How Persia (Iran) became Muslim.
jgarbuz
This site is dedicated to frank and fearless reporting and commenting to
expose the Islamic Jihad
NEW Movie script on Mohammed - the founder of Islam
Friday, September 21, 2007 12:26:42 PM
The History of Jihad site is brought to you by a panel of
contributors. This site is co-ordinated by Robin MacArthur with Mahomet
Mostapha and Naim al Khoury, New Jersey.
Other contributors to this site include professors and members of the
faculty from the Universities of Stanford and Michigan (Ann Arbor), Kansas
State University, Ohio State University, and the London School of Economics.
We strongly suggest that this site be recommended as additional reading for
students of Islamic History.
We also invite students and professors of this subject to mirror this
site on your University or private servers, link it up from your sites, to
print it as a non-profit publication and refer it to students, journalists,
cinematographers, military personnel, members of both houses of Congress,
and Parliamentarians from your countries, members of the judiciary and most
importantly to officers of the FBI, CIA, Scotland Yard, MI5, Mossad, FSB
(Russian Secret Police) Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE)
and to all other stakeholders in the subjects of the Islam and the Jihad.
________________________
How the Jihadis mercilessly vandalized Zoroastrian Persia and wiped
out Zoroastrianism from the land of its birth
______________________________________
Describing a ceremony for collection of the jizya, the 13th century Shafi'i
jurist an-Nawawi writes: "The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be
treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the
infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent.
The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the
collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks".
_______________________________________
After the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula had been subjugated, the Muslims
turned on their northern neighbors the Persians and the Byzantines.
Today when the Mullahs and Ayatollahs rule Iran, we might tend to think that
they have always been characteristic of Iran. Not many know that Iran was
the first nation that waged a short but bloodied campaign of battles with
the Jihadi hounds that were unleashed on an unsuspecting world by Mohammed.
______________________________
As they had done to provoke the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by
raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of
raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the
Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were
now dealing with a settled civilization.
So the Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian
Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river
petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the
depredations of the Muslim Arabs.
__________________________________
Iran was the first country that lay blocking the path of these bloodthirsty
maniacs who were out to impose their Islamic creed on all those who
succumbed to their ruthless march. The Persians (and the Byzantines) were
both unfit to defeat the Muslim Arabs, as till then in human history nowhere
had a people been worked into a frenzy to go out defeat the adversary and
convert the defeated and weak to a creed that imposed the same paranoia of
converting still others who were unfortunate and weak to fall before the
bloodthirsty Islamic Jihad.
Till the rise of the murderous creed of Islam, the world had known only
imperial conquests, where the conqueror, be he Alexander, Cyrus, Julius
Caesar, Hannibal or any other, the war took place between the opposing
armies. The fate of the battle was decided on the battlefield alone. The
common people, the unarmed civilians were not in danger of a victorious
adversary imposing anything more than new taxes and new administrators.
How Islam changed the rules of warfare making the entire civilian population
of a defeated adversary, into a victim of tyranny
The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the
world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and
taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as
bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world. Those who fell
victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their lives by becoming
Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty.
______________________________
Those who fell victim to the swords of the Jihadis could only save their
lives by becoming Muslims, and in turn themselves become bloodthirsty like
the Muslims.
The Muslim Arabs hounds who set their eyes on Persia (and the rest of the
world) wanted not just to conquer land and impose new administrators and
taxes, but they wanted to impose a creed on the Persians and make them as
bloodthirsty in turn, to attack, other parts of the world.
__________________________________
Islam was, and still is, a curse on humankind from the word go. At the pain
of death, Islam spread like wildfire into Persia, making the Persians also
into bloodthirsty wolves like the Muslim Arabs. It was the Persians who a
hundred years later were to take this bloodthirsty creed to the Turks and
the Turks in turn a few hundred years after that were to attack Byzantine
and the Balkans.
Today the Persians (Iranians) have faint memories of their pre-Islamic past.
The glories of Cyrus and Darius, of Pasargade, Persepolis, Ctesiphon, of
Zarathushtra, and the Shah-Nameh. The student community is becoming
increasingly aware of their pre-Islamic past mainly through the websites on
the Internet, that tell the true story of Iran. And this adds fuel to the
restlessness of the young among the Iranian population.
Today, they must realize that the twilight of the Mullahs is the last
twilight before the dawn of the post-Islamic Iran. Iranians, need to not
only overthrow the Mullah regime, but also discard Islam and return to their
pre-Islamic Zoroastrian roots. Here we shall trace the struggle waged by
Iran (Persia) against the Arab Hordes who forcibly imposed Islam on the
defeated Persians at the pain of death and torture.
