This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hmm. There was an anti-Ahwazi link on the Ahvaz page, but Zereshk removed it. I'll find that and add it. Also, several of the news articles I cited believed in the "conspiracy" theory. If you think that there should be any more links, Zereshk, you add them. Zora 05:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Southern comfort added something re Persian speakers being a 'vast majority' to the para re the Khuzestani population. Vast in itself is POV exaggeration, especially given that no one has any firm figures. I found one site that said that there were approximately 500,000 Arabs in Iran, most of them in Khuzestan. Since Khuzestan has a population of 3.7 million, there could be 13% Arabs in the province. However, the CIA World Factbook gives a figure of some 68 million for Iran as a whole, of which 3% are said to be Arabs. That's a figure of 2.04 million for Arabs. If there are close to 2 million Arabs in Khuzestan, they are a majority. The election report figures in one of the linked articles argue for Arab majorities in most of the city elections.
I just don't know what the facts are, without a census. But I cannot accept a statement that Persian-speakers are a vast majority without some real documentation. I'm willing to go with majority, if it's tentative enough.
I also tweaked some of the wording in Southern Comfort's changes to the recent history para. The changes had made some sentences slightly odd, or too long and clunky. Zora 10:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
SouthernComfort,
Please see the Ahvaz talk page. "Zora" thinks Ahwaz is an Arab city and has an originally Arabic name. Your input would be much appreciated there. I have to finish this stupid take-home exam I have by wednesday.-- Zereshk 20:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I object to Southern Comfort's accusations of "historical revisionism" in the "political organisations" section. I have simply put forward information on the platforms of these political parties, but Southern Comfort is putting his/her own POV on these party's policies by insisting they are "revisionist". Although I have not reverted to my original article and tried to accommodate his/her opinions, Southern Comfort continues to re-impose this inaccuracy. The fact is that the history of Al-Ahwaz/Khuzestan is a matter of debate and that the accusation of "revisionism" is intended to smear those who do not hold the view that the region is ethnically Persian - a notion that I have attempted disprove and which Southern Comfort has made no attempt to challenge adequately. S/he has also been similarly abusive on Ahwaz City's history.-- Ahwaz 14:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Why no mention of Sheikh Khaz'al in this article? Would it be "historical revisionism" to mention his role in Khuzestan history, or is it POV to mention Khuzestan's Arab heritage? Since the issue of Khuzestan's autonomy before Reza Shah is one of the arguments behind the Arab movement in Khuzestan, perhaps it is worth a mention, no? Or are Arabs being ethnically cleansed from history?
I fear that there are some who only want to see the issue in relation to the Iran-Iraq War, although the root causes of ethnic conflict go back further and continue today, even after the fall of Saddam Hussein.-- Ahwaz 14:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with SouthernComfort:
Southern Comfort went to work on the history section and turned it into an argument that Khuzestan has always been part of Iran, which is just not true. He ignores incovenient facts, such as a history of conquests by various powers to the west (Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans), the existence of the Kabide Emirate, and the de-facto British protectorate in the early part of the 20th century. He and Zereshk seem to be fighting the Iran-Iraq war all over again, with Zora and Ahwaz cast as the Iraqis. Neither Ahwaz nor I have expressed any desire to split Khuzestan from Iran; we just want various politically inconvenient matters acknowledged rather than swept under the rug. Zora 09:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
You haven't responded in any real sense, SouthernComfort. All you do is revert to your preferred version and call us names. Zora 13:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you didn't post the text originally, Zereshk did, with no hint that he took it bodily from a government website. Proof?
Here's a chunk of text from the website:
Yaghoot Hamavi, the medieval geographer, states that the words "Khooz", "Hooz", "Ahvaz" and "Hoveize" are of the same origin. Up to recent years, the mentioned words were written with the letter "ح" [having an Arabic impression]. Ahvaz is the anagram of "Avaz" and which appear in Darius's epigraph, and this word appears in Naghsh-Rostam inscription as "Khaja" or "Khooja"; and Ahvaz was the seat of KhuzestanProvince in the old days. This city was founded by Ardeshir-Babakan, the founder of Sasanid Dynesty, and used to be called Hoomshir or Hormoz-Ardeshir. The combination Khujestan Vajar"or "Hujestan Vajareh" meant "Khuzestan Bazzar"; which up to recent decades, the Arab speakers called Ahvaz "Soogh-ul-Ahvaz", meaning "the Bazaar of Ahvaz". [1]
Here's Zereshk's original text, as he first posted it in Ahvaz on April 21:
Yaghoot Hamavi, the medieval geographer, states that the words Khooz, Hooz, Ahvaz and Hoveizeh are of the same origin. Ahvaz is the anagram of Avaz and which appear in Darius's epigraph, and this word appears in Naghsh-Rostam inscription as Khaja or Khooja; and Ahvaz was the seat of Khuzestan province in the old days. This city was founded by Ardeshir-Babakan, the founder of Sassanid Dynasty, and used to be called Hoomshir or Hormoz-Ardeshir. The combination Khujestan Vajar or Hujestan Vajareh meant Khuzestan Bazzar; which up to recent decades, the Arab speakers called Ahvaz Soogh-ul-Ahvaz, meaning the Bazaar of Ahvaz.
He's removed a few of the original typos, but it's otherwise the same garbled text.
Here's the text as it stands on the Ahvaz page right now:
Ahvaz is derived from the root Avaz which appears in Darius's epigraph, and the Achaemenians also called it Avaja.
You're the one who's been reverting to these versions, calling them established historical fact.
We have the continual claim that Avaz appears in an epigraph of Darius, now with an associated claim that the Achaemenians called the town Avaja. Neither of which is sourced. I can't find any reference, anywhere, that supports those claims. If there is one, you guys should really cite it. If not, you should let me DELETE the unfounded assertion. But whenever I do, you scream that I'm a vandal, deleting established historical facts. They become established historical facts just because you assert them loudly? Or because they're on an official Iranian government website?
OK, now let's take the disputed para from this article, and subject it to scrutiny. I'll just do the Elamite bit, being pressed for time. More later.
Khuzestan has a long and tumultuous history, having been part of Iran since ancient times under the Elamite, Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanian dynasties. Along with the rest of Iran, it fell to Islamic Arab armies in 630 C.E. and for three centuries was ruled by Ummayad and Abbasid caliphs. After the collapse of Abbasid occupation of Iran, Khuzestan returned to Iranian control under Ya'qub bin Laith as-Saffar, who founded the short-lived Saffarid dynasty. Since that time the province has continued to be a part of Iran proper, as it was during the pre-Islamic era. The present boundaries were confirmed after World War I.
Turning the Elamites into Iranians is a neat trick, given that they didn't speak an Indo-European language and were neither Zoroastrian nor Muslim. It is true that they heavily influenced the Achaemenids, being the conduit by which Mesopotamian culture filtered into the then "barbarian" plateau about the Mesopotamian valley. But that doesn't turn them into Persians, any more than the fact that Greek philosophy heavily influenced medieval Christian theology mean that the ancient Greeks were Christians. Of course, they aren't around to protest the annexation.
Nor was Elam contiguous with present-day Iran or Khuzestan. Elamite boundaries fluctuated tremendously over the centuries, but the various Elamite states or dynasties usually managed to control an area roughly overlapping the present-day Iranian provinces of Khuzestan and Fars. Elam was conquered by Ur, Babylon, and Assyria; it also managed, at times, to extend its rule over most of the lower Mesopotamian valley. It wasn't a continuous empire, either -- there were long periods during which it was either ruled from elsewhere, or had disintegrated into smaller principalities. See [2] for a slightly popularized version.
Elam became part of what was arguably a "Persian" empire under the Achaemenids, who spoke an Indo-European language and worshipped Ahura-Mazda. However, the Elamites themselves were not yet considered Persian. In the various Achaemenid inscriptions, the ruler is described as the "king of kings", the ruler of peoples such as the Medes, the Persians, the Elamites, the Assyrians, etc. See the Behistun inscription at: [3]
\ Pârsa \ Ûvja \ Mâda \ Athurâ \ Mudrâya \ Parthava \ Marguš \ Tha taguš \ Saka \ (the Old Persian)
Persia, Elam, Media, Assyria, Egypt, Parthia, Margiana, Sattagydia, and Scythia.
Now if being listed in the Behistun inscription makes an area Iranian, then why isn't Iran claiming all of Darius' former conquests?
The rewriting of history to make Elamites Persian or Iranian is a projection of current-day boundaries into the past. This isn't just a quirk of Persian nationalism; it's been endemic in the writing of history since the emergence of nationalism as an ideology. That is why you are going to find many Western academic texts that are "national histories", surveying everything that happened on the current territory of a nation since the emergence of homo sapiens as a triumphalist narrative of how the present day nation emerged. However, historians are starting to reject this sort of history. See these academic references: [4], [5].
That's just to take a tiny part of your narrative. I have a proofreading job to do, so I'll have to stop here. Zora 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you know what an anagram is? Zora 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
But how do you know that? Can you cite any inscriptions on which Avaz appears? Zora 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some intensive work on Khuzestani history and I've almost finished writing a whole article on the History of Khuzestan. I've tracked down what I believe are all the available online references. I have yet to access two doctoral dissertations published on Khuzestani history. However, everything I've found so far has confirmed that Khuzestan was Arabestan until 1936 (see the Encyclopedia Iranica, for one reference) and that the Abide Emirate is documented as far back as 1690. I don't think that Southern Comfort's version, that Sheikh Khazal "invaded" historically Persian territory in 1897, holds up under scrutiny. Hence I've deleted all the POV remarks about "revisionist" history.
I also believe that population estimates should be included, and I have. They are clearly marked as estimates and sources are given. One of the sources is a talk presented by Yosef Azzizi Bani-Turoof at a university in Ispahan, which at least SEEMS to be well-documented. Zora 01:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
P.S. If I manage to get hold of a PhD dissertation on Khuzestani history submitted to the U of Chicago, will you accept that as a reputable source? Zora 08:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
The online version seems to be a revision in progress. They've got a bunch of As, some Bs, and fewer and fewer articles the further down the Roman alphabet you go. The reference to Arabestan is under Ahvaz.
If you say that you don't know enough about Khuzestan under the Safavids and Qajars, why do you state so confidently that Sheikh Khazal "invaded" Khuzestan from Kuwait in 1897? I've now got three citations that put the Abide Emirate several hundred years before that. Do you have any opposing references? If there are indeed such references, I would be willing to put in both versions.
BTW, I'm not arguing for that emirate to support pan-Arab nationalist claims. I just value historical accuracy. In general, I distrust historical claims to ANYTHING (Tibet, Palestine, Armenia, etc. etc.) since that seems to be a surefire recipe for contemporary misery.
Also, I believe that in one of your articles, you stated that the Iranians drove the British invading force out of Ahvaz. All the histories I read (including the Elton Daniel history you've quoted approvingly) say that the British won that one, and forced the Persian government to disgorge territory at the Treaty of Paris. Is the "defeat" from your memories of a school textbook?
After Elam, the "official" name was Susiana. It shows up on some Roman maps, I believe. After that, the Arab conquest. I have no information on what the area was called under the caliphs. One source, Crone's book _God's Caliph_, talks about the eastern territories being divided into those governed from the garrison town of Kufa, and those governed from Basra. But it isn't clear that those early divisions survived into the Abbasid centuries. There's a book by Madelung on the first few centuries of Islamic rule in Iran that might be more informative, if I can squeeze out the money for it. Zora 09:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
The article I originally wrote has been transformed into a biased and inaccurate apologia for one position. I protest vigorously. I will be trying to rewrite the article to present an alternate view as well.
To take just one distortion: the statement that there was no Abide Emirate before Sheikh Khazal, that he was an interloper introduced by the British, that there were no Arab inhabitants outside the small area he ruled. This contradicts info from the Encyclopedia Iranica, which SC and Zereshk accept whenever it's convenient, and doesn't at all account for the numbers of Arabs settled in villages throughout the province.
Then there's the attempt to suppress population estimates, in line with the Iranian government strategy. Zora 08:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
SC,
Regarding the first sentence in the Roots section, as far as I know and read, the idea of "autonomy" did not come around until much later. Perhaps by the mid to late Qajar era. Remember that the Arabs were not indigenous to Khuzestan, so it took a while for them to establish themselves there. I believe talk of "autonomy" came around when The British (ppl like Sir Percy Sykes) started showing up.
I didnt touch the page or edit this issue because I thought Id clear it with you first, since you are the primary author of the page and have done a lot of zahmat. Khasteh nabashi.
I havent read the entire article yet. But I will.-- Zereshk 07:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was only during the Qajar era when the Bani Kaab under Khaz'al were able to function somewhat autonomously (but not completely so obviously and his father had been subject to the Shah, I believe). Feel free to edit.
After all, Khuzestani Arabs were right there at the frontlines fighting the Iraqis with other Iranians. What are your thoughts on this and the rest of the article?
SouthernComfort 08:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You've both ignored the History of Khuzestan article I wrote. You remove any links I make to it. Yet there's material in there that you really need to SEE. Frex, you've inserted in several articles a claim that the British invaded Khuzestan but were repulsed. Do you have any sources for this? Every history I've read -- including some that you've quoted approvingly elsewhere, like Elton Daniel -- says that the British encountered no real opposition, and occupied Khuzestan until the Persian government consented to British demands and signed the Treaty of Paris, returning a large chunk of territory to Afghanistan. The British felt that they needed a buffer state between British India and Persia. They were not particularily interested in occupying and directly ruling Persia. The British also stationed troops in Khuzestan during World Wars I and II. Indeed, Reza Shah was deposed in favor of his son when he tried to stop the British from moving in troops during WW II.
Ditto claims that there was no emirate before Sheikh Khazal. I've got several sources that say there was. You have given none.
