پاينده باد ايران

Great

Thanks for the kind and productive comment. I much appreciate it. With your permission, I will be brief to both save space and also to point out the fact that as you said, this issue requires much further independent research.

Just two quick points: I disagree with your characterization of Romans and differentiating them from what the Arabs did. In cases, this could be quite the opposite. For example, compare the Roman presence in Gaul and the creation of the Gallo-Roman population of the region and the total dissimation of the original Celtic culture versus the fact that we Iranians still speak Persian and have much of our pre-Arab culture preserved. This is not the place to argue this one out, but I would consider the comparison valid. I suggest the first chapter of Patrick Geary's "Before France and Germany" for a discussion of the Roman cultural policies. Incidentally, as an academic book, it is also a great leisure read.

On the issue of independent research. I agree and I hope I have strated doing that, although my concern is more on economy and agricultural production in the Late Sasanian period. However, this is a historian's dilemma: traditionally, "history" is a textual discipline. We read the available sources and try to evaluate them and consider their information. So, in darth of "alternative" textual sources, one can barely do anything else. A solution is archaeology which is very useful and tells us much about the history and even culture. However, archaeology is silent: it does not name names and provide stories. So, one can only reconstruct another sort of picture. This is why I have tried to concentrate on a subject where archaeology can provide better information: economy. On the cases such as your re-evaluation of the story of Piruz, although it does sound possible and plausible, since we have no other sources, there barely is another way to proof or even evaluate your point. As such, I or anyone else can neither confirm nor reject what you say, but can only say one thing: yes, it is possible, but as our available sources (whatver they bias) cannot be used to prove it, it cannot be critically evaluated.

Response to Khodadad

OK. You’re right. There is no reason for name calling. Let’s discuss this issue in a civil manner. First, I want to touch upon a point that you raised about whether Tabari was considered an Arab. To me, he was. You compared Romans to the Arabs. But that is comparing apples to oranges. The fundamental difference between the Roman and the Arab invasions is this: Romans conquered, but Arabs colonized and assimilated. Romans did not care about a nation maintaining its culture and identity so long as that nation (or tribe) gave its loyalty and allegiance to Rome. The Arabs, on the other hand, demanded a change in culture, i.e, religion, language and the way of life. To that end, I consider all those intellectuals who lived under the Arab rule (such as Ibn Sina, Tabari, etc.) to be culturally Arab. But, this is side issue and does not relate to the subject of discussion. Also, of course I know that Xrexes invaded Athens-that is basic history-but I meant that with respect to that particular battle, the only version that we have is the Greek version. The numbers just seem ridiculous. 300 versus thousands?!!! Give me break! It was probably more like 3000 as opposed to ten thousand. As you probably know, Greeks were notorious in historical exaggeration.

Second, my whole point is that we should not accept the version of the events as dictated by Arab victors. And I disagree that it was a small victory. Even if the military victory was small (with which I also disagree), the cultural victory and the aftermath was enormous. Just like the Greeks, Arab historians made certain that they were presented as noble men who brought truth, justice and a true way to heaven to a bunch of infidels who were subject to extreme cruelty by their rulers, and who were set free by these noblemen. Unfortunately, there are extremely few, if any, objective accounts those events. Also, Arab historians (whose writings were to a large extent were commissioned by the Caliph and, therefore, had to be approved by him) made certain than any Persian (or other non-Arab) rebels were reduced to disgruntle, ingrate caricatures of themselves who just did not appreciate what the Arabs had done for them. To further complicate matters, almost all western historians’ accounts of the historical events have been taken from Arab historians’ books, and thus perpetuate those accounts. I am not a historian, but I think that it is the job of Iranian historians (and aspiring historians) to not simply accept those accounts, but to rather independently investigate every possible claim and every possible angle of the story, and to use deductive reasoning to come up with independent accounts of historical personalities. A good historical researcher will not simply quote events from books written by victors but will rather use investigative “detective” tools to extrapolate all possible angles and versions of a historical event.

