Talk:Politics of Khuzestan province

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)[reply]

Size of Arabic-speaking minority in Khuzestan

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)[reply]

From what I understand, the CIA World Factbook does not state anything about the Arab population in Khuzestan. It simply states that 3% out of the entire Iranian population are Arabs, and they are not all centred in Khuzestan. There are Arab minorities in Bushehr province, for example, and in Bandar Abbas, and a small enclave in Isfahan. If there were anywhere near 2 million Arabs in a single province, then Iran would have been in trouble a long time ago, and this sort of speculation is absurd. An Arab Khuzestani population of 600,000 seems to be the most quoted number I've come across, but no number would be 100% accurate, and the issue is further complicated by the fact that native-born Persian Khuzestanis have been steadily returning to the province since the end of the war, and this has only increased over time. At any rate, it is generally accepted in Iran, and by most other mainstream authorities, that they are a minority in Khuzestan. There is plenty of data concerning this in major encyclopedias, country guides, etc.

Also, the word 'vast' is not POV nor is it necessarily an exaggeration. I will grant that since there are no reliable figures, it might not be appropriate. If Arabs comprised less than 15% of the Khuzestani population, which is most likely, then Persians would be the 'vast' majority. But I am not going to argue over silly notions such as this or get into a possible edit war. SouthernComfort 14:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are varying estimates of Arabs in Khuzestan. The total Arab population of Khuzestan is 2.75 million, according to Iranian academic Yossef Azizi Bani-Turoof, who has used 1997 census data. He puts the Arab population at 60.6% of the total (4.5 million). According to the official census, there are 5800 villages in Khuzestan of which 3700 are Arab. In other words 64% of Khuzestan villages are inhabited by Arabs. Mehdi Kamrani, deputy of Development of Khuzestan, said in a 2002 interview with the Hamsaieaha newspaper (published in Ahwaz) that 48% of the Khuzestani are village dwellers, which means there are 1.39 million Arabs in Khuzestan. However, due to the enforcement of the Farsi language in Khuzestan, up to one million Khuzestanis of Arab origin can no longer speak Arabic. Whatever source you use, the figures are well above 500,000. One must bear in mind that Tehran and the monarchist nationalist opposition have a vested interest in underplaying the true level of ethnic minorities in Iran, partly due to the need to maintain ethnic Persian hegemony and partly because inherent racism towards minority groups, particularly Arabs. Ahwaz --Ahwaz 15:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwaz, let me say first of all that I can appreciate the circumstances that some, or even many, Iranian Arabs have had to contend with over the years since the war, but to say that there is an inherent racism against them is not correct. Most Iranian Arabs (that is to say, Arab speakers of Iranian origin) are just as pro-Iran as any other Iranian group, and this is most evident in the fact that they fought against Saddam and were also victims of his genocidal policies, along with the Persian Khuzestani population. As I've said, the Arab speaking population of Iran are spread out throughout southern Iran, and there are enclaves in cities such as Tehran and Isfahan. The other issue at hand are those Arabs who are not of Iranian origin, but who entered the province from Iraq, especially during the war. These are Iraqi Shi'a who were being persecuted by Saddam and came to Iran to escape that, and mainly settled in Khuzestan. Because they are officially refugees, they are not recognised as Iranians (because they obviously are not) nor are they included in the official census. And most of these refugees do live in the rural areas, that is correct. I'm not going to speculate as to what this regime plans to do with them since Saddam's regime has been toppled, but in any other country they would have to return to their land of origin, which in this case would be Iraq.

Also, there is the issue of those Arab tribes who invaded (yes, invaded) Khuzestan with the support and financial backing of the British in an effort to 'conquer' and occupy Khuzestan (to create a new country called 'Arabistan') from the mid-1800's to the 1920's. Reza Shah basically put an end to the British efforts and most of the tribes were eventually expelled, but some remnants remained and these were separate from the native Arab-speaking Khuzestani population, and these formed the basis of the fringe minority who were allied with Saddam, and who have been funded by the British (the so-called 'British Ahwazi Frienship Society' for example).

At any rate, the situation is complex due to these reasons and also ignorance amongst Westerners concerning the difference between Arab-speaking Iranians and Arabs who illegaly entered the country from elsewhere. Most Iranian Arabs I've met, both in Khuzestan and elsewhere in Iran, speak Persian on a daily basis and they do so of their own accord, not because they are forced to do so or because there is 'inherent' racism amongst Persians. We can debate numbers all we want, but it is generally accepted that both the Arabic-speaking and ethnic Arab population of Khuzestan are a minority. And as I've said before, Persian Khuzestanis have been steadily returning to their former homes and businesses in Khuzestan since the early 90's, and this rate has increased as the years have passed, especially since the Khorramshahr port was restored a few years ago, so the Persian Khuzestani population has increased considerably since the early-to-mid 90's, bringing the provinces ethnic and linguistic composition on par with the way it was prior to the war. Also, since Saddam's regime has collapsed, many Iraqi refugees have been returning to Iraq, and once Iraq has been fully stablised, it is not difficult to speculate that the remaining refugee population in Iran will return as well.

And lastly, but not least, and I realise this is dragging on, but this is an important point. So-called 'ethnic struggles' in Iran are vastly overplayed by Western media and watchdog groups, who operate from an anti-Iranian POV. Self-styled separatist groups amongst other ethnic groups like the Kurds and Azeris are a fringe minority who are extremely unpopular amongst the majority of those respective populations. For example, the Iranian Army and Navy include an incredibly large number of Azeris, and Kurds have increasingly been moving to major cities such as Tehran and Shiraz and intermarrying with Persians, despite the fact that today Kurdistan is largely an autonomous province. Iran has always been a diverse nation since ancient times, but it is a cohesive, tightly interwoven diversity, where ethnic conflicts have never been successful. Iran is not Yugoslavia, nor is it Europe, or the United States.

Iran faces many, many problems today, mostly in relation to this Islamist regime. Of all these problems, ethnic conflict is not one of them. SouthernComfort 11:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is most definitely racism towards Arabs in Iran and an assumption of ethnic Persian hegemony. I know it because I have experienced it, although I am glad this discussion on Khuzestan is not tainted by such prejudices. Of course, ethnic conflicts are not a problem in Tehran, but there are certainly problems in some provinces.

However, this is largely irrelevant to the issue of the number of Arabs in Khuzestan. You say: "it is generally accepted that both the Arabic-speaking and ethnic Arab population of Khuzestan are a minority". In my mind, this is not a sufficient explanation. I have given you some discussion over census figures. Based on the proportion of Arabs in each district, the figures vary from 1.4-3.0 million. This is far more than the 500,000 you are suggesting, which is absurdly low and does not correlate with the census data and the government's own statements and reports. I believe that the proportion of Arabs in Khuzestan is about 30% at the low end and 60% at the high end and that this should be stated.

Well, there is definitely racism towards Arabs from the 'Arab world,' yes, for obvious reaons, but I do not think there is any overwhelming prejudice towards Arabs of Iranian origin. I've never seen that, and certainly not in Khuzestan where most Arabs and Persians seem to get along just fine. I'm sure there are isolated incidents here and there, and unfortunately those do happen. But even in cities like Isfahan where there is only a very small Arab quarter (Ebne Sina district), there doesn't seem to be any prevalent prejudice towards them from everyone else. But all this is very subjective on my part. I can say that I have visited Khuzestan many times, and I've never seen any major problems, aside for anti-Arab remarks I would hear at times, but even this was rare.

As for the census numbers, I stated my reasons above, since we have to separate Iranian Arabs, who are included in the census, and foreign Arabs, who are not included in the official census. You will keep in mind that this regime in Iran is absurdly incompetent and often lumps both Iranian Arabs and foreign Arabs together, which is not only wrong, but stupid beyond reason. The Shah's government was more competent in that they did not confuse the two together. This is an important distinction that has to be made clear, that Iranian Arabs are first and foremost Iranian and consider themselves such, and that foreign Arabs (whether illegal immigrants or refugees) are not Iranian - and both are two extremely different groups from different cultures. Only their languages are the same.