At present, the "Roots of conflict" section is a questionable piece of history. I'm working on a rewrite. Zora 09:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neither of you have responded to legitimate questions re content and sources. Zora 03:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At the time, Sheikh Jabir was the dominant power in western Khuzestan and the British supported a number of foreign Arab tribes from Iraq, as well as a number of Bani Kaab clans that were not under Jabir's leadership. Sheikh Jabir led his tribes against the British forces at the command of Nassereddin Shah Qajar and he protected the region from the British and the Ottomans until his death. Khaz'al, however, allied himself with the British, of course.
For the assertion that Khaz'al killed Maz'al, see Ashaa'ir al-Iraaq, by Abbas al-Azzawi, p. 363: فخلفه الشيخ مزعل وورث القابه. ودامت الامارة له الى أن قتله الشيخ خزعل فى 2 المحرم سنة 1315ه-1897م. ("And Sheikh Maz'al succeeded him and inherited the title, and the emirate remained his until Sheikh Khaz'al killed him on 2 Muharram 1315/1897.") Admittedly, however, this doesn't confirm that they were brothers. - Mustafaa 19:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You didn't use those exact words -- but your choice of facts, and presentation, left no doubt that you don't like the fellow. As we see in the various Islamic articles, it is possible to assemble "facts" in a way that's distinctly POV. Hmmm, let's see:
In 1897, Maz'al was murdered (some accounts state he was assassinated) by his brother, Sheikh Khaz'al Khan, who then not only assumed the position of Kaabide leadership, but also proclaimed himself the ruler of all Arabistan.
Out-and-out Arab secessionism in the western region began during this time under Khaz'al's rule.
He made his emirate virtually autonomous in 1897 with British support and protection. The emirate, known as Arabistan (or al-Ahwaz according to some sources) under his reign, primarily consisted of the cities of "Muhammerah", which became his capital, "Naseriyeh", and surrounding areas.
Zora 00:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Further from the same book: "KA'B (emirate and tribe): Banu Ka'b are among the old tribes of Rabi'a. And they are many tribes that were in Iraq, then went to Huwayza. And Huwayza was part of Iraq, then Iran took control of it, and the dispute over it continued for a long time. And from them are many groups in Iraq; they also formed the "Ka'b Emirate" in Iran. And it was following the Msha'sha'iya, then Nader Shah governed them and used them for his interests, just as Karim Khan az-Zand, in the years of his reign, used them to take over Basra through his brother Sadeq Khan. And we discussed this and other matters in the History of Iraq.
The Ka'b Emirate: This emirate was tribal, and in the hands of the Bou Nasers of the Durays family of the Ka'b tribe, then it passed to the hands of Shaykh Jaber bin Mirdaw bin Ali bin Kasib al-Ka`bi. He followed the Bou Nasers. And Ali Rida al-Laz took al-Muhammarah from him in 1253 AH/1837. And Iran entered into the matter, and negotiations for a treaty took place, and a treaty was signed in Erzurum on 13 Jumada II 1263 AH/1847."
)امارتها وعشائرها( بنو كعب من العشائر القديمة من ربيعة. وهى عشائر كثيرة كانت فى العراق، فمالت الى الحويزة. وكانت الحويزة من العراق فتسلطت عليها ايران ودام النزاع عليها مدة طويلة. ومنها مجموعات عديدة فى العراق كما تكونت )امارة كعب( فى ايران. وكانت تابعة للمشعشعين ثم حكم عليها نادر شاه واستخدمها لمصالحه كما أن كريم خان الزند فى أيام حكمه استخدمها للتسلط على البصرة بواسطة اخيه صادق خان. ومرت بنا حوادثها أيام استيلاء المنتفق على البصرة وحوادث أخرى بالوجه المبين فى تاريخ العراق)1(. 1- امارة كعب: هذه الامارة كانت عشائرية، وبيد )البو ناصر( من عشيرة الدريس من كعب ثم آلت الى الشيخ جابر بن مرداو بن علي بن كاسب الكعبي. وليها بعد )البو ناصر(. ومنه انتزع علي رضا باشا اللاز المحمرة سنة 1253ه- 1837م. وان ايران تدخلت فى الامر، وجرت المفاوضات الى عقد الصلح فتم وعقدت المعاهدة فى ارزان الروم )ارضروم( فى 13 جمادى الآخرة سنة 1263ه-1847م.
- Mustafaa 19:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to contradict the assertion that Sheikh Khaz'al found the Ka'b Emirate. - Mustafaa 19:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Determined googling produced this fascinating article on the oil industry of Khuzestan [10] and also this letter from Hirad Dinavari [11]:
Zora 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The new version of the article now has the Arab presence in Khuzestan starting in the 15th century. An improvement, I guess, on the previous version that had them arriving after 1897, but it might not be accurate. The fact that the leader of the millenarians (I'm blanking on the name, which I've seen in many forms) was from Iraq doesn't mean that his followers were all Arab. After all, the place had been ruled from Baghdad (or on behalf of the Abbasids) for centuries before that. It seems plausible that, over those centuries, divisions between Elamites/Khuzis, Persians, and Arabs would have broken down into a continuum, in which the countryside would get less Arab and more Persian the further east you went.
Plausible but not demonstrated. The problem is that this this is the sort of thing that the old chroniclers noted only in passing. Older histories are mainly concerned with royal successions and wars, and pay little attention to the social history that historians value now. There may be some current sources, though I'm having a hard time digging anything up in this mid-Pacific wasteland for Arab/Islamic/Persian studies. It might be possible to get more info from archives and archaeological digs.
It seems to me that the most honest course is simply to say that over the centuries between the Arab invasion and the Safavid and Qajar dynasties, the area had become more and more Arabicized, and that it's not clear how fast this happened, or when.
BTW, the 1905 Le Strange book I just got, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (it was mentioned in the Encyclopedia Iranica) says that the province was called Khuzistan under the Abbasids. So it's Xuzestan and then Khuzistan right up to the Mongol invasion. I haven't finished reading the book -- it's long and extremely detailed -- but there's lots of fascinating stuff there. Frex, the Karun was called the Dujayl under the Abbasids. Since the book is public domain, I'm going to scan it and put it through Distributed Proofreaders, which means that it will be freely available in ... well, months, but still. It could be useful for other articles dealing with the area.
Oh yeah, and something that should be put in the article -- the reason that the region cohered through so many empires is obvious, but never flat-out stated. It's the watershed of the Karun. Le Strange comments on this. Zora 00:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So far as I know, there isn't a standard Wiki way to insert literature references, but I've been using, and I've seen a lot of, standard social science style. That is, if you have a references list, then you can can use (Le Strange, 1905, p. 232). If there are several publications in a year, then you use 1905a, 1905b, etc. If the reference in the text is the ONLY reference, it's usually Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Le Strange, Cambridge University Press, 1905 OR the preceding minus the press name, or with the place of publication instead. Often people add the ISBN number, if there is one, so that the book can be purchased if desired.
I don't think I've been consistent, and I really need to think this through, and figure out the best way to give references. Anyway, Southern Comfort, you've been referring to books with just the author's name and the title, and giving no other information. More info is important if other editors are to use, or evaluate the sources. The date seems to me to be quite important. Frex, I have a very different reaction to Le Strange, 1905, and Daryaee, 2002. The Daryaee is going to be state-of-the-art, and the Le Strange is to be used with caution. Also, it's important to use the Persian or Arabic title if the book is in Persian or Arabic. That way, other editors don't go nuts looking for non-existent translations. It's OK to put an English translation of the title in parens afterwards, if it's clear that this is just a gloss rather than the title of a translation.
Careful specification of the sources used is the humanities/social science equivalent to the scientific paper's careful specification of the experimental protocol. Other researchers need to know HOW to repeat the research in order to do confirmatory experiments, or readings, or whatever. Zora 06:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just found a very nice-looking source, from a professor at the U. of Berkeley: [12]. Most relevant is these two paragraphs; after describing the first Treaty of Erzerum, it says:
- Mustafaa 21:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Enc. Iranica is very helpful too. - Mustafaa 21:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"there is no historical precedent for conflict between the Iranian peoples amongst themselves" - well, no doubt this depends how you look at it, but such cases as the short-lived Kurdish Republic of Mahabad, the somewhat absurd Soviet Republic of Gilan, or even the battles between the Parthians and Seleucids suggest to me that this is something of an overstatement. - Mustafaa 21:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note that it says "for conflict", not "for ethnic conflict"... - Mustafaa 23:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Look, have any of you people even been to Ahwaz? The way you are talking, you have just heard of it, not seen it or lived there. I am from Ahwaz, have lived there, and go there almost once a year. Sure, the Arabs are the minority and mostly live in poverty. But this isn't true for all of them. Look at Iran's cabinat and see how many have Arab descend. (especially the military)Look at the celebreties. Look how many actors (rich people) are of Arab descend. Look how many sport players are of Arab descend (just to name a few Hossein Kaabi, Eman Mobali, Alaavi, ...) I admit there is racial discrimination against Arabs, but not to the extent you are showing. There were Arab traitors in the war. There were also Persian, Kurd, and Turk traitors. What about the bomb attacks or the Arab fundementalists? Why don't you say about them. They are a few who are ruining the Arabs reputation. For example, this is a true story I witnesses in Iran, from a completely trustworthy person. They were I taxi driver driving along the Abadan Ahwaz road. On the way, they were stopped by a car in the way. Several Arabs walked out and asked him "Are you Arab or Ajam?" Once he replied Ajam they pulled him out of the car, set his car on fire, and beat him up severely. Now do these few ignorant people show the whole Brave and Loyal Arab people? Of course not? But these few ruin their reputation. Please feel free to correct me, but with logical arguements, not illogical bigotry.
-The Boz
- The Boz
Why should knowledge be divided into "oppose" and "support"? Truth is beyond culture or nationality -- just as, I presume, you would believe that Islam is beyond culture or nationality. My commitment is to trying to be fair and truthful. I'll never get there, but I have to try.
Persian culture doesn't really need any defense. Did you know that Rumi is the best-selling poet in the US? That a mainly Persian cookbook, Silk Road Cooking, was a recent surprise hit? Zora 21:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I can believe that. Students complain to deans all the time, for all sorts of reasons, good and bad.
He's a visiting professor at Harvard, not a tenured professor. Nothing that I've read suggests any sort of rift between Soroush and Harvard.
He's extremely high-profile right now and is doing visiting scholar gigs at a number of universities.
Zereshk, it's just not nice to sneer at me for not knowing Farsi, as if this proved my utter ignorance. I could just as easily sneer at you for not knowing French, or Tongan, or Japanese, or Classical Greek ... No human being can know all languages, so we have to help each other out. Zora 21:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
People like Zora would be filled with joy to see Iran destroyed and split into 15 different little countries. Its the colonial legacy: To divide and conquer.
No, that's not what I mean. I'm proposing a split between family law and communal laws (as established by a religious or cultural community) and civil and commercial law. In other words, let's ALL be dhimmis (without the second-class citizen bit). Territories would be ecological domains (watersheds and the like) and human communities would be world-wide. Like Jews or Parsis. Totally multi-cultural. Aaargh, it's complicated. I need to write it up on a web page and refer people to that. I often tell people that I'm an ecumenical Bundist (Bundists were anti-Zionist Jews). Zora 21:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Therefore without them (nations), the world has no color. No life.-- Zereshk 22:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
---
Rumi is "a Turk"? [14]-- Zereshk 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that this article fails to be neutral for the following reasons:
1)It gives no information about the history of Khuzestan before 15th century which is neccessary to have a balanced picture of Khuzestan in mind.
2)In the "Roots of ethnic tension", no reference is made to native inhabitant of Khuzestan at that time. also the writer completely ignores non-Arab inhabitants of the province (such as Lurs and people from Shushtar and Dezfool)and pays no attention to their own weight, oppinions and hardships they have in common with Arabs. In this way a reader who doesn't know mush about khuzestan might think population of Khuzestan consists only of Arabs.
3)The sentence "Ideology, tactics, tribal loyalties and personal ambition have prevented these parties from forming a united front." bears a ting of approval and hopes of the writer for the dissidents.
4)Is ALO, considering brutal actions it has embarked on, really a "political" group?
5)The article makes no reference to 2 TERRORIST attacks by Arab dissidents on Ahvaz in 2005.
6)Occationally the writer uses "Al-Ahwaz" which is not the official name of the city which is Ahvaz.(Eg. "They call for human right and democracy for Arab people in Alahwaz" )
7)The way this article presents the issue gives the impression that sectionalism, sectarianism and insistence on "Arabism" are the only ways to improve the situation. Shouldn't "naturalization" be considered as a way to settle the problem or the writer doesn't like this kind of solution?
8)[This item is about my own observations.] I was born and have been raised in Ahvaz. During my life I've not observed Arabs as an "underrepresented group" . First, both Arabs and Persians share the same difficulties: Extremely though weather, lack of water (Despite a lot of rivers), underdevelopment etc. For example governmental organizations and factories tend to employ non-residents (of Khuzestan) and this attitude besets both Persians and Arabs.
Second, Arabs are significantly more arrogant than others in Ahvaz. In Ahvaz, non-Arabs usually avoid entering an argument with Arabs because they are not very polished .(That's probably because they are mostly rural.) Which underrepresented group in the world has this quality?
With the hope of days in which humanity will be more important to people than ethnicity, race, etc.
-Damned
I edited that NPOV looking words. -Damned.
