Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 7

Suggestion

---

User:Tajik's version

[Intro]

The Safavids were a dynasty that ruled

Islamic conquest of Persia. Predominantly Azeri Turkic in language and Iranian in identity, the Safavids established Shia Islam as the official religion of their kingdom, reasserted the original Persian identity of the region, and became the first native dynasty to established an independent and united Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by Arab, Turkic, and Mongol dynasties.^[2][3]

[Background]

[Origins]

Main article:

Persian^[5]

origin. Originally, the Safaviyeh was a spiritual response to the upheavals and unrest in northwest Iran/eastern

Mongol invasion. It changed from a Sunni order to extremest Shi'a (ghulat) around 1400. In the fifteenth century, the Safaviyeh gradually gained political and military clout in the power vacuum precipitated by the decline of the Timurid dynasty. After becoming the Safaviyeh leader in 1447, Sheikh Junayd - a descendant of Sheikh Safi Al-Din - transformed it into a revolutionary Shi'ite movement with the goal of seizing power in Iran

. [Founder of the Safavid empire]

Main article:

Persian

descent.

His rise to power was predominantly due to massive support from the powerful

Azerbaijan^[6] who, along with other supporters of the Safavid family, became collectively known as Qizilbash (Ottoman Turkish for "red head"). Shah Ismā'il first proclaimed a Safavid Shia state in Azerbaijan in 1501. A year later, in 1502, he claimed all of Iran.^[7]

Ismā'il was also a prolific poet who wrote under the pen-name of Khatāī and greatly contributed to the developement of Azeri literature.

[Geopolitics]

There were many local states in the area traditionally known as Persia after decline of the Timurid Empire (1370–1506)^[8] The most important local rulers about 1500 were:

• Husayn Bayqarah, the Timurid ruler of Herat
• Alwand Mīrzā, the Aq Qoyunlu Khan of Tabriz
• Farrokh Yaṣar, the
  Shah of Širvan
• Badi Alzamān Mīrzā of Balkh
• Sultān Murād, Ottoman ruler of Irāq al-Ajam
• Husayn Kīā Chalavī, the local ruler of Semnān
• Murād Beg Bayandar, local ruler of
  Sunni Turcoman Khan, Alwand Mīrzā, head of the "White Sheep" Turcoman confederation
  . Along with other supporters of the Safavid family, these tribes became known as Qizilbāš - "red heads" - due to their read headgear which symbolized their loyalty to the Safavid Sufi sheikhs.

  References

  1. ^ Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History,V, pp. 514-15)
  2. ^ "Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?" R.M. Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), Page 3
  3. ^ R.M. Savory, "Ṣafawids", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006: "... the Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia [...] During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed "Iranian intermezzo", did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [...] For the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans ..."
  4. ^ Roger M. Savory, Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Safawids", Online Edition, 2005
  5. ^ Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, Vol. XII, p. 873, original German edition, " Persien (Geschichte des neupersischen Reichs)", (LINK)
  6. ^ ^{a b} Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
  7. ^ Encyclopedia Iranica. R.M. Savory. Esmail Safawi
  8. ^ The writer Ṛūmlu documented the most important of them in his history.

  ---

  Tajik, you're the only party still unable to come into terms with what's on the Safavid page right now. We agreed with various contributors over and over on the wording. Safavids were not Azeri-speaking but Turkic-speaking. There is no such thing as Azeri-speaking cited by either Minorsky or Frye. Both say either Azerbaijani Turkish or Azeri Turk. So that edit must say: Turkic-speaking dynasty for all practical purposes as agreed with Ali and many others earlier.

  Ismail was of mixed Azeri Turkic, Kurdish and Pontic Greek identity. Your race approach is not acceptable. There is no such identity as "Iranic", but Iranian, secondly, I am not sure if Kurdish contributors will be happy with replacement of the word Kurdish with the word Iranian, but it's up to them.

  The claim "reasserted original Iranian identity" is void of references and baseless. Ismail asserted Shiite identity, which is modern Iranian identity, original Iranian identity was not Shiite but Zoroastrian, which was a herecy for Ismail and Safavids. Atabek 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's wait for Ali and others. I really have no idea who gave you the right to speak on their behalf. Besides that, I did not say "Iranic identity" (I guess you still have not learned how to read), I said "Iranian identity" and linked it to "Iranian peoples". Ismail' claims to be of Sassanian origin, his claims to be the re-incarnation of Iranian epic heroes, the Safavid reintroduction of the Iranian "Surkhjaamegan" movement (Kizilbash), and his belief in the Aryan concept of farr are clear proofs for this "Iranian identity". Instead of only focusing on the language of his poems, you should at least once try to get the MESSAGE of his poetry.

  Ismail surely had a bunch of "different bloods" in his vains, so limiting that only to Kurdish, Azerbaijani Turkic and Greek would be wrong. That's why I replaced that with a more general statement. Besides that, I did not remove the word "Kurdish" (just as I said: you are not able to read). The word is directly mentioned in the part about Safi al-Din. And your interpretation of "Iranian identity" is pointless. Because, according to that logic, "Turkic identity" was a barbarian nomadic life-style and pagan Shamanism. "Turkishness" would also include the unique East Asian physical appearance (Mongoloid) - and nthing of this would fit Ismail: Ismail was not a Shaman, he was not a nomad, he was not a "barbarian" horseman of the steppe, and he did not have a Mongoloid look. So why then claiming that "he was Azeri Turk"?! (note: this is according to YOUR logic).

  Besides that, modern Imami Shiism contains many elements of Zoroastrism: the believe in the God-like powers of the Imams, the beliefe of God-given rights to lead the Shia community, the belief of a hidden Imam, the belief that the dead have to cross a bridge in order to enter paradise, etc etc etc. These are unique Zoroastrian elements that were (and still are) unknown to original Arab Shias. Shias, however, who were directly influenced by Iranian and Safavi Shiism (inluding the Alevits of Turkey) have adopted these Zoroastrian beliefs. So, again, your claim is pointless. Tājik 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Re-Listing of evidence that Safavids were Turkic speakersTajik, since you have ignored the numerous references which we bring, and constantly are trying to purge out the word Turkic from Safavid page, let me bring you some more summarized quotes. Many of these may be already on this talk page, it's just some people choose to ignore them and uphold their own POV:

  • The establishment of the Gajar capital in Tehran at the end of the eighteenth century was merely the last manifestation of what may well be a permanent tendency in the life of Iran. There are manifold reason of this phenomenon. Moreover, the Turkish and Mongol origins of the earliest dynasties certainly played a major part in causing the capitals to be situated in the north, and especially along the main invasion route following Alburz into Azarbaijan. The princes of these basically nomadic states were anxious both to be near their tribes and to avoid the excessive heat of the climate farther to the south. This helps to explain the evolution of Tabriz, which, despite all the vicissitudes, was the capital successively of the Mongols, the Qara Qoyunlu, the Aq Qoyunlu, and finally the Safavids, all of whom stemmed originally from the Turkmen tribes of the north-west from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries. Tabriz was abandoned only for short periods, and always for other cities in the same region: Maragheh, whose, fertile pasture land had attracted Hulagu, Ardabil, the cradle of the Safavids; and Sultaniyeh.

  The Cambridge History of Iran (in eight Volumes). Volume 1. The Land of Iran. Edited by W.B.Fisher, Cambridge at the University Press, 1968. Page 434.

  • The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com ), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified. Their eponymous ancestor, Safi-al-Din (1252-1334), was a disciple of Shaikh Zahed of Gilan, a Sunnite Sufi pir or spiritual leader. Safi-al-Din succeeded his pir and settled in Ardabil in eastern Azerbaijan, and founded the Safavid Order. He was buried there, and his tomb and the citybecame a place of pilgrimage for his devotees. In the course of time and under the leadership of Safi-al-Din's descendents, the order became a militant Shiite one, with golat or extremist features, receiving support from Turkish and Turkmen tribes in Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia, such as the Shamlu, Ostajlu, Takallu, D¨u'l-Qadr, Qajar, and Afshar tribes, who had strong devotional ties to the heads of the Order. [8]

  • The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma'il Safawi "Khata'i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. During 17th – 20th centuries a rich Azeri literature continued to flourish, but classical Persian exercised great influence on the language and literary expression. On the other hand, many Azeri words (about 1.200) entered Persian (still more in Kurdish), since Iran was governed mostly by Azeri-speaking rulers and soldiers since 16th century (Doerfer, 1963-75); these loanwords refer mainly to administration, titles and conduct of war. [9]

  
  

  • Shah Abbas II (r. 1052 – 77/ 1642 – 66 q.v.) was himself a poet, writing Turkic verse with the pen name of Tani. [10]

  • The Zands were an Iranian people, and their decades of dominance were one of the few periods, between the arrival of the Saljūqs and the twentieth century, during which effective political power was exercised by a dynasty that can be regarded as in some sense ethnically "Persian".

  David Morgan. Medieval Persia, 1040-1797 (History of the Near East) ISBN: 0582493242

  • With the exception of some very local dynasties, the Zands were the only Iranian dynasty that had come to power since the Buyids in the 10th century. [11]

  • The Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty. [12]

  Thanks. Atabek 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Evidence"? What "evidence"?! There are wnough sources to disrpove your claims:

  • "... The question of the language used by Shah Ismail is not identical with that of his ‘‘race’’ or ‘‘nationality’’. His ancestry was mixed: one of his grandmothers was a Greek princess of Trebizond. Hinz, Aufstieg, 74, comes to the conclusion that the blood in his veins was chiefly non-Turkish. Already, his son Shah Tahmasp began to get rid of his Turcoman praetorians." -V. Minorsky, "The Poetry of Shah Ismail", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 10, No. 4. (1942), pp. 1053
  • "... The establishment of the Safavid state in 1501, like the Arab conquest of Iran in the 7th century, and the Mongol invasions of the 13th century, marks a turning point in the history of Iran. First, the whole of the area historically considered as constituting the heartlands of Iran, was reunited under the rule of a Persian king for the first time since the Arab conquest and islamicization of Iran. For most of the eight and half centuries that followed that conquest, Iran was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans. The only exception was what Minorsky called the 'Iranian intermezzo', the period from 945-1055 A.D., when a dynasty of Persian origin, the Buyids, exercised authority over a large part of Iran. ..." [13]
  • "... The reign of Esmā'il is one of the most important in the history of Persia. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, prior to his accession in 907/1501, Persia, since its conquest by the Arabs eight-and-a-half centuries earlier, had not existed as a separate entity but had been ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. During the whole of this period, only under the Buyids (q.v.) did a substantial part of Persia come under Persian rule (334-447/945-1055). ... When the Safavids came to power, they rested their authority inter alia on the divine right of kings traditionally claimed by Persian monarchs. ... Although his son Sām Mīrzā as well as some later authors assert that Esmā'il composed poems both in Turkish and Persian, only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived ..." Iranica
  • "... In the first place, the Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia [...] During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed "Iranian intermezzo", did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [...] For the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans ..." Encyclopaedia of Islam
  • "... Like his father, Olōğ Beg was entirely integrated into the Persian Islamic cultural circles, and during his reign Persian predominated as the language of high culture, a status that it retained in the region of Samarqand until the Russian revolution 1917 [...] Ḥoseyn Bāyqarā encouraged the developement of Persian literature and literary talent in every way possible [...] At the same time Sultan Ḥoseyn also allowed his famous vizier, the noted poet ʿAlī-Šīr Navā'ī, to further the cause of his mother tongue, the Turkish spoken by the Chaghatay people and to champion its importance as a language of high culture [...] This developement was certainly related, at least in part, to the fact that in the early 10th/16th century Persia was converted by the Safavid dynasty to the Shi'ite branch of Islamic teaching, wheras Central-Asia remained strictly Sunnite. Chaghatay became to some extent the language this religious community, and Persian literary works from the Safavid realm had an aura of heresy. ..." B. Spuler, "Central Asia in the Mongol and Timurid Periods", p. 174/175, Encyclopaedia Iranica
  • "... Azari [= Middle-Iranian language spoken in Azerbaijan before the Turkic conquest] lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular ..." Ehsan Yarshater in Iranica
  • "... Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles[18], and argued convincingly that the ancestors of Shaykh Safi al-Din, who founded the Safavid Order (tariqa), were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (az bumiyan-i bastan-i iran budan) and were of pure Aryan stock (juz nizhad-i aryani nadashta and). Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. Kasravi's important articles were published in the journal Ayandeh, which was not readily available in the West, and, despite the fact that they were republished as a pamphlet in 1944, in an expanded and revised form, they unfortunately continued to be overlooked by many historians. These included the Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan who, working on the oldest available MSS. of the Safvat al-Safa, independently reached many of the same conclusions reached by Kasravi thirty years earlier[19]. At the same time, Togan tried to lay to rest the persistent claim by Turkish historians that Shah Isma'il I was a Turk, but this claim resurfaced from time to time in the writings of Turcophiles, such as David Ayalon[20], and was usually based on the fact that Isma'il spoke the Azari dialect of Turkish, which Toynbee calls one of "the vulgar tongues of camp and court"[21], and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i. ..." R. Savory, The Annual Noruz Lecture Series: 16 March 1995, Foundation for Iranian Studies Washington, D.C.
  • "... [as consequence of Oghuz Turkic domination in the Caucasus, beginning the twelfth century] the Iranian population of Ādharbāyjān and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population. ..." -Minorsky, in Encyclopaedia of Islam
  • "... "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. ..." R. Frye, in Iranica

  Why should we only take your sources as "evidence"?! Tājik 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  PS - a comment to David Morgan: D. Mogan says that the Zand were the first dynasty "that can be regarded as in some sense ethnically Persian". In no means does this contradict Savory's and Minorsky's statement that the Safavids were the "first native Iranian dynasty after 8 centuries of Arab, Turkic, and Mongol rule". You should study the different meanings of

  Persian (ethnicity) and Iranian (peoples). Tājik 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You did not disprove the fact that Safavids spoke Turkic and Ismail wrote poetry (published by Minorsky) in Azeri Turkic. None of the facts you brought above disproves either these facts or a slew of Iranica and other references I brought above. Nowhere, does the page say Ismail is a Turk, his grandfather Uzun Hassan was a Turk, Ismail was born in Aqqoyunlu Turkic state, and we show his background as mixed Turkic, Kurdish and Greek. There is NO reference above whatsoever to say Ismail was ethnic Persian, NONE! No reference that he or his ancestors considered Persian (that is South-Western Iranian dialect) as their mother tongue. Language used by Uzbeks has no relevance to Safavid discussion, Ismail extensively used Chagatay dialect in his poetry oriented to Qizilbash Turkomans. This is a fact spelled out by Vladimir Minorsky in his article on Ismail's poetry. Read it through the end, instead of opening only the last page of the article after pages of his Turkish poetry.

  The problem is you're trying to attribute Iranian to Persian, in modern meaning these are different things. Safavis were not Persian.

  Old-Tati

  , a language that is NEITHER Kurdish nor Persian. Yet, given the fact that he also always wrote a Persian translation (see Yarshater!), one cannot deny the strong Persian influence.

  So, the point is: Ismail was of mixed Turkic (Aq Qoyunlu, maybe even some other Turkic tribes), Iranic (Kurdish, Tati, and maybe Persian), and Anatolian Greek origin. The problem with you is that you have - for some unknown reason - a grudge against Persians, the Persian language, Persian culture, identity, and so forth. I do not understand where your hate comes from, but it does not help to improve the article. As pointed out by Ali, Ismail considered himself a reincarnation of

  Rustam and other Persian heros (see Shahnameh). This is fact that cannot be denied as it is directly mentioned in primary sources: Ismail's poetry! So far, I have not seen ANYTHING that could eventually support the claim that he had some kind of "Turkic identity". He wrote his poetry in Turkic, that's all. Keeping in mind that the vast majority of his supporters were Turcomans and - let's assume - had no knowledge of the Persian language (or any other language), it's quite logical that Ismail HAD TO write his poetry in Turkish. After all, the main purpose of his poetry was propaganda! So, the decision to write in Turkic could have had predominantly political reasons. That's exactly what Minorsky means when he says that "the question of Ismail's language is not that of his race or nationality". Ismail's "race" and "nationality" was clearly Iranian, and his identity - as reflected in his own poetry - was clearly Shiite Persian, even though he himself was not of recent Persian descent. So far, you have not presented a single source that could disprove this. So stop using weasle-words. Noone in here claims that Ismail or the Safavids were "ethnic Persians", although they definitly had some Persian ancestry. But it is a FACT that the Safavids acted as heirs to the traditional Persian throne, claimed to be of royal Sassanian origin (why would they do that if not for identity purposes? Considering the political situation of the era, it would have made much more sense to claim descent from Genghis Khan, from the Seljuqs, or from Tamerlane, as did almost all others!) - the last dynasty to claim descent from the Sassanians was the Ghaznavid dynasty some 500 years earlier - so, Ismail's claim marks another turning point in Persia's history: the shift from previous "Turkic" identity that had ruled Iran for nearly 400 years to the epic "Persian" identity! You simply cannot deny these facts. Ismail's language of poetry may have been Turkish, but his identity was clearly Shiite Persian. Tājik 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Iranica says the same thing as David Morgan. How can you explain that? And I don’t think there can be another meaning of the word “ethnic Persian”. Safaivds were ethnic Turks, period. This is attested by so many sources, yet you still deny it. Grandmaster 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Dr. Yarshater (NOT Iranica) excludes the Afghans (Pashtuns) who are also an Iranian-speaking people of native Eastern Iranian origin, it's clear that that he uses the term "Iranian" in political sense and strictly limitted to the current borders of Iran, rather than as an ethnic term. That's also why he says "united Iran with its current borders". Besides that, this s not really a proof for your point. In another part, namely the MAIN ARTICLE about Ismail, "Iranica" (as you say it) makes clear that the Safavids were indeed the first native (ethnic) Iranian dynasty. That's why Frye and Minorsky also explain that "Azeri Turks" are actually "ethnic Iranians" of "non-Turkish origin". Roger Savory, the most important scholar along with Minorsky, further underlines this. How do YOU explain THAT? There won't be any consensus as long as you claim that Safavids were "ethnic Turks". Not even Togan, himself an ethnic Turk, believed this! Indeed, he even wrote articles disproving this wrong claim! Tājik 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot be an Azeri Turk and Persian at the same time. And you may have your own interpretation of the meaning of the word Iranian or Persian, but both Yarshater and Morgan do not count Safavids as such, according to them Zands were the only Iranian or Persian dynasty since Buyids and Saljuqs. We cannot simply discard those sources. I think the current intro is fairly balanced and makes account for all major viewpoints. It does not say whether Safavids were Turk or Persian, it just says that they were Turkic-speaking, which is not disputed by anyone. Grandmaster 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course the current version is balanced, because I wrote it. Instead of automatically reverting my changes, you should read them first! Maybe you should also check the rest of hwat I have written. And then tell me: do you agree or not?! As for the Zands: the Zands were Lurs and not Persians. And Savory, as well as Minorsky (and many others, including Perry) regard them as the first native Iranian (--> Iranian peoples ---> having an Iranian identity in contrast to Arab, Turkic, or Mongol identities) dynasty. This cannot be denied either. Tājik 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It was more or less Ok until you inserted Persian identity again. I'm going to apply for dispute resolution, I hope you don't mind. Grandmaster 06:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The identity was "Persian" and still is "Persian". I even attached a source to it, and for your information: it is the same source you have used as well: Richard Frye's "Peoples of Iran":

  • "... Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. [...] Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it. ..." [14]

  So please stop being a hypocrite. Either accept the entire source or nothing of it! Besides that, your this edit is absolutely hillarious and once again proves that you (like Atabek) do not read what others users write. I had not removed the sentence. Just go through the text. I only added the first part of the paragraph to it. Now, thanks to your impatient edit war, it's been included twice. Tājik 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Dariush4444

  One thing is for sure: YOU are not the right person to do that. As Germans say: "Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen." Tājik 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik, for the sake of constructiveness, give up on "YOU" in capital letters or insults/attacks. The same accusations that you bring up against me above of allegedly "hating Persians", I can say exactly about you towards Turks. The fact is, you have been arguing all along trying to remove every single reference to word Turkic in the article, and that's not the way it will be. Safavids were Turkic-speaking dynasty of Iran, that came to power with help of Qizilbash Turkic tribes, their founder wrote in Turkic language and used it as official language of his court. So, until you accept these basics, already accepted above, in most of the versions and supported by most of the scholars, there can be no consensus.Atabek 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have never denied this. In fact, if you would have read my suggestion instead of automatically reverting it with 2-5 minutes, you would have seen that I included in the text that Ismail was an ethnic

  Azerbaijani and that he greatly contributed to Azeri literature. That his maternal grandfather was an ethnic Turcoman, and so forth. So, the problem is not me, but only you who does not accept the word "Persian" in the text. You also deny the strong Persian influence on the Safavids, the unique Persian identity that is not denied by ANY serious scholar, Ismail's Persian poetry, Ismail's claims to Sassanian origin, Ismail's belief to be the reincarnation of epic Persian heroes and kings, and the vast Persian poetry of Safi al-Din - facts that are not denied by any serious scholar! Instead of provocating edit wars, automatically reverting other people's edits, and removing the word "Persian" from the article, you should at least ONCE read what others write. Tājik 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  AtabekIf the Safavids were Turkic as you claim, then why was the ONLY official state language of Iran during their reign, Persian. Why was their court language Persian. Why were all of their laws and legal documents written only in Persian!!!

  The Safavids culture was 100% Persian. Like I said before just look at Esfahan. You seem to forget that "Azari" culture is actually Persian. The Azari language is made up of 40% Persian and Arabic words. Azari people still celebrate all of the ancient Persian (Zoroastrian) holidays...like Now Rooz. Almost all Azarbaijani people have Persian names. "Azari" music, architecture, cuisine, etc....is PERSIAN!!

  The Azari people are racially Iranian. They are not ethnic Turks. Various genetic testing has proven this to be fact. Azari genetics are almost identical to their Persian neighbours. That is why we all look the same. If they were real Turks, they would look like Mongoloids. They would have brown skin, slanted oriental eyes, flat wide noses, and be very short and stocky. Azari people obviously do not look like that because they still belong to the Iranian race. Dariush4444 22:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What a mess!