And because of this confusion and the incompetency of the regime in maintaining proper census data, it is best to avoid stating any numbers in the article. It is generally accepted that Arabs are a minority, and if you prefer to say 'generally believed to be' that is fine. But stating any numbers will only add to POV. And lastly, I have to say, this recent 'ethnic conflict' in Iran was due to these foreign Arab media like al-Jazeera saying that the regime would forcibly displace them or deport them or whatever. I can only speculate that the regime was contemplating repatriating the Arab refugees from Iraq, an issue which has absolutely nothing to do with Iranian Arabs. And the Iranian Arab youth who rioted were Iranian - not from Iraqi refugee families. Anyway, I've made my point, that your numbers are inflated due to inclusion of the foreign Arab population. And again, they are not the same as Iranian Arabs. SouthernComfort 13:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of anti-Arab prejudice and the government's Persianisation programme. I agree that the regime is not competant at compiling census data - there are few things the regime is capable of, apart from demagoguery and tyranny. I do not accept, however, the notion that the discrepancy in figures can be accounted for by the number of "foreign" Arabs in Khuzestan, since the difference between the 500,000 "indigenous" Arabs you quote and the 1.4-3.0 million that one can extrapolate from government statistics and census figures. I would prefer it if we could avoid all statements about the proportion of Arabs as part of the population of Khuzestan. We could state the obvious and put that the Arabs are a small minority of Iran's overall population, but are concentrated in the province of Khuzestan and neighbouring areas. Would this be acceptable?--Ahwaz 14:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zereshk, you're setting up a straw man -- or strawperson <g> -- here. As I've told you over and over, I don't think that the origin of a name (whatever it is) has anything to do with the "ownership" or governance of a city. Zora 21:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical revisionism" accusation

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)[reply]

I did not make any major changes to this new section, nor am I against you including these groups' views. What I did do was change the assertion you've made that Khuzestan is actually 'Arabistan,' which is historical revisionism. What you're trying to say is that Persians (and this includes Loris, Bakhtiaris, Gilanis, etc) are not native to the region, that Khuzestan has no Iranian heritage, that before the Arabs invaded and occupied Iran there wasn't even any Khuzestan or province there to begin with. If that's not revisionism, then I don't know what is. Your arguments are reaching beyond the limits of absurdity. Please, do us all a favour and learn some historical facts. SouthernComfort 16:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Khuzestan was Arabistan nor am I making any explicit claims about who is native. Clearly, anyone who is born and resides there is a native, just as those who are not born there and do not reside there are not native Khuzestanis - although there are 30,000 Khuzestani Arab refugees currently living in tents in Iraq since they fled the Iran-Iraq War and they deserve some mention. I was simply stating what these political parties believed and that the historical debates over Khuzestan's ethnic heritage are part of the ethnic conflict within the province. To call this "historical revisionism" is POV. I suggest that you need to learn more about the Arabs of Khuzestan, instead of claiming that all those who identify themselves as such are loyalists of Saddam Hussein - a notion that is both false and prejudiced.--Ahwaz 17:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on historical revisionism

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)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Sheikh Khaz'al is already mentioned on the main Khuzestan page, and I certainly hope you don't want to use him as an example of Khuzestan's 'Arab heritage' considering he was backed by the British. You will recall that from the 1800's to the 1920's there were several attempts by invading Arab tribes supported by British colonialists to conquer Khuzestan. Khuzestan was never autonomous, and all Reza Shah did was to permanently end the British-supported invasions by pan-Arabists. If this is your idea of an Arab heritage, a few failed attempts to conquer an Iranian province by foreign Arab tribes, then this heritage only goes back to the 1800's. You will recall that never at any time in history have Iranian Arabs considered themselves anything but Iranian. SouthernComfort 16:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Arabs consider themselves something other than Iranian. The Iranians don't give them much choice anyway. I reject the notion that the Arab tribes were "invaders". Arabs both sides of the border share a culture, history and language. The borders drawn by empires are arbitrary and political - as they are in much of the Middle East. Empires are not the same as nation states. They are about domination and they tend to be culturally diverse, but dominated by one particular ethnic group. The fact that Khuzestani Arabs have at various times been ruled by Persian imperial rulers does not mean they can be identified with the modern Iranian state. That's why there is a dispute and debate - and why this page exists on Wikipedia. You are trying to discount Arab identity because of your own Persian nationalism. But the fact is that the Arab identity of "Khuzestan" goes back further than Saddam Hussein - who you blame for ethnic conflict, despite the fact that the April riots are occurring while Saddam is incarcerated. Even members of the Majlis acknowledge that socio-economic divides are along class and that the abuse by executive members of the government of the Arab minority. I recommend that you read this article - http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/images/identity.pdf - on the identity of indigenous Arabs of Khuzestan by an academic who is now in prison for speaking the truth.

As for my own opinions, I have always actively opposed Saddam Hussein, I reject Ba'athism and have no interest in violent nationalism of any variety, Arab or Persian. I dislike intensely any foreign attempt to hijack Arab identity for its own nefarious ends. Nor have I tried to advance these ideas, if you examine what I have written. I am, however, keen to bring attention to Arab identity in Khuzestan and the suffering and persecution of Ahwazi Arabs by those who have ruled them. Those who object to this are usually monarchist nationalists or supporters and sympathisers of the current tyranny and often argue back with anti-Arab insults and accusations - although, I admit, you have not shown this kind of racial hatred yet. I have witnessed and suffered anti-Arab racism in Iran and in the UK and am mindful that there are many out there who wish to attack us and vilify us.--Ahwaz 16:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly obvious that no matter how much historical fact is presented to you, that you are going to reject it anyway. Let's be absolutely clear about something. Khuzestan has *always* been part of Iran, from the very beginning, and is just as much a part of Iran as Fars or Mazandaran or any other province. It was not a territory or nation under the dominion of the Persian Empire. Khuzestan is where the nation of Iran began, and formed the very centre of this nation and continues to be the most vital province in the country, both historically and economically. This is historical fact and is not open to debate, and to argue against it is to enter into the realm of blatant historical revisionism. Furthermore, Khuzestan has never had an Arab identity. There is a Khuzestani culture, just as there is a Farsi culture and an Isfahani culture, but Khuzestani culture is not Arabic. I'd like to see you present your arguments to the people of Shushtar, whose bloodlines in the province are the most ancient of any group in the region, whose culture and legacy form the basis of Khuzestani culture - and they are not Arabs. I could go on and on and on, but you will continue to reject the facts.

The past cannot be erased or eradicated or distorted to suit your own purposes. The history is established, the facts are there for all to see for themselves. As for your other statements and insinuations, I've gone over them in previous comments. SouthernComfort 18:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SouthernComfort:

Nobody likes the rulers of Iran. Persian, or Azari, or Kurdish. Evin Prison is in fact filled with mostly Persians.
Khuzestan is part of Iran. There is no debate there.
'Ahwaz' seems to forget that it is mandatory in Iran to learn Arabic in all schools for 7 years. Last I remember, some dumbass ayatollahs even tried bulldozing Persepolis. Talk about "erasing Arab identity".--Zereshk 23:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV template applied

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)[reply]

