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

[mshoari 0]

(salam)

I have two questions that has bothered me for a while :dry: . These question may be touchy but they have been bothering me for a while and I like some answer. Also write wether you are shia or sunni.

1) I am just wondering why did Umar ibn al-Khattāb attacked Persia and what Islamic law allows aggression?

2) Under what Islamic Law, did Umar ibn al-Khattāb made newly conquered Persian into slaives? I say this since the wife of Hussein ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib was the daughter of the Persian King which Umar arrested and claimed she was a booty of war. The person that killed Umar ibn al-Khattāb was also a persian slave. Since when you attack and conquere nations and make them into slaves?

Please answer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu-Lu%27lu%27ah

Edited June 20, 2007 by mshoari

[akhtarkazmi 0]

Dear brother i am shia and would like to answer ur question

Umer Ibn Alkhatab knew that he is not right full khaliph and order to make public loyel to his government he needed money as money is the most powerfull attraction for people so he attacked other nations for getting their wealth. He used that wealth to buy loylties of people. He was ignorent of very commen islamic laws and he thought what ever he is doing is the real islam so he did lots of stupid things in his time. He was a great politician and always knew how to deal with people weather that method is islamic or unislamic.

[mshoari 0]

Dear brother i am shia and would like to answer ur question

Umer Ibn Alkhatab knew that he is not right full khaliph and order to make public loyel to his government he needed money as money is the most powerfull attraction for people so he attacked other nations for getting their wealth. He used that wealth to buy loylties of people. He was ignorent of very commen islamic laws and he thought what ever he is doing is the real islam so he did lots of stupid things in his time. He was a great politician and always knew how to deal with people weather that method is islamic or unislamic.

You make a bold statement and a claim.

Whether this was his real intention or not my question was what reason he used for attacking. What was the reasons he publicly announced for such actions? I am looking for this.

[Kaniz-e-Fatima Shiapower 2]

He simply attacked Persia because it was beneficial to him. There is no Islamic motive behind it.

[EDIT]

[MOD NOTE: EDITED TO REMOVE START TO OFF TOPIC COMMENTS ON ABU LULU]

Edited June 21, 2007 by Aliya

[Aliya 21]

thread cleaned up. just a reminder, this thread is NOT about Abu Lulu, or Umar's place in the hereafter. All such posts will be deleted without notice.

[Ali Hassan 0]

1) I am just wondering why did Umar ibn al-Khattāb attacked Persia and what Islamic law allows aggression?

2) Under what Islamic Law, did Umar ibn al-Khattāb made newly conquered Persian into slaives? I say this since the wife of Hussein ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib was the daughter of the Persian King which Umar arrested and claimed she was a booty of war. The person that killed Umar ibn al-Khattāb was also a persian slave. Since when you attack and conquere nations and make them into slaves?

1. Attack is the best form of defence

even now a days

2. dont confuse prisoners with slaves

Wrong assumptions slavery started to end during the times of Umar (ra)

[Aliya 21]

^ could you please bring Qur'an or hadith that shows Prophet (pbuh) fighting on the OFFENSIVE? from what I remember, Qur'an tells us to only fight in DEFENSE.... but maybe you have evidence to the contrary.

btw, good "strategy" is not the criteria of being islamically sound.

[UndercoverBrother 13]

Salaam

could you please bring Qur'an or hadith that shows Prophet fighting on the OFFENSIVE

I am shia and i would like to say the Fatah of Makkah was offensive, even though it was peaceful in terms of no fighting the muslims clearly marched up to take over Makkah by any means neccecary and where ready to fight but the coward dirty mushrik Abu Sufyan came out and surendered. Even though the Peace treaty was broken by the Makans Abu Sufyan realised he had made a big mistake when one of his allied tribes took over and battled with one tribe which had good links with the muslims hence breaking the treaty. The treaty was that no allies of the Makans would attack the Muslims or thier Allies. Anyway when the treaty was broken the Muslims where ready to attack because it would be within the agreement of the treaty even though it was agressive it was within what was right. SO basically that was a Offensive takeover of the holy city and even though there is alot of BS propaganda about this FATAH the simple thing is that it was offensive.