  You were the one urging me patience! I think its time to end this two year ordeal. Both sides have good quotes and they want to deny the others quote. I think the best way is to go back to S.A. Vakilians version and work from there. The introduction should be polished, minimal and yet satisfying to both sides. BTW Tajik thanks for the article from EI. It was amazing actually and the best article I have read on Safavids with the exception of books. --alidoostzadeh 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I put S.A. Vakilians version back up again. I do not think the intro should change right now until there is an agreement for a new intro since this would just lead to locking of the article again.. At least we had a semi-agreement on the previous intro. There is already sufficient number of dispute tags. --alidoostzadeh 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not gonna edit the intro, if everyone agrees to refrain from doing the same. Present you proposals here first. I will present mine soon. Grandmaster 08:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Another quote: Shi'ism was reintroduced and imposed by the Safavids many centuries later, and they, I would remind you, were Turks. Until then Iran was a largely Sunni country. Iran in History by Bernard Lewis. Grandmaster 12:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Lewis , Momen and etc. are not a Safavid historian. Thus their statement has little weight compared to Safavid historians. --alidoostzadeh 13:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Lewis is one of the leading experts on the Middle East and is more famous than any other historian we quoted here. Plus, Frye says the same, so it is not just an isolated opinion. Grandmaster 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually Minorsky is much bigger name than Lewis. But the fact is when quoting Mathematicians about Topology we do not quote Ramanujan who was a number theorist. Savory, Minorsky, Mazzaoui, Kasrawi, Togan and etc. have written specific articles and books on Safavids and just on Safavids. Savory specially has written too much to count here. Lewis has not written a single specialized book on Safavids. I doubt he even has a specialized article on Safavids (perhaps at most dealing with Shi'i Islam). Besides that, Lewis in 1979 proposed disintegration of Iran. Britannica says: (1502–1736), Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shi'ite Islam as the state religion of Iran was a major factor in the emergence of a unified national consciousness among the various ethnic and linguistic elements of the country. The Safavids were descended from Sheykh Safi od-Din (1253–1334) of Ardabil, head of the Sufi order of Safaviyeh (Safawiyah), but about 1399 exchanged their Sunnite affiliation for Shi'ism. . As per the opening statement, I do not have any qualms with the version proposed by S.A. Vakilian. The opening statement should be short and polished. --alidoostzadeh 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Lewis is an expert on Ottoman history, and has special knowledge only of the history of Safavid and Ottoman conflicts. He has not written a single special article on the Safavids. And besides that, he is one of the most contrversial scholars in this field, also due to his known anti-Persian, anti-Armenian, and general anti-Shia and anti-Alevit stands. He not only denies the genocide against Armeniens, but also has asked for the dissolution of the Iranian nation on many occasions. So, when it comes to the identity of the Safavids, he is not really the right person to look for. This is also the reason why Savory writes almost all special articles about the Safavids in leading references (Iranica, EI, etc) and NOT Lewis. Tājik 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever his views on unrelated to Safavids issue are, they have nothing to do with this article. Lewis is one of the most respected scholars on Middle East, and has a thorough knowledge on the history if Iran. One doesn’t have to write articles on a on a particular dynasty to be a specialist on the subject, if he wrote books that covered that dynasty among other subjects. But still, I do not propose to say that Safavids were Turks, I think the current intro is a good basis for compromise, but it should be further improved. Grandmaster 14:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. A specialist on a subject is actually one that contributes to Safavid history, and writes articles and books on the Safavids. This is precisely the definition of what a specalist in certain field is. I agree Lewis's is knowledgable in his own field. But Middle-east is a general term and requires specialization in many sub-fields. Thus if Savory says something, Minorsky says something, Togan says something and Lewis says something, Lewis's words are superceded by the previous three when it comes to Safavids. Safavids were of mixed origin that is established. Even at least one of Esmail's wife was not Turkomen. One of the other Safavids (I forgot which king but I can easily look it up) married the daughter of the Nematullah Sheykh. All these are known. So Safavids were of mixed ethnic origin is established like Minorsky says. I do not think anyone can disagree with that. Safavids were primarily Turcophone, that is true although for later Safavids although a republic of Azerbaijan site says: due to the cultural importance of the Persian language, the weight of the Persian-speaking bureaucracy and landlords, and the migration into the Persian heartland of the Safavid capital, the Persian language came to dominate the dynasty’s life.. Of course this does not necessarily negate Safavids remaining turcophone, but it shows that Persian was the cultural discourse of the empire. Of course the massive amount of manuscripts proves this and even the Ghezelbash wrote in Persian. But anyways I would like to see your suggestion for the introduction as well. --alidoostzadeh 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Some unreferenced textWould you please substantiate with a reference the following insert, which I oversaw before in Founder section:

  As such, Ismā'il was the last in line of hereditary Grand Masters of the Safaviyeh Sufi order, prior to its ascent to a ruling dynasty, and believed himself to be of divine Islamic and royal Persian descent.

  If you can't substantiate or provide reference to it, this seems as clear POV and needs to be removed. Thanks. Atabek 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  He is probably referring to the Shahnameh poem by Esmail or the Safavid's making up descent from Sassanid through Seyyedship. --alidoostzadeh 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Ali, saying Ismail claimed "Royal Persian Descent" does not seem to be correct. Ismail, as we know, was radically Shiite and claimed descendance from Ali ibn Talib, who wasn't Persian but Arab. Also, the "royal Persian descent" as it's known in times of Safavis was from time of Sassanids, who according to Islam were heretics and Ismail could not have possibly been proud of them. If at all, Ismail was a descendant of Akkoyunlu royalty. Atabek 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Atabek. Actually at that time there was lots of Hadeeths made that Imam Hussain (Ali's son) married Shahrbanu the daughter of Yazdegard. Now this is just legend, but it was during the Safavid's time that these Hadeeths (saying of Prophet and Shi'i divines) were propogated and thus making Safavids descent from Sassanid.. Actually not only Safavids, but Ghaznavids and Seljuqids who were strict muslims made claims that they were descendants of Sassanids. And btw the Sassanids did the same by claiming descent from Achaemenids. --alidoostzadeh 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also should add the Buwayids who were really the first powerful Shi'i dynasty of the Islamic world. Shaddadids as well. --alidoostzadeh 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek's statements are totally pointless. Ismail - as very evident from his poetry - considered himself a reincarnation of

  Jamshed. Itr is also no secret that the Safavids claimed descent from the Sassanids, and even re-invented the story of Shahrbanu

  , the alldged daughter of Yazdgerd III and wife to Husey ibn Ali. Imami Shiism is strictly linked to Persian nationalism and national identity. In regard of "Shahrbanu", Iranica says:

  • "... In this context, and when we acknowledge the fundamental importance of the affiliation and sacred nature of the link among the 'awlia' in Shi'ism (Amir-Moezzi 2000, passim), the figure of Šahrbānu acquires special significance. Adding the light of Persian royal glory to that of wala@ya, stemming from Moháammad and 'Ali, Šahrbānu lends double legitimacy - Shi'ite and Persian to its descendants, the Imams of Hosaynid lineage, as well as a double noblility, Qorayshite and Sasanian. At the same time, she endows the kings of ancient Persia, with the status of maternal ancestors of the Imams, thus revalidating the sovereigns and the culture of a nation of which she is the Lady. Thus, she becomes one of the main links in the relationship between pre-Islamic Persia and Imamism. ..." [15]

  You are really the only one who denies this! Tājik 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Shah Ismael may neither one of prophet descendants nor one royal Persian descent. But he must have claimed that because of achieving legitimacy to become a Shah.--Sa.vakilian 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That is true. The Safavids needed support of their Ghezelbash and their Persian population as well legitimacy of Shi'ism. Thus they needed turkomen legitimacy, Persian legitimacy, Shi'ite legitimacy. That is exactly the reason why the Safwat As-Safa was tampered with since all we have from the Safavids is that their oldest ancestor is Al-Kurd Al-Sanjani Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah. Also the statement about Piruz being Kurd was removed from Safwat As-Safa. As well of course making Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili from a Shafi'ite Sunni to a Shi'ite. I think this part should be mentioned in the Shaykh Safi section briefly alongside the ancestery of the Shaykh. I'll try to make a geneological outline tommorow of both the order and the dynasty. It should be mentioned that the Safavid sufi order also continued since Esmail I, Abbas and the Safavid kings were also spiritual leaders of the Ghezelbash tribes. --alidoostzadeh 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  @ Sa.vakilian: You are correct. But keep in mind that the text says: "Ismail believed himself to be of divine Islamic and royal Persian descent". It does not say "Ismail was ...". Besides that, this argument is true for almost all claims. For example: Ismail wrote his poetry mainly in Turkish, because his aim was to push for Safavid propaganda among the Turcoman tribes who did not understand Persian or Arabic. Tājik 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Or Turkish sultan, who spoke good Persian :). I think the word "believed" should be replaced with the words "claimed to be". I don't think he believed in any of that, he claimed that for political reasons. Grandmaster 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As you have said, you only think that it was political purpose. You do not know it. Tājik 15:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, then I do know that Frye said Azeri Turks were the founders of Safavid dynasty, but I do not list it exactly as said. And the point of poetry, a person can be fascinated by Theodore Dreiser and name his daughter Carrie, it does not mean that person claims descendance from Americans. So the argument that he claimed or believed to be descendant of Royal Persians does not have ground, especially given the fact that Ismail claimed being a descendant of Ali ibn Abu Talib. Similarly, we don't claim Ismail as a pure Turk, based on the fact that he wrote primarily in Turkish. Atabek 17:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The statement of Frye is quoted in the text - the whole of it, and not just one sentence, as you prefer it. Besides that - according to Shia legends (and this is what we are talking about) - a Husaynid descent from Ali and Muhammad automatically includes a royal Persian descent from the Sassanids. See

  Alī ibn Ḥuṣayn Zayn ul-Abedīn is also known as ibn al-Khīyāratayn because of his (alleged) double-noble descent from the Hashemit Qurayshis and Sasssanid Persians. Tājik 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Actually Esmail was not only fascinated by Shahnameh, but he probably learned it at an early age in Gilan. Besides naming his sons and daughter Shahnameh names, the tradition continued with Shah Tahmasp who oversaw the creation of the Shahnameh Tahmasp.[16]. I believe there might be a specialized article on just Safavids and Shahnameh. Adopting Shahnameh as your own culture and ignoring Turkish traditions like Grey wolf and Dede Qorqod ..basically equates to adopting a cultural heritage and myths of Persians. Unfortunately as I pointed out in an Azeri magazine, it says the story of Kawa and Zahak is a foreign story where-as Dede Qorqud and KurOghlu are not. This is just an example of Safavid kings supporting or adopting Persian culture. Another would be Shah Esmail asking one of Jami's son in writing a Shahnameh style epic in Persian for him..--alidoostzadeh 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Controversial tag

  Satisfied

  OK, I don't care if the "accuracy" tag is replaced with "POV". But the other two ("expert" and "copyedit") need to stay. The article is still in need of experts, and it also needs a lot of copy edit and stylistic improvements.

  No, I've changed my mind. The accuracy and neutrality is still disputed - on both sides. Tājik 15:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  Please mention the cases.--Sa.vakilian 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  I do not agree with the expression "Iranian political identity. The identity that was reasserted by the Safavids was certainly Imami Shia and Persian - both in culture and language. This is also what Richard Frye says (note: this is the same source that Atabek and Grandmaster use for their own claims, so they should have no problems with it):

  • "... Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. [...] Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it. ..." [17]

  Therefore, I suggest the following intro:

  • The Safavids were a dynasty that ruled
    Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Azeri Turkic speaking family whose classical and cultural language was Persian^[1][2], the Safavids established Shia Islam as the official religion of their kingdom, reasserted the original Persian identity^[3] of the region, and became the first native dynasty to established an independent and united Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by Arab, Turkic, and Mongol dynasties.^[4][5][6][7]

  Tājik 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This Persian identity stuff is extremely POV, Safavids being Azeri Turks is also sourced info, however we don't insist on its inclusion. Let's keep such statements out of the article. Grandmaster 17:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not POV, it's sourced. Besides that, the Azeri origin of Ismail (with link to

  Azerbaijani people

  ) is given in the text. I repeat it once again: please read what other users write instead of automatically protesting everything! The text clearly says:

  • "... The Safavid ruling dynasty was founded by Shah Ismā'il I. Azerbaijani in origin, he was of mixed Turkic, Iranic, and Pontic Greek heritage[6] and was a distant descendant of Safi al-Din. As such, Ismā'il was the last in line of hereditary Grand Masters of the Safaviyeh Sufi order, prior to its ascent to a ruling dynasty, and believed himself to be of divine Islamic and royal Persian descent. ..."

  Nothing is POV. Tājik 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Which identity:

  1- Persian identity as cultural identity: It was exist before Safavids. Although it was cultural identity not nationalistic one. Thus it can add with any ethnics identity.

  2- Ethnic identity: Safavids was Turk when they established dynasty then they merged in Iran as a multi-ethnic society.

  3- Iran as Political identity: Iran as a separate independent country with unique identity doesn't exist after Islamic-conquest of Persia and Safavids rebuilt it.

  4- Shia as Religious identity: Safavids accepted Shia and make it official religion of Iran. They invited Arab Shia scholars from Lebanon. --Sa.vakilian 03:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The Safavids reasserted a national and cultural identity that was virtually lost in the region today known as "Islamic Republic of Iran". The Persian cultural identity had flourished in Central Asia and - in part - in the Ottoman Empire. The region today known as Iran was ruled by Turcoman nomadic confederations, Mongol Il-Khans, and by vasals of the Timurid sultans. All of this suddenly changed with the victories of Ismail: a 12-year-old believed by his followers to be the "son of God", defeated all the minor kingdoms in the region, proclaimed himself Shah (a title that was not used by surrounding kingdoms, except for the Ottomans who used Padishah), claimed to be of divine Islamic origin, and also a descendant of the previous epic Shahs of Iran. He claimed to be a reincarnation of the epic Iranian heroes who defended Iran against the kingdoms of Turan (at the time of Islam, "Turanian" was a synonym for "Turk"!). This is a turning point! For the first time after the fall of Sassanids, a dynasty in Iran claimed to be the reincarnation of IRANIAN heroes (Rustam, Fereydun, Sam, etc), wherelse all previous dynasties - only exception being the Seljuqs - claimed descent from the Turanian kings! While the Timruids named their children "Piran", "Turan", or "Afrasiyab", the Safavids (and Seljuqs) purposely used names of Iranian heroes: Tahmasp, Sam, Rustam, etc. This is exactly why R. Savory says:

  • "... The establishment of the Safawid state in 907/1501 by Shāh Ismāīl I [q.v.] (initially ruler of Ādharbāyjān only) marks an important turning-point in Persian history. In the first place, the Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia eight and a half centuries previously. During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed “the Iranian intermezzo” (334-447/945-1055), did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [see BUWAYHIDS]; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khāns. ..." Savory/Brujin/Newman/Welch/others in Encyclopaedia of Islam

  This is supported and underlined by Iranica:

  • "... The reign of Esmā'il is one of the most important in the history of Persia. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, prior to his accession in 907/1501, Persia, since its conquest by the Arabs eight-and-a-half centuries earlier, had not existed as a separate entity but had been ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. During the whole of this period, only under the Buyids (q.v.) did a substantial part of Persia come under Persian rule (334-447/945-1055). ... When the Safavids came to power, they rested their authority inter alia on the divine right of kings traditionally claimed by Persian monarchs. ... Although his son Sām Mīrzā as well as some later authors assert that Esmā'il composed poems both in Turkish and Persian, only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived ..." Savory/Karamustafa in Encyclopaedia Iranica

  That's why Minorsky says:

  • "... The question of the language used by Shah Ismail is not identical with that of his ‘‘race’’ or ‘‘nationality’’. ..."

  They may have spoken Turkish, but their identity (national, cultural, and religious) was Persian. That's was nothing uncommon back then. Many dynasties of the past adopted new languages and cultures - but most of them kept their original family-traditions: the Seljuqs, although being Persianized in language and culture, were still "Turks", the Timurids, although Persianized and Turkicized in language and culture, were still "Mongols". So, the Safavids, although Turkic in language, were still "Iranians" and promoted that identity. This identity, re-asserted by the Safavids, still characterized the multi-ethnic country "Iran". And that'S why Frye says:

  • "... Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. [...] Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it. ..." Tājik 10:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain what Persian identity in your understanding is. Does it mean that all the people of Iran become Persians after Safavids? They forgot their other identities? How did Safavids reassert Persian identity while being Turkic speakers? Yes, Persian was lingua franca of the region and was and still is political and cultural language of Iran, but at the times of Safavids Azeri was also cultural language. I can understand Iranian political identity, i.e. people of various ethnicities realized that they were citizens of the state called Iran, but Persian identity? What do you mean by that and why do you push so hard for that? Grandmaster 11:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argumentation is pointless, since the concent of "citizenship" did not exist at the time of the Safavids and was introduced to the Islamic qorld by the European colonial powers. And you confuse "identity" with "language". I guess that's because you come from a former Soviet republic and see the world from a Europeanized point of view.

  The Persian language (along with Arabic) are no comparison to "tribal langugees" such as Turkic tongues, Pashto, or Armenian. Throughout history, these two languages have been universial languages and a mark of pride for a whole bunch of people. That's why - especially in the eastern Islamic lands - Persian language (and as such the Persian identity) has a unique status not comparable to any other language or identity in the region. The concept of

  Dede Korkut that could be attributed to the Safavids. Than what is it that you like to call "Azeri Turkic identity"?! Ismail's claim on the Persian throne? His claim to be a descendant of ancient Iranian kings? His claim to be a reincarnation of Iranian epic heroes? The Safavids great interest in Iran's pre-Islamic past? The Safavid's attempts to fuse ancient pre-Islamic beliefs of the Iranians with Shia Arab traditions? (and, in fact, they succeeded: see the interesting analysis in Iranica!) What is it that you call "Azeri Turkic identity"?! Tājik 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  And their Persian identity is based on a fact that they spoke Turkic language, but patronized Shahname and called themselves Shahanshah? Grandmaster 12:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Compromise for introductionI propose to add the following as introduction.

  The Safavids (1501-1722) were a Turkic-speaking Shiite dynasty which ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736)[3]. The Safavid empire originated in the city of Ardabil in Iranian Azerbaijan and had its origins in the Shiite Safaviyyeh Order. Safavids combined the elements of Turkic tribal militancy with Persian cultural identity and the Shiite teachings of Islam to assert the contemporary Azerbaijani and Iranian Shiite identity. During their reign, Safavids established a vast Iranian empire including the whole of modern Iran and the parts of modern Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South Caucasus and Turkey.

  After we finally agree on the introduction, let's discuss next the origins part. Thanks. Atabek 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hadn't you agreed to sa.vakilian's version as a "compromise"? [18] What is this about then? This intro is the compromise you had agreed to. --Mardavich 04:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the current introduction, but there seems to be unhappiness about insufficient indication of Persian cultural influence. Safavids were influenced by Turkic tribal militancy (Qizilbash), Persian cultural influence and clearly new Shiite identity which defines modern Iran and Azerbaijan. In addition, usage of words like "were considered as" or "greater, greatest" or "Islamic conquest of Persia" etc. just seem to be to loud and bubbly. Conquest was clearly not Islamic but Arabic. If we want to emphasize Islamization of Iran, we should say so. Atabek 05:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not really a good intro ... Only the part about the influence of Turcoman militancy (keeping out the word "Kizilbash", because it has a wider, more general meaning) is good. Tājik 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the part about Safavid order being Shi'ite is wrong since they were originally Sunni (Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili is explicitly called a Shaf'ite and Safwat As-Safa also is pretty clear). Also Safavids called their domain Iran and thus the parts of modern Iraq, Afghanistan, South Caucus..were called by the name Iran and sometimes Ajamestan.., Molk-e-Ajam, Farsistan... Ottomans also referred to the Safavids as king of Iran and their domain as Iran.

  Here is a Persian letter from Shah Abbas to Nur-ad-din Muhammad Jahangir about the victory in Kandahar using Iran:

  که بعد از سنوح قضیه ی ناگریز نواب جنت مکان علیین آشیان شاه باباام انارالله برهانه، چه قسم قضایا در ایران روی داده...

  Here is part of a Persian letter from Shah Abbas to Sir Anthony Shirely (Welayate-e-Ajam)

  بعد از این از ولایت عجم ابریشم به حلب نبرند...

  And of course many books from that era (Alem-araayeh-Abbasi, Habib -ol Sayr ...)

  Sultan Salim with regards to the battle of Chaldiran: تا ز استنبول لشکر سوی ایران تاختم

  Thus the Safavids clearly considered their country/empire/state/domain/geographic territory they ruled over..etc. by the name Iran. --alidoostzadeh 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It is also interesting that he wrote the letters in Persian, even those to the rulers of England. Once again, this underlines the fact that the Safavids were bi-lingual and that Persian was the main language of court and administration. Ismail's Turkish letters to the Ottoman rulers - as already pointed out by Savory - were propaganda and provocation. Tājik 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems like the Safavids really had no choice to be at least bilingual. (Minorsky says early age). They needed the support of both the Ghezelbash specially at an early stage and also they needed a language that had a long administrative tradition like Persian besides the fact that Esfahan was primarily Persian. They also intermarried with various Persian and Ghezelbash families and thus were really mixed. Note the Persian by Shah Abbas is very polished unlike the Persian of some Qajar kings. I have some Persian poems from Shah Tahmasp as well.. Note the name Tahmasp which was chosen on Zu-Tahmasp of Shahnameh. Asp (horse) is obvious. Tahm is used as title of Rostam also Tahmtan. Tahm means able bodied, vigorous.. The patronization of Shahnameh Tahmaspi and also Esmail asking for a narrative in the form of Shahnameh itself from Hatifi.. all show strong Persian cultural influence. --alidoostzadeh 17:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  :) Ali, Safavids established their first kingdom in Azerbaijan with predominantly Turkic-speaking groups and Qizilbash. First capital of Safavid state was Tabriz, second was Qazvin, Isfahan became capital only under Shah Abbas! So, I agree that Safavids could not have remained Turkic-speaking in bilingual empire, still at the time of their rise to power, and well under the influence of Qizilbash, they were predominantly Turkic-speaking. Conflicts between Turcomans and Persians as already described on the page, show how resistant the core Safavids (Qizilbash) were to accept Persian influence. Also, for the sake of clarity, can you use the spelling as it is in literature, i.e. Ismail instead of Esmail, Isfahan instead Esfahan, and Qizilbash (as properly transliterated from Turkic into English) and not Ghezelbash. Thanks. Atabek 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually I am not sure if Azerbaijan was predominantly Turkic-speaking speaking back then. Peter Golden and Sumer believe that the migration of Ghezelbash really brought Turkification. At least we have lots of taati materials from Tabriz during the Qara-Qoyunlu era. Also Qazvin is still predominantely Persian speaking but there are Azeri (mainly Shahsevans settled by Rezashah) and some Kurds there as well. Anyways my point was that the Safavids were bilingual but primarily Turcophone amongst themselves. But we have substantial amount of Persian from the Safavid kings themselves. Decent amount of letters from Shah Abbas for example. About terms, well I guess I am writing it as I am pronouncing it, but for the article itself of course it will use the popular transliterations although Esmail is used in [19] and Esfahan is also broadly popular. --alidoostzadeh 06:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Three versions two based on S.A. VakiliansThanks to Atabek for giving his version. Tajik, GM, Mardavich and other users should do the same. Here are three versions.

  A) Current version:

  The Safavids (1501-1722) are considered as the greatest Iranian Empire since the Islamic conquest of Persia. The Safavid empire originated in Ardabil, a city in northern Iran. It was a predominately Turkic-speaking dynasty whose classical and cultural language was Persian.[1][2] The Safavids established an independent unified Iranian state for the first time after the Islamic conquest of Persia and reasserted Iranian political identity, and established Shia Islam as the official religion in Iran. The Safavids ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736).

  (Then unto the Safavid Sufic order which was also part of the dynasty)

  B) Slightly rewords:

  The Safavids established an independent unified Iranian state for the first time after the Islamic conquest of Persia and reasserted Iranian political identity, and established Shia Islam as the official religion in Iran. The Safavids ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736). The Safavids (1501-1722) are considered as the greatest Iranian Empire since the Islamic conquest of Persia. The Safavid empire originated in Ardabil, a city in northern Iran. The Safavids were a predominately Turcophone dynasty while the ureaucratic and cultural language under their domain was primarily Persian.

  (Then unto the Safavid Sufic order which was also part of the dynasty)

  C) Encyclopedia Britannica version: (1502-1736), Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shi'ite Islam as the state religion of Iran was a major factor in the emergence of a unified national consciousness among the various ethnic and linguistic elements of the country. The Safavids were descended from Sheykh Safi od-Din (1253-1334) of Ardabil, head of the Sufi order of Safaviyeh (Safawiyah), but about 1399 exchanged their Sunnite affiliation for Shi'ism.