I completely agree with you. I feel that I cannot contribute anything here because anything I write is changed to suit a Persian idea of history. The Arab rulers of Khuzestan in history and the Arab ethnicity in the province are completely cast aside, even though these issues and the debates surrounding them are essential to understanding ethnic conflict in Khuzestan. If there was no debate and no problem of ethnic conflict in Khuzestan and if Arabs were happily living in harmony and equality with other ethnic groups, then there would not have been an uprising in Ahwaz City and other towns in the province last month. It is not a matter of separatism or historical revisionism, but simply a way of understanding the conflict in Khuzestan, which goes beyond the Iran-Iraq War. And there is no basis for the claim that the politicisation of Arab identity is solely rooted in Saddam Hussein's attempts to control the province, even if some Iranian Arab insurgents took the opportunist step of aligning with the Ba'athists. There are plenty of Iranian Arabs - such as the academic Yosef Azizi Banitrouf - who also feel strongly that their identity is being repressed by a policy of Persianisation and who have never lifted a gun. Why should the mullahs' censorship be allowed to creep into Wikipedia?--Ahwaz 10:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, as I have stated on Talk:Ahvaz, take up my challenge and prove us wrong. You cannot us me or any other user of being POV unless you can present SOLID historical facts from an ACADEMIC or SCHOLARLY source that will contradict the current information in these pages. Presenting the viewpoints of a racist, anti-Iranian pan-Arabist group (from their website) is not good enough. If you want to bring admins into this, go right ahead. I invite to invite all your friends. History is on our side here, and you cannot abuse it, or violate it, or change it, or deny it. Stop being abusive and stop vandalising these pages - instead take up the challenge and let us see what exactly you will find. SouthernComfort 11:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Comfort: Where have "racist" views been published by Zora on this page? All I can see is a blatant campaign by you to assert the false claim that Khuzestan has no Arab history. You have disregarded any of the Arab influences and periods of Arab rule as "invasions" - a claim that is rooted in the myth of Persian racial supremacy. There is no examination of the tribal Arab identities that span the Iran-Iraq border, their common language, religion and dress - a border created by conflict and imperialism, not by natural delineation of racial or ethnic groups. You confuse nationality with ethnicity and history with heredity. Yet you have the gall to call me a "Nazi" in a discussion on the Ahwaz talk page. There is definitely a need for arbitration on this page.--Ahwaz 11:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I'm tired of dealing with you, Ahwaz. I've responded to all these absurdities that you have presented in this discussion over and over and over again. Anyone who disputes the information in these pages is welcome to go to the library and look it all up for themselves. Can you understand that, Ahwaz? I'll say it again just to be 100% clear: These pages, as they are, are factually and historically accurate. Anyone who disputes this accuracy can go check the references for themselves. Should be easy enough, no? Until then, I would hope bigots like Zora stop abusing Wikipedia for their own revisionist ends. SouthernComfort 12:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also tired of dealing with you. I object to the pages as they are. They are not a true and neutral account of ethnic conflict in Khuzestan. They negate a large amount of Arab history in the province. You won't even allow Sheikh Khazal and other Arab leaders in Khuzestan to enter into the province's history. You are deliberately slanting history and portraying your own point of view as fact. You say "Khuzestan was never autonomous" - a lie. You say "all Reza Shah did was to permanently end the British-supported invasions by pan-Arabists" - a lie: the British supported Reza Shah to strengthen his rule and prevent incursion of Bolshevism in the Middle East. Besides, pan-Arabist ideologies - such as the Nasserite and Ba'athist ideologies that informed the Ahwazi movements of the 1980s - were not in currency at the time. You talk about "foreign Arab tribes" - a lie, since tribes either side of the border have a common culture and origin. There is plenty of evidence to support the premise that Tehran is carrying out a policy of aggressive Persianisation in Khuzestan.

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, thousands of hectares of land traditionally owned by Arab farmers have been confiscated to support the sugar and oil industries controlled by ethnic Persians. The government has a policy of moving in ethnic Persians into Khuzestan from other provinces. Why do you think the riots occurred? Because of this policy of ethnic restructuring. But the fact that you are not willing to accept this evidence shows that you are using Wikipedia to advance your own political opinions. You are completely in violation of Wikipedia rules by running your own version of history as fact.--Ahwaz 13:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comments throughout this page. I've responded to these and other allegations and accusations more than enough times already. SouthernComfort 13:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh yes I have, Zora. I've challenged you to present solid evidence that will prove that the information in these pages is not historically factual. You are more than welcome to visit the library and check all the references for yourself. As I've said, everything is verifiable, and no one is stopping you from checking it all out for yourself. So far, you have not done this, instead preferring to delve into historical speculation and revisionism. Debating with you and Ahwaz is not unlike debating with those who state, and all quite sincerely so, that the earth is indeed flat. They may believe it's flat, contrary to scientific evidence, but that doesn't mean they're right. SouthernComfort 14:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you and Zereshk keep posting and reposting the text from the Khuzestan governor's office, without attribution -- copyvio. Anyway, this text claims that Avaz, as the name of a town, is found in one of the inscriptions of the Achaemenid king Darius. So I went looking to verify that. I thought it was referring to the famous Behistun text, but while there are mentions of Elam/Susiana in there, nothing about any cities. I did find one fragment of an inscription from Susa which mentions an Elamite town called Abiradu, as a source of stone. There's nothing to indicate to me that Abiradu and Avaz have anything to do with each other. And could you explain exactly what is meant by anagram? That's just a start. Zora 15:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't posted anything from the governor's office. I've read the info on that site and it's all from valid historical texts and the references are verifiable. What's your point? There are lots of sites with information of Khuzestan - their info all comes from history books. I've clarified the wording (as far as the English translations of these words go) on 'Ahvaz' being derived from 'Avaz' so that you can start condemning all the other aspects of Khuzestan's history. As I've said, whatever information or references are presented to you, you will reject them anyway. Again, I challenge you to prove this information wrong and to use valid historical arguments rather than political propaganda. SouthernComfort 15:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And just so you don't distort what I wrote above or try to use my own comments against me, I meant 'transliteration.' In the Persian and Old Persian scripts, Ahvaz may indeed be an anagram of Avaz.

Do you know what an anagram is? Zora 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go look it up for yourself if you don't know what it means. SouthernComfort 08:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I am relying on historical data presented by historians and linguists, and I am not expert enough in 'prove' this without delving deeply into Iranian linguistics, which is not my field of expertise, so I have clarified the wording to reflect that Ahvaz is derived from the Achaemanian Iranian root words of Avaz/Avaja.

But how do you know that? Can you cite any inscriptions on which Avaz appears? Zora 23:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The inscriptions have been cited. Your ignorance is not amusing and as I've stated again and again, go read what the historians have to say for yourself. I am not going to respond to you anymore as we have gone over this countless times, and there is no dispute in these matters, except in your mind. SouthernComfort 08:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the primary sources and they do not agree with the contention on the government website. You say that the inscriptions have been cited and they have NOT. Where is the proof that Ahvaz appears in surviving Achaemenian inscriptions? Zora 09:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That should be good enough until I have time to go into further linguistic details unless you start presenting yet other problems with this summary. SouthernComfort 16:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Comfort: Why don't you read this article by an Iranian scholar on the subject of Arab identity in Khuzestan: http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/images/identity.pdf It will explain far more than you have on the issue and from a academic stand-point - although, it must be pointed out to you, that within any academic field there is debate. This is one such debate.--Ahwaz 15:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwaz, I'm not against you providing links to such documents, and I don't believe I've removed any of the links you have added, nor have I altered much of the section on political groups other than to state that in comparison with established historical facts accepted by mainstream authorities, such ideas are revisionist. And I agree there is plenty of debate on Arab identity in Khuzestan, and that anti-Arab prejudice exists. But to go so far as to say that Khuzestan has Arab origins or that Arabs were there before Persians, or that Ahvaz is an Arabic word, or whatever, these are all controversial and revisionist when stacked against established history. But if you want to include the views of Arab academics from Iran in this article (who are not affiliated with these propaganda groups), be my guest - I'm not against that at all, as long as it is made clear that these are not established facts. SouthernComfort 15:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Comfort: I have not said that Khuzestan has an Arab origin. I have only mentioned the province has an Arab history and identity. I never said this was applicable to all who live in the province or that this is the provinces sole identity. There is obviously a Persian ethnic group in Khuzestan with a Persian history and I have never doubted that. Nor am I interested in the origin of the word Ahwaz/Ahvaz. To me, these are arcane discussions and have little to do with the issue of ethnic conflict in Khuzestan.

I have made no links to party political propaganda, other than to give greater understanding of party platforms. I certainly have not referenced propaganda as fact. Look at what I have written. It is not propaganda. I have made clear what these organisations are about and their history in a way that I think is impartial and informed. You simply cannot suggest that I am reproducing propaganda or that I am a racist. That is out of order.

One more point. You say: "if you want to include the views of Arab academics from Iran in this article (who are not affiliated with these propaganda groups), be my guest - I'm not against that at all, as long as it is made clear that these are not established facts." I reject the notion that only Persian scholars are better able to relay history than Iranian Arab scholars. There is a debate here and we must not make judgements as to whether one academic opinion is worth more than another.