By the way I am in no way trying to defen Caliph Umar or his crimes against the Persians but think would they be muslim today if he never took over them. But what he did was wrong with the slaves and prisoners even after they converted to Islam.

Edited June 21, 2007 by UndercoverBrother

[Aliya 21]

marching is different (or going into somewhere on the offensive but not actually fighting or spilling blood). I specifically said FIGHTING, but i appreciate the history refresher (I am not being sarcastic, I have always been drawn to the history of Islam, and one of the things that draws me to the shia/sunni matters is the historical aspect of so many of the differences).

Edited June 21, 2007 by Aliya

[mshoari 0]

1. Attack is the best form of defence

even now a days

2. dont confuse prisoners with slaves

Wrong assumptions slavery started to end during the times of Umar (ra)

Attack is the best form of defence, when:

1) There is a imidiate threat from the opposite site,

2) All other option of peace are closed.

The translations say that they were slaves. But the second problem is under what islamic law can you make non-combatants (normal citizens and women) into prisoners. The third problem under what islamic law can you make prisoners into slaves. Prophet himself did not do this. If you doubt me read what happen to the prisoners of "Badr".

Brothers I have already taken into account such reasons, and non of them work at all. Now what I need is what the historians say about Omars reasons. This is a historical problem.

[Aliya 21]

good point, the fact that Prophet (pbuh) led an "offensive" that was clearly open to mediation/treaties, etc. shows that one should ALWAYS search for peaceful resolution first. did umar do this?

[MuslimUnity 1]

I believe the King had 2 daughters who were war booty and slaves but then Ali (as) said to release and let them chose whoever they wanted to marry. 1 daughter chose Hassan (as) and the other chose Hussein (as).

WS

Edited June 21, 2007 by MuslimUnity

[mshoari 0]

Salaam

By the way I am in no way trying to defen Caliph Umar or his crimes against the Persians but think would they be muslim today if he never took over them. But what he did was wrong with the slaves and prisoners even after they converted to Islam.

Brother you are wrong,

Malaysians and Indonasians became muslims without living under Islamic government. They became muslim through traders and missionaries. Islam is Truth and truth sits on the heart of a good man. So ofcource there would be muslims today. There might have even more since there would be no evidence of force comversion and this is favourable with people.

[enforcrr 0]

Poor fire worshipping persians who tore and spit at the letter inviting them to islam.

zoroastrianism was the religion of iran for thousands of years and you say they would become Muslim?

islam was growing empire and both romans and pershes would have atttacked the islamic empire.

remember when the prophet (pbuh) sent a mission to tabuk?

and dont forget it was under Umar (ra) that we as muslims captured jeruselum

[mshoari 0]

Poor fire worshipping persians who tore and spit at the letter inviting them to islam.

zoroastrianism was the religion of iran for thousands of years and you say they would become Muslim?

First of all zeostarians are now recognised as people of the book, since they have, (1) A prophet, (2) Obey on God (Ahura Mazda), (2) have a holy scripture, (4) they believe in the judgement day exactly the same way muslims believe in it. They do not worship fire nor see it as equal to God. the story of fire goes something like this. The ancient Pagan persian asked zeoster (prophet) (as) to show them a sign of his prophethood. Zeoster sign was that he walk through fire and was not burnt. Then he said to the people, if you are clean from sin you can also walk through fire. So it is an insult to zeostarians to say they worship fire. Would you like someone come to you and say you worship the Ka'aba.

islam was growing empire and both romans and pershes would have atttacked the islamic empire.

remember when the prophet sent a mission to tabuk?

Brother Islam is a religion of truth its basis is on spirituality and not an empire. Expedition of Tabuk was lauched because of a rumor which came out to be false and it was from the Byzantinian side not Persia. There is no evidence that the persian empire was going to attack the Muslim Ummah. All persians care about was that muslims do not support the Byzantinians. As I said why attack before you have made any effort to make peace?