The Battles of Namraq and Kasker (12 A.H. 634 C.E.)
As they had done to provoke the pre-Muslim Quraish of Mecca into battle by
raiding their caravans, the Muslim Arabs followed the same tradition of
raiding the adversary when they turned on their first non-Arab neighbor the
Persians. There were no caravans to loot now, since the Muslim Arabs were
now dealing with a settled civilization.
So the Arabs started attacking the border towns and harassing the civilian
Persian population. The people of the border areas along the Euphrates river
petitioned the Persian king Yazdjurd (Yazdgard) to save them from the
depredations of the Muslim Arabs. The king sent a reconnaissance force under
the command of a general named Jaban. This force first approached the town
of Hira that had been occupied by the Arabs. On seeing the Persians
approach, the Arab force withdrew towards the desert into the oasis town of
Namraq (modern Kufa) to draw the Persians into the desert, a terrain that
the Arabs were familiar with, but the Persians were not.
The Arabs were on camels in addition to their infantry. The Persians were on
horseback. While cavalry gave an advantage while fighting on normal terrain,
they were a liability in the desert. With the Persians in the desert, the
Arab force caught up with it and inflicted a defeat, and forced it to
withdraw. The Persian reconnaissance force then withdrew to join the main
Persian army at a town called Kasker.
Here another Persian general named Narsi had assembled a good concentration
of forces. This town was well away from the border. Kaskar was so far away
from the Muslim camp that Narsi felt that no Muslim attack could be
imminent. But Abu Ubaid, the Muslim commander, thought otherwise. He thought
that it would have a good psychological effect if in the wake of the battle
of Namaraq itself, the Muslims rushed to Kaskar and deal with the Persian
forces there before the forces under Jalinus, another Persian general could
come to their assistance. This shows the Muslim daredevilry, which we must
outmatch with our cowboy spirit, if we are to destroy Islam and win the war
on terror.
______________________________
When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor
Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with
the barefooted Arab lizard eaters, coming at his doorstep as victors, sent
out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:
"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that
the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is
with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have
gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land
hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."
Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the
Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the
Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was
open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were
not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could
decide the issue between them. This revealed the terminal uncompromising
nature of the Islamic threat. Either you defeat and completely and
permanently annihilate the Muslims, or they will continue to haunt you and
make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed and turn you into bloodthirsty
hounds yourself, baying for the blood of those who are as yet not Muslim.
__________________________________
Abu Ubaid accordingly ordered a march across the Suwad to Kaskar. Dashing
across the Suwad the Muslim forces appeared at Kaskar before the astonished
Persians. The Persians hurriedly brought their military into formation and
the two forces faced each other at Saqatia a few miles from Kaskar.
The strategy of the Persians had been to defer action till the arrival of
the force under another Persian general named Jalinus who had set off with
additional forces. The strategy of the Muslims was to press the attack and
force immediate decision. With this element of surprise, the Arabs kept the
initiative in their hands and fell upon the Persians as soon as they reached
the Persian camp. With this momentum, the Arabs were able to overwhelm the
Persians at Kasker too and force them to retreat to the east, beyond the
Euphrates.
Lessons from the Battles of Namraq and Kasker
The Arabs took these battles in their favor due to their guile in forcing
the Persians into hostile and unfamiliar terrain and keeping the initiative
in their hands, by pouncing upon the adversary the minute they sighted the
Persians. These first defeats set the tone for future Arab-Persian battles
and the ultimate defeat of Persia by the Arabs.
The lesson here is to keep the initiative always in our hands if the aim is
to stun and defeat the Muslims. In the modern context, the 9/11 attacks on
America were meant to stun America as the Arabs had stunned the Persians at
their first battles at Namraq and Kasker. So after 9/11 if President Bush
had immediately seized the initiative by taking out a couple of cities in
the Muslim world using Neutrons or Nukes, this would have delivered a strong
message to the beastly Muslims that they could not mess around with America.
By going about a slow and conventional start, America has emboldened the
Muslims to carry out attacks on other Western targets, as the Sassanid
Persians did by their dithering and letting the Arabs take the initiative at
the Battle Kasker, conveyed to the Arabs that they could overwhelm and stun
the Persians if they kept the initiative in their hands.