Are we agreed, at least, that there are some issues that are subject to debate and that this debate should be reflected in the entry on Ethnic Conflict in Khuzestan? I don't want to waste my time writing something, only for it to be deleted.--Ahwaz 16:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never called you yourself a racist. I have called some of these groups racist in that they want to establish an ethnically chauvinist Arab state which naturally would require everyone else to leave. That's racism, and just because the regime is prejudiced towards the nation's Arab minority doesn't make that right, to go to this other extreme. And I never said that Persian scholars are better - the historical information presented on these pages comes from a variety of sources, most of them non-Persian. But anyway, I'm not the dictator of Wikipedia and you can present what you want in the article, but I would hope you maintain some balance and can differentiate between established historical facts and historical speculation/revisionism. If you ask me, it would be better to concentrate on the current realities and dilemmas faced by Khuzestani Arabs. And please keep in mind that Khuzestani Arabs aren't the only ones being screwed by the regime - the Persian and non-Arab population of Khuzestan have been screwed just as badly. The difference is that Arabs also have to contend with racism. But both groups in Khuzestan have been wronged, as evidenced by the lack of development in the province on the part of the regime. As I've always said, oil wealth goes only into the pockets of the mullahs, and not the average Iranian, regardless of their ethnic background. SouthernComfort 16:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And also let me add that historically, Iran's Arab community has always been firmly with Iran, as evidenced in the unity of the nation and province in the face of Saddam's invasion. These secessionist movements are fairly recent in the history of Iran, and there is no evidence that most Iranian Arabs have favoured such movements. Even today, despite the regime, I have personally never seen these attitudes amongst Arabs in Iran. But there is no way to tell since these movements are all based out of Iran, and within Iran no one has ever taken the risk in trying to find out what Iranian Arabs think of all this. SouthernComfort 16:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My revisions

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)[reply]

Your vandalism of Khuzestan, Ahvaz, and this article are not appreciated. BTW, for anyone who is curious, Yusef Bani-Torof is a great journalist, but a horrible scholar - he claims the Elamites were Semitic. SouthernComfort 06:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SC, you aren't even engaging with me. No matter how much research I do, not matter how many references I add, no matter how much time I spend rewriting, no matter how hard I try to be inclusive, you just revert to your flawed version. This is just plain wrong. It is also wrong to call my edits vandalism. I know what vandalism is -- I revert it all the time. It is not vandalism to write something with which you disagree. Zora 07:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted everything without discussion. That is vandalism. SouthernComfort 07:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a considerable overlap between your version and mine. I included your whole section on separatist movements. As for discussion -- you've refused to discuss. You just say that I'm "insane" and ignore me. How can I discuss with someone who pretends I don't exist?

I've come up with three sources for the Abide Emirate, and a source you otherwise accept, the Encylopedia Iranica, for the province being named Arabestan under the Sassanid and Qajar dynasties. Yet you wiped all that out as if it didn't matter. I've got three sources for population estimates, and you just toss them all out. OK, so discuss!!!

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)[reply]

Yes, I tried very hard to ignore you because of your constant deletions (Khuzestan and Ahvaz) which is frustrating considering all the work that has been put in, not to mention the fact that I have tried very hard to be inclusive as possible in regards to Iranian Arab history in Khuzestan (which I believe to be extremely important as their history cannot be denied) - my edits in that area are not quite finished. The history of Khuzestan under the Safavids and Qajars is very obscure, which is why I've avoided most references to those eras until I come up with some consensus of what exactly went on during those eras. You have to realise that both dynasties virtually ignored the province (it had no official name - it's last official time prior to the Islamic era had been Elam) and most of the province was dominated by nomadic tribes (Arab, Bakhtiari, Luri, Qashqai, etc. - the first three being the most dominant), as well as the Persian peoples of Shushtar, Behbahan, Dezful, Ahvaz (mixed Persian/Arab population), etc. This is how Sheikh Khaz'al came to be dominant in the province (or at least the Arab region) in the first place, along with the Bakhtiari Khans (who dominated the rest of the province under Qajar rule). I would prefer taking time to find out the details of Safavi/Qajar era provincial history so as not to speculate unnecessarily.

BTW, are you using the online version of Iranica? For some reason the Khuzestan (listed as Kuzestan) doesn't seem to work. SouthernComfort 08:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

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)[reply]

When did I ever write in one of these articles that Khaz'al invaded Khuzestan? The tribe from which he came did technically 'invade' (mid-1800's) with British support (as part of their colonialist efforts). His tribe wasn't an Iranian Arab tribe (he was of Kuwaiti origin, connected with the al-Sabah family - I don't think you're disputing this though). He himself didn't invade anything, and I haven't mentioned whether or not he was born in Iran - in regards to him I have tried to be fairly ambiguous until I can verify further details. If and when I go to Iran later this summer, I'll be able to meet his family and try to find out exact details (this might go too far in original research - I'm hoping they have some sort of documentation from that era).

Historical accuracy is one thing, but please do not delete content without first making some sort of clear objection so that others can explain. This so-called 'conflict' between us (which was originally a conflict between yourself and Zereshk from the Shi'a articles) could have averted if you had not gone this route, i.e. deleting everything outright. Ahwaz's original contentions as far as these articles were concerned was not so much the ancient history (or even middle period - Safavi/Qajar), but the fact that there was very little mention of Iranian Arabs and their current realities. And he was right.

I haven't quoted Elton Daniel. I'm not the only editor here you know. By the way, the conflict between Iran and Britain was waged between the mid-1800's up until the early 1920's. Iran did win in the end. I never mentioned any details about this conflict other than that there were several attempts by Britain to conquer southern Iran (especially Khuzestan).

Khuzestan (which itself as a name is a modernization of Susiana) had no official name after the Islamic invasion, and the history as far as names are concerned is very fuzzy in this area. My speculation is that a part of the province (Ahvaz and surrounding areas) was called 'Suq al-Ahwaz' (which also was the same region which formed Khaz'al's emirate much later on). That is, 'Suq al-Ahwaz' not only referred to the city, but the region as well (but not the whole of Khuzestan). This is my personal opinion, however, and I can't prove this.

Whatever the case, I'm asking you to please not delete anything. If there are specific changes that you wish to make, I would ask that you discuss them first, as too much work has gone into the articles and the consistent format. I'm willing to make changes here and there - I have never said that these articles were 100% finished, since no article ever truly is. But just as with the situation with Jguk, I do not want my efforts to have been entirely in vain. Can you understand where I'm coming from? SouthernComfort 09:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, as to my opinion about the regional name 'Suq al-Ahwaz' - to further clarify, it is my contention that this was the actual post-Islamic name (unofficial as it was) rather than Arabistan (until Khaz'al's reign that is). But again, this is purely my opinion. SouthernComfort 10:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, contrary to what you may think, I do not look at Sheikh Khaz'al was being a bad guy - far from it, in fact. I have a lot of respect for the man and his family (they are very good and respected people). However, as with Reza Shah, I am critical of what he did, i.e. choosing to align himself with the British. Both Sheikh Khaz'al and Reza Shah betrayed Iran. Sheikh Khaz'al because he wanted to separate Khuzestan from Iran, and Reza Shah because he oppressed ethnic minorities and imposed Western ideas of 'nation-state' (totally alien to Iranian ideas of nationhood - prior to Pahlavi, all provinces were relatively autonomous within the Iranian national 'matrix'). But both Sheikh Khaz'al and Reza Shah did a lot of good for Iran as well. Again, I'm only stating my opinions in the hope that you can understand more about my way of thought and in the hope for this 'revert' conflict to end. SouthernComfort 10:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I checked Iranica and according to C.E. Bosworth "... the province was known, as in Safavid times, as 'Arabestan' and during the Qajar period was administratively a governor-generalate." If that's all you wanted to put in, why did you have to delete everything else in order to do so? I've added it in to the main article. SouthernComfort 13:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been warped into Persian nationalist fantasia

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)

Lil things

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.

The concept of "autonomy" may be Western, but the on-the-ground fact has been there for millenia. You read any history of the old empires and you see that there are periods of strong central governments (where the government could replace governors and extract tax revenues) and weak central governments (where the governors were too strong to be easily replaced, and kept most of the taxes). Weak central governments tended to dissolve into warring states. Zora 09:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

I agree with you, as "autonomy" is clearly a modern political concept of Western origin. Perhaps it would be better to describe the state of western Khuzestan under the Arabs as having been "relatively autonomous," but even this might be historically inaccurate as the Safavids had successfully fought against the Msha'sha'iya and brought them under their rule.