Now that you agree that the article is biased, I put a POV mark on it.Please don't erase it untill NPOV. I have also a word about links on the article. I have no objection to the first 2 links but I think having links to the other ones -which are not so polite- contradicts neutrality. If Wikipedia has links to websites of ETA, Hamas and Chinese dissidents then the aformentioned links are fine but otherwise neutrality is violated. -Damned, Dec. 31
Regarding the latest changes made by user who calls himself "Ahwaz":
1. There is no breach of copyright as it is a direct quote, with reference, from a UN report. 2. I will make the changes you suggested and remove the POV tag. 3. The issue of Ahwazi Arab refugees in Iraq is an ethnic grievance of that group and one that Ahwazi Arab groups are campaigning on. It has been the subject of a UN report and some press coverage. That is why it is included. If you want to say that ethnic grievances have no basis, then that's your opinion. I am just putting forward the facts, as found by the UN. The issue does not take up 60% of the article, but just three paragraphs.-- Ahwaz 12:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I dont know. For now, I think the article is OK. Even though it gives a false impression of events, unfortunately.-- Zereshk 13:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
None of my complaints about the article has been improved. In addition I mention the following issue about recent changes by user Ahwaz: Plight of Ahvazi refugees in Iraq is a matter of human rights in Iraq so it's by no means reasonable to include it in an article on plight of Khuzestan. Remember that they migrated to Iraq because of a war initiated by Iraq.
The "false impression" mentioned by Zereshk is that this article gives the impression that Iran obtained the ever-Arab-populated Khuzestan in Arzrum treaty for free and then started to Persianise it and conceals the fact that Arabs have been immigrants to the ancient Khuzestan. I'll try to fix this problem. -- Damned
The assertion "I have, nevertheless, written some more paragraphs to clarify the roots of ethnic tension to show that this is not the result of animosity between the peoples of Khuzestan - Persian and Arab - but between Khuzestan and the government in Tehran."
doesn't seem plausible to me because because if you exclude Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, Mashhad (and to lesser a extent Yazd and Kerman), then rest of Iran has suffered from inadequate attention from the government in recent history. So, is it plausible to say that people of all these regions are "underrepresented" and have ethnical problems with the government? Is it correct to say that underdevelopment in south-Khorasan or Kohgiluye-Boyerahmad has ethnic reasons? Khuzestan's problem is a part of the whole issue of inequity in development and budget-allocation in Iran. What makes "Ahwaz" 's presentation unfair is that he/she has segregated Khuzestan's problem's from the whole issue and tries to prove that these problems beset onley Arabs. And , although he refuse, his method of presentation paves the way for sectarianism.
An example which contradicts "Ahwaz" 's point of view is the water riot in 2000 in Abadan [15] which arised because of poor water quality in hot summer. As you see in that riots there were nothing special to Arabs although the user Ahwas might say: Oh, some Arabs were present in those riots. Damned
User Ahwaz' assertion that "see Ahmad Kasravi's book "The Forgotton Kings", he states: "it is certain and there is proof for it that during the Parthian era Arab tribes were living in provinces of Kerman, Khuzestan, Bahrain and Fars." He quotes Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari as stating: "Aam is the same as Merah Ibn Zidan Tammim, it seems these are the same well known tribes of Bani-Tammim who today reside in Khuzestan and their ancestor is Merah Ibn Malik, who lived in the era of Ardeshir Babakan the first Sassanid king, and helped that king in his war against the Parthian Ardawan." The Aam are the Bani-Aam tribe, an Arab tribe." (a few paragraphs above) and the grandiloquent statement "Throughout history there have been accounts of Arab resistance to Persian rule which were primarily focused on land" and also
"Ethnic tension between Persians and Arabs in Khuzestan was alluded to in Tabari's The History of the Prophets and Kings, in which he wrote of emnity between the people of Kalib ibn Vail, an Arab tribe, and Hormozan, a Persian king who ruled an area that was then called Ahwaz during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab (581-644 CE). Tabari wrote that the conflict between Hormozan and the Arabs concerned "land and vilage disputes."
motivated me to study Tabari's book. I used the English translation of Tabari's "Tarikh al-rusul walmoluk" :
The History of Al-Tabari an annotated translation, translated by G. R. Smith, State University of New York Press, 1994.
Conquest of Iran is mentioned in the following volumes:
Vol. 12 : The battle of Al-Qadisiyyah and the the conquest of Syrria and Palestine.
Vol. 13 : Conquest of Iraq, Southwestern Persia and Egypt.
Vol. 14 : Conquest of Iran.
I studied all the stuff about the conquest of Southwestern Iran and also all other places where Ahwaz or Hurmuzan is mentioned in the above 3 Vol.s . The result shows how honest and knowledgeable Bani Torof and user Ahwaz are.
First let's know what is mentioned in Tabari about al-Aam. Vol. 13, Parapraph# 2536 (pp. 116-117):
"There is a story explaining how this man called al-Ami came by his name. This al-Ami was Murrah b. Malik b. Hanzalah b. Malik b. Zayd Manat b. Tamim, with whom, as well as with al-Usayyah b. Imri al-Qays, there settled a mixed bunch of people from Ma'ad.[Translator's note: Ma'ad is a collective name for northern Arab tribes.] Those people who were of the opinion that he should not give support to Persians in controling al-Ardawan had believed him to be blind to what was the proper course of action. Concerning this attitude, Ka'b b. Malik, his brother -sometimes it is Sudday(b. Malik who is mentioned)- composed the following verses(in tawil):
(Though) once a good man, now our Murrah is blind, and, deaf to his kinsman's pleas, he has set out to settle away from us, spurning his land, and seek with the Persian lords power and fame."
So did you understand how "indigenous" those people were? The "Aam" you speak about was a defector. But wait that's not the end of the story. Where those Amis used to live? Vol. 13, paragraph# 2534,pp 114-115:
"In that year, I mean 17, the conquest of Suq al-ahwaz, Manadhir and Nahr Tira took place according to some; according to others, that was in the year 16 after Hijrah.
An Account of the Circumstances Leading to the the Conquest of al_Ahwaz and of Him Who Carried It Out
According to al_sari-Shuyab-Muhammed, Talhah, al-Muhallab, and Amr: Al-Hurmuzan was one of the seven noble families among the Persians. His territory was comprised of Mihrijan Qadhaq and the district of al_Ahwaz. These weere families who were higher in rank than anybody in Fars. When al- Hurmuzan was routed at the battle of al-Qadisiyyah, he headed for his territory and fought him who attacked them. Al-Hurmuzan used to make raides on the people of Maysan and Dastimaysan [Transl. note: These are districts north of al-Basra and west of al_ahwaz.] from two dirrections, Manadhir and Nahr Tira."
In order to avoid misunderstanding of the last sentence look at these paragraphs from the events of year 14 (Vol. 12, pp171-172):
"According to Abayah b. Abd Amr: I participated in the conquest of al-Ubullah with Utbah. Utbah sent Nafid b. al-Harith to Umar with the news of the conquest. The people of Dastimaysan gathered [an army] against us. Utbah said: I think that we should march against them. We marched and confronted the governor(marzuban) of Dastimaysan. We fouth him; his companions were defited and he was taken prisoner, his mantle and belt being seized. Utbah sent him [to Umar] with Anas b. Hujayyah al-Yashkuri. According to Abu al-Malih al-Hudhali: Utbah sent Anas b. Hujayyahto Umar with the belt of the governor of the Dast-i Maysan. Umar said to him: "What is the condition of Muslims?" Anas said: "The [wealth of this] world has engulfed them, and they are dripping with gold and silver." The people became attracted by al-Basra and came to live there."
and in the next page:
"According to al-Tabari's isnad- Qatadah: The people of Maysan gathered an army against the Muslims. Al-Mughirah set out against them, leaving the heavy luggage behind. Ardah bint al- Harith b. Kaladah said: "I wish I could join the muslim men and be with them," and she maid
a banner of her veil. The other women [also] used their veils as flags and set out in the direction of Muslims. When they reached them the polytheists were fighting them. But when the polytheists saw the approaching flags, they thought that reinforcements were coming to Muslims and took to fight. The Muslims pursued them and killed many of them."
(The last story is a bit interesting!) So the attackes by Hurmuzan on Maysan mean he fought with Muslim forces who had conquered Maysan and Dastimaysan in year 14 and were threatenning his territory. ("he headed for his territory and fought him who attacked them." ) So back to Hurmuzan (Vol. 13 pp. 115-116):
"Utbah b. Ghazwan asked Sa'd for reinforcements, so the latter sent him Nu'yam b. Muqarrin and Nu'yam b. Mas'ud, ordering them to go to the highest point of overlooking Maysan and Dastimaysan untill they had reached a position between al-Hurmuzan (and his people ) were and Nahr Tira. Utbah b. Ghazwan sent Sulma b. al-Qayn and Harmalah b. Muraytah out on a certain mission. They were two of the Companions of the Messenger of God, who had made the Hijrah with him; both from Adawiyyah clan of Hanzalah. They arrived at the border of the land of Maysan and Dastimaysan, at a point between al-Hurmuzan and Manadhir. There they called upon Banu al-Ami. So Ghalib al-Walili and Kulayb b. Wail al-Kulaybi responded. They had separated from Nu'aym (b. Muqarrin) and Nuaym (b Masud) and turned away from them. Now they went to Sulma and Harmala. After they had arrived there, the latter said, "You are from the same tribe therefore you may not desert us. When the day such-and-such has come, rise against al-Hurmuzan. One of us will attack Manadhir, the other Nahr Tira and we will kill al-Hurmuzan's fighters. Then we will come to you again. God willing, there is no other enemy other that al-Hurmuzan." After the two men from the Ami b. Malik clan had promised their cooperation, they returned to their clansmen who, in their turn, also agreed to help."
Then Tabari explains the meaning of Ami as I quoted above. In the next paragraph (2537, page 118) Tabari says that at that particular night, Sulma, Harmala ,Nu'aym and Hurmuzan "came face to face at a spot between Duluth and Nahr Tira, Sulma b. al-Qayn at the head of the warriors from al-Basraand Nuaym b. Muqarrin in the command of those from al-Kufah. Then fighting broke out." "Then the news that Mandahir and Nahr Tira had been taken reached al-Hurmuzan. So God broke his strength and that of his army and defeated him and his troops. The Muslims killed and captured as many as they wanted from them and they pursued them untill they came to a halt on the bank of the Dujail[Transl. note: nowadays Karun ] , having occupied all the land this side (i.e. that is west) of the river. They encamped opposite Suq al-Ahwaz. In the meantime, al-Hurmuzan had crossed the bridge to Suq al-Ahwaz and taken up residence there."
Now what happened next and where there any of al-Ami beyond the spot "at the border of the land of Maysan and Dastimaysan" mentioned above.
Tabari next says (paragraph 2538Vol. 13, pp 119-120):
"When Muslim warriors invaded al-Hurmuzan's territory and set up their camp close to where he was in al-Ahwaz, he realized that he lacked manpower to overcome them. So he begged for peace, whereupon they wrote about that proposal to Utbah, asking him for directives in this matter. Al-Hurmuzan sent a letter to Utbah who, while accepting the proposed peace treaty, answered that al-Hurmuzan was to remain in control of all of al-Ahwaz and Mihrijan Qadhaq with the exception of Nahr Tira and Manadhir and that area of Suq al-Ahwas that the Muslims had already conquered. What we had liberated from Persian rule would not be returned to them. Sulma b. al-Qayn placed a garrison in Manadhir under the command of Ghalib, and Harmala placed one in Nahr Tira under the command of Kulayb. They had formerly commanded the forces of al-Basra.
Meanwhile groups of Banu al-Ami left their former dwelling places and took up residence in al-Basra, one group after another. Utbah wrote about that to Umar and sent a delegation." Then al-Anaf b. Qays [a leader of Tamim in al-Basra] told Umar(paragraph# 2539): "We kept on moving from one place to another, untill we arived at a piece of open country. Well, our brothers among the inhabitants of al-Kufah have settled in a place rich in vegetation, overflowing with sweet springs and lush pald groves; in a never-ceasing flow its frute produce reaches them. But we, the people of al-Basra, we have settled in a soggy swamp, which does not produce anything. One side faces the desert and the other side gives on to a brackish river. Supplies reach this region like a tricle from ostrich's gullet. Our houses are crammed, our daily rations poor. Our numbers are large but our nobles are few in number. Many of us have fought vigorously, but our finances are strained, while our plots of land are small. In the past God enriched us and increased our land. So may you now enrich us, Commander of the Faithful, and increase the daily rations assigned to us so that we may survive!
So Umar reviewed their dwelling places which they had occupied untill they moved out into the desert. Then he gave them the region as their share in the booty and alloted plots to them, also taken from what used to belong to the Persian royal family. Thus all the land between the Tigris and the desert became fay' land. They divided it among themselves. The other properties of the royal family in the land around al-Basra were thus dealt with in the same manner as the land of al-Kufah was dealt with "
"The land occupied by the people of al-Basrah consisted of two halves, one was divided up into plots; the other was left for the benefit of the armed forces and the community."
So Tabari tells us Omar allowed them to settle in the area "between the Tigris and the desert", so they had hardly lived there before otherwise they didn't need to "occupy" it. No other mention exists of al-Ami (or any other Arab tribes living in the area, when Muslims were conquering the area) in the description of occupation of "al-Ahwaz" (as you see below) as well as other parts of vol.s 12 to 14 of Tabari's history. So before Islam al-Ami settlers (defectors) had hardly anything to do with today's Khuzestan. Their real existence began by Omar's aforementioned command.
Now what is that alleged "ethnic tension" mentioned in Tabari? Paragraph 2541 (pp 121-122):
"While the people of al-Basrah and those who were living under their protection were thus engaged, a controversy flared up, each side putting forth contradictory claims concerning the boundaries of their lands, between al-Hurmuzan on the one hand and Ghalib and Kulayb on the other. Sulma and Harmala went there to see what going on among them and found Galib and Kulayb to be in the right and al-Hurmuzan to be wrong. So they separated the quarreling parties. Moreover al-Hurmuzan went back on his word and withheld what he had accepted to pay. Then he called upon the Kurds to help him, whereupon his army grew in strenght."
