Talk:Emirate of Muhammara

Edit-Warring

Under the risk of being accused of sticking my nose in something I am not involved with... @188.158.118.65 and VivereInPace: I have noticed that as of recently (July 10 2019) two users have been editing this article back and forth with very stark contrasts. I have also witnessed minimal to no communication between the two other than offhanded comments in revision notes. This page appears to be a sensitive topic that both these users seem honestly invested in to some degree. I will not claim to be any form of authority on the matter or any form of authority on Wikipedia but I do believe that a constructive dialogue is more productive and fair to differing PoVs than swinging reverts at each other. I feel as though a discussion in either this article's talk page or your own talk pages is in order. I want to reiterate that this is not meant as any kind of shaming, discipline, command, etc. and if this kind of action on my part is considered taboo or inappropriate, please tell me as such. I hope this can further this article's development. 8.38.177.4 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to 8.38.177.4

Not at all. Your response is much appreciated. Unfortunately the attitude of 188.158.118.65, thus far, has not been to lay the foundation for an unbiased and informative article, but rather to impose a certain belief that appears to be dogmatic rather than backed by fact. The following "edit summaries" appear to be emotionally and subjectively driven, and to a certain degree bellicose:

"pan-arab editor with his agenda. neither khuzestan nor elam were arab lands"..."original research and unreliable source. this article is a mess"..."biased wording. khuzestan was/is never a arab region. arabs are just a part of it."..."obvious pan-arab pov pushing and agenda"..."stop! the whole article is original research. i'm trying to fix it."

I am not an Arab. The article provides a historical section that touches upon the pre-Arab history of the region. 188.158.118.65 seems to have neglected this section. (Note:This section is not even necessary, as the main topic of the page is the history of the region during Arab rule. Nevertheless, the idea behind the insertion was to provide historical context and background, which should have deterred such accusations. Alas they failed.)

It appears that certain Wikipedia rules such as Wikipedia:No original research have not been quite understood by our fellow editor. Moreover, 188.158.118.65 seems to think that their "belief" is far more reliable than the archival, academic and scholarly works from which information has been extracted. Only, one of which is written by an Arab.

This topic has been a victim of both Arab and Iranian exaggeration and understatement for many years. Since 1925, Iranians have tried to preach a different version of history to their people and the rest of the world. Similarly, in the 70s, the Iraqi Baathist regime tried to do the same, by exaggerating the boundaries of the Emirate and renaming the entire east coast of the Persian Gulf as "Al Ahwaz". They even produced a flag.

I commend Qahramani44 for their more civilised and reasonable approach regarding the editing of this article and I thank you 8.38.177.4, for taking the initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VivereInPace (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is a pure Pan-Arabist agenda trying Arabify & De-Iranify of Khuzestan Province

the person who created this article has obvious ethnocentrist and nationalistic agenda. actually this articles sounds like a pov version of Khuzestan Province & Origin of the name Khuzestan & History of Khuzestan Province. he uses outdated early 1900s stuff as source. none of cited stuff fits in historical and etymology quality. the funny thing is he even used a non-reliable source for the name of khuzestan while ignoring all facts provided in Origin of the name Khuzestan. the other parts are obviously a pathetic attempt to remove Iranian/Persian presence from the region, and representing it a Arabian land since the beginning. As if it was an independent country and had nothing to do with Iranians and Iranian cultural zone. this guy could be sock account of another guys named User:Ted hamiltun.188.158.112.88 (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Dubious bias in most of the article

This article doesn't even acknowledge that Sheikh Khaz'al was a military officer in Qajar Persia who ruled a semi-autonomous territory but instead posits Arabistan as its own state/country with him as its "king", which was never the case.

A good article should reflect the fact that Sheikh Khaz'al was never the Arab separatist hero many Arab nationalists wanted him to be nor was he the Iran-Subjugating bold Arab nationalist that Reza Shah made him out to be, and unfortunately this article has some ways to go to do justice to that fact.

This article has nothing to do with Pan-Arabism. "I captured Sheykh Khazal, the King without a crown, and I bought him to Tehran under guards." - Fazlollah Zahedi VivereInPace (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

VivereInPace = Ted hamiltun

both promotes same pan arab agenda. both uses same materials as references. both try to de-iranify history of khuzestan and arabify non-arabs like sumerians and elamites. ted banned in july 13 and VivereInPace was scared and became deactive from july 12 to august 14 because he is alternative account of ted hamiltun.188.158.104.174 (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree for the simple reason that their posting styles are completely different. "Ted hamiltun" constantly posted as if it was a Youtube comments section and his English spelling and grammar were atrocious. VivereInPace doesn't seem to do so. Best thing to do instead of edit-warring is find sources that support the Iranian side, I've already found one that also stated Arabs in Khuzestan had migrated there in the 15th century. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Addressing conflicts

Qahramani44, with regards to your concern over the geography of Arabistan, there were 4 references and not just one. Two of these references belong to institutions that require subscription. If you are really interested I would suggest subscribing to both or purchasing some sort of hard copy version. One of the references, Iraq and Gertrude Bell's The Arab of Mesopotamia, does not specifically say Mesopotamia, but rather "Lower Iraq". I have not used that name, as Iraq did not exist at the time. Also if you take the time to visit the Mesopotamia page, you will see the regions that fall under Mesopotamia. These are areas that thrived due to the proximity of the rivers.

With regards to your Revision (This segment was unsourced to begin with, and quite incorrect considering the facts on the Safavid and Ottoman empire articles.), how can it be unsourced if you go on to refer to the article used as a source (The Iran-Iraq War)?

There are a number of statements that can be extracted: 1. In the early 16th century, the Ottoman and Persian empires faced off along a fault line that followed the natural border of the Zagros mountains, long the division between the Arab and Persian civilisations. 2. The treat of Qasr-e-Shirin (1639): The border between the Persian and Ottoman empires was stabilised, with the exception of the coastal plain of Khuzestan, which extends from the Shatt Al Arab to the Zagros Mountains. 3. Amir Ashraf's treaty (1727): Persia committed to no longer interfering in Arabistan's affairs.

Regarding your correction: Arabistan had primarily been part of Iran, I would like to point out that Iran did not exist at the time. Rather it was Persia/Persian Empire. VivereInPace (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@VivereInPace: "Iran" was the name of the country since at least the first Sasanian king : [1] : "ĒRĀN, ĒRĀNŠAHR. The word ērān is first attested in the titles of Ardašīr I (q.v.), founder of the Sasanian dynasty."---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the first point you made, fair enough, although perhaps an addition of "now consisting of modern-day Khuzestan province in Iran" after "Lower Mesopotamia" would provide more accuracy in the lede.

With regards to the second point, the reference following that did not state that Khuzestan "regularly changed hands between the Persian and Ottoman empires", so I simply changed it to show a more accurate picture. With regards to your extracted statements:

1) This point is incorrect, as the Peace of Amasya in 1555 established borders more or less exactly how they are today, the border did not run along the Zagros (the map is in the article itself). The Zagros also isn't "the border between the Arab and Persian civilizations", as the source I added in the history section shows how Arabs had mainly moved to Khuzestan during the 15-18th centuries.

2) Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin merely reaffirmed the Peace of Amasya borders, which still included most if not all of Khuzestan as part of the Iranian state. The fact that there were still border conflicts later does not imply that Khuzestan was de jure part of the Ottoman Empire, or independent.

3) If you could provide a screencap of that source then that would be great. If it's true though, it still only affirms that Arabistan/Emirate of Muhammarah was merely autonomous, not independent.

With regards to Iran "not existing" at the time, the official name of the Safavid state was literally "The Expansive Realm of Iran" (along with various other names such as "Realm of Iran", "Kingdom of Iran", etc.). Again you can check the Safavids article to see the source in the infobox. The same goes for Afsharid and Qajar Iran as well. "Persia" was merely what the westerners called it until 1935. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Yes, I agree with your suggestion considering geography and current location.