Although the Muslims today cannot defeat the West, the West is giving them a
lifeline by allowing the initiative to slip. On the other hand, the Muslims
by staging dramatic attacks on Western targets like those at London, Beslan
Madrid after 9/11, are living up to their tradition of keeping the
initiative in their hands and hitting at their adversaries where they least
expect to be hit. The lesson which these first battles between the Persians
and Arabs give us today is to keep the initiative in the war on terror
completely in the hands of the West and to hit the enemy where it hurts
most - by nuking Mecca during Hajj. And carrying out large scale attacks
during Ramzan and regular attacks to coincide with the Friday noon prayers
across the most populous towns in the Islamic crescent.
______________________________
When the battle of Nihavend started going the way of the Persians, the Arabs
faced certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide
against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play.
Ali who was Mohammed's son-in-law and the husband of the Child Persian
Princess Shahrbanu (Princess of the Town - of Ctesiphon), suggested a base
move to the Arab Muslim commander Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. After the battle of
Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon,
many children and old people had been left behind in the chaos. The older
persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death, many of them
preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were taken as slaves and
distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. Among the unfortunate children
who were left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King
Yazdgard. When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three
years old) they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn
gifted her to Mohammed's son-in-law Ali. At that time Ali was thirty two
years old and he decided to take a three year old child princess as his
concubine!
Now at the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive child
wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he offer the
Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to leave its
fortified position and walk into an Arab trap. According to Ali's advise, on
the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed the captured Persian child
princess to the assembled Persians and said that he would kill the princess
on the battle field and of the Persians had the courage, they could come and
save her. As a reaction, and against their commanders' orders the front
ranks of the Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs
leaving the fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.
Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions Mugheera
ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of
the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating
with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their
princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who
were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached
the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell
upon them from three sides. This way using foul tactics the Arabs, could
annihilate the Persians once again. The carnage of Nihavend was the break
the back of the Persian resistance to Islam and the remaining history of
Persia is that of Arabization and Islamization.
__________________________________
Lessons of the Battle of the Bridge (Al Jisr) - 14 A.H. 636 C.E.
At the next major clash which is known as the Battle of the Bridge between
the Persians and the Arab Muslims, the Persians used elephants for the first
time, which were new for the denizens of the desert the Bedouin Arab
Muslims. At the battle of the Bridge (the Battle of Al Jisr in Arab
chronicles), the Persians used their elephants to trample over the Arab
attackers. They even trampled the Arab general, due to which there was panic
among the Arab army which stared retreating. The Persians chased the Arabs
up to the Bridge on the Tigris river, which then marked the boundary between
the Persian empire and the domain of the Arabs.
The Persians stopped at the bridge and chased the Arabs across it, but did
not follow the Arabs into the Arabian desert. The Persians wasted an
opportunity to utterly defeat the Muslims by going right into Arabia and
hunting down the Muslim Arabs in their homeland and slaughtering them in the
same manner in which the Arab Muslims slaughtered all their adversaries and
speaking to the Muslims in the only language they understand - that of blood
and death.
This the Persians did not do, as that was how battles had been fought from
time immemorial till the beastly Muslims came on the scene. Alexander did
not slaughter his adversaries, neither did he forcibly convert them into
followers of the Greek religion. Nor did the Romans do this neither did the
Byzantines, nor did the Persians.
The Persians and the Byzantines had been fighting for four hundred years
till before the Arab Muslims invaded both their empires, but neither the
Persians nor the Byzantines exterminate each armies to the last man, nor did
they torment each other's civilian populations, and less so did they try to
convert each other's civilian population to their own faiths at the pain of
death, the way the Arab Muslims were to do with both. Today we find no
Zoroastrians in Iran, Afghanistan or Baluchistan, which were ruled by the
Zoroastrian Persian dynasties like the Hakkamanishiya (Acheamenian) and the
Sassanids. Neither do we find any Christians in any significant number in
Syria, Jordan or Turkey which were Byzantine provinces and once entirely
Christian till they were overrun by the Muslims.
With the Arabs it was going to be different. The Muslims were to slaughter
all defeated armies to the last man, and then terrorize the civilian
population to embrace Islam. Had the Persians known this and had they
decided to respond in the same way, they should have slaughtered he entire
fleeing Arab army at the Battle of Al Jisr (Battle of the Bridge) and then
they should have gone into nook and cranny of Arabia (as Mohammed had done)
to convert the newly converted Arab Muslims to any religion, but the vicious
creed of Islam.
______________________________
The tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of sedition, cheating, bribery,
betrayal and foul tactics that included shooting arrows at the steeds,
slashing their feet to bring the riders down while they were engaged with
another attacker, so much for Arab Muslim valor in winning wars!