[shia_azeri 1]

Salam brother mshoari,

I couldnt send you a message :( so i decided to co say it here :P

brother we Azeri's speak Turkish, but I love Azeris as much Persianns. Did you know that Seyed Ali Khamanei is Azeri too :) May Allah bless him.

Brother I have a question about Abu Bakr: did you knwo what our dear Imams thought of Abu Bakr ( and Omar) ?

Please put your answer on: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234928566

Allah Hafiz

[jalal27 2]

The Persian rejected call to islam and treated the person who brought letter from prophet(pbuh) roughly. The persian empire also was a threat to islam and was constantly harassing muslim. There wouuld be no relgious text on this cause it was not a religious issue . But if you study history you will see why the war started.

[mshoari 0]

The Persian rejected call to islam and treated the person who brought letter from prophet(pbuh) roughly.

So did the quraish and most of the Arabs but God didnot say to invade them and make them into slaves. Brother what you saying does not make sence.

The persian empire also was a threat to islam and was constantly harassing muslim.

Just because some one is a threat you do not invade them and make them into second class citizens (mawali). And about the harassing that you claimed I have found no evidence through history. The following is the letter Omar sent to the persian king Yazdgerd III; (http://www.kavehroom.com/Yazdgerd_en.html).

"Bism-ellah Ar'rahman Ar'rhim

To the Shah of the Fars (prophet himself used respect in his letter and called the king "the geat king of persia")

I do not foresee a good future for you and your nation save your acceptance of my terms and your submission to me. There was a time when your country ruled half the world, but see how now your sun has set. On all fronts your armies have been defeated and your nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path whereby you might escape this fate. Namely, that you begin worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the only god who created all that is. I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the false worship of fire and to join us, that they may join the truth.

Worship Allah the creator of the world.

Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation.

End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior.

This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians.

You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians.

Submission is your only option

Allah u Akbar

The Calif of Muslims Omar Ibn-Khat'tab"

And the following is the answer that the persian king wrote; My sunni brothers might be a bit angry about the answer and might be offended. So I like to remind them that i do not included these letters as the source of insult but these letters showed how little Omar new about Persian and absolutely nothing about Zeostarianism which is the oldest monotheistic religion. Persians worship one God whn aristotle and plato and greeks and Roman were pagan. I am not trying to insult the Caliph, but I am looking for a mistrey about this whole incident. Yazdgerd himself was a weak and corrupt king but that does not justify an invasion.

"In the name of Ahuramazda the Creator of Life and Wisdom

From the Shahan-Shah of Iran Yazdgerd to Omar Ibn Khat'tab the Arab Calif. In your letter you summon us Iranians to your god whom you call "Allah-u-Akbar"; and because of your barbarity and ignorance, without knowing who we are and Whom we worship, you demand that we seek out your god and become worshippers of "Allah-u-Akbar".

How strange that you occupy the seat of the Arab Calif but are as ignorant as any desert roaming Arab! You admonish me to become monotheistic in faith. Ignorant man, for thousands of years we Aryaee have, in this land of culture and art, been monotheistic and five times a day have we offered prayers to God's Throne of Oneness. While we laid the foundations of philanthropy and righteousness and kindness in this world and held high the ensign of "Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds", you and your ancestors were desert wanderers who ate snakes and lizards and buried your innocent daughters alive.

You Arabs who have no regard for God's creatures, who mercilessly put people to the sword, who mistreat your women and bury you daughters alive, who attack caravans and are highway robbers, who commit murder, who kidnap women and spouses; how dare you presume to teach us, who are above these evils, to worship God?

You tell me to cease the worship of fire and to worship God instead! To us Iranians the light of Fire is reminiscent of the Light of God. The radiance and the sun-like warmth of fire exuberates our hearts, and the pleasant warmth of it brings our hearts and spirits closer together,

that we may be philanthropic, kind and considerate, that gentleness and forgiveness may become our way of life, and that thereby the Light of God may keep shining in our hearts.

Our God is the Great Ahuramazda. Strange is this that you too have now decided to give Him a name, and you call Him by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar".

