Talk:Abu-Lu'lu'ah

=Two articles should be merged with "Pirouz Nahavandi" name=

Untitled
It seems that we have different stories about the same person; Since his name was originally "Pirouz Nahavandi" then the title of article should be "Pirouz Nahavandi"  not Abu-lu'lu'ah (which could be an offensive name). However the Abu-lu'lu'ah also should be written on the page so that every person with a background from each side of the story could find the article. Two sides of the story should be placed in one article. None of the content of these two should be deleted. --Sepahvand (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

=---= I have completely redone the article based on what little I could find on the web. We need links, references, possibly a picture of the mausoleum, and possibly a Shi'a version of the story. Zora 10:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work. --Striver 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

rv
Stop revering back to a less informative version. If you have a problem, state it here.--Striver 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "It is possible..." with no reference is O.R.
 * Then remove the part that bothers you, the article has evolved a lot since then. --Striver 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

this has been removed (not by me.). Please re-insert when sources have been found. --Striver 00:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the writer of the article is so trapped in his/her Shia-Sunni obsessions, that forgot to talk about the humanitarian ascpects of this man. actually he is graced by Persians not as a good shia but mostly as a free man who fought for his freedom to the last breath. That why it's an honor for some poeple in Iran to call themselves descendant of Piruz.

Copyright violations
Truthpedia, your latest edits include material copied and pasted from this website. This is not a reliable source in any event, but copying and pasting material therefrom is in clear violation of policy. Additionally, it is inappropriate to refer to legitimate edits as "vandalism" in edit summaries.Proabivouac 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

shi'a ?
Abu-Lu'lu'ah Al-Majousi was a Zoroastrian, not a shi'a. they shiite believe was not found yet in this period of history. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Abu Lolo was an assasin and disgusted by Shias too. Ali also knew him as a criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.12.104.184 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

merge with Pirouz Nahavandi
We seem to have two Wikipedia biographies of the same person and I therefore propose a merger of this article with Pirouz Nahavandi Jonathan Cardy (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you except the Muslims tend to refuse to see things from any other perspective and like to alter history to suite their own petty beliefs. The nick name Abu-Lulu should not even appear on Wikipedia as it is very derogatory. Wikipedia should not be a place to get politics involved only history and historically, it is no appropriate to refer to individuals by nicknames which one group has given an individual. For example Alexander the great from many cultures perspective is also known as Alexander the terrible. In Wikipeida, Only historic facts should be mentioned and neither Alexander the great nor Alexander the terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payam09 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of one's perspective of him I agree that this should be merged with the Pirouz Nahavandi article. He was an Iranian and should be listed under his Iranian name. Otherwise every biographical article could be duplicated according to how that individual is named in different countries. --Utinomen (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree to merge. They refer to th esame person. Both names could be included on the Pirouz page, as long as there are references. --DerRichter (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

His name was Pirouz Nahavandi and he was disgusted just by islam and the culture of slavery that arabs are celebrating till now.

OR
"All of these elements put together lead to the only logical conclusion that Pirouz was the Persian military commander at Nahavand that was captured by Mughira and brought back to Arabia, where these events took place." I am not sure who wrote this article, but it needs to be rewritten. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Zoroastrian for sure
The resource for claiming that he was a shia muslim is very weak. At that time there were no shia/sunni muslim and imagin that how can we say a persian slave who assassinates muslim khalif was a muslim?! While we know that first Muslims adore their khalif as the prophet's successor! We are certain that Abu lulu or Piruz Nahavandi was persian and Zoroasterian before he was captured as a slave. Then he killed the great Muslim hero, Omar the second khalif who conquered the Empire of Persia. Is that difficult to guess what his belief was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.127.41 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)