Talk:Baharna

Edit warring and blanking

This is a gentle note to those participating in the article. When adding material, please use inline citations from reliable sources. Edit warring can and will get you blocked or even banned. Blanking sections without justification is also unacceptable. Instead of edit warring, you need to discuss things on this talk page and follow Wikipedia talk page guidelines. If this behavior continues, I plan to report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

The basis for listing those individuals in the infobox is purely ancedotal and no reliable source directly states that they are of Bahrani descent, thus, I'm going to remove them. AsimAlsadeh (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 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. Per nomination. (closed by non-admin page mover) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Bahrani people → Baharna – the much more common naming used in the article itself and its sources. "Bahrani" is correct as an adjective or referring to one person, but Baharna is the communal term referring to the ethnic group as a whole. It also becomes consistent with Baharna in Kuwait, and not as easy to confuse with Bahraini people (this confusion persisted in wikipedia for years until Privybst's move earlier today).

References

High surv (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Appears to be the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 15:33, 15 October 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.

Origin section

Seeing @Thehistoriann's removal of the sourced "Origin" section, any issues with the sources or the stated info should be discussed here, not resort to removing entire sections over disagreements. High surv (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, I have just now seen this message. The sources you have added to the “orgin” section don’t have any valid, reliable backing to confirm them. They mention Non-Arabs living in early pre-islamic Bahrain (Eastern Arabia) but they fail to make the connection between those elements and the “Baharna”, who arrived from the Hejaz in Western Arabia, with the overwhelming majority being of the Abd Al-Qays tribe of the Rab’ia branch. Many reliable sources mention that when they arrived, branches of the Bakr Ibn Wa’il of the Anizah tribe, also members of the Rab’ia branch we’re already inhabiting the region. It’s also mentioned multiple times about many battles and conflicts between the inhabitants of Eastern Arabia, which were all Arab tribes whether they were sedentary or not. Adding to that, countless DNA/ancestry tests of the “Y” have been done in major projects in Eastern Arabia. The results are widely available online to the public and the results all came in Arab haplogroups, with the “J” haplogroup largely dominanting the results. Also, you mentioned *historical* Baharna migrations, but the source you added was a report by a news network from the early 2010’s about Pakistani troops dealing with protesters. This definitely fails to meet the criteria of credible source as it has no relevance or any possible connection to the the statement. Thank you. Thehistoriann (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You've removed a whole section with 10 sources, most of which are academic sources by historians. Have you examined those sources? One of those sources is even cited in the article you used (Al-Rumaihi's Bahrain: Social and Political Change Since the First World War).

No one disputes the presence of Arab tribes in Eastern Arabia, in fact many of the sources provide further evidence for it, not just from later Arab historians but also pre-Islamic Greek sources. But there is also evidence provided for the presence of other groups noted in the section, and further evidence showing some cultural and linguistic influence that carry over to modern Baharna. So, there are theories about those groups intermixing and Arabizing. Much of this was included in the section before it was removed, though more details could be added.

DNA data only shows shared ancestry, it does not tell us anything about who those ancestors were and what languages they spoke 1400 years ago. The "J" haplogroup isn't a language classifier. It is highly concentrated in Yemen as well, but there's been ample evidence that large portions of Yemen did not speak Arabic prior to the Muslim expansion (see Old South Arabian).

Finally, I'd like to remind of WP:Assume Good Faith. Accusing other editors of political sectarianism and committing "جريمة ثقافية ودينية" (a cultural and religious crime) isn't appropriate. Competing theories as supported by verifiable sources should be included, even if you don't believe them to be correct (see WP:TRUTH).

Regarding the Aljazeera source you mentioned, you are correct. I've put it back as part of the revert to bring back the removed section, but indeed that source doesn't make sense. It looks like it was citing some other sentence that got removed many years ago. High surv (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

hello, when I mentioned Arab I was not referring to the Arabic language, rather Arab ethnicity. Yes there were non-Arabs present in Eastern Arabia however the Baharna came from Western Arabia, precisely from Jibal Tuhama, Al Hejaz aswell as modern day Yanbu. they are the descendants of the Banu Abd Al-Qays tribe and they are mention under the title “ Al-Abdi Al-Bahrani” even in the 12/13th centuries. However, as they were sedentary, people associated with the area they are from rather than the ancestor as it would be common knowledge. Its also important to note that a few other Arab tribes were in Eastern Arabia that formed a confederation/alliance with Abd-AlQays, as in they joined the tribe so they associated with it. Its also mentioned in Arabic sources that Abd Al-Qays dominated and ousted the Arab tribe that was previously dominating and ruling Eastern Arabia, clearing indicating that Arabian tribes were present in the region, even before the arrival of the Rab’ia Tribes after “Al-Basous” war. Even though I without a doubt academically disagree with the origins section as its a unreliable theory without any proper backing, I understand your perspective. Thank you Thehistoriann (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Persian origins

Apparently the claim that the Baharna are of both Arab and Persian ancestry is contentious to some, as IPs have been erasing the "Persian" component from the text (most recently by User:~2026-28027-41). I understand there's scholarly debate on the origins of the Baharna but we have to go by what reliable sources say – we can't use conjecture, original research, traditional oral sources that haven't been documented, etc. to make claims about their origins. If any users have issues with the current source, or have other reliable sources that contradict it, then please address it on the talk page using reliable sources prior to removing it. Thanks. Pinging @~2026-28027-41, @High surv and @Mrox2 in case they have anything to add. Elspamo4 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Debate about their origins are not relevant to their current ethnic identity. All Baharna are Arab now, and consider themselves so. Sources about their origins make no claim about their current cultural identity. If so, then it should also claim they are Aramaic, and even partially Yemeni (if you include the sources about Bani Jamra). These origin claims are already discussed in the 'Origin' section. Ethnic groups often have waves of people assimilating over centuries. Their current ethnicity is discussed in . They are referred to as "Shia Arabs" or "Arab Shia" in various other sources.