So did you realize what was your alleged "land and village dispute" "alluded to in Tabari's History"? A dispute between Hurmuzan and people who, according to Tabari "occupied" the area between Tigris and Karun just in the same year. What a substantial dispute! To quote the rest of the story, I'll postpone condemning you, user Ahwaz, but let me teach you a lesson now: Don't refer to a reference unless you know what is mentioned in it; otherwise people will laughe at you.
Now (paragraph 2541) Umar sends "Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sadi one of the Prophet's Companions as reinforcement." and "So, when they crossed over the bridge to the other side, fighting broke out while they were still on that part directly facing Suq al-Ahwas. In the end al-Hurmuzan was beaten. He set out in the direction of Ramhurmuz took a village called al-Shaghar on the dam of Arbuk and finally alighted at Ramhurmuz. Hurqus conquered Suq al-Ahwaz and took up residence there. Then he entered the mountain region, and and the administration of the whole region from Suq al-Ahwaz all the way to Tustar became well organized. He imposed the jizah, wrote the news about the conquest to Umar and sent fifth parts of the booty acquired in the different areas, dispaching a delegation to carry this to him."
paragraph 2542: Tabari quotes a poem by "al-Aswad b. Sari" :
"We wrested from al-Hurmuzan a whole area so rich in provisions in every district. It's dry land and water supply well in balance, when excellent groves come to early fruition. This land has a turbulent stream into which por tributaries from both sides, always overflowing."
Then In paragraph 2543 Tabari says:
"When al-Hurmuzan had arrived in Ramhurmuz and the province of al_ahwaz had become full of the Muslims settling in it, even right in front of him, he sent a peace agreement and sent messages to Hurqus and Jaz asking for this."
Now you, user Ahwaz, did you understand what is the meaning of "indigenous" ?! Aren't you get upset to hear about this "intentional immigration" and its negative effect on the culture and heritage of the native people? Where were international organizations to condenm "Muslims killed and captured as many as they wanted from them" ? Did you know that in the time of Sasanids Khuzestan (Susiana at that time) used to be compared to India for it's vegetation and they were long-lasting wars (from Omar to Bani Abbas, Khuzestan was the port of departure of armies to the east) which deteriorated even its ecology? If you think more carefully a better title for your article is this:
"History of the calamities inflicted on Khuzestan by Arabs: From Omar to Sheikh Khazal to Saddam Hosein". (I don't consider Arabs who now live in Khuzestan in the above title. sorry if it seems otherwise. )
Now compare Tabari's history quoted above to the account of Bani Torof in his so-called article:
"Tabari history says this about the conquest of Ahwaz: the conquest of Ahwaz was in the 18th year, when Omar (2nd caliph) entered Syria. The cities of Ahwaz were overcome and the king of Ahwaz was Hormozan, a great man, the kingdom of Ahwaz was his and his family’s. There were seventy cities in Ahwaz. And Hormozan was the king of all those cities. There were people in Ahwaz of Kalib Ibn Vael and there was enmity between them and Hormozan due to land and village disputes. Hormozan went to the main of the cities that was in the center of the country; the name of the city was “Sough al-Ahwaz” and took refuge in that city which was fortified. And through that city was a river by the name of Dojil and underneath it is a bridge. (Tabari’s history)"
So did you understand what an asshole forger your "prominet academic" is? First Tabari says the year of conquest was 17 or 16 (see quotations above) but Bani Torof says 18. Then he speakes of "seventy cities" while Tabari mentiones "seven noble families among persians". He also craftsmanly deletes the "al-" in
"al-Hurmuzan" but retains the "al-" in "al-Ahwas" and then rejoices: "Mohammad Ibn Jarir al-Tabari tells us that Khuzestan had seventy cities, and the name of the province was Ahwaz not Khuzestan, and the capital was Sough al-Ahwaz, an Arabic name."
How shrewd he is! Does the name "al-Hurmuzan" Tabari uses really means name of the governor was "al-"Hurmuzan ? The same applies to "Suq al-Ahwaz". He goes on to say : "It is obvious from the problems between Hormozan and Kalib Ibn Vail, that the Arabs of Khuzestan were already suffering racial discrimination in those days." Tabari's history, qouted above, tells you all that discriminations! Go to the hell. This shows how accurate his other statements are.Now, Have you, user Ahwaz, thought you could obfuscate the history simply by searching the internet and making links to this and that website? And what gullible person could believe this is just for the sake of human and civil rights? Your have used a revealing name for yourselves BRITISH-Ahwazi guys. You'd better do you buissiness in London or Dubai and stop coveting Khuzestan's assets.
Up to now user Ahwaz used controversial and many times baseless statements in the article and challanged us to disoprove them. Now regarding the above issues, the situation is reversed. I erased the baseless assertions and whoever wants to restore similar statements has to present well-documented refernces .
The things I've edited are as folows:
1)"accounts of an Arab presence in Khuzestan dating back to the Parthian era". I have not access to Kasravi's book now but according to yourself, Kasravi says Arabs helped Ardeshir. This doesn't mean they lived in Khuzestan. Most probably they were Arabz of Hirah who where allies of Sassanids.
2)"Lurs and Bakhtiari, who have their own dialects, customs and tribal identities that are distinct from the dominant national Persian culture. Khuzestan also had its own local identity" Which province doesn't have its own local identity? What is "dominant national Persian culture" ? People of Tehran, Esfahan, Yazd aand Fars each have their own accent and local identity. This is not a thing that you could push your teeth in.
These and the shit you've made out of Tabari, invalidates the 2 first paragraphs.I aded a short introduction instead. Only one of the sections of the "Roots of ethnic tension" ,(pahlavi era) has to do with ethnic tension.
3)Demographics: This is funny; first "According to Human Rights Watch, Precise figures on the ethnic composition of Iran's population are impossible to obtain. The last census in which such data was compiled was carried out in 1956." and then Bani torof Comes and gives the impossible data! Bani torof in his Article says: "percentages are my opinion." and we saw that how honest his opinions are. I couldn't find the census data on the internet so untill a reference from Census Bureau (or othar official organization) is obtained there is no reliable data to post.
4)Name of cities : I added a note (not so polished ) because formerly it didn't give any information about the age of that Arabic names.. If you found a contradicting reference , cite it.
5) Moin's assertion is based on a guess. Damned 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Your action was very nasty SoughtComfort. You have to present arguments for your editions otherwise all of them will be reverted. Damned 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't refer to something that "not clear what this organization is" SouthComfort.
Damned
23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You know, I agree that the "census data" is a problem since its origins are not clear, but if it is removed I will be viciously attacked by Zora or anyone else as a racist and Persian nationalist and quite frankly I am sick and tired of that, so I am quite content to leave this data in until the original source can be verified.
I have a lot of respect for Bani-Torof as a journalist and though the data may be flawed, it may not be totally incorrect at the time it was taken. Khuzestani Arabs were amongst the first peoples to return to the province after the war and Khuzestani Persians didn't begin returning en masse until the mid-to-late 90s and even more are returning now since the port of Khorramshahr was reopened a few years ago. So the census data, unofficial as it was to begin with, is definitely outdated. But I still don't have a problem with its inclusion. SouthernComfort 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I myself have no "personal" problem with the data. Problem is that reference to a source that you know
nothing about its originality is dumb. The very basic instructions of Wikipedia say: Your edittions must be verifiable. Bani Torof says "percentages are my own opinion." However every adolescent knows one of the basic advantages of statistics is to avoid "opinions".
Don't fear from Zora! Let her attack me instead of you.
So I delete that stuff and we'll look for reliable data although according to the quotation from HRW, it might not be possible to find. If that data remain in the article then no one tries to find original data.
Damned
00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You are so heedless Southern Comfort. Despite all my arguments you do whatever you want. Ah. Damned 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Did you make a void link to "center for Iran studies" to ridicule the reader? I don't think an "unofficial census" in an area as big as Khuzestan is possible. You have to correct this "Khali bandi" as soon as possible. Damned 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain me the difference between Persian and Iranian? Persians are Iranian only. SouthernComfort says that "laks are an iranian people, rather than persian", as if the two are exclusive. All who live in Iran are Iranian by nationality, but some are Persian, some are Azeri, &c.
Added them in (in a separate section). If the involved editors dont like the format (of them having a separate section), then we can directly incorporate them into the body of the text in the article. I'll leave that up to y'all erudites.-- Zereshk 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahwaz, no Iranian will ever let one inch of Khuzestan become your "independent Arabistan"...Iranians have already made a big concession to Arabs by giving them Bahrain in 1970, half of whose majority Shi'ite population is of Iranian origin, and they settled instead for three teeny tiny islands which Arabs STILL want to take away from them. Ataturk would not capitulate on Hatay, even though Turks made up only half of Hatay's population, the other half being Syrian Arabs, and today Hatay is a Turkish province. The Shah gave up our legitimate claims to Bahrain. Now... The Arabs of Khuzestan are Shi'ites like most of Iran, and most have intermarried with Persians, just as there have been millions of intermarriages between Shi'ite Azeris and Shi'ite Persians (I am from a mixed Azeri-Persian family). Now you cleverly "forget" to mention that half of the current Arab population of Khuzestan are Shi'ite Marsh Arabs from southern Iraq, who fled Saddam's tyranny...you can tell by just listening to their dialect which does not contain some of the inflections present in Khuzestani Arabic nor even the vocabulary (Khuzestani Arabic has incorporated many words from Khuzi, the local Persian dialect of Khuzestan)...and "ani ahchi araqi" so I know what I am talking about. Finally no Arab country has supported the Palestinian cause as much as Iran, yet each and every time Arabs turn around to stab Iranians in the back. Perhaps we should abandon our principles, and make political expediency our primary goal and apply the same Realpolitik that Turkey has in her foreign policy: Turkey knowing she has few friends, has aligned herself with Israel. Should Arabs turn against us, we won't have any choice but to consider that as an option (which will only become possible if we get rid of the mullahcracy). As for Kurds, who are Sunnis living in a Shi'ite Iranian state...how did the Sunni Saddam and his Sunni government treat them? How does Sunni Turkey treat them even today? They have fared much better in Iran than anywhere else. As for Baloochis...just look at how they live in Pakistan, a country that has marginalized not only them, but its northern Pushtun population. So if you don't have anything smart to say, Ahwaz, it is best to remain silent. As much as I am loathe to see an Iranian-Israeli alliance, I think it may be quite practical in the future. And mind you, I am a supporter of Palestinians, but an Iranian first.
I removed one whole para that was nothing but POV. It asserted a falsity (that Khuzestan is the ONLY ethnically diverse province in Iran, when a look at the accompanying map suggests that most of them are). It claimed that there was no conflict between "Iranian peoples" -- completely ignoring anti-Arab sentiments (Arab-parast being a common term of abuse). None of the statements were referenced as opinions of anyone -- they were just put out there as WP's opinion.
Those opinions have a place in the article when they are referenced to a publication (dead tree or online) and presented as opinions. Then WP is doing what it should be doing, documenting POVs. Zora 06:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I dunno what's been removed or what, but if Ahwaz is so concerned about his fellow Arabs, perhaps he might wanna help his co-ethnics in Iraq who are being slaughtered by fellow (Sunni) Arabs. The true indigenous language of Khuzestan is Khoozi, not Arabic...Arabs migrated much later into the area.
Ahwaz, Khuzestan Arabs are mostly Shi'a, you didn't read too carefully my argument...but if you think Khuzestan will become an independent Arabistan, keep on dreaming.
Ahwaz, ikhris...you're analogy is silly and irrelevent...I have no idea what you're talking about with Spanish being spoken in Atlanta. This page is about Khuzestan...you might find articles on how the Arabs of the Empty Quarter eat lizards called "dhab" and breed camels more relevant to this discussion however, than what the percentage of Hispanics are in Atlanta, 10,000 miles away from Khuzestan.
Let me put this in Arabic: al-arab bis-sahrat Rub il-Khali biyaakluu ad-dhab, u biyaaklu lahm al-jamal kamaan...(translation, the Arabs of the Rub il-Khali Desert eat "dhab" and camel meat as well). This is not racist, it is the truth. And, il-arab awsakh ish-sha'ab il-ardh...this is also not racist, it is the truth. I speak Arabic and know enough about Arabs.
We will never give up khuzestan to anybody. khuzestan will always remain iranian. we fought the world against all odds for eight long years and gave a million brave individuals to keep khuzestan iranian. we will do so again, and even pay a higher price to do so again.
you are all idiots to think that this "independence" movement is a freedom movement from the people. you are being manuevered for the sake of american and british interests. there is no logical way for the us to invade iran like they did so to iraq. any kind of military assault will have lethal consequences for american and israeli interests in the region. the only way they can defeat iran is to seperate khuzestan, therefore crippling the economy. however, let just all pray that that will never happen.
There are large portion of article which are written in the style of a newspaper or weblog. Concentrating on one detail it goes on and on about one unknown fellow (Kothari!) saying this and that and he went to that village and says that he saw this and that. In my opinion te writers or adders of those pieces here, have forgotten that this is an encyclopaedia.
I summerised some of those parts in an encyclopaedic fashion. If somebody is not agreed with this please let me know your reasons. But before that, please do not revert all of my other edits on this article while putting back those lengthy un-encyclopaedic diaries of that unknown Kothari guy.
Thanks, -- Mani1 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I will summarise those sections first and then replace them. Actually I believe that this article has grown too big and might be better to move those sections about Arvand Project etc. to new titles later.
Take care, -- Mani1 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "unsubstantiated" material: The following table, reportedly based on unofficial provincial census data gathered in 1996 by the Centre for Iran Studies and published in 1997, accompanied his lecture ... The alleged source in question for these population figures, the "Centre for Iran Studies," is not a known or verifiable organization and as such does not meet the stringent criteria of WP:V. Furthermore, as I had mentioned many times before - though ignored each time - the population figures conflict severely with legitimate sources, both official and unofficial (including the CIA.)
