What is an Arab?

[irosie91]

There is no such thing as "race". An old idea which has caused nothing but harm to the world.

The Jewish people are a culture who are tied together by many things -- religion being but one.

what else ties the jewish people together??

cuisine------jews ----no matter their GEOGRAPHICAL background-----all end up
eating bagels

Everyone eats bagels.

Interesting answer, Penelope. It is true that CURRENTLY everyone eats bagels---but THINK BACK-----when did YOU have your first bagel? I am assuming that you are----uhm---over 50 Years old. I am well over 50 and grew up amongst
very standard Wasps ---mixed with Irish catholic ---Lutheran etc. In my town----
my playmates never heard of a "BAGEL"-----the first bagels migrated in with jews
and made a weak appearance ---circa 1970's (of course my family had the option
of our visits to New York------and baker granddad) HOWEVER-----what is true is
that JOOOOS share cuisine----borrow readily across the continents. I did not so much as taste a "grit" until I was about 25-----and so far never ate a
raw clam or cracked up a lobster

My first bagel was about 5 years ago as I am a fussy eater. I wont eat steak because of the texture, I wont eat sheep because of the fatty taste. I eat most shellfish but not whelks, oysters or mussels, same with offal I wont eat most but love liver. Cant stand broccoli yet will sit and eat a full cauliflower. Love kippers yet hate roll mop herrings, will eat tinned salmon but turn mu nose up at fresh and would not even touch tuna.

It is a cultural and taste thing for regional food that is shown all over the world with variations of the same dishes as close as the next hamlet, village, town, city.

sheeeesh ----you is worse than me (my mom ---age 97---- still tells me I was a
BAD CHILD-----for the sin of FUSSY EATER) "whelks"???. I think lots of USA people do not know "kipper"------I do because my dad used to do kippers
and eggs now and then------his mom grew up in London. I like kippers----with
scrambled eggs----------ANYONE OUT THERE KNOW "KIPPER" ? Speaking of
cultural------I never tasted an oyster or a mussel-------CULTURAL -----it does not
look like human food to me. I do not like "mutton" either-----gooey greasy-----
but hubby loves it-------but he calls it GOAT-------He has to wait for the curry house
to have GOAT CURRY <yuck>. ---reminds him of the goat in the back yard----
of his childhood

 

[Roudy]

Arabs are invaders who shoved their barbaric religion, language, and culture down the throats of the people they conquered. After slaughtering, raping, and dehumanizing them of course. Look closely, they are still doing that today.

No they didn't, at least no more than anyone else did at the time. If anything, the Arab conquest was relatively "civilised". What Muslim extremists are guilty of today is a direct result of Western meddling since the 19th century.

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

 

[Roudy]

Arabs invaded Israel too. Duh.

Yum, I thought it was the Zionist who invaded Palestine. And by the way, who was there that the Hebrews killed to take the land away from, I'm talking about 2800 years ago. Who did they fight in the bible?? Seems to me they would be the real owners of that land.

Palestine is another name for Zion, you lunatic. Palestine isn't mentioned in both Bibles, or the Koran. Do you know why? It's a friggin hoax.

Or perhaps because both the Bibles and the Koran are just fantasy novels?

The Koran is more like a horror flick, Achmed.

Clearly you've never read the Bible, now there's a real "Restricted 18" rated horror flick (NC-17 in the US) in the making.

Bzzzzz wrong. Both Bible's general message is peace and coexistance. The Koran was authored by an illiterate terrorist mass murderer who forced people to submit to his barbaric Saudi Arabian ideology through fear and intimidation.

True story.

 

[Roudy]

There is no such thing as "race". An old idea which has caused nothing but harm to the world.

The Jewish people are a culture who are tied together by many things -- religion being but one.

what else ties the jewish people together??

