Anti-Persian sentiments

Anti-Persianism is a phenomenon that first rose among victorious Arabs during the Islamic Conquest of Persia, in particular the Umayyid era. It also surfaced once again during the 20th century when Gamal Abel Naser championed Pan-Arab nationalist views as a political tool.

Anti-Persianism among Arabs is not a universal phenomenon, and is usually only advocated by nationalist Arabs. Many of today's Arabs in fact virulently oppose Arab chauvinism. These include Samir el-Khalil as well the late George Hourani. Samir el-Khalil has attacked pan-Arab chauvinism and has reminded Arabs of the legacy of Persia in their culture as well as in Islam. Khalil was for years a hunted man by the Saddam Hussein regime. The late Arab scholar, George Hourani, not only appreciated the Iranians for their role in helping the Arabs form their civilization, but was rigorous against politically motivated attempts to re-name the Persian Gulf as the "Arab Gulf". And Richard Nelson Frye regarding this matter unequivocally stated that:

"Arabs no longer understand the role of Iran and the Persian language in the formation of Islamic culture. Perhaps they wish to forget the past, but in so doing they remove the bases of their own spiritual, moral and cultural being…without the heritage of the past and a healthy respect for it…there is little chance for stability and proper growth."

^{(R. N. Frye, The Golden Age of Persia, London: Butler & Tanner Ltd., 1989, page 236)}

Many Iraqis have however dismantled Saddam's anti-Iran propaganda props from their streets and monuments after the US invasion - this was done in order to destroy Saddam's legacy of hate against Iran. And many Arabs continue to disregard the anti-non Arab sentiments exhibited by such groups.

The anti-Persianism exhibited by Arab extremists has varying degrees and can be investigated from several different angles that will now follow.

Anti-Persianism in early Islam

Morteza Motahhari writes:

"If we pay a little attention to the prejudice and discrimination practised by some of the caliphs with regard to their attitude towards their Arab and non-Arab subjects and to Ali ibn Abi Talib's defence of the criteria of Islamic equality and impartiality concerning Arabs and non-Arabs, the truth of the matter will become completely clear."[1]

Contrary to popular perception, conversion to Islam was discouraged, if not actually forbidden for Iranians, in the days of early Islam. The caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab in fact sought to restrict conversions to Islam only to Arabs. One tradition for example claims that he stopped the victorious Arabs from invading the Iranian plateau after the battle of Jalula' because he did not wish to see Persians converted to Islam. See: Tabari. Series I. p2778-9

The conquest of Persia and beyond was thus seemingly intended to raise new revenues, and the native population naturally did not appreciate this exploitation. Many Arab Muslims believed that Iranian converts should not clothe themselves as Arabs, among many other forms discrimination that existed.("Mohammedanische Studien" Goldziher. Vol 2 p138-9)

The inhumane treatment of Iranians by the victorious Arab forces are also documented. See:

• "Ansab al Ashraf" or "Fotooh al Buldan" by Baladhuri. p.417.
• Tabari. Series II p1207.
• "Tarikh e Sistan" p82.
• "Tarikh e Qum" p254-6.

Mu'awiyah, in a famous letter addressed to Ziyad ibn Abih, the then governor of Iraq, wrote:

Be watchful of Iranian Muslims and never treat them as equals of Arabs. Arabs have a right to take in marriage their women, but they have no right to marry Arab women. Arabs are entitled to inherit their legacy, but they cannot inherit from an Arab. As far as possible they are to be given lesser pensions and lowly jobs. In the presence of an Arab a non-Arab shall not lead the congregation prayer, nor they are to be allowed to stand in the first row of prayer, nor to be entrusted with the job of guarding the frontiers or the post of a qadi.

Mistreatment of Persians and other non-Arabs during early Islam is well documented. To begin with, the Umayyids did not recognize equal rights of a Mawali, and believed that only "pure Arab blood" was worthy of ruling. Neither did they make any effort to mend relations with the Mawali after making declarations like:

"We blessed you with the sword (refering to the conquests) and dragged you into heaven by chains of our religion. This by itself is enough for you to understand that we are superior to you."