Persians in Bahrain and Eastern Arabia are culturally distinct (as noted in many of the sources here and in Ajam of Bahrain), and they do not consider themselves Baharna, nor do Baharna consider themselves Persian. High surv (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the references. Rumaihi is very informative on the topic but I think it's best not to cite him in the article since theses are not generally considered reliable afaik. But from the sources you've listed, this article seems pretty comprehensive and accurate. The main dispute is in the lede which has been edit warred for a while.

According to the sources, the Baharna are Shia natives most likely of mixed Arab and Persian origin, however, they identify as Arabs. So, I'd propose the lede be changed from:

The Bahārna (Arabic: بُحارنة, lit. 'Buharnah', or Arabic: اِلبحارنه, lit. 'il baharneh'), are an ethnoreligious group of Shia Muslim Arabs and Persians indigenous to the historical region of Bahrain.

To:

The Bahārna (Arabic: بُحارنة, lit. 'Buharnah', or Arabic: اِلبحارنه, lit. 'il baharneh'), are an ethnoreligious group of Shia Muslims native to the historical region of Bahrain who are of mixed origin, but identify as Arabs.

I think my revised version, though rough, fits better with what the references are trying to convey. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Elspamo4 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue is with talking about origins with such certainty in the lede is that the evidence of mixed Arab-Persian origins seems to be sparse, speculative, and disputed. You can see much of this discussion with conflicting sources in the Origin section. I wouldn't me more inclined to believe Harrison's speculation at-face-value over documentation of traditional oral sources. While I don't doubt there's some intermarriage that has happened, it would not be accurate to refer to a group as having "mixed origin" unless the degree of mixing is substantial. Some degree of intermarriage and assimilation has happened in almost every ethnic group in the world.

I don't see the issue of keeping the original phrasing. They don't merely identify as Arab; they're identified as such by the majority of sources, are Arabic-speaking, and being Arab is the core aspect distinguishing them from other Shia groups in the Gulf (Ajam and the Omani Lawatia). High surv (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This made me think of something in an article I came across recently and greatly enjoyed:

"At the broadest level, Qatari families fall into one of the three broad categories of “Ajamis”, the “Huwala”, and “Arabs” (see Table I). In Qatar, all Shi‘as, whether originally Persians from Iran or Bahrani from Bahrain, are considered Ajamis. ... This designation in Qatar is different from that in Bahrain, where, for example, the Al-Fardan are considered Bahrani while in Qatar they are considered Ajamis. Tribal identity, it must be remembered, is often constructed, and also contested, both by the tribe itself, by others, and by the state. On the construction of tribal identity see: Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy (1979), pp. 112–16"[1]

This might help you guys get somewhere, perhaps. Perhaps not. But I thought it worth sharing.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The admixture argument, although it may be logically sound, doesn't really carry weight because we go by what reliable sources state.

You also say the mentions of Persian origin are sparse but two of your own sources state that their origin is disputed.

• Romaihi - "Many writers have puzzled to their ethnic origin" (pg 46)
• Alternative Politics - "Farah (1985) - amongst others - refers to the Baharna as "indigenous inhabitants" of "mixed Arab origin" (pg 5)

Matthiesen only describes them as Arab and I was unable to access the other two sources. Global security is an unreliable source.

So maybe something like this is more appropriate:

>::

The Bahārna (Arabic: بُحارنة, lit. 'Buharnah', or Arabic: اِلبحارنه, lit. 'il baharneh'), are an ethnoreligious group of Shia Muslims native to the historical region of Bahrain. Their ethnic origins are disputed, but identify as Arabs.

Or, alternatively:

>::

The Bahārna (Arabic: بُحارنة, lit. 'Buharnah', or Arabic: اِلبحارنه, lit. 'il baharneh'), are an ethnoreligious group of Shia Muslims native to the historical region of Bahrain, most of whom identify as Arabs.

@غوّاص العلم @High surv if either have you disagree or have your own preferred version please post it so we can deliberate, this shouldn't be too hard to solve since we're only touching on the lede. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't delved into the sources as you have, but I trust your judgement, and the phrasing looks fine to me, especially of the second option. If disagreement persists after this, I will delve into them and give my opinion, trying to look at it objectively and find the good points on both sides of it.

Just a couple notes on the drafts here (and I understand that these were written as more of a rough workshop):

1. In both versions, the "lit" template is being used where a "romanized" template should be.
2. اِلبحارنه is kinda problematic for a couple of reasons. If anything, it should at least be إلبحارنه, with a hamza. I would probably let go of the definite article altogether, as well as add the vowel which is the principal difference from the more formal version, and capitalize the B, making it: "Arabic: بَحارنه, romanized: Baharneh". I've already applied these changes to the article.
3. In the first version (which I don't like as much anyway), it should probably be "but they identify as Arabs".

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)