Racial characteristics, culture, laws, religion and teachings. This is why so many other groups want to see them wiped out as they oppose their views and cultures making them hard to convert

Ding, none of the above do they have in common. They speak all languages, Yiddish use to be the most popular, they wear Russian clothing(the orthodox), they have no collective world view except the torah and even the first PM of Israel was a atheist, that means he did not believe in God and by the torah he should of been stoned.

So you are admitting that you have constantly lied on another thread when you stated that Lenin was a Jew through blood ( racial ). The Jews have a distinct culture found no where else in the world, Their laws fill whole rooms with books debating the legality of all subjects, and you use these libraries as you would the koran. The most diverse of teachings are those of the Jews and even the Ashkenazi Jews were taught the same things as Iraqi Jews over the last 2000 years.

Now what do the Palestinian arab muslims have in common apart from an inbuilt psychopathic need to mass murder, even their own

How this Lenin was an atheist whom at one time or another came from kin who practiced the religion of Judaism.

They do not have an distinct culture, unless they are orthodox, and even then they have different cultures, depending on where they live.

More rubbish from the asylum escapee.

 

[Challenger]

Arabs are invaders who shoved their barbaric religion, language, and culture down the throats of the people they conquered. After slaughtering, raping, and dehumanizing them of course. Look closely, they are still doing that today.

No they didn't, at least no more than anyone else did at the time. If anything, the Arab conquest was relatively "civilised". What Muslim extremists are guilty of today is a direct result of Western meddling since the 19th century.

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

 

[irosie91]

[QUOTE="

from Penelope>>>>
How this Lenin was an atheist whom at one time or another came from kin who practiced the religion of Judaism.

They do not have an distinct culture, unless they are orthodox, and even then they have different cultures, depending on where they live.[/QUOTE]

from Roudy
More rubbish from the asylum escapee.[/QUOTE


From rosie >>>
for Penelope. Penelope----HOW DO YOU KNOW? I was born in the USA--
as were my parents-------remote ancestry was-----Austrian----Some Russian----
move over to England -----lots of different places ---generally called
"eastern European" Roudy----seems to be-----mostly Iraqi---with a sojourn in
Iran----thence to the USA I do not believe that either of us are
"ORTHODOX" ---------My hubby was born in a shariah cesspit----in which I
believe Roudy never ventured-------and I, certainly, did not. So tell me about
that concept that you have that ROUDY---and I and my Hubby do not share
a common culture. I am fascinated that YOU------a person who states
"I don't know any jews"-------is so AWARE of the cultural affinities of---Roudy---
my hubby and my own.-------Please explain what and how you KNOW

 

[Roudy]

Arabs are invaders who shoved their barbaric religion, language, and culture down the throats of the people they conquered. After slaughtering, raping, and dehumanizing them of course. Look closely, they are still doing that today.

No they didn't, at least no more than anyone else did at the time. If anything, the Arab conquest was relatively "civilised". What Muslim extremists are guilty of today is a direct result of Western meddling since the 19th century.

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Cambridge my ass, you didn't even provide a link, sock of Monte.
.
I like that you're disputing factual undisputed history. Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland | CAIS©

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.


When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.


To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

 

[Challenger]

Yum, I thought it was the Zionist who invaded Palestine. And by the way, who was there that the Hebrews killed to take the land away from, I'm talking about 2800 years ago. Who did they fight in the bible?? Seems to me they would be the real owners of that land.

Palestine is another name for Zion, you lunatic. Palestine isn't mentioned in both Bibles, or the Koran. Do you know why? It's a friggin hoax.

Or perhaps because both the Bibles and the Koran are just fantasy novels?

The Koran is more like a horror flick, Achmed.

Clearly you've never read the Bible, now there's a real "Restricted 18" rated horror flick (NC-17 in the US) in the making.

Bzzzzz wrong. Both Bible's general message is peace and coexistance. The Koran was authored by an illiterate terrorist mass murderer who forced people to submit to his barbaric Saudi Arabian ideology through fear and intimidation.

True story.