Many similar norms have been reported in various sources:

"The Mawali were not allowed to lead the prayers or receive booty even if they had participated in battles and distinguished themselves. They were not allowed to ride horses, marry into Arab families, or administer governmental or religious affairs. Even the offspring of mixed marriages were not exempt. The Mawali did not have the right to walk alongside an Arab; if a Mawali met an Arab carrying a load, he had to carry that load to the Arab's home without expecting any payment. If a Mawali were riding a horse and saw an Arab, he had to dismount and allow the Arab to ride instead. In fact, he had to take the Arab to his destination. Furthermore, the Mawali did not have the right to marry their daughters without prior permission from their Arab masters. Even in death rituals, there was a distinction. As a rule, Arabs did not participate in funerals held for the Mawali and the Mawali were not allowed to perform funeral prayers for a deceased Arab."[2]

The Umayyid Arabs are even reported to have prevented the Mawali from having surnames, as an Arab was only considered worthy of a surname. They were required to pay taxes for not being an Arab:

"During the early centuries of Islam when the Islamic empire was really an 'Arab kingdom', the Iranians, Central Asians and other non-Arab peoples who had converted to Islam in growing numbers as mawali, or 'clients' of an Arab lord or clan, had in practice acquired an inferior socio-economic and racial status compared to Arab Muslims, though the mawali themselves fared better than the empire's non-Muslim subjects, the ahl al-dhimma ('people of the book'). The mawali, for instance, paid special taxes, often similar to the jizya (poll tax) and the kharaj (land tax) levied on the Zoroastrians and other non-Muslim subjects, taxes which were never paid by the Arab Muslims."[3]

Persian language suppressed

After the Islamic conquest of the Persian Empire, during the reign of the Ummayad dynasty, the Arab conquerors imposed Arabic as the primary language of the subject peoples throughout their empire. Hajjāj ibn Yusuf, who was not happy with the prevalence of the Persian language in the divan, ordered the official language of the conquered lands to be replaced by Arabic, sometimes by force.

In Biruni's From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية), for example it is written:

وقتی قتبیه بن مسلم سردار حجاج، بار دوم بخوارزم رفت و آن را باز گشود هرکس را که خط خوارزمی می نوشت و از تاریخ و علوم و اخبار گذشته آگاهی داشت از دم تیغ بی دریغ درگذاشت و موبدان و هیربدان قوم را یکسر هلاک نمود و کتابهاشان همه بسوزانید و تباه کرد تا آنکه رفته رفته مردم امی ماندند و از خط و کتابت بی بهره گشتند و اخبار آنها اکثر فراموش شد و از میان رفت

"When Qutaibah bin Muslim under the command of Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef was sent to Khwarazmia with a military expedition and conquered it for the second time, he swiftly killed whomwever wrote the Khwarazmian native language that knew of the Khwarazmian heritage, history, and culture. He then killed all their Zoroastrian priests and burned and wasted their books, until gradually the illiterate only remained, who knew nothing of writing, and hence their history was mostly forgotten." p.35,36,48

It is difficult to imagine the Arabs not implementing anti-Persian policies in light of such events, writes Zarrinkoub in his famous Two centuries of silence, where he exclusively writes of this topic. Reports of Persian speakers being tortured are also given in Abū al-Faraj al-Isfahāni's al-Aghānī. (Vol 4, p.423)

Ali vs. Umar ibn al-Khattab

Predominantly Shia Iran has always exhibited a sympathetic side for Ali and his progeny. Even when Persia was laregly Sunni, this was still evident as can be seen from the writings remaining from that era. Rumi for example, praises Ali (in a section entitled "Learn from Ali"), which recounts Ali ibn Abi Talib's explanation as to why he declined to kill someone who had spit in his face as Ali was defeating him in battle. Persian literature in praise of Ali's progeny is quite ubiquitous and abundant. These all stem from numerous traditions regarding Ali's favor of Persians being as equals to Arabs.

