Talk:Islamization of Iran

Since the discussion of Arabicization was taking over the Islamic conquest of Iran article, I decided to move it here. There's room to spread out, guys. Zora 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved Arabization and Islamicization in post-conquest Iran to Islamicization in post-conquest Iran

The term "Arabization" in the title implies that there was a successful "Arabization" process of Persia and Iran which is not true. According to Professor Bernard Lewis [1], "Iran was indeed Islamized, but it was not Arabized. Persians remained Persians." --ManiF 07:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We were supposed to vote on this before you move it?????? Aucaman^Talk 11:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT OK to just move an article without consulting other editors, and especially not to do so for POV reasons. Whether or not there was an Arabization is something to be discussed, which is why it's there in the title. Zora 12:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article was misleading and based on POV. The reasons for the move were cited and included in the edit summary. --ManiF 13:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You were supposed to request a move and we were supposed to vote on it! What you did is the equivalent of just deleting an article without filing for AfD first. If you wanted a move you were supposed to file a RM, not just move the article. If I were you I'd immediately apologize instead of trying to justify the move. If the move is not obvious enough to require a justification then you were supposed to file a RM first. In any case it's up to User:Zora to decide how we're going to deal with this. Aucaman^Talk/e 13:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologize for here. The article's title was unsourced, inaccurate, misleading and POV, and I corrected it by providing a citation from a well renowned Professor of Islam and Middle Eastern Studies, and using one of my user functions. --ManiF 13:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. If there was article titled "Arabization of Iran" isn't that also POV? So can you just go in there and delete the article???

The point is that there are some mechanisms in Wikipedia and everyone is supposed to follow them. If you wanted the article moved you were supposed file a RM. It doesn't matter how wrong the title is. If you continue to insist you haven't done anything wrong we can just file we can just file a RfC and we'll see whether or not you've done anything wrong. Aucaman^Talk/e 13:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, I really don't appreciate your aggressive tone, stay civil. From what I understand, you have also moved "Parsi" to "Parsi people" in the past without asking anyone to vote on it or anything. When an article's title is so obviously inaccurate, misleading and POV then it's appropriate to change it. --ManiF 15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. SouthernComfort 02:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page back

ManiF, you don't seem to understand the term Arabization. It does NOT mean that everything in a society has become Arabic. It is a process, that can have great effect (as it did in Syria or Egypt) or relatively little effect (as it did in Persia). It is a term used in academic discussion of the effects of the Islamic conquests. The terms Arabization and Islamization are often used together. Very often you will have one without the other. Christian communities in Syria and Iraq have been Arabized (they use Arabic in their church services) but not Islamicized. Persia was Islamicized, but resisted Arabization. Egypt was, to a great extent, both Arabized and Islamicized. If you don't understand a word, look it up -- don't guess at the meaning and then erupt in anger based on your misunderstanding.

If you'd like, I can put that explanation IN the article, so that other people don't make the same guesses that you have. Zora 23:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any opposing sources proving significant "Arabization" in post-Islamic Persia. A source, however, disagreeing with you has been provided. SouthernComfort 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, disagree with the inclusion of the term "Arabization" in the title. By the way, you yourself state that Persia resisted Arabization - I don't understand why you feel it necessary to have that term as part of the title when we are essentially in agreement. SouthernComfort 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article should probably be moved to Islamicization in post-conquest Persia or Islamicization of Persia as per Islamic conquest of Persia, since it focuses entirely on historic issues and events. I'd like to hear what others have to say before agreeing on a new title. SouthernComfort 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Islamicization of Persia sounds more historically accurate. --ManiF 02:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there was SOME Arabization. Here, the University of Maryland Center for Persian Studies says:

Persian has undergone many changes in the past two millennia, the most significant of which has most certainly been the influence of Arabic since the Islamic conquest of Persia in the year 650. Over the years, Persian has borrowed up to half of its vocabulary from Arabic as well as certain grammatical elements. This impact of Arabic is profound not only because of its magnitude but because the sounds and syntax of Arabic, a Semitic language, are so different than those of Persian. Since the Middle Ages, Persian has been written in a modified form of the Arabic alphabet, although in pre-Islamic times it was written in an older alphabet known as Pahlavi. [2]