2. The source you added speaks of a large Arab migration to Khuzistan. It does not refer to earlier pre-islamic migrations. The Zagros mountains do appear to separate the Arab/Persian peoples. If you look at a map you can see how similar Arabistan (or susa/or Khuzistan) is with southern Iraq (the same applies to its climate, inhabitants and culture).

3. Arabistan and not Khuzestan "regularly changed hands between the Persian and Ottoman empires"

(i) Arabistan and Khuzistan are two different labels/areas. In 1925, Arabistan was referred to as the dominion of the Emir of Mohammerah, which did not encompass the whole Khuzistan province that exists today. Mohammerah (a city established by the Al Bu Kasib) and Abadan were previously under Ottoman jurisdiction and Sheikh Miz'al was considered an Ottoman subject.

(ii) This is an article about Arabistan, not Khuzistan. Article should be informative of the specific time period of Arabistan

(iii) There were also periods when neither the Ottoman nor Persian empires had control over Arabistan and it remained an independent entity right in-between the two. Here are a list of dates regarding history of Khuzistan/Arabistan (see: The Gulf/2000 Project)

1260: Partly conquered by Ilkhanid Empire

1405: Partly independent of Timurid Empire

1450: Independent between the Qara Quyunlu Kingdom (Iraq and northern Zagros) and the Timurid Empire (Central Asia and Khurasan).

1510: partly within the Safavid Empire (Iraq and Persia)

1550: Independent of both Ottoman and Safavid Empires

1625: Within the Safavid Empire

1700: Mostly within the Safavid Empire

1750: Independent of both Ottoman and Zand Kingdom

1800-1875: Independent of both Ottoman and Qajar Empires

1900: Independent of both Ottoman and Qajar Empires, but portion of northern half lost.

Autonomy: self-governance

Independence: not depending on (It did not depend on the central government for its sustenance). If anything, the rulers of Arabistan chose to fall within Persia as to avoid Ottoman hostility.

With Regards to the name Iran, I apologise. Thank you for bring it to my attention. I would, however, like to point out that in English, Iran was historically referred to as Persia (especially in documents regarding history of Arabistan). And so to be more accurate I believe that Persia should be used.VivereInPace (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

For point 2) "earlier migrations" don't state how substantial they were, the movement of people from a total of four tribes (Hanifa, Tamim, Abd-al Qays, 'Asad)[2] into Khuzestan does not imply the region was majority Arab prior to the Mushashiya migration. Whereas the latter had an actual effect (the naming of the region as "Arabistan" for the first time in history). Bear in mind that three of those four tribes in Khuzestan also migrated to Fars, Kerman, etc., yet there was never any substantial Arab population recorded there as a result. Which implies the first migrations were small in scope.

As for point 3), fair enough, but keep in mind that by the 20th century Khazal did in fact control all of Khuzestan (including the Bakhtiyari parts, see here [3]). And for the "independence timeline", the maps show Arabistan (most of the time starting from 1800) with a bolded circle; on the legend it states that means "an autonomous polity", as opposed to an unbolded square, which is stated as an independent polity. I recommend you check the maps again. Basically, from 1510-1550, 1625-1750 it was part of Iran as a province, then from 1800-1925 part of Iran as an autonomous vassal. And keep in mind that before the Musha'shiya's rise in 1440, there was no "Arabistan-like" recorded state in the region. Izady's maps are nice, but they don't give much actual information when they leave just a white space there. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This refers to the province of Khuzestan given its borders today. It is common knowledge that today, the province of Khuzestan includes many ethnicities other than Arabs. It includes what was once Arabistan as well as areas outside of Arabistan. Arabistan ≠ Khuzestan. Also there is the issue of the Persianisation of the province, but that is not relevant here. Nevertheless the article states "large groups of nomads from the Ḥanīfa, Tamīm, and ʿAbd-al-Qays tribes crossed the Persian Gulf and occupied some of the richest Basran territories around Ahvāz and in Fārs. They were not small migrations. It literally says large. Also, Ahvaz is considered a Basran (belonging to Basra) region.

Still that is not the point I was trying to make. The idea behind the maps is to show the history of control over the region in question, not to say that the name Arabistan has been used since 1260. It shows that the region in question has not primarily been exclusive to one empire, and that for a number of periods, the region fell under no empire. Those white spaces are just as informative. VivereInPace (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Original research, agenda pushing

The entire article needs to be rewritten from scratch. From start to end, it reads like a hopeless attempt to push a WP:TENDENTIOUS POV. For instance, the article is supposed to deal with a early modern region/entity in Iran, yet its implying pure WP:OR by mentioning the Elamites. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, there was no "Arabistan" prior to the Safavid era;

"In the 914/1508, however, Shāh Ismā'il Safawi after his capture of Baghdād, occupied Hawiza, Dizful and Shushtar, and received the submission of the Musha'sha' sultāns. (...) As a consequence of Musha'sha rule, the western portion of Khūzistān became known, from early Safawid times, as 'Arabistān." -- R.M. Savory. "K̲h̲ūzistān" in Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition (eds, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, B. Lewis and Ch. Pellat). Brill. p. 80

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No category

Could someone add an uncontroversial category to this page? Perhaps History of Iran, or somesuch? thanks, Berek (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving to Arabistan

There was Arabistan as a region for several centuries which "Emirate of Arabistan" covers less than 100 years of it. I think the name should refer to the more common term which covers the broader period of time, thus the article should be moved to Arabistan.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Travels to Arabistan/Khuzestan Source

@VivereInPace: I've checked that particular source (Travels to Khuzestan) and it doesn't match up with what the wiki article claims. That "source" in particular was pushed heavily by banned user Ted hamiltun (and I'm fairly sure it's been copy-pasted from his post), using this pic as source that he claims was part of page 110 of that book [4]. I've checked the actual source here [5] not just on page 110 but also 109 and 111, and I didn't find anything there that matched the pic (which is the Persian translation of the passage you added). If you can't read Arabic script, then you can at least notice that the word "Ajam" (عجم) does not show up even once on page 110 (though it shows on 111, but not in any context resembling the article paragraph), and the words on the pic don't match the words in the archived book. So I would consider that source as WP:DUBIOUS, especially with no secondary sources to support it. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It was shared on my talk page by Ted hamilton, claiming that translation matched original writing. Do you know if an english version is available online? VivereInPace (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I realized, since he tried to push that exact source back on the Khuzestan wiki page half a year ago. The English translation matches the uupload.ir pic, but not the actual book in the archive.org source (Travels to Khuzestan). My Persian language understanding isn't perfect but I can easily tell that the paragraph in the pic does not show up in the book on the page specified (page 110, and I checked adjacent pages as well). I don't know if an English version is available at all, and reverse image searching the uploaded pic brings up only al-ahwaziya websites with dubious credibility. I would recommend against including that paragraph in the article on account of WP:DUBIOUS and the lack of reliable secondary sources supporting it. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism

@El C: I just don't see what an emirate/kingdom that lasted from the 15th-century to 1925 has to do with a template called ethnic nationalism. It was just added into the template [6] as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Weird. That user's contributions needs to be looked at more closely, methinks. El_C 20:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Failed verifications

• I checked the source used to support the part it says The last Emirate of Arabistan, with its capital in Mohammerah, fell when its Emir, Sheikh Khaz’al Khan Ibn Haji Jabir Khan, was kidnapped from his yacht, Ivy, and placed under house arrest by Reza Khan in 1925. In 1936, Khaz'al was murdered in his sleep. The emirate was abolished and Arabistan was incorporated into modern Iran. (used as a citation for the word "kidnapped") is actually a review of the book Days of God: The Revolution in Iran and its Consequences and does not contain anything like that. I don't if it is made-up or not, but the Encyclopædia Iranica entry available online describes him as "chieftain of the Banu Kaʿb tribe of Khuzestan", not as "Emir of Arabistan" or something like that. There is no mention of being "killed in sleep", and the story of that "kidnapping" is told as follows:

The Iranian officials knew that the Shaikh always spent the night on his private yacht, drinking and being entertained by Arab dancers until early hours of the morning. So, at Reżā Khan’s secret instruction to Zāhedi, in the middle of the night on 18 April 1925, when everybody on the ship was drunk and being entertained by dancers and musicians, in a commando-style raid, army men boarded the ship and captured Ḵazʿal (Kasravi, 1977, p. 248; Ghani, p. 345) and one of his sons, ʿAbd-al-Ḥamid, and sent them to Tehran (Reżā Shah, p. 249; Moneypenny to Lorraine, 23 April 1925: FO 371/10834).