  
  --alidoostzadeh 15:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, I had already given my version. Here is it again:

  • The Safavids were a dynasty that ruled
    Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Azeri Turkic speaking family whose classical and cultural language was Persian^[8][9], the Safavids established Shia Islam as the official religion of their kingdom, reasserted the original Persian identity^[10] of the region, and became the first native dynasty to established an independent and united Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by Arab, Turkic, and Mongol dynasties.^{[11][5][12][13]}

  Please also check the given sources and quotes. I think this is the best solution. Tājik 16:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  Tajik I thin for Persian language, this is an excellent assessment which I brought previously.

  Toynbee's assessment of the role of the Persian language is worth quoting in more detail[20]:

  “

  In the Iranic world, before it began to succumb to the process of Westernization, the New Persian language, which had been fashioned into literary form in mighty works of art. . . gained a currency as a lingua franca; and at its widest, about the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of the Christian Era, its range in this role extended, without a break, across the face of South-Eastern Europe and South-Western Asia from the Ottoman pashalyq of Buda, which had been erected out of the wreckage of the Western Christian Kingdom of Hungary after the Ottoman victory at Mohacz in A.D. 1526, to the Muslim "successor-states" which had been carved, after the victory of the Deccanese Muslim princes at Talikota in A.D. 1565, out of the carcass of the slaughtered Hindu Empire of Vijayanagar. For this vast cultural empire the New Persian language was indebted to the arms of Turkish-speaking empire-builders, reared in the Iranic tradition and therefore captivated by the spell of the New Persian literature, whose military and political destiny it had been to provide one universal state for Orthodox Christendom in the shape of the Ottoman Empire and another for the Hindu World in the shape of the Timurid Mughal Raj. These two universal states of Iranic construction on Orthodox Christian and on Hindu ground were duly annexed, in accordance with their builders' own cultural affinities, to the original domain of the New Persian language in the homelands of the Iranic Civilization on the Iranian plateau and in the Basin of the Oxus and the Jaxartes; and in the heyday of the Mughal, Safawi, and Ottoman regimes New Persian was being patronized as the language of litterae humaniores by the ruling element over the whole of this huge realm, while it was also being employed as the official language of administration in those two-thirds of its realm that lay within the Safawi and the Mughal frontiers.

  ”

  ^[14]

  About your version I have no problem with it.. Thus we need feedback from Atabek, GM.. on my three versions and your version. --alidoostzadeh 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Now I have another source for my version of the intro. All points are mentioned - the intro is short and precise. Tājik 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. --alidoostzadeh 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This one might help also for the introduction or perhaps for another section. It is by Minorsky: Had it not been for this interval of Iranian domination (Shaddadid and Daylamites), the national tradition of Iran would have become blunted and the Safavids would have found it infinitely more difficult to restore the particular moral and cultural character which distinguishes Persia from her Muslim neighbors (V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, London, Taylor's Foreign Press, 1953, pg 110).

  Also note the comment from Minorsky about Kasravi on pg 3 of the same book: Kasravi possessed the spirit of a true historian. He was accurate in detail and clear in presentation. Among his accomplishments was a good knowledge of Arabic and Armenian. He was assassinated in Tehran on 20.XII.1945) (pg 3) of the same book. Thus Kasrawi's historical work has scholarly value and Frye , Skajearov..and many others have quoted it. His book on Shaykh Safi wa Tabarash was one of the first to show that Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili was a Kurd and Shafi'ite. Although the Turkish Professor Togan reached the same conclusion independently and he had better manuscripts of Safwat as-Safa available to him. --alidoostzadeh 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said earlier, Kasravi is not a historian. He might have "posessed a spirit of" one :), but he was not a historian. He was a good publicist however, his report of 18-year history of Azerbaijan is pretty good.

  I do not agree with Tajik's version, which says "Safavids reasserted original Persian identity". This statement is a total POV. First the identity that Safavids asserted (without re) until today is contemporary Iranian Shiite identity, and Shiism is the strongest legacy of Safavids which has influence on current life in Iran. They could not have reasserted it, because Iran was not of Shiite identity before Safavids. And nature of identity asserted was not Persian but Iranian, because it had a broader sense, and Safavids did not come from Persians. Original Persian identity is Dariush and Kouroush, with which Ismail and Safavids had very little in common. Atabek 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, Minorsky says about Kasravi's book (Shahriyaraan Gom-naam): A very good study based on both Muslim and Armenians, the Turkish translation of Munejjim-bashi and references in Persian poet (same page). I think what Minorsky says or when Frye quotes him.. that is what counts. Out of all the scholars quoted so far, Minorsky has the biggest name by far and he quotes and praises Kasravi. Also the Persian identity is based on the Shahnameh more than Cyrus and Darius although Achaemenids are briefly mentioned in the Shahnameh. Shahnameh is the cornerstone of the Persian identity and Safavids paid major attention to the Shahnameh. But alongside Tajik's version , I have also put other versions up as well for contributers. --alidoostzadeh 06:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Shahnameh is not the identity they asserted, Ali, just because Ismail names his sons after the characters in Shahnameh does not mean he asserted a Persian identity. Many people in the region carry Arabic, Persian or Turkish names, but it does not necessarily imply their ethnic identity. Neither it defines their ideology. For example, Ahmad Kasravi had Arab name "Ahmad", but he was still an Iranian nationalist, not an Arab patriot. Again, Minorsky might have been impressed by works of Kasravi, but it's important to highlight that Kasravi was not a professional historian. If he is, well, then let's start citing here the works of Lev Gumilev about Turkic civilization inhabitting the region all around Caspian from times immemorial. Atabek 06:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, Gumilev is not quoted by the likes of Minorsky, Savory, Togan, Mazzaoui and Frye. Actually reading his wikipedia entry it shows he is not regarded as a scholar [21] and that is why his ideas are not reflected in say Peter Goldens book on Turkic people or in any mainstream publication. Kasravi on the other hand was the first to show Shaykh Safi ad-din was a Sunni and now Britannica 2007 puts the Shaykh as originally Sunni and all sources agree. But Kasravi was the one to prove it first even before Togan. Now going back to Shahnameh. Besides the names of his sons from Shahnameh which was very rare back then as Shahnameh was seen more as Zoroastrian and Iranian nationalists and some throughout history have always denounced as anti-Islam for the glorification of Irans pre-Islamic past, the Safavids patronized the Shahnameh as the Shahnameh of Shah Tahmasp is the most magnificant Shahnameh in terms of art work. How come Shah Tahmasp did not choose Turkish folklore (like Dede Qorqod for example) to be patronized in such manner? Note I brought an article from a nationalist Azeri website[22], However, such a plot would absolutely have jeopardized their lives. First of all, it was based on a foreign tale: Kaveh was a mythical figure of ancient Persia, memorialized by 10th century Ferdowsi in Persian verse in the "Shahnameh" (Book of the Kings).. But Shah Tahmasp chose Shahnameh because he identified with the Shahnameh thus it was not foreign to him. Esmail's poem I brought also shows clear Shahnameh identification as well: Today I have come to the world as a Master. Know Truly I am Haydar's son I am Faridun, Khusraw, Jamshid and Zohak. I am Zal's son (Rustam) and Alexandar..." (Note Islamic era Alexander was seen as a Quranic king). Esmail asked for Hatifi to compose poetry for him in the Shahnameh style [23]. The celebrations of the Safavids included even

  Tiregan an ancient Zoroastrian celebration as well which still exists in cities of Iran. --alidoostzadeh 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @ Atabek: as always, you simply reject Kasravi's works and achievements, because you do not like what he says. So it's really not a question of scholarship, but that of nationalism. With all due respect: if Richard Frye, Roger Savory, and Vladimir Minorsky do accept him as a great scholar and freely quote him, who are you to say that he was not a historian?! Togan was also not a real historian. He was a Turkish nationalist and a leader of the Basmachi Pan-Turkic rebellion in Russia. Yet, this has nothing to do with his scholarly achievements which are accepted and valued by most historians. Interestingly: even the Turkish nationalist Togan agrees that Safavids were not Turks. In here, I would like to repeat myself: please stop your double-standards. When Frye says that "Azeri Turks founded the Safavid dynasty" you take his words as gospel and copy-and-past this quote multiple times into the article. But when he says that Kasravi was a good historian and uses his quotes, you suddenly change your mind and say: "Hey, Frye and all the other experts on Safavids have no idea: Kasravi was not a historian and his works have no value".

  As for the Persian Identity:

  • Persia did have a strong Shia community way before the Safavids. The Buyyids were Shias, the
    Samanids were pro-Shia, and Persia's national poet Ferdowsi was a Shia, and countless famous Persian scholars and scientists, such as Ibn Sina, were Shia. The Khurramites of Azerbaijan were Shia, Babak was pro-Shia, and Abu Muslim
    was pro-Shia. Iran's post-Islamic history and it's national identity is strictly bond to Shia Islam. From the very beginning, the Shia faith became a symbol for Iran's national resistance against the Arab (and later Turkic) Sunni faith.
  • The Safavids reasserted the Persian Shia identity that was once set up by the
    Buyyids. They Buyyids were not ethnic Persians either, they were related to the Kurds
    (just like the Safavids). But they patronized and propagated a very unque Persian Shia identity. The rein of the Buyyids marked the fusion between the Shia rebellion and Persian nationalist movements. That's the reason why many typical Shia rituals today are not Arab-Islamic, but clearly Zoroastrian-Persian in origin. Just check Iranica:

  • The figure of Šahrbānu may be situated within the complex network of relations between Persians and Shi'ites. These relations naturally belong to the wider framework of the attitude of Persians towards Islam and the authorities and institutions that represent it during the early centuries of the hejra. This latter phenomenon has been studied widely in its many forms (Yarshater 1998, bibliography; Amir-Moezzi 2002a, pp. 532-36). On the other hand, links of a religious and doctrinal nature between ancient Iranian religions and Imami Shi'ism constitute a field of research that still remains almost completely unexplored. The complex material of the Šahrbānu tradition forms part of those elements that link Imamism to ancient Persia and serve to revalidate pre-Islamic Persian culture. Some noteworthy examples: the tradition according to which the celestial Book of Zoroaster consisted of 12000 volumes containing all Knowledge and 'Ali depicted as the Knower par excellence of this Book (Kolayni 1956, I, p. 161; Ebn Bābawayh 1984, p. 206); the tradition praising the justice of Iranian kings, particularly that of Anušervān (q.v.), during whose reign the Prophet was born (Majlesi, XV, pp. 250, 254, 279 ff.); the emblematic figure of Salmān the Persian as the Persian sage, the ideal Muslim and archetype of the Shi'ite initiate adept (Massignon, passim); the glorification of two of the most important Persian festivals, Nowruz and Mehregān in Hadiths going back to Shi'ite Imams (Walbridge, passim); mourning rituals for Imam Hosayn as a continuation of funerary rituals and ancient practices for the Persian hero Siyāvaš (Meskub, pp. 82 f f.;Yarshater 1979, pp. 80-95), etc. In this context, and when we acknowledge the fundamental importance of the affiliation and sacred nature of the link among the awliā in Shi'ism (Amir-Moezzi 2000, passim), the figure of Šahrbānu acquires special significance. Adding the light of Persian royal glory to that of walāya, stemming from Moháammad and 'Ali, Šahrbānu lends double legitimacy - Shi'ite and Persian to its descendants, the Imams of Hosaynid lineage, as well as a double noblility, Qorayshite and Sasanian. At the same time, she endows the kings of ancient Persia, with the status of maternal ancestors of the Imams, thus revalidating the sovereigns and the culture of a nation of which she is the Lady. Thus, she becomes one of the main links in the relationship between pre-Islamic Persia and Imamism. [24]

  • Shia identity in Iran IS Persian identity.

  My version is perfectly clear, it is sourced, and it is not POV (unlike the countless POV versions you have proposed). I would also like to comment on one of your statments: "...Original Persian identity is Dariush and Kouroush, with which Ismail and Safavids had very little in common ...". Now, this is pure nonsense. If this is about "original identity", than Turks would be "barbarian, Asian-looking, Shamanist-infidel and uncivilized horsemen of the steppe" ... Now, is that what you are trying to tell us? That the Safavids were "uncivilized, Shamnist-infidel, and barbarian horsemen from the East Asian steppes"?! You can't be serious! At least the Safavids believed to be descendants of the Sassanids and Achaemenids (keeping in mind that the Sassanids believed to be descendants of the Achaemenids) and took much pride in it - as you can see in Ismail's poetry. Yet, I do not see any relationship between the Safavids and "original Turkic identity" or any pride in it.

  Shirvanshah is very badly done and it just has a non-neutral source from Baku. Shirvanshah considered themselves Iranians and actually supported Persian culture to the maximum and had no relations to Turkics or Turks. They may have been of Arab origin, but were completely Persianized. I kind of see a double standard between this article and Shirvanshah. That article needs a major rewrite to make it encyclopedic and NPOV, and I would like to bring the attention of Ali, Tajik and other interested editors to that article. --Mardavich 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have few sources on Sharvanshs (which is the correct and more archaic pronounciation). Nothing is mentioned of their Persianization and their claim to be descendants of Ardashir-e-Babakan besides being Persian speakers and supporting Persian poetry and culture massively. Also the names are written wrong and I do not understand when Azerbaijani language has the sound kh, why Akhistan is written as Ahistan!(Of course you know Persian tand know hat does not sound good). But I do notice the opening statement of that one saying nothing about Irans heritage (actually no where in the article). I'll get involved in that next week or the week after and that should be easier to handle since the sources on Shervanshah are much fewer than Safavids and there is no debate about their language, culture, ethnic origin and etc even amongst scholars. Suprisingly not, our best source on them is again from Minorsky. --alidoostzadeh 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Identity issuesPerhaps it is best to focus on certain recognized specifics rather than getting bogged down in other issues of contention. Here is what Iranica (the most academic on the web encyclopedia on all issues dealing with Iran) has to say about the Safavids:

  The advent of the Safavids constitutes one of the major turning points in Persian history, and this for two reasons: one was the enforcement of the Shi¿ite branch of Islam on the country, the other was the unification of the country under a single rule, which has continued as such to the present day. The first helped the second and gave the country a distinctive character and identity against the Sunnite Ottomans in the west and the Sunnite Shaybanids in the northeast, and made it possible for Persia to withstand repeated Ottoman invasions. It is also a fact that the establishment of Shi¿ism as the state religion in Persia caused a serious break in the confessional continuity of the Islamic world, and, among other consequences, created a barrier between Central Asia and the rest of the Islamic lands, helping its relative cultural barrenness from the 16th century until modern times.

  The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified. Their eponymous ancestor, S®afi-al-Din (1252-1334), was a disciple of Shaikh Za@hed of Gila@n, a Sunnite Sufi pir or spiritual leader. S®afi-al-Din succeeded his pir and settled in Ardabil in eastern Azerbaijan, and founded the SafavidOrder. He was buried there, and his tomb and the citybecame a place of pilgrimage for his devotees. In the course of time and under the leadership of S®afi-al-Din's descendents, the order became a militant Shi¿ite one, with @gola@t or extremist features, receiving support from Turkish and Turkmen tribes in Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia, such as the ˆa@mlu, Osta@jlu, Takallu, D¨u'l-Qadr, Qa@ja@r, and Afæa@r tribes, who had strong devotional ties to the heads of the Order.

  In the mid-15th century, Jonayd, the head of the Order, developed political ambitions, married Uzun Háasan's sister, and embarked on holy wars in the Caucasus, during which he was killed in 1455. Esma@¿il, a grandson of Jonayd, assumed the leadership of the Order at the age of thirteen, after his father H®eydar was killed. He was a brave, charismatic youth, whose mother Marta was a daughter of Uzun Háasan from a Byzantine wife. He was practically worshiped by his tribal followers, who were called Qezelba@æ on account of their red headgear. After invading Shirva@n (ˆirva@n) and killing its ruler to avenge the death of his father, he embarked on a career of war and conquest. Driving the Qara Qoyunlu from Azerbaijan, he entered Tabriz in 1501, ascended the throne, ordered coins to be minted in his name, and proclaimed Twelver Shi¿ism as the state religion, ordering conversion of the Sunnites on the pain of death. Within ten years he made himself the master of all of Persia, showing extraordinary daring and bravery in battle. His decisive victory over the Uzbeks who had occupied most of Khorasan was an important event and barred the possibility of a large-scale Uzbek invasion of the Middle East and India. The Safavids continued to have problems with Uzbek raids into Khorasan, but on the whole they were able to keep them off.

  Shah Esma@¿il was regarded as invincible by his followers until he had to face the Ottoman Sultan Selim I, a powerful monarch who resented the Shi¿ite propaganda among his eastern Anatolian subjects and the expansion of the Safavid power. The Ottoman army invaded Azerbaijan; Shah Esma@¿il faced it with half as many men as the Ottoman army at the battle of Ùa@ldera@n (q.v.; 1514). Shah Esma@÷il and the Qezelba@æ showed extraordinary courage, but the superior number of Ottoman soldiers and their use of firearms and cannons, the use of which Shah Esma@¿il and the Qezelba@æ considered unmanly and somewhat cowardly (Savory, p. 43), decided the outcome. Defeated, Shah Esma@¿il had to cede the Kurdish areas as far as Dia@rbakr, but the Ottomans, who briefly occupied Azerbaijan, could not linger there owing to the severe winter in Tabriz and their army's insistence onreturning at once to Anatolia. Although the Safavids lost some territory to the Ottomans, it was the psychological effect of the disaster that counted most. In a spirit ofdespair and melancholy, Shah Esma@¿il went into mourning, wore black, and gave himself up to drinking. He never again led his army in battle, dying in 1524 after 23 years of rule.

  During his reign a problem that was later to become a perennial issue for the Safavid state made its first appearance. Shah Esma@÷il had been beholden to the Qezelba@æ on account of their devotion to him and their having been instrumental in safeguarding his life when he was hiding in Gila@n in his early youth, as well as because of their power base in their respective tribes. But, as his rule was consolidated, he became aware of the necessity of reining in the power of the Qezelba@æ and becoming independent of them. The state needed the services of Persian administrators and bureaucrats, "men of the pen," following the longstanding tradition that had prevailed during the reign of Turkish, Mongol, and Tatar rulers. On the other hand the Qezelba@æ, "men of the sword," looked down on the Tajiks, that is, the Persians, and did not easily tolerate working under them. The state needed both, all the more so as the appointment of the Tajiks to high offices could serve as a check on the insatiable claims of the Qezelba@æ to office. After the defeat at Ùa@ldera@n, Shah Esma@¿il appointed Mirza@ ˆa@h-H®osayn of Isfahan, a Tajik, as the head of the bureaucracy. ˆa@h-H®osayn's power increased to the point that he was able to dislodge the all-powerful Durmiæ Khan ˆa@mlu and send him away from the court to the governorship of Herat (Savory, p. 48). The fact that Mirza@ ˆa@h-H®osayn was assassinated in April 1523 by a group of Qezelba@æ points to the endemic discord and conflict between the Qezelba@æ and the Persians—a situation which continued under Shah Tahmasb (T®ahma@sb) and even later in the Safavid period in spite of severe measures that Shah Abbas I (¿Abba@s) took to centralize power in the Shah's hands and diminish the power of the Qezelba@æ.

  Shah Esma@¿il was succeeded in 1524 by his ten-year old elder son Tahmasb (1524-76). Before he came of age, the rival Qezelba@æ chiefs vied with each other for the control of the king, a situation that was repeated whenever the king was a minor or a weakling. At seventeen Tahmasb began to take the reins of power in his own hands and to show his mettle. He was not brilliant at either administration or in military campaigns, yet he did not lack moral and physical courage. Furthermore, after a period of indulgence in wine and the pleasures of the harem, he turned pious and parsimonious, observing all the Shi¿ite rites and enforcing them as far as possible on his entourage and subjects. He managed in the course of his 52 years of reign to hold the Safavid domain together, defending it against continuous threats and invasions by the Ottomans from the west and the Uzbeks from the northeast. It was in fact Tahmasb's reign that consolidated the Safavid rule, defined Persian borders, and spread Shi¿ism in Iran. He also managed to maintain a delicate balance between the Qezelba@æ and the Tajiks.

  In addition, Roger Savory in "Iran Under the Safavids" writes that they claimed to be descended from Shia Imams, were the acknowledged leaders of Turkic groups who dominated the military until the incorportion of Caucasian slave soldiers, and invoked a Persian/Iranian identity to maintain their supremacy. In short, this dynasty made claims to unite its disparate parts including the Turks, Iranians and used Shiism to unite the country as it is under this dynasty that Shiism is believed to have truly replace the Sunnis. This is key and is found in other sources as well. Interest in Iranian culture and literature was also common amongst Turks as Persian was the literary lingua franca. The Shahnameh by Firdousi as a manuscript is found throughout the Ottoman areas as well as the Safavid ones and shows a Turko-Iranian tradition more than anything else. The MAIN aspect of the Safavids was their Shiite identity and how they transformed Iran/Persia from a Sunni region to a Shiite one. Their invocation of a Persian/Iranian cultural identity was most likely for political purposes, although from their view the Turks (Qizilbashes, Shahsevan, etc.) were also their kin. When talking about tradition of any sort, the best way to go is to refer to the cultural tradition as a Turko-Iranian one both for the sake of neutrality and because it seems that that is how things were. Shiism and Iranian identity are linked because the dynasty is in Iran and the rivalry intensified with the decidedly Sunni Ottomans as well. While in Turkey, "Turkic" identity assimilated the native Greeks and Armenians etc., Iran remained multilingual and multi "ethnic" and thus we have more complexities to consider. It's a safe bet though that the Safavids, regardless of how they viewed themselves, were looking for ways to exert their supremacy and control over Iran and this would include linking themselves to as many divine lineages and claims as possible. I would suggest following the Iranica model. Tombseye 16:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree for the most part. Specially the begining sentence is very polished and that could be 6th proposal for the begining (1 by Atabek, 1 by Tajik, 3 by me (2 based on S.A. Vakilians version). But the mechanism of the cultural barreness part upheld b the author should have been made more clear. Although let me add that the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi is purely Iranian tradition going back to the Sassanid era and dede-qorqod for example is Turkish tradition. Of course Iranian traditions and Persian literature affected Turks and Turkic speakers and thus you might call Turks adopting Iranian culture like the Ghaznavids or Seljuqids for example. Iranian speaking dynasties like Shaddadid, Buyids, Turkish ones like Ghaznavids and Seljuqids and Arab ones like Shervanshahs claimed descendt from Ardashir Babakan the founder of Sassanids. Thus for the most part the cultural influence was one way. Thus Turkish nomads, in spite of their deep penetration throughout Iranian lands, only slightly influenced the local culture. Elements borrowed by the Iranians from their invaders were negligible.[25]. This is mentioned E. J. W. Gibb, author of the standard A Literary History of Ottoman Poetry in six volumes, whose name has lived on in an important series of publications of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish texts, the Gibb Memorial Series. Gibb classifies Ottoman poetry between the Old School, from the fourteenth century to about the middle of the nineteenth, during which time Persian influence was dominant; and the Modern School, which came into being as a result of the Western impact. According to him in the introduction (Volume I):

  “

  the Turks very early "appropriated the entire Persian literary system down to its minute detail, and that in the same unquestioning and wholehearted fashion in which they had already accepted Islam.

