Talk:Baharestan Carpet

Using racially-charged terminology like ‘Arabs’ instead of Muslims
User has been referring the Muslim army of the Rashidun Caliphate as “Arabs” and reverting edits changing the term to “Muslim”. Looking at this user’s edit history, he seems to impose Islamophobic and anti-Arab antagonistic language. This user has used the justification of “some scholars referred to early ‘Muslim army’ as ‘Arab army’”, which is weak reasoning to enforce a mandate of the word ‘Arab’. The Muslim military had many non-Arabs, including Muslim Persians. (Most famously Salman the Persian, Salim Mawla ibn Abu Hudhayfa, Munabbih ibn Kamil, and Fayruz al-Daylami.) This is not an “opinion” as HistoryofIran has alleged. The word ‘Muslims’ to refer to the multiethnic Muslims army is both more accurate, less racially-charged and better written than the current:

"When Ctesiphon fell to the Arabs in 637, the carpet was too heavy for the Iranians to carry away, and which resulted in the carpet being seized by the Arabs. Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, who led the Arab troops during the capture of Ctesiphon, sent the carpet to the Rashidun caliph Umar, who was in Medina. There the carpet was cut into small fragments and divided among the Arabs. One of the Arabs who received a piece of the carpet was Ali who, although he did not receive the best piece, managed to sell it for 30,000 dirhams."

It seems HistoryofIran is edit warring for the sole purpose of pushing racist and islamophobic language. There is no benefit to using the word ‘Arab’ instead of ‘Muslim’. — LissanX (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've struck personal attacks from your post. We have an article titled Arabs, so there's no point in arguing that simply using the term "Arab" is racist.  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the article Arabs used as a synonym for the Rashidun Caliphate? No.
 * I never said the word ‘Arab’ is racist, reading comprehension is key. I said using the word ‘Arab’ as a synonym for ‘Muslim’ or ‘Rashidun Caliphate’ is clearly not accurate, and doing so as part of a “Arabs vs Persians” narrative is racially charged. — LissanX (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this still a thing? I've already said this, I'm gonna say it again; Scholars routinely use "Arab" to designate the first Muslim state to emphasise its Arab character as opposed to later Muslims states that were dominated by non-Arabs - E.g., Hoyland, In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire; Collins, The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–797; Starr, Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia's Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. I guess they are racist too? Pinging and, he still seems to be on about that I am racist, apparently by "creating a narrative". Also, his recent comment on my talk page  including his recent edit warring doesn't inspire any faith at all that he is able to stop treating Wikipedia like a battleground. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LissanX, just to make matters clear, you accused an editor of "pushing racist and islamophobic language". That is the kind of claim that I think you should make only at ANI, and only with solid evidence in a concise presentation. Do not throw such incendiary terminology around casually. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)