I think it would be reasonable to remove this part from the article, since it seems pure original research. Pahlevun (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I found another source that does not support what it is cited for. The page 21 of the book Tribal Politics in Iran says:

Shaykh Khazal of Muhammarah was the autonomous and de facto ruler of the oil province of Arabistan, and the Persian Gulf littoral was controlled by various Dashtistani and Tangistani khans.

It does not in anyway say that Nevertheless, the Emirate would continue to be self-ruled through hereditary governance.. Moreover, it says nowhere that there was an "Emirate" and calls is a province (which means that it was part of Iranian territory). Pahlevun (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Source used for the first line of the lead

The source used to support that The Emirate of Arabistan was, from the 15th century until 1925, an Arab Principality is an unpublished thesis, by William Theodore Strunk of University of Indiana. There is no other details, such as the page it was mentioned, and I do not even trust that it was being said in that source. On the other hand, Ervand Abrahamian says in his book Iran Between Two Revolutions (pages 174–175):

Shaykh Chassib, the eldest son of the deceased Shaykh Khaz'el, returned to Iran in 1942 and promptly convened a meeting of Arab chiefs. Arguing that the "Emirate of Arabistan" had been "energetically independent until the twentieth century," the meeting accused the central government of robbing the Arab people of their freedom and of planning to destroy their national language. The meeting also sent a message to the British and American governments announcing that "we Arabs of Arabistan ... , totaling one million people, believe that our day ofliberation from the Iranian aggressors is fast approaching." This movement lost impetus, however, partly because the British discouraged the dissidents, and partly because the largest Arab tribe, the Bani Turuf, refused to join Shaykh Chassib.

From the quotation marks used for Emirate of Arabistan, we may understand that this term is attributed to the person mentioned above and has not been in use by the academia. I am looking for more sources. Pahlevun (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed caption of the map in the infobox. The map, which was drew in 1883, illustrates the region known as "Khuzestan or Arabistan" inside Persian border (right of the red line, which is the border between Persian and Ottoman empires). This is ironic because it shows that contrary to the claim made in the article, it was not an 'Emirate' independent from Persia/Iran. Pahlevun (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This source used as a citation for the name 'Emirate of Arabistan' does not even contain that word, the only mention of the word Arabistan is:

Mohammerah, now named Khorramshahr, is a city located at the confluence of the Karun and Shatt al-Arab Rivers in the Khuzestan region of Iran (formerly known as Arabistan).

It actually does not support that. Pahlevun (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

My guess would be that this area was no different from some other southwestern regions which then were in some regard under control by tribal lords subordinate to the shah. Compare it to Bakhtiari tribal lords who lost their authority under the Pahlavis for example. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This article should be changed to an article similar to Safavid Georgia or Iranian Armenia. Benyamin (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

While checking one of the sources cited in the article, I found something that I think confirms HistoryofIran's hypothesis that tribal lords were "subordinate to the shah":

Local Arabic-speaking and Persian communities and nomadic groups, such as those ruled by Shaykh Khaz’al and the Bakhtiyari khans respectively, exercised their own form of political leadership and system of authority. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the relationship between the shaykh and the reigning shah remained nominal: the shaykh paid annual taxes or personal “gifts” to the shah more as a means of maintaining his autonomy than as a show of fundamental political support to the monarchy. The extent to which the Qajar state successfully collected taxes from the Bakhtiyari confederation was also uncertain. Depending on the migration season, these nomadic groups owed taxes either to the provincial governor of Isfahan (spring) or to the governor of Arabistan (winter). In their capacity as large landowners, “tribal leaders or khans” collected their “share of the produce of the land or their rents and dues,” and as “tribal leaders,” collected “levies from their followers.”

— Shafiee, Katayoun. Machineries of oil : an infrastructural history of BP in Iran, p. 33

The book not only compares the Arab tribal chieftain Sheikh Khazal to Bakhtiari khans, but also confirms that there was a governor appointed by the Shah in Arabistan (a province, not an emirate) that collected taxes from the sheikh (who was a landlord in the region). This is really ridiculous that this source is used to prove something on the contrary. Considering multiple failed verifications documented here in this talkpage, and the time passed since 2019 with the OR problem still remaining, I think it is evident that the claim "The Emirate of Arabistan or Emirate of Mohammerah was, from the 15th century until 1925, an Arab emirate" is a fabrication. I propose merging this article to Sheikh Khazal rebellion, keeping useful content in the section #Background. I am pinging @HistoryofIran, Benyamin, Qahramani44, and LouisAragon: Can you give me your thoughts on this? Pahlevun (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Checking... Benyamin (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I completely forgot about that comment. But yes I agree. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Safavid Arabistan was ruled by Musha'sha'iyyah. It was not an Emirate, nor had any relation to Sheikh Khazal's rebellion in 20th century. So, I agree too. Benyamin (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As I understand, Sheikh Khazal was chieftain of al-Kabi clan. So they were rulers from two different people. That is a really good idea to create an article for the Safavid vilayet. Pahlevun (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Willem Floor's Titles & Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration, amongst others, provides a full, brief iverview of Safavid Arabestan, including all of its governors, and yes, it was considered a province, not an emirate. As I've said before; this article is packed with half-truths, WP:OR, failed WP:VER and WP:RS. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

More titles that deal with Safavid Arabestan:

• Rudi Matthee, ed (2021). "The Safavid World. Routledge
• Svat Soucek (1984). Arabistan or Khuzistan. Vol. 17, No. 2/3 (Spring - Summer, 1984), pp. 195-213
• Matthee, Rudi (2001). "Mint Consolidation and the Worsening of the Late Safavid Coinage: The Mint of Huwayza". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 44 (4): 505–539.
• Rudi Matthe (2015) Relations between the center and the periphery in Safavid Iran: The Western Borderlands v. The Eastern Frontier Zone. The Historian(Vol. 77, Issue 3)
• Matthee, Rudi; Floor, Willem; Clawson, Patrick (2013). The Monetary History of Iran: From the Safavids to the Qajars. London; New York: I.B.Tauris.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, such as Safavid Georgia which created and extended by LouisAragon and HistoryofIran. Benyamin (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this article has issues mainly because it hasn't defined exactly what its about; is it about a specific state (Emirate of Muhammarah, which is really only attested since the 18th century)? Is it about a province (Arabistan, which was a region of varying size in Iran since the 15th century, but was often split between multiple rulers)? Is it about the Arab presence in Khuzestan (which has changed tremendously between 7th century to early 20th)? The other issue is that the most detailed data out there on Arabistan province were via British primary sources, and there are comparatively few secondary sources that give detailed information on this region (outside of partisan modern ethnonationalist sources). I do think there should be article(s) on the history of Arabs in Khuzestan, the question is whether it should be one or multiple articles, and also how many primary sources should be allowed. --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 Benyamin (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pahlevun:, @LouisAragon:, @Benyamin:, @Qahramani44: As excepted, the more one looks at WP:RS the more ahistorical this article becomes. See Safavid Arabestan. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Great job. Now, what shall happen to Emirate of Arabistan? Benyamin (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Imo deletion seems to be the right way for now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pahlevun:, @LouisAragon:, @Benyamin:, @Qahramani44: I have nominated it for deletion. Since you guys have been following and taking part in this topic, I would appreciate your input. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Self-published source