During the Muslim aggression against Sassanid Persia, Arab chroniclers tell
us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the
Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man,
perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made
his face look like that of a camel which has a protruding lower lip. This
Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to pin
him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could only
defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian's thumb so hard that
he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew
writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the
foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.
__________________________________
The Persians cannot be blamed for not doing this, since they did not know
the kind of enemy that they were facing, so they allowed the retreating
Muslim army to flee. An army that was to come back again to slaughter the
entire Persian army at Qadissiyah and in all other battles where the Arab
Muslims faced the Persians and all other adversaries, after which they were
to terrorize the civilian population to embrace Islam.
But while the Persians can be forgiven for not having done that to the
Muslims, today when we know what Islam is all about and we have the track
record of Islam to see, it is foolish and suicidal not to do this. By "this"
we mean to not just defeat Islam on the battlefield, but to forcibly convert
the Muslims to any other religion, but their accursed creed of Islam by
giving them a choice of giving up Islam or death. This is the lesson for us
of the battle of Al Jisr (the battle of the Bridge).
An opportunity to do this was lost by the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers
in 732, by the Austrians and Poles at the battle of Vienna in 1683 by the
Hindus at the Battle of Tarain in 1191 at the Battle of the Bridge by the
Persians in 634, and more recently at the six day war in 1967 by the
Israelis; the liberation of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, after
which we should have forced the defeated Muslims to choose between abjuring
Islam, or embracing death. But for this the non-Muslim do not yet have an
understanding of their enemy - the Muslims.
We have not yet realized what can defeat Islam, once and forever. And so we
have repeated the folly of letting a defeated Muslim army and nations go
scot free at all these and at and countless other battles at which the
victorious non-Muslims had the Muslims at their mercy. The lesson for us to
learn fast is never to allow the murderous Muslims to retreat unmolested
after they have been defeated, but to press on with consolidating the
victory by giving the Muslim the choice of abjuring Islam or embracing
death. Inhuman as this may sound, it is the only workable way of defeating
Islam once and forever.
All our acts of letting Islam survive after every defeat were costly
mistakes that came back to haunt humankind time and again the last time
spectacularly on 9/11, and which is bound to repeat itself over and over
again till the world decides that enough is enough and puts a full and final
end to the menace called Islam.
______________________________
It was at the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians
(15 A.H., 637 C.E.), that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique
techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the
opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into
retreat and defeat. During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the
Persian general Rustam by sneaking into the Persian camp disguised as
wounded Persian soldiers, and once they set their hands on him, they
beheaded him much in the same way as Zarqawi does today with his Western
captives. The Arabs displayed Rustam's decapitated body to the Persian army
at the morning of the fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah
(Cadesia).
The grisly sight of their general's headless body riddled with arrows lying
on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the
depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not
used to. This sealed the fate of the battle and the Arabs could make short
shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a
few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the
next target of the attacking Muslims.
The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in
the Muslims - an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as
souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against
such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use nuclear
weapons to reduce the enemy to radioactive dust across the entire swath of
the Islamic crescent from Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia,
Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago.
__________________________________
The seminal Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Qadisiyah) with the Persians (15
A.H., 637 C.E.)
At this seminal battle fought over four days, the Persians were led by a
capable general named Rustam-e-Farrokhzad (Farokh Hormazd), and only the
foul tactics of Saad-Ibn-Waqas, the Arab Muslim commander could bring defeat
and death to Rustam and the Persian army. Under Saad-ibn-Waqas, the Muslims
very effectively used the tactic of luring the Arab contingent to defect
from the Persian army, join the Arab Muslims and betray their non-Muslim
Zoroastrian paymasters. This way the Muslims could get to know the
weaknesses of the Persian army and devise tactics to trick and defeat the
Persians.
One of these tactics was the cutting off the girdles of the Howdas (seats)
of those who were riding the elephants, so that the howdas along with the
riders would fall and thus the elephant would become directionless. The
elephants played havoc on the Arabs at beginning of the first day of the
battle. But when the Arab contingent who had defected, betrayed the Persian
paymasters and told the Arab Muslims to cut the girdles of the elephants,
the elephants became directionless and useless. This was one foul tactic
that the Muslims used to defeat their more superior Persian adversary.