You can't even generalize by dynasty. There were strong rulers and weak rulers, and even within one ruler's reign the extent of control over the outer provinces might vary. Zora 09:23, 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.

The article still needs work, and in particular the section 'Ethnic grievances' (originated by Zora) is too much of a generalization, i.e. using the statements of one individual as an example of evidence of widespread racism against Arabs. The section itself claims that Khuzestani Arabs feel as if they are unfairly stigmatized due to perceived complicity during Saddam's invasion (in other words, taking Saddam's side), and then states that no academic account of the war reveals any evidence that Khuzestani Arabs fought against Iran. It is a confused mess and far too speculative and general.

I think I said "some" people were prejudiced against Arabs. You guys clearly are; the person quoted was. I've run into other quotes re prejudice, but didn't collect them. Arabs being stigmatized as "lizard eaters", frex. Percentages? We wouldn't know without surveys, and I don't think the government would let anyone do a survey on ethnic/linguistic prejudices. Zora 09:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dont think the term "Lizard eaters" is meant as a racial insult. It really exists: see [6] --Zereshk 10:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something can be mostly true, but still offensive. Frex, US racists associate African-Americans and watermelons. "All them darkies love to eat watermelon!" I (white) eat watermelon; I don't think it's wrong to eat watermelon. There are lots of people who eat watermelon, white and black. But stereotyping African-Americans as watermelon-eaters is perceived as hostile and racist. I have the strong impression that dismissing Arabs as "lizard-eaters" is much the same thing. It could be worse, if other Iranians see lizards as an inherently disgusting food. Perhaps like Koreans and dog-eating. Some Koreans do eat dogs, but ... it's an explosive topic. Zora 03:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, it's not something commonly associated with Iranian Arabs. I believe this practice is primarily restricted to Bedouin Arabs. In all the time I have spent in Khuzestan (and I visit Iran at least once a year typically), I have never seen this activity amongst Khuzestani Arabs, nor have I heard mention of it in reference to them. It wouldn't be appropriate to link this activity with them. SouthernComfort 04:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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 revert my changes and say it's because I don't discuss, but when I discuss, you ignore me. WILL you guys be collaborative? Zora 09:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm from Khuzestan. People have bias against arabs just like bias against African Americans in the US. These are some ignorant people and do not represent the general people. Sure there may have been Arab traitors in the war, but there were also Iranian ones.

British troops in Khuzestan

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)

I wasn't going to respond because you had just accused me of being an anti-Arab racist. If you start calling me a racist, I won't respond. I've responded to most of these queries before anyway. Concerning the British during the two world wars, they had troops stationed everywhere, not just in Khuzestan. See [7]. british activity in southern Iran was not restricted to Khuzestan and they were not there as an 'occupying force.' During WW2, the Allied forces (British, Soviet, American) simultaneously invaded Iran (see Persian Corridor for details). Again, these issues are covered in other more appropriate articles. I don't know if there is an article on Iran and WW1, but maybe there should be if there isn't already. I'll have to check.

The British were repulsed from the mid-1800's until the 1890's.

Not so. You may be thinking of the Tobacco Monopoly agitation, in which the boycott forces did indeed make the shah cancel the concession (but then the Persian government had to pay a large indemnity, so it was an ambiguous "win".) The British usually got their way, however, except when Russia bestirred itself to oppose them. As for the outcome of the Anglo-Persian war, here's Elton Daniel (not my favorite historian, but he's what I've got through my Questia account):

This time, the Iranian campaign was successful, and Herat was captured in October 1856. The British immediately declared war on Iran, which they pursued from the Persian Gulf rather than risking an attack on Herat. They occupied Kharg Island in December and landed forces at Bushire in January 1857. Mohammereh was bombarded and occupied in March, by which time the Iranians had already agreed to the Treaty of Paris mediated by Napoleon III. Britain’s problem throughout the war had been that it wanted to remove Herat from Iranian control, but without inflicting a defeat severe enough to produce chaos in Iran or drive the country entirely to the Russians. The terms agreed to at Paris were therefore remarkably generous; Iran had to give up claims to Herat and all other Afghan territory and Murray was returned as minister, but there were no reparations imposed and Nouri was allowed to retain his office.

There's no way you can read that as a defeat for the British. Zora 06:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you talking about Afghanistan? Sheikh Jabir successfully drove the British out of Muhammerah. Kasravi also wrote extensively concerning the conflict with Britain in western Khuzestan (centered in Muhammerah). SouthernComfort 08:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The British attacked Iran from the Persian Gulf, which was easily accessible by ship, rather than send troops overland from India to Herat. They captured Mohammerah -- but owing to the slowness of communications, they captured the city AFTER the peace treaty was signed. That's why they withdrew. Zora 08:02, 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.

As for whether or not Jabir had an 'emirate,' this is incorrect. He was a strong tribal leader and he was very much willingly subject to the Qajar Shah. One could argue that western Khuzestan was an autonomous region under his domination. All tribal areas in Iran were technically autonomous. The Bakhtiari region of Khuzestan, for example, and Lorestan, Baluchistan. He didn't have any system of government, he didn't assign governors to towns and villages, most of his tribe were not even settled in towns and villages at the time. There was no 'emirate' according to the definition of that term and Sheikh Jabir was not an 'emir.' Khaz'al, however, established an actual 'emirate' (with himself as emir) with set boundaries and it's own capital (Muhammerah), system of government, his sons became the governors of towns and villages, he had emissaries in Tehran (and for the British) acting as his representatives, and so on. Khaz'al also ruled independently from the Qajar court (but not independently from the British), unlike both his father and brother.

But you don't give any sources for these assertions. Nor for the assertion that Sheikh Khaz'al murdered his brother. Zora 06:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kasravi, Five Hundred Year History of Khuzestan, among others. SouthernComfort 07:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm still doing a lot of research in this area (as well as regarding the Msha'sha'iya) and I'll have a lot of data and references available once I'm in Iran where there is a wealth of information available in Arabic and Persian. So far my primary sources for this data have been the writings of Ahmad Kasravi (available in Persian language from Mazda Pub., I believe), as well as additional details from a couple of Iranian Arab writer friends of mine in Iran, and I'll have all the references sorted out and listed at some point once I have obtained appropriate translations of the relevant sections (this is easier said than done). SouthernComfort 05:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ahmad Kasravi? I just googled him. He was apparently a man of strong opinions and ferocious patriotism. Not to mention that he wrote more than fifty years ago. That's not an impressive source. Zora 06:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He was a staunch defender of ethnic minorities and very well versed in the history of Khuzestan, so much so that Iranian Arab writers like Yusef Bani-Torof have referenced him (and consider him a prime authority). All you seem to do is condemn both myself and Zereshk and whatever sources we come up with as being "patrotic" and "not impressive." Whatever. I'm not a professional translator and as I've said, it will take me some time to get the relevant sections properly translated for inclusion, among all the other texts available in Iran (where pro. translation is much more affordable). If you want to order the book and spend the money to have it translated, be my guest. Why don't you put your animosity aside and assume good faith? Zereshk has provided way more than enough references for the etymology section, and I will be doing the same for these subjects. And don't ever call me a racist again. SouthernComfort 07:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Ahahaha, poking about in the genealogy I found [8], there's a reference to Maz'al being "assassinated" on a landing stage, and being succeeded by his youngest brother. No mention that his younger brother and successor killed him. (Probably there wouldn't be, since the website seems to have gotten its info from the family of the Kabides.) I would imagine that if Khaz'al WERE implicated in the death, that he would have hired an assassin rather than do it himself. Of course, if Maz'al had been assassinated on the orders of someone else, Khaz'al might have been blamed in any case, as being the one who benefited by the assassination. I've got no particular reason to think that Sheikh Khaz'al was a paragon of morality, or better than the thousands of princes (of all times and nations) who came to power over the corpses of their brothers, but I'd like more info before putting the "murder" into the history as a fact. Praps the info will be in the 1974 U of Chicago dissertation I ordered.

I guess the reason that I want proof is that SC's version casts him as an all-round villain -- unpatriotic, conniving, murderous, treacherous, etc. -- the bad guy in a nationalist morality play. He may have been a bad guy, but "unpatriotic" or "splitting the sacred motherland" are not on my list of bad qualities.