Only on planet Rude-ee. Just curious, how can someone author a book if they are illiterate? Both Bibles have stories of rape, sodomy, mass murder and genocide; far worse than anything found in the Quran.

 

[irosie91]

Arabs are invaders who shoved their barbaric religion, language, and culture down the throats of the people they conquered. After slaughtering, raping, and dehumanizing them of course. Look closely, they are still doing that today.

No they didn't, at least no more than anyone else did at the time. If anything, the Arab conquest was relatively "civilised". What Muslim extremists are guilty of today is a direct result of Western meddling since the 19th century.

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

I believe that Iranian muslims and Iranian jews have a far better grasp of the
period of time to which you allude than does a tea sipping armchair british
"historian" I have lived in the USA all of my life. I read the "history" presented
in the USA textbooks-------all thru my childhood------then I grew up and realized that
"world history" presented in the USA-----is actually HISTORY AS PER THE
BRITISH EMPIRE armchair "scholars". I learned from------Muslims from Pakistan, Hindus from India, Muslims and Jews from Iran etc etc-----and also
primary sources like OLD BOOKS--------real old----like ancient writings. One of the
most slanted versions of BRITISH PROPAGANDA---shows up in the
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. It drips with EARL GREY TEA.
(disclaimer-----I have nothing against the brits------relatives from both sides----
over there-----I was even brought up on soft boiled eggs propped up in little
porcelain stands------my dad called French fried "chips"

 

[Roudy]

Islamic Invasion Of India: The Greatest Genocide In History

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
By the time the British arrived to the shores of India and after centuries of Islamic law ruling India, the Hindu population was not behaving like their normal self; they were behaving like Muslims. There are many witness reports from the British archives of horrendous Hindu incidents that were shocking in cruelty to the British – and they therefore sometimes referred to the people as “savages”. Yes, anyone who gets contaminated by the association with Islamic ‘culture’ truly gets tainted and savaged. That is exactly why it is so detrimental and dangerous.

Today, like other cultures with a soul massacred by Islam, India is not truly a Hindu nation. India is a shadow of Islam, a Hindufied version of Islam, where every human atrocity has been emulated and adopted into a culture previously alien to such brutality. And in association with it’s foreign mohamedan pest, these Islamic habits have become adopted and accepted as a “normal” part of Indian culture. But if we look at pre-Islamic Indian culture it was a in general a benevolent culture of knowledge and learning, much more so than it is today.

From the time of the Umayyad Dynasty (711AD) to the last Mughal, Bahadur Shah Zafar (1858), so widely praised as great leaders by Indian historians themselves, entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. “Hindu slaughter.”

 

[irosie91]

Palestine is another name for Zion, you lunatic. Palestine isn't mentioned in both Bibles, or the Koran. Do you know why? It's a friggin hoax.

Or perhaps because both the Bibles and the Koran are just fantasy novels?

The Koran is more like a horror flick, Achmed.

Clearly you've never read the Bible, now there's a real "Restricted 18" rated horror flick (NC-17 in the US) in the making.

Bzzzzz wrong. Both Bible's general message is peace and coexistance. The Koran was authored by an illiterate terrorist mass murderer who forced people to submit to his barbaric Saudi Arabian ideology through fear and intimidation.

True story.

Only on planet Rude-ee. Just curious, how can someone author a book if they are illiterate? Both Bibles have stories of rape, sodomy, mass murder and genocide; far worse than anything found in the Quran.

roudy made a little mistake------the rapist pig of mecca did not AUTHOR the koran-------well----actually muslims claim he RECITED IT-----(BS) and then it was finally
WRITTEN OUT_-------some 100 years after the pig died

 

[Roudy]

Palestine is another name for Zion, you lunatic. Palestine isn't mentioned in both Bibles, or the Koran. Do you know why? It's a friggin hoax.

Or perhaps because both the Bibles and the Koran are just fantasy novels?

The Koran is more like a horror flick, Achmed.

Clearly you've never read the Bible, now there's a real "Restricted 18" rated horror flick (NC-17 in the US) in the making.