Up to half the vocabulary? That's a profound impact. As is a change in the writing system. It's like the change from Anglo-Saxon to Middle English. Anglo-Saxon and Norman French collide -- wham! Anglo-saxon grammar stays, but a huge importation of French vocabulary. An article on "French influence on the English language" would be defensible, no matter how the English felt about the French. Arab/Persian tensions are high now, but that's no reason to deny facts. Zora 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say, but that is only in regards to language, not the civilization as a whole. Arabic (Iraqi Arabic, for example) and Turkish also have been immensely influenced by Persian - would you consider their peoples and civilizations to have been "Persianized" as a result? I think not. What you are discussing would be more appropriately labelled Influence of Arabic on Persian language. But I don't think there is enough material warranting a new article, as it can be very briefly covered at Persian language. However, if you are interested in this area, you may wish to also start articles on Persian influence on Arabic language and Persian influence on Turkish language. SouthernComfort 02:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, that still doesn't justify the use of the word "Arabization" which is generally interpreted as "to become Arab" or "to make Arabic" in the title of this article or any other such articles. --ManiF 02:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, the present title is accurate and warranted as it only deals with the adoption of Islam by the Iranian populace. Use of the term "Arabization" is inappropriate, and Zora's source does not use the term in relation to Iran. Her source is also only discussing the influence of "Arabic language upon Persian language," an entirely different matter than "Arabization." SouthernComfort 02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mani, you're not getting it. A process isn't all or nothing. It can be partial. Are you saying that there was NO Arabic influence on Persia? That would be letting your ideology blind you to facts. Zora 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To SC: Yes, of course there was enormous Persian influence on the Arabic language -- and Middle Eastern cultures. I think that those would be great articles, but I'm not sure I know enough to write them.

As for THIS article, you can't just say that in this context, language doesn't count and then, in articles like Persian peoples and Iranian peoples, say that it's the essence of being Persian. As for other parts of culture -- well, Islamicization carried with it profound implications for kinship, marriage, inheritance, all the things that anthropologists usually consider the heart of culture. A great many of those rules were based on the practice in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, so that customs like mehr and temporary marriage have to be counted as importations from Arabia.

It would be easier to discuss this if we had a better understanding of Sassanid Persia, so that we could say exactly what changed and what didn't. Dang library-burning invaders!

I think it's fair to mention Arabization in the title, if only to say that it was limited. It's like saying "latitude and longitude" -- it's hard to understand Islamicization without having Arabization as the other axis. Zora 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I think you're the one who is not getting it. Weather or not, there was any Arabic influence on Persian or Persia is irrelevant to this discussion. Your source does not speak of "Arabization" and the term would be misleading and inappropriate in this context, especially for the title. --ManiF 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what, this article is actually unnecessary - the information here should be incorporated back into Islamic conquest of Persia where it belongs. Otherwise we should include a brief summary of this article in its own section in that article. I reread the "Islamic conquest" article and it definitely could use this material. SouthernComfort 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved it OUT of there because it was getting so long and contentious. We're not just talking about the immediate effects of the conquest -- we're talking about several centuries of rule by Umayyads and Abbasids. That doesn't logically belong in the conquest article. The conquest article, as it stands, is "just the facts". This article is for the arguments. Which should be ALLOWED here. If we're arguing about whether or not there was any Arabization, that should go in the article. NPOV requires multiple POVs, not just one. Zora 04:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be best to contain everything in that article and just state things as they are presented? Otherwise this article seems something like a POV fork. And I'm not sure why you are disputing that the Arab conquerors imposed their language upon the subjected peoples - I mean, this is widely accepted amongst historians, is it not? You yourself have also stated that Persians resisted the effects of Arab occupuation - why would they resist if there were no imposition on the part of the Arab rulers? SouthernComfort 05:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Arabization, especially in the title is extremely confusing and wrong. It implies that Iran became an Arab country like Egypt and Syria did. I know it is not ALL or NOTHING but almost 99% it implies “becoming Arab” this is why in cases such as Iran instead of Arabization writers use “Arab/Arabic influence”

Gol 09:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Arab Migration to Khorasan

I believe the following paragraph should be added to give a clear picture of the situation in 7th-8th century.

Following the Arab conquest, tens of thousands of Arab families moved to the eastern borders of the Islamic caliphate and Khorasan region. While arab settlements were small in western Iran, there was extensive colonization of eastern Iran, in particular Khorasan region. Many Arab tribes such as Bakr bin Wael, Tamim, Abd-al-Qays and Azd moved to Khorasan. The Arabs acquired lands in villages and married local women and settled in Khorasan permanently. According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Arab population in Khorasan was huge in the early 8th century CE, and the number of Arab people living in Khorasan was around a quarter of million people (Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.213).