But we are nothing like you. We, in the name of Ahuramazda, practice compassion and love and goodness and righteousness and forgiveness, and care for the dispossessed and the unfortunate; But you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar" commit murder, create misery and subject others to suffering! Tell me truly who is to blame for your misdeeds? Your god who orders genocide, plunder and destruction, or you who do these things in his name? Or both?

You, who have spent all your days in brutality and barbarity, have now come out of your desolate deserts resolved to teach, by the blade and by conquest, the worship of God to a people who have for thousands of years been civilized and have relied on culture and knowledge and art as mighty supports.

What have you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar", taught these armies of Islam besides destruction and pillage and murder that you now presume to summon others to your god?

Today, my people's fortunes have changed. Their armies, who were subjects of Ahuramazada, have now been defeated by the Arab armies of "Allah-u-Akbar". And they are being forced, at the point of the sword, to convert to the god by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar". And are forced to offer him prayers five times a day but now in Arabic; since your "Allah-u-Akbar" only understands Arabic.

I advise you to return to your lizard infested deserts. Do not let loose upon our cities your cruel barbarous Arabs who are like rabid animals.

Refrain from the murder of my people. Refrain from pillaging my people. Refrain from kidnapping our daughters in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar". Refrain from these crimes and evils.

We Aryaee are a forgiving people, a kind and well-meaning people. Wherever we go, we sow the seeds of goodness, amity and righteousness. And this is why we have the capacity to overlook the crimes and the misdeeds of your Arabs.

Stay in your desert with your "Allah-u-Akbar", and do not approach our cities; for horrid is your belief and brutish is your conduct.

Yazdgerd Saasaani"

Brothers these are historical documents and are very striking and harsh on both sides.

[Hadi4 0]

Imam Ali never objected to the conquest of Persia and the Persian princess was kept as a slave by him for some time which proves he didnt disagree with it.

One point everyone here seems to ignore is that the Persians and Muslims were at war before the conquest, and even before Islam the Persians were trying to conquer Arabia.

Some people here are saying that the conquest should have been "defensive". That doesnt make sense, how can you CONQUER DEFENSIVELY? If you mean the Persians should have attacked first, well then that is exactly what happened!

[mshoari 0]

Imam Ali never objected to the conquest of Persia and the Persian princess was kept as a slave by him for some time which proves he didnt disagree with it.

One point everyone here seems to ignore is that the Persians and Muslims were at war before the conquest, and even before Islam the Persians were trying to conquer Arabia.

Some people here are saying that the conquest should have been "defensive". That doesnt make sense, how can you CONQUER DEFENSIVELY? If you mean the Persians should have attacked first, well then that is exactly what happened!

Please brother i remind you that persian princess became wifes of the Hassan (as) and Hussein (as) . So they never slaves belonging to Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) . This happen as Omar brought the Persian princess into madina and was about to give them as war booty and salve to Arabs. Ali (as) interfered and stop such action. Ali (as) actually saved princesses from a life of slavery.

I have already took into account what you say. But there is no historical evidence to support that. Persian were paying and influencing few tribes in the north of arabia which they used to guard their passage to mecca trading root. Persian were busy fighting the Byzantine and were not thinking conquering Arabia. There is also no evidence that whether Omar tried to make peace with the persians what so ever before the invasion. So in conclusion, I have already taken into account what you said but there is no evidence for it historically.

Edited June 21, 2007 by mshoari

[jalal27 2]

The letter you pasted just reminds of and time people call someone to God they claim this was what out forefathers did. Quran clearly mentions it over and over . He also managed to throw some nice enthic slurs in. The point is Persian , The Byzantines, Islamic Empire were revival as empire grows there tends to be war and hostiliies no there was no islamic reason for war but there really has been no religious reason for most wars but the war against Persia was a justified war.

[yonus 3]

What was the capital of persia at that time ? Was it not al madaiin or salman baik ?

[Hadi4 0]

Please brother i remind you that persian princess became wifes of the Hassan (as) and Hussein (as) . So they never slaves belonging to Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) . This happen as Omar brought the Persian princess into madina and was about to give them as war booty and salve to Arabs. Ali (as) interfered and stop such action. Ali (as) actually saved princesses from a life of slavery.