Bzzzzz wrong. Both Bible's general message is peace and coexistance. The Koran was authored by an illiterate terrorist mass murderer who forced people to submit to his barbaric Saudi Arabian ideology through fear and intimidation.

True story.

Only on planet Rude-ee. Just curious, how can someone author a book if they are illiterate? Both Bibles have stories of rape, sodomy, mass murder and genocide; far worse than anything found in the Quran.

Well Achmed will of course defend Islam, and say bullshit about other religions. The world today is judging Islam by its fruits, Muslims behaving like wild savages while quoting the Koran. Yes, the illiterate terrorist Mohammad forced his slaves to write what he told them, dumbass!

 

[Roudy]

No they didn't, at least no more than anyone else did at the time. If anything, the Arab conquest was relatively "civilised". What Muslim extremists are guilty of today is a direct result of Western meddling since the 19th century.

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

I believe that Iranian muslims and Iranian jews have a far better grasp of the
period of time to which you allude than does a tea sipping armchair british
"historian" I have lived in the USA all of my life. I read the "history" presented
in the USA textbooks-------all thru my childhood------then I grew up and realized that
"world history" presented in the USA-----is actually HISTORY AS PER THE
BRITISH EMPIRE armchair "scholars". I learned from------Muslims from Pakistan, Hindus from India, Muslims and Jews from Iran etc etc-----and also
primary sources like OLD BOOKS--------real old----like ancient writings. One of the
most slanted versions of BRITISH PROPAGANDA---shows up in the
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. It drips with EARL GREY TEA.
(disclaimer-----I have nothing against the brits------relatives from both sides----
over there-----I was even brought up on soft boiled eggs propped up in little
porcelain stands------my dad called French fried "chips"

Correct, Iranians know what Arabs did to them better than anybody else.

 

[irosie91]

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

I believe that Iranian muslims and Iranian jews have a far better grasp of the
period of time to which you allude than does a tea sipping armchair british
"historian" I have lived in the USA all of my life. I read the "history" presented
in the USA textbooks-------all thru my childhood------then I grew up and realized that
"world history" presented in the USA-----is actually HISTORY AS PER THE
BRITISH EMPIRE armchair "scholars". I learned from------Muslims from Pakistan, Hindus from India, Muslims and Jews from Iran etc etc-----and also
primary sources like OLD BOOKS--------real old----like ancient writings. One of the
most slanted versions of BRITISH PROPAGANDA---shows up in the
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. It drips with EARL GREY TEA.
(disclaimer-----I have nothing against the brits------relatives from both sides----
over there-----I was even brought up on soft boiled eggs propped up in little
porcelain stands------my dad called French fried "chips"

Correct, Iranians know what Arabs did to them better than anybody else.

are you sure you would not prefer to read IRANIAN HISTORY AS PER PENELOPE?

 

[Challenger]

No they didn't, at least no more than anyone else did at the time. If anything, the Arab conquest was relatively "civilised". What Muslim extremists are guilty of today is a direct result of Western meddling since the 19th century.

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Cambridge my ass, you didn't even provide a link, sock of Monte.
.
I like that you're disputing factual undisputed history. Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland | CAIS©

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.


When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.


To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

Yeah, the defeated griping about having lost. It is true Zoroastrians were persecuted during the later Muslim era, mainly by Iranian Muslims like the Safavids, but not initially.

One interesting point, "After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows." Khalid ibn Walid never fought a "battle of Alis" although the battle of Ullais in 633 in modern Iraq bears similarities. The battle was a hard fought, "last stand" of the Sassanian army. When it finally broke the Rashidun cavalry pursued the Persians and their Arab allies, many were killed in a dry canal bed called the "river Khasseef" Khalid ordered the dam to be broken so the waters would wash the bodies away; which incidentally fulfilled an earlier oath he has made to "turn the river red with the blood of his enemies"

I use the above to illustrate the point that you can't necessarily trust writers with an agenda, and yes, that works both ways. Oh and immediately after the battle, Khalid's army captured two cities; Al-Hira and Erbil. The inhabitants surrendered and no one was killed or raped.