  ”

  . The Saljuqs had, in the words of the same author:

  “

  attained a very considerable degree of culture, thanks entirely to Persian tutorage. About the middle of the eleventh century they [that is, the Saljuqs] had overrun Persia, when, as so often happened, the Barbarian conquerors adopted the culture of their civilized subjects. Rapidly the Seljuq Turks pushed their conquest westward, ever carrying with them Persian culture ... So, when some hundred and fifty years later Sulayman's son [the leader of the Ottomans] . . . penetrated into Asia Minor, they [the Ottomans] found that although Seljuq Turkish was the everyday speech of the people, Persian was the language of the court, while Persian literature and Persian culture reigned supreme. It is to the Seljuqs with whom they were thus fused, that the Ottomans, strictly so called, owe their literary education; this therefore was of necessity Persian as the Seljuqs knew no other. The Turks were not content with learning from the Persians how to express thought; they went to them to learn what to think and in what way to think. In practical matters, in the affairs of everyday life and in the business of gov¬ernment, they preferred their own ideas; but in the sphere of science and lit¬erature they went to school with the Persian, intent not merely on acquiring his method, but on entering into his spirit, thinking his thought and feeling his feelings. And in this school they continued so long as there was a master to teach them; for the step thus taken at the outset developed into a practice; it became the rule with the Turkish poets to look ever Persia-ward for guid¬ance and to follow whatever fashion might prevail there. Thus it comes about that for centuries Ottoman poetry continued to reflect as in a glass the several phases through which that of Persia passed....So the first Ottoman poets, and their successors through many a generation, strove with all their strength to write what is little else than Persian poetry in Turkish words. But such was not consciously their aim; of national feeling in poetry they dreamed not; poetry was to them one and indivisible, the language in which it was written merely an unimportant accident

  ”

  . --alidoostzadeh 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  Here is another source:

  • "... Not only did the inhabitants of Khurasan not succumb to the language of the nomadic invaders, but they imposed their own tongue on them. The region could even assimilate the Turkic Ghaznavids and Seljuks (eleventh and twelfth centuries), the Timurids (fourteenth–fifteenth centuries), and the Qajars (nineteenth–twentieth centuries) ..."

  Taken from: F. Daftary, Sectarian and National Movements in Iran, Khorasan, and Trasoxania during Umayyad and Early Abbasid Times, in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol 4, pt. 1; edited by M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth; UNESCO Publishing, Institute of Ismaili Studies

  Tājik 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Identity issues: I am fed up with this ....!

  It is obvious both sides have to compromise. There are now 6 versions available for introduction. So we need to narrow it to one. --alidoostzadeh 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, we have no authority to compromise! Are you a representative of the Iranian people? Am I? What compromise? We are talking about the historical issues that may take decades if not centuries to be resolved! Who are we to compromise? What authorities do we have from our people to compromise? I was not elected by anyone to be here! Have you? What gives you any rights to compromise on behave of the Iranians? Wiki rules say that all evidences must be presented in the article and that is all we can do here, just list what people (some of them experts and some of them the local Gazettes!) have said! Wiki is not a scientific venue! It is only a cheap Gazette that is run by a bunch of unemployed teenagers! Look at the time these people post their posts, could they be doing a full time job and do this unless they are unemployed or are paid for doing what they are doing? NO! Kiumars 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not say I am representative.. what we need is an introduction sentence or two where everyone is somewhat satisfied (and no one will be 100% satsified). Wiki takes up unnecessary time. --alidoostzadeh 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Kiumars, this is not about about "voting someone to speak on behalf of someone", and this is not about "Iranians vs. Turks". The only thing that matters is factual accuracy. Tājik 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tājik 23:22, 25 February 2007; What kind of academic qualifications do you have to decide what the “factual accuracy” is? When I go to a chemist to buy a bottle of aspirin I expect them to be fully qualified for selling it! Are you qualified and recognised in what you (I do not mean you personally but in general) say you are here? What do I know about you but a pseudo name on Wiki? What do you know about me but a pseudo name on wiki? Who am I? Who are you? How qualified are we to make any educated comments? Would you buy a jar of Vaseline from me without checking my certificates? No! But I have to take any shit all the unqualified people here say on this subject! Would you buy a jar of Vaseline from an unqualified person? Why do you expect me to buy a historical story from a bunch of unqualified people? Excuse the expression but it is a shiiiiiiiit! Kiumars 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali you are welcome to censor this (as before) if you wish! Kiumars 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Kiumars, I really do not care whether you believe that I (or any other person in here) is qualified or not. If you have any problems with the rules of Wikipedia, then - with all due respect - you should leave this website to people who at least know a little bit what they talk about. Tājik 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually the good thing I like about Wikipedia is not wikipedia itself. But when I see a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense, I go research it and try to find the truth of the matter. For the most part I think the average person is aware is that Wikipedia is not scholarly source when it comes to many articles..--alidoostzadeh 00:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Origins section

  Fixed it.Azerbaijani 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  

  That section is next! But what is the point when all those tags are there already? What we need something for the intro first (succint, polished and to the point). I hope to see some comments on the other four versions (three by me and one by tombeyese (sp?) from other users including Azerbaijani and Atabek. I believe we will eventually reach one where everyone agrees although no one is going to be 100% happy.. --alidoostzadeh 03:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tags

  The tags are there because there is a person who disputes something that falls in those categories. The tags are NOT about cooperation on the talk page.Azerbaijani 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek I put it there since Tajik had edited a while back. The current tag emphasizes furthermore that users need to work together to get an agreement and also makes it more clear that content is disputed. Also it hopefully puts pressure on everyone to come up with a solution after two years. I will archive today but will put the 6 proposals we have with a more useful solution method. --alidoostzadeh 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have major disagreements with current version of introduction. However, as I said earlier, words "considered as greatest" are largely POV non-encyclopedic statements. Firstly, considered by who? Secondly, Safavids were not an Empire but a dynasty that built the Empire. I think leaving aside emotions and writing a balanced introduction based on pure facts and quotes is a key. Here is another shot:

  The Safavids (1501-1722) were a Shiite dynasty which established a unified independent Iranian state for the first time since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Turkic-speaking dynasty originated in Ardabil, Iranian Azerbaijan, from where its expansion started in 1501. Safavids promoted Persian cultural and language heritage and Shiite identity to assert a contemporary Iranian political identity. Establishing Shia Islam as the official religion of Iran, Safavids expanded their empire well beyond Iran's modern boundaries. They ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736).

  I don't see why Azerbaijan is being completely omitted from the introduction, it's very relevant to indicate which region Safavids originated from. Secondly, I think I emphasized enough Persian cultural identity, to the extent well beyond mentioned by scholars. So this seems to be more or less balanced approach. Atabek 05:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The expression "Iranian political identity" is wrong and POV. Fact is - and that is mentioned in many sources already provided - that the Safavids united Iran under a re-asserted Persian identity. "Political identity" is a concept that did not exist before the French Revolution. So why do you persist on such a POV statement? Besides that, they were not the ones who established the first unified Iranian state after the Arab conquest. Unified Iranian states ("Iranian" being a geographical term) existed under the Seljuqs, Ghaznavids, and even under the Mongols. What was so special about the Safavids was their IRANIAN ORIGIN. They were the first NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty of ORIGINAL IRANIAN HERITAGE who established a unified Iranian state. This is mentioned in Iranica and EI! That's why they are directly compared to the Buyyids - the "Iranian intermezzo" in a time when Arabs and Turks ruled the Islamic world. "Origin" and "heritage" are defined by the male linage. That'S why the Safavids were a NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty of NATIVE IRANIAN ORIGIN. Their male linage was Iranian. All the dynasties of the past had mixed with the peoples they had conquered. The Seljuqs, for example, were also heavily mixed with Iranian and Anatolian populations, to an extent that they even adopted the Persian language. Yet, ALL sources agree that they were Oghuz Turks in heritage and origin - because their male family linage was Oghuz Turkic. In case of the Safavids, it's the other way around. Many of the Safavid Shahs may have had Turkic mothers, but the male linage - and that's what defined their origin - was definitly and evidently Iranian and Non-Turkic! So please stop pushing for POV. Tājik 11:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Atabek proposes a good version of intro. Iranian origin is subject to dispute, even Iranica says that Zands were first Iranians. So please do not push for inclusion of controversial statements, it leads nowhere. Grandmaster 12:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In the main article about Ismail, Iranica clearly states that he established the first "native Persian dynasty after 800 years of Arab, Turkic, and Mongol rule". I really have no idea why you persist on a side note in some other article. Besides that, I have already asked you to explain why the Zands should be regarded as "first native Iranian dynasty", although decades ealier, the Pashtuns - also a native Iranian people - had created the Hotaki dynasty that ruled entire Iran. So please stop your double-standards. Interestingly, when it comes to the origin of the

  Azerbaijani people, you reject the quotes from Iranica. I do not support Atabek's suggestion, because it contains mistakes and POV. And I am sure that there are many other's who agree with me. Tājik 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not say so. The article about Ismail, written by Savory, says:

  The reign of Esmail is one of the most important in the history of Persia. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, prior to his accession in 907/1501, Persia, since its conquest by the Arabs eight-and-a-half centuries earlier, had not existed as a separate entity but had been ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. During the whole of this period, only under the Buyids (q.v.) did a substantial part of Persia come under Persian rule (334-447/945-1055).

  It does not use the word "Persian" in ethnic sense. However, David Morgan says: The Zands were an Iranian people, and their decades of dominance were one of the few periods, between the arrival of the Saljūqs and the twentieth century, during which effective political power was exercised by a dynasty that can be regarded as in some sense ethnically "Persian".

  And Iranica: With the exception of some very local dynasties, the Zands were the only Iranian dynasty that had come to power since the Buyids in the 10th century. Grandmaster 13:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC

  We cannot discard some sources and use others. It is better to include the facts the sources agree on. Grandmaster 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Zand were purely Iranic and Iranic speaking. Safavids were mixed (Greek, Turcomen, Kurd). We already mentioned they are turcophones. Zands spoke Laki or Luri which are Middle Persian based dialects. Also lets stick to Safavid historians as they are superior sources. Thus while Safavids eldest geoneology is purely Iranic from Shaykh Safi to Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah Al-Kurd Sanjani, they were mixed to such an extent that they were not purely anything (turkic,Iranic, Greek..)--alidoostzadeh 13:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  

  The quote of Iranica is clear:

  • The reign of Esmail is one of the most important in the history of Persia. The reasons for this are twofold: firstly, prior to his accession in 907/1501, Persia, since its conquest by the Arabs eight-and-a-half centuries earlier, had not existed as a separate entity but had been ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. During the whole of this period, only under the Buyids (q.v.) did a substantial part of Persia come under Persian rule (334-447/945-1055)

  Iranica makes clear that the Safavids were neither Arabs, Turks, or Mongols. And that they were - just like the Buyyids - a natiev Persian dynasty.

  The reference to the Zands is clearly a "geographical" description and not an ethnical one. Since ethnic Iranian dynasties had ruled Iran before (

  Ghurids

  , etc), the term must be only a geographical reference.

  Morgan's analysis is about the

  Hotakis (Pashtuns

  ), and Safavids (also Kurds).

  Whom are you trying to fool, Grandmaster? As you have already said: why should we accept some sources and reject others? Why should we only accept your sources?

  My version is absolutely neutral and supports all sources provided. That:

  • Safavids were originally Iranian
  • Safavids were predominantly Turkic-speaking
  • Safavids were Shia
  • Safavids united Iran
  • Safavids were the first native Iranian dynasty (-->
    Persian people
    ) to rule a united Iran after 800 years of foreign rule
  • Safavids united Iran under Shia faith and traditional
    Persian cultural identity
    (with reference to Savory, Frye, and others).

  @ Ali: the Zands were not "purely Iranic" ... none of the dynasties was "purely Iranic". Even the Hotaki Pashtuns were mixed with local Mughal administrators. But - unlike any other dynasty that ruled Iran before - the Zands were natives of the province Fars and thus in some way "ethnic Persians". All other dynasties were from other regions: Azerbaijan, Pashtunistan, or Central Asia.

  Besides that, it's the male linage that defines a dynasty's origin. Noone claims that Seljuqs were "ethnic Iranics" only because they were Persian-speakers and had intermarried with local Iranian nobles. They are predominatly defined by their male linage and their descent from Central Asian Qinik Oghuz Turks. The same goes to the Safavids: it does not matter (from a traditional Islamic-patriarchic point of view) whether the Safavid sheikhs had Georgian, Turcoman, Persian, or African mothers. What defined them was their male family linage and their descent from Sheikh Safi ud-Din. That's why the dynasty became known as the SAFAWID dynasy and not as the "Uzun Hasanyd" or "Aq Qoyunlu" dynasty! Tājik 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The article in Iranica says: Persia, since its conquest by the Arabs eight-and-a-half centuries earlier, had not existed as a separate entity but had been ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. Tajik interprets this as: Iranica makes clear that the Safavids were neither Arabs, Turks, or Mongols. And that they were - just like the Buyyids - a native Persian dynasty. However, Iranica simply says that Safavids were not Mongol khans, Turkish sultans or Arab caliphs, but it does not say that they were not Turks, Mongols or Arabs. It is one thing to be a Turkish sultan, and another thing to be a Turk. Iranica article simply says that Safavids were natives to Persia, unlike Arab caliphs, Turkish sultans, and Mongol khans. So no need to add Persian ethnic identity here. I agree with Ali, Safavids were of mixed ethnic origin, and I think no one can deny that the basis for unification of Iranian lands under the single rule was religion, and not any ethnic identity. Let’s keep such claims out of the intro and state the facts sources agree with. Grandmaster 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You always interpret everything the way you want it, Grandmaster. You say "let's state the facts", while you deny the facts that you do not like. Savory - the most important scholar on Safavid history (even though certain people with strong Turkish-nationalist attitudes do not want to believe this) - makes it very clear in the Encyclopaedia of Islam article:

  • "... SAFAWIDS , a dynasty which ruled in Persia as sovereigns 907-1135/1501-1722, as fainéants 1142-8/1729-36, and thereafter, existed as pretenders to the throne up to 1186/1773. I. Dynastic, political and military history. The establishment of the Safawid state in 907/1501 by Shāh Ismāīl I [q.v.] (initially ruler of Ādharbāyjān only) marks an important turning-point in Persian history. In the first place, the Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia eight and a half centuries previously. During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed “the Iranian intermezzo” (334-447/945-1055), did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [see BUWAYHIDS]; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khāns. ..." (Savory/Brujin/Newman/Welch/others, EI, Online Edition, PW protected)

  This is FACT, and Savory is an authoritative reference. If you do not like this, then it's your problem. If this is about keeping out certain FACTS, only because they do not appear in certain sources, then we also have to keep out the reference to the predominantly Turkic tongue of the Safavids, because this information does not appear in all sources either! And since you seem to have problems to understand the importance of the Ei, let me show you some quotes:

  • "... The most important, authoritative reference work in English on Islam and Islamic subjects ..." (Yale University Library Research guide [26])
  • "... The most important and comprehensive reference tool for Islamic studies is the Encyclopaedia of Islam, an immense effort to deal with every aspect of Islamic civilization, conceived in the widest sense, from its origins down to the present day... EI is no anonymous digest of received wisdom. Most of the articles are signed, and while some are hardly more than dictionary entries, others are true research pieces - in many cases the best available treatment of their subject. ..." (R. Stephen Humphreys (1991). Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    ISBN 0-691-00856-6
    . , pg 4)
  • "... EI is considered by academics to be the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies ..." Brill

  FACT is that the Safavids were of original Iranian origin. They may have been mixed with local Turkic, Iranic, or Greek populations. But their their male family-linage (this is what defines "family origins"!) was evidently Kurdish!

  Thus, they were the first NATIVE IRANIAN (-->

  Persian culture) of the region, marking the beginning of modern Iran (--> Iran

  ).

  These are FACTS and supported by major sources, most of all by the two leading scholars on Safavid history: Savory and Minorsky!

  Tājik 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik is right, GM you shouldn't push a certain POV by being selective with sources and disregarding those that do not support your view --Rayis 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The evidence is overwhelmingly against Grandmasters claims. He is now even questioning Iranica, Brittanica, and several other major encyclopaedia's and historians on the

  Azerbaijani people article. Grandmaster, what are you talking about? First you deny the Iranian origin of us Azeri's, and now, with all the facts presented to you, you deny those as well. What Tajik says makes a lot of sense. However, I will leave all of this for you guys to deal with, but my only objection is the removal of the fact that the Safavids were from Iran. Why insist on Azerbaijan? Are you trying to confuse readers with the Republic of Azerbaijan or try to show some connection?Azerbaijani 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, Savory is not “most important scholar”, he is one of the most important scholars. We have no criteria in Wikipedia for establishing the most important ones and rejecting all others. Second, while Savory is the only one who says that Safavids were of Persian origin, other sources say that they were of Turkic or Kurdish origin, or say that the origins are obscure. You suggest now that we reject all those sources and use only Savory, but I’m afraid it is not the way Wikipedia works. We can say that Safavids were natives to Iran, but again claiming their Persian ethnic identity is wrong. They were of mixed ancestry, spoke colloquial Azeri Turkic, used both Azeri and Persian as cultural language and Persian as the official state language. These are the facts we all agree on, so let’s include it in the article. As for Azerbaijani people, they are of mixed origin too, as Britannica says. I’m not rejecting Iranica, but once again, you cannot take one source and reject all others. Clearly, there were three major elements that contributed to ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people, i.e. indigenous Caucasian and Iranian people and nomadic Turkic tribes that migrated to the area at various times. Azerbaijani people are a result of mixture of these 3 elements, and while Iranian people are one of the most important elements of the equation, they are not the only ones. I tried to explain that on talk of that article, but no one listens and some people try to make undiscussed revisions to that FA article. I’m not gonna discuss Azerbaijani people here anymore, it is a different subject, not related to this article. Grandmaster 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Grandmaster, every human being is of different origins. Yet, only one of them - the direct male linage (father-father's father-grandfather's father-, and so on) - defines the family origin. That's why the

  Ilkhans

  are considered "Mongols" although they were heavily mixed with the Iranian and Turkic nobles and were more Turks or Persians than Mongols. The case of the Safavids is the same: they were a family of Kurdish background. Period. It does not matter with what other peoples they had mixed. All sources agree that they were of Iranian, most likely Kurdish origin. Safi ud-Din who lived some 7 generations after Firuz Shah, still wrote poetry in a local Iranian language. It was not until Heydar that the Safavids became Turcophone. Heydar was married to an Aq Qoyunlou noble and was forced to leave his home in Kurdistan. Heydar himself was still Iranian-speaking, but from his time on the family became heavily influenced by the Aq Qoyunlu Turcomans.

  Besides that, Savory uses "Persian" and "Iranian" as synonyms. When he says "Persian", he means the Non-Turkic and Non-Arab peoples of Iran ("Persia"). Therefore, the Safavids were a "native Persian" dynasty. Ehsan Yarshater explains in Iranica that the Safavids were originally an "Iranian-speaking clan".

  So, it is a FACT to say that the Safavids were a NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty, MOST LIKELY of Kurdish descent, who became Turcophone and Shia. They reasserted the PERSIAN CULTURAL IDENTITY of Iran and united the nation under this identity and the newly introduced Shia faith. They themselvs were predominantly Azerbaijani speaking, but also used and promoted Persian. What's your problem with that? Tājik 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake: it was Junayid who first married a Turcoman wife, not Heydar. Heydar was born to a Turcoman mother. Tājik 11:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No CompromiseThere can be no compromise when it comes to the facts. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. POV and personal opinions should have no place here. All nationalistic feelings should be put aside. The article must be edited by non biased people who are not Turks or Persians.

  The Safavid Identity was Persian. They were a predominatly Persian speaking dynasty. That is why the ONLY official language of Iran was Persian. Like I said before, their court language and all of their laws was only written in Persian. It just does not make sense to say that they were a "Turkic" speaking dynasty....If they were really Turks then why did they deny their own heritage so strongly! Iran,during the Safavid era had no "turkic" identity. Some of the best classical Persian literature and poetry was written during their time. Some of the grandest and most extravagent Persian architecture is also from the Safavid Empire. Just look at Esfahan. I will admit that a few of their Shahs were half Azari but that does not make the whole empire "turkic". Most of the Safavid Shahs were predominatly ethnic Persians.

  The articles introduction should state that, "The Safavids were a NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty that reasserted the Persian identity of the region".

  That is fact and there is no reason to vandalise the article anymore.Dariush4444 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Darius444 welcome to the discussion but please calm down alittle bit. The Safavid identity was truely a mixture in terms of ethnicity and the article should reflect that. Iranian culturally, Shi'i religion but primary Turkic linguistically although bilingual. I think this article can easily reflect this mixture. At the same time Safavid did re-assert Iranian identity. Nowruz, Chaharshanbeh Suri, Tiregan , Shahnameh, Iranian ceremonies like Sofreh,

  Zurkhaneh.. were supported by the courts as was basically a Persian cultural state for the most part since the Turkomen did not have the weight in the administrative and cultural part as they did in the military. Shi'ism itself has lots of Iranian components which is complicated to deal with and currently Shi'ism is part of the culture. I am going to look for more suggestions before I compile all the suggestions. So please give your suggestion as well. --alidoostzadeh 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Dariush, the court language (as well as military) of Safavids was Azerbaijani, along with Persian. Hence, Azerbaijani was an official language, although perhaps not state language of Dowlat-e Safavi. Also, they did write in Azerbaijani, not just poetic divans, but also letters and laws. Here's a sample collection, from a book published in Azerbaijan and using Azerbaijan's State Archives, of transliterated (from Azerbaijani Arabic script into modern Azerbaijani Latin alphabet) 'farmans', laws, and letters, including one faximille of a Shah Ismail 'farman' in original Arabic script [27] and [28] --AdilBaguirov 07:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  genealogyHere is a quote from Mazzaoui who in turn quotes Togan. A similar conclusion was arrived at by the great Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan working independently many years after Kasrawi. Togan again worked with several manuscripts of Safwat as-safat, and gave selections from two of them in extenso to show how the original text of Ibn al-Bazzaz had been tampered with. Togan concludes that "II ne fait aucun doute que les souverains Shah Isma'il et Shah Tahmasb se sont donne toutes les peines du monde pour effacer de I'histoire leur origin e kurde, pour attribuer au kurde Firouz la qualite de descendant du Prophete, et pour faire valoir que le Shaykh Safi etait un shaykh turc shiite, auteur de poemes turcs" (babel fish translator: There is not any doubt that the sovereigns Shah Ismâ' ïl and Shah Tahmâsb gave each other all the sorrows of the world to erase their history, their Kurdish origin, to allot to Kurdish Firouz the quality of descendant of the Prophet, and to make the point that Shaykh Safï was a Turkish shaykh shïlte, Turkish author of poems).. Of course as mentioned Prof. Togan has two existant pre-safavid manuscripts. In those manuscripts it says چون نسبت فیروز به کرد رفت translation: since Firuzshah Zarin Kolah was Kurdish. Also in the geneology it put Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah Al-Kurdi as-Sanjani. Thus the geneology of the Shaykh according to the oldest documents we have is: Shaykh Safi ad-din Abul-Fatah Ishaq ibn al-Shaykh al-amin na-din Jabrail ibn al-salih qutb ad-din Abu Bakr ibn Salah ad-din Rashid ibn Muhammad al-Hafiz ul-Kalamallah ibn 'awaaḍ ibn Piruz Al-Kurdi as-Sanjani.