In Bihar ul Anwar (vol.9, bab 124), a tradition quoted from Usul al-Kafi reads:

"One day a group of the Mawali (Iranian clients of Arab tribes) came to Amir al-Mu'minin 'Ali and complained about the conduct of the Arabs. Tbey said to him that the Messenger of God did not make any distinction between Arabs and non-Arabs in the disbursement of public funds (bayt ul-mal) or in the matter of marriage. They added that the Prophet distributed public funds equally among Muslims and let Salman, Bilal and Suhayb marry Arab women, but today Arabs discriminated between themselves and us. 'Ali went to the Arabs and discussed the matter with them, but it was to no avail. The Arabs shouted, "It is quite impossible! Impossible! "'All, annoyed and angered by this turn of affairs, returned to the Mawali and told them with utmost regret, "They are not prepared to treat you equally and as Muslims enjoying equal rights. I advise you to go into trade and God will make you prosper."

Several sources speak of a dispute arising between an Arab and an Iranian woman. Referring the case to Ali for arbitration, Ali reportedly did not allow any discrimination between the two to take place. His judgement thus invited the protest of the Arab woman. Thereupon, Ali replied: "In the Quran, I did not find the progeny of Ishmael (the Arabs) to be any higher than the Iranians." "Algharat" Vol 1 p70. Also "Tarikh e Yaghubi" Vol 2 p183. Also "Bihar-ol-Anwar" Vol 41 p137.

Again, Ali was once reciting a sermon in the city of Kufah, when Ash'as ibn Qays, a commander in the Arab army protested: "Amir-al-Momeneen! These Iranians are excelling the Arabs right in front of your eyes, and you are doing nothing about it!" He then roared: "I, will show them who the Arabs are!"

Ali immediately retorted: "While fat Arabs rest in soft beds, the Iranians work hard on the hottest days to please God with their efforts. And what do these Arabs want from me? To ostracize the Iranians and become an oppressor! I swear by the God that splits the nucleus and creates Man, I heard the prophet once say: Just as you strike the Iranians with your swords in the name of Islam, so will the Iranians one day strike you back the same way, for Islam." See: "Safinat-ol Bihar" by Shaykh 'Abbas al-Qummi. Vol 2p693. Also "Sharh Nahj-ul Balaghih Ebn Abi-alhadid" Vol 19, p124.

When the Sassanid city of Anbar fell to the forces of Mu'awiyeh, news reached Ali that the city had been sacked and plundered spilling much innocent blood. Ali gathered all the people of Kufah to the mosque, and gave a fiery sermon. After describing the massacre, he said: "If somebody, hearing this news now faints and dies of grief, I fully approve of it!" ("Nahj ol Balagheh". Sobhi Saleh. Sermon 27) It is from here that Ali is said to have had more sympathy for Iranians while Omar highly resented them.

The following traditions are also recorded in Safinat al-Bihar (Shaykh 'Abbas al-Qummi, (under wali), c.f. al-Kay.):

Mughirah, comparing Ali with 'Umar, always used to say, " 'Ali showed greater consideration and kindness to the Mawali, while 'Umar, on the contrary, did not like them."

A man came to Ja'far al-Sadiq and said, "People say that one who is neither a pure Arab nor a pure mawla is of base origin." The Imam asked him, "What do you mean by 'pure mawla'?" The man replied, "It is a person whose parents were slaves earlier." The Imam asked again, "What is the merit in being a pure mawla?" The man answered, "That is because the Prophet said that a people's mawla is from themselves. Therefore, a pure mawla of Arabs is like Arabs. Hence the man of merit is one who is either a pure Arab or a pure mawla associated with Arabs." The Imam replied, "Haven't you heard that the Prophet declared that he was the wali (guardian) of those who have no wali? Didn't he also say, 'I am the wali of every Muslim, whether he be Arab or non-Arab'? And doesn't a person whose wali is the Prophet therefore belong to the Prophet?" He then added: "Of these two which is superior: the one who is related to the Prophet and is from him or the one related to a boorish Arab who urinates over his feet?" Then he said: "One who embraces Islam out of his free choice, willingly is far more superior to him who has embraced Islam due to fear. These hypocritical Arabs were converted to Islam because of fear, while the Iranians came to the fold of Islam willingly and with pleasure.