The book Averting An Iranian Geopolitical Crisis: A Tale of Power Play for Dominance Between Colonial Powers, Tribal and Government Actors in the Pre and Post World War One Era by H. RamHormozi –which has been used as a source in this article– is published by FriesenPress. The company is, according to its website, providing self-publishing services. Consequently, per WP:SPS, this source should not be used and I remove it. Pahlevun (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR

@VivereInPace: I can't believe I actually have to spell it out here, but I might as well: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy." The policy straight up says you cannot insert "analysis" based on your own interpretation of an image. That's the whole idea behind *reliable* sources. If you continue flouting these guidelines I will take this to WP:ANI. The same applies to primary sources, especially the one you're using (Percy Sykes) because he's a traveller from the 19th century and not a historian. He makes observations, but has no credentials to interpret those observations nor draw conclusions from them. --Qahramani44 (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

What Wikipedian? These maps were created by Dr. Michael Izady in the University of Columbia (https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml). They are Info graphs which actually makes them NOT primary.

FYI

"An infograph is a unique and original production based on textual, statistical, and/or monographic raw data. To create it, the raw data is processed, altering them if need be based on other trustworthy information (personal or anthropological observations), before plotting the outcome into a graphic. Infographs are appended by one or more articles, explaining the methodology, the math and the process of decision making. New statistics and the resultant pie- and/or bar charts are also appended. The entire product is then completed by a list of bibliography of the consulted material for the creation of the given infograph."

Please pay attention before resorting to a threats and a condescending attitude. VivereInPace (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of Razoux's book

The article currently says:

Although the emirate exercised self-rule for most of its history, imperial control over Arabistan would often vary, though starting from the 16th century most of Arabistan would be part of Safavid Persia until its fall in the 18th century. From 1800-1925, Arabistan would fall mostly within Qajar Persia as an autonomous province. Before 1847, some regions within Arabistan, such as Abadan and Mohammerah fell within the Ottoman Empire. Before 1847, some regions within Arabistan, such as Abadan and Mohammerah fell within the Ottoman Empire. Eventually, in 1847, the Treaty of Erzurum gave Persia permanent jurisdiction over all of Arabistan, including the port cities of Abadan and Mohammerah

The source cited is The Iran-Iraq War by Pierre Razoux, without a page specified. I checked the source for usage of the word Erzurum, and found two instances at page 118 (irrelevant to the topic) and 490. The latter says:

May 31: The Treaty of Erzerum provides the first precise delimitation of the border between the Ottoman and Persian empires. The Ottoman Empire retains control of Iraq and the Shatt al-Arab. The Persian Empire gains Khuzestan (Arabistan) and obtains the right of free navigation on the Shatt al-Arab. The Shah of Persia recognizes the Emirate of Muhammara’s autonomous status.

The source recognizes "Arabistan" as an alternative name for Khuzestan, not an "Emirate". It is implying that Muhammara (not whole Khuzestan, or as the article claims, "Arabistan") had an Emir and the Shah accepted the emir to be autonomous, it is not talking about the whole region. There is no mention of Abadan either in the source. Pahlevun (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Henry Field's book

With regards to this source, the revision here [7] is a clear case of WP:SYNTH, the source doesn't mention anything about "Persianization" or even the splitting of the province. And the irony of using that source to represent "Arabistan" is that pages 186-188 [8] describe every major district in Khuzestan in detail, along with the predominant ethnic group there, and most of the districts are described as non-Arab. It actually might be a decent source to use (despite falling under WP:PRIMARY), but if it is then that section's description should replace the WP:SYNTH paragraph it was originally cited for. And lastly regarding the changed map, "mohammerah.com" is not a reliable source, it's on the same level as a blog. --Qahramani44 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Map of Arabistan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Failed verification from the book Minority Rights in the Middle East

I checked the source Minority Rights in Iraq (doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679492.003.0004) that was used to support the claim that The Emirate of Arabistan or Emirate of Mohammerah was, from the 15th century until 1925, an Arab emirate but did not find even one instance of usage of the term "Arabistan" in the above mentioned chapter. Considering the fact that numerous dishonest edits like this has been uncovered and after more than two years, the problems with these POV-pushings are not resolved, I will remove suspicious material ruthlessly. Pahlevun (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Verification of sources

@VivereInPace: I am writing this to ask you quote the part in the sources you added in these edits for the sentence "The Emirate of Arabistan or Emirate of Mohammerah was, from the 15th century until 1925, an Arab emirate". Please include the exact phrases from all four sources. Regards, Pahlevun (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

1. Strunk, William Theodore (1977). The reign of Shaykh Khazal ibn Jabir and the suppression of the principality of Arabistan. Bloomington: Ann Arbor, Michigan. p. 3.

"The Arabs virtually independent of Persia, struggled among themselves, interacting with the outside world according to their best advantage. In the eighteenth century and early nineteenth centuries, the most powerful tribe was the Ka'b, which lived in the marshy borderlands between Persia and Turkey and along both sides of the Shatt al-Arab. However as the nineteenth century progressed, the K'ab Amirate lost cohesion and the ruling families split into bitter, quarrelling factions. The disunity of the K'ab, plus the prosperity engendered by its control of the port town of Muhammarah at the junction of the Karun and the Shatt, enabled a vassal tribe of the Ka'b, the Muhaysin, to grow in strength. By mid-century, Muhaysin strength rivalled that of the Ka'b and the able Shaykh Jabir imposed the authority of his Muhaysin over the parent Ka'b. Technically the state remained the Ka'b Amirate..."

2. Iraq & Iran : the years of crisis by Abdulghani, J. M.

"After the destruction of the autonomous Arab Emirate of Arabistan, Reza Shah began to demand a revision of the Persian-Iraqi boundary, To that end, he withheld recognition of Iraq until 1929"

3. Immortal, Updated Edition: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces By Steven R. Ward

"The rulers of Arabistan had carved out an independent existence since the late seventeenth century by playing the Iranians against the Ottomans.

4. Arabic Thought Against the Authoritarian Age: Towards an Intellectual History of the Present By Jens Hanssen, Max Weiss

Fear of Iranian expansionism was precipitated by historical experiences such as the annexation of the Emirate of Arabistan. in the early twentieth century, under its ruler Sheikh Khazal, the Emirate was one of Kuwait's regional allies..."

Additional information to be added:

The Iran-Iraq War (RLE Iran A) By M. S. EL-Azhary pg.20

"The eastern bank of the Shatt al-Arab has been a purely Arab area since ancient times. The population has been overwhelmingly Arab, and its language Arabic. It has been ruled by successive Arab dynasties such as the Musha'sha'ides, the Bani Ka'b, and finally the Emirs of Muhammarah which were overthrown by Reza Shah in 1925. Until 1925, 99 per cent of the population was Arab. This percentage, however, has changed as a result of immigration, mass resettlement and the policy of 'Persianization imposed on the area.

"...The Bani Ka'b were assisted by the neighbouring Musha'shaide Emirate (Howaiza, whose Emir had pledged his loyalty to the Ottoman Sultan Sulayman during his conquest of Iraq a century earlier...The Emir, however, was wavering in his loyalty between the Ottomans and the Persians, maintaining the independence of his principality by playing off one side against the other."

