Challenge: Persia / Iran in the Arab world

[rcduggan]

Okay, here's a what-if that is partially inspired by the many maps by newer members that I have seen (most FH) which show Iran in the Arab league. Your challenge is as follows: with a POD after 800 (or 750 if you can think of nothing in the 9th century), make most of the population of Iran speak Arabic as their first language by 1900. They can still speak Farsi, but not as the native language. Bonus points if Farsi is dead or moribund.

Disclaimer: I am not anti-Persian.

Go.

 

[rcduggan]

Bump...


c'mon...

 

[tormsen]

The Umayyads had a strict anti-Persian policy that was reversed by the multicultural Abbasids, who favoured Persianization. Perhaps if the Abbasids never rose, and instead Persia remained Umayyad or fell to another political dynasty the anti-Persian policies could remain, which would see the retardation of Persian language and literature vis a vis OTL.

Expanding the power and control of the Taharids might be a way to go, though of Persian stock they seemed to prefer the use of Arabic and were stridently anti-Zoroastrian. One side effect might be that it will take much longer for Persia to be fully Islamised. There would be periods of grudging acceptance, but periods of extreme anti-Persian policies. In a scenario, it is likely that a large Persian-speaking Zoroastrian underclass could develop. Perhaps in this world there is a far greater population of Parsis in India.

The religious/language difference, expounded in this world, could lead to a situation in the modern day where Persian-Zoroastrian nationalism leads to separatist warfare, or potentially a Pakistan/India-esque division of Persia into Perso-Zoroastrian and Arabic-Muslim halves.

 

[rcduggan]

The Umayyads had a strict anti-Persian policy that was reversed by the multicultural Abbasids, who favoured Persianization. Perhaps if the Abbasids never rose, and instead Persia remained Umayyad or fell to another political dynasty the anti-Persian policies could remain, which would see the retardation of Persian language and literature vis a vis OTL.

Expanding the power and control of the Taharids might be a way to go, though of Persian stock they seemed to prefer the use of Arabic and were stridently anti-Zoroastrian. One side effect might be that it will take much longer for Persia to be fully Islamised. There would be periods of grudging acceptance, but periods of extreme anti-Persian policies. In a scenario, it is likely that a large Persian-speaking Zoroastrian underclass could develop. Perhaps in this world there is a far greater population of Parsis in India.

The religious/language difference, expounded in this world, could lead to a situation in the modern day where Persian-Zoroastrian nationalism leads to separatist warfare, or potentially a Pakistan/India-esque division of Persia into Perso-Zoroastrian and Arabic-Muslim halves.

I thought the Abbasids supported the Arabization of Persia too.
IIRC it was the Samanids and Saffarids who reintroduced the Persian language, after taking the country back from the Abbasids (while still being nominally subservient).

 

[tormsen]

The Samanids revived Persian culture and literature but active persecution of the language and certain aspects of the culture was reduced with the Abbasids. They used pro-Iranian policies to undermine the Umayyads in Persia. The Abbasids still suppressed the Persian culture and identity, but not to the same extent as the Umayyads.

Making sure the heat remained turned up on the Arabization process might allow it to prevent Persian language and culture from re-emerging. But that would be a big ask.