the capturing of Shahrbanu by Umar ibn al-Khattab

Shia sources recount the following (with the emphasis as it appears in the references sources):

When returning to Madinah from their famous victorious battle against Persia, Omar's army brought with them many prisoners. Many of them were women. Among the prisoners captured at Ctesiphon were members of the Persian royal family, including the princess and her sister. People flocked in masses to see the captured daughter of the fallen mighty King of Persia.

Omar the caliph soon arrived and demanded the daughter of the King of Persia to be shown to him. The soldiers brought her to Omar. Omar then approached her and reached out to lift her veil to see the woman. The princess pulled herself back and cried out in Farsi: "The face of Hormoz darkens from indignity!" ("Vay! Rooye Hormoz siyaah shod!")

Omar, thinking that the princess had offended him, angrily shouted: "This woman insults me!" and pulled his sword out to behead her. Ali intervened and said: "You do not know her language. She called on her ancestor and did not insult you."

Omar then declared that he who paid the most will have her as a slave. But Ali again interrupted and said: "You do not have that right!" The crowd fell silent under Ali's aura. Ali then asked the princess: "Do you wish me to find you a husband?" The princess did not reply. Trying to prevent the auction from taking place, Ali said: "Her silence is a sign of approval." Facing Omar, Ali continued: "Why don't we let HER choose a person from amongst this crowd as a husband, and we will pay for her dowry from the public treasury?" Omar agreed.

Scanning through the crowd around her, the princess suddenly stopped and froze as her eyes fell on a man amongst the crowd. "I have seen this man in a dream before" she reportedly said. Tracing her look, the entire crowd turned around and looked at Hossein, son of Ali. Ali went up to Hossein and said: "Oh Hossein! From this girl, the most noble of humans shall be born."

Ali, then came up to the princess and asked: "What is your name?" The princess replied: "The daughter of Jahan-shah". Ali said: "and so Shahr-Banuyeh you will be called" ("the bride of the land").

To prevent the rest of the prisoners from being sold as slaves in the auction, Ali then declared: "These Iranians are respected and learned people... I, along with the Bani Hashem tribe have decided to set them free." Omar replied: "Ali today went forward and nullified my decision about the Iranians. So be it."

The following sources give similar descriptions of the same account or parts of the same account:

• "Aldarajat ol Rafi'" p215.
• "Mo'jem ol Baladan" Vol 2 p196.
• "Nahj ol Balagheh" letter 45.
• "Nahj ol Balagheh" Sobh-i Saleh sermon 209.
• "Nafs Al-Rahman" p139.
• "Managhib ebne shahr ashub" Vol 4, p48.

Anti-Persianism in modern times

It was in Baghdad where the first Arab nationalists, mainly of Palestinian and Syrian descent, formed the basis of their overall philosophies. Prominent among them were individuals such as Haj Amin Al-Husayni (the Mufti of Jerusalem), and Syrian nationalists such as Shukri al-Quwatli and Jamil Mardam. Satia Al-Husri, who served as advisor to the Ministry of Education; and later Director General of Education, and Dean of the College of Law was particularly instrumental in shaping the Iraqi educational system. These individuals formed the nucleus and genesis of true pan-Arabism, and unfortunately, ushered in the basis of anti-Iranian thinking in mainstream Arab education and mass media.