The table should be removed entirely and if mention is to be made of the figures, they should be stated as the unverifiable claims of a possibly non-existent organization. SouthernComfort 19:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hmm. There was an anti-Ahwazi link on the Ahvaz page, but Zereshk removed it. I'll find that and add it. Also, several of the news articles I cited believed in the "conspiracy" theory. If you think that there should be any more links, Zereshk, you add them. Zora 05:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Southern comfort added something re Persian speakers being a 'vast majority' to the para re the Khuzestani population. Vast in itself is POV exaggeration, especially given that no one has any firm figures. I found one site that said that there were approximately 500,000 Arabs in Iran, most of them in Khuzestan. Since Khuzestan has a population of 3.7 million, there could be 13% Arabs in the province. However, the CIA World Factbook gives a figure of some 68 million for Iran as a whole, of which 3% are said to be Arabs. That's a figure of 2.04 million for Arabs. If there are close to 2 million Arabs in Khuzestan, they are a majority. The election report figures in one of the linked articles argue for Arab majorities in most of the city elections.
I just don't know what the facts are, without a census. But I cannot accept a statement that Persian-speakers are a vast majority without some real documentation. I'm willing to go with majority, if it's tentative enough.
I also tweaked some of the wording in Southern Comfort's changes to the recent history para. The changes had made some sentences slightly odd, or too long and clunky. Zora 10:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
SouthernComfort,
Please see the Ahvaz talk page. "Zora" thinks Ahwaz is an Arab city and has an originally Arabic name. Your input would be much appreciated there. I have to finish this stupid take-home exam I have by wednesday.-- Zereshk 20:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I object to Southern Comfort's accusations of "historical revisionism" in the "political organisations" section. I have simply put forward information on the platforms of these political parties, but Southern Comfort is putting his/her own POV on these party's policies by insisting they are "revisionist". Although I have not reverted to my original article and tried to accommodate his/her opinions, Southern Comfort continues to re-impose this inaccuracy. The fact is that the history of Al-Ahwaz/Khuzestan is a matter of debate and that the accusation of "revisionism" is intended to smear those who do not hold the view that the region is ethnically Persian - a notion that I have attempted disprove and which Southern Comfort has made no attempt to challenge adequately. S/he has also been similarly abusive on Ahwaz City's history.-- Ahwaz 14:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Why no mention of Sheikh Khaz'al in this article? Would it be "historical revisionism" to mention his role in Khuzestan history, or is it POV to mention Khuzestan's Arab heritage? Since the issue of Khuzestan's autonomy before Reza Shah is one of the arguments behind the Arab movement in Khuzestan, perhaps it is worth a mention, no? Or are Arabs being ethnically cleansed from history?
I fear that there are some who only want to see the issue in relation to the Iran-Iraq War, although the root causes of ethnic conflict go back further and continue today, even after the fall of Saddam Hussein.-- Ahwaz 14:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with SouthernComfort:
Southern Comfort went to work on the history section and turned it into an argument that Khuzestan has always been part of Iran, which is just not true. He ignores incovenient facts, such as a history of conquests by various powers to the west (Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans), the existence of the Kabide Emirate, and the de-facto British protectorate in the early part of the 20th century. He and Zereshk seem to be fighting the Iran-Iraq war all over again, with Zora and Ahwaz cast as the Iraqis. Neither Ahwaz nor I have expressed any desire to split Khuzestan from Iran; we just want various politically inconvenient matters acknowledged rather than swept under the rug. Zora 09:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
You haven't responded in any real sense, SouthernComfort. All you do is revert to your preferred version and call us names. Zora 13:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you didn't post the text originally, Zereshk did, with no hint that he took it bodily from a government website. Proof?
Here's a chunk of text from the website:
Yaghoot Hamavi, the medieval geographer, states that the words "Khooz", "Hooz", "Ahvaz" and "Hoveize" are of the same origin. Up to recent years, the mentioned words were written with the letter "ح" [having an Arabic impression]. Ahvaz is the anagram of "Avaz" and which appear in Darius's epigraph, and this word appears in Naghsh-Rostam inscription as "Khaja" or "Khooja"; and Ahvaz was the seat of KhuzestanProvince in the old days. This city was founded by Ardeshir-Babakan, the founder of Sasanid Dynesty, and used to be called Hoomshir or Hormoz-Ardeshir. The combination Khujestan Vajar"or "Hujestan Vajareh" meant "Khuzestan Bazzar"; which up to recent decades, the Arab speakers called Ahvaz "Soogh-ul-Ahvaz", meaning "the Bazaar of Ahvaz". [1]
Here's Zereshk's original text, as he first posted it in Ahvaz on April 21:
Yaghoot Hamavi, the medieval geographer, states that the words Khooz, Hooz, Ahvaz and Hoveizeh are of the same origin. Ahvaz is the anagram of Avaz and which appear in Darius's epigraph, and this word appears in Naghsh-Rostam inscription as Khaja or Khooja; and Ahvaz was the seat of Khuzestan province in the old days. This city was founded by Ardeshir-Babakan, the founder of Sassanid Dynasty, and used to be called Hoomshir or Hormoz-Ardeshir. The combination Khujestan Vajar or Hujestan Vajareh meant Khuzestan Bazzar; which up to recent decades, the Arab speakers called Ahvaz Soogh-ul-Ahvaz, meaning the Bazaar of Ahvaz.
He's removed a few of the original typos, but it's otherwise the same garbled text.
Here's the text as it stands on the Ahvaz page right now:
Ahvaz is derived from the root Avaz which appears in Darius's epigraph, and the Achaemenians also called it Avaja.
You're the one who's been reverting to these versions, calling them established historical fact.
We have the continual claim that Avaz appears in an epigraph of Darius, now with an associated claim that the Achaemenians called the town Avaja. Neither of which is sourced. I can't find any reference, anywhere, that supports those claims. If there is one, you guys should really cite it. If not, you should let me DELETE the unfounded assertion. But whenever I do, you scream that I'm a vandal, deleting established historical facts. They become established historical facts just because you assert them loudly? Or because they're on an official Iranian government website?
OK, now let's take the disputed para from this article, and subject it to scrutiny. I'll just do the Elamite bit, being pressed for time. More later.
Khuzestan has a long and tumultuous history, having been part of Iran since ancient times under the Elamite, Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanian dynasties. Along with the rest of Iran, it fell to Islamic Arab armies in 630 C.E. and for three centuries was ruled by Ummayad and Abbasid caliphs. After the collapse of Abbasid occupation of Iran, Khuzestan returned to Iranian control under Ya'qub bin Laith as-Saffar, who founded the short-lived Saffarid dynasty. Since that time the province has continued to be a part of Iran proper, as it was during the pre-Islamic era. The present boundaries were confirmed after World War I.
Turning the Elamites into Iranians is a neat trick, given that they didn't speak an Indo-European language and were neither Zoroastrian nor Muslim. It is true that they heavily influenced the Achaemenids, being the conduit by which Mesopotamian culture filtered into the then "barbarian" plateau about the Mesopotamian valley. But that doesn't turn them into Persians, any more than the fact that Greek philosophy heavily influenced medieval Christian theology mean that the ancient Greeks were Christians. Of course, they aren't around to protest the annexation.
Nor was Elam contiguous with present-day Iran or Khuzestan. Elamite boundaries fluctuated tremendously over the centuries, but the various Elamite states or dynasties usually managed to control an area roughly overlapping the present-day Iranian provinces of Khuzestan and Fars. Elam was conquered by Ur, Babylon, and Assyria; it also managed, at times, to extend its rule over most of the lower Mesopotamian valley. It wasn't a continuous empire, either -- there were long periods during which it was either ruled from elsewhere, or had disintegrated into smaller principalities. See [2] for a slightly popularized version.
Elam became part of what was arguably a "Persian" empire under the Achaemenids, who spoke an Indo-European language and worshipped Ahura-Mazda. However, the Elamites themselves were not yet considered Persian. In the various Achaemenid inscriptions, the ruler is described as the "king of kings", the ruler of peoples such as the Medes, the Persians, the Elamites, the Assyrians, etc. See the Behistun inscription at: [3]
\ Pârsa \ Ûvja \ Mâda \ Athurâ \ Mudrâya \ Parthava \ Marguš \ Tha taguš \ Saka \ (the Old Persian)
Persia, Elam, Media, Assyria, Egypt, Parthia, Margiana, Sattagydia, and Scythia.
Now if being listed in the Behistun inscription makes an area Iranian, then why isn't Iran claiming all of Darius' former conquests?
The rewriting of history to make Elamites Persian or Iranian is a projection of current-day boundaries into the past. This isn't just a quirk of Persian nationalism; it's been endemic in the writing of history since the emergence of nationalism as an ideology. That is why you are going to find many Western academic texts that are "national histories", surveying everything that happened on the current territory of a nation since the emergence of homo sapiens as a triumphalist narrative of how the present day nation emerged. However, historians are starting to reject this sort of history. See these academic references: [4], [5].
That's just to take a tiny part of your narrative. I have a proofreading job to do, so I'll have to stop here. Zora 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you know what an anagram is? Zora 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
But how do you know that? Can you cite any inscriptions on which Avaz appears? Zora 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some intensive work on Khuzestani history and I've almost finished writing a whole article on the History of Khuzestan. I've tracked down what I believe are all the available online references. I have yet to access two doctoral dissertations published on Khuzestani history. However, everything I've found so far has confirmed that Khuzestan was Arabestan until 1936 (see the Encyclopedia Iranica, for one reference) and that the Abide Emirate is documented as far back as 1690. I don't think that Southern Comfort's version, that Sheikh Khazal "invaded" historically Persian territory in 1897, holds up under scrutiny. Hence I've deleted all the POV remarks about "revisionist" history.
I also believe that population estimates should be included, and I have. They are clearly marked as estimates and sources are given. One of the sources is a talk presented by Yosef Azzizi Bani-Turoof at a university in Ispahan, which at least SEEMS to be well-documented. Zora 01:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
P.S. If I manage to get hold of a PhD dissertation on Khuzestani history submitted to the U of Chicago, will you accept that as a reputable source? Zora 08:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
The online version seems to be a revision in progress. They've got a bunch of As, some Bs, and fewer and fewer articles the further down the Roman alphabet you go. The reference to Arabestan is under Ahvaz.
If you say that you don't know enough about Khuzestan under the Safavids and Qajars, why do you state so confidently that Sheikh Khazal "invaded" Khuzestan from Kuwait in 1897? I've now got three citations that put the Abide Emirate several hundred years before that. Do you have any opposing references? If there are indeed such references, I would be willing to put in both versions.
BTW, I'm not arguing for that emirate to support pan-Arab nationalist claims. I just value historical accuracy. In general, I distrust historical claims to ANYTHING (Tibet, Palestine, Armenia, etc. etc.) since that seems to be a surefire recipe for contemporary misery.
Also, I believe that in one of your articles, you stated that the Iranians drove the British invading force out of Ahvaz. All the histories I read (including the Elton Daniel history you've quoted approvingly) say that the British won that one, and forced the Persian government to disgorge territory at the Treaty of Paris. Is the "defeat" from your memories of a school textbook?
After Elam, the "official" name was Susiana. It shows up on some Roman maps, I believe. After that, the Arab conquest. I have no information on what the area was called under the caliphs. One source, Crone's book _God's Caliph_, talks about the eastern territories being divided into those governed from the garrison town of Kufa, and those governed from Basra. But it isn't clear that those early divisions survived into the Abbasid centuries. There's a book by Madelung on the first few centuries of Islamic rule in Iran that might be more informative, if I can squeeze out the money for it. Zora 09:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
The article I originally wrote has been transformed into a biased and inaccurate apologia for one position. I protest vigorously. I will be trying to rewrite the article to present an alternate view as well.
To take just one distortion: the statement that there was no Abide Emirate before Sheikh Khazal, that he was an interloper introduced by the British, that there were no Arab inhabitants outside the small area he ruled. This contradicts info from the Encyclopedia Iranica, which SC and Zereshk accept whenever it's convenient, and doesn't at all account for the numbers of Arabs settled in villages throughout the province.
Then there's the attempt to suppress population estimates, in line with the Iranian government strategy. Zora 08:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
SC,
Regarding the first sentence in the Roots section, as far as I know and read, the idea of "autonomy" did not come around until much later. Perhaps by the mid to late Qajar era. Remember that the Arabs were not indigenous to Khuzestan, so it took a while for them to establish themselves there. I believe talk of "autonomy" came around when The British (ppl like Sir Percy Sykes) started showing up.
I didnt touch the page or edit this issue because I thought Id clear it with you first, since you are the primary author of the page and have done a lot of zahmat. Khasteh nabashi.
I havent read the entire article yet. But I will.-- Zereshk 07:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was only during the Qajar era when the Bani Kaab under Khaz'al were able to function somewhat autonomously (but not completely so obviously and his father had been subject to the Shah, I believe). Feel free to edit.
After all, Khuzestani Arabs were right there at the frontlines fighting the Iraqis with other Iranians. What are your thoughts on this and the rest of the article?
SouthernComfort 08:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You've both ignored the History of Khuzestan article I wrote. You remove any links I make to it. Yet there's material in there that you really need to SEE. Frex, you've inserted in several articles a claim that the British invaded Khuzestan but were repulsed. Do you have any sources for this? Every history I've read -- including some that you've quoted approvingly elsewhere, like Elton Daniel -- says that the British encountered no real opposition, and occupied Khuzestan until the Persian government consented to British demands and signed the Treaty of Paris, returning a large chunk of territory to Afghanistan. The British felt that they needed a buffer state between British India and Persia. They were not particularily interested in occupying and directly ruling Persia. The British also stationed troops in Khuzestan during World Wars I and II. Indeed, Reza Shah was deposed in favor of his son when he tried to stop the British from moving in troops during WW II.
Ditto claims that there was no emirate before Sheikh Khazal. I've got several sources that say there was. You have given none.