I have already took into account what you say. But there is no historical evidence to support that. Persian were paying and influencing few tribes in the north of arabia which they used to guard their passage to mecca trading root. Persian were busy fighting the Byzantine and were not thinking conquering Arabia. There is also no evidence that whether Omar tried to make peace with the persians what so ever before the invasion. So in conclusion, I have already taken into account what you said but there is no evidence for it historically.

actually there is a lot of evidence as stated in numerous history books even Iranian ones such as History of Iran by Doctor Muhammad Javad. Yes the Persians had not yet made any attempt to conquer all of Arabia but they were at war with Arabs and continued the war after Arabs converted to Islam. However there is no doubt that if the persians gained enough victories against the Arabs they would then invade Arabia as the Persian Empire always invaded any land that they could under the Sasanid dynasty.

And yes the persian princess married Imam Hussein eventually but she was kept as a slave for some time before it and that is why Imam Zeynul Abedeen was known as "the son of the slave".

Please show evidence that Imam Ali was against the invasion of Persia - if you read NahjulBalaqah you will see he said to Omar not to participate in the invasion of Persia personally because Omar may be killed. So he didnt object to the war at all and on the contrary he advised Omar not to risk his life meaning that he did not want the ruler to be killed by the persians which would give advantage to the Persians against Muslims.

[mshoari 0]

The letter you pasted just reminds of and time people call someone to God they claim this was what out forefathers did. Quran clearly mentions it over and over . He also managed to throw some nice enthic slurs in. The point is Persian , The Byzantines, Islamic Empire were revival as empire grows there tends to be war and hostiliies no there was no islamic reason for war but there really has been no religious reason for most wars but the war against Persia was a justified war.

(salam)

My problem is If Omar attacked without a religious backing therefore he has go on against it. If you do not obey Quran then you disobey it. Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet has a clear rules of engagement and when there can be war. Since God considers war very bad. So in order for Omar to included in Rashidun Caliph (rightly guided caliph) he has to abide by quran at all time especially on the matters of war. What is interesting is that he did not try to make peace first. He was also ignorant of Persian and their religion all together.

But still I would like to know what have the historians said about this???

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

persians rejected call to Islam and displayed hostile intentions to the muslims

so the war was justified against them...otherwise why would Imam Ali advice umar regarding it ? why would Imam Hasan participate in the tabaristan expedition ? why did Ammar and salman farsi command forces in these battles [to name a few]? why would banu hashim accept stipends based on these conquests?

furthermore umars son and abubakr's son also married persian princesses just like Imam Hussain.....

sassanians were broadly speaking monotheistic but they had become corrupt and arrogant ...just like Romans

umar granted them status of people of book later and iranians by and large were pacified by these measures ...

it is true that umar thought of arabs as better religiously than the "decadent persians " it is wrong to say that that the extreme repressive measures taken against irani muslims later by ummayyads were started intentionally by umar ......Hurmuzan a converted irani was a close advisor of umar[his implication in umar's murder is pure fable done to justify the acts of his lunatic son], and salim mawla abihudhayfa a slave of persian descent and a companion of rank was a personal favourite of umar

at any rate the persians defected in huge numbers to muslim armies once the going got tough for them , and the devious amongst them revolted even during the caliphate of Imam Ali

Edited June 21, 2007 by Panzerwaffe

[jalal27 2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah

Please read .