Anti-Persian thinking can be seen in the legacy of Satia Al-Husri. Of special interest is one of Husri's works entitled "Iranian Teachers who caused Us (Arabs) Big Problems". His campaigns against schools suspected of being positive towards Persia are well documented. One dramatic example is found in the 1920s when the Iraqi Ministry of Education ordered Husri to appoint Muhammad Al-Jawahiri as a teacher in a Baghdad school. A short excerpt of Husri's interview with the teacher is revealing (see Samir El-Khalil's Republic of Fear, New York: Pantheon Books, 1989, p.153-154):

Husri: First, I want to know your nationality.
Jawahiri: I am an Iranian.
Husri: In that case we cannot appoint you.

Husri was eventually overruled by the Iraqi ministry and Jawahiri was appointed instead. Jawahiri was in fact an Arab. Yet like many Arabs of his day and the present, Jawahiri saw no reason to follow Husri's bigoted anti-Iranian racialism.

For a lengthy discourse on anti-Persian Arabism see [4]

The Iran-Iraq war

File:Hands of victory.JPG

Saddam built many monuments like this: The Hands of Victory gates. 5000 helmets of killed Iranian soldiers lie at the base of two hands holding Arabic swords reminiscent of the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah.

Early on in his carerr, Saddam Hussein and pan-Arab ideologues targeted the Arabs of southwest Iran in an endeavour to have them separate and join “the Arab nation”. Saddam made no effort to conceal Arab supremacist tones from mixing into his war against Iran (which he called "the second Battle of al-Qādisiyyah). An intense campaign of misinformation and propaganda during his reign produced many schoolchildren that grew up thinking Iran had invaded Iraq, contrary to the established fact. (note items 6, 7, and 8 of the UN Secretary General's report to the UN Security Council on Dec 9, 1991: [5][6][7]

Saddām on numerous occasions alluded to the Islamic conquest of Iran in propagating his anti-Persian position against Iran. For example, on 02 April 1980, a half-year before the outbreak of the war, in a visit by Saddām to al-Mustansiriyyah University in Baghdad, drawing parallels to the 7th-Century defeat of Persia in the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah he announced:

"In your name, brothers, and on behalf of the Iraqis and Arabs everywhere we tell those [Persian] cowards and dwarfs who try to avenge Al-Qadisiyah that the spirit of Al-Qadisiyah as well as the blood and honor of the people of Al-Qadisiyah who carried the message on their spearheads are greater than their attempts."

Saddam also accused Iranians of "murdering the second (Umar), third (Uthman), and fourth (Ali) Caliphs of Islam", invading the three islands of Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs in the "Arabic Gulf", and attempting to destroy the Arabic language and civilization.

The Persian Gulf dispute

See main article: Persian Gulf naming dispute

Starting 1960s, some Arab states started to refer to Persian Gulf as Arabian Gulf. In Iran it was seen as an act of anti Persianism by Arabs. Since then the disputed over the name of the gulf has been one of the most heated discussions and among Iranians it is considered to be a sign of Arabs dislike of them.

Another aspect of this dispute aside from the naming of the Persian Gulf can be seen in cultural relations between Iran and the Arab states. One notable example was the 2002 World Cup qualifiers. Bahrain, which had no hopes of qualifying, managed to upset the group top-seed Iran 3-1 in their home turf. What was interesting was that a victory for Bahrain would not qualify Bahrain but would eliminate Iran and instead enable runner-up Saudi Arabia (which had lost to Iran) to qualify.

Iranian viewers were stunned when Bahraini fans and players after the game started waving the flag of Saudi Arabia (instead of their own national flag) declaring their victory over Iran as a "gift" to Saudi Arabia. [8] Riots broke out in Tehran [9] and angry racial exchanges broke out over the internet with Iranians accusing Bahrainis of being a sell-out, and playing for the Saudis instead of playing for themselves [10]. Numerous petitions and protests to the Asian Football Confederation followed in the succeeding months.[11]

Tensions in Khuzestan

The Iranian government has accused foreign governments of encouraging Iranian Arabs to rise up against Iran's government and claim independence. In April 2005, the government banned Aljazeera television after it quoted a leader of a pro-autonomy group, claiming the station was responsible for a subsequent uprising in the province.