At present, the "Roots of conflict" section is a questionable piece of history. I'm working on a rewrite. Zora 09:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neither of you have responded to legitimate questions re content and sources. Zora 03:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At the time, Sheikh Jabir was the dominant power in western Khuzestan and the British supported a number of foreign Arab tribes from Iraq, as well as a number of Bani Kaab clans that were not under Jabir's leadership. Sheikh Jabir led his tribes against the British forces at the command of Nassereddin Shah Qajar and he protected the region from the British and the Ottomans until his death. Khaz'al, however, allied himself with the British, of course.
For the assertion that Khaz'al killed Maz'al, see Ashaa'ir al-Iraaq, by Abbas al-Azzawi, p. 363: فخلفه الشيخ مزعل وورث القابه. ودامت الامارة له الى أن قتله الشيخ خزعل فى 2 المحرم سنة 1315ه-1897م. ("And Sheikh Maz'al succeeded him and inherited the title, and the emirate remained his until Sheikh Khaz'al killed him on 2 Muharram 1315/1897.") Admittedly, however, this doesn't confirm that they were brothers. - Mustafaa 19:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You didn't use those exact words -- but your choice of facts, and presentation, left no doubt that you don't like the fellow. As we see in the various Islamic articles, it is possible to assemble "facts" in a way that's distinctly POV. Hmmm, let's see:
In 1897, Maz'al was murdered (some accounts state he was assassinated) by his brother, Sheikh Khaz'al Khan, who then not only assumed the position of Kaabide leadership, but also proclaimed himself the ruler of all Arabistan.
Out-and-out Arab secessionism in the western region began during this time under Khaz'al's rule.
He made his emirate virtually autonomous in 1897 with British support and protection. The emirate, known as Arabistan (or al-Ahwaz according to some sources) under his reign, primarily consisted of the cities of "Muhammerah", which became his capital, "Naseriyeh", and surrounding areas.
Zora 00:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Further from the same book: "KA'B (emirate and tribe): Banu Ka'b are among the old tribes of Rabi'a. And they are many tribes that were in Iraq, then went to Huwayza. And Huwayza was part of Iraq, then Iran took control of it, and the dispute over it continued for a long time. And from them are many groups in Iraq; they also formed the "Ka'b Emirate" in Iran. And it was following the Msha'sha'iya, then Nader Shah governed them and used them for his interests, just as Karim Khan az-Zand, in the years of his reign, used them to take over Basra through his brother Sadeq Khan. And we discussed this and other matters in the History of Iraq.
The Ka'b Emirate: This emirate was tribal, and in the hands of the Bou Nasers of the Durays family of the Ka'b tribe, then it passed to the hands of Shaykh Jaber bin Mirdaw bin Ali bin Kasib al-Ka`bi. He followed the Bou Nasers. And Ali Rida al-Laz took al-Muhammarah from him in 1253 AH/1837. And Iran entered into the matter, and negotiations for a treaty took place, and a treaty was signed in Erzurum on 13 Jumada II 1263 AH/1847."
)امارتها وعشائرها( بنو كعب من العشائر القديمة من ربيعة. وهى عشائر كثيرة كانت فى العراق، فمالت الى الحويزة. وكانت الحويزة من العراق فتسلطت عليها ايران ودام النزاع عليها مدة طويلة. ومنها مجموعات عديدة فى العراق كما تكونت )امارة كعب( فى ايران. وكانت تابعة للمشعشعين ثم حكم عليها نادر شاه واستخدمها لمصالحه كما أن كريم خان الزند فى أيام حكمه استخدمها للتسلط على البصرة بواسطة اخيه صادق خان. ومرت بنا حوادثها أيام استيلاء المنتفق على البصرة وحوادث أخرى بالوجه المبين فى تاريخ العراق)1(. 1- امارة كعب: هذه الامارة كانت عشائرية، وبيد )البو ناصر( من عشيرة الدريس من كعب ثم آلت الى الشيخ جابر بن مرداو بن علي بن كاسب الكعبي. وليها بعد )البو ناصر(. ومنه انتزع علي رضا باشا اللاز المحمرة سنة 1253ه- 1837م. وان ايران تدخلت فى الامر، وجرت المفاوضات الى عقد الصلح فتم وعقدت المعاهدة فى ارزان الروم )ارضروم( فى 13 جمادى الآخرة سنة 1263ه-1847م.
- Mustafaa 19:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to contradict the assertion that Sheikh Khaz'al found the Ka'b Emirate. - Mustafaa 19:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Determined googling produced this fascinating article on the oil industry of Khuzestan [10] and also this letter from Hirad Dinavari [11]:
Zora 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The new version of the article now has the Arab presence in Khuzestan starting in the 15th century. An improvement, I guess, on the previous version that had them arriving after 1897, but it might not be accurate. The fact that the leader of the millenarians (I'm blanking on the name, which I've seen in many forms) was from Iraq doesn't mean that his followers were all Arab. After all, the place had been ruled from Baghdad (or on behalf of the Abbasids) for centuries before that. It seems plausible that, over those centuries, divisions between Elamites/Khuzis, Persians, and Arabs would have broken down into a continuum, in which the countryside would get less Arab and more Persian the further east you went.
Plausible but not demonstrated. The problem is that this this is the sort of thing that the old chroniclers noted only in passing. Older histories are mainly concerned with royal successions and wars, and pay little attention to the social history that historians value now. There may be some current sources, though I'm having a hard time digging anything up in this mid-Pacific wasteland for Arab/Islamic/Persian studies. It might be possible to get more info from archives and archaeological digs.
It seems to me that the most honest course is simply to say that over the centuries between the Arab invasion and the Safavid and Qajar dynasties, the area had become more and more Arabicized, and that it's not clear how fast this happened, or when.
BTW, the 1905 Le Strange book I just got, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (it was mentioned in the Encyclopedia Iranica) says that the province was called Khuzistan under the Abbasids. So it's Xuzestan and then Khuzistan right up to the Mongol invasion. I haven't finished reading the book -- it's long and extremely detailed -- but there's lots of fascinating stuff there. Frex, the Karun was called the Dujayl under the Abbasids. Since the book is public domain, I'm going to scan it and put it through Distributed Proofreaders, which means that it will be freely available in ... well, months, but still. It could be useful for other articles dealing with the area.
Oh yeah, and something that should be put in the article -- the reason that the region cohered through so many empires is obvious, but never flat-out stated. It's the watershed of the Karun. Le Strange comments on this. Zora 00:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So far as I know, there isn't a standard Wiki way to insert literature references, but I've been using, and I've seen a lot of, standard social science style. That is, if you have a references list, then you can can use (Le Strange, 1905, p. 232). If there are several publications in a year, then you use 1905a, 1905b, etc. If the reference in the text is the ONLY reference, it's usually Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Le Strange, Cambridge University Press, 1905 OR the preceding minus the press name, or with the place of publication instead. Often people add the ISBN number, if there is one, so that the book can be purchased if desired.
I don't think I've been consistent, and I really need to think this through, and figure out the best way to give references. Anyway, Southern Comfort, you've been referring to books with just the author's name and the title, and giving no other information. More info is important if other editors are to use, or evaluate the sources. The date seems to me to be quite important. Frex, I have a very different reaction to Le Strange, 1905, and Daryaee, 2002. The Daryaee is going to be state-of-the-art, and the Le Strange is to be used with caution. Also, it's important to use the Persian or Arabic title if the book is in Persian or Arabic. That way, other editors don't go nuts looking for non-existent translations. It's OK to put an English translation of the title in parens afterwards, if it's clear that this is just a gloss rather than the title of a translation.
Careful specification of the sources used is the humanities/social science equivalent to the scientific paper's careful specification of the experimental protocol. Other researchers need to know HOW to repeat the research in order to do confirmatory experiments, or readings, or whatever. Zora 06:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just found a very nice-looking source, from a professor at the U. of Berkeley: [12]. Most relevant is these two paragraphs; after describing the first Treaty of Erzerum, it says:
- Mustafaa 21:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Enc. Iranica is very helpful too. - Mustafaa 21:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"there is no historical precedent for conflict between the Iranian peoples amongst themselves" - well, no doubt this depends how you look at it, but such cases as the short-lived Kurdish Republic of Mahabad, the somewhat absurd Soviet Republic of Gilan, or even the battles between the Parthians and Seleucids suggest to me that this is something of an overstatement. - Mustafaa 21:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note that it says "for conflict", not "for ethnic conflict"... - Mustafaa 23:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Look, have any of you people even been to Ahwaz? The way you are talking, you have just heard of it, not seen it or lived there. I am from Ahwaz, have lived there, and go there almost once a year. Sure, the Arabs are the minority and mostly live in poverty. But this isn't true for all of them. Look at Iran's cabinat and see how many have Arab descend. (especially the military)Look at the celebreties. Look how many actors (rich people) are of Arab descend. Look how many sport players are of Arab descend (just to name a few Hossein Kaabi, Eman Mobali, Alaavi, ...) I admit there is racial discrimination against Arabs, but not to the extent you are showing. There were Arab traitors in the war. There were also Persian, Kurd, and Turk traitors. What about the bomb attacks or the Arab fundementalists? Why don't you say about them. They are a few who are ruining the Arabs reputation. For example, this is a true story I witnesses in Iran, from a completely trustworthy person. They were I taxi driver driving along the Abadan Ahwaz road. On the way, they were stopped by a car in the way. Several Arabs walked out and asked him "Are you Arab or Ajam?" Once he replied Ajam they pulled him out of the car, set his car on fire, and beat him up severely. Now do these few ignorant people show the whole Brave and Loyal Arab people? Of course not? But these few ruin their reputation. Please feel free to correct me, but with logical arguements, not illogical bigotry.
-The Boz
- The Boz
Why should knowledge be divided into "oppose" and "support"? Truth is beyond culture or nationality -- just as, I presume, you would believe that Islam is beyond culture or nationality. My commitment is to trying to be fair and truthful. I'll never get there, but I have to try.
Persian culture doesn't really need any defense. Did you know that Rumi is the best-selling poet in the US? That a mainly Persian cookbook, Silk Road Cooking, was a recent surprise hit? Zora 21:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I can believe that. Students complain to deans all the time, for all sorts of reasons, good and bad.
He's a visiting professor at Harvard, not a tenured professor. Nothing that I've read suggests any sort of rift between Soroush and Harvard.
He's extremely high-profile right now and is doing visiting scholar gigs at a number of universities.
Zereshk, it's just not nice to sneer at me for not knowing Farsi, as if this proved my utter ignorance. I could just as easily sneer at you for not knowing French, or Tongan, or Japanese, or Classical Greek ... No human being can know all languages, so we have to help each other out. Zora 21:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
People like Zora would be filled with joy to see Iran destroyed and split into 15 different little countries. Its the colonial legacy: To divide and conquer.
No, that's not what I mean. I'm proposing a split between family law and communal laws (as established by a religious or cultural community) and civil and commercial law. In other words, let's ALL be dhimmis (without the second-class citizen bit). Territories would be ecological domains (watersheds and the like) and human communities would be world-wide. Like Jews or Parsis. Totally multi-cultural. Aaargh, it's complicated. I need to write it up on a web page and refer people to that. I often tell people that I'm an ecumenical Bundist (Bundists were anti-Zionist Jews). Zora 21:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Therefore without them (nations), the world has no color. No life.-- Zereshk 22:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
---
Rumi is "a Turk"? [14]-- Zereshk 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that this article fails to be neutral for the following reasons:
1)It gives no information about the history of Khuzestan before 15th century which is neccessary to have a balanced picture of Khuzestan in mind.
2)In the "Roots of ethnic tension", no reference is made to native inhabitant of Khuzestan at that time. also the writer completely ignores non-Arab inhabitants of the province (such as Lurs and people from Shushtar and Dezfool)and pays no attention to their own weight, oppinions and hardships they have in common with Arabs. In this way a reader who doesn't know mush about khuzestan might think population of Khuzestan consists only of Arabs.
3)The sentence "Ideology, tactics, tribal loyalties and personal ambition have prevented these parties from forming a united front." bears a ting of approval and hopes of the writer for the dissidents.
4)Is ALO, considering brutal actions it has embarked on, really a "political" group?
5)The article makes no reference to 2 TERRORIST attacks by Arab dissidents on Ahvaz in 2005.
6)Occationally the writer uses "Al-Ahwaz" which is not the official name of the city which is Ahvaz.(Eg. "They call for human right and democracy for Arab people in Alahwaz" )
7)The way this article presents the issue gives the impression that sectionalism, sectarianism and insistence on "Arabism" are the only ways to improve the situation. Shouldn't "naturalization" be considered as a way to settle the problem or the writer doesn't like this kind of solution?
8)[This item is about my own observations.] I was born and have been raised in Ahvaz. During my life I've not observed Arabs as an "underrepresented group" . First, both Arabs and Persians share the same difficulties: Extremely though weather, lack of water (Despite a lot of rivers), underdevelopment etc. For example governmental organizations and factories tend to employ non-residents (of Khuzestan) and this attitude besets both Persians and Arabs.
Second, Arabs are significantly more arrogant than others in Ahvaz. In Ahvaz, non-Arabs usually avoid entering an argument with Arabs because they are not very polished .(That's probably because they are mostly rural.) Which underrepresented group in the world has this quality?
With the hope of days in which humanity will be more important to people than ethnicity, race, etc.
-Damned
I edited that NPOV looking words. -Damned.