Now, back to the subject matter. I’m glad to see that you now agree with my previous comment (whish you had for some reason dismissed, but now seem to accept) that Pirooz was initially captured and owned by Mughaira ibn Shu'ba. We know that ibn Shu'ba participated in the battle of Nahavand (isn’t he the one eyed commander?). We know that the Persian commander in that battle was named Piroozan. We know that Noman (or Adnan? It’s one of the two), one of Omar’s favorite commanders was killed in that battle. We know that ibn Shu'ba owned a slave by the name Pirooz Nahavandi (he is referred to by the name Nahavandi in various sources). We know that Pirooz Nahavandi killed Omar and at the same time attacked ten (by some accounts thirteen) other men at the mosque that day, six of whom are said to be have died from their wounds. This pre-planned attack, and its execution, requires great military skill and is unlikely the work of a simple aristocrat landowner. Additionally, if we are to accept the Arab historians’ version of the events we must also accept that Pirooz’s only quarrel with Omar was over wages and taxes!!! Even if he was who they say he was, a simple landowner, it is inconceivable that the only gripe that a wealthy (or even a poor) man who was uprooted from his home, enslaved and brought to a strange land to serve a foreign master will have with the person responsible for this agony would be over wages and taxes!! It is also said that Pirooz conspired with Hormozan (who you rightly point out as the commander of Persian forces in Khuzestan) who was also enslaved, about his plans to kill Omar, and that Hormozan was killed by Omar’s son after the assassination of Omar in retaliation for this perceived conspiracy. If this story is true, it will give even more credence to Pirooz’s military background, as it will show his familiarity with other high ranking Persian ex-military officers. Knowing all of these angles, I, for one, refuse to accept the caricaturish way that Pirooz is depicted in Arab writings. Is it possible that this Pirooz was the Persian commander Piroozan, and that the Arabs corrupted his name, probably because they couldn’t pronounce it properly, especially in light of the fact that ibn Shu'ba was at the battle of Nahavand? Is it possible that Pirooz was taking revenge for his, and his people’s loss in battle and his enslavement? It is the job of Iranian historians to independently, and vigorously, pursue all these leads and come up with a logically deduced answer to these questions, and not simply to sit back, look at the books written by Arabs and their mercenaries and say: well, that’s what is says here!

As far as sources, I have to say that I read a lot of history books on these subjects when I was in college and graduate school, which was about 14 years ago. Most of those books were borrowed either from libraries and friends, and I have forgotten most of their names. That is why I said it will take me a lot of time to cite sources. I do know that I read all of these facts. I also know that Pirooz is also mentioned in other than the two sources that you cited. For instance, in Ibn Sa’ad’s Tabaqat and also in Bukhari’s al-Jaami al-Sahih.

Victor's version...

It is also fascinating that in one breath, you talk of Persian nationalism and then call the marginal win of 300 Spartans a "victory" and assume that Greeks were the victors in that war. That was an unimportant episode: Xerxes won the war and burnt Athens down! I guess my whole point in this Arab vs. Iranian story has also been that the Arabs did NOT win. A few military successes do not constitute a "victory" and does not deserve the attention it gets. Funny enough, I am the one getting accused of Arab connections while you and the rest are the ones who have bought into the propaganda of overwhelming Arab conquest and "victory".

On your "discovery" of my bs: Tabari is the only source which mentions Firuz Abu Lulu by name. On the other hand, "my uncle" Baladhuri has the best comprehensive description of the battle of Nahavand. That was what I was suggesting!

On Mughaira ibn Shu'ba and Abdullah ibn Umar's ownership. Yes, you are right, Mughaira was the original owner/captivator of Firuz, but as you mentioned, he was sold to the family of Umar and the episode of Firuz' disagreement with Umar was when he was in ownership of Abdullah. No disgareements there.

Why do we need to call each other names and fight? We both care about history and this episode, why can we just not discuss this academically???