  So in English:

  1) Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah the Kurd of Sanjan

  2) 'awaaḍ

  3) Muhammad Al-Hafiz ul-Kalamallah

  4) Salah ad-din Rashid

  5) As-Salih Qutb ad-din Abu-Bakr

  6) Shaykh Amin ad-din Gabriel

  7) Shaykh Safi ad-din Abul Fatah Al-Eshaq (Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili)

  8) Sadr ad-din Musa

  9) Khwadja Ali

  10) Ibrahim

  11) Shaykh Junayd (turned to Shi'ism?)

  12) Haydar

  13) Ali

  14) Ismail I 1501–1524 (the rest from the current wikipedia article)

  15) Tahmasp I 1524–1576

  16) Ismail II 1576–1578

  17) Mohammed Khodabanda 1578–1587

  18) Abbas I 1587–1629

  19) Safi 1629–1642

  20) Abbas II 1642–1666

  21) Suleiman I 1666–1694

  22) Sultan Hoseyn I 1694–1722 (real end of dynasty)

  23) Tahmasp II 1722–1732

  24) Abbas III 1732–1736

  25) Suleiman II 1749–1750

  26) Ismail III 1750–1760 (official end of Safavid sufi order?)(have to look it up).

  
  

  --alidoostzadeh 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  

  My proposalHere is my proposal, based on reworded Atabek’s proposal. Before rejecting it, please explain which line you disagree and which line you agree with. Let’s identify the statements we agree on and try to build a consensus on that.

  The Safavid dynasty (1501-1722) was a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1502 until 1722 (though several Safavid rulers were nominally reigning until 1736) and established a unified independent Iranian state for the first time since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Turkic-speaking dynasty originated in Ardabil, Iranian Azerbaijan, from where its expansion started in 1501. Safavids promoted Persian cultural and linguistic heritage and Shiite branch of Islam, which became the basis of the contemporary Iranian national identity. Establishing Shia Islam as the official religion of Iran, Safavids expanded their empire well beyond Iran's modern boundaries.

  Grandmaster 07:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the proposal. But I have some comments. Safavids actually re-asserted Iranian identity. Also shi'ism is part of the Iranian national identity but re-assertion of Iranian identity as mentioned by Savory is better. I think the former wording with re-assertion of Iranian identity was better and we need to add that they were a dynasty of mixed origin who were primarily turcophone. Also it should be mentioned Safavids officially called their state/government/empire Iran. Also it is a well known fact that Esmail I actually started his conquest from Gilan (Encyclopedia of Islam in Lahijan) but the Safavid Sufi order was established in Ardabil but the great great.. ancestor of the actual founder of the order originated according to the concensus of most scholars in Persian Kurdistan. Also the term Iranian Azerbaijan seems vague since there is no clear boundaries for such a term whereas Ardabil or Lahijan in Gilan are very clear. I have gathered this proposal (see below). I will be waiting for more proposals before I put them in one page. Please feel free to give more proposals as I have given three versions myself. --alidoostzadeh 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, if Iranian Azerbaijan is vague (which can be easily recified by providing boundaries in parenthesis), then what about "Persian Kurdistan"? --AdilBaguirov 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Adil,the boundaries of Persian Kurdistan is vague as you mention. This is the best term I am aware of due to the fact that Sangan/Sanjan is not clearly located (like Esfahan or Ardabil) although it is mentioned in the literature. There is at least one Sanjan in Iraqi Kudistan. And one in Iranian Kurdistan (does not necessarily correspond to the Sanjan of Safavid or pre-Safavid times). There is one in Khorasan (according to Qesseyeh Sanjan of Parsis). Ardabil is not vague though. It is a province in Iran and is a city with such a name. Also as I mentioned the Safavid rise to political power started when Esmail left from Lahijan in Gilan and gathered in Ardabil. Ardabil was a turning point but his decision to gain political power started from Lahijan. I quote: Ismā�īl left Lāhi��jān for Ardabīl to make his bid for power. By the time he reached Ardabīl, 1,500 followers from Syria and Anatolia had joined him ( .Hasan Rūmlū, Ahsan al- tawārīkh��, ed. G.N. Seddon, Baroda 1931, 25-6). From there, he sent heralds and couriers to summon more supporters from those areas and also from Azararbāyj��ān and �Irāq-i �Aj��am to a rendezvous at Arzin��djān, on the high road between ak Shekir and Erzerum. . Currently we have Ardabil which is fine. I also quote Encyclopedia of Islam: There seems now to be a consensus among scholars that the Safawid family hailed from Persian Kurdistān, and later moved to Azarbayjan, finally settling in the 5th/11th century at Ardabīl. I have no problem with such an exact quote. But the original above does not mention Lahijan. I think the current: Safavid empire originated in Ardabil, a city in Northern Iran is accurate. By the context Ardabil, a city in Iran, everything is clear although I think Lahijan can be mentioned. Mentioning Iranian Azerbaijan, Gilan, Persian Kurdistan and etc. in the first sentence seems cluttering (and then which one comes first.. and etc.). Also what is the boundaries of Iranian Azerbaijan or Persian Kurdistan? If you ask PKK and Chehregani you will get about 30% overlap. Ardabil though leaves no ambiguity. --alidoostzadeh 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Encyclopedia of Islam reference interpretationTajik, you don't correctly interpret your own reference from Encyclopedia of Islam:

  Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia eight and a half centuries previously. During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed “the Iranian intermezzo” (334-447/945-1055), did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [see BUWAYHIDS]; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khāns.

  The quote above "during whole of that time" applies to 8.5 centuries, during which only once (Buwayyids in 945-1055) were of Persian origin. Safavids only restored Persian sovereignty. Nowhere does it say, Safavids were of Persian or Iranian origin. Atabek 09:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have read the ENTIRE EI article, and Savory (and the other authors) make it very clear that the Safavids were indeed a NON-TURKIC and NON-ARAB native Iranian (="Persian") dynasty. That's why they are directly compared to the Buyyids. In those 850 years, the traditional Iranian heartlands were mostly ruled by foreign - Arab, Turkic, or Mongol - dynasties. Only the Buyyids and Safavids managed to unite these lands under a native NON-Arab and NON-Turkic dynasty. Although other native dynasties did rule other parts of Iran during that time (

  ethnic Persians but a related Iranian clan, most likely of Kurdish origin (just like the Buyyids). Tājik 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Indeed, wrong quote. At the same time, Iranica and Morgan say that Buyids were first Iranians, same as EI quote above. Grandmaster 11:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the matter with you guys? Do you really believe that you can fool other readers? Here is the direct quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam:

  • "... The establishment of the Safawid state [...] marks an important turning-point in Persian history. In the first place, the Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia [...] During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed "the Iranian intermezzo" [...] did a dynasty of Persian origin pervail over much of Iran; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans ..." [29]

  Which part of "Safavids restored Persian sovereignty" do you not understand? BTW, Grandmaster: your suggestion is not good. Tājik 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Where does it say “ethnic Persian sovereignty”? Persian sovereignty is sovereignty of Persia, state that Safavids restored. And if my proposal is no good, please explain why. If you agree with any particular line, please indicate that as well. Grandmaster 11:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If "Persian" ist not used as an ethnic lable (in this case as a synonym for Iranian peoples), then what else does it mean? Wasn't Persia already a state before the Safavids?! And why are they directly compared to the Buyyids?

  The problem is that you purposely misinterpret the text. This attitude will lead to nowhere. I do not like your version because it misses important info: that Safavids united Iran under a new Shia faith and by reasserting the Persian cultural identity. And that the Safavids were the first native, non-Arab, non-Turkic, and non-Arab dynasty to rule Iran after 850 years. Even IF the Safavids spoke a Turkic language - their ancestry was clearly Non-Turkic. Tājik 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is too much evidence showing that their ancestry was Turkic, their language was Turkic, their military commanders and regional governors were Turkic, and their powerbase was Turkic. As of the quote above from the Encyclopedia of Islam, which does not work, it does look the same way that many poets are labeled Persian (in terms of language, not ethnicity), and entire armies (Russian sources called Qizilbash armies "Persian"). Just like the world called Soviets "Russian" despite 50% of its being non-Russian. In fact, the interpretation that you insist on contradicts the claim that Safavid's should be regarded as mostly Kurdish. I don't think most Kurds would favor being called "Persian", even though they are also Indo-European people. --AdilBaguirov 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree Safavids had Turkic ancestry as well, but more importantly they had a mixed ancestry. They had Turkomen, Iranic, Greek etc. lines. Their language was primarily Turkic but they were also bilingual and Abbas I, Tahmasp , Esmail.. all have Persian writings as well. Their military commanders and regional governments were from diverse backgrounds and the office of Vakils was primarily inhabited by what is called the Tajik (Persian) element. Lots of regional government were from various background. For example a Georgian (georgi khan) was appointed the commander of Kandahar and Afghan regions and also Shah Abbas used a modern army composed mainly of Caucasian christians and some Persians (tats). Another Georgian (Iranica) or Armenian (Valle) was Allah Verdi Khan. A very famous person known by many Iranians and was the chancelor of Shah Abbas and build a good amount of monuments in Esfahan. Allah Verdi Khan was assigned the position of commander-in-chief of all armed forces. and even executed some of the Ghezelbash who had grown powerful. Shortly after this battle, Alla@hverd^ Khan, on orders from the shah, executed the qizilba@Þ amir Farha@d Khan Qara@ma@nlu@ who, like MorÞed-qol^ Khan Osta@èlu@ before him, had grown too powerful and was suspected of plotting against the shah (ibid., I, p. 574-76; tr., p. 762). By this act, Alla@hverd^ Khan became the most powerful man in the Safavid state after the shah.[30]. --alidoostzadeh 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  By the middle 16th century, 69 emirs out of 74 in Safavid state were Azerbaijanis, which means that the positions of Turkic military and political elite was still very strong. By the way, it would be nice to find a 1936 book by a Hungarian scholar, Fekete Layosh, who was the first to find two Safavi letters (from 17th-18th centuries, of Shah Safi I and Shah Sultan Huseyn) in Azerbaijani to Austrian Emperor and Polish king. Later more archival Safavid letters and orders were found in Azerbaijani, including by a Turkish scholar, Şehabettin Tekindağ. In total, there are at least 11 Safavid official documents in Azerbaijani -- attesting, that even if not state language, it was definitely court and official language even after Shah Abbas I. --AdilBaguirov 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What is your source for the 69 Amirs and how do we know they were Ghezelbash people or they were Azerbaijani? I do not deny Turkic military and political elite was very strong, but at the same time the Wakils appointed by Esmail and Tahmasp or Allah Verdi Khan appointed by Shah Abbas were the second more powerful position after Shah. Shah Abbas himself has lots of Persian letters as well. He gave Kurds for example power in Khorasan over Turkic tribes like Gerayeli. Or both Esmail I, Tahmasp and Abbas weakened the Ghezelbash power and empowered Wakils. Thus non-Turkic elements were strong as well in the political elite. Or Zands for example and (Laks, Lurs, Kalhurs) controlled their own areas. Of course both Persian and Azerbaijani were used by the Safavids as I brought two examples from Shah Abbas. --alidoostzadeh 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is all true, although not sure about Allahverdi Khan's status and length of that status (and don't really have time to read Gulistan-i Iram and other historic references that mention him). The semi-autonomy of Kurds and Lurs persisted before and after Safavids, so nothing special there. By far the biggest weakening of Turkic domination was during Shah Abbas -- all other Shah's mentioned did it much less (and as I said, in case of Ismail, he definitely was right to punish some of the Qizilbash for the advice before Chaldiran battle to not engage Turks at night and no need for artillery). Indeed, as evidence of official letters in Azerbaijani and on emirs shows, Turkic domination was still prevalent (except in Shah Abbas times). Meanwhile, the data about 69 emirs is from a 2002 book printed in Azerbaijan (same one from which I scanned the following pages that I posted earlier: [31] and [32]). The book does not have a specific, direct citation of that number, but does mention Tekindağ and Layosh and Soviet scholars as a collective reference on the same and opposite pages. --AdilBaguirov 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a succint article on Allah Verdi Khan in Iranica [33]. Note it says Allah Verdi Khan was the most powerful man after the Shah (mention in EI as well). The standing army of Gholams created by Shah Abbas became the backbone of Iranian army and it was actually what brought the Safavids and Iran to its maximum height. During the period after Shah Abbas (Shah Soleyman), it can easily be argued that the most powerful man was none other than Allameh Majlesi [34] a simple cleric who was not too fond of Ghezelbash since their shi'ism was unorthodox. I believe actually he conduct a semi-purge of the Ghezelbash. So over-all there was always internal power struggles. I didn't think the book would have a direct reference since it would be impossible to tell the ethnic background of 69 of 74 Amirs (these biography would be needed) and etc and ... --alidoostzadeh 13:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The article on Allahverdi Khan does not specify for how long he was the "second most powerful" man in the empire -- for one month? one year? etc. Meanwhile, if an extensive biography of the 74 Emirs is needed, then same requirement should apply to all the Vakils and others who are claimed to be Persian or otherwise of Iranian stock. --AdilBaguirov 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  

  Well we know that Allah Verdi Khan. By 1007/1598, only ten years after the accession of Shah Abbas, he had risen to the position of commander-in-chief of all the Safawid armed forces. And Shah Abbas went to his funeral personally and paid respect to his family personally. So that pretty much is a long duration. The Vakils (at least a good amount of them during during Esmail I) are claimed as non-Ghezelbash and Persian in Iranica [see: Esmail I]. And it is noted by the author: [35].then appointed a Persian to this office, but this policy, in which Esma@¿^l persisted despite the overt resentment and hostility of the qezelba@æ, was even less successful. Between 1508 and 1524, the year of Esma@¿^l's death, the shah appointed five successive Persians to the office of wak^l. Of the five, the first died a year or so after his appointment, and one chronicle makes the significant statement that he "weakened the position of the Turks" (K¨oræa@h, fol. 453b). --alidoostzadeh 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, Tajik, and I have to repeat myself as you don't seem to interpret the following quote correctly:

  restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia

  This does not say Safavids were Persian, they just restored the Persian sovereignty! Secondly, over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heatlands of Persia, sure, they did restore Persian sovereignty ALSO over central, eastern and southern Iran, traditional Persian heartland. The quote above does nowhere imply or say that Azerbaijan is Persian (ethnic) heartland or that Safavids were Persians by origin or else. Atabek 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  By Persian sovereignty they do mean Azerbaijan as well not in any ethnic sense but in geographical sense. Westernes referred to Safavids during their own time as Persia while Safavids used Iran. Restoring here refers to Buyids/Daylamites who controlled the Abbassid and Sassanids, Parthians, Achaemenids.. that is the Safavid re-created the Persian empire in a sense. (That is actually the title of a work I am reading). Perhaps Iranian sovereignty is more clear, but the fact that Safavid called their state Iran should be mentioned. And Savory means all of the Safavid domain: The English, conceding control of the Persian Gulf to the Portuguese for more than a century, attempted to turn the northern flank of the Ottoman empire by opening up a trade route to Russia and Persia via the hazardous sea route north of Scandinavia to Archangel.. --alidoostzadeh 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be known that no one hailing from Azerbaijan can be considered an ethnic Turk, only a linguistic Turk, therefore, Adil's argument makes no sense at all.Azerbaijani 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Strange conclusion. Considering that the aboriginal, native, population of Azerbaijan (both north and south) was mostly of Caucasian origin, you would be partly correct for the part of not being an "ethnic Turk" (although Turkic presence in Caucasus is rather ancient), but also partly wrong for implying that Azerbaijanis would be aboriginally Iranian (who came to the region, especially Caucasus, much later than the Caucasians). Thus, Azerbaijanis cannot be considered to be "ethnicly Iranian" (?) either. Also, if we are to adopt a strict standard (test) of "ethnic purity", then probably not a single ethnic Persian of Iran is really pure Persian. So to make it short, what's your point? The scholars have spoken -- Ismail, as his ancestors before him, and children after him, had Turkic and specifically Azerbaijani, origin/lineage/heritage/blood/etc, but, like most people on this Planet, were of mixed heritage, i.e., had other ancestry too. Still, his mother tongue was obviously primarily Azerbaijani Turki, he wrote 99% in Azerbaijani Turki, he coronated himself shah in/of Azerbaijan first in 1501 before doing that for Iran in 1502, and he does hold a special place in the history of Azerbaijan as being passed on generation from generation of Azerbaijanis (real Azerbaijanis, not virtual one's ;-). And one of the highest state awards in Azerbaijan today is the Order of Shah Ismail, by the way. --AdilBaguirov 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  @ Atabek: I repeat it once again: instead of criticizing others without any reason, you should READ what others write. Noone in here claims that Safavids were "ethnic Persians" (-->

  Persian people), but about the traditional meaning of the word "Persian" in Western languages. He is talking about what we in Wikipedia call Iranian peoples. The Safavids were an Iranian people

  from Azerbaijan who restored the traditional "Persian throne" after 800 years of foreign rule by Arabs, Turks, and Mongols.

  Neither the Buyyids nor the Safavids were "ethnic Persians". But unlike any other dynasty that ruled Iran after the Arab conquest, they were a native people. They were NOT Arabs, they were NOT Turkic nomads, and they were NOT Mongol warriors. While the Ottomans were direct descendants of the original Oghuz nomads who moved into Anatolia, the Safavids were descendants of a NATIVE - NonArab, Non-Turkic, and Non-Mongol - tribe. Of course, like ALL ruling dynasties of that time - the Safavids, too, had different ancestors. The Ottomans, the Mughals, even the Arab caliphs were mixed dynasties. Many Ottoman sultans had Georgian, Albanian, or Greek mothers. Many Mughal rulers had Persian or Indian mothers. Many Abbasid caliphs (for example

  al-Mamun) had Persian mothers. But it is always the male family linage that defines ethnicity. The Abbasids are known as Arabs, because their direct male family linage was Arab. The Ottomans are known as Turks, because their male family linage was Turkic. And the Safavids were a native Iranic dynasty, because their direct male family-linage - as shown by Ali - was evidently Iranian and Kurdish in origin. That's why the Safavids RESTORED the traditional Iranian ("Persian") throne after 800 years of foreign rule by Arabs, Turks, and Mongols. Which part of this easy message don't you understand?! Are you denying the FACT that the Safavid family was Iranian (--> Iranian peoples) in origin?! Tājik 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Tajik, first of all, I was not criticizing others, I was commenting on the EI quote you presented and its wrong interpretation. Secondly, Ali has not proven that Safavids were "native Iranic dynasty", he only showed that Safi Al Din, one of the male predecessors of Shah Ismail, may have been of Kurdish origin according to several historians. Moreover, there is some question open whether Firuz Shah from several decades before Safi Al Din, was related to Safi Al Din by ethnicity. That's why, we say claimed not confirmed. And two hundred centuries later you have Shah Ismail, son of Sheykh Heydar (himself son of Sheykh Junayd and Akkoyunlu woman) and grandson of Sheykh Junayd, whose own origin cannot also confirmed as non-Turkic. There is clearly more Turkic influence in male and female lineage of Ismail than there is any ethnic Persian. Kurdish, that's still subject of discussion and research.

  Also, Turkic in context of Safavids has more local meaning than global Turkic race. Safavid Turks had very little or nothing to do with Mongols, same as Ottomans had very little or nothing to do with Mongols. The definition of Turk then and now, is amalgam of Turkic tribes with local populus which adopted the language of conquerors. Same way Iran is referred to as Persia, this new identity I describe was referred to as Turk, whether in Ottomans or Safavids. So I think we should first disassociate your definition of Turk from Mongol or Turkic nomads of Central Asia, before we move on in discussion. Thanks. Atabek 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If there there is more Turkic or non-Turkic is a matter of debate. It is not clear as Minorsky puts it. The definition of Turcophone is different than Turk. I think we need to mention that Safavid had mixed ancestry. About Firuz Shah being the ancestor of Shaykh Safi, who has raised the question? As far as we know, the best source we have on Safavid ancestry is Safwat As-Safa written either during the time the Shaykh was alive or the time of his son. And as far as we have available, this is the only pre-Safavid manuscript on the Shaykhs ancestry where he is mentioned as a Sunni non-Seyyed and etc.. --alidoostzadeh 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik. I am convinced 100% Safavids were of Kurdish origin and it is the concensus of Safavid historians, still the term concensus of scholars suggests a minority of scholars might not be sure (which means although they do not disagree they might not 100% agree or just not be sure or do not care or whatever). We can mention that there is a concensus of Safavid historians and also mention the reason (Safwat As-Safa) and the intentional distortion of the text. I think the intentional distortion of Safwat as-Safa is something definitely worth mentioning. The direct reference of Firuz being Kurdish in the oldest extant manuscripts all pre-Safavids is definitely strong proof when combined with the Shafi'ite ancestry of the Shaykh and his taati poems. I'll have more to say on this soon.--alidoostzadeh 07:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Primary Language

  You do not have compromise and we have worked for weeks on that quote now. Providing your arguments is not sufficient for editing, you must be able to come to compromise and discuss. Atabek 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  

  suggestions

  Can someone correct

  It's OK now, please, ignore my request right above. THanks.

  Fact}} tag with Tapper reference. Your revert, however, removed the Tapper quote to the fact that Ismail crowned himself "Shah of Adharbaijan" (Tapper page 324), this is also mentioned by Savory in Iranica as "he was crowned as Shah at Tabriz (1501)" [[36]

  ] so there are no surprises and/or no crowning in Gilan. In addition, remember again Shah Ismail brought Azerbaijani language to the state level, and not Gilaki or Kurdish. Now, some more interesting stuff from Richard Tapper's article for your information, which for some reason didn't seem to have caught your attention:

  The question of the origin, history and distinctiveness of these tribes is not a genetic matter. A systematic physical anthropological study of the Shahsevan and other Turkic groups of north and west Persia would probably, in my view, confirm that these groups are racially similar not only to each other and to the population of Turkey, but also to the "indigenous" population (Kurds and others) of modern Persia. They are also probably distinct from the Turkmen and other "eastern Turkic" groups of Central ASia, to whom they are, however, culturally related. This anomaly arises largely from two processes: Turkic culture has dominated much of south-west Asia since its introduction there, while its bearers have intermarried with the indigenous non-Turkic populations. (p. 322)

  So, Ali, if we are to continue to insist over Iranian origin of Safavids, we shall also pay attention to the above quote, and make it clearly that Turkic in this sense means more Turkish rather than Central Asian Turkic. And that's exactly why I insisted earlier on using term Azeri Turkic to make it the clearest. Atabek 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  My first statement was that any change in the article should be discussed. That is the best process now, GM and Tajik have also respected it and I have respected it too. Now per your statement, he was crowned Shah at Tabriz is not the same that he proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Two different meanings and statements. So now we have a contradiction. Given this, Savory is right, he crowned himself Shah of Tabriz. This is mentioned in a direct source ('Alem Araayeh Safavi). Also the Tapper quote about Shaykh Safi's origin being probably Kurdish is relevant to the article. Because Shaykh Safi ad-din was not Turkic. But I did not quote Tapper with this regard because I believe in discussing any edits so there won't be any r.v's. Note I also r.v.'ed user Tajik and I am acting in good faith. Now tappers statements about Shahsevan is not relevant to the origin of Safavids since he directly says Shaykh Safi's origin is probably Kurdish. Also per definition of Azerbaijan or Azeri Turk, Frye says the majority of them are former Iranian speakers. Thus this definition does not contradict Tapper either. Note though tapper users the word Turkic and eastern Turkic for turkemens while he uses it for Shahsevan as well. Thus just given the fact that he uses the term Turkic for Turkemens itself causes confusion since he states Turkemens are very different than Shahsevan and Western Turkic speakers yet he calls both of them Turkic. So Tapper has actually pointed to the problem I and many others have with the term Turkic since Azerbaijanis are very different than Turkemens historically and culturally. Minorsky having more weight than Tapper on the matter of Safavids says also a different thing altogether. But the main point is that in order to avoid users insering statements, we should discuss the edits before entering them. I think it is just the right principal since three users: GM, me and Tajik agreed and note I r.v.'ed Tajik. Else with arbitrary edits it will just get the article locked up again where as we are close to agreements in the wordings. Or we are inching there.--alidoostzadeh 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, we've discussed this point before, and I will remind it again -- when one asserts that of the Azerbaijanis, "the majority of them are former Iranian speakers", we should all acknowledge that in turn, before becoming Iranicized and becoming Iranian speakers, majority were Caucasian speakers. So let's not arbitrarily start history from some junction, and instead, try to go back as far as modern scholarship allows. Secondly, Tabriz was and is the capital of Azerbaijan, and thus its interchangeable to say that Shah Ismail crowned himself Shah of Azerbaijan. There are a few Russian-language sources that I would list which could enrich the article:

  "В 1501 г. Исмаил I разбил союзника Ак-Коюнлу Фарруха Ясара, а в 1501—1502 гг. — войска падишаха Ак-Коюнлу Альвенда. В 1502 г. Исмаил захватил весь Южный Азербайджан со столицей Тебриз и провозгласил себя шахиншахом (царем царей)." From: O. Экаев. Туркменистан и туркмены в конце XV — первой половине XVI в. По данным «Алам ара-и Сефеви». Ашхабад. Ылым. 1981. http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus10/Sefewi/vved.phtml ("In 1501, Ismial I crushed the ally of Aq-Qoyunlu, Farrukh Yasar, while in years 1501-1502 -- armies of Padishah of Aq-Qoyunlu Alvend. In 1502 Ismail captured the entire South Azerbaijan with the capital Tabriz and declared himself shahinshah (king of kings)". From: O. Ekaev. "Turkmenistan and Turkmens in the end of XV - first half of XVI. Materials from "Alam ara-e Sefevi", Ilim: Ashgabad, 1981).

