| This seems disingenuous on most grounds. Are you serious? To me it tends to anti iranian than pro. Pre-islam persian language continued in iran until 10th century at least, and it evolved into modern persian. Abbasid revolution was pro-iranian. Persians writing their work in arabic is no different than everyone writing in english today. Communicating in english is not bad, Is it? benefits obvious. English to a persian today, is what arabic was 1000 years ago. Both are taught in school. Iran is not itself related to muslim expansion in india. Iran itself had been conquered by saljuks, and so was baghdad and a byzantine emperor (Check saljuk empire. read the account of their take over of middle east, you might get some perspective). India was conquered by Mahmud ghazni who is not persian and he also takes over some iranian cities. Timur sack of delhi is decidedly not iranian, iran was revolting against timur itself. Mughal dynasty of india was supported initially by iran, via safavids, and it was probably an improvement over what was in delhi before which I think Timur had left. Taj mahal isn’t too bad. Some people of lower caste in india probably converted to islam, probably because it freed them. But I’m not familiar with india enough to know the extent. Muslims did restrict zoroastrians and manichaeism. Zoroastrian was also state sanctioned. Extent of their religious prosecution seems less generally (although check Mani, and Mazdak), but muslims also legally accept christianity and judaism. |