REPLY : KILLING OMAR & SOME OTHER COMMENTS

All that does not help. Iranians - i mean the ones who live in IRI, have founded it and will protect it - and arabs are friends. the devilish order from the great satan is not practicable. Please acknowledge the following: Iran strategy has focused on cooperation with Persian Gulf states. and the Arabs living in persian gulf states have realised who is thier real friend. Not the US-Imperialism but the mighty rich and reliable IRI.
Iran-Persian Gulf-Strategy
An Iranian Foreign Ministry official said on Saturday that Iranian strategy in the Persian Gulf has focused on developing relations with the Persian Gulf states and helping keep the region away from foreign intervention.

Commenting on statement of head of US Central Command Admiral William Fallon, the official said that Iran is keen on amity and cooperation with the neighboring states.

Fallon had said on the eve of a security confab in Manama, Bahrain that Iran may close Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

The Iranian official said that participation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Summit of leaders of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) in Doha on December 3 was very successful in developing collective cooperation in the region and thwarting trans-regional interference in decision making of the neighboring states.

And how is the strategy of gulf states? One may look it up in neutral media. reflections like who killed AMR and who cured SAID are not in any more. the times are all over. Now is turn of logic. And i mean just in this aera as the great satan is loosing and loosing and loosing all these endeavors put the intiators on the same place as the dividers. and on the top of them stand the great satan. more and more he falls in his knies. at the moment there is only the possibility to "IS GOM KARDAN" available. and they make use of it in service of great satan. Greeting

Get Your Facts Straight Khodadad

OK, now your B.S. is clear. In your first post you said: “Piruz/Firuz Abu Lulu, based on the only source which mentions him by name (Tabari)……”. Now you say: Is it too much to ask people to go back to Baladhuri and read this episode from the original source and figure out that this Piruz….”. So, which one is it? Is Tabari the ONLY source or should we look at your uncle Bladhhuri’s book?!!!!

There are also many facts, which I do not have the time to discuss, that clearly show that Pirooz was not owned by Omar’s son. In fact, he was owned by Shoaid (or Shuba) and sold into Omar’s court when Omar had banned all Persians from entering the city because of a dream that he had. Read those details.

This shows that, as I and another commentator stated, your only attempt is to eschew arguments in Arab’s favors. You must have an Arab connection. Why don’t you just come out and say it?! P.S., there are many other sources on Pirooz Nahavandi (by the way, note the title “Nahavandi” – meaning from “Nahavand” not Dastgird), but it’s going to take me some time to look the cites up. Lastly, you should not rely on the victor’s version of history. I bet you believe the facts in the movie 300 as well. It must be accurate. It was written by a Greek historian!!!

Case and point

A few posts before, someone even gave a full (Persian) name to Ali's assassin when every source of any credibility says that he was killed by Abdurrahman ibn Muljam Moradi. Is it having a soft spot for Arabs to ask where someone gets the name Bahman Jazooyeh Ramhormozi for this person from? Or claiming that Mughayra ibn Shu'ba was the owner of Firuz Abu Lulu while the sources clearly say that the master with whom he had a dispute was actually Abdullah ibn Umar, Caliph Umar's own son? Is it too much to ask people to go back to Baladhuri and read this episode from the original source and figure out that this Piruz (Firuz) was not the same as the commander at Nahavand, but a regular landowner who was captured by the Arabs and taken as a slave to Medina? Is it too weird to tell people that Piruzan means "son of Piruz" (cf. Ardeshir PabakAN) and someone called Piruzan is not the same as someone else called Piruz?? Would you not correct a math mistake if one commited it in an article? Would you say that such person has an unnatural soft spot for Newton? Why is it that history should be left to everyone's taste and what they want to get from it, without anyone daring to complain when historical episodes are manipulated and "eschewed"??