"With the arrival of the clans of the Bani Ka'b in Falahiya, a township in Arabistan, the Mush'sha'ide dynasty began to decline after a rule that had endured for more than 500 years." VivereInPace (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• @VivereInPace: None of these sources support your claim actually. It's not like you can put together sources using the words 'Arabistan', 'Emirate', and the times between 15th and 20th centuries to invent an emirate, you have combined material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those. The first source is talking about a mid-19th century conflict within the arab tribe of al-Ka'b while the second is talking about Sheikh Khaz'al's rebellion in the 20th century, just like the fourth source. I wonder why did you left the next sentence (Because of Qajar weakness, the Khuzestan tribes retained a large measure of autonomy.)? Because it did prove that Arabistan and Khuzestan are merely names for the same place and Arabistan does not refer to an "emirate"? And I guess the last quote is shooting yourself in the foot, because it indicates that there were different clans living together and each of them had its own chieftain. I agree that you can create articles for Bani Ka'b dynasty and Mush'sha'ide dynasty. Pahlevun (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed a combination of multiple material, i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS. This is what WP:RS actually says about the Mush'sha'ide (Musha'sha'/Mosha'sha') and Arabestan/Khuzestan;

"The descendants of Ibn Falah remained, however, as Safavid governors of the province." p. 102 - Momen, Moojan (1985), An introduction to Shiʻi Islam : the history and doctrines of Twelver Shiʻism, New Haven: Yale University Press

"'Arabestan or Khuzestan is a province in south-western Iran. Prior to the imposition of Safavid overlordship over the Mosha'sha' dynasty its rulers held sway over the whole of 'Arabestan, as Khuzestan then was usually referred to, as well as part of S. Iraq. After their defeat against Shah Esma'il in 91411508 Sayyed Fayyaz fled and a Qezelbash emir was appointed as governor of 'Arabestan. However, shortly thereafter the Mosha'sha's were allowed to remain in control over Arabestan west of the Karun, with their main center at Hoveyzeh. They had, of course, to pay tribute and give hostages as a guarantee for their good behavior.

By that time, the governor of Hoveyzeh was increasingly referred to as vali-ye Arabestan, because throughout the sixteenth century and the early seventeenrh century the normal appellation was hahemor vali-ye Hoveyzeh."

Despite these family squabbles and some Persian interlopers the governorship of Hoveyzeh remained in the hands of the Mosha'sha'family until the end of the nineteenth century.

pp. 142–144, Floor, Willem (2008). Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration, by Mirza Naqi Nasiri. Washington, D.C.: Mage Publishers.

In other regions, the right to strike coins known as haqq al-zarb (jus monetæ cudendæ, the right to strike [a coin])24 was granted (and could be revoked) by the shah to (and from) the local governor, as is documented in the case of Khuzestan. p. 286, chapter written by Alexander V. Akopyan (2021). The Safavid World, Routledge

In Dhu’l hijjah 1095/Nov.–Dec. 1684, the shah issued farmans prohibiting (the striking of) adulterated coins and banning his subjects from visiting Ottoman territory in an attempt to prevent (the importation of) adulterated money. He also sent orders to the province of `Arabistan for merchants not to export gold from the country. p. 104, Matthee, Rudi (2011). Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan. I.B.Tauris.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Surprise, not a single mention of a "Emirate of Arabistan" either in a prominent source about Arabestan/Khuzestan, The Rise and Fall of the Banū Kaʿb. A Borderer State in Southern Khuzestan by Willem Floor, a leading scholar in pre-modern Iran studies. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a single mention of a "Emirate of Arabistan" either in the EI2 articles K̲h̲ūzistān Mus̲h̲aʿs̲h̲aʿ. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS that contradicts the historicity of this article

Let's see how many quotes from academic sources I can find that contradicts the historicity of this so-called Emirate of Arabistan, which apparently existed from the 15th to the 20th-century. There are more sources than these, which I will gradually add. People can judge from then on;

1. "The Safavids invited Shi'i Arab tribes from the Nejd to settle in the area to act as buffers against the Sunni Ottomans, and henceforth the western part of the area became known as Arabistan, a name that came to be applied to the rest of the old province of Khuzistan only in the second half of the eighteenth century." p. 209 - "Iran and Iraq: Intersocietal Linkages and Secular Nationalisms". In Amanat, Abbas; Vejdani, Farzin (eds.). Iran Facing Others: Identity Boundaries in a Historical Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan
2. "From 1430 till 1508, the region was ruled by the local Arab Shi'i dynasty of the Musha'sha, after which it came under the sovereignty of the Safawid Shah Isma'il I. The western portion of Khuzistan became then known as Arabistan. By the xixth c. the name of 'Arabistan was usually applied to the province as a whole, but the name of Khuzistan was restored by Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1925." - p. 212 - van Donzel, E.J. (2022). Islamic Desk Reference: Compiled from The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Brill.
3. "The descendants of Ibn Falah remained, however, as Safavid governors of the province." p. 102 - Momen, Moojan (1985), An introduction to Shiʻi Islam : the history and doctrines of Twelver Shiʻism, New Haven: Yale University Press
4. "In other regions, the right to strike coins known as haqq al-zarb (jus monetæ cudendæ, the right to strike [a coin]) was granted (and could be revoked) by the shah to (and from) the local governor, as is documented in the case of Khuzestan." p. 286, chapter written by Alexander V. Akopyan (2021). The Safavid World, Routledge
5. "MUSHA'SHA', a Shia Arab dynasty of the town of Hawiza [q-v.] or Huwayza in Khuzistan ('Arabistan). / Although Sayyid Falah b. Muhsin reconquered Huwayza and established himself as a semi-independent ruler, he remained mainly confined to Huwayza and the western parts of Khuzistan. Shah Isma'il was recognised by him as the overlord. Dizful remained in the hands of the Ra'nashi shaykhs; Shushtar came under the control of a local ruler. During the reign of Shah Ismail or under Shah Tahmasp, the province was divided into Arabistan, the western part, which remained under the control of the Musha'sha, and Khuzistan, which was placed under the military command of the governors of Kuh Giluya, or sometimes also under that of Fars." - pp. 672–673 - Luft, P. (1993). "Mus̲h̲aʿs̲h̲aʿ". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E.; Heinrichs, W. P. & Pellat, Ch. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume VII: Mif–Naz. Leiden: E. J. Brill
6. "In the 9th/15th-century, following the onslaughts of Timur on the Iranian world, a local Arab Shi'i dynasty, the Musha'sha [q.v.], established itself at Hawiza, on the old course of the Karkha river on the western edge of Khuzistan, and enjoyed about seventy years of independence. In 914/1508, however, Shah Isma'il Safawi [see Isma'il I], after his capture of Baghdad, occupied Hawiza, Dizful and Shushtar, and received the submission of the Musha'sha sultans." / "As a consequence of Musha'sha rule, the western portion of Khuzistan became known, from early Safawid times, as 'Arabistan. In later Safawid times, the title of "wali of 'Arabistan", was conferred on the Musha'sha sultans." / "As a result of this great influx of Arabs, the name of 'Arabistan was, by the 19th-century, usually applied to the province as a whole. In the 19th-century, control of the province virtually passed from the hands of the central government into those of the shaykhs of Muhammara (Khurramshahr), and it was not until 1925 that Rida Shah Pahlawi [q.v.] overthrew the Shaykh of Muhammara and restored the name of Khuzistan." - pp. 80–81 - Savory, R.M (1986). "K̲h̲ūzistān". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E.; Lewis, B. & Pellat, Ch. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume V: Khe–Mahi. Leiden: E. J. Brill
7. The “occupation” that occurred in 1925 was in reality a reassertion of direct control by the Persian state. For some time before that event, the western part of Khuzestan, known at the time as Arabistan, had in effect been ruled as an autonomous emirate centred on the city of Muhammarah, under Shaykh Khazal al-Kabi / Following Reza Khan’s coup in 1921, a drive towards centralisation and eradication of tribal autonomy was launched by Iran’s new ruler (who proclaimed himself Shah in 1925). In response to the infraction on his autonomy, Shaykh Khazal rose in rebellion in 1924, which was subdued by Reza Khan the next year. The Emirate of Muhammarah was crushed and Shaykh Khazal placed under house arrest in Tehran. - p. 256 - Franzen, Johan (2021). Pride and Power: A Modern History of Iraq, Oxford University Press
8. "The farman by which the Arab tribes held Abadan forbade its sale, so the British by an agreement with the Shaikh of Muhammara leased the land for a yearly rental during the period of the concession." pp. 417–418 - Greaves, Rose. "Iranian relations with Great Britain AND British India, 1798-1921", "The Cambridge History of Iran", vol 7
9. "This was necessary in view of the reports alleging that the British were reinforcing the military capability of another protégé, the sheikh of Muhammara (just across the Shatt al-'Arab from Basra) by providing him with artillery pieces." - p. 543, Farah, Caesar A., "Arabs and Ottomans: A Checkered Relationship", Gorgias Press
10. Once the Ṣafawid Shāh Ismā‘īl I (see below, no. 148) had extended his power into Khūzistān in 920/1514, the Musha‘sha‘ were reduced to submission, and over the next centuries generally functioned as walis or governors for the Persian monarchs. At the end of the nineteenth century, their local influence was overshadowed by the rise of the rulers of Muḥammara from the Arab Banū Kalb, but the Musha‘sha‘ family nevertheless managed to survive up to the time of Riḍā Shāh Pahlawi (see below, no. 152). - p. 279 - Bosworth, C.E. (1996). The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. New York City: Columbia University Press.

