According to historians, when the muzzies conquered the Sasanian

>>1770037
Zoroastrianism

>>1770037
It took a couple of hundred years of societal pressure but eventually Iran became a Sunni powerhouse.

Then the safavids turned them Shia under threat of death in a single generation, which is quite remarkable.

File: negationism in india.jpg (40KB, 286x495px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 286x495px

Funny how historians always make a pass for Islam. It's the same in India.

>all those chroniclers documenting massive slaughter of Hindus are just engaging in poetic license and hyperbole, Islam is the religion of peace and the Muslim conquest of India was done through assimilation, not warfare
>besides, Hinduism was invented by evil Brits to divide the Indian people

>>1771336
But unlike in Iran, Muslim atrocities in India are widely accepted to be historical fact?

>>1770037
>After Persia was conquered, the Muslims offered relative religious tolerance and fair treatment to populations that accepted Islamic rule without resistance. It was not until around 650, however, that resistance in Iran was quelled. Conversion to Islam, which offered certain advantages, was fairly rapid among the urban population but slower among the peasantry and the dihqans (landed gentry). The majority of Iranians did not become Muslim until the ninth century. Landowners who peacefully submitted to Islam were granted more land.[9] Having effectively been recognized as dhimmis under the Rashidun Caliphs, on the terms of annual payment of the Jizya, Zoroastrians were sometimes left largely to themselves, but this practice varied from area to area. Due to their financial interests, the Ummayads generally discouraged the conversion of non-Arabs, as the dhimmis provided them with valuable revenues (Jizya).

>Before the conquest, the Persians had been mainly Zoroastrian. The historian Al-Masudi, a Baghdad-born Arab, who wrote a comprehensive treatise on history and geography in about 956, records that after the conquest:

>>Zorastrianism, for the time being, continued to exist in many parts of Iran. Not only in countries which came relatively late under Muslim sway (e.g Tabaristan) but also in those regions which early had become provinces of the Muslim empire. In almost all the Iranian provinces, according to Al Masudi, fire temples were to be found – the Madjus he says, venerate many fire temples in Iraq, Fars, Kirman, Sistan, Khurasan, Tabaristan, al Djibal, Azerbaijan and Arran.

>This general statement of al Masudi is fully supported by the medieval geographers who make mention of fire temples in most of the Iranian towns.[10]

File: Eminent_Historians.jpg (7KB, 131x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 131x200px

>>1771344
>Muslim atrocities in India are widely accepted to be historical fact

Not at all. Indian historians mostly downplay Muslim atrocities. It's mainly because Muslims are a large vote-bloc for left-wing parties, while Hindu nationalists are mainly right-wing. That's a controversial issue there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCERT_textbook_controversies

>>1770037
OP is retarded

Most of Iran wasn't Muslim until the Khwarazmian empire in the late 11th century

>>1770037
>killing your tax revenue

That would be exceedingly stupid.

>>1771355
I was referring more to Western academia, but yeah history and nationalism should not get mixed.

Problem is that people use what happened in the past to justify modern day actions. India is incredibly heterogenous, and thus Hindu nationalist parties create a strong left wing reaction.

>>1771491

OP has the terms "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" confused.

>>1771491
4 U