LOL

I am not sure if this is much of a catch. I often find my fellow Iranians beating down on Arabs and kind of saying anything as long as it proves a "true Iranian" point. I haven't a soft spot for anyone, but rather for history. When someone claims that Tabari is an Arab because he wrote in Arabic (by the same measure, Erasmus will be a Roman because he wrote only in Latin!), I just raise a question. You guys see these things as a way of proving some sort of superiority, I am concerned with historical exactness. Another post claims that Cyrus said he wants to be buried in Pasagadae. I want to know where this is coming from? What is the source? I study pre-Islamic Iranian history and I have NEVER seen these things, so I ask questions. BTW, Rawlinson's book was written over 100 years ago. I have read it, but believe me, there are MANY sources that were written after that. History is not a static field and like everything else, it changes and advances are made. Read some more recent books.

Nice catch from "A Persian"

To "A Persian": From Khodadad, you have raised a very valid question "By the way, what is with you and this soft spot for Arabs that compels you to always eschew “facts” in their favor in all your postings on this site?!!!!!!"

I have also sensed the exact same support in all his writings. It seems he reads all these Iranian/Persian historical commments and only comments to discredit the true Iranian authors.

Nice catch from you. I love all true Iranians.

To Khodadad

Balazeri, Baldhouri, whatever! I'm not an Arab and don't care to know the exact pronunciation of their barbaric language. Sorry that I couldn't accurately translate the name of your Arab ancestors. Your assertions are as bogus as the garbage on your website. Tabari is not the "only source" that mentions Piroozan (Tabari was an Arab, regardless of his birth place. Do you have any books by him written in Persian?). Try reading "The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy" by George Rawlinson. Piroozan was the commander of the Persian forces in Nahavand. It should be noted that Rawlinson gets a bit of the facts wrong. He states that Piroozan was killed in that battle, which he clearly was not. All evidence is that Piroozan's eventual "owner", Moghayer Ibn Shoaib (sorry if I may have misspelled his name and offended your sense of Arabism) participated in the battle and that he took Piroozan with him as war booty, as the most basic sources mention Shoaib as Piroozan's "owner". Hormozan is a totally different person. What kind of graduate student in Sassanid studies are you if 1) you don't know the difference between the two, and 2) you don't know who the Persian commander in the battle of Nahvand was and 3) have never read Rawlinson’s book on the Sassanid dynasty?!!! P.S., I have never read Britannica. You, on the other hand, apparently use it quite often, otherwise, you wouldn’t have mentioned it. By the way, what is with you and this soft spot for Arabs that compels you to always eschew “facts” in their favor in all your postings on this site?!!!!!!

To Kamangir: The Iranian lion will roar so loud ...

that these savages out to run with not daring to look behind their backs.

Descendants of Omar in Iran

Only few historians and reaserches have referred to it as 'holocast'

However, what came upon the Persians under the Arab rule was nothing less than a real holocast. Here, the writer of the article mentions only 'one' of the aspects of that holocast. Many Persian subjects were massacred, their women taken as sex slaves and taken to Arabia. Omar used to say:

Che khooband zanane zibaye parsi baraye mardane dalire arab 

Later on Persia was heavily colonized by many Arabic tribes that considered the Persians as 'Ajam'. They subjected the Persians to the most humiliating treatment, treating them like thrird hand citizens. The level and degree of violence used against Persians is something that concerned even other rival people such as the Armenians and the Romans themselves. Celebrating Norooz was forbiden, speaking Persian in public was forbiden, Persian names and customes were all forbiden. The descendants of Omar and those Arabs are still rulling Iran. They have shown their deep grudge against anything Persian and they commintment to earse our identity and replacing it by their Arabo-muslim crap.

Long live Pirooz, for he did what any real Persian would have dne having the chance. It's interesting how both Saddam and the IRI despise our national heroes.  Long live, Babak Khorramdin, Sorkh jamegan, Sanbad, Yaghoob Leise safarid, Ferdowsi, and many other national heros as if it wasn't because of these Persian heoes, we would be speaking Arabic now. The IRI is commited to finish Omar, Ali and Hussain's job, but we the real Persians will not let them.

We will expel the arabo-muslims from Iran.

Balaazeri?

Well, that one is Baladhuri, or if we Persianize it, it will be Balaazori. In any case, Tabari, the other "Arab one" based on your "referencing" is called TABARI, which means he is from Tabaristan, just northeast of Tehran. Funny you are buying into Britannica's description of people...

