On the last bit about Heraclius, there is a rather amusing scene in the movie The Message by Mustafa Akkad. The opening scene - which is far from an accurate portrayal of history - depicts three messengers on horses delivering Muhammad's missives to the Persian Emperor, the Roman Emperor, and the Patriarch of Egypt. It shows that the Persian Khusro II insults the messenger and mocks him before tearing the message up, while Heraclius is much more reserved in his rejection. I found that hilarious because the movie was clearly trying to be a lot more muted with respect to Christianity vs. the "pagan" Persians.
That's really out of some of the early sources, which have Khosrow raging over the letter as contrasted with Heraclius, who receives it peaceably and comes to believe that its message is true (though he realizes he can't share this belief with anyone else lest he have a revolt/mutiny on his hands). Historians of early Islam would have a better handle on this than I do but my sense is that the early Muslims were far more ambivalent about Zoroastrianism than they were about Christianity. There's no mention of Zoroastrians in the Quran and the decision to give them dhimmi protection seems to have been a reluctant concession to the fact that Zoroastrians vastly outnumbered the new Islamic or proto-Islamic ruling elite. Over the ensuing centuries they were subject to considerably more abuse and pressure to convert than you see among Christian and Jewish populations living under Islam. Something similar happened to Hindus in India, who were officially regarded as dhimmi but at some times and in some places were subject to near-genocidal treatment, so much so that you hear of a major depopulation on the subcontinent during the centuries after the first Arab armies arrived in the Sindh.
Oh yeah, I mean, the traditional understanding of Surat al Rum, and the verses you quote in the piece, is that it was sent to Muhammad to ease the concerns of the nascent Muslim (though Islam was yet to be formalized) community, who saw a lot more in common between themselves and the Romans vs. the Persians. This is why Muhammad first sent a part of his persecuted followers to the Kingdom of Axum in Abyssinia, rightly believing that the Negus would protect them from Meccan violence due to shared monotheistic belief.
I wonder if the pressure to convert towards Zoroastrians was also a result of the total collapse of the Sassanid Empire. Meanwhile, the continued existence of the Byzantine Empire as well as Western European forces may have suggested that the Muslims did not want to upset other regional powers too much. In other words, the Zoroastrians had no patron power to apply pressure on the Muslims the way the Romans and Europeans could for the Christians? I'm not sure, this is just me theorizing at this point.
On the last bit about Heraclius, there is a rather amusing scene in the movie The Message by Mustafa Akkad. The opening scene - which is far from an accurate portrayal of history - depicts three messengers on horses delivering Muhammad's missives to the Persian Emperor, the Roman Emperor, and the Patriarch of Egypt. It shows that the Persian Khusro II insults the messenger and mocks him before tearing the message up, while Heraclius is much more reserved in his rejection. I found that hilarious because the movie was clearly trying to be a lot more muted with respect to Christianity vs. the "pagan" Persians.
That's really out of some of the early sources, which have Khosrow raging over the letter as contrasted with Heraclius, who receives it peaceably and comes to believe that its message is true (though he realizes he can't share this belief with anyone else lest he have a revolt/mutiny on his hands). Historians of early Islam would have a better handle on this than I do but my sense is that the early Muslims were far more ambivalent about Zoroastrianism than they were about Christianity. There's no mention of Zoroastrians in the Quran and the decision to give them dhimmi protection seems to have been a reluctant concession to the fact that Zoroastrians vastly outnumbered the new Islamic or proto-Islamic ruling elite. Over the ensuing centuries they were subject to considerably more abuse and pressure to convert than you see among Christian and Jewish populations living under Islam. Something similar happened to Hindus in India, who were officially regarded as dhimmi but at some times and in some places were subject to near-genocidal treatment, so much so that you hear of a major depopulation on the subcontinent during the centuries after the first Arab armies arrived in the Sindh.
Oh yeah, I mean, the traditional understanding of Surat al Rum, and the verses you quote in the piece, is that it was sent to Muhammad to ease the concerns of the nascent Muslim (though Islam was yet to be formalized) community, who saw a lot more in common between themselves and the Romans vs. the Persians. This is why Muhammad first sent a part of his persecuted followers to the Kingdom of Axum in Abyssinia, rightly believing that the Negus would protect them from Meccan violence due to shared monotheistic belief.
I wonder if the pressure to convert towards Zoroastrians was also a result of the total collapse of the Sassanid Empire. Meanwhile, the continued existence of the Byzantine Empire as well as Western European forces may have suggested that the Muslims did not want to upset other regional powers too much. In other words, the Zoroastrians had no patron power to apply pressure on the Muslims the way the Romans and Europeans could for the Christians? I'm not sure, this is just me theorizing at this point.