The Arabs and muslim Iranians overcame their initial differences and cooperated extensively in military expeditions against their common enemies on the Khorasan's eastern frontier. The Arab population in Khorasan, included not only soldiers, but also merchants, artisans, religious scholars, landlords and peasants. They blended well with the local host population. This in turn lead to the integration of Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, and assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and gradual spread of the Arab culture and religion in the Iranian host population (Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,p.214). Heja Helweda 07:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC).

A random piece of information on an Arab settlement in Khorasan doesn't need a section of its own on every Persia-related article. You have posted this on a dozen articles. --ManiF 07:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That belongs in the appropriate article, in other words Khorasan. As Mani states, and as I have stated before, you shouldn't go around posting this information on every Iran-related article to prove a point. SouthernComfort 11:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

hey heja!i read your comment on another article in which you had said that in the time of perso-arab wars iran had a population of about 1.5 million. isnt that a bit funny? how could these 1.5 men and women control such a huge country for at least 450 years?! and beside it wars with romans for nearly all of this period? i think there were at least 30 or 40 million iranians then. (i think your anti-iranian point of view is making you blind!- by the way i live in iranian kurdistan and i and my kurd brothers and sisters have no problem with each other. i don't know why are you so anti-iranian. believe me we other iranians have no problem with kurds the problen is only the goverment) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.219.216.158 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

"Arabize"??

"Arabic influence"? Certainly there was, and no one denies it.

"Arabize"? I wouldnt bet on it. Especially for a title. Maybe we could say "the attempt to Arabize". But not "Arabize" itself. "Arabize" is an "all or nothing" process, contrary to what Zora says. The definition for "Arabize" is clear:

"1. To make Arabic in form, style, or character" [3]

Either you take the form, style, character, and hence become an Arab, or you dont. And that never happened to Persia. Attempted? yes. Influenced? Yes. Arabized? No.

Egypt and the lower Nile in Africa were Arabized. Not Persia.

In fact it was to a large extent the other way around: The Arabs took up and adopted Persian customs, styles, and forms.

As far as Im personally concerned, even the major doctrines of Islamic faith itself are largely a rip off of Zoroastrianism. That's why it wasnt that hard for many people to convert.--Zereshk 06:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then, Islamicization and partial Arabization in post-conquest Persia. With a coda saying that there was a great deal of influence the other way too, perhaps point to an article on it. Zora 07:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as "partial Arabization". You either become Arabized or you don't. As I said before, the term "Arabization" is misleading in this context. --ManiF 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. That's absurd. SouthernComfort 07:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Partial Arabization"? What does that even mean? Tell me Zora, are you partly an English speaker? Are you partly a U Chicago graduate? Are you partly human?

Lets use the word "influence". That's much better.--Zereshk 07:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, there is so little in the way of information concerning "Arabic influence" on Persia that it is inappropriate to include that in the title - "Islamicization" is much more accurate and proper. I had suggested to Zora previously that an article on "Arabic influence on the Persian language" could be justified, but again, there is so little to include that it could just be included in the main article on Persian language. SouthernComfort 07:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am arabic but I live in Iran for a few years and I think that there is Arabic influence on Persia in langauge but in fact it still parsian langauge becouse arabs can't understand it, for an arab man it's easy to understand other arabic tongue in Egypt or Marraco or ... but he can't understand Persian, and about Islam you can see that most the arabs are Sunni but Persian are Shia and I think that persian had a great influence on arab and islam. and abuot Arabization I think it's not correct word because if you read the history you will find that many arabs tribes were settlements in Iran but if you visit Iran now you will found no arabs ( except khozistan ) and that is mean that those arabs were convert to Persian and not Persian convert to Arabs, except of this if you visit Iran or Turkey or arabs contries you will find maney similarity in culture. (sorry for my bad English)

Moving the article

Name of this article had been "Islamicization in post-conquest Iran". User:Tigeroo had moved this article to " Post-Muslim conquest social impact in Persia" and then to "Social & Cutlural Impact of the Muslim conquest of Persia". I reverted and simplified its name. Please discuss about its name here before moving it.--Sa.vakilian 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

wrong information

One paragraph states that: "Persians had a great influence on their conquerors. The caliphs adopted many Sassanid administrative practices, such as coinage, the office of vizier, or minister, and the divan"

The writer of this must be confused. The words "Divan" and "Vizier" are actually an effect of Arabic influence over Persia and central Asia. Both of these words are Arabic words pronounced differently by non-Arab speakers (originally pronounced as Diwan and Wazir).