• Willem Floor:

1. "'Arabestan or Khuzestan is a province in south-western Iran. Prior to the imposition of Safavid overlordship over the Mosha'sha' dynasty its rulers held sway over the whole of 'Arabestan, as Khuzestan then was usually referred to, as well as part of S. Iraq. After their defeat against Shah Esma'il in 1508 Sayyed Fayyaz fled and a Qezelbash emir was appointed as governor of 'Arabestan. However, shortly thereafter the Mosha'sha's were allowed to remain in control over Arabestan west of the Karun, with their main center at Hoveyzeh. They had, of course, to pay tribute and give hostages as a guarantee for their good behavior. / By that time, the governor of Hoveyzeh was increasingly referred to as vali-ye Arabestan, because throughout the sixteenth century and the early seventeenth century the normal appellation was hahemor vali-ye Hoveyzeh." / Despite these family squabbles and some Persian interlopers the governorship of Hoveyzeh remained in the hands of the Mosha'sha'family until the end of the nineteenth century. - pp. 142–144, Floor, Willem (2008). Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration, by Mirza Naqi Nasiri. Washington, D.C.: Mage Publishers.
2. "The main power in southern Khuzestan (or 'Arabistan as it was then usually referred to) was the chief of the Musha'sha' confederacy" / "After their defeat in 1508 by Shah Isma'il I, the Musha'sha' accepted Safavid rule and only occasionally was there need for central government forces to intervene in Khuzestan. The Musha'sha' chief was appointed Vali or governor of Huvayza by the Safavids, and he wielded considerable influence in Khuzestan affairs." / "What it meant was that the Qajar authorities established control over the Ka'b, while, in a reversal of roles, the latter became the vassals of the Sheikh of Muhammarah, who until the 1840s had been a vassal of the supreme chief of the Ka'b." - pp. 278–279 - Floor, Willem (2006). "The Rise and Fall of the Banū Kaʿb. A Borderer State in Southern Khuzestan". Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies. 44 (1)"

• Rudi Matthee:

1. "In Dhu’l hijjah 1095/Nov.–Dec. 1684, the shah issued farmans prohibiting (the striking of) adulterated coins and banning his subjects from visiting Ottoman territory in an attempt to prevent (the importation of) adulterated money. He also sent orders to the province of `Arabistan for merchants not to export gold from the country." p. 104, Matthee, Rudi (2011). Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan. I.B.Tauris.
2. "Huvayzeh, which is a diminutive of Hawiza, is situated in the Arabic speaking Iranian province of Khuzistan, the old—and modern—name of the region the southern part of which became known as 'Arabistàn under Shah 'Abbàs. / "Arabistàn initially only comprised the southern part of the old province of Khuzistan and, more specifically, the region around Huvayzeh. Under Nàdir Shàh the area was extended to the north and came to include Shùstar and Dizfùl. Only Rizà Shàh abolished the term in 1923 and reintroduced the name Khuzistan for the entire province." - p. 267 (see also note 2). - "The Safavid Mint of Huwayza: The Numismatic Evidence". In Newman, Andrew J. (ed.). Society and Culture in the Early Modern Middle East: Studies on Iran in the Safavid Period. Brill.
3. "Inhabiting the middle, around the town of Huwayza, were the Musha’sha’, a tribal confederation which, having come to power in the fifteenth century, over time had transformed itself into an eponymous, fervently Isma’ili-Shi’i dynasty. The end of full independence for the Musha’sha’ came when Shah Isma’il nominally brought them under his control in the early sixteenth century. / While rule continued to be hereditary within the house of Musha’sha’, the shah would formally invest the vali with power and, through a policy of divide and conquer, keep the region under a modicum of control." - pp. 450–451 and 453 - Matthee, Rudi (2015). "Relations between the Center and the Periphery in Safavid Iran: The Western Borderlands v. the Eastern Frontier Zone". The Historian. 77 (3)

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Establishing notability

The recent AfD just closed, but here are some quotes which establish the notability of this subject:

Altaie 1993, p. 541:

The author speaks of "the collapse of Shakh Khaza'al's government in Arabistan" (p. 73), which occured in 1925. But, in spite of his underlying theme of "great imperial design," he does not indicate that it was the British who actually helped incorporate the Arab emirate of Arabistan into Iran. It is especially important to mention (pp. 8, 43) the Arabistani port/capital city of Muhammara, which the Arabs of Arabistan founded in 1812 to compete as an open port with the commercial growth of Basra under the Ottomans. The Ottomans attacked Muhammara in 1837, but the British exploited in for their own purposes, including the trafficking of arms in the region.

Takriti 2018, p. 100:

Fear of Iranian expansionism was precipitated by historical experiences such as the annexation of the Emirate of Arabistan. In the early twentieth century, under its ruler Sheikh Khazal, the Emirate was one of Kuwait’s regional allies, that is, until it was dissolved as an autonomous region by the Iranian state in 1925 and included as the western territory of the province of Khuzestan in 1936, events keenly followed in Kuwait at the time.

Ward 2014, p. 76:

After the Ottoman governor of Erzerum took two Azerbaijani tribes under his protection in 1821, [...] In the course of these operations, the Qajars conquered the emirate of Arabistan, which included most of modern Khuzestan and the port of Muhammarah (Khorramshahr). The rulers of Arabistan had carved out an independent existence since the late seventeenth century by playing the Iranians against the Ottomans. Because of Qajar weakness, the Khuzestan tribes retained a large measure of autonomy.