I didn't provide a link because the book is not available on-line, it's a book. Buy a copy or get it from a library and read it for yourself.

 

[irosie91]

Ha ha ha. Arab conquest was civilized! OMG the shit that comes out of you IslamoNazis. Why don't you ask the Persians, Indians, and other peoples that Arab Muslim animals invaded, raped, looted, and committed genocide upon.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume4 The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483, "...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Arab invasions of India were restricted to what is now modern Afghanistan and Pakistan and there is no record of raping, looting, and "genocide" as you put it, over and above the norm for the period.

Your problem is that you are conflating Arabs, with Muslims. Arabs were not responsible for the Mongol-Turkic Muslim invasions of Timur-i-Lenk 6-700 years later, for example, which were notoriously brutal and even genocidal in extent.

There ya go proving how ignorant you are. Arabs invaded Iran, slaughtered its people, raped their women, and forced Islam, Arabic language and culture down their throats at the point of a sword.

In case you missed it the first time, the Cambridge History of Iran disagrees with you.

The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 483,

"...the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted."

Cambridge my ass, you didn't even provide a link, sock of Monte.
.
I like that you're disputing factual undisputed history. Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland | CAIS©

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.


When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.


To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

Yeah, the defeated griping about having lost. It is true Zoroastrians were persecuted during the later Muslim era, mainly by Iranian Muslims like the Safavids, but not initially.

One interesting point, "After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows." Khalid ibn Walid never fought a "battle of Alis" although the battle of Ullais in 633 in modern Iraq bears similarities. The battle was a hard fought, "last stand" of the Sassanian army. When it finally broke the Rashidun cavalry pursued the Persians and their Arab allies, many were killed in a dry canal bed called the "river Khasseef" Khalid ordered the dam to be broken so the waters would wash the bodies away; which incidentally fulfilled an earlier oath he has made to "turn the river red with the blood of his enemies"

I use the above to illustrate the point that you can't necessarily trust writers with an agenda, and yes, that works both ways. Oh and immediately after the battle, Khalid's army captured two cities; Al-Hira and Erbil. The inhabitants surrendered and no one was killed or raped.

I didn't provide a link because the book is not available on-line, it's a book. Buy a copy or get it from a library and read it for yourself.

I learned the history of the arab invasion of Iran from MUSLIM IRANIANS-----
of the Shiite type-------ethnic arabs in Iran are a persecuted minority. l learned
about ZOROASTRIANS------from Zoroastrians who fled Iran to MUMBAI (the ersthwhile Bombay) Zoroastirans from Mumbai have nothing positive to say
about the musllims of MUMBAI------and Shiite muslims have nothing positive
to say about arabs or-----muslims from south east asia

 

[Challenger]

Islamic Invasion Of India: The Greatest Genocide In History

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
By the time the British arrived to the shores of India and after centuries of Islamic law ruling India, the Hindu population was not behaving like their normal self; they were behaving like Muslims. There are many witness reports from the British archives of horrendous Hindu incidents that were shocking in cruelty to the British – and they therefore sometimes referred to the people as “savages”. Yes, anyone who gets contaminated by the association with Islamic ‘culture’ truly gets tainted and savaged. That is exactly why it is so detrimental and dangerous.

Today, like other cultures with a soul massacred by Islam, India is not truly a Hindu nation. India is a shadow of Islam, a Hindufied version of Islam, where every human atrocity has been emulated and adopted into a culture previously alien to such brutality. And in association with it’s foreign mohamedan pest, these Islamic habits have become adopted and accepted as a “normal” part of Indian culture. But if we look at pre-Islamic Indian culture it was a in general a benevolent culture of knowledge and learning, much more so than it is today.