The second tactic told by the defectors was to blind the elephants in one
eye only, so that they would lose direction and flee away from the
direction, of its attackers. When this gruesome act was done, the elephants
turned around away from the Arab-Muslim tormentors and broke through the
Persian ranks, causing disorder in the Persian army and opened up passages
for the Muslims to advance into the Persian ranks. This was the second
tactic which the defectors told the Arab Muslims to use, due to which the
tide of the battle turned in favor of the Muslim - so much for Allah giving
them victory.
The Arabs and Persians had agreed at the beginning of the battle not fight
after sundown, but when the tide of the battle began to turn against the
Persians on the third day of the battle, the Arabs attacked the Persians all
through the night, shouting Allah-o-Akbar. This was the Night of Clangor,
which sealed the fate of the battle in favor of the deceitful and barbaric
Muslim Arabs.
The victory was a result of deceit, which the adversaries of the Muslims
today need to remember when fighting the Muslims. Today the Muslims try to
deflect the American effort at war, by many such tactics based on their mean
psychology of deceit. They say that the 9/11 attacks were the handiwork of
the Jews (sic). They say that they are fighting in self-defense and so they
kill innocent civilians, women and children (at Beslan). They march in
droves in the "Peace Rallies" in which they are encouraged by their
socialist and communist 5th columnist bedmates - those accursed snakes in
the grass.
This kind of deceit has been used by the Muslims in all their encounters all
through the 1400 years of their existence. This base and mean mentality of
the Muslims will have to borne in mind and countered if we are to finally
defeat the Muslims in our generation and to permanently end the menace of
Islam.
Lessons from the Battle of Ghadasia (Cadesia or Quadsiyyah) with the
Persians (15 A.H., 637 C.E.)
It was at this battle that the Muslims demonstrated one of their unique
techniques of decapitating the body of the commanding general of the
opposite army and displaying his body to his troops to demoralize them into
retreat and defeat - something which neither Alexander, nor Cyrus, nor
Darius, nor Julius Caesar, nor Hannibal had done.
During the night of clangor, the Arabs waylaid the Persian general Rustam,
and once they set their hands on him, they beheaded him much in the same way
as Zarqawi does today with his Western captives. After this Arabs displayed
Rustam's decapitated body to the Persian army at the next morning of the
fourth and final day of the battle of Qadisiyah (Cadesia).
The grisly sight of their general's headless body riddled with arrows lying
on the battlefield with his severed head pierced on a spear paraded by the
depraved Muslims was a sight that even the war-hardened Persian army was not
used to. This sealed the fate of the battle, and the Arabs could make short
shrift of the remaining Persian army, killing it to the last man, except a
few who managed to retreat towards their capital Ctesiphon, which was the
next target for the attacking Muslims.
The lessons for us here is to realize the depravity of the enemy we face in
the Muslims - an enemy who dances on corpses, displays body parts as
souvenirs, who distributes candy to celebrate death of an adversary. Against
such a ghoulish adversary, we are fully within our rights to use all the
weapons in our arsenal including nuclear weapons, to reduce the enemy to
radioactive dust across the entire swath of the Islamic crescent from
Morocco through Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Iran, Pakistan up to Malaysia
and the Indonesian archipelago.
______________________________
After the battle of Qadsiyyah, when the Persians had hastily evacuated their
capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had been left behind in the
chaos. The older persons were given the choice of accepting Islam or death,
many of them preferred to die. But the young girls and boys were marched off
as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war booty. This rapacious
behavior was to be repeated over and over again at Jerusalem (636), Damascus
(637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650), Tripoli (651), Constantinople (1453)
and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on their non-Muslim
adversaries.
__________________________________
How Islamic deceit made single combat a deathly struggle for its adversaries
The Persians, who were one of the first non-Arab people, on whom the Muslims
fell upon, had a tradition of single combat, which they used in many
battles. The strongest person from each army would fight the champion of the
adversary's army. The winner's army would be deemed to have won the battle,
and the actual battle was not then fought, as both the armies were
honor-bound to abide by the result of the duel.
The duel was a test of strength and skill. The opponents were not bound to
kill their adversary, but only to defeat him, and in most cases the defeated
champion was allowed to return to his camp, and his army withdrew thus
preventing a battle and saving of many lives. The Persians, the pre-Islamic
Turks, the Greeks and Romans had used this practice of single-combat to
settle the result of many a battle. This practice was fine as long as both
the adversaries were bound by honor.
But with the coming of the dishonorable Muslims, the single combat, became a
farce. It was now one more tool to humiliate the enemy and to demoralize it
before the actual combat could begin. Even if the Arab Champion was
defeated, the Arabs would nevertheless attack the opposing army. And if the
Arab champion was victorious, he would not just defeat the opposing
adversary but kill him, after which the Arab army would thereupon fall on
the opposing army and a carnage would follow.