• Altaie, Ali (1993). "Khaldoun Hasan Al-Naqeeb, Society and State in the Gulf and Arab Peninsula: A Different Perspective, trans. L. M. Kenny, emended by Ibrahim Hayani, under the aegis of the Project of Translation from Arabic (London: Routledge, 1990). Pp. 227". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 25 (3): 539–541. doi:10.1017/S0020743800059122.
• Takriti, Abdel Razzaq (2018). "Political Praxis in the Gulf: Ahmad al-Khatib and the Movement of Arab Nationalists, 1948–1969". In Hanssen, Jens; Weiss, Max (eds.). Arabic Thought against the Authoritarian Age: Towards an Intellectual History of the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 86–112. doi:10.1017/9781108147781.007. ISBN 978-1-107-19338-3.
• Ward, Steven R. (2014). Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 9781589012585.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Thanks, but my main gripe is that none of these mentioned sources seem to be specialized in the issue, and seem to contradict sources that actually are (and the first source simply calls it 'Arab emirate', not 'Emirate of Arabistan'). Btw, I was just about to write this comment in the section above, so I'll just copy-paste it here; Since you are rewriting this article [9] and seem to very knowledgeable in how to manage sources as you showed in the recent Mandaean/Sabian issue, could you please look at the cited sources, especially Source 6, 7, 10, as well as source 2 by Floor? I suspect the closest thing to this 'Emirate of Arabistan' is the Emirate/Sheikhdom of Muhammarah/Muhammara/Mohammerah. If that is indeed the case, then The Rise and Fall of the Banū Kaʿb. A Borderer State in Southern Khuzestan is going to very helpful. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one! We should also add "Emirate of Muhammarah" as an alternative name (as mentioned by Franzen 2021; it has some hits on Google scholar too). Altaie 1993 calls it the "Arab emirate of Arabistan", by the way. As mentioned by Altaie 1993 and Herb 2015, its capital was the port city of Muhammara (Khorramshahr), whence undoubtedly the references to the sheikhs of Muhammara by Savory 1986 and Floor 2006.

Though formally it has always remained a part of Iran, as Savory 1986 mentions, during the 19th century it was virtually independent from the Qajars. As Soucek 1984 and Elling 2013 explain, this semi-independence had a lot to do with the fact that the emirate had British colonial support under the rule of Jabir al-Ka'abi. When Jabir's son Sheikh Khaz'al came to power in 1897, the latter tried to take even more advantage of this British imperialist support, and especially after the British found oil in Khuzestan in 1908, they established a quasi-colonial rule, emboldening Sheikh Khaz'al to gather an Arab army and to seek independence from Iran. Sheikh Khaz'al staged several revolts, the first in 1916 and the second in 1924 (see Sheikh Khazal rebellion). However, Reza Shah was able to surpress this second revolt and to regain full control over Khuzestan. I still need to incorporate most of this info from Soucek 1984 and Elling 2013.

I think that much of the misunderstanding about this article was caused by the claim that the emirate originated in the 15th century. This is absolute nonsense. As you've certainly learned writing the Safavid Arabestan article, significant Arab presence in Khuzestan indeed dates to the 15th century: Elling 2013 writes From the fifteenth century, the Bani Ka‘ab tribe, including immigrants from present-day Kuwait, gained considerable power in Khuzestan. In this period, southern Khuzestan was thoroughly Arabicized and became known as Arabistan (‘arabestān), referring to Soucek 1984. But during the Safavid period Khuzestan/Arabistan remained under firm control of the central government. It was only in the late Safavid period, as Ward 2014 writes, that the rulers of Arabistan had carved out an independent existence. But from the sources I've seen until now, it seems that it's primarily in the 19th century that it really was able to gain a strong form of autonomy (there are multiple sources for this, but perhaps Savory 1986 in EI2 is the best). I've even not found anything about the emirate in the 18th century, which renders Ward 2014's mention of late 17th-century independence somewhat suspect. I've looked at Floor 2006 but didn't find much useful at a first skim (but perhaps I wasn't looking for the right things; will look again). It seems possible that some of the other scholars here are projecting the late 19th-century quasi-independent status of a British-backed Emirate back into the past, but of course we can only follow sources here.

My general sense is that there are not a lot of good sources for this article, and that it should best be made into a stub. I've not really looked into the rest of the article as it stands, but my plan was just to rewrite the whole thing in a few paragraphs. I'm going to bed now, but hopefully I'll be able to work some more on it tomorrow. If there's anything specific I've written which you think is contradicted by better sources, please let me know. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Emirate/Sheikhdom of Muhammara/Muhammarah be the main name of the article then? That seems to be what the leading sources in this field use, including arguably some of the most prominent historians in pre-modern Iranian history, Roger Savory and Willem Floor. Ward is far from an expert in this field, Soucek is pretty good though, and he himself doesn't use that name either. The emirate/sheikhdom does indeed not seem to have emerged in the late 16th-century, when the Safavids were still well up and running - which I also highlighted up above. Khuzestan seems to still have been divided between the Musha'sha and other Safavid-appointed governors back then. I think there are enough sources to create a somewhat decent article, the "only" issue (a pretty major one) being that I can't find any source that mentions how and when this Emirate/Sheikhdom of Muhammarah exactly began. Even Floor, who mentions Muhammara 91(!) times in his The Rise and Fall of the Banū Kaʿb. A Borderer State in Southern Khuzestan, makes no mention of it as far as I can see. I possess the files of all the sources mentioned above and more, ask away if you need any of them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the sources from Safavid Arabestan should also be included in a section here, unless this article is meant to only cover the Afsharid and Qajar periods. Also wanted to point out that the source "Brog, David (2017). Reclaiming Israel's History: Roots, Rights, and the Struggle for Peace. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781621576099." doesn't seem WP:RS. David Brog is an attorney and political activist, not a historian. He fails both WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIAS. Lastly, I'm also interested in knowing whether primary sources can have a place in the article (especially regarding demography). There's a wealth of British primary sources with statistical data, its just the WP:PRIMARY policy that needs to be clarified here; can or should said information be added as long as it's mentioned in the paragraph that its from a primary source? --Qahramani44 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Brog 2017 is garbage. I was initially planning to use him for the 1821 date with a {{better source needed}} tag but then found Ward 2014 also mentioning that, and decided to keep Brog 2017 for just a little while until we would find another, better source for it. But I believe there's reason not to rely too much on Ward 2014 either, as I'll explain.

It's indeed the origin question which is most obscure here. After reading large chunks of Floor 2006, I concur that there's a problem with the concept of an "Emirate of Arabistan" as such. As used by Ward 2014, it must refer to the quasi-independent rule of the Banu Ka'b throughout Khuzestan in c. 1740-1840 (cf. Floor 2006, p. 302 The Ka'b occupied most of Khuzestan). But it is in fact the rise to prominence of Muhammara in the 1840s that ended the rule of the Ka'b, whose chieftain became a vasal of Jabir, the Sheikh of Muhammara at this time (Floor 2006, p. 278). After the Anglo-Persian War of 1857, Sheikh Jabir became completely independent of the Ka'b (Floor 2006, p. 295; though Jabir was himself a member of the Ka'b, he was never their leader, involving the strange situation where for a period he had de facto power over this own tribal Sheikh, though after 1857 Jabir styled himself Sheikh of the Ka'b -see Floor 2006, p. 296). Especially under Jabir's successors Miz'al ibn Jabir and Khazʽal ibn Jabir the power of the Sheikhs of Muhammara grew to such an extent as to become "the major power in southern Khuzestan", being able "to carve out an autonomous role" with the help of the British. (Floor 2006, p. 307) It is this late phase which Franzen 2021 calls the "Emirate of Muhammarah" and both Altaie 1993 and Takriti 2018 call the "Emirate of Arabistan".