From the time of the Umayyad Dynasty (711AD) to the last Mughal, Bahadur Shah Zafar (1858), so widely praised as great leaders by Indian historians themselves, entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. “Hindu slaughter.”

Again you are grouping all Muslims as a monolithic block. Arabs were not involved in conquering India, and the Hindu population were not annihilated in the year 1000. The Hindu Kush is a mountain range that was well known to be dangerous to anyone trying to cross, be it because of the weather, or terrain, or local tribes. The range became known as "Hindu killer" as a result, nothing to do with Islam.

 

[irosie91]

Islamic Invasion Of India: The Greatest Genocide In History

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
By the time the British arrived to the shores of India and after centuries of Islamic law ruling India, the Hindu population was not behaving like their normal self; they were behaving like Muslims. There are many witness reports from the British archives of horrendous Hindu incidents that were shocking in cruelty to the British – and they therefore sometimes referred to the people as “savages”. Yes, anyone who gets contaminated by the association with Islamic ‘culture’ truly gets tainted and savaged. That is exactly why it is so detrimental and dangerous.

Today, like other cultures with a soul massacred by Islam, India is not truly a Hindu nation. India is a shadow of Islam, a Hindufied version of Islam, where every human atrocity has been emulated and adopted into a culture previously alien to such brutality. And in association with it’s foreign mohamedan pest, these Islamic habits have become adopted and accepted as a “normal” part of Indian culture. But if we look at pre-Islamic Indian culture it was a in general a benevolent culture of knowledge and learning, much more so than it is today.

From the time of the Umayyad Dynasty (711AD) to the last Mughal, Bahadur Shah Zafar (1858), so widely praised as great leaders by Indian historians themselves, entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. “Hindu slaughter.”

Again you are grouping all Muslims as a monolithic block. Arabs were not involved in conquering India, and the Hindu population were not annihilated in the year 1000. The Hindu Kush is a mountain range that was well known to be dangerous to anyone trying to cross, be it because of the weather, or terrain, or local tribes. The range became known as "Hindu killer" as a result, nothing to do with Islam.

good point------the muslim genocide of Hindus was not done by arabs-----it was done by non arab muslims -----IN THE NAME OF MUHUMMAD who was an arab and in the name of the blob of crap in Jannah ----allah. . It was not the result of
rain in the hills------nor was the genocide that took place in east Pakistan in 1971.
What point are you trying to make?

 

[Challenger]

I believe that Iranian muslims and Iranian jews have a far better grasp of the period of time to which you allude than does a tea sipping armchair british
"historian"

Maybe, maybe not. You've just said yourself living in the USA, you've read, the "history" presented
in the USA textbooks", what makes you think Iranian textbooks are any different? Studying history is not just reading a textbook, it is reading several works on a subject from all perspectives, then making a determination based on the credibility of those works and the sources used.

 

[irosie91]

I believe that Iranian muslims and Iranian jews have a far better grasp of the period of time to which you allude than does a tea sipping armchair british
"historian"

Maybe, maybe not. You've just said yourself living in the USA, you've read, the "history" presented
in the USA textbooks", what makes you think Iranian textbooks are any different? Studying history is not just reading a textbook, it is reading several works on a subject from all perspectives, then making a determination based on the credibility of those works and the sources used.

right----my informants were not just the average jerk standing on
the corner------they were in a country like IRAN----something like
INTELLECTUALS-------In them thar 3rd world countries only the top notch
people get into Medical school. (or engineering school) They were not
the kind of people who swallow swill as easily as do you. I did not swallow the
standard british version and they did not swallow the standard (for the time)
Iranian swill (in general) One issue that seemed CULTURAL to me was
that HATRED OF ALL THINGS ARAB (expressed by muslim Iranians---Iranian jews did not exactly seem to care) I was also impressed by their uniform NEED
for ------beer. I was always being asked "where do I buy beer"-----beer-----
I have never gotten past the scent of that FOAM.-----obsessed with ---yuck--
BEER!!!!