However, the Iranian government has not provided any evidence to support its allegations and has not broken off relations with the British government, which it claims is the chief culprit of the unrest. The British government has also denied any involvement in Khuzestan. Nevertheless western governments have made no effort in concealing their support for such groups. An example is June 31st 2005, when Pierre Pettigrew (Canadian Minister of Foreign affairs) formally accepted Rafiq Abu-Sharif, a seperatist representative of the separatist Al-Ahwaz organization. According to the Al-Ahwaz website, Abu-Sharif "submitted a detailed letter to Pettigrew…detailing the nationalities under oppression…in Iran". (picture of meeting)

A number of commentators have speculated that Arab unrest is a prelude to further military action by Western governments, notably the UK and the US, but many of these claims lack substantive evidence. And yet many reports suggest otherwise:

• Financial Times: US marines probe tensions among Iran's minorities
• Khuzestan: The First Front in the War on Iran? by Zoltan Grossman
• "Al-Ahwaz: Al-Fiction"
• Asia Times: British Arabism and the bombings in Iran

Other commentators claim the unrest is not inspired by foreign governments but the policies of the Iranian government, which have been described as discriminatory with some accusing the authorities of "ethnic cleansing" (see Anti-Arabism in Iran). Many however disagree. Professor Bernard Lewis in fact first unveiled a project for the separation of Khuzestan from Iran during the Bilderberg Meeting in Baden, Austria, on April 27-29, 1979. There, he formally proposed the fragmentation and balkanization of Iran along regional, ethnic and linguistic lines especially among the Arabs of Khuzestan (the Al-Ahwaz project), the Baluchis (the Pakhtunistan project), the Kurds (the Greater Kurdistan project) and the Azerbaijanis (the Greater Azerbaijan Project).

Evidence of British involvement in the region is nothing new however. The British origins of the Iraqi invasion plan of Iran in 1980 were reported in a New York Times article early in the Iran-Iraq war. . The report was largely ignored by the mainstream press and media. The points of this report are summarized as follows:

1. A detailed invasion plan had been prepared for the Iraqi armed forces in 1950 by the British Military advisors for Iraq, a full 30 years before the invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein.
2. The main draft of the plan had been in preparation by the British since 1937. The main axes of advance detailed in the plan corresponded exactly to the Iraqi invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980.
3. The main objective of this war plan "…called for Iraqi forces to occupy Khuzistan province and then negotiate an armistice with the Iranian government that would include the relinquishment of the province to Iraq…also liberate the Arab-speaking people living in Khuzistan". Significantly, successive changes in the Iraqi government over the next thirty years did not alter the major objectives of the British plan; these were simply updated as time progressed.

The British plan for Iran's invasion indicates that even before the Bernard Lewis Plan was unveiled in the Bilderberg Conference, detailed British plans for eliminating Iran as a state have been in place long before 1979, and thus claims of foreign support in instigating ethnic unrest in Iran are not totally unfounded.

See also

• Anti-Arabism
• Islamic conquest of Persia
• Iranian Embassy Siege by Iraqi terrorists

Links

• More muslim than others?
• Baztab Daily Paper: "$10 million budget given to al-Qua'eda for destablizing Khuzestan (in Persian)
• Baztab reports on Al-Jazeera broadcasting fabricated lies to urge Arabs in Iran to uprise (in Persian)
• Islam and Iran: A historical study of mutual services
• What is the Shu'ubiyah movement? (in Persian)
• Pan Arabists confrontation with Iran (in English) (in Persian)
• How Arabs demonize Iranians in their textbooks. This is a translated excerpt in Persian of Tallal Edrisi's work in: Arab-iranian Relations, edited by: Khair El-Din Haseeb. 1998. ISBN 1860641563 [12]