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, 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 Greeks. 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 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. As we do not find any Christians in any significant number in Syria, Jordan or Turkey which were Byzantine provinces.
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 the 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 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 Persians fell into the steep cliff, behind the hill on which they had assembled to attack the Arabs from the high ground.
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. The Persia we next hear of is the Islamic Persia of Muslim dynasties the Samanids, and the Safavids of Muslim kings like Shah Abbas and Nader Shah. Although the Persian were forced to become Muslims, they preserved the faint memory of their pre-Muslim past, that was captured by poets, historians and bards in their works, of which Firdawsi’s Shah-nameh is the most famous example.
Using imagery we can say that Zoroastrian Sassanian Persia was like a strong horse, who had been caught unawares by the Islamic tiger prowling around it, and when the tiger pounced on the horse and caught it by its neck, the struggle of the strong horse was not enough to save itself from the vice-like grip of the tiger’s fangs. The horse had to meet its end, in becoming the first major victim of the Islamic Jihad. It is up to the Iranians of today to realize what happened to their ancestors in history and repudiate the bloodied creed that the bare-footed lizard eaters of the desert imposed on their refined ancestors.
How the Muslims forcibly converted the Zoroastrians of Iran to Islam
Today we do not have an idea of how a merciless jihad transformed Iranian Zoroastrian society into a Muslim one. We have definitive assessments of those few Zoroastrian communities which survived the devastating jihadist conquests of the mid 7th through early 8th centuries. All through the Muslim Arab occupation of Iran, the Zoroastrians experienced an ongoing, inexorable decline over the next millennium due to constant sociopolitical and economic pressures exerted by their Muslim rulers, and neighbors.
This gradual, but continuous process was interspersed with periods of accelerated decline resulting from paroxysms of Muslim fanaticism- pogroms, forced conversions, and expropriations – throughout the millennium beginning from the year 637. Boyce describes these complementary phenomena based on an historical analysis, and her personal observations living in the (central Iranian) Yezd area during the 1960s:
”In the mid nineteenth century disaster overtook Turkabad, in the shape of what was perhaps the last massed forcible conversion in Iran. It no longer seems possible to learn anything about the background of this event; but it happened, so it is said, one autumn day when the dye-madder – then one of the chief local crops – was being lifted. All the able-bodied men were at work in teams in the fields when a body of Moslems swooped on the village and seized them. They were threatened, not only with death for themselves, but also with the horrors that would befall their women and children, who were being terrorized at the same time in their homes; and by the end of the day of violence most of the village had accepted Islam.
To recant after a verbal acknowledgement of Allah and his prophet meant death in those days, and so Turkabad was lost to the old religion. Its fire-temple was razed to the ground, and only a rough, empty enclosure remained where once it had stood.
We shall give our blood for you Khamenei – Iranian Basij militia march through Tehran during the bloodied Shiite festival of Ashura. Display of their cruel and blood-thirsty mentality is a matter of pride for Muslims.
A similar fate had overtaken many Iranian villages in the past, among those which did not willingly embrace Islam; and the question seems less why it happened to Turkabad than why it did not overwhelm all other Zoroastrian settlements. The evidence, scanty though it is, shows, however, that the harassment of the Zoroastrians of Yazd tended to be erratic and capricious, being at times less harsh, or bridled by strong governors; and in general the advance of Islam across the plain, through relentless, seems to have been more by slow erosion than by furious force. The process was still going on in the 1960s, and one could see, therefore, how it took effect.
Muslim techniques of forced conversions to Islam
Either a few Moslems settled on the outskirts of a Zoroastrian village, or one or two Zoroastrian families adopted Islam. Once the dominant faith had made a breach, it pressed in remorselessly, like a rising tide. More Muslims came, and soon a small mosque was built, which attracted yet others. As long as Zoroastrians remained in the majority, their lives were tolerable; but once the Moslems became the more numerous, a petty but pervasive harassment was apt to develop.
This was partly verbal, with taunts about fire-worship, and comments on how few Zoroastrians there were in the world, and how many Moslems, who must therefore posses the truth; and also on how many material advantages lay with Islam. The harassment was often also physical; boys fought, and gangs of youth waylaid and bullied individual Zoroastrians. They also diverted themselves by climbing into the local tower of silence and desecrating it, and they might even break into the fire-temple and seek to pollute or extinguish the sacred flame.
Those Muslims with heightened criminal leanings, which were natural to them, found too that a religious minority provided tempting opportunities for theft, pilfering from the open fields, and sometimes rape and arson. Those Zoroastrians who resisted all these pressures often preferred therefore in the end to sell out and move to some other place where their co-religionists were still relatively numerous, and they could live at peace; and so another village was lost to the old faith.
Several of the leading families in Sharifabad and forebears who were driven away by intense Moslem pressure from Abshahi, once a very devout and orthodox village on the southern outskirts of Yazd; and a shorter migration had been made by the family of the centenarian ‘Hajji’ Khodabakhsh, who had himself been born in the 1850s and was still alert and vigorous in 1964. His family, who were very pious, had left their home in Ahmedabad (just to the north of Turkabad) when he was a small boy, and had come to settle in Sharifabad to escape persecution and the threats to their orthodox way of life. Other Zoroastrians held out there for a few decades longer, but by the end of the century Ahmedabad was wholly Moslem, as Abshahi become in 1961. [Boyce's footnote: The last Zoroastrian family left Abshahi in 1961, after the rape and subsequent suicide of one of their daughters.]