But this is very different from Ward 2014's "Emirate of Arabistan" which the Qajars purportedly conquered in 1821: Muhammara was still a small village then (Floor 2006), and this must refer to the rule of the Banu Ka'b. However, as I read Floor 2006, the Banu Ka'b always had to deal with rivals within Arabistan/Khuzestan, and it never seems to have been a stable 'Emirate' recognized by any foreign power, and so Floor 2006 also doesn't use the term. I think it's safe to discard Ward 2014 here. The "Emirate of Arabistan" primarily refers to the early 20th-century rule of Sheikh Kha'zal over much of Khuzestan/Arabistan, which he attempted to convert into an independent country with the help of the British, an attempt which ultimately failed. I believe "Emirate of Arabistan" is a preferred term among later Arab nationalists (Ellin 2013 has some info on this), which may contribute to its notability. "Emirate of Muhammara", on the other hand, is probably the better term from a historical point of view (also because even while still less powerful than the Ka'b and in no way ruling over Khuzestan in the 1830s, Muhammara was already treated as a direct trade partner by the Government of India; cf. Floor 2006, p. 300). I'm going to do some more reading first, but at the moment I'm inclined to support a move to "Emirate of Muhammara".

If this is correct, I don't think it's very relevant to import stuff from Safavid Khuzestan to here. A more fruitful approach in my view would be to expand that latter article to include the history of Khuzestan/Arabistan under Afsharid and Qajar rule, since that is the period in which it seems to have reached its zenith as a semi-autonomous region under the Banu Ka'b. As for primary sources, please no. This is a very controversial subject, and introducing primary sources is bound to lead to all kinds of skewed interpretations, as well as editorial drama over these interpretations. We should try to make it as solid as possible, which means as secondary as possible (in fact many of the sources used now are tertiary, citing secondary sources for their stuff; using Floor 2006 will improve that). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that's good to know, thanks for clarifying. I don't have access to a lot of the top-quality secondary and tertiary sources, but I'll see what else I can find on the region in this time period to help with the rewrite. Is it also okay to add historical maps of the area from Wikimedia Commons like this one [10]?. One of the important details about province borders is that they were not fixed, by late Qajar period the borders of Arabistan were more or less whatever land Sheikh Khazal could secure authority over. --Qahramani44 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Btw, I completely forgot, but Iranica recently released a new article about Khorramshahr, i.e. the previous Muhammarah (spelled Moḥammara here). It should have some decent info. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran and Qahramani44: I must confess that I may have overreached a little bit with starting work on this article. I neither have the background knowledge, nor the interest, nor (most importantly) the time to really do a good job here. I have tried to insert as much as I could of the above, but there's much work still. In particular, the article body needs cleaning up, and my own WP:LEADBOMBed proto-stub badly needs some copy-editing (the substance is good and reliably sourced, but the style is horrible). I'm going on an extended wiki-break in the near future, but perhaps you guys want to work on this article some more. I also suggest moving it to Emirate of Muhammara. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: No problem, I do that all the time - thanks for the help. I'll take the reins from here then, and make a move request in a few minutes, where I would appreciate your input, amongst other things to avoid more nonsense claims that a "Persian" isn't qualified to edit this article because of his "bias". --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 04:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Emirate of Arabistan → Emirate of Muhammara

Per the fact this name is more historically accurate and appears in numerous WP:RS (listed below), as well as the recent discussion about the article and its name [11].

1. "In the 9th/15th-century, following the onslaughts of Timur on the Iranian world, a local Arab Shi'i dynasty, the Musha'sha [q.v.], established itself at Hawiza, on the old course of the Karkha river on the western edge of Khuzistan, and enjoyed about seventy years of independence. In 914/1508, however, Shah Isma'il Safawi [see Isma'il I], after his capture of Baghdad, occupied Hawiza, Dizful and Shushtar, and received the submission of the Musha'sha sultans." / "As a consequence of Musha'sha rule, the western portion of Khuzistan became known, from early Safawid times, as 'Arabistan. In later Safawid times, the title of "wali of 'Arabistan", was conferred on the Musha'sha sultans." / "As a result of this great influx of Arabs, the name of 'Arabistan was, by the 19th-century, usually applied to the province as a whole. In the 19th-century, control of the province virtually passed from the hands of the central government into those of the shaykhs of Muhammara (Khurramshahr), and it was not until 1925 that Rida Shah Pahlawi [q.v.] overthrew the Shaykh of Muhammara and restored the name of Khuzistan." - pp. 80–81 - Savory, R.M (1986). "K̲h̲ūzistān". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E.; Lewis, B. & Pellat, Ch. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume V: Khe–Mahi. Leiden: E. J. Brill
2. The “occupation” that occurred in 1925 was in reality a reassertion of direct control by the Persian state. For some time before that event, the western part of Khuzestan, known at the time as Arabistan, had in effect been ruled as an autonomous emirate centred on the city of Muhammarah, under Shaykh Khazal al-Kabi / Following Reza Khan’s coup in 1921, a drive towards centralisation and eradication of tribal autonomy was launched by Iran’s new ruler (who proclaimed himself Shah in 1925). In response to the infraction on his autonomy, Shaykh Khazal rose in rebellion in 1924, which was subdued by Reza Khan the next year. The Emirate of Muhammarah was crushed and Shaykh Khazal placed under house arrest in Tehran. - p. 256 - Franzen, Johan (2021). Pride and Power: A Modern History of Iraq, Oxford University Press
3. "The farman by which the Arab tribes held Abadan forbade its sale, so the British by an agreement with the Shaikh of Muhammara leased the land for a yearly rental during the period of the concession." pp. 417–418 - Greaves, Rose. "Iranian relations with Great Britain AND British India, 1798-1921", "The Cambridge History of Iran", vol 7
4. "This was necessary in view of the reports alleging that the British were reinforcing the military capability of another protégé, the sheikh of Muhammara (just across the Shatt al-'Arab from Basra) by providing him with artillery pieces." - p. 543, Farah, Caesar A., "Arabs and Ottomans: A Checkered Relationship", Gorgias Press
5. Once the Ṣafawid Shāh Ismā‘īl I (see below, no. 148) had extended his power into Khūzistān in 920/1514, the Musha‘sha‘ were reduced to submission, and over the next centuries generally functioned as walis or governors for the Persian monarchs. At the end of the nineteenth century, their local influence was overshadowed by the rise of the rulers of Muḥammara from the Arab Banū Kalb, but the Musha‘sha‘ family nevertheless managed to survive up to the time of Riḍā Shāh Pahlawi (see below, no. 152). - p. 279 - Bosworth, C.E. (1996). The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. New York City: Columbia University Press.
6. "The main power in southern Khuzestan (or 'Arabistan as it was then usually referred to) was the chief of the Musha'sha' confederacy" / "After their defeat in 1508 by Shah Isma'il I, the Musha'sha' accepted Safavid rule and only occasionally was there need for central government forces to intervene in Khuzestan. The Musha'sha' chief was appointed Vali or governor of Huvayza by the Safavids, and he wielded considerable influence in Khuzestan affairs." / "What it meant was that the Qajar authorities established control over the Ka'b, while, in a reversal of roles, the latter became the vassals of the Sheikh of Muhammarah, who until the 1840s had been a vassal of the supreme chief of the Ka'b." - pp. 278–279 - Floor, Willem (2006). "The Rise and Fall of the Banū Kaʿb. A Borderer State in Southern Khuzestan". Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies. 44 (1)"
7. "In spite of the nominal sovereignty of the Persian government, the region of Moḥammara maintained a far-reaching autonomy under the leadership of local Arab shaikhs, who had established a kind of shaikhdom of Moḥammara."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Arabistan/Khuzestan had been ruled by various Arab sheikhs before c. 1840, but what was peculiar about this one is that its seat of power was in the British-backed port city of Muhammara (Khorramshahr). All the best sources for this article (including what is arguably the most specialized scholar used here, Willem Floor) consistently speak of the Sheikhs of Muhammara. The dominion itself is sometimes called a sheikhdom, but more often an emirate, so Emirate of Muhammara sounds about right. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom and the above. Any emir (ruler) is typically simultaneously titled sheikh, so no contradiction there. Take the modern UAE: The formula is "Sheikh X, emir of Y". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Pahlevun (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Benyamin (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.