[enforcrr 0]

First of all zeostarians are now recognised as people of the book, since they have, (1) A prophet, (2) Obey on God (Ahura Mazda), (2) have a holy scripture, (4) they believe in the judgement day exactly the same way muslims believe in it. They do not worship fire nor see it as equal to God. the story of fire goes something like this. The ancient Pagan persian asked zeoster (prophet) to show them a sign of his prophethood. Zeoster sign was that he walk through fire and was not burnt. Then he said to the people, if you are clean from sin you can also walk through fire. So it is an insult to zeostarians to say they worship fire. Would you like someone come to you and say you worship the Ka'aba.

sorry but untrue zoraoastrianism are not considerd people of the book. just because they have similar teachings.

are sikhs too considerd people of the book?

also they are perscuted under the shii regime in iran which should tell u somethin

[mshoari 0]

sassanians were broadly speaking monotheistic but they had become corrupt and arrogant ...just like Romans

Please bring me Quranic verse that say invading is allowed if most of the runners of State are corrupt and arrogant??? I have not seen any. Brother there are two thing which are considered worst in from of God.

first is war but the second and even worst is oppression. and these two are the only reason you can go to war after you have tried to make peace. If you have evidence against this please write. Not only that by this law bahaiis can invade us since our governments and religious institutions are corrupt and arrogant.

umar granted them status of people of book later and iranians by and large were pacified by these measures ...

Pure fiction. I have found absolutely no historical reference to this.

why did Ammar and salman farsi command forces in these battles [to name a few]?

I know that Salman saved the persian capital from distruction. He arranged the surrounder of the city. But he did not actually got involoved in any battle. I do not about ammar but I will find out and write to you.

and the devious amongst them revolted even during the caliphate of Imam Ali

I heard this story from some persian fanatic nationalist website that was trying to bring down the status of Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) . I search it and found that it has a very weak link and nearly all historians (muslim or non-muslims) has despute and rejected the whole idea.

[mshoari 0]

sorry but untrue zoraoastrianism are not considerd people of the book. just because they have similar teachings.

are sikhs too considerd people of the book?

also they are perscuted under the shii regime in iran which should tell u somethin

First get you historical fact check.

Sikhism is not a divine religion from Allah since its prophet came 500 YEARS AGO. that makes it 900 years after prophet Mohammad (pbuh) .

Zeoster came before even Abraham (salam) . That makes him around 3000 to 4000 thousand years ago.

Dont throw word like "persecution" around so easily. Every religious minority has a problem in Iran. Sunnis have problem like any one else.

Edited June 22, 2007 by mshoari

[mshoari 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah

Please read .

I get what you mean. I have already said that I accept that. But starting a war without looking for peace is considered against Quran. Now tell me did Umar or Abu Bakr tried to make peace with the Persian.

[enforcrr 0]

First get you historical fact check.

Sikhism is not a divine religion from Allah since its prophet came 500 YEARS AGO. that makes it 900 years after prophet Mohammad (pbuh) .

Zeoster came before even Abraham (salam) . That makes him around 3000 to 4000 thousand years ago.

Dont throw word like "persecution" around so easily. Every religious minority has a problem in Iran. Sunnis have problem like any one else.

thought not states in the quran as people of the book i think it is dangerous to give them that title though you feel they deserve it.

here is an interesting quote from wikipideia

One ayah in the Qur'an can even be interpreted to encourage a neutral position toward non-Muslims. This ayah says, "Those who follow the Jewish and the Sabi'een, Christians, Magians and Polythesists — Allah will judge them On the Day of Judgement:" (22:17). The acceptance of Zoroastrians as dhimmis is partly because of this ayah, as the Magians were Zurvanist Zoroastrians, and this verse, specifically mentions them alongside other People of the Book, and lists them ahead of polytheists.

so if you interperet it this way you can say they are better then polytheist but not equal to people of the book as the people of the book are usually mentioned together and the magians are not metnioned among the people of the book

further what would be interesting to see is if when the prophet (pbuh) sent the letters to the byzantiums and persians did he refer to both as people of the book. i remember something similar to the letter to heraculis but i cant remember if someone has a link to the letters that be great..

[Abdaal 2]

First of all zeostarians are now recognised as people of the book, since they have, (1) A prophet, (2) Obey on God (Ahura Mazda), (2) have a holy scripture, (4) they believe in the judgement day exactly the same way muslims believe in it. They do not worship fire nor see it as equal to God. the story of fire goes something like this. The ancient Pagan persian asked zeoster (prophet) (as) to show them a sign of his prophethood. Zeoster sign was that he walk through fire and was not burnt. Then he said to the people, if you are clean from sin you can also walk through fire. So it is an insult to zeostarians to say they worship fire. Would you like someone come to you and say you worship the Ka'aba.

