Like this https://i.imgur.com/oF6G2Zv.jpg but not just a lion's head but also a bear's/tiger's/wolf's. Is this something people actually wore somewhere in history or is it purely fictional?

Surprisingly couldn't find anything on google about this

I've run into a fairly common claim by Persians and non-Persians alike that the "Islamic Golden Age" was really not the work of Beduin Arabs as is implicitly implied by many historians (the original Arabs ala the Prophet himself). Rather, it was mostly the work of many other cultures that the Arabs simply absorbed through conquest; most notably the Persians.

Surely, the Persians were Islamized and Arabized culturally; however when people loosely refer to the age of "Islamic Golden Age" or even "Arab Golden Age" there is usually an implicit assumption that we are talking about ethnic Arabs (which is an identity that is much more far reaching today).

In my experience, everytime people list the great Arab scientists of the Golden Age, the majority on that last will invariably turn out to be Persian.

Even Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun seems to remark:

Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent… they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar … great jurists were Persians … only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it' … The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them … as was the case with all crafts … This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana [=modern Central Asia], retained their sedentary culture.

Muqaddimah, Translated by Franz Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R.N. Frye. p. 91. See also[edit]

On Arabs:

Arabs dominate only of the plains, because they are, by their savage nature, people of pillage and corruption. They pillage everything that they can take without fighting or taking risks, then flee to their refuge in the wilderness, and do not stand and do battle unless in self-defense. So when they encounter any difficulty or obstacle, they leave it alone and look for easier prey. And tribes well-fortified against them on the slopes of the hills escape their corruption and destruction, because they prefer not to climb hills, nor expend effort, nor take risks. Whereas plains, when they can reach them due to lack of protection and weakness of the state, are spoils for them and morsels for them to eat, which they will keep despoiling and raiding and conquering with ease until their people are defeated, then imitate them with mutual conflict and political decline, until their civilization is destroyed. And Allah is capable of their creation, and He is the One, the Victorious, and there is no other lord than Him.

So my question is, how much truth to it is this claim? I'd love to see both an ethnic and religious break-down of major contributors during the Islamic Golden Age. What percentage was Persian? Bedouin? Would the Persian Golden Age be a defensible name? When did the cultural term "Arab" start to refer to so many groups of people? Would Persians of that time referred to themselves as Arab? I understand that some groups today like Iranians and Egyptians still have internal debates about the validity of the Arab identity.

edit:

More Ibn Khaldun on Arabs:

It is noteworthy how civilization always collapsed in places the Arabs took over and conquered, and how such settlements were depopulated and the (very) earth there turned into something that was no (longer) earth. The Yemen where (the Arabs) live is in ruins, except for a few cities. Persian civilization in the Arab 'Iraq is likewise completely ruined. The same applies to contemporary Syria. When the Banu Hilal and the Banu Sulaym pushed through (from their homeland) to Ifrigiyah and the Maghrib in (the beginning of) the fifth [eleventh] century and struggled there for three hundred and fifty years, they attached themselves to (the country), and the flat territory in (the Maghrib) was completely ruined. formerly, the whole region between the Sudan and the Mediterranean had been settled. This (fact) is attested by the relics of civilization there, such as monuments, architectural sculpture, and the visible remains of villages and hamlets. Furthermore, as we have stated before,147 it is the nature of (the Arabs) not only to appropriate the possessions of other people but, beyond that, to refrain from exercising any (power of) arbitration among them and to fail to keep them from (fighting) each other.

So yes, there seems to be something of a narrative there (seemingly contemporary to Ibn Khaldun), that "ethnic Arabs" simply absorbed, conquered and never created sustainable civilization whereas Persians and other Muslims were the ones really spearheading achievement. I'm just wondering if there is any truth to that (clearly biased) narrative.

I read on Wikipedia that when Nikita Khsurchev led the USSR, he was more lax on censorship, and he repealed a lot of the other guy's harsh laws. So if someone was spreading capitalism/anarchism/1960s counterculture ideas etc, what would the punishment be during Khruschev's rule? Was the idea of [democratic centralism] (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism&ved=0ahUKEwig4uLAnMzQAhUP7GMKHWBQDawQFggjMAE&usg=AFQjCNEb5dOZPT5_qaNqEdoxrhU9oCUxtQ) still a policy when he was in power?

Thanks in advance to everyone who replies to this.