Islamization but no Arabization: Iran and historical discontinuity v historical continuity

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Dec 27, 2017 at 09:12

Just to remind the readers: Carl Becker the great German historian believed that the answer to the question: Why did the countries invaded by the Arabs in the 7th century became Islamized and Arabized when the opposite have been expected so in the case of Iran those Arab invaders would have been speaking Persian and became Zoroastrians

The Islamic historical tradition's answer is that this was historical discontinuity (al-Jahilyya) Becker believed that it was in actual fact historical continuity So in the case of Egypt and Iran the Arab invasion was a catalyst for a change that was already happening for reasons we don't understand with or without the Arab invasion and the result was Islamization leading to Arabization

So the real question is: Why did this Islamization/Arabization happen?

Take the case of Iran a country that has much in common with Egypt. Both countries have very profound unique histories, well defined geography, with unique religions and languages In the case of Egypt we can see the Islamization followed by the Arabization But in the case of Iran we see the Islamization and just as in Egypt the conversion from Zoroastrianism to Islam was uneven and long. Arabization? It just did not happen and why is that? in-spite of the bizarre remark by gato about: "Arabic, however, was regarded by Arabs as the language in which the Heaven and its Prophet themselves have spoken, thus in terms of prestige it largely outflanked Coptic." I can also replace the word Coptic (sic) for Pahlavi Still the Persians did not become Arabic speakers and why is that our dear Gato? Did they have less respect for Allah's language?

What is most striking about Iran is Ali Dashti's claim that Persians the likes of al-Tabari, al-Zamakhshari, al-Bukhari and Sibawayhi wrote 70% of Kutub al-Turath al-Islami Can you imagine islam without al-Tabari and al-Bukhari? It makes you wonder that it might have been a case of "if you cannot beat them then join them" and most likely this is what happened Persia was dragged into Islam not unlike Egypt and Persians made Islam what it is The Arabs? They were busy doing what they did best: Loot and rape burn books libraries and destroying old civilizations that was indeed appalling

So why did the Persians continue to speak their Persian language and not become Arabic speakers? Could it be because of the profound secular literature in Persian and what was the effect of the likes of Firdawsi's Shahnemah on the survival of the language of Iran? Food for thought

In the case of Egypt extant literary evidence from late antiquity reveals that not only in Alexandria but also in the cities of the Cora, Egyptians were avid readers of Greek literature (as in the case of the Oxyrhynchus papyri) but still the Greek language was dead in Egypt two centuries following the Arab invasion! And why is that our dear gato? And no the Greek language did not vanish in Egypt because according to you "the tiny" Greek speakers left Egypt following the Arab invasion

If you take the time and attend a Coptic mass you will discover that the Copts also use Greek in their liturgy and why is that our dear gato?

So Iran presents another example of the outcome of the Arab invasions: Islamization albeit created by Iranians but no Arabization!

Do you get it our dear gato?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".