Sasanian empire[1]. It played its part, most beneficial for Persia, holding back on the one hand Roman-Byzantine onrush from the West, and on the other restraining the perpetual attempts at irruption into Persian territory by Arab nomadic tribes. Not long before the appearance of Islam, Sasanian influence was extended to the Arabs and the South as well as Yemen passed into the sovereignty of the Persians. Khusro and his Court appeared to the Arab an unattainable ideal of grandeur and luxury.

[Footnote 1: Die Dynastie der Lekhmiden in al-Hira, Ein Versuch zur arabisch-persischen Geschichte zur Zeit der Sasaniden Berlin, 1899.]

The rapid conquest of Persia by the Arab warriors proved a complete catastrophe to the Sasanian empire. But Persian culture was not to be extirpated by the success of Arab arms. Persia was overwhelmed only externally and the Arabs were compelled to preserve a considerable deal of the past. Having lost the position of rulers, the Persian priesthood preserved intact its control of the indigenous populace in the eyes of the latter as well as of the foreign Government. The same remark holds good of the class of landed proprietors.[1] Iranian tradition continued to live In and with them. Not only what was preserved but all that was destroyed for long left vestiges in the memory of the conquerors.

[Footnote 1: Regarding the part played by this class in the times of the
Khalifs, see A. Von Kramer Culturgeschiche des orients unter den
Chalifen II. pp, 150, 62.]

Many years after the Arab conquest the ruins that covered Persia excited the admiration of the Arabs. Their geographers of the ninth and tenth centuries considered it their duty to enumerate the principal buildings of the Sasanians reminding the reader that here Khusro built in his time in bye-gone days a castle, there a mountain fastness, again at a third place, a bridge.[1] Regarding various ancient structures which had survived the Sasanian times, we refer, inter alia, to Istakhri, (ibid I), pp. 124; Ibn Hauqal (ibid II) 195; Ibn Khordadbeh (ibid VI) p. 43, (text); Ibn Rusteh (ibid VII), 153, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 189; Yakubi (ibid VII), 270, 271, 273, &c.

[Footnote 1: See the enumeration of the noteworthy buildings of ancient Persia as given in Makdisi (B.G.A. III), p. 399, and Ibn-ul-Fakih (ibid V), p. 267.]

The remains of the structures, monuments of art from the Sasanian times and the ages preceding them attracted the attention of the Arabs and they have left descriptions of the same in more or less detail.[1] From the information of the same Musalman writers we possess accurate accounts of the inhabitants of Persia and their religions. Thus, for instance, Yakubi indicates that the inhabitants of Isfahan, Merv, and Herat, consisted mainly of high-born Dehkans.[2] Makdisi notices a considerable number of fire-worshippers in several provinces of Persia, for instance, Irak and Jibal.[3]

[Footnote 1: Istakhri, p. 203, Ibn Hauqal, p, 266, 256, Makdisi pp. 396 and 445, Ibn Rusteh, p. 166.]

[Footnote 2: Yakubi, pp. 274, 279-280.]

[Footnote 3: Makdisi, pp. 126, 194.]

ISTAKHRI AND IBN HAUQAL[1]

Relate that the inhabitants of several localities of Kerman during the entire Umayyad period openly professed Mazdaism.

In a more detailed fashion, however, the Arab writers notice the Mazdian dwellers of Fars, the heart of the Persian dominion. Makdisi says that in Fars existed the customs of fire-worshippers but that the fire-worshipping inhabitants of the capital of the province of Shiraz had no distinguishing mark on their clothes; from which it follows that in that age these people were in no way differentiated from the Musalman subjects.[2] Istakhri[3] and Ibn Hauqal[4] relate that the bulk of the inhabitants of Fars consisted of fire-worshippers and they were there in larger number than anywhere else, Fars being the centre of sacerdotal and cultural life of the empire in the days of Persian independence. Very minute information is supplied us by these writers[5] regarding the ancient castles and fire-temples scattered over the whole of Fars in abundance. The latter is of capital importance since here was the residence of those two classes of Persian society, noblemen and priests, who were the staunchest conservators of the ancient national tradition.

[Footnote 1: Istakhri, p. 164; Ibn Hauqal, p. 221.]

[Footnote 2: See Makdisi, pp. 421, 429.]

[Footnote 3: P. 130.]

[Footnote 4: P. 207.]

[Footnote 5: Istakhri, pp. 116-119; also p. 100. Ibn Hauqal, 187-190; also p. 181.]

It is undoubted that the position of the Parsi community after the Moslem conquest was comparatively comfortable. Still sometimes it was darkened by excessive fanaticism and the intrigues of the followers of other faiths. Although sometimes the Parsis could push themselves forward to positions of officials and instructors and played an important part in the history of the Khalifate, generally speaking, this community was a close one leading a more or less exclusive life, a circumstance enabling the conservation of national peculiarities and attachment to antiquity. As time went on, however, the condition of their existence necessarily became worse and the consequence was the gradual emigration of a portion of the community from the motherland to Western India.

In the entire Parsi literature we come across only one historical composition which recounts this emigration. But the narrative is so obscure that of the main occurrence in it there must have remained only a general memory.[1] This book is called the "Kisseh-Sanjan" and was written at a very late date at the very close of the 16th century, so that the data given in it have to be looked upon as a reverberation of ancient tradition.[2]

[Footnote 1: The modern historian and Parsi scholar Karaka, in analysing the events subsequent to the Arab conquest follows the views of the old School of writers regarding this epoch as a complete destruction of all the previous organisation and the triumph of fanaticism of the new faith. See D.F. Karaka, History of the Parsis, Vol I; on the history of the Parsis subsequent to the Arab invasion see page 22 ff.]

[Footnote 2: E.B. Easrwick, Translation from the Persian of the "Kisseh-Sanjan" or "History of the arrival and settlement of the Parsis in India." J.B.B.R.A.S., I. 1844, pp. 167-191. (See also Vol. 21, extra number, 1005, pp. 197-99).]

From the circumstances detailed in this book it appears that the emigrators after the establishment of Musalman domination passed a hundred years in a mountainous locality and only after the lapse of these long years migrated to Hormuz, from where they proceeded to the peninsula of Gujarat and finally after negotiations with the local chief settled in Sanjan. Subsequently fresh refugees joined them from Khorasan. From this last we can infer that the emigration was gradual and this is confirmed by the fact that in case of migration in a mass the diaspora of the Parsis would have left some traces in the Arabic literature. Further there is no doubt that considerable number of Parsis remained behind in their country and their descendants are the modern Persian Guebres who, together with the Parsis of India, may be called the only preservers of ancient Iranian tradition to the present times.

Thus, throughout Persia in the first centuries of Islam national elements with, changed fortunes persisted in their existence. It is, however, to be remarked that their success was not uniform in, every quarter of the country, that their fate depended to a considerable extent upon the geographical position and the