Umar Ibn Al-khattāb (for Sunni And Shia Bros)

[mshoari 0]

^^ Kinda sounds like Mawlana Rumi

You have a sharp eyes Brother,

He is Mawlānā Jalāl-ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī. His poetry sits on heart. His "Masnav-ye Manavi" is called Quran in Persian. Absolute Genius.

[jalal27 2]

Did you read part where raid were being lead with Prophets(pbuh) consent.

[mshoari 0]

Did you read part where raid were being lead with Prophets(pbuh) consent.

Yeah but it did not have any reference to it. Why would the prophet (pbuh) set raid against the sassanids. The raids against the Quraish started after the Quraish first declared war on Prophet??

This might answer on seem to answer one question but in fact it creates far more questions and shows inconsistencies in Prophet's (pbuh) actions.

[jalal27 2]

There would be raids if the persian were attacking muslims which they were at that time.

[mshoari 0]

There would be raids if the persian were attacking muslims which they were at that time.

Yeah, common sense says that. But there is no record of that. Today I read a book on Sassanids in its end and before the invasion of Arabs. There were few rebelions all around Persia and Religious reformers rebelling from few places. And there was a threat from Byzantine and Sassainds dependent on trades. So the whole sassanids were in a turmoil which later on help the Muslim arabs in conquering Persia relatively easy. So What I am saying is that what all these problems, there is no way Persian waste their time attacking Arabs. Arabia is a big place an Invading it takes a large commitment. This is only for taking mecca and medina. This make sence also. Well you can say there was raids in the time of prophet (pbuh) and it shows that Sassanids were attacking Arabs, but Sassanid empire was in no place with all its own problems think about Attacking arabs. Empire was greatly weakend and under greater threats then Arabs.

[jalal27 2]

So how did they manage to bring so many to the battle field if they were so weak and uninterested .

[mshoari 0]

So how did they manage to bring so many to the battle field if they were so weak and uninterested .

Well, do you know the story of Hannibal and Rome. Hannibal was a carthginian general and he defeated the Roman 4 or 5 time and every time Romans had more then 70,000 troops. This battles took place in Italy itself so you can see how close enemies were to Rome. Romans lost a lot of their allies and some became neutral. Every historian say that Rome was never weaker in all its history than that point. But the point is Even when Rome lost most of its allies and its enemies have even got into Italy it was still able to gather a large number of troops. So it is very possible to gather large armies. Sassanid King was using the main army (Arab defeated them in the first battle) to crush rebellions.

Persia was also an extremely rich country. Its trade with china has made it very rich. So if you have money than you can assemble armies more armies.

When they heard that Arab army is in their territory, Sassanid sent their main army to crush Arabs.

Edited June 26, 2007 by mshoari

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

^ bottomline is that the invasion of persia was not immoral in itself [ the way later arab nationalist ummayyads treated the iranian muslims is deplorable but that is not relevent to either shiaism of the time or policy that was widely practicised in Umar's time]

because if it would have been so many prominent muslims would have not so unanimously supported it [including ones which we hold in high regard] any prrof that these people repented ever having participated in this "immoral " war ?

zorastrians if are monotheistic then can be included amongst the people of book but it does not mean that war against them is illict , afterall Romans were definately people of the book.persian emperer insolent reply to the Prophet[pbuh] letter should have been a reason sufficent to invade them.

I agree totally with the military points you raised about mustering large armies in the field , also that persians were crippled by wars against byzantines.

And if the persian muslims seem they have been wronged so much by umar why did they remain sunni until 16th century when the safavids converted them to shias ?

brother also plz comment on the revolt of the persians in the caliphate of Imam Ali ?

did the iranians back Imam Ali in his wars against rebels willingly ? why didnt the majority of iranian muslims becoe shias in Imam Ali's caliphate?

Brother I understand that their is a lot of racisim against our iranian brothers amongst the nationalistic arabs ...that is the reason why nearly all arabs they fought against khomenini's iran.

Furthermore they give the racist hatred of iranian muslims a religious flavor by refering to battles of "qadissiyah" "nihawand " and "Jahula" etc ...but at the sametime lets not succumb to reverse racism

Edited June 28, 2007 by Panzerwaffe