  "После падения династии Туркмен-Акгоюнлы власть перешла к Исмаил шаху I Сефеви (1501-1524). Венецианский автор Ласкари в 1502 г. писал о шахе Исмаиле I: «Господин Софи принадлежит к роду Узын Хасана и по причине этого родства стал правителем Ирана и императором». А ведь, действительно, дочь Узын Хасан бега Туркмена Алемшах-бегим являлась матерью Исмаил шаха." "After the fall of the Turkmen dynasty of Aq-Qoyunlu, the power was transferred to shah Ismail I Sefevi (1501-1524). Venetian author Laskari in 1502 wrote about Shah Ismail I: 'Master Sofi belonged to the Uzun Hasan family, and because of this family connection, became the ruler of Iran and Emperor'. And indeed, the daughter of Uzun Hasan bek Turkmen Alemshah-begim was the mother of Ismail shah."

  "При шахе Мухаммеде Худабенде Сефеви в Венецию прибыл его посол Ходжа Мухаммед. 1 мая 1580 г. он был принят дожем. Посол привез 2 письма (на туркменском и персидском языках). Интересно, что в Венеции не нашлось человека, который мог бы перевести письмо на персидском языке, так как секретари дожа Милледонне, Доминико Вике, Винченцо Алессандри знали только туркменский язык." "During the rule of Muhammed Khudabende Sefevi, his ambassador Hoja (Khwaja) Muhammed arrived to Venice. On May 1, 1580, he was received by doji [ruler of Venice]. The Ambassador brought with him 2 letters (in Turkmen and Persian languages). Interestingly, that in Venice there could not be found a person, who would be able to translated the letter in Persian language, since the secretaries of doja Milledonne, Dominico Vikke, Vinchenco Alessandri knew only Turkmen language". From: Prof. Ovez Gundogdiyev, http://turkmeniya.narod.ru/turkmen-diplomacy2.html

  "1501 - Осенью Исмаил Сефеви короновался шахом Азербайджана." "1501 - in autumn Ismail Sefevi was crowned shah of Azerbaijan". http://safety.spbstu.ru/book/hrono/hrono/psl_mng.html

  Some interesting background is also available in Bakikhanov's Gulistan-i Iram: http://vostlit.by.ru/Texts/rus2/Bakihanov/text4.htm

  Also, by French scholar Mark Ferro: http://scepsis.ru/library/id_923.html

  Armenian chronicler: http://www.armenianhouse.org/kanakertsi/chronicle-ru/volume1.html

  And from a Russian encyclopedia Krugosvet: http://www.krugosvet.ru/articles/117/1011747/1011747a1.htm --AdilBaguirov 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  before becoming Iranicized and becoming Iranian speakers, majority were Caucasian speakers is quoted by which scholars? Also it seems incorrect since Azerbaijani itself as a group of people came about during Turkic rule when Iranian speakers were established. This was the stage from Iranian speaker to Azerbaijani speaker. But Caucasian speaker directly to Azerbaijan speaker with regards to Azerbaijan region of Iran as well as most of the caucus (given the fact of large number of Kurds, Talesh and Shirvanshahs) seems unlikely. Note by the time Turkic speakers reached Azerbaijan their blood was also very diluted due to the fact they passed through central asia which was Iranian speaking before the era of Christ. Also Those links are interesting. But some comments: 1) Prof. Ovez Gundogdiyev says Turkmen where-as Esmail I did not know Turkmen. Turkmen as a language is different than Azeri. For example Turkemen has 18 vowels where-as Azerbaijani Turkish has 9. 2)Note the other quote you brought: In 1501, Ismial I crushed the ally of Aq-Qoyunlu, Farrukh Yasar, while in years 1501-1502 -- armies of Padishah of Aq-Qoyunlu Alvend. In 1502 Ismail captured the entire South Azerbaijan with the capital Tabriz and declared himself shahinshah (king of kings). I am sure Esmail I did not use the term South Azerbaijan. But going further, Esmail I had control of Gilan first. . But we do not have any statement: He proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Indeed Shahanshah means King of Kings and this most likely means all of Iran although Esmail I did not control all of Iran yet, but he became the most important ruler of Iran after his victories. The term Shahanshah supports multiple provinces and territories since there is only one king of king. What seems correct as Savory mentions is that after Esmail I captured Tabriz, he proclaimed himself Shahinshah. I did not see any evidence from above: Esmail I crowned himself Shah of Azerbaijan from any primary source or any Safavid historian. I may have access to Alem Araay Abbassi and the exact Persian text with this regard which I can bring. That is a primary source. Also I'll add Gilan is not considered Azerbaijan and Esmail I had control of large portions of Gilan before he controlled Tabriz. But he proclaimed himself Shahanshah in Tabriz. That is correct and no disagreement. This source you mentioned [37] according to babelfish translator: Ismail mirza, proclaimed Shah in 906 (1501) g., conducted winter in Makhmudabad. Thus from what is gathered Shah Esmail I proclaimed himself Shahinshah with his capture of Tabriz. But I do not see anything in primary sources which says: "Esmail I proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. We simply need a direct source from Esmail I himself saying:I am the king of Azerbaijan. If such a quote exists from any primary source, then I am not going to object to this sentence. But I believe such a proclamation from Esmail I does not exist and that is why Savory also agrees with Esmail I after capturing Tabriz declated himself Shah and his words has more weight in this regard has obviously more weight than Turkmen/Azeri/Iranian scholars. --alidoostzadeh 04:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, the proclamation of Ismail as Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501 is cited in Tapper, as mentioned above, and is verifiable, from an authoritative academic source, is in English, and is from a famous scholar. As such, it deservs to be in the article. You can object to it, but then you need to bring a contrarian source, that would say smth like "Despite reports of being crowned Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501, in reality Ismail was crowned Shah of Khorasan/Khuzestan/etc". Secondly, I didn't quite understand your point about South Azerbaijan -- that's of course not Shah Ismail's words, but an author in a 1981 book. Likewise, "Turkmen" is a common descrption of many Turkic people, such as Anatolian Turks, Azerbaijani Turks, Turkomans of Iraq. Very often Azerbaijani armies were referred to as "Turkmen" or "Turkoman" one's, that's very common. Likewise, Russians often called Iran as "Kizilbashiya", "Kizilbash state", etc [38]. Then, Gilan might be different from Azerbaijan in terms of administrative-political division, but its right next door to Azerbaijan, in fact, Azerbaijan is to its north and west, whilst from its east is the Caspian Sea. It took Ismail several years to conquer Iranian homeland -- only in 1503 he took Kazvin, Qum, Kashan, Isfahan, Shiraz and Kazerun, in 1504 Yazd and Kerman, and in 1510 Khorasan. Yet he proclaimed himself shahinshah in 1501 when he only had Azerbaijan. [39] By the way, those loud title of king-of-kings and shahinshah's were used by Pahlavi's, by defeated Tigranes the Great, even by Caucasian Albanian prince, Arran-shah and Mongol vassal, Hasan Jalal -- so I would not take it at its face value. Meanwhile, do you deny that majority of the population of Caucasus and what is considered as South Azerbaijan were mostly Caucasian and otherwise non-Iranian speakers before the massive Iranian incursion in the end of 7th century BC into the region? --AdilBaguirov 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Adil in this case it contradicts Savory: he was crowned Shah at Tabriz. No mention of himself proclaiming himself the Shah of Azerbaijan. Tapper is not a Safavid historian and his book is not a Safavid history book. He is an anthropologist[40] and not a historian but part of the department of Anthropology and Sociology. His research is on nomadic tribes like Durrani Pashtuns or Shahsevan and etc. I have access to direct statement from a book quoting Alem Aray that Esmail I proclaimed himself Shahanshah at Tabriz and proclaimed Shi'ism as official religion and thus a primary source takes precedence. If Esmail I proclaimed himsef Shah of Azerbaijan, then there needs to be a primary source for this proclamation from that era. Tapper obviously not being a Safavid scholar or even historian does not provide any source for this statement, and the statement in Alem Aray or some other book obviously should mention such a proclamation. There is no mention of proclaiming himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Esmail I was already Shah of Gilan which is not Azerbaijan and thus why not mention Gilan and Azerbaijan? Thus when there is multiple contradictions and opinions , the issue needs to be clear up by referring to a primary source. (A Safavid era manuscript) and Safavid historians. So my first question again is the same. What is a Safavid manuscript or primary source for: Shah Esmail proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Now about Azerbaijan. The population of Azerbaijan region of Iran, we only have incursions by Urartu but their main center was in Turkey. The language of Manna near SW of Urmiya which is really Kurdish region is not well understood (Iranica) although they had some Iranian titles as well[41]. Medes and Persians are mentioned from at least the 8th century, Mittani Indo-Iranians are from the 15th century B.C. and thus show some Indo-Iranian presence before 7th century B.C. Azerbaijanis are descendants from Iranian Speakers. Now if those Iranian speakers are mainly from Caucasian speakers, that needs to be proven from that era but the scarcity of sources can not prove this. Also on the other hand we have statements that the number of Turks that entered the region was not that large and also major cities were developed before the Turkish incursions. Culturally there is no caucasian albanian component or urartu component in Azerbaijan of Iran. There is tons of Iranian components : Chaharshanbeh Suri, Nowruz, Sizdah Bedar, Yalda and of course primary names: Azerbaijan, Ardabil, Darband, Ganjah, Sharvan, Aras,Baku, Naxchivan, Mughan, Barzand, Lenkoran, Zangan,Maragheh, Shabistar, fire temples, Shervanshahs who were culturally Iranian..etc. Note as I mentioned the Oghuz Turks before entering Turkey, Iran and Caucus were fairly mixed with Iranians. This is mentioned by the Uighyur Mahmud Kashghari directly. Also the percentage of Persian words in Azerbaijani turkish literature and Ottoman Turkish is tremendous and I doubt most Azerbaijanis will understand many of the poems of Shah Esmail I or Fizuli without studying Persian. Or for example one book mentions Mugham music was performed in Persian up to around 100 years ago in the caucus. I can cite other examples of course but I am diverging too much from Safavids. --alidoostzadeh 06:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, first of all, I wasn't reverting the page, I was only replacing the fact tag, with a reference, which is already on the page. So your claim that I was violating the compromise is rather blown out of proportions. Secondly, if you ask for a written proclamation of Ismail crowning himself as Shah of Adharbaijan, then you likewise, should also provide a proclamation from Ismail proclaiming himself Shah of Iran (or Persia) in 1502. If you don't have one, there is no ground for you to deny the other. In fact, prior to claiming such scholars as Richard Frye and now Richard Tapper, as non-experts in Safavi, simply because their certain quotes don't fit ethnocentric Persian/Iranian theories, you should also provide a proof that you, Ali Doostzadeh, do have academic or otherwise scholarly qualifications to choose and impose the choice of one scholar's claim over another. If you do not, then as an amateur contributor, just like all of us, you should not be questioning the references from prominent or published scholars, unless you show proven ability to judge them. Now, besides Richard Tapper reference, I would like to point you to Encyclopedia Iranica again: Although initially ruler of Azerbaijan only, by the year 916/1510 Esmail was a master of the whole of Persia, having crushed the residual forces of the Aq Qoyunlu and driven the Uzbeks out of the northeastern frontier province of Khorasan [42]. I will provide reference, which I remember seeing in Minorsky, as well soon, but the fact that Ismail proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501 was never denied by Soviet, Western or Iranian historiography.

  About your successive couple of liners on Persian poetry of Ismail, while avoiding pages of Turkish poetry of his, I would like to draw your attention, as well as attention of Tajik, who claims that Safavids used Persian as language of culture and had Persian origin in later courts. The following quotation in Vladimir Minorsky, "The Poetry of Shah Ismail" (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 10, No. 4., p. 1012a):

  See E. Rossi, Atti del XIX Congresso dei Orientalisti, p. 207. In his MS. sketch of Turkish, [Pietro] della Valle, without any doubt, describes the dialect spoken at the court of Shah Abbas I

  About your claims that Iranian names were more original in Azerbaijan than Caucasian, in your list, you clearly ignore such names as Kabalaka, Partav, Gandzaka (this one was even in Atropatene/South Azerbaijan), Paytakaran, Utik, which were clearly Caucasian Albanian, the ancient language similar to modern Nakh-Dagestani family of languages. Also, can you justify the attribution of name Nakhchivan to Iranian language.

  Again as I brought the quote above from Tapper, Turks in Azerbaijan and Anatolia are a mixture of Turkic tribes of Central Asia and local populus. So when we say "Turks" in modern meaning in the region, we mean exactly those mixed people. And Tapper is anthropologist, so he has a stronger say in this matter. And I think referring to them as Turks and their language as Turkish in this context, clearly better reflects the reality than calling them Iranian, when those inhabitants of Azerbaijan neither culturally nor linguistically resemble inhabitants of Pars, Kerman, Zahedan, Khorasan or other provinces, more than they do resemble inhabitants of Republic of Azerbaijan. Hence the terms North and South Azerbaijan describe the spread of populus identified as Azerbaijani Turk. Thanks.

  Wikipedia:NPA

  is irrelevant, as I only asked you to substantiate your qualifications in judging whether Richard Frye or Richard Tapper have lesser importance than Roger Savory. There is nothing personal here. But until and unless you can provide credible qualification to judge which scholar is more or less relevant, all references, whether Minorsky, Frye, Tappper or Savory shall be considered equally credible and weighted. If you still feel this request has anything to do with personal attack, you may join ArbCom case, and we can discuss there what you feel as personal attack.

  Your comparison of my Tapper, Minorsky references to your Kasravi reference, is not equivalent either. Kasravi was pan-Iranian nationalist, hence, he is clearly a POV source in this discussion, while both Minorsky and Tapper are NPOV.

  Now your statements:

  1. The Statement: Although initially ruler of Azerbaijan only, by the year 916/1510 Esma@¿^l was master of the whole of Persia, having crushed the residual forces of the Aq Qoyunlu and driven the Uzbeks out of the northeastern frontier province of Khorasan.. is fine.

  2. I never claimed a statement that Esmail I says: I am the ruler of Iran direclty.

  leave only an impression, that you accept the fact that Ismail was intially ruler (shah) of Azerbaijan only, and he was not "Shah of Gilan" as claimed by yourself above. There is also conclusion to be drawn from your second statement, that you say Ismail proclaimed himself Shah twice (in 1501 and 1502) and in both cases did not define of the geographic domain of his royalty? Well, then if Tapper, indeed a historian, is unacceptable, I suppose we should also remove titles Iranian and Persian from either Ismail or Safavids, as Ismail never proclaimed himself, according to you, as Shah of Iran either. Atabek 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek again when you call Kasravi a pan-Iranian nationalists and not acceptable, then I can call Tapper an anthropologist which he is. If Kasravi is quoted by scholars such as Minorsky, Frye, Savory then his historical works are obviously acceptable. Also note this: [[44]] Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources.. Note that is why I quoted from Savory, who is a Safavid historian and said that he is stronger source than Tapper who is an anthropologist (sources should be appropriate to the claims made). And furthermore I asked for direct proof if possible. Actually you quote says: Esmail I proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Now I ask where? And then you bring me a quote from Tapper who is an anthropologist. Then I of course say that Savory who is a Safavid historian with much more qualifications does not claim Esmail I made such a proclamation. It is true that he controlled Gilan also (but perhaps not all of it).. As per Iran , it is mentioned as the country of Safavids by many sources. Including Sultan Selim I when he attacked Iran.

  تا ز استانبول لشکر سوی ایران تاختم تاج صوفی غرقه خون و ملامت ساختم. Thus we have a direct source referring to the country of Esmail I as Iran and Selim actually attacked West Azerbaijan province and yet he says his army went on attack in Iran. And as far as I know, I do not need to bring direct reference like this because Safavid historians are strong enough source to quote. But anthropologist whose field is not history necessarily in my judgment should be complemented by a Safavid historian. Thus when you mentioned Minorsky might have such a quote, I totally accepted.

  Note I repeat from the source you brought: Although initially ruler of Azerbaijan only, by the year 916/1510 Esma@¿^l was master of the whole of Persia, having crushed the residual forces of the Aq Qoyunlu and driven the Uzbeks out of the northeastern frontier province of Khorasan.. seems correct but either way it is from strong source. But until we have proof of proclamation from Esmail I himself : I am the Shah of Azerbaijan, then claiming Esmail I proclaimed himself shah of Azerbaijan is not valid. He proclaimed himself Shah in Azerbaijan is different though as he was crowned in Tarbiz. And yes he did own part of Gilan as well, and this angle can be argued from Encyclopedia Islam quote which I have brought above already. So basically I am asking you for the Minorsky quote you mentioned but quoting from an anthropologist when it contradicts Safavid historians or when Safavid historians are stronger source in my opinion is not valid.

  As per Arbcomm, there are admins I can report personal attacks outside of there and thus I mentioned the warning. You said: because their certain quotes don't fit ethnocentric Persian/Iranian theories in reference to me (anyone can see that).

  Also this is nothing personal and we are trying to reach compromise on Safavid article. I am just scrutinizing facts. I will delay summarizing all the proposals so far by Monday. There is three issues: 1) wording of introduction 2) Safavid origin (Kurdish) and wording perhaps, probably.. 3) this recent issue about Esmail I proclamation. I believe these issues can be discussed on the talk page and positive compromises reached. --alidoostzadeh 14:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  @ Atabek: Professor Roger M. Savory IS a specialist on Safavid history. Even Iranica names him as a specialist on Safavid history: [45][46].

  Richard Frye is a specialist on Sassanian history: [47][48], NOT on Safavid history! Just like Frye, Savory is a CONSULTING EDITOR of the entire Iranica project.

  Since - unlike all the other names and sources presented in this article - Roger M. Savory is specialized on Safavid history, he is the most reliable and authoritative source. The Pan-Turkists do not like this FACT only because Savory's excellent works do not support their nationalist POV. That's all! Tājik 10:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik, please, provide proofs of your scholarly authority to judge whether or not Savory is more authoritative source than Minorsky, Frye or Bernard Lewis. And proofs shall be in the form, such and such (a prominent scholar) says Savory is more authoritative than Frye, Minorsky, Tapper or Lewis on matters pertaining to medieval history of Azerbaijan and Iran. Same I want to ask from Ali, since, he is claiming that he does not accept Tapper quote unless Shah Ismail himself said "I proclaim to be Shah of Azerbaijan". I would like to ask Ali in turn to provide a quote to precise statement of Ismail proclaiming himself a Shah at all in Tabriz. I provided all with evidence to show that Ismail Safavi proclaimed himself Shah in Tabriz (historical center of Azerbaijan), that he controlled Azerbaijan only (per Iranica, and despite Ali's claims that he was also "Shah of Gilan"), and with basic known fact that at the time of his proclamation in Tabriz, Ismail controlled only Azerbaijan and hence he was the Shah of domain that he controlled. As for the rest of your accusations of pan-nationalism and pan-Turkism, I shall simply ignore those. Thanks. Atabek 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What the hell are you talking about?! I showed you directly a link from Iranica which says that Savory is an expert on Safavid history, and that Frye is NOT an expert on Safavid history. Frye is an expert on Sassanian history! What's wrong with you?!

  Instead of asking others, you should show YOUR scholarly authority to judge whther Frye or your favourite sources are as good as Savory.

  Your stubborn attitude is the main reason why we cannot reach a consensus. The entire time you were focusing on one single side-note in Iranica which says that "Azeri Turks founded the Safavid dynasty". But when the very same source says that "Azeri Turks" are not really Turks but Turkicized Iranians and that Savory is the an expert on Safavid history, you reject this information and push for your own POV. Why this double-standard?!

  WP:CIVIL

  . Ali warned you before, and now I am warning you again!

  And since you claim that you accept and respect all scholars, you should somehow add the following quote to the article:

  • "... the term 'Kizilbash' has been associated from the beginning with both Persian nationality and Persian Shi'a religion ..." Hasluck, 1973

  BTW: you do not present any scholarly authority. But the

  Encyclopaedia Iranica

  does. If Iranica says that Savory is an expert on Safavid history while others are not, then this is the information that Wikipedia needs, not your POV and stubborn tries to defend POV.

  Tājik 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik, please, again follow the rules of Wikipedia:Civility from now on. I wrote you right above kindly: "Tajik, please, provide proofs of your scholarly authority to judge whether or not Savory is more authoritative source than Minorsky, Frye or Bernard Lewis.", and your reply right above is: "What the hell are you talking about?!" and "Your stubborn attitude is the main reason..." and "What's wrong with you?!". These responses don't seem to be quite civil. You have been warned, I have nothing else to say about it here. Thanks. Atabek 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, it is very simple. Savory has written dozens of articles with regards to Safavid history in peer reviewed journals, he has written books on the subject and furthermore he is the one that wrote most of the Safavid articles in Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam and Cambridge history of Iran and etc... So no, all historians (and Tapper is not a historian) do not have equal value. For example Minorsky and Savory have less weight on Achaemenid Iran. The criterion for judging is objective. The number of articles, books and etc. written by the subject. --alidoostzadeh 14:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, it's not simple, because you have so far not provided a single source that DENIES Tapper's quote. You only try to ruin Tapper's authority as historian, but not providing a counter proof of what Shah Ismail proclaimed himself in Tabriz. Pending such evidence, you cannot really deny what Tapper said, unless you have evidence from Savory, Frye or else proving otherwise. And even if you do provide such counter-evidence, it's still a subject of compromise between Savory and Tapper.