Brother Islam is a religion of truth its basis is on spirituality and not an empire. Expedition of Tabuk was lauched because of a rumor which came out to be false and it was from the Byzantinian side not Persia. There is no evidence that the persian empire was going to attack the Muslim Ummah. All persians care about was that muslims do not support the Byzantinians. As I said why attack before you have made any effort to make peace?

What kinda nonsense am i reading ?

the story of fire goes something like this. The ancient Pagan persian asked zeoster (prophet) (as) to show them a sign of his prophethood. Zeoster sign was that he walk through fire and was not burnt. Then he said to the people, if you are clean from sin you can also walk through fire. So it is an insult to zeostarians to say they worship fire. Would you like someone come to you and say you worship the Ka'aba.

What a great story ! Except if this story was really true why did RasoolAllah (sawas) birth destroy this same fire that you praise so much.

All persians care about was that muslims do not support the Byzantinians. As I said why attack before you have made any effort to make peace?

Read the Quran as it speak against Persians.

[Pickthal 30:1] Alif. Lam. Mim.

[Pickthal 30:2] The Romans have been defeated

[Pickthal 30:3] In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat will be victorious

[Pickthal 30:4] Within ten years - Allah's is the command in the former case and in the latter - and in that day believers will rejoice

[Pickthal 30:5] In Allah's help to victory. He helpeth to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful.

[Pickthal 30:6] It is a promise of Allah. Allah faileth not His promise, but most of mankind know not.

[Pickthal 30:7] They know only some appearance of the life of the world, and are heedless of the Hereafter.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 30:3]

This verse was sent to console the grieved Muslims bringing the prophesy that soon the Romans will defeat the Persians. Inter alia, this also meant that the pagans of Makka, who were so happy about the defeat of the Romans, would very soon be disillusioned both about the fate of the Persian fire-worshippers and their own fate against the Muslims.

This prophesy of the Quran was fulfilled in 624 A.D. when Heraclius defeated the Persians; and at the battle of Badr (in 2 A.H.) the disbelievers of Makka were defeated by the Muslims.

According to Imam Muhammad bin Ali al Baqir, when the Holy Prophet migrated from Makka and arrived in Madina, he sent out two letters, one to the Byzantine emperor and the other to the emperor of Persia, inviting them to embrace Islam. The Muslim envoy received honour in Constantinople and the emperor returned him with valuable gifts despite his not accepting the invitation to join Islam. While the emperor of Persia insulted the Muslim envoy and tore the Prophet's letter into pieces.

The Byzantine emperor was rewarded by Allah for the respect he paid to the Holy Prophet' envoy and to the invitation to Islam whereas the Persian emperor met the return for his pride and insulting arrogance with which he rejected the divine invitation.

In this way the prophesy that came with the verses of Quran was fulfilled and the Muslims rejoiced at it.

Subhanallah! The Muslims had divine support and their prayed was answered when it came to defeating Persia.

And here is gift for people with Persian Pride.

[mshoari 0]

thought not states in the quran as people of the book i think it is dangerous to give them that title though you feel they deserve it.

here is an interesting quote from wikipideia

One ayah in the Qur'an can even be interpreted to encourage a neutral position toward non-Muslims. This ayah says, "Those who follow the Jewish and the Sabi'een, Christians, Magians and Polythesists — Allah will judge them On the Day of Judgement:" (22:17). The acceptance of Zoroastrians as dhimmis is partly because of this ayah, as the Magians were Zurvanist Zoroastrians, and this verse, specifically mentions them alongside other People of the Book, and lists them ahead of polytheists.

so if you interperet it this way you can say they are better then polytheist but not equal to people of the book as the people of the book are usually mentioned together and the magians are not metnioned among the people of the book

First prophet himself had never had a contact with any Zeostarians. I say this since there is absolutely no narration. Salman was also a christian. Now Quran does not talk about alot of prophets and divine books. Did you know that Islamic tradition specially shia there has been 124,000 prophets. in general there were more than 120,000 prophets. I have also heard about 600 divine books Quran included. Quran did not talk about a lot of prophets.

