Why so many massacres in the early history of the Muslim conquests?

[seyedone]

Assalamu Alaykum


Why did many of the early Muslim conquerors of the Persian Empire and other places massacre so many innocent people who revolted against them when they were conquering the cities?

[Julaybib]

Salaam.

What massacres????

Defeating the savage Persian forces was no a massacre....The super power was defeated, by the Supreme power Of Allah, and the muslims where heavily outnumbered.

I know the Iranian's still mourn the defeat of their ancient Magian empire. And even celebrate the Magian festivals like Nawroz, the persian new year. They have concocted a Myth, in particular the IRanians living in the west who have apostasised and become atheists and have engaged in revisionist history.

No killing of Innocents was committed, the Persian military was defeated.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

Assalamu Alaykum


Why did many of the early Muslim conquerors of the Persian Empire and other places massacre so many innocent people who revolted against them when they were conquering the cities?

:salam:

Do you have any evidence for this, as in quotes from properly referenced scholarly books?

:ws:

[Ma'ruf]

Assalamu Alaykum


Why did many of the early Muslim conquerors of the Persian Empire and other places massacre so many innocent people who revolted against them when they were conquering the cities?

I notice that you are a Shiite. Surely the more important question is, since Iran was historically sunni, why the sunni ulema of iran were massacred and the shiite religion imposed on the population at the point of the sword? I suppose that's an embarrassing detail for you.

The arab conquest of the persians was fairly bloodless, it was fighting between armies, not armies slaughtering civilians. In fact, Persian culture experienced a fantastic revival under the Abbasid caliphate.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

:salam:


I notice that you are a Shiite. Surely the more important question is, since Iran was historically sunni, why the sunni ulema of iran were massacred and the shiite religion imposed on the population at the point of the sword? I suppose that's an embarrassing detail for you.

The arab conquest of the persians was fairly bloodless, it was fighting between armies, not armies slaughtering civilians. In fact, Persian culture experienced a fantastic revival under the Abbasid caliphate.

Well spotted Ma'ruf. So this is just another Shi'ite provocation. If I were a moderator, I would shut the thread down immediately, and issue a warning to "seyedone" about starting uselessly provocative threads.

:ws:

[seyedone]

stop being paranoid people


1)I only asked this question because I have seen in some anti islamic books references to traditional historical books such as Tabari, Futuh ul Buldan (by Al-Balaadhuri, Akhbaar ul Tawaaal by Al-Dinawari , etc) of certain revolts by the persian civilians against the early caliphate and how Uthman and even Imam Ali (AS) would send their militaries to calm down the revolts and sometimes this would lead to bloodshed. Allahu A3lam if the sources are even referenced correctly, quoted correctly, or even have strong isnaads backing them up. I was just asking in general so someone more knowledgeable can give me more information regarding this. The articles are in farsi or else I would have copied/pasted the info here so you all could critique it.

2)The Safawids did alot of stupid things... killing innocent sunni ulama was definitely one of them.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

:salam:


stop being paranoid people

Just because people see a provocation for what it is, it doesn't mean that they are being paranoid.



1)I only asked this question because I have seen in some anti islamic books references to traditional historical books such as Tabari, Futuh ul Buldan (by Al-Balaadhuri, Akhbaar ul Tawaaal by Al-Dinawari , etc) of certain revolts by the persian civilians against the early caliphate and how Uthman and even Imam Ali (AS) would send their militaries to calm down the revolts and sometimes this would lead to bloodshed. Allahu A3lam if the sources are even referenced correctly, quoted correctly, or even have strong isnaads backing them up. I was just asking in general so someone more knowledgeable can give me more information regarding this. The articles are in farsi or else I would have copied/pasted the info here so you all could critique it.


So you have read stuff from "anti islamic books", and you do not know whether or not they are referenced or quoted correctly, or whether they have strong isnads. Yet despite having excellent reasons to doubt the reliability of these "anti islamic books", in your very first post you just assume these reports are factual, when you ask:



Why did many of the early Muslim conquerors of the Persian Empire and other places massacre so many innocent people who revolted against them when they were conquering the cities?


If you really are just interested in information about these alleged events, why are you assuming that early Muslim conquerors, (in other words the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them all), massacred innocent people? Your initial question is hardly the kind of thing that normally issues from someone who is merely asking for information: it rather reflects bias and prejudice, because it shows you making assumptions despite your awareness of the unreliability of your sources.

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

2)The Safawids did alot of stupid things... killing innocent sunni ulama was definitely one of them.

It was not stupid at all from their point of view: it was criminal and barbaric, yes, but not stupid. The Safavids knew they couldn't defeat the Sunni 'ulema in debates, so they had no choice but to kill them: otherwise how could Iran be maintained as a Shi'ite land with people ready to convincingly refute Shi'ism?

[Ma'ruf]

Actually guys, I think maybe we've been a bit rude here.. let's be sure to maintain adab.

Seyedone, it might help if you could list actual questions or controversial events mentioned in these texts of yours, then we can discuss them, inshallah.

[Owen]

Assalamu Alaykum


Why did many of the early Muslim conquerors of the Persian Empire and other places massacre so many innocent people who revolted against them when they were conquering the cities?
To be completely technical, a revolt is a rebellion. Rebellions are un-official armies and effectively cease to be categorised as civilians.

Sure, there'll be deaths of many. But there weren't mass killings of surrendering rebels or POWs.

Atleast they were treated as POWs by the Arabs. The West's coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't even give them this status just so that they can torture people and not have to worry about Geneva conventions.