Oh, I didn't know it read like that!
I was only aiming to respond to the anti-Arab (maybe anti-Muslim) nationalist fervor behind the argument (and various other arguments put on the forums recently). I know that the Shahnameh is a major work for various reasons, but here I only pointed to claims made by Persian nationalists which I found ironic and contradictory as the work is, indeed, a hallmark of Persian revival which does indicate that there was a 'low' period for Persian before it.
As for the ''adoption'', I did not mean to say it replaced Persian at every level and in every way. How else could someone like Ferdowsi even come about and become as important as he did become if there was no Persian base to fall back on? I am sure Salman al-Farsi used Persian when he got back home and that not all the relations between Persians and Arabs were as universally caustic as the poster suggested. I admit, it was rather sloppy wording aimed more at that particular comment and others like it that express that kind of revisionist slant - I did not mean to give an impression that all of Iran turned Arab over night and stayed that way for two centuries or that there weren't instances of persecution for that matter (in case I get hit on that now). Simply put, Arab culture did have a major impact on Iran that was especially felt at the levels of knowledge production and governance (which for CK are probably important).
Most crucially, as I tried to imply by naming the Shahnameh, is the attempt by the author to counter the dominance of Arabic in the region by trying to produce an incredibly long work trying to avoid Arabic loanwords as much as possible.
- 1
- 1
