How long did the Arabization of the lands conquered by the Muslims

>>3026199

From my understanding, Islam isn't an Arab superiority, but rather a religious despite book having to be in Arabic.

Turks and Persian nobility converted to Islam for political reasons after being conqured.

The Arabs really didn't go out of their way to genocide people (which is why there were still Christians in the middle east until ISIS got their hands on them), but rather made the convert or pay tax.

There is nothing in Islam that says you have to change your language to Arabic so the Persians and Turks kept speaking their language and their Imans and people generally interested in religion learned Arabic.

>>3026211
Arabic was made the official language of the Umayyad Caliphate though, and I am not saying that they genocided anyone.
however it's clear that the conquered populations were forced or encouraged(which is what i am trying to learn about) to adopt the arabic language. Prior to the spread of Islam Greek was spoken in, Latin in North Africa, Coptic in Egypt etc...

>>3026234
*greek in syria

>>3026199
.>How long did the Arabization of the lands conquered by the Muslims take?
It's still going on now. In fact, it may have been mist rapid in the 20th century. But you probably mean historically. I don't know the details but it seems like Asia south of Baghdad and Damascus became majority Arab around the time of Harun Al-Rashid. If you consider Copts non-Arabs, then I think they were the majority throughout the Middle Ages. Direct Arabization stopped (until more recently) when their Empire fell, and by then they hadn't become the majority in several places, such as Mesopotamia north of Baghdad. But other foreign Muslims took their place.

>How many people retained their languages and traditions?

Coptic stopped being a spoken language sometime in recent centuries, but it's used by Priests and others. I guess it's a 'Christian' language. I've heard of Berber languages and a Berber way of life, but I don't know how many. And Spain got reconquered, but the pre-Islam Andalusian culture was probably changed.

That's to the west. In Asia, if I'm not mistaken, Jerusalem remained a center of Jews. Persia began to lead Islam instead of Arabs, so maybe that's how it didn't happen, but also the geography and society there. Upper Mesopotamians retained both Aramaic and Christianity, and when the Arabs fell they had resisted Arabization until Kurds and others replaced Arabs in the area. They were also the majority in many areas until genocides and so forth recently. And I think Central Asia's situation was similar to Persia's.

>Also, why did Persia mantained its language despite having adopted the Arabic alphabet?

If I'm not mistaken, use of the Pahlavi script continued for some time.

I can only speak of Persia. They were forced either to convert or pay the jizya, so most converted after their armies were defeated, some even turned traitor during the war itself. After the final defeat of the nobility, Persians were forbidden to speak Parsi. Some probably still did, especially in rural areas no one cared about. But the entire language died to such an extent that it had to be saved by Ferdowsi, a writer of an epic poem in Parsi circa 1200. Since then, Persians have apparently returned to speaking Parsi as a majority, since I guess the muslims don't care now that islam is willingly accepted. There are actually many persians who question whether they shouldn't return to Zoroastrianism, but it's like the Christian conquest of Europe in that it is rooted in and unlikely to be thrown over. Unfortunately, we can not return to a beautiful past.

Persians actually hate Arabs, and are not "arabized" too much. Persia was the Greece of the Near East, in cultural terms, and Persian culture influenced arab/moslem culture, not the other way around. Similar to how Rome widely adopted Greek stylings and character even long after they were conquered. Persians also still celebrate Persian heroes who fought against the moslems, such as Rostam, and Piruz Nahavandi, the latter being the one who killed the Caliph at the time. For some reason they do not realize the cognitive dissonance, but eh, that's brainwashing for 'ya.

>>3026366
>There are actually many persians who question whether they shouldn't return to Zoroastrianism, but it's like the Christian conquest of Europe in that it is rooted in and unlikely to be thrown over. Unfortunately, we can not return to a beautiful past.

Let me guess, you've never actually met a Persian and you're basing this off stuff you've heard on 4chan.

Typically centuries to 'Islamify', Persia 700 years to be majority Muslim, Egypt 500 years, only a few places ever 'Arabized', basically just Egypt, Iraq, and Syria.

Compare to Christian rule in Africa, where they forced conversion onto a majority in under a century.

>>3026381

Read some english-language iranian forums on the topic.

I dunno, watch and see Europe.

>>3026234
I believe that Latin was still spoken in Tunisia by the 11th century when the Normans came, building their own kingdoms in the Mediterranean. Not that everyone spoke it for every purpose but at least rural communities still did.

>>3026211
They genocided pagans. Only "people of the book" were allowed to pay the jizya and continue their own practices

>>3026366
Persia did not become nominally majority Islamic till the early 11th century.

>>3026668
>>3026366
Also Ferdowsi lived in the 10th and 11th centuries, he was dead more then half a century before the Mongols showed up. The Persian language was already revitalizing a century before his birth because the early 800s saw the rise of multiple major Iranian and Persian dynasties, empires, and states while the Abbassids were declining.