Show the diffs where I call Sheikh Khaz'al a "villain" and "unpatriotic, conniving, murderous, treacherous, etc." SouthernComfort 21:51, 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.

A fratricide -- first fact you proclaim. The disclaimer is in parens, as less reliable. "Proclaimed himself the ruler" -- but did he? I didn't see that anywhere. He inherited his position as local ruler, negotiated with the Qajar court, was appointed governor-General. That wording implies that he was an upstart disturbing the right and usual order of things.

Out-and-out Arab secessionism in the western region began during this time under Khaz'al's rule.

Again, you're making that sound as if it were some departure from the usual. Empires grow and splinter. The Qajars were in the splintering period, and often had little control outside the capital. This has happened OVER and OVER again in Persian history.

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.

You're trying to minimize his position. If he was governor-general of the province, theoretically he was the overlord of the whole shebang, including the nomads. In fact, he had the same problem as the shah -- what he theoretically controlled, and what he actually controlled, differed dramatically. "Became his capital" -- I believe that the Kabides had had a palace at Mohammerah for quite some time.

Zora 00:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I posted a link to a recent article re company towns in Khuzestan. One of the illuminating points that the article made is that Kuwait exists because the British supported the emir of Kuwait in his bid for independence from the Ottomans. Kuwait, like the Kabide emirate, was one of those "semi-independent" principalities. Sheikh Khaz'al may well have been counting on British support to repeat the same manoeuvre, but vis-a-vis the Persians this time. He didn't take overall British policy into account ... Zora 21:42, 10 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)

Mustafaa, I have no objection to this source (which offers a different POV), so long as my contribs are not deleted. Feel free to make the necessary adjustments where appropriate. SouthernComfort 21:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only difference between the two POV would be "He established a virtually autonomous emirate in 1897 with British support and protection." vs "He made his emirate virtually autonomous in 1897 with British support and protection." I wonder if a phrasing that's ambiguous can be found? - Mustafaa 21:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the latter would be the best choice for now. I'll add it in. Should've thought of this phrasing before. Thanks. In the meantime I'll try to think of more ambiguous phrasing, but really, I think that's as ambiguous as we can get. I'm open to more suggestions, however. SouthernComfort 22:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the work in the Arab sources, Mustafaa. It really helps to have someone involved who can read Arabic. For one thing, it corrects my misapprehension, based on one source, that it was the Abide rather than the Kabide emirate. Zora 21:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The tribe are called the Kaab (or Kab), not the Ab. His source says nothing about 'Abide' (this is meaningless). Why would you call it that? SouthernComfort 21:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said, because the one ONLINE English-language source I could find [9] (or at least the one that gave the emirate a name) called it the Kabide emirate once, and the Abide emirate several times. I went with the most-used form. Now I see that the source was shoddily proofread. Zora 22:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Woo! New links!

Determined googling produced this fascinating article on the oil industry of Khuzestan [10] and also this letter from Hirad Dinavari [11]:

No nationalist ideology, be it Persian, Azeri, Pan-Turanist, Kurdish, Arab, Zionist, Armenian or Afghan will give you the full picture. They are all wrong! I am glad you are reading history, but please read objective history, avoid ideologs with an agenda like Ahmad Kasravi. I am not saying he is wrong, or his research is faulty, I am saying he uses history to push his Iranian nationalist ideology. I am a history major and love the history of the Balkans, Turkey, Caucasus (Ghafghaz), Iran, Iraq, the Arab world, Afghanistan, Central Asia and India. I have lived in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Turkey.

Zora 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Shi'a millenarians

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)

The Dujayl? That is funny - that means the "Little Tigris" (diminutive of Dajla.) But yes, I do find myself wondering about that claim - if Arabs were living as far afield as Termez (modern Uzbekistan!) by 900 (as for Al-Tirmidhi), there were surely at least some Arabs scattered in Khuzestan substantially before 1500. I'll see if I can read up on the issue. - Mustafaa 00:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The previous version said nothing about when the Arabs arrived in Khuzestan. It only stated that Arab secessionism began in 1897 under Khaz'al.

Concerning the Msha'sha'iya, Kasravi wrote a very detailed book about them which I will be getting ahold of. I'm not sure if categorizing them as millenarian would be accurate, though it's possible considering Falah's claims regarding Imam Ali and the Mahdi and the messianic nature of the sect. I believe it is inaccurate, however, since one could argue based upon this line of reasoning that Shi'ism in general is millenarian, and it seems too much of a sweeping generalization.

It's possible, given that they were Shi'a, that they had Persian followers, but this is too speculative. It's clear from my readings so far that the Msha'sha'iya contributed a great deal to the culture of western Khuzestan and in establishing an indigenous Arab culture unique to the region. The Safavids apparently viewed them as a competing school of religious thought and thus a threat to the rest of Iran. The history concerning this period (from the Abbasids to the Qajars) is not vague - it's just that most, if not all, of the material concerning this subject is in Arabic and Persian, and there has not been enough interest in Western academia (as with Iran studies in general in this day and age) in opening this field up to English-speaking scholars. It's unfortunate considering the very diversity that can be found in this region. Khuzestani Arabs also have a rich oral tradition, like other tribal groups, which covers all this, and much of it has been documented and published in recent decades, and hopefully I will be able to bring plenty of material back with me and introduce articles that present their history as they interpret it (separate from history as scholars present it). SouthernComfort 01:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References

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)

More sources

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:

While the terms of the treaty were clear, both sides continued to intervene in each other’s territory. The creation of the new and independent state Muhammarah (modern-day Khorramshar, Iran) in 1812 added a new dimension to the conflict. Iraqi governors and the Persian Shahs vied for control over Muhammarah. By 1840, tensions over nomadic tribes and attacks on Muhammarah nearly brought the two empires to war. However, Britain established a boundary commission composed of Iranian, Turkish, British and Russian diplomats to mediate the conflict. In 1847, the Persians and Ottomans, with the help of the newly created commission, approved the second Treaty of Erzurum.

The second revision emphasized the importance of the Shatt al-Arab river. Persia was given control of the land east of the Shatt al-Arab while the Ottomans received sovereignty of the land west of the Shatt al-Arab.8 In addition to the new border distinctions, the treaty made clear that the Persian government could not interfere in Northern Iraq (particularly in dealing with Kurdish tribes).9 In return, Persia was given control over Muhammarah. The second revision of the treaty not only outlined new terms for the two empires, but also brought the first foreign intervention in Iranian-Iraqi relations. While small, occasional border disputes would occur, the two empires would not engage in another large-scale war due to the presence of the foreign powers.

- Mustafaa 21:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helpful in understanding the backrgound alluded to is [13]: "This treaty did not establish a frontier line, but “rather, it described that strip of land in which the authority of both sultan and shah was weak and disputed. Somewhere within that zone lay the boundary.” And this treaty (Treaty of Zohab) was as precise as it gets until the Second Treaty of Erzurum! - Mustafaa 21:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enc. Iranica is very helpful too. - Mustafaa 21:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've made substantial edits reflecting this information. See what you think. - Mustafaa 21:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wording

"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)

It's in reference to ethnic conflict, i.e. whites killing blacks, Serbs killing Bosnians and Croats, the conflict between Russians and Chechens, etc. There is no precendent for this type of conflict. But it goes beyond this as well. For example, you mention the Kurds. Before Reza Shah, each Iranian province basically had much autonomy, both cultural and political, and Iranian Kurdistan was no exception. Kurdistan (where the Kurds are a vast majority) today is fairly autonomous (culturally and linguistically, and politically to an extent), which is why Kurdish nationalist/separatist movements like Komalah and the Kurdish Democratic Party don't have as much support as they used to. The conflict between the Parthians and Seleucids was like any conflict between rival dynasties, power and domination. It was not an ethnic conflict. SouthernComfort 04:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's a first quote from the Mostafa Ansari dissertation, re the Persian and Arab communities of Mohammerah:

What originated as doctrinal differences between rival mullas soon engulfed the Persian and Arab communities. Consequently, intracommunal fights at the time of Ashura were a common feature of urban life in Muhammerah, and persisted as late as 1920. (Ansari, 1974, pp. 47-48)

Then there's a quote, page 17, from a British official who says "Between the lower classes of Arabs and Persians the hostile feeling is undisguised."