The Arabs never allowed their adversaries to escape by retreating. They
found sadistic glee in slaughtering their defeated opponents to the last
man. The Persians were the first to bear the brunt of this beastly mentality
of the Muslim Arabs.
The Persians had specialized a practice wherein they nurtured champions who
were called Hazar Mard (A thousand men), which meant that these champions
had the strength of a thousand men and who would fight off a champion from
the opposing army to stave off the need for an actual battle.
Arab chroniclers have gloated about the heap of bones that marked every
encounter of the Persians and the Arabs. At the battle of Al Madain
(Tessfoon or Ctesiphon) the capital of the Sassanids, Arab chroniclers tell
us that a huge camel like Persian champion named Shahryar, challenged the
Arabs to a duel of single combat. They refer to him as a camel like man,
perhaps since he could have had a protruding lower lip, that would have made
his face look like that of a camel which also has a protruding lower lip.
This Persian champion had the Arab champion at his mercy, and was about to
pin him to the ground, when the Arab champion, on realizing that he could
only defeat the Persian with foul tactics, bit the Persian's thumb so hard
that he crushed it between his teeth. When the Persian momentarily withdrew
writing in pain, the Arab stabbed him to death. This is one example of the
foul tactics using which the Arab Muslims defeated their adversaries.
__________________________________
The Arch of Chosroes (Takht-e-Kisra) is all that remains of the awesome
grandeur of the White Palace at Ctesiphon capital of the Sassanian Empire.
After the Muslims captured Ctesiphon, they were befuddled by its shear
beauty and opulence. Desert nomads that they were, they could not figure out
what they could do with an imperial capital with its palaces, carpets,
baths, terrace gardens, orchards. The abominably cruel and violent
bare-footed, lizard-eating Muslim Arabs had no use for these trappings of a
civilized life, they stripped the city of all moveable items like jewelry,
carpets, ornate furniture and then they reduced the city to rubble and
carried away its residents to slavery in to the sandy wastes of Arabia. The
tale of Arab Muslim victories is a tale of destruction, vandalism, savagery
that included burning down libraries, destroying fire-temples (Zoroastrian
places of worship), slaughter of captured civilians to ensure that
civilization would never rise up again after an Islamic victory.
__________________________________
The Muslim Capture of the Persian capital Ctesiphon revealed the nature of
the Islamic threat
After the Arabs has slaughtered two thirds of the Persian army at
Qadissiyah, they did not stop, but continued to march to the Persian capital
Ctesiphon (Teesfoon). The Arabs were not interested in a border war but were
intent in defeating Persia utterly by marching into the nook and corner of
that country. The prize - the Persian capital was the first in their path.
When the Arab hordes started nearing Ctesiphon, the hapless Persian emperor
Yazdgard, who had never thought that such a calamity would befall him with
the barefooted Muslim Arab lizard eaters, coming to his doorstep as victors,
sent out an emissary to the advancing Arab Muslims. The emissary said:
"Our emperor asks if you would be agreeable to peace on the condition that
the Tigris should be the boundary between you and us, so that whatever is
with us on the eastern side of the Tigris remains ours and whatever you have
gained on the western side is yours. And if this does not satisfy your land
hunger, then nothing would satisfy you."
Saad-ibn-Wagas the Arab Muslim Commander-in-Chief told the emissary that the
Muslims were not hungry for land; and that they were fighting to convert the
Persians to Islam. He added that if the Persian emperor wanted peace it was
open to him to accept Islam, or to pay Jizya. If both the alternatives were
not acceptable then peace was out of question, and only the sword could
decide the issue between them.
After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of
the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded
the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed
this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam,
or death. This is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were
converted to Islam.
This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat.
Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or
they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed
and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of
those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and
other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi
terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the
Muslims survive - both cannot survive!
You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you
cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to
death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all
non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other
escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.
______________________________
After the Muslims marched in to Ctesiphon, they occupied the White Palace of
the Persian kings, where as token of thanksgiving to allah for they beheaded
the Persian commandant left by the retreating Persian Emperor, and displayed
this head to the assembled Persian captives giving them a choice of Islam,
or death.
After this they brought each of the Persian noblemen who had the misfortune
to having fallen in to the hands of the Arab Muslims as prisoners in front
of the Saad-ibn-Wagas, the Muslim gangster who now occupied the throne of
the Persian Emperor and gave the prisoners a choice of Islam or death. This
is how the first batch of Zoroastrian Sassanid Persians were converted to
Islam.