Now lets see who are these so called Magians. Magians were a sect of Zeostarians. and they also distorted some section of it. They are not pure zeostraians. since the faction is no longer seen in the world. After 10th century they were all wiped out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magian#Arabic_Language). they were like wahabis and extremist of now. So do not associate them with zeostarians what so ever.

But still my question was not answered. Under what Islamic Law Omar attacked persian and made them into second class citizens. What did he himself declare.

[mshoari 0]

What a great story ! Except if this story was really true why did RasoolAllah (sawas) birth destroy this same fire that you praise so much.

First I said before. Zeostarians do not worship fire nor see it as equal to god, it is a symbol of "mahsoomin". Second I am not prasing fire. I am an shia and a strong one. I am defending a religion that muslim to this day think (not know) that is polytheism. They are less polytheist than Christians for god sake. You should read Avesta. Thridly fires of the a temple in Fars was extinguished but this was not because they were polytheist or evil. This had to do with Magians whom were extremist to some extent form of zeostarians and where distoriting the teaching of Zeoster (as) and Avesta (Zeostarian holly book) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magian#Arabic_Language). Magians were getting power in sassanian empire and where misusing their power. Zeostarians today are not Magian at all. Just like some muslims. Brother open you eyes and go look for yourself. History is written by the victors and there are a lot biases in muslim view of zeostarians.

Read the Quran as it speak against Persians.

[Pickthal 30:1] Alif. Lam. Mim.

[Pickthal 30:2] The Romans have been defeated

[Pickthal 30:3] In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat will be victorious

[Pickthal 30:4] Within ten years - Allah's is the command in the former case and in the latter - and in that day believers will rejoice

[Pickthal 30:5] In Allah's help to victory. He helpeth to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful.

[Pickthal 30:6] It is a promise of Allah. Allah faileth not His promise, but most of mankind krpnow not.

[Pickthal 30:7] They know only some appearance of the life of the world, and are heedless of the Hereafter.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 30:3]

This verse was sent to console the grieved Muslims bringing the prophesy that soon the Romans will defeat the Persians. Inter alia, this also meant that the pagans of Makka, who were so happy about the defeat of the Romans, would very soon be disillusioned both about the fate of the Persian fire-worshippers and their own fate against the Muslims.

Lets examine this verses. I have read their Tafsir before and it does not support what you say at all. First Muslims were worried about the defeat of Byzantinians (not Romans). That was because they considered Christians close to themselves more tan any other religion. And the Byzantine was a religious country and thought if they (Byzantine) would aid muslims just like the king of Kingdom of Axum. Meccans knew this and taunted the muslims about this a lot.

Give a closer attention to the verses. It never call the persian disbelievers. And when it says "and in that day believers will rejoice" it does not mean the Christian Byzantine but it actually mean the Muslim Arabs. they are the ones whom will be happy. So God does not call the Byzantine and Persia believer or disbeliever. Omar also invaded Byzantine as well.

And here is gift for people with Persian Pride.

I love that movie 300. I watched it 3 times in one day. So much killing and such a good battle. I tell you what I think I am. This a poem by a one of the Greatest of Persian Poets, philosopher, Sufi, Theologian, Alim. When he died christians, muslims (of all sort), Jews and even the pagans followed his dead body around the town and cried and weep for him. In the Whole history of Islam there has only been small number of people like him. Here is the verse,

"where did I came from? Why was I created?

Where am I heading to? You (Allah) have not shown me my NATION!"

He is talking to God in this verse. He is acknowledging that he does not know any thing about the purpose of his (himself) creation. He also knows that he does not know where he is going. And at the end he says he does not have any nationality. Nationalities are inferior ideologies in his eyes. And If there is a God and he has created me as his deputy therefore I do not belong to thing earth and not in need of nationality. You should read his works. He is a genius.

Edited June 22, 2007 by mshoari

[Abdaal 2]

^^ Kinda sounds like Mawlana Rumi