Also noted is feuding between Arab and Baktiari tribes. The Baktiari were winning until the Arabs, as a result of increased trade through the Persian Gulf, were able to acquire breech-loading rifles. Sure sounds like violent ethnic conflict to me ... Zora 04:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's incorrect. What you're talking about are tribal feuds, and such feuds never had anything to do with ethnicity or racism and reflected tribal divisions and territory. The Arab tribes often feuded amongst each other. Same with the Lurs and the Bakhtiaris. As far as I know, Ansari never uses the term 'ethnic conflict.' SouthernComfort 05:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if Ansari doesn't use the phrase, even clear examples of ethnic tension/conflict can just be waved away? Or redefined as "tribal conflict"? Oy. Zora 06:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ansari (and other scholars) doesn't use the term precisely because it is inaccurate. Wording is important, and 'ethnic conflict' is an extremely loaded phrase which connotates ethnic/racial turmoil. It is also very different from 'ethnic tension' and 'ethnic unrest' which do not necessarily connotate conflict with other ethnic groups. Again Iran is not Yugoslavia and Ahwaz (where is he?) himself agreed. And yes, tribal conflict is very different from ethnic conflict, as such conflicts concern territory, not their race. Again, it was not just Arab tribes against Bakhtiaris, for example, but Arab tribes feuding with each other and with Bakhtiaris and Bakhtiaris with Lurs and Lurs with Lurs and so on. While other tribes feuded, others intermingled. Tribal politics is an extremely complex subject and boiling it all down to 'ethnic conflict' is not proper. You can see for yourself that with just the province of Khuzestan you have an extremely complex and detailed history which cannot be easily understood from a Western perspective that wants to categorize and pigeonhole everything into convenient terminology.

Providing "examples" of possible ethnic conflict is too subjective (and dependent upon individual POV) and would be opening a can of worms whereby similar arguments could be made that Arabs oppressed Persians in western Khuzestan from the time they settled in the province until the time their domination ended. Plus, the examples you may see as being "clear" may not appear as such to others. It is too POV. The fact is that there are no "clear" examples of ethnic conflict and no scholars have attempted to paint a picture of Khuzestan (or the rest of Iran) as being a battleground between various ethnic groups. What is clear is that minority groups for the most part operated autonomously throughout much of history and that they entered into conflict with the central government beginning in the 20th century. The current wording makes this very clear. SouthernComfort 10:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that it says "for conflict", not "for ethnic conflict"... - Mustafaa 23:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racial Discimination?

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

Well, you've said enough to prove that there's racial tension. Zora 01:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is ...

- The Boz

Yes, racial tension is everywhere in Iran. On this very forum (Wikipedia), I was racially insulted and attacked by an Azeri-hating Persian. So it's not just Arabs. Everyone is feeling it.

The Boz,

Just to let you know, Zora is a big supporter of Sunni and pro-Arab secessionists of Ahvaz. For the past year, she's constantly been trying to attack, erase, and revise EVERY page relating to Iran's culture and history. She calls me a "Persian nationalist" to justify her hatred against Iranians, but ignores the fact that Im not even "Persian".

You're telling someone who has proofread and edited two volumes of Persian literature, reads Persian history, cooks Persian food, listens to Persian music, and has a close Persian friend that she hates Persians? Perhaps it's just that I clash with YOU? Zora 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits say otherwise. I have yet to see you edit something in support of Persia, its history, or its culture.--Zereshk 18:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. I'll rephrase: I have yet to see you edit something in which "the truth" happens to be in favor of Persia, or anything Persian.

Rumi as a Persian? Goodness! Did you know that Abdolkarim Soroush was kicked out of Harvard just for not portraying Rumi as a Turkish poet? This is the unofficial account of course. (Why? Suffice to say that the majority of scholars of Islamic and Sufi studies in Cambridge MA are Turkish or pro-Turkish).--Zereshk 22:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for that? I'm reading a book of Abdolkarim Soroush's essays right now and I haven't come across anything remotely like "kicked out of Harvard". Of course, I haven't finished the book. Zora 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Theres a link on CNN and FOX News about it. No really, do you honestly expect to find a "referecne" on this? That's why it's unofficial! My source is one of his students, and of course Iranian newspapers (which you dont attach jackshit credibility to). Also, what I'm talking about is a very recent event. It wouldnt be in his book. He wouldnt write about it anyway, the man I know.

Extensive googling finds no mention of any rift between Soroush and Harvard. He seems to be the same academic star he ever was. I also doubt your narrative re Turkish studies people getting rid of Persian studies people. Academics tend to divide up along lines of theory, not area. Zora 11:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you rely on "Extensive googling" as your source for firsthand info, then good luck. Youre not even willing to consider the possibility of what I'm reporting to you. Oh well, the right to remain ignorant is a universal and fundamental right. Godspeed.

But just in case other readers here decide to pursue this matter a bit further, here is the link from a newspaper that was recently banned in Tehran. I'll translate some highlights here:

The news item is 8 months old.
Apparently, some Turk graduate students submitted a complaint to the Dean at Harvard, citing various complaints against Soroush.

I can believe that. Students complain to deans all the time, for all sorts of reasons, good and bad.

Harvard has apparently denied Soroush some specific post as a result. (Im not sure what the text means by "ارتقای کرسی". Kinda vague. As far as I know, he's already tenured.)

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 is apparently pursuing positions in Berlin and London (Kings College, Imperial College, ...).

He's extremely high-profile right now and is doing visiting scholar gigs at a number of universities.

A user from Turkey (below the news item) adds that Soroush is not well remembered and mentioned in Turkey. He adds that in Turkey, Rumi is considered a Turk while Soroush has consistently been portraying him as a Persian.
Two users have attacked the newspaper for giving a political twist to the event and its reporting.--Zereshk 18:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Then stop arguing with me, because it makes you look like a fool. I have the goddamn link posted in front of you, and youre still trying to nail your point? Do you think I dont know he's a visiting prof? Dude, I was attacked and hit by vigilantes for sitting in his lectures when I was a student at UT in the early 90s, long before people like you had even heard about him.

Ethnocentric people like you piss me off big time. Youre one of those people that walk in academic libraries and start complaining "why awrent awll these books in English?". People like you who have no respect or recognition for non-English sources, have no respect from me either. And it's "Persian", not "Farsi".--Zereshk 22:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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, I'd be happy with a world that had NO nations at all. I'm against nationalism of any variety, American included. But it would take too long to explain. Suffice it to say that I do NOT want to see Iran split into fifteen countries, as that would merely multiply the nationalisms. Zora 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A world that has "no nations" has no multi-cultural diversity. Everybody has the same values, the same norm, same ideas, same culture, the same everything. I wouldnt want to be living in such a world.--Zereshk 18:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes. It is complicated. And that's why you are at fault. Because you take issues like ethnicity in Iran and Khuzestan so simplistically, whereas it is actually very complicated. Looking at things thru a "nationalism" eyeglass is a very simplistic (and ignorant, even insulting) way of viewing things. Youre basically judging things by alien standards.

And by the way, you did mention the phrase "nationless world". A world without political borders, I agree. But a world that values diversity and EQUALLY cherishes all ethnic cultures is my ideal. Cultures are merely attributes of nations.

The "ideas" of a culture and a nation arose at the same time. I repudiate them both. That's why I no longer consider myself an anthropologist, in spite of my degrees. Culture is not a monolith. Is Jamshid (swoon) a Persian musician or an LA rocker? He's both. (I really ought to make sure that there's an article on him.) Zora 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Try telling the shmuck who posted you a Diwali greeting card this morning that you repudiate Diwali, Hindi traditions, Hindi culture, and all. Besides, if youre gonna "repudiate" culture, then repudiate all versions of it isotropically. Dont go around acting preferentially.--Zereshk 23:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course people have culture, i.e. learned behaviors and shared notions. It's just there's no such thing as "a" culture -- unified, with hard boundaries around it. There's no such thing as Indian culture, or Persian culture. There's just bits, like the Ramayana, or the Shahnameh, or cooking in a tandoori, whatever. You can have bits A, B, C, and D in one area, or village, or family, and bits A, B, C, and X in another place. Or it can vary by context, or over time ... That's what makes it fun <g>. Zora 11:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah..., so "ther'es no such thing as Indian culture". What utter bullshit. Be a man and try telling that to your Indian friends with a straight face. Or would you like me to start going around on all WP pages and quoting you on that?--Zereshk 22:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore without them (nations), the world has no color. No life.--Zereshk 22:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I like your alias. It's humourous.--Zereshk 04:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Rumi

Rumi is "a Turk"?[14]--Zereshk 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think that the Elamites were Persian because they flourished in areas that are now governed by Iran, then it's only fair that Rumi should be Turkish because he lived in an area now governed by Turkey <g>. Before that, he was an Afghan ...