This revealed the terminal uncompromising nature of the Islamic threat.
Either you defeat and completely and permanently annihilate the Muslims, or
they will continue to haunt you and make you embrace that bloodthirsty creed
and turn you into bloodthirsty hounds yourself, baying for the blood of
those who are as yet not Muslim. The governments of the USA, UK, Russia and
other Western (and Eastern nations) need to recognize the threat of Jihadi
terrorism for what it is, an existential threat. Either you survive or the
Muslims survive - both cannot survive!
You cannot negotiate with the Muslims. You cannot compromise with them, you
cannot appease them, while remaining non-Muslims, you can only fight them to
death, either your death or theirs. And if civilization has to survive, all
non-Muslims need to unite and take Islam to its grave. There is no other
escape from the Islamic challenge to human civilization.
__________________________________
After the disastrous defeat at Qadsiyah and the occupation of his capital
Ctesiphon, the Hapless Persian emperor Yazgard, withdrew to the fortress of
Hulwan, from there to Rayy and finally to Merv, near the border of the
Persian empire with the domain of the Central Asian Turks, where he died
fighting the Muslims in 651 - seventeen years after the Arabs had first
attacked Persia. But before this had to happen, the Persians put up one
final major resistance to the Muslims at Nihavend (Nihawand).
Lessons from the battle of Nihavend
After the disastrous defeat at Qadisiyah, the Persians regrouped under a new
Commander-in-Chief named Pirojan. The first step that Pirojan took was to
re-organize the Persian army in the light of the foul tactics that the Arabs
used. He purged the Persian army of all Arab contingents, and provided the
entire Persian army with mail armor. The Persians had a burning desire in
them to liberate Persia that was being slowly occupied by the Arabs after
their victory at Qadisiyah.
The Persians took the oath by the holy fire that they will die, but not let
the Arabs occupy the Persia. With this new resolution, the Persians
regrouped their forces at Nihavend. When the two armies faced each other,
the Persians had taken a vantage position on the slope of a hill. The Arab
historians describe the Persian army as a 'Mountain of Steel'. The
determined Persians put up a stiff resistance under the leadership of their
general Mardanshah and the Arabs could not make any headway.
The battle of Nihavend was going the way of the Persians and the Arabs faced
certain defeat. This was the first day of the Battle. To turn the tide
against the Persians, the Arab Muslims decided to use foul play once again.
Ali who was Mohammed's son-in-law and the husband of the child Persian
Princess Shahrbanu, suggested a base move to the Arab Muslim commander
Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba. At the battle of Qadisiyah, when the Persians has
hastily evacuated their capital Ctesiphon, many children and old people had
been left behind in the chaos. The older persons were given the choice of
accepting Islam or death, many of them preferred to die. But the young girls
and boys were taken as slaves and distributed amongst the Arabs as war
booty. This rapacious behavior was to be repeated over and over again at
Jerusalem (636), Damascus (637), Cesaria (639), Alexandria (650),
Constantinople (1453) and in every defeat which the Muslims inflicted on
their non-Muslim adversaries.
At the Persian capital Ctesiphon, among the unfortunate children who were
left behind, was Shahrbanu a child princess of the Persian King Yazdgard.
When the Arabs came to know about Shahrbanu (who was then three years old)
they presented her as a gift to the Caliph Umar, who in turn gifted her to
Mohammed's son-in-law Ali as maal-e-ganimat (slaves obtained by Muslims
after a war).
At that time Ali was thirty two years old and he decided to take the three
year old child princess as his concubine! In doing this he was following the
illustrious (sic) footsteps of his lecherous father-in-law Mohammed. The
lecherous Mohammed had married and consummated his marriage with a seven
year old girl named Ayesha in addition to many other unfortunate young and
beautiful ladies who had been captured by the Muslim gangsters in the
numerous wars at Badr, Uhud, Trench, Autas in the Arabian peninsula.
It was from this "marriage" of Ali to Princess Shahrbanu, that he fathered
his two sons Hassan and Husain, who were later murdered in Battle of Karbala
in October of AD 680. Ali himself had been murdered in 39 A.H. (661 C.E.).
The descendants of Hassan and Hussain were to be the Shiite Imams who
founded the Shia sect of Islam that had mixed Persian (royal Sassanid) and
Arab ancestry. (Arab historians deliberately attribute the motherhood of
these two sons of Ali to Fatima, another of Ali's wives, and the daughter of
Mohammed.