Piroozan was not a general. The famous Sasanian general which managed to defend Khuzistan after Qadesiye and Nahavand was Hormozan. Piruz/Firuz Abu Lulu, based on the only source which mentions him by name (Tabari) was a local landowner from Dastgird (on the Diyala, north of Baghdad).

Clarification 2

For those who seek cites and references you can read the multi-volume books about Arab history written by Al-Balazeri (Arab historian), and Tabari (another Arab historian). They set forth in detail the life of General Piroozan. There are also many other Arabic history books that talk about Pirooz Nahavndi and his background, which is not surprising given the importance of Omar to Arabs, and Muslims in general.

Clarification

Piroozan Nahavandi was a Persian General who was captured and enslaved at the battle of Nahavand, the last stand of the Persian Empire (Arabs call it Fath-Al-Fotooh). He was a skilled military commander who had participated in the battle of Qadissiyah, where Ctesiphon had fallen to Arabs. He was taken into slavery after the battle of Nahavand by one of the Arab commanders in the battle, Moghayer Ibn Shoaib, and the rest is history. There are many details about his patriotism and his love for Iranians, including crying in Madina when he saw Persian children being sold into slavery by Arabs. His tomb is in Kashan, Iran. Also, many people have commented about the Assassin of Ali Ibn Abitalib. That is true, he was an Iranian. His name was Bahman Jazooyeh Ramhormozi. He was a Persian general as well before he was captured and taken into slavery.

I wish now in 21th century

I wish now in 21th century there was some one like him to kill all religious figure specially Iranian leaders. Just Imagine the world without religion.

But Omar's decendents got revenge

Yeah, but Omar's decedents (aka mullas and akhounds and their paid missionaries: khomeini and khamenei, khalkhali and rafsanjani, ...) have enslaved persians for 1400 years with Omar's mambo jumbo. So Omar got his revenge 1400 times over!

peer review

This is according to Wikipedia.org : 

[‘Umar died in 644, the victim of an assassin’s dagger.  His murderer, Abu-Lu’lu’ah, was a Persian slave who is said to have held a personal grudge against ‘Umar, having once complained to him that he was being overworked by his master.  When ‘Umar ruled in his master’s favor, the slave swore to take his revenge.  One day when the caliph was leading prayers in the mosque, Abu-Lu’lu’ah walked over to him and stabbed him six times.  ‘Umar died two days later, and was buried alongside Muhammad and Abu Bakr.] 

There are many references listed at the bottom of the article.  Wikipedia is open to peer review, any errors can easily be [edit]’ed, but subject to scrutiny. 

marg bar Nefrat,

I'm not surprized at the

I'm not surprized at the level of ignorance of the respondents. It's amazing how careless and irresponsible some people are. I suggest if you guys are looking for therapy, try to sit in front of a mirror and gaze at and in your own eyes and find peace with yourself. All this negativity is going to be a heavy burden on your mind and sould!

Anybody can write anything

Without referencing to a valid source to support your writings they are nothing more than fictions.
In today’s world, you must have strong evidence to back your claims and stories. Unfortunately, there are people out there that unpretentiously believe and fall for these fairy-tales. If you have created them in your own head, then what is your schema?

mko tactic to divide people

mko tactic to divide people

BRAVO ZULU

Thanks red wine for your posts. They are truely a pleasure to read and the main reason that I come to this site. keep up the good work

shashedam be quoran o payrovaneh Islam..

Sepas!

We need more brave ones taken out the mullahs!

روزي كه عمر به دست يك ايراني كشته شد

Ali ibn Taleb the First Iman of the Shia was also killed by an Iranian as the Iman had stolen his wife according to history. This event in history is not narrated.
Hoshang Salamati

Reference

Could you give an "exact" reference for the story you've written here?

Jamshid

.

Emam Ali, in ghasaabe laate

Emam Ali, in ghasaabe laate Arab ro ham yek Irani kosht. esme in ghahremaane irani ebn muljam bood.