You can't have it both ways -- you want Persia to be a territory, when convenient, and Persia to be defined by its language and customs, when convenient. This is logically incoherent. Zora 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you. I was only trying to point out to you, when you earlier doubted anyone existing that calls Rumi a Turk. You should read this. Even the Arabs appreciate Persian culture for what it's worth.--Zereshk 23:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

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 looked over the article and it IS biased. I try to keep an eye on it, but I must have failed. However, I can't say that your comments re the Arabs being "belligerent" and "not polished" seem all that NPOV either! The article needs a rewrite. There IS a an article on the History of Khuzestan now, which I based to a great extent on an unpublished doctoral thesis (by a scholar I presume to be Iranian). I think that's a better presentation. I'm overwhelmed with work, but I'll see what I can do re rewriting. Zora 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be "re-written"? Why can't you just fix it Zora? Why do you have to totally expunge everybody else's contributions? When will this ego trip of yours end?? And BTW, I didnt write this article. But your unilateralist attitudes vis a vis everyone else pisses me off.--Zereshk 05:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Instead of putting POV tags, please make the necessary changes, and discuss. I think it would be more fruitful that way. POV tags give some people an excuse to delete the entire page and substitute it with an even worse article.--Zereshk 17:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the latest changes made by user who calls himself "Ahwaz":

The entire text pasted is copyrighted. Either rewirte it in your own words, or it will be deleted. I'm sure Zora would love to help out here.
User "Ahwaz" is misquoting the UN article. The article says "some 2500 Iranian refugees". User "Ahwaz" instead has written "at least 2500". That's why I put up the tag.--Zereshk 11:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What percentage is 2500 persons out of the Arab population of Khuzestan? Not even 0.1%. And yet this UN report has taken up 60% of the article. Thats called POV.--Zereshk 11:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. 60% was my mistake. I take that back. However the POV tag must remain because the page is almost entirely about "Al-Ahwazi" Arab grievances. There is little if any balance from the opposite side of the story. Also 2500 people is still nothing compared to the population of Khuzestan. Not even 0.1%. And what's interesting is that according to your very source, it is the Iraqi Arabs of post-Saddam Iraq that have made these 2500 people homeless. That's quite interesting.--Zereshk 13:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the POV tag must remain because the page is almost entirely about Al-Ahwazi" Arab grievances" - I agree that the grievances of Lurs and Bakhtiaris must be included, but have struggled to find much information on them. I do not think they are the "opposite side of the story", but a difference aspect of ethnic discrimination in Khuzestan. It is fair to say that local indigenous Persians are also facing problems as a result of the regime's policies, but these are different problems to the ones experienced by Arabs. In my opinion, the Lurs and Bakhtiaris are not living in the areas where the regime is seeking to acquire land. Kothari mentions discrimination of nomadic peoples, although not just in the context of Khuzestan. Do you think that this should be included? I can't see why it is POV to talk of Arab grievances - could you explain?

Yes it is interesting that Iraqi Arabs are discriminating against Ahwazi Arabs, but not surprising. The militias were linked to the Badr Corps, which are the military wing of SCIRI, a party with a close association with the Iranian government. The Badr Corps were involved in ethnic suppression in Khuzestan.--Ahwaz 13:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would like to know how my changes have given a "false impression of events" - please explain. I have added a quote from Miloon Kothari concerning the plight of the Laks, a Persian group indigenous to Khuzestan. Perhaps you would like to expand on the situation facing Persian groups, who have a distinct identity from the dominant Persian culture of Iran.--Ahwaz 14:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nonsense. The article is about the Persianisation of the local Ahwazi Arabs. Persianisation is a modern phenomenon, associated with Reza Shah. It is not about ancient Persian. The Arabs are hardly immigrants, they are citizens of many, many generations. The Arab presence in Khuzestan dates back to the Parthian era - 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.

But the history in this article dates back only to the 15th century and implies that Arabs were only foreign invaders. I think it needs complete rewriting.--Ahwaz 06:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is also ample evidence, too evident to ignore, that Arabs in large numbers did migrate to Khuzestan from the west, despite the Arabs that existed before, here and there. The important point is that just as you say that Arabs cannot be considered immigrants because they have been living there for generations now, the same can be said about Persians and others: No one can claim them as trying to take Khuzestan from the Arabs because Khuzestan was at the heart of pre-Islamic Persia. It's not as if Persians were absent there, and now decided to suddenly return. Khuzestan, like the rest of Iran, belongs to all tribes of Iran.

I think the article gives a false impression because it is mixing purely political issues and forging it as ethnic. If some Iranian backed Arab Badr group is forcing 2500 Arabs in Iraq out of their homes, that is a purely political issue. And yet it is being discussed in the article that is supposed to be about ethnic issues. And the article conversely also fails to mention Arabization of the region as well. It is well known that Iraq under Saddam and his predecessors spent great resources on "Arabizing" non-Arab Khuzestan. Not to mention other Iranian peoples as well.--Zereshk 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The political issues are ethnic grievances. This is what the article on "Ethnic Politics of Khuzestan" tries to explain. Whether or not you think these grievances are well-founded or not is your judgement. Either there is "ethnic politics" or there is no ethnic politics. If you think there is no ethnic politics, then you are disputing whether the article should exist at all. 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. I don't know if you agree with me, but it seems obvious to me that Arab autonomy has only ever arisen either as a result of a breakdown in the rule from Tehran or over local resistance to efforts by Tehran to control and tax local resources. Talk of Arab nationalism - in the sense of a modern independent self-governing state - is a recent phenomenon in Iranian history. However, autonomy has long been an issue in Khuzestan, as it has in other parts of Iran as the influence of Persian rule has waxed and waned.--Ahwaz 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have someone translate this for you. 4th paragraph from bottom says: "Secessionist movements for Arabs are sourced outside Iran. A small minority also carries such thoughts inside Iran as well." Therefore it's not a "recent phenomenon" like you say. People want rights, everywhere in Iran. The majority do not want secession or independence.--Zereshk 10:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the BBC Persian Service - what did you say about foreign media "muddying the waters"? Suddenly, the "foreign media" is a fount of knowledge and human rights NGOs and UN agencies are pan-Arab extremists. And what of the rioting in Khuzestan and the fact that the wearing of khaffiyeh is now likely to see you sent to prison? No answer there. Can't you get on the phone to your old friends in IRIB for some more excuses?--Ahwaz 10:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the burden is on you, not me, smart alik. Youre the one who accepts it. Youre the one who accepts shit printed everywhere. So you should accept this too. I can use the shit against you, because you accept them. The HRW for example says modern Arabic is not taught in Iran, while I went thru 7 fuckin years of it in school myself, BY FORCE, and hated every minute of it.--Zereshk 11:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damned, you should register so that we can leave messages for you on your talk page. eivallah.--Zereshk 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Damned's complaint that "The article makes no reference to 2 TERRORIST attacks by Arab dissidents on Ahvaz in 2005," I have written a section on bomb attacks in Khuzestan and tried my best to maintain NPOV. Hopefully, this will allay some of the problems he or she has with the article.

As for links to separatist groups, I think it is important for the full range of groups to be linked to in this article and not just those who do not cause offence.

I would appreciate it if someone could find some more information on the grievances of Lurs, Bakhtiaris and other ethnic groups in Khuzestan. I cannot find anything on the internet.

I disagree with Damned's other points and I will ignore some of the prejudiced remarks made by Damned about the "arrogance" of Arabs.--Ahwaz 07:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]