But the reason for such attribution is to keep the ancestry of Husain and
Hassan purely to Arabs and to suppress the royal Sassanid Persian element of
their ancestry.
The historical fact is that Shahrbanu the Persian princess was the mother of
Hassan and Hussain. So the descendants of Hussain and Hassan from whom came
many of the Shiite Imams had royal Sassanid Persian ancestry. A fact that
the Muslim historians try to hide by wrongly claiming that Sharbanu was a
young princess of marriagable age when she had been captured by the Arabs.
We know that the battle of Qadisiyah had been fought in the year 637, and
Yazdgard had ascended the throne in the year 634, when his age was 21 -
twenty one. So in 637 when he fled his capital leaving behind his daughter
he was 24. How could a King aged 24 have a daughter who herself was a
teenager or a young lady?
The Muslim historians have us believe that Shahrbanu was honorably married
off by Ali to his son Hussain from whom she begot Ali's grandon Ali Zayn al
Abidin (the fourth Shia Imam) in 658 CE.
But we know that princess Shahrbanu was abducted in the year 637, and
according to Arab accounts she gave birth to a son in 658. If she was a
young lady when she was abducted in 637 then why did she have to wait for 21
years till 658 before she could beget? Especially so considering that the
Muslims force their wives to procreate as soon as they can lay their hands
on them!? The Arab Muslims and their Iranian Muslim cohorts are practising
their ritual deception taqiya to mislead us and give a veneer of hanorablity
to the abduction and rape of Shahrbanu by Ali when he lustfully took the
Persian princess into his harem as his rightful property (maal-e-ganimat)
won after a war as per the henious Muslim custom.
This is the reason why most Persians are Shias. The Persian converts to
Islam saw in the Shiite Imams a continuation of their pre-Islamic royal
Sassanid lineage as the Shiite Imams were descended from the union of Ali
with Shahrbanu (or of Hussain with Shahrbanu in which case too the royal
Sassanid Persian element of the ancestry of the Shiite Imams remains). The
Zoroastrian converts who yearned for a return to the Sassanid days saw in
Ali, Hussain, Hassan and the Shiite Imams, the successors to their Sassanid
emperor Yazgard by virtue of Ali (or by some accounts his son Hussain) being
the husband of their princess Shahrbanu.
The Shias who are mainly Persian, Iraqi and Bahraini converts to Islam came
from those parts which constituted the Sassanid empire before being overrun
by the Muslims. These converts saw in Hussain and Hassan, the continuation
of their old Sassanid royal lineage thru the Sassanid princess Shahrbanu
along with the ancestry of Mohammed, as Ali her husband, the father of
Hussain and Hassan, was Mohammed's cousin. So they formed a cult within
Islam separate from that of the Sunnis who came from the Arab Peninsula that
was not a part of the Sassanid empire. Thus in today's Shia-Sunni divide we
can see the expression of the Persian-Arab divide that existed before the
birth of Islam.
Coming back to the battle of Nihavend, Ali who was present with his captive
child wife Princess Shahrbanu, suggested to Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba that he
offer the Persian princess as a bait to the Persian army to tempt it to
leave its fortified position and walk into an Arab trap.
According to Ali's advise, on the second day Mugheera-ibn-Shu'ba displayed
the captured Persian child princess to the assembled Persians and said that
he would kill the princess on the battle field and if the Persians had the
courage, they could come and save her.
The astonished Persians took some time to recognize the princess. But once
they recognized her as their own princess, who had been captured by the
Arabs after the battle of Qadsiyyah four years back, they went into a frenzy
of rescuing her. Against their commanders' orders the front ranks of the
Persian soldiers broke their formation and charged at the Arabs leaving the
fortified heights they had occupied on the first day of the war.
Seeing the Persians leaving their fortified unassailable positions, Mugheera
ordered his troop to withdraw into a valley and then climb into the hill of
the opposite hill. The Persians thinking that the Arab Army was retreating
with their princess, completely broke their formation to liberate their
princess from the clutches of her Arab captors, and charged at the Arabs who
were feigning to retreat. When the Persians with their heavy armor, reached
the lowermost portion of the valley, the Arab with their light cavalry fell
upon them from three sides. Weighed down by their armor and being chained to
each other, the Persians had little room for maneuvering in the narrow
valley where the Arabs had hemmed them in. After a valiant but futile
battle, what followed was a carnage of the Persian army all through the day.
By nightfall the remnants of the Persian army retreated in the dark and many
of the retreating Per
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com