Now that you agree that the article is biased, I put a POV mark on it.Please don't erase it untill NPOV. I have also a word about links on the article. I have no objection to the first 2 links but I think having links to the other ones -which are not so polite- contradicts neutrality. If Wikipedia has links to websites of ETA, Hamas and Chinese dissidents then the aformentioned links are fine but otherwise neutrality is violated. -Damned, Dec. 31
Regarding the latest changes made by user who calls himself "Ahwaz":
1. There is no breach of copyright as it is a direct quote, with reference, from a UN report. 2. I will make the changes you suggested and remove the POV tag. 3. The issue of Ahwazi Arab refugees in Iraq is an ethnic grievance of that group and one that Ahwazi Arab groups are campaigning on. It has been the subject of a UN report and some press coverage. That is why it is included. If you want to say that ethnic grievances have no basis, then that's your opinion. I am just putting forward the facts, as found by the UN. The issue does not take up 60% of the article, but just three paragraphs.-- Ahwaz 12:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I dont know. For now, I think the article is OK. Even though it gives a false impression of events, unfortunately.-- Zereshk 13:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
None of my complaints about the article has been improved. In addition I mention the following issue about recent changes by user Ahwaz: Plight of Ahvazi refugees in Iraq is a matter of human rights in Iraq so it's by no means reasonable to include it in an article on plight of Khuzestan. Remember that they migrated to Iraq because of a war initiated by Iraq.
The "false impression" mentioned by Zereshk is that this article gives the impression that Iran obtained the ever-Arab-populated Khuzestan in Arzrum treaty for free and then started to Persianise it and conceals the fact that Arabs have been immigrants to the ancient Khuzestan. I'll try to fix this problem. -- Damned
The assertion "I have, nevertheless, written some more paragraphs to clarify the roots of ethnic tension to show that this is not the result of animosity between the peoples of Khuzestan - Persian and Arab - but between Khuzestan and the government in Tehran."
doesn't seem plausible to me because because if you exclude Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, Mashhad (and to lesser a extent Yazd and Kerman), then rest of Iran has suffered from inadequate attention from the government in recent history. So, is it plausible to say that people of all these regions are "underrepresented" and have ethnical problems with the government? Is it correct to say that underdevelopment in south-Khorasan or Kohgiluye-Boyerahmad has ethnic reasons? Khuzestan's problem is a part of the whole issue of inequity in development and budget-allocation in Iran. What makes "Ahwaz" 's presentation unfair is that he/she has segregated Khuzestan's problem's from the whole issue and tries to prove that these problems beset onley Arabs. And , although he refuse, his method of presentation paves the way for sectarianism.
An example which contradicts "Ahwaz" 's point of view is the water riot in 2000 in Abadan [15] which arised because of poor water quality in hot summer. As you see in that riots there were nothing special to Arabs although the user Ahwas might say: Oh, some Arabs were present in those riots. Damned
User Ahwaz' assertion that "see Ahmad Kasravi's book "The Forgotton Kings", he states: "it is certain and there is proof for it that during the Parthian era Arab tribes were living in provinces of Kerman, Khuzestan, Bahrain and Fars." He quotes Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari as stating: "Aam is the same as Merah Ibn Zidan Tammim, it seems these are the same well known tribes of Bani-Tammim who today reside in Khuzestan and their ancestor is Merah Ibn Malik, who lived in the era of Ardeshir Babakan the first Sassanid king, and helped that king in his war against the Parthian Ardawan." The Aam are the Bani-Aam tribe, an Arab tribe." (a few paragraphs above) and the grandiloquent statement "Throughout history there have been accounts of Arab resistance to Persian rule which were primarily focused on land" and also
"Ethnic tension between Persians and Arabs in Khuzestan was alluded to in Tabari's The History of the Prophets and Kings, in which he wrote of emnity between the people of Kalib ibn Vail, an Arab tribe, and Hormozan, a Persian king who ruled an area that was then called Ahwaz during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab (581-644 CE). Tabari wrote that the conflict between Hormozan and the Arabs concerned "land and vilage disputes."
motivated me to study Tabari's book. I used the English translation of Tabari's "Tarikh al-rusul walmoluk" :
The History of Al-Tabari an annotated translation, translated by G. R. Smith, State University of New York Press, 1994.
Conquest of Iran is mentioned in the following volumes:
Vol. 12 : The battle of Al-Qadisiyyah and the the conquest of Syrria and Palestine.
Vol. 13 : Conquest of Iraq, Southwestern Persia and Egypt.
Vol. 14 : Conquest of Iran.
I studied all the stuff about the conquest of Southwestern Iran and also all other places where Ahwaz or Hurmuzan is mentioned in the above 3 Vol.s . The result shows how honest and knowledgeable Bani Torof and user Ahwaz are.
First let's know what is mentioned in Tabari about al-Aam. Vol. 13, Parapraph# 2536 (pp. 116-117):
"There is a story explaining how this man called al-Ami came by his name. This al-Ami was Murrah b. Malik b. Hanzalah b. Malik b. Zayd Manat b. Tamim, with whom, as well as with al-Usayyah b. Imri al-Qays, there settled a mixed bunch of people from Ma'ad.[Translator's note: Ma'ad is a collective name for northern Arab tribes.] Those people who were of the opinion that he should not give support to Persians in controling al-Ardawan had believed him to be blind to what was the proper course of action. Concerning this attitude, Ka'b b. Malik, his brother -sometimes it is Sudday(b. Malik who is mentioned)- composed the following verses(in tawil):
(Though) once a good man, now our Murrah is blind, and, deaf to his kinsman's pleas, he has set out to settle away from us, spurning his land, and seek with the Persian lords power and fame."
So did you understand how "indigenous" those people were? The "Aam" you speak about was a defector. But wait that's not the end of the story. Where those Amis used to live? Vol. 13, paragraph# 2534,pp 114-115:
"In that year, I mean 17, the conquest of Suq al-ahwaz, Manadhir and Nahr Tira took place according to some; according to others, that was in the year 16 after Hijrah.
An Account of the Circumstances Leading to the the Conquest of al_Ahwaz and of Him Who Carried It Out
According to al_sari-Shuyab-Muhammed, Talhah, al-Muhallab, and Amr: Al-Hurmuzan was one of the seven noble families among the Persians. His territory was comprised of Mihrijan Qadhaq and the district of al_Ahwaz. These weere families who were higher in rank than anybody in Fars. When al- Hurmuzan was routed at the battle of al-Qadisiyyah, he headed for his territory and fought him who attacked them. Al-Hurmuzan used to make raides on the people of Maysan and Dastimaysan [Transl. note: These are districts north of al-Basra and west of al_ahwaz.] from two dirrections, Manadhir and Nahr Tira."
In order to avoid misunderstanding of the last sentence look at these paragraphs from the events of year 14 (Vol. 12, pp171-172):
"According to Abayah b. Abd Amr: I participated in the conquest of al-Ubullah with Utbah. Utbah sent Nafid b. al-Harith to Umar with the news of the conquest. The people of Dastimaysan gathered [an army] against us. Utbah said: I think that we should march against them. We marched and confronted the governor(marzuban) of Dastimaysan. We fouth him; his companions were defited and he was taken prisoner, his mantle and belt being seized. Utbah sent him [to Umar] with Anas b. Hujayyah al-Yashkuri. According to Abu al-Malih al-Hudhali: Utbah sent Anas b. Hujayyahto Umar with the belt of the governor of the Dast-i Maysan. Umar said to him: "What is the condition of Muslims?" Anas said: "The [wealth of this] world has engulfed them, and they are dripping with gold and silver." The people became attracted by al-Basra and came to live there."
and in the next page:
"According to al-Tabari's isnad- Qatadah: The people of Maysan gathered an army against the Muslims. Al-Mughirah set out against them, leaving the heavy luggage behind. Ardah bint al- Harith b. Kaladah said: "I wish I could join the muslim men and be with them," and she maid
a banner of her veil. The other women [also] used their veils as flags and set out in the direction of Muslims. When they reached them the polytheists were fighting them. But when the polytheists saw the approaching flags, they thought that reinforcements were coming to Muslims and took to fight. The Muslims pursued them and killed many of them."
(The last story is a bit interesting!) So the attackes by Hurmuzan on Maysan mean he fought with Muslim forces who had conquered Maysan and Dastimaysan in year 14 and were threatenning his territory. ("he headed for his territory and fought him who attacked them." ) So back to Hurmuzan (Vol. 13 pp. 115-116):
"Utbah b. Ghazwan asked Sa'd for reinforcements, so the latter sent him Nu'yam b. Muqarrin and Nu'yam b. Mas'ud, ordering them to go to the highest point of overlooking Maysan and Dastimaysan untill they had reached a position between al-Hurmuzan (and his people ) were and Nahr Tira. Utbah b. Ghazwan sent Sulma b. al-Qayn and Harmalah b. Muraytah out on a certain mission. They were two of the Companions of the Messenger of God, who had made the Hijrah with him; both from Adawiyyah clan of Hanzalah. They arrived at the border of the land of Maysan and Dastimaysan, at a point between al-Hurmuzan and Manadhir. There they called upon Banu al-Ami. So Ghalib al-Walili and Kulayb b. Wail al-Kulaybi responded. They had separated from Nu'aym (b. Muqarrin) and Nuaym (b Masud) and turned away from them. Now they went to Sulma and Harmala. After they had arrived there, the latter said, "You are from the same tribe therefore you may not desert us. When the day such-and-such has come, rise against al-Hurmuzan. One of us will attack Manadhir, the other Nahr Tira and we will kill al-Hurmuzan's fighters. Then we will come to you again. God willing, there is no other enemy other that al-Hurmuzan." After the two men from the Ami b. Malik clan had promised their cooperation, they returned to their clansmen who, in their turn, also agreed to help."
Then Tabari explains the meaning of Ami as I quoted above. In the next paragraph (2537, page 118) Tabari says that at that particular night, Sulma, Harmala ,Nu'aym and Hurmuzan "came face to face at a spot between Duluth and Nahr Tira, Sulma b. al-Qayn at the head of the warriors from al-Basraand Nuaym b. Muqarrin in the command of those from al-Kufah. Then fighting broke out." "Then the news that Mandahir and Nahr Tira had been taken reached al-Hurmuzan. So God broke his strength and that of his army and defeated him and his troops. The Muslims killed and captured as many as they wanted from them and they pursued them untill they came to a halt on the bank of the Dujail[Transl. note: nowadays Karun ] , having occupied all the land this side (i.e. that is west) of the river. They encamped opposite Suq al-Ahwaz. In the meantime, al-Hurmuzan had crossed the bridge to Suq al-Ahwaz and taken up residence there."
Now what happened next and where there any of al-Ami beyond the spot "at the border of the land of Maysan and Dastimaysan" mentioned above.
Tabari next says (paragraph 2538Vol. 13, pp 119-120):
"When Muslim warriors invaded al-Hurmuzan's territory and set up their camp close to where he was in al-Ahwaz, he realized that he lacked manpower to overcome them. So he begged for peace, whereupon they wrote about that proposal to Utbah, asking him for directives in this matter. Al-Hurmuzan sent a letter to Utbah who, while accepting the proposed peace treaty, answered that al-Hurmuzan was to remain in control of all of al-Ahwaz and Mihrijan Qadhaq with the exception of Nahr Tira and Manadhir and that area of Suq al-Ahwas that the Muslims had already conquered. What we had liberated from Persian rule would not be returned to them. Sulma b. al-Qayn placed a garrison in Manadhir under the command of Ghalib, and Harmala placed one in Nahr Tira under the command of Kulayb. They had formerly commanded the forces of al-Basra.
Meanwhile groups of Banu al-Ami left their former dwelling places and took up residence in al-Basra, one group after another. Utbah wrote about that to Umar and sent a delegation." Then al-Anaf b. Qays [a leader of Tamim in al-Basra] told Umar(paragraph# 2539): "We kept on moving from one place to another, untill we arived at a piece of open country. Well, our brothers among the inhabitants of al-Kufah have settled in a place rich in vegetation, overflowing with sweet springs and lush pald groves; in a never-ceasing flow its frute produce reaches them. But we, the people of al-Basra, we have settled in a soggy swamp, which does not produce anything. One side faces the desert and the other side gives on to a brackish river. Supplies reach this region like a tricle from ostrich's gullet. Our houses are crammed, our daily rations poor. Our numbers are large but our nobles are few in number. Many of us have fought vigorously, but our finances are strained, while our plots of land are small. In the past God enriched us and increased our land. So may you now enrich us, Commander of the Faithful, and increase the daily rations assigned to us so that we may survive!
So Umar reviewed their dwelling places which they had occupied untill they moved out into the desert. Then he gave them the region as their share in the booty and alloted plots to them, also taken from what used to belong to the Persian royal family. Thus all the land between the Tigris and the desert became fay' land. They divided it among themselves. The other properties of the royal family in the land around al-Basra were thus dealt with in the same manner as the land of al-Kufah was dealt with "
"The land occupied by the people of al-Basrah consisted of two halves, one was divided up into plots; the other was left for the benefit of the armed forces and the community."
So Tabari tells us Omar allowed them to settle in the area "between the Tigris and the desert", so they had hardly lived there before otherwise they didn't need to "occupy" it. No other mention exists of al-Ami (or any other Arab tribes living in the area, when Muslims were conquering the area) in the description of occupation of "al-Ahwaz" (as you see below) as well as other parts of vol.s 12 to 14 of Tabari's history. So before Islam al-Ami settlers (defectors) had hardly anything to do with today's Khuzestan. Their real existence began by Omar's aforementioned command.
Now what is that alleged "ethnic tension" mentioned in Tabari? Paragraph 2541 (pp 121-122):
"While the people of al-Basrah and those who were living under their protection were thus engaged, a controversy flared up, each side putting forth contradictory claims concerning the boundaries of their lands, between al-Hurmuzan on the one hand and Ghalib and Kulayb on the other. Sulma and Harmala went there to see what going on among them and found Galib and Kulayb to be in the right and al-Hurmuzan to be wrong. So they separated the quarreling parties. Moreover al-Hurmuzan went back on his word and withheld what he had accepted to pay. Then he called upon the Kurds to help him, whereupon his army grew in strenght."
So did you realize what was your alleged "land and village dispute" "alluded to in Tabari's History"? A dispute between Hurmuzan and people who, according to Tabari "occupied" the area between Tigris and Karun just in the same year. What a substantial dispute! To quote the rest of the story, I'll postpone condemning you, user Ahwaz, but let me teach you a lesson now: Don't refer to a reference unless you know what is mentioned in it; otherwise people will laughe at you.
