like the Balkans.

I think it's very hard to know. From an islamic perspective, it's the encounter of faith who was the main motivation, from a materialistic perspective, it's the economic-social advantage who did the trick.

It's probably a mix of both, but in any case it was a very slow process, i think it's important to underline it, it was not like Spain conquest of South America were others religions where just abolished by the conquest and every act of doing something other than catholic was accounted as apostasy.

Both are not contradictory though, to gain some popularity with the general population. The Spanish Peninsula was conquered in a very short time because it was occupied by a foreign dynasty who use to press the population with very high taxation and political tyranny. The islamic law is very good for farmers, since the taxation is relatively low and the land is owned by who is working it. This rule was changed in the 19th century after the "modernization" of the Ottoman law, who conduce to a "latifundio" phenomena who lead to a revolt of many province of the Ottoman empire.

 

[spidye]

What about reading the own link you provide ?

"Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.[12]"

The arabs-persians war only lasted a few years, the enslaved zoroastrians was the prisonniers of war, not the general population.

of course

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians

Urban cities where Arab governors made their quarters were most vulnerable to such religious persecution, great fire temples were turned into mosques, and the citizens was forced to conform or flee.

and general population too.
do you seriously believe that the conquest of Persia and Islamization of an entire empire was MOSTLY peaceful?
especially since most of the Islamization of other countries was forced by war (africa for example)

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

of course

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians



and general population too.
do you seriously believe that the conquest of Persia and Islamization of an entire empire was MOSTLY peaceful?
especially since most of the Islamization of other countries was forced by war (africa for example)

Again, just read the link you provide:

Many converted, some superficially, to escape the systematic abuse and discrimination by the law of the land.[12] Others accepted Islam because their employment in industrial and artisan work would, according to Zoroastrian dogma, make them impure as their work involved defiling fire.[18] According to Thomas Walker Arnold, Muslim missionaries did not encounter difficulty in explaining Islamic tenants to Zoroastrians, as there were many similarities between the faiths. According to Arnold, for the Persian, he would meet Ahura Mazda and Ahriman under the names of Allah and Iblis.[18]

Nothing about slavery as a motivation.

I already mentioned the fact that Egypt remained majority christian until the 12/13th century. You have to separate the military conquest and the conversion to Islam. Many countries of Asia or Africa were never conquered military but are now majority muslim country like Senegal, Mali, Malaysia, Indonesia...