It was noticeable that the villages which were left to the Zoroastrians were in the main those with poor supplies of water, where farming conditions were hard.
Now we examine the tall boasts that Muslims make about themselves in heralding the Islamic Renaissance when the Western world was in the Dark Ages.
Exposing the Myth of Islamic Science
Much is said about the Islamic Renaissance at Baghdad, especially under the caliphate of Harun-al–Rashid. In the Arabian peninsula (jazeera), the Arabs had lived in a hardy and barren area, which was not conducive to the growth of civilization. But this lack of a civilized life among the Arabs has no ethnic reason. The same Semitic Arabs, who lived in the fertile crescent in Mesopotamia had developed advanced civilizations of Babylon (the Mesopotemians and the Assyrians). But for those others who lived in the desert, the arid fastness precluded them from developing any substantial civilization in Arabia itself. And we need to note that Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, not Mesopotamia. So the way of life associated with Islam was based on the same meager barren desert life of Arabia.
Hence Islam was a simple religion, as it was born in an environment where people lived at subsistence, in an extreme climate which made them temperamental – this is the root of Muslim fanaticism. A trait that was passed on to all the peoples from different climates and geographic environments who were forced to accept Islam.
Today – The Village Idiot represents the Great Persian Empire. Cyrus must be turning in his grave
There was in fact a forced Arabization of the Persians (in Iran, Afghanistan), North African Hamitic people (in Egypt, Libya, Sudan) the North African Berbers (in Algeria, Morocco), the Negros (in Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, Niger) the Turks (in Turkey, Turkmenistan, Chechnya) the Mongols (in Uzbekistan, Kazakistan, Tajikistan), Hindus (in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka), Slavs (in Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania) etc.
But the converted Persians, Hindus and North Africans had cultured and civilized pre-Islamic pasts. They had developed advanced civilizations of Egypt, India and Persia. So when these people were militarily defeated and forcibly converted to Islam, they brought in cultured traits and a tradition of learning into Islam.
In fact the first codified grammar of Arabic was written by a Persian. The Arabs were unlettered, Mohammed (yimach shmo ve-zichro – may his name and memory be obliterated) himself was completely unlettered and illiterate, although he was quite cruel, cunning and ruthless.
The much vaunted Islamic renaissance was in fact a renaissance of the Persian (Zoroastrian) converts to Islam during the Persianized Abbasiad Caliphate. During the first four caliphs Abba Bakr, Umar, Uthmad and Ali (the last three who were murdered) and the Ummayad caliphate at Damascus, there was no such thing like the Islamic Renaissance, it was the Persian and Egyptian converts who had a pre-Islamic legacy of being civilized, which they carried forward after being converted to Islam.
In fact Islam tried to smother their pre-Islamic legacy of culture and civilization, and so it was only after the initial flush of Islamic savagery had passed over, that the newly converted people could after four to five generations again pick up the threads of a civilized life. The Islamic Renaissance happened not due to Islam, but in spite of Islam being around. The Islamic Renaissance was not a triumph of Islam, but a triumph of the human spirit over Islam.
After having subjugated Persia, the Arabs turned their full fury on the other adversary the Byzantine Christians. The Jihad against Byzantines went on for a much longer period. While Persia fell in seventeen years from 634 to 651, the jihad against Byzantium started in 635 but went up to 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Muslim Turks.
Although the Arab Muslims had attacked the Byzantines in 635 at Yarmuk, they could not immediately make forays deep into the Byzantine territory into Syria, Anatolia or Egypt. But with Persia subjugated, it was now the turn of the Byzantine Christians to shed their blood to resist the Islamic Jihad.
Select Bibliography
Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher
Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries (Hardcover) by Paul Fregosi
The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World by Srdja Trifkovic
Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer
Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam) by David Cook
Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq
Onward Muslim Soldiers by Robert Spencer
Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’Or
Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Yeor
What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary by Ibn Warraq
Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad by Mark A. Gabriel, Mark A. Gabriel
A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer
The Great Divide: The failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West by Marvin Olasky
The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims by Robert Spencer
Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones
The Koran (Penguin Classics) by N. J. Dawood
Don’t Keep me Silent! One Woman’s Escape from the Chains of Islam by Mina Nevisa
Christianity And Islam: The Final Clash by Robert Livingston
Holiest Wars : Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden by Timothy R. Furnish
The Last Trumpet: A Comparative Study in Christian-Islamic Eschatology by Samuel, Ph.D. Shahid
Unleashing the beast: How a fanatical islamic dictator will form a ten-nation coalition and terrorize the world for forty-two months by Perry Stone
Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature (Religion and Politics) by David Cook
Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle by Mark A., Ph.D. Gabriel
The Challenge of Islam to Christians by David Pawson
The Prophetic Fall of the Islamic Regime by Glenn Miller, Roger Loomis
Prophet of Doom : Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad’s Own Words by Craig Winn
The False Prophet by Ellis H. Skolfield
The Approach of Armageddon: An Islamic Perspective by Muhammad Hisham Kabbani
The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God by George Weigel
Infiltration : How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry
Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz
Unveiling Islam : An Insider’s Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs by Ergun Mehmet Caner
Perfect Soldiers : The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry McDermott
Islam Revealed A Christian Arab’s View Of Islam by Anis Shorrosh
Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out by Ibn Warraq
The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book by Ibn Warraq
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.
http://www.historyofjihad.org/persia.html
I’ve known many Iranians-Persians and have without exception found them a very sophisticated and educated group of people. I’ve also known many Kurds who equate themselves to this day with the Sassanids.