Now (paragraph 2541) Umar sends "Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sadi one of the Prophet's Companions as reinforcement." and "So, when they crossed over the bridge to the other side, fighting broke out while they were still on that part directly facing Suq al-Ahwas. In the end al-Hurmuzan was beaten. He set out in the direction of Ramhurmuz took a village called al-Shaghar on the dam of Arbuk and finally alighted at Ramhurmuz. Hurqus conquered Suq al-Ahwaz and took up residence there. Then he entered the mountain region, and and the administration of the whole region from Suq al-Ahwaz all the way to Tustar became well organized. He imposed the jizah, wrote the news about the conquest to Umar and sent fifth parts of the booty acquired in the different areas, dispaching a delegation to carry this to him."
paragraph 2542: Tabari quotes a poem by "al-Aswad b. Sari" :
"We wrested from al-Hurmuzan a whole area so rich in provisions in every district. It's dry land and water supply well in balance, when excellent groves come to early fruition. This land has a turbulent stream into which por tributaries from both sides, always overflowing."
Then In paragraph 2543 Tabari says:
"When al-Hurmuzan had arrived in Ramhurmuz and the province of al_ahwaz had become full of the Muslims settling in it, even right in front of him, he sent a peace agreement and sent messages to Hurqus and Jaz asking for this."
Now you, user Ahwaz, did you understand what is the meaning of "indigenous" ?! Aren't you get upset to hear about this "intentional immigration" and its negative effect on the culture and heritage of the native people? Where were international organizations to condenm "Muslims killed and captured as many as they wanted from them" ? Did you know that in the time of Sasanids Khuzestan (Susiana at that time) used to be compared to India for it's vegetation and they were long-lasting wars (from Omar to Bani Abbas, Khuzestan was the port of departure of armies to the east) which deteriorated even its ecology? If you think more carefully a better title for your article is this:
"History of the calamities inflicted on Khuzestan by Arabs: From Omar to Sheikh Khazal to Saddam Hosein". (I don't consider Arabs who now live in Khuzestan in the above title. sorry if it seems otherwise. )
Now compare Tabari's history quoted above to the account of Bani Torof in his so-called article:
"Tabari history says this about the conquest of Ahwaz: the conquest of Ahwaz was in the 18th year, when Omar (2nd caliph) entered Syria. The cities of Ahwaz were overcome and the king of Ahwaz was Hormozan, a great man, the kingdom of Ahwaz was his and his family’s. There were seventy cities in Ahwaz. And Hormozan was the king of all those cities. There were people in Ahwaz of Kalib Ibn Vael and there was enmity between them and Hormozan due to land and village disputes. Hormozan went to the main of the cities that was in the center of the country; the name of the city was “Sough al-Ahwaz” and took refuge in that city which was fortified. And through that city was a river by the name of Dojil and underneath it is a bridge. (Tabari’s history)"
So did you understand what an asshole forger your "prominet academic" is? First Tabari says the year of conquest was 17 or 16 (see quotations above) but Bani Torof says 18. Then he speakes of "seventy cities" while Tabari mentiones "seven noble families among persians". He also craftsmanly deletes the "al-" in
"al-Hurmuzan" but retains the "al-" in "al-Ahwas" and then rejoices: "Mohammad Ibn Jarir al-Tabari tells us that Khuzestan had seventy cities, and the name of the province was Ahwaz not Khuzestan, and the capital was Sough al-Ahwaz, an Arabic name."
How shrewd he is! Does the name "al-Hurmuzan" Tabari uses really means name of the governor was "al-"Hurmuzan ? The same applies to "Suq al-Ahwaz". He goes on to say : "It is obvious from the problems between Hormozan and Kalib Ibn Vail, that the Arabs of Khuzestan were already suffering racial discrimination in those days." Tabari's history, qouted above, tells you all that discriminations! Go to the hell. This shows how accurate his other statements are.Now, Have you, user Ahwaz, thought you could obfuscate the history simply by searching the internet and making links to this and that website? And what gullible person could believe this is just for the sake of human and civil rights? Your have used a revealing name for yourselves BRITISH-Ahwazi guys. You'd better do you buissiness in London or Dubai and stop coveting Khuzestan's assets.
Up to now user Ahwaz used controversial and many times baseless statements in the article and challanged us to disoprove them. Now regarding the above issues, the situation is reversed. I erased the baseless assertions and whoever wants to restore similar statements has to present well-documented refernces .
The things I've edited are as folows:
1)"accounts of an Arab presence in Khuzestan dating back to the Parthian era". I have not access to Kasravi's book now but according to yourself, Kasravi says Arabs helped Ardeshir. This doesn't mean they lived in Khuzestan. Most probably they were Arabz of Hirah who where allies of Sassanids.
2)"Lurs and Bakhtiari, who have their own dialects, customs and tribal identities that are distinct from the dominant national Persian culture. Khuzestan also had its own local identity" Which province doesn't have its own local identity? What is "dominant national Persian culture" ? People of Tehran, Esfahan, Yazd aand Fars each have their own accent and local identity. This is not a thing that you could push your teeth in.
These and the shit you've made out of Tabari, invalidates the 2 first paragraphs.I aded a short introduction instead. Only one of the sections of the "Roots of ethnic tension" ,(pahlavi era) has to do with ethnic tension.
3)Demographics: This is funny; first "According to Human Rights Watch, Precise figures on the ethnic composition of Iran's population are impossible to obtain. The last census in which such data was compiled was carried out in 1956." and then Bani torof Comes and gives the impossible data! Bani torof in his Article says: "percentages are my opinion." and we saw that how honest his opinions are. I couldn't find the census data on the internet so untill a reference from Census Bureau (or othar official organization) is obtained there is no reliable data to post.
4)Name of cities : I added a note (not so polished ) because formerly it didn't give any information about the age of that Arabic names.. If you found a contradicting reference , cite it.
5) Moin's assertion is based on a guess. Damned 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Your action was very nasty SoughtComfort. You have to present arguments for your editions otherwise all of them will be reverted. Damned 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't refer to something that "not clear what this organization is" SouthComfort.
Damned
23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You know, I agree that the "census data" is a problem since its origins are not clear, but if it is removed I will be viciously attacked by Zora or anyone else as a racist and Persian nationalist and quite frankly I am sick and tired of that, so I am quite content to leave this data in until the original source can be verified.
I have a lot of respect for Bani-Torof as a journalist and though the data may be flawed, it may not be totally incorrect at the time it was taken. Khuzestani Arabs were amongst the first peoples to return to the province after the war and Khuzestani Persians didn't begin returning en masse until the mid-to-late 90s and even more are returning now since the port of Khorramshahr was reopened a few years ago. So the census data, unofficial as it was to begin with, is definitely outdated. But I still don't have a problem with its inclusion. SouthernComfort 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I myself have no "personal" problem with the data. Problem is that reference to a source that you know
nothing about its originality is dumb. The very basic instructions of Wikipedia say: Your edittions must be verifiable. Bani Torof says "percentages are my own opinion." However every adolescent knows one of the basic advantages of statistics is to avoid "opinions".
Don't fear from Zora! Let her attack me instead of you.
So I delete that stuff and we'll look for reliable data although according to the quotation from HRW, it might not be possible to find. If that data remain in the article then no one tries to find original data.
Damned
00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You are so heedless Southern Comfort. Despite all my arguments you do whatever you want. Ah. Damned 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Did you make a void link to "center for Iran studies" to ridicule the reader? I don't think an "unofficial census" in an area as big as Khuzestan is possible. You have to correct this "Khali bandi" as soon as possible. Damned 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain me the difference between Persian and Iranian? Persians are Iranian only. SouthernComfort says that "laks are an iranian people, rather than persian", as if the two are exclusive. All who live in Iran are Iranian by nationality, but some are Persian, some are Azeri, &c.
Added them in (in a separate section). If the involved editors dont like the format (of them having a separate section), then we can directly incorporate them into the body of the text in the article. I'll leave that up to y'all erudites.-- Zereshk 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahwaz, no Iranian will ever let one inch of Khuzestan become your "independent Arabistan"...Iranians have already made a big concession to Arabs by giving them Bahrain in 1970, half of whose majority Shi'ite population is of Iranian origin, and they settled instead for three teeny tiny islands which Arabs STILL want to take away from them. Ataturk would not capitulate on Hatay, even though Turks made up only half of Hatay's population, the other half being Syrian Arabs, and today Hatay is a Turkish province. The Shah gave up our legitimate claims to Bahrain. Now... The Arabs of Khuzestan are Shi'ites like most of Iran, and most have intermarried with Persians, just as there have been millions of intermarriages between Shi'ite Azeris and Shi'ite Persians (I am from a mixed Azeri-Persian family). Now you cleverly "forget" to mention that half of the current Arab population of Khuzestan are Shi'ite Marsh Arabs from southern Iraq, who fled Saddam's tyranny...you can tell by just listening to their dialect which does not contain some of the inflections present in Khuzestani Arabic nor even the vocabulary (Khuzestani Arabic has incorporated many words from Khuzi, the local Persian dialect of Khuzestan)...and "ani ahchi araqi" so I know what I am talking about. Finally no Arab country has supported the Palestinian cause as much as Iran, yet each and every time Arabs turn around to stab Iranians in the back. Perhaps we should abandon our principles, and make political expediency our primary goal and apply the same Realpolitik that Turkey has in her foreign policy: Turkey knowing she has few friends, has aligned herself with Israel. Should Arabs turn against us, we won't have any choice but to consider that as an option (which will only become possible if we get rid of the mullahcracy). As for Kurds, who are Sunnis living in a Shi'ite Iranian state...how did the Sunni Saddam and his Sunni government treat them? How does Sunni Turkey treat them even today? They have fared much better in Iran than anywhere else. As for Baloochis...just look at how they live in Pakistan, a country that has marginalized not only them, but its northern Pushtun population. So if you don't have anything smart to say, Ahwaz, it is best to remain silent. As much as I am loathe to see an Iranian-Israeli alliance, I think it may be quite practical in the future. And mind you, I am a supporter of Palestinians, but an Iranian first.
I removed one whole para that was nothing but POV. It asserted a falsity (that Khuzestan is the ONLY ethnically diverse province in Iran, when a look at the accompanying map suggests that most of them are). It claimed that there was no conflict between "Iranian peoples" -- completely ignoring anti-Arab sentiments (Arab-parast being a common term of abuse). None of the statements were referenced as opinions of anyone -- they were just put out there as WP's opinion.
Those opinions have a place in the article when they are referenced to a publication (dead tree or online) and presented as opinions. Then WP is doing what it should be doing, documenting POVs. Zora 06:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I dunno what's been removed or what, but if Ahwaz is so concerned about his fellow Arabs, perhaps he might wanna help his co-ethnics in Iraq who are being slaughtered by fellow (Sunni) Arabs. The true indigenous language of Khuzestan is Khoozi, not Arabic...Arabs migrated much later into the area.
Ahwaz, Khuzestan Arabs are mostly Shi'a, you didn't read too carefully my argument...but if you think Khuzestan will become an independent Arabistan, keep on dreaming.
Ahwaz, ikhris...you're analogy is silly and irrelevent...I have no idea what you're talking about with Spanish being spoken in Atlanta. This page is about Khuzestan...you might find articles on how the Arabs of the Empty Quarter eat lizards called "dhab" and breed camels more relevant to this discussion however, than what the percentage of Hispanics are in Atlanta, 10,000 miles away from Khuzestan.
Let me put this in Arabic: al-arab bis-sahrat Rub il-Khali biyaakluu ad-dhab, u biyaaklu lahm al-jamal kamaan...(translation, the Arabs of the Rub il-Khali Desert eat "dhab" and camel meat as well). This is not racist, it is the truth. And, il-arab awsakh ish-sha'ab il-ardh...this is also not racist, it is the truth. I speak Arabic and know enough about Arabs.
We will never give up khuzestan to anybody. khuzestan will always remain iranian. we fought the world against all odds for eight long years and gave a million brave individuals to keep khuzestan iranian. we will do so again, and even pay a higher price to do so again.
you are all idiots to think that this "independence" movement is a freedom movement from the people. you are being manuevered for the sake of american and british interests. there is no logical way for the us to invade iran like they did so to iraq. any kind of military assault will have lethal consequences for american and israeli interests in the region. the only way they can defeat iran is to seperate khuzestan, therefore crippling the economy. however, let just all pray that that will never happen.
There are large portion of article which are written in the style of a newspaper or weblog. Concentrating on one detail it goes on and on about one unknown fellow (Kothari!) saying this and that and he went to that village and says that he saw this and that. In my opinion te writers or adders of those pieces here, have forgotten that this is an encyclopaedia.
I summerised some of those parts in an encyclopaedic fashion. If somebody is not agreed with this please let me know your reasons. But before that, please do not revert all of my other edits on this article while putting back those lengthy un-encyclopaedic diaries of that unknown Kothari guy.
Thanks, -- Mani1 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I will summarise those sections first and then replace them. Actually I believe that this article has grown too big and might be better to move those sections about Arvand Project etc. to new titles later.
Take care, -- Mani1 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "unsubstantiated" material: The following table, reportedly based on unofficial provincial census data gathered in 1996 by the Centre for Iran Studies and published in 1997, accompanied his lecture ... The alleged source in question for these population figures, the "Centre for Iran Studies," is not a known or verifiable organization and as such does not meet the stringent criteria of WP:V. Furthermore, as I had mentioned many times before - though ignored each time - the population figures conflict severely with legitimate sources, both official and unofficial (including the CIA.)
The table should be removed entirely and if mention is to be made of the figures, they should be stated as the unverifiable claims of a possibly non-existent organization. SouthernComfort 19:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)