  Also, your repeated references in this regard to Kasravi, an Iranian nationalist publicist, can only be countered by pages of research articles of Azerbaijani historians (from the Soviet Republic), which are quite relevant and weighty works. Yet I am not using them. We rely mostly on Western sources and medieval manuscripts to protect the NPOV. Unless you want to change this unspoken rule. Thanks. Atabek 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, 1)Actually many works of Kasravi is quoted by western sources (Frye, Savory, Minorsky) and not just lightly, but heavily. 2) What Tapper says contradict EI more specifically Encyclopedia of Islam and the proclamations of Esmail I there in. It also contradicts the partial quote I have from 'Alem Araay Abbassi. 3) Three I do not need Kasravi who is praised by all these western scholars and his work is used by western scholars, but he is more relevant to Safavid history than Tapper. If a scholar like Minorsky quotes Kasravi, then obviously he is Wikipedia material. Anyway, right now Kasravi is not mentioned in the article so I am not sure why you are bringing up the issue. --alidoostzadeh 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting sourceThis is from a French scholar Jean Aubin referencing medieval sources of Takmilat al-Ahbar (1501) and Sirag al-Ansab:

  Dès 906 printemps 1501, avant que le sort des armes ait décidé entre Alvand Beg et Les Qizilbas, Amir Zakarya dans le camp de Shah Ismail, par conviction religieuse s'il faut en croire le Takmilat al-Ahbar parce qu'Alvand Beg voulait lui faire restituer cinquante tomans au dire du Sirag al-Ansab. Shah Ismail, qui avait la manie du sobriquet, montra l'importance qu'il attachait à ce premier ralliement et décernant à Amir Zakarya le titre de "clef de l'Azerbaydjan". (Jean Aubin, "Etudes safavides", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 2, No. 1. (Jan., 1959), pp. 37-81.

  English translation (per me):

  In the spring of 1501, before the fate of war was decided between Alvand Beg and Qizilbas, Amir Zakarya passed to the camp of Shah Ismail, by religious conviction (according to Takmilat Al-Ahbar) or because Alvand Beg wanted to make Amir Zakarya pay fifty tomans (according to statement in Sirag Al-Ansab). Shah Ismail, who had the mania for the nicknames, showing the importance which he attached to this first rally of support and granted Amir Zakarya the title of the "key of Azerbaijan".

  Obviously Ismail, considered Azerbaijan as a standalone objective achievement and upon entering Tabriz proclaimed himself a Shah of Azerbaijan as cited by Tapper. Also, Takmilat al-Ahbar and Sirag al-Ansab sources may be worth researching. Thanks. Atabek 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually it is not obvious. It does not say Ismail I maded a proclamation saying I am Shah of Azerbaijan. The best source on the matter is Alem Aray Safavi which I will look at during this week to see how exactly Esmail I was crowned and what he proclaimed. Encyclopedia of Islam again: Although masters initially only of Āzarbayijān, and despite the fact that Al-wand was mustering fresh forces; that another Aq qoyunlu prince, Murād, was still in possession of Fārs and Irā4-i Ajam; and that the Tīmūrids still controlled Khurāsān, the saafawids had in fact won the struggle for power in Persia which had been going on for nearly a century since. --alidoostzadeh 14:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, again provide the evidence of what Ismail proclaimed himself in Tabriz? He must have proclaimed himself a Shah of something. I have provided you so far with evidence that he did proclaim himself Shah of Azerbaijan from Tapper, supporting evidence from Jean Aubin, that Azerbaijan was his strategic objective at the time of crushing the armies of Alvand, as well as source from EI that shows that at the time of proclamation in Tabriz, Ismail controlled Azerbaijan ONLY. I do not deny that Ismail had aspirations to all of Iran, this is acknowledged by all scholars. I only insist on the fact that Ismail did proclaim himself the shah of what he controlled at the time in Tabriz and what his objective as spelled out by Aubin's quote. Atabek 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I am going to look at Alem Aray Abbassi soon with this regard. But I have a book that quotes it and it says Esmail I was crowned in Tabriz. It is clear Esmail controlled most of Azerbaijan and parts of Gilan and when he won victory in Tabriz, he was crowned Shah. The Jean Aubin quote has nothing to do with the proclamation of Esmail. Esmail I just gave Amir Zakarya a title. Safavids also gave provincial governors title. The connection you are trying to make is not linked with what I have said. The problem I have with tappers sentence (and note since he is anthropologist as I described below and since account differs from the two EIs I have the right to argue with this regard and note if you bring Minorsky then I will accept) is the intrepretation of his quote. What I understand from the situation is that: Esmail I was crowned Shah after capturing Tabriz. But he never said: I am the Shah of Azerbaijan. Tappers quote which I believe actually is trying to say the same thing as two EIs refers to this. I will seek clarification from Alem Aray Abbassi. Thus until we have further clarification we should just put the information from the two EIs which are written by historians and not add another dispute to the other two matters: 1) introduction 2) Shaykh Safi's origin. Thus with regards to what the two EIs said, there is no need to bring evedince from anyone. But with regards to tapper, clearly more evidence needs to be brought and that is direct evidence and not connection of unrelated matters.--alidoostzadeh 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, as I said, instead of countering Richard Tapper, a scholar, with your own statement "Ismail never proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan", you should provide reference to the Shah of what he proclaimed himself in Tabriz. My reference to Aubin is very relevant, since it shows that in 1501 Ismail did have Azerbaijan as his military and strategic objective, and that in spring 1501 right before entering Tabriz, did award the title "Key to Azerbaijan" to Amir Zakarya, he did not award the title "Key to Iran" or "Key to Gilan". Atabek 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know he didn't? Have you read all Safavids manuscripts to make such a claim that he did not or did? When one makes a general statement, they need to prove it for all cases and not a single case. As per reference, Alem Arrayy Abbassi will be my reference. And note your reference has no relationship to the statement of Esmail I making that proclamation according to Tapper who I will repeat is an anthropologist... Of course Azerbaijan was important for Esmail I as a strategic and base region although the Safavids did survive without Azerbaijan when it was in Ottoman hands. But we are discussing another issue. What and where was Esmail I's proclamation. This is discussed in the 'Alem Arraay Abbassi which I will bring in this article. But till then, the two EI articles are all we have from specialists about how Esmail I rose to power and what he proclaimed or did not. --alidoostzadeh 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, if he did, then you should provide the quote that he did award such title, not deny what scholar wrote already with nothing. You have not a single quote yet to prove that Ismail did not proclaim himself Shah of Azerbaijan but a Shah of "something else". I don't want to repeat this discussion, until and unless you do provide full verifiable quote to Shah of what Ismail proclaimed himself. Atabek 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Anthropology, history and Roger SavoryAli, here is the definition of anthropology:

  Anthropology is the study of the anatomical and mental composition of humanity through the examination of historical and present geographical distribution, cultural history, acculturation, cultural relationships, and racial classifications.

  So indeed Tapper is equivalent if not more authoritative source on history as well as origins of Iranian dynasty. His comprehensive studies and several articles published on Shahsevans serve as an excellent proof of his scholarly capability. As I do not, like yourself, pretend to be a judge which scholar is better, more or less authoritative, we shall go equivalently with all quotes provided. Now pertaining to your generalization that Safavids were of Kurdish origin per "consensus of scholars", I would like to bring your attention to the following text, from your favourite source, Roger Savory, "The Office of Khalīfat Al-Khulafā under the Ṣafawids", Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 85, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1965), pp. 497):

  The "curious office" of khalifat as-khulafa was, in Minorsky's phrase, a "survival of the basic organization of the early Safavids, very similar to the single party of a modern totalitarian state". The "nucleus staff" of the Safawid order comprised "a khalifat al-khulafa, an abdal, a dada, a khadim ... besides his lala 'governor, tutor',"

  The office of khalifat al-khulafa is felicitiously called by Minorsky the "special secretariat for Sufi affairs". Through the khalifat al-khulafa and the Sufis, he says, Shah contrlled not only the forces which brought them to power, but also the network of their adherents in Asia Minor. Since the Sufis were qizilbash and mostly Turks - or rather Turcomans - it follows that the holder of the office of khalifat al-khulafa was necessarily a qizilbash and usually a Turcoman.

  I don't see the word Kurdish in there, and office of khalifat al-khulafa as essential element of Safavid order and dynasty shall be incorporated into the article as shown above from Roger Savory. And please, do not rush to incorporate your updates on Kurdish origin claims and rejection of Shah of Azerbaijan quote. We need to come to consensus as you well know. Also, for some reason, you ignored the quote I brought above from Minorsky quoting Pietro della Valle, showing that Turkic was the court language of Safavids even in times of Shah Abbas. So the Wiki page shall clearly reflect that even though the Persian was a language of culture (lingua franca) like in the rest of Middle East, Turkish was the court language of Safavids clearly under the reign of Ismail, who wrote poems and letters in it, as well as during Shah Abbas I (reference to Minorsky/Della VAlle). Thanks. Atabek 12:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So now again you want to quote Minosrky?! That's fine with me ... as already shown in many sources, both Azerbaijani Turkish and Persian were court languages. But we should not have any double standards. If you persist on Minorskies quotes, you should also accept his quote that Ismail's "language was not identical to his 'race' or nationality". Tājik 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Lets us all keep cool (Me, Atabek, Tajik). I am also of the opinion that all quotes by Minorsky are standard procedure for Wikipedia. Atabek, Anthropology is not specialized field with regards to history. A historian specializes in history, an anthropologist looks at history (examines) for the purpose of anthropology. Many different fields might examine history (sociology for example), but it does not mean they qualified as historians. Now going further, no one denied that the Safavids also used Turkish alongside Persian in their court. I have some new court letters from Shah Safi in Persian as well. And we already said Esmail I wrote letters in Turkish as well as Persian. I have two new sources on Safavids being of Kurdish origin from a specialized book on Safavids. I have some new sources that Ismail I might have started the great Shahnameh project. And no as I said all historians are not equal. I judge them based on the publications they have in their own field. A person specializing in Achaemenid history like Briant for example does not have equal weight. By the way Majlesi the second did away with the official of sufis but did I ever deny that most of the Sufis/Ghezelbash devoted the Safavid house-holds were Turcomens? No I did not. You also said I denied Esmail I's turkic poetry, and again I did not. But what you said does not in anyway have relation to Kurdish origin of Safavid family through Shaykh Safi ad-din which many scholars have expressed and expressed by the recent Iranica article of Savory. Did I say we should not quote Savory? I never did. The Gilan angle is clearly explained in Encyclopedia of Islam, but perhaps the parts of Gilan controlled by Esmail I were not all of it. And of course the Kurdish claim since it is a concensus of the scholars will be put it as such. And no I have no rush on this article, but the Kurdish origin is explained by Kasravi, Mazzaoui, Togan, Savory, Babayan (whote wrote her thesis in princeton in Safavid in 1993) and even Tapper who said : Probably. Beside the Minorsky quote and also Yarshaters article which is referenced by Frye. Note according to Encyclopedia of Islam:At all events, Ismā�īl made his way to Gīlān, where he was given sanctuary at Lāhījān by the local ruler Kār Kiyā Mīrzā Alī. Rustam prepared to invade Gīlān, but was prevented from doing so by further dynastic feuds between rival Aq qoyunlu chiefs. And it is a concensus of scholars that Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili originally hailed from Kurdish regions. Also your quote had absolutely nothing to do with Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili and his origin who was a Sunni Shafi'ite! Early Safawids here means Safawid dynasty or perhaps during the time of Haydar. That is why reference is made to Asia minor. I don't see the word Turkish in here by Savory: [49] which is very new article. The article in EI is also of newer date. But your quote has absolutely no bearing on the origin of Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili and absolutely no relationship to it. As evident aَll that ghezelbash stuff comes in when the order was transformed into an unorthodox Shi'i order as already discussed. Thus examinaning it: Through the khalifat al-khulafa and the Sufis, he says, Shah controlled not only the forces which brought them to power, but also the network of their adherents in Asia Minor.. The term Shah furthermore shows that he is talking about political power in Safavid and also if you look Kizilbash in EI, they were not formed during the time of Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili. Thus that comes after the Shaykh and thanks for pointing to the article and I will obtain it myself. But we know the order was originally a Sunni order and that is established fact without argument. And note this article by Savory: Ideologically-motivated alterations were already present in a manuscript dated 914/1508, during the reign of Shah Esma@¿^l I (Aya Sofya 2123; Togan). Shah Tahmasb (930-84/1524-76) ordered M^r Abu'l-Fathá Háosayn^ to produce a revised edition of the Sáafwat al-sáafa@÷. This official version contains textual changes designed to obscure the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family and to vindicate their claim to descent from the Imams.. And this textual change from the earliest biography of Shaykh Safi ad-din and the only pre-Safavid biography which did not suffer ideological changes will be incorporated in the article along with the concensus of scholars and the quote from Togan that Safavids were in pain to distort and hide their origin which Savory mentions as well. And no matter how many biographies one finds during the Safavid dynasty, we already know none of them can be trusted since they all attempted to make the Shaykh Sai ad-din as Seyyed (which means Arab by fatherline). And note the Kurdish origin of Shaykh Safi does not contradict Frye, who has said Safavids were from Azeri Turks since in the previous sentence he says Azerbaijans are mainly descendants of Iranian speakers. Frye has also referenced Yarshater who describes the turkification of the Safavid family.

  I will quote Encyclopedia of Islam again: Although masters initially only of Āzarbayijān, and despite the fact that Al-wand was mustering fresh forces; that another Aq qoyunlu prince, Murād, was still in possession of Fārs and Irā4-i Ajam; and that the Tīmūrids still controlled Khurāsān, the saafawids had in fact won the struggle for power in Persia which had been going on for nearly a century since. I agree we need to come up with concensus. Regarding the Kurdish claim, as you can see, I was not content with what Savory or Togan or Kasravi said. Not only for the sake of my own curiosity but I knew some people will simply object. But when there is a primary source on the matter from the pre-Safavid era and when scholars have clearly said Safavids distorted their family history, it is really hard to argue against. Concensus amongst scholars is the other issue that adds weight. I went directly to the primary source and primary manuscripts, the only pre-Safavid source on Safavid geneology. I looked at the Persian original and I saw: wow, the word Kurdish has been erased in post-Safavid manuscript intentionally. I also noticed in another book written almost 300 years ago at the end of the Safavid era, not only did they were the word Kurd from Firuz, but they also removed the word Abu Bakr from another ancestor of the Shaykh and them made the Shaykh into a Seyyed (note the difference, Safwat Safa written approximately 650 years ago) And futhermore I said, Mustawafi who lived during the time of Shaykh Safi ad-din describes him as a Shafi'i Muslim where Turks have always been Hanafi Sunnis. So I put these information together, and then I quoted the mentioned scholars. It is not necessary to work systematically like this, but that is my method. With regards to Shah Esmail I and his proclamation, since we have varying sources (and note Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica are by all means stronger sources than anthroplogist sources with regards to history), I am going to look at the primary source 'alem araay Abbassi. If you are correct, then I accept it. If not, then I believe we should go with the primary source (Alem Aray Abbasi) or one of the EIs (Iranica or Islam). The Safavids by all means were Shah of the domains they controlled. That is why they have the title Shah. But when someone says Esmail I proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan, then that can be intrepreted as Esmail I said: I am the Shah of Azerbaijan. Where-as it is different matter with Esmail I proclaiming himself Shah in Azerbaijan or when he captured Tabriz he proclaimed himself Shah. So I think the concensus process will eventually work, there will be disputes sometimes and the need to keep cool and not just see the other side who was fortunate or unfortunate to be born as an Iranian as the enemy, and that will require readers to do research on the matter. --alidoostzadeh 15:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And I'll repeat the criterion (and not my criterion) for judging a scholar in the field which I believe is actually the Wikipedia criterion and anyone with a PhD will agree. Note the criterion which I believe is valid only comes up when there are contradictions between specialist and non-specialist in the field. It is very simple. Savory has written dozens of articles with regards to Safavid history in peer reviewed journals, he has written books that are cited by scholars on the subject and furthermore he is the one that has written most of the Safavid related articles in Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam and Cambridge history of Iran and etc... So no, all historians (and Tapper is not a historian) do not have equal weight when there is a contradiction. For example Minorsky and Savory have less weight on Achaemenid Iran than Briant and Shahbazi and Frye would be better for example than Minorsky on Achaemenid Iran. On Sassanid Iran, it is Frye, Daryaee, Christensen (although a bit out-dated now) and others. On Shadadids that would be Minorsky and perhaps Boseworth not for example Savory. The criterion for choosing is objective. The number of articles, books and etc. written by the author on the specific subject. But in case of a contradiction, I do not necessarily go with the scholar who has more weight at first, and I try to first examine the primary source. So you do not need any sort of authority, this just the standard research method. For example if Encyclopedia Iranica contradicts Encyclopedia Encarta, then Encyclopedia Iranica is a better source obviously since it is written by specialists. [50]. I quote: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources.. I take the word Appropriate as a specialist in the field. Also if you want to quote Tapper than we need to change the perhaps to probably for Kurdish based on Tapper as well. With all the evidence I brought that portion needs to be strenghtened quite a bit. But Tapper's statement should come after Iranica and EI since these are more specialized sources. My problem still remains though with Tappers quote and it needs to be clarified if Esmail I made a proclamation: I am the ruler of Azerbaijan or when he captured Tabriz, and he had major portions of Azerbaijan, he crowned himself Shah. The latter seems correct based on Iranica and EI. If you disagree, then all I asked for was supplemental primary source and/or the Minorsky quote which you talked about. I believe I have the right to disagree in this regard since Tapper is anthropologist as well as his statement is different than the two EIs. And in the end I believe I have to look at 'alem araay Abbassi myself.

  Fields have become so specialized that they have sub-fields and in each sub-field there could be further sub-field. It is impossible now and days to be a master of Safavid history and Achaemenid history. Anyways in this case, the 'Alem Araay Abbassi I believe explains how Esmail I was crowned and what he said and one just needs to access it. And again I never denied Turkish along with Persian was used by the court. Even at some stages probably more Turkish and at later stages probably more Persian, but that statement is just conjecture. Also cultural language throughout the land, language of scribes who wrote history (we have I believe some dozen books of history from that era) and administrative language was mainly Persian. Religious language was mainly Arabic although some important Persian books exist from Majlesi and others as well. There was lots of Turkish titles that entered Persian at the time although those titles are not used anymore. Words like Atashbay (although Atash part is Persian), Quller-Aghasi, ...etc. So the picture is complex and the Safavid empire had Turkish and Persian components. -alidoostzadeh 14:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, your argument above that Safavids tried to rewrite their history through their reign actually reflects the same on reputation of Iranica, as many of the scholars contributing to it are ethnic Iranians. While I commend your effort to look into the very source, I also ask you to provide:

  1. The evidence that Ismail's full ethnic lineage was purely Kurdish, that is starting from Sheykh Safi, all the way through 200+ years of generations passing through Sheykh Junayd and Sheykh Haydar.

  2. The evidence that the origin of Sheikh Safi al-Din Ishaq was pure Kurdish.

  3. The evidence on what Ismail proclaimed himself in Tabriz countering Tapper quote.

  Pending such evidence, I doubt your arguments or references to the wording of Savory, EI, Iranica or others really holds water as a counter argument.

  I am glad we are clear on the part that Turkic was a court language of Safavids through their entire reign, and in fact, most importantly during the reign of Shah Abbas. Since we agree with that, we should incorporate that into the article: "Safavids were Turkic-speaking Shiite dynasty of Iran whose court languages were Azerbaijani Turkic and Persian. Safavids were the first royalty in history to elevate Azerbaijani Turkic to the level of a state language."

  Also, I am quite puzzled by the fact that the full name of Sheikh Safi, that is, Sheikh Safi al-Din Is'haq Ardabili is kept out of both this article as well as Safi_al-Din. The Is'haq needs a little research as well in order to clear up some more details on origins. Thanks. Atabek 23:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not know Togan, Savory, Babayan, Mazzaoui and many others are Iranians! Togan published his paper way before Iranica. He is a perfectly quotable scholar as his work has been cited by many Safavid scholars. Note Safavids did indeed try to make Shaykh Safi ad-din a Shi'i and distort his background. That is no big secret and is mentioned in every book now that Shaykh Safi ad-din was Sunni. Even an Uzbek kings letter to Esmail I written in Persian hints this as well. Encyclopedia Iranica is fully valid source and any information from there is absolutely valid. There is nothing that can challenge it and specially articles specific to Safavids written by Safavid historians have primacy. Specially the book of Ibn Bazzaz and Safavids distorting their lineage. Togan was actually Turkish and part of the Basmachi pan-turkist movement. As per Esmails full ethnic lineage when did I claim that he was purely Kurdish! I have said a million times he was mixed! So does Minorsky! Thus it is better not to put words in my mouth as I made no such claim. In this regards I believe what Minorsky said is sufficient and should be quoted. The Safavid dynasty was mixed and turcophone, again I did not disagree. Note we already mentioned that the Safavids were of mixed origin. They could have had many many mixes and they probably did. But what we mentioned is that the dynasty was originally of Kurdish origin since their oldest known male ancestor is Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah who was a Kurd based on all pre-Safavid biographies. Post-Safavid biographies removed one ancestor of Safavids by the name Abu Bakr or removed the Abu Bakr part and removed all mention of Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah being Kurdish and then claimed the Shaykhs fatherline as the founder of Islam. And note where-as Encyclopedia Iranica is a valid source and I do not have to look for evidence, Tapper is an anthropologist, so that is your burden to clarify the quote. Also your second sentence is not supported as the black sheep and white sheep turkomens used Azerbaijani Turkish in their courts alongside Persian. The evidence Esmail I was crowned in Tabriz is from Alem Aray Abbassi. It is also in EI: Coins were minted in his name; the khutba was read in the name of the Twelve Imāms, and the Imāmī rite was proclaimed the true religion. Thus when Esmail I actually captured Tabriz, he proclaimed himself Shah and made Shi'ism as the official religion (by force). The Safavids followed the same tradition. And note this is what Alem Arraay Abbassi seems to say based on an article which I have that quotes it. I can bring the partial quote, but I will wait to get my whole hand on Alem Araay Abbassi. Thus I do not need to provide evidence since Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam and..etc. are sufficient. But with Tapper, since what he says does not fully correspond to the two EIs and also does not correspond to the partial portion of Alem Array Abbassi that I have and since he is not a Safavid historian and since he is an anthropologist I have perfect wiki legitimacy to challenge it on the issue. But if you bring that Minorsky quote which you believe you saw, then I will not challenge it. But there is nothing that can challenge Savory's Ibn Bazzaz article, or Togans article on Safwat As-Safa or Minorsky.. as they are historians and Safavid historians. And I will note again that it is clear Safavids distorted their geneology by simply examinaning the pre and post Safavid Safwat As-Safa and this is mentioned by multitude of scholars and needs to be mentioned here.

  About اسحاق (Eshaq) it is a popular Muslim name. It is in the Qur'an and of course its Hebrew form is similar to the Arabic form. --alidoostzadeh 00:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is'haq is not just Muslim name (there is no such thing as Muslim name), it's Semitic name. So that's why I call to further investigate this part, especially since Safavids claimed lineage to Shia Arabs.

  Again, Ali, I don't see in any of your text Shah of "WHat" Ismail proclaimed himself in Tabriz. Unless you can prove otherwise, with quote Shah Ismail proclaimed himself Shah of Gilan, Shah of Iran, Shah of Persia, etc. in 1501 in Tabriz, Tapper's quote remains intact and valid. Any evidence from scholar needs to be proven by counter evidence, and not just by the one that says "Ismail proclaimed himself Shah" of WHAT?

  The fact that Togan was a pan-Turkist, does not add any credibility to his scholarship in my opinion. So I don't see why that's relevant in this discussion. My point is not to prove that Ismail was of pure Turkic race, the fact that he was mixed is already mentioned by Minorsky, Savory, Frye and by the fact that his mother was simply not a pure Turk. The fact that Sheykh Safi probably, possibly, assumingly or whatever English adjective you prefer to use had Kurdish origins is also presented. But there is no basis now, and based on your message above, and evidence I have provided, to claim that Safavids or Shah Ismail were of Iranian or Persian origin, the POV that needs to be removed, or at least reworded to say Safavids had mixed Kurdish and Turkic origins, I am fine with such statement. Also introduction of the article does not mention the word Azerbaijan at all, so we need to address that. While most of Safavid activity and rise to power was in Iranian Azerbaijan, Ardabil is Azerbaijan, Sharur where Alvand was defeated is Azerbaijan, Ismail did use the word "Azerbaijan" to award titles, so this needs to be reflected in introduction. Atabek 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever Togan was.. he brought extant manuscripts from Safwat As-Safa before Safavids. That is sufficient and he is quoted by multitudes. His former political affiliation has no bearing since he is quoted widely even in Iranica. Note when Kasravi the pan-Iranist in your word agrees with Togan, then we have something right. Put Togan on Iranica and you will find him referenced by scholars. The portion about Ebn Bazzaz and Safavids hiding their Kurdish ancestry needs to be there. Ishaq is a Islamic name. It is in the Qur'an , the holy book of Muslims. Just like Muhammad, Ali and etc. are Muslim names. They are not just names used by semites or else I would be a semite! On the other Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah the Kurd of Sanjan is a purely Iranian name, which rules out Arab semites adopting such name. And note you are not a scholar (and neither am I) to bring up theories with this regard. The introduction is about the legacy of Safavids and we mentioned Ardabil. But the introduction is not about how they rised to power, what language they used in their court, what was their ethnic background and etc.. And of course we will mention in the rise of Safavids how Esmail I set from Lahijan to Ardabil and then fought alvand and etc.. All that stuff is is given in detail in Encyclopedia of Islam. I never claimed Safavids or Shah Ismail were of pure Iranic origin. Although Shaykh Safi ad-din married the daughter of Shaykh Zahed Gilani and one of Esmail I's wife was most likely Persian (she was the wise of a former ruler). What we need to mention is that the Safavids were of mixed Iranic and Turkic and Greek origin and this part should be in the intro. And the part about Shaykh Safi ad-din and the Kurdish evidence, I will just provide all the relevant sources I discussed and note it is primary source (Safwat as-Safa) , the only pre-safavid manuscripts, which is really what is needed. I will also discuss the Shaykh's Sunniness and Shafi'ite religion.--alidoostzadeh 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, saying that a dynasty was of x or y origin does not automatically imply that they were some kind of pure x or pure y. Many dynasties of that era are labled "x" or "y", most notably the so-called "Turkish dynasties", although they were also of mixed origins. The Seljuqs, the Ottomans, etc etc etc. They were all mixed dynasties. But yet, for some unknown reason, only this article is plagued by useless discussions. When it comes to the Ottomans or Seljuqs, they are promptly labled "Turks", totally leaving out the important (and maybe dominant) Non-Turkish elements and backgrounds of these 2 families. In case of the Safavids, certain users simply do not want the FACT mentioned that the origin of the Safavid family was Kurdish. It does not matter whether they were mixed with Persians, Turks, Arabs, or whatever. What matters is that the tradition and identity passed from father to son had its origins in a Sunni Kurdish family. It is a FACT that Safi ud-Din Ardabeli - even assuming that his forefathers were not Kurds - was of native Iranian origin. His poems, written in the old Tati language, are a strong evidence. Since Tati was not a language of literature, it MUST HAVE BEEN his mother-tongue. Why should a Turk or a Persian have written a divan in an "unimportant" and tribal language of some villages in Azerbaijan?!

  As for the court language of the Safavids, you should once again pay attention to Iranica:

  • "... In place of the office of amīr-al-omarā, Shah Abbās created the office of sardār-e laškar, or commander-in-chief of the army; the name suggests the triumph of the Persian elements in the Safavid state, but, ironically, the office went initially to the Georgian gholām Allāhverdī Khan. Later, Shah Abbās revived the ancient Iranian title sepahsālār to denote the office of commander-in-chief of the armed forces; once again, it was a gholaām who was appointed to the office — the Armenian Qarčaqāy Khan. ... the status of the vizier (vazīr), the head of the bureaucracy and the chief spokesman for the Persian elements in the central administration, was enhanced ..." [51]

  Interestingly, this article, too, is written by Roger M. Savory, once again underlining the FACT that he is THE authority on Safavid history.

  Another article in Iranica, "Azeri literature", also states that Persian was favoured at the Safavid court after the transfer of the capital from Azerbaijan to Isfahan:

  • "... In the 11th/17th century, although the transfer of the capital to Isfahan favored Persian at the court, Azeri poetry in the style of Fozūlī and the Chaghatai poet Navāī still flourished. ..." [52]

  Tājik 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  On court language I think we are reaching agreement although Azerbaijan Turkish was used by the black/white turkomens before Safavids and thus Safavids were in no way first. For example Iranica says on Azeri Turkish:The position of the literary language was reinforced under the Qara Qoyunlu@s (1400-68), who had their capital in Tabr^z. Ôaha@n Shah (r. 841-72/1438-68) himself wrote lyrical poems in Azeri using the pen name of H®aq^q^. He sent his D^va@n of Persian and Azeri poems to ¿Abd-al-Raháma@n Ôa@m^, who praised their form as well as their content (see J. Heyat, op. cit., p. 31). Thus Qara Qoyonlu used Turkish on both cultural and official level alongside Persian. Both Turkish and Persian were used of course by Safavids as well. I have brought Persian examples from four Safavids: Shah Abbas, Shahs Esmail, Shah Tahmasp, Shah Safi..On the origin you make an interesting point. The Seljuqids lost their language and even tried to consider themselves descendants of Sassanids. They married many local Iranian dynasties. Ghaznavids even more so. But somehow they are called Turkish even though for example not even a single Turkish work was used in Ghaznavids era and the court language was Persian.. and etc. Actually if we are going by language, the Safavids would be more Turkish than Ghaznavids since they at least used Turkish alongside Persian. The Ghaznavids just used Persian.. Another are the Shervanshahs whose fatherline was Arabic, but they Persianized so much that they claimed Sassanid descent and according to Minorsky married with local Iranian leements and etc.. I think whole issue shows how much Turkic and Iranic elements got entangled and sometimes there is no clear line. About the Kurdish origin part from Firuz Shah, I believe there is no denying the relevant evidence. Specially the Safavids themselves distorting the safwat as-safa clearly shows it. --alidoostzadeh 00:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the Aq/Qara Qoyunlu did use Azerbaijani. But their rule - marked "Turcoman intermezzo" in Iranica - was short. I think we all agree that Iranica is a reliable and powerful source. Therefore, I would like to quote another article - the same article that was quoted before by Atabek and Grandmaster:

  • "... [Shah Abbas] also drew on Persians as part of the standing army. This and a number of other measures, notably the reduction of the number of Qezel-baš provincial governors and the bestowing of high ranks on a fairly large number of Caucasians, helped to reduce the power of the Qezelbaš and concentrate it in the hands of the shah. In the process the power of the vizier and the bureaucracy in general increased, and the Safavids became more assimilated to Persian traditions and culture. ..." [53]

  So, according to Iranica, the Safavids experienced a cultural and linguistic evolution:

  A native Iranian - most likely Kurdish - Sufi clan became militarized, attracted the support of Turcoman tribes, became itself Turkicized in that process, and after conquering the traditional lands of Iran, once again became "Iranian", this time Persian in culture and traditions.

  As for the "origins" of a dynasty, let me quote Dr. Ehsan Yarshater who comments on the Ghaznavids:

  • "... Although the Ghaznavids were of Turkic origin and their military leaders were generally of the same stock, as a result of the original involvement of Sebüktegin and Mahmud in Samanid affairs and in the Samanid cultural environment, the dynasty became thoroughly Persianized (see Omidsalar, 1999), so that in practice one cannot consider their rule one of foreign domination. In terms of cultural championship and the support of Persian poets, they were far more Persian than the ethnically Iranian Buyids, whose support of Arabic letters in preference to Persian is well known. ..." [54]

  Although the Ghaznavids were highly Persianized in language and culture, and had mixed with local populations (Sultan Mahmoud's mother was a Persian noble from Zaranj in Sistan), they are STILL considered a "Turkic dynasty" and of "Turkic origin". That's because the family identity passed from father to son was Turkic. The Ghaznavids were a dynasty of original Turkic mamluk origin, despite the fact that they were Persianized in all aspects.

  In case of the Safavids, it's the other way around: they were a dynasty of ORIGINAL IRANIAN origin. It does not matter whether they were only Turkic-speakers, bi- or tri-lingual, Shia or Sunni, or mixed with Arabs, Turks, or whatever. The family identity passed from father to son was native Iranian. That's where the family's name is derived from: SAFI UD-DIN IBN IS'HAQ ARDABELI, a man who was of Kurdish descent and wrote poetry in Persian and Tati. Nothing Turkish, nothing Arab. And this HAS TO BE mentioned in the article's intro: a dynasty of KURDISH (or native Iranian) origin. The complex relationship to other peoples should be mentioned in sub-sections, but the Iranian (Kurdish) origin HAS TO be mentioned in the intro. Tājik 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah actually was reading an article and Mollah Bagher Majlesi the second who was a Persian Mullah and he became the most powerful person. He was actually more powerful than the Shahs themselves. He totally got rid of the Ghezelbash base and etc. Basically, although both Shah Esmail and Tahmasp tried to control the Ghezelbash and attempted various methods to weaken them, Shah Abbas was the one that actually accomplished this. And according to what I recall, Majlesi made sure to put the final touches on this. Anyways he was against the less orthodox religion of the Ghezelbash where wine was drank and sexuality was more liberally expressed. The Ghezelbash had also lost their devotion to great extent to Esmail I after the defeat in Chaldiran since they thought he was invincible and he did actually make a mistake shunning artillery (kind of like the movie last Samurai) and thus losing Azerbaijan to Ottomans until Shah Abbas I regained it back. By moving to Esfahan, in an evolutionary process as you mentioned the Safavids became Persianized in language. I am not sure if there is any Turkish from Shah Safi, but recently I discovered four Farmans (commands) in Persian. Note also this does not contradict a nationalist Azerbaijani republic book I mentioned. According to Professor Siegel: Thus, one important monograph on “South Azerbaijan” notes that due to the cultural importance of the Persian language, the weight of the Persian-speaking bureaucracy and landlords, and the migration into the Persian heartland of the Safavid capital, the Persian language came to dominate the dynasty’s life.. َAlso note many Armenian and Georgian muslims reached high position. Like Allah Verdi who was either Armenian or Georgian. Or Mohammad Bek who was Armenian and became Vazir. A Kurdish Vazir Ali Khan Kurd Zangana. The thing about the intro you propose is that although for me it is 100% clear that Safavids were Kurdish origin (specially the Shafi'ite connection which I made and no scholar has made that connection yet!), due to the fact that the Safavids obscured their origin so much, there will be always some minority of scholars who might claim Shaykh Safi might have been a Seyyed. Anyways If your criterion is correct, that is when you say, all that matters is the father-line, then Shaykh Safi ad-din and Safavids according to all pre and post Safavid manuscript can only be two things and two things only: Kurd or Arab. Even the post Safavid works (which can not be taken seriously relative to pre-Safavid geneology) if any that tried to deny his Kurdishness have always asserted he was a Seyyed and descendant of the Prophet. Thus the male lineage is Kurd or Arab and there is no third option and the Kurdish option is the strongest. For me personally the criterion of ethnicity (and not culture) is more linguistic. That is while I consider Shervanshahs, Moghuls of India, Ghaznavids and Seljuqids as Persian because they adopted Persian language (and the fatherline of all these were not Persian or Iranian), on the Safavids I can consider Shaykh Safi ad-din as Kurdish but Shah Esmail I and etc. was primarily Turcophones (although Minorsky says bilingual in an early age) and although not related culturally to todays Depersianized citizens of Turkey/republic of Azerbaijan (for example Shah Esmail I preferred Shahnameh and there is no mention of Dede Qorqod in all the Safavid era), still they would more likely be closer to Qara-Qoyunlu types or we can say culturally a Turko-Persian hybrid. But of course my criterion is not valid academically since Ghaznavids are nevertheless considered Turkic dynasty although not even a single Turkish verse was composed in their whole rule. Eeven though some reports put Mahmuds mother as Iranian but these report might be exactly the ones that tried to make him Sassanid. I think the main identification of Safavids with the Turkic aspect is due to the Ghezelbash and Turkomens which became devoted followers of the family.. And you noted well that Safavids did not have tribal name where-as every single Turk at that time belonged to some Oghuz or Qipchaq or Khatai or some other tribe. All the Turkish dynasties that converted to islam and we have their lineage clearly show that their ancestors had Turkish names eventually when we go far enough (Moghuls, Seljuqs, Ghaznavids, Teymurids, Qara-Khanids, Atabeks of Maragheh and Azarbaijan, Chupanids..). But Safavid ancestry does not have a single Turkish name and does not have a single Turkish tribal name. Anyways for the introduction probably Kurdish is good..and the only other possibility is Arab although the Seyyedship link is weak. But I rather and prefer to put all the stuff about language (turcophone) and probably kurdish and mixed and etc.. not in the first two introduction sentences. The Kurdish part by any principle is undeniable since pre-Safavid manuscripts have infinite times more value than any post-Safavid manuscripts (given the intentional distortions in the biographries as examplified by the distortions in manuscripts of the same book) and it is the best we have. Thus scholars usually have no choice but to put either probably or surely. The introduction should have the main legacy of Safavid : 1) established Shi'ism throughout Persia 2) rised from the city of Ardabil (which is its own province now) 3) build a uified Iran and re-asserted Iranian identity. Court language needs to go to the culture section or its own section. Kurdish origin needs it own section under the founder of Sufi order. And finally 1400 approximate verses of Turkish and 50 approximate verses of Persian that are left from Esmail I should go in its own section. This is a better way to reach a compromise solution. There are much more to Safavids then this of course. If you take all of EIs (both Islam and Iranica) you probably have close to 200+ pages of highly valuable scholarly work. Another suggestion would be to put primarily turcophone, probably Kurdish and of mixed origin in the introduction. But I do not favor this suggestion. --alidoostzadeh 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, your statement:

  Shah Esmail I and etc. was primarily Turcophones (although Minorsky says bilingual in an early age) and although not related culturally to todays Depersianized citizens of Turkey/republic of Azerbaijan (for example Shah Esmail I preferred Shahnameh and there is no mention of Dede Qorqod in all the Safavid era)

  ignores the fact that citizens of Iran are also deTurkified, in a way of many Iranian Azeris unable to speak or practice the scholarly use of the Azerbaijani Turkic language to the extant Ismail, Abbas I and II Safavis did. Your reference to "Ismail preferred Shahnameh" or "Ismail started Shahname project(?!)" also does not have relevance to this discussion neither to origin of Ismail or Safavids. If there are 1 billion Muslims on the planet, who read and practice Qur'an, they're not all Arabs.

  About your reference to Is'haq being Muslim name, yet again, name Yitzhak is originally Jewish and Semitic and has been used well before Islam. Although I do not imply that Safi had Jewish roots, I still think that Is'haq name is worth mentioning and researching, since Safavids also claimed ascendance to Arabs. I will put this into Safi al-Din article, which suspiciously omitts the Ishaq part of the name. Atabek 02:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, actually Persian was pretty much the main written language in the caucus before pan-turkism. Just check how many works from the Safavids till the Qajars are in persian and how many in azeri. There was no turkish education in Qajar or Safavid era. It was at the level of folk lore and that is why someone like Shahryar has both persian and turkish poetry. And I am willing to bet (based on many Azerbaijanis I have discussed) that during the 180 years of separation of the caucasian Azerbaijan from its mother, there has not been any turkish poetry on the level of Shahryar. Anyways there are university level courses in Azeri and I can say that while Irans Azerbaijani speakers can understand Fizuli and Nasimi because they learn the Perso-Arabic vocabulary, the same does not necessarily hold true for the republic of Azerbaijan and definitely not for turks of Turkey.. What use is the Turkish in modern Turkey when one can not understand the material of his ancestor from 100 years ago? Culture and literature go hand in hand. Why the change of alphabet to latin? It is because to delimit Persian and Arabic influence. Note people also tried to change Persian to latin but it won't work since they will have to change 1 million manuscripts into latin, an impossible task. But anyways I do not want to get far off the Safavids. Es-Haq (Isac) is the name of Prophet Abrahams son and is considered a Prophet in Islam. Note Es-Haq is the Arabic version. He is praised in the Qur'an and blessing is brought upon him. Just like many muslims have the name Moses (Musa), and Abraham (Ibrahim) and Davud (David) and Soleyman (Solomon) and .. majority of prophets mentioned in the Qur'an are of Jewish origin. So I hope you are one of those one billion muslims that reads the Qur'an ;) . Of course Ishaq should be mentioned in that article. And I already went over the Shahnameh issue but I'll repeat myself. Qur'an is universal book and its message is for all mankind as proclaimed there in. Shahnameh is a Persian/Iranian nationalistic book written by Shua'biyaa movement (ferdowsi was part of it). There are some not so good verses about Turks (and some say this was the main conflict between Mahmud and Ferdowsi). In the Shahnameh the main enemies of Iran are defined as Turanians (who were originally Iranic according to Boyce, Frye, Gnoli, Barthold, Abaev and the etymology of their names in Avesta and virtually all their names in Shahnameh are Persian as well including Afrasiyab.. but in the Sassanid era Turks took their place and thus in the Shahnameh Turks are identified as Turanians who are enmeies of Iran)(incidently Masudi the Arab historian of Ferdowsi's time mentions that Afrasiyab was not a Turk but he is mistaken as one since he comes from Turkestan (central asia which in pre-christ time was primarily Scythian, Soghdian, Chorasmian..Iranic) and Arabs (Zahak for example) and also the lamentation in the end about the fall of Sassanids. So Shahnameh is really the Persian nationalist bible and when one reads it one feels pride in Iran. It has Iran mentioned close to 1000 times. When a Tajik traveller went to Egypt and interviewed an Arab Professor of Persian studies and told him: You egyptians had 5000 years of history what happened that you now consider yourself arabs and even your radio is called voice of Arabs.. The Arab Professor responded: we did not have a Ferdowsi. So Ferdowsi/Shahnameh and Iranian nationalism go hand in hand! And that is why Ferdowsi is not liked by the Pan-turks in Iran and is cursed by them and insulted... And furthermore, in the republic of Azerbaijan, I already mentioned that Azerbaijani international magazine considers it as foreign[55] where-as Kuroghlu who incidently was anti-Shah Abbas and hence anti-Safavid is praised as domestic! Anyways that is the Shahnameh. I made a new suggestion for the introduction different than Tajiks. --alidoostzadeh 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW Where as Qur'an repeatedly says: و ما هو الا ذکرالعالمین and this is nothing but a clear message for all of mankind, Ferdowsi says in the end of Shahnameh: بسی رتح بردم در این سال سی

  عجم زنده کردم بدین فارسی (I worked and took much sorrow and pain for 30 years (composition), but I revived the Persians with this Persian (Shahnameh)). --alidoostzadeh 03:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  

  Your statement that people in Iran are "deTurkified" has nothing to do with what the subject of this debate is, and secondly, is your POV and highly incorrect. There are Azeri programs, radio stations, magazines, newspapers, etc... Azeri is even taught in Iranian universities. Stop avoiding the topic by bringing up unrelated issues.Azerbaijani 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik, the radical statements have no contribution to compromises. Saying "Safavid dynasty was of Kurdish origin" with omitting the dominant Turkic influence is not a true statement, because founder of Safavid Dynasty was not Sheikh Safi but Shah Ismail. Shah Ismail, as already mentioned, had confirmed Turkic and Greek ancestry. The origin of the founder of Safavid Order (not dynasty) was probably, possibly, likely, etc. (whatever Ali prefers) Kurdish, it does not mean the whole family through 200 years of mixing remained Kurdish. Shah Ismail's, founder's, grandfather Uzun Hassan was definitely not Kurdish, but Turkic. Sheykh Haydar, Ismail's father, was half-Turk due to his mother, the wife of Sheykh Junayd and sister of Uzun Hassan. So the introduction should definitely say, Safavid dynasty was of mixed Turkic and Iranian origins or Turkic and Kurdish origins, while Sheykh Safi had according to several scholars, Kurdish origins. Atabek 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  

  Atabek, by your statement, then we should be saying that the Seljuks were Persians. Your argument makes no sense, discuss with facts, not POV. So far, the only ones bringing up facts here are Ali and Tajik, almost all of your posts are your own criticisms and opinions.Azerbaijani 03:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Azerbaijani, why don't you present some scholarly work in a civil discussion. I don't see a point to respond further when the only argument you bring on every Wiki page on Azerbaijan is "pan-Turkist" quote with reference to milliondollarbabies.com and Armenian (obviously POV) scholars. I hope to see your contributions with a more useful material, which myself as well as Ali and Tajik contribute to the discussion. For political POV on cultural genocide of Azeri Turks in Iran, you may visit political forums and contribute there. Thanks. Atabek 06:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Azerbaijani please be friendly. That is the best way a resolution is reached (note the cool sign I put up). Actually putting the Shaykh himself aside, we know the Shaykh married the daughter of Shaykh Zahid Gilani who was Iranic. Still I believe the origin of Safavids is not their main importance. Their main importance is legacy. Mixed origin, kurdish, greek, turkomen, etc. bilingual, primarily tucophone, turkish and persian in court..should be mentioned after the introduction. --alidoostzadeh 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ali, you state:

  actually Persian was pretty much the main written language in the caucus before pan-turkism

  Which pan-Turkism are you talking about? There were written works of Mirza Shafi Vazeh and Mirza Fatali Akhundov in early and middle 19th century. What about Azerbaijani poetess from Shusha, Karabakh, Khurshud Banu Natavan? All of these were prior to Friedrich Max Mueller's introduction of the Turanian group definition, and to works of Ali Bey Huseynzadeh and Ahmed Agaoglu on theory of Turkism. What about Soviet era prominent Azerbaijani poets, Rasul Rza, Mikail Mushfig, Samad Vurgun, prose writer Yusif Vezir Chemenzeminli? Did all those write only in Persian language? What about Huseyn Javid, who wrote brilliant poems in Azeri Turkic "Iblis", "Topal Teymur"? You need to read these before making such gross assumptions that Persian was the main language and there was no literary activity in Azeri but that of Shahriyar. The world outside Iran exists, where Azerbaijani people could write, publish, educate themselves in their own tongue even within Soviet regime.

  Actually, good thing that you cite Shahriyar as being the only poet, indeed in Iranian part of Azerbaijan, who wrote in Azerbaijani Turkic after Safavid and Qajar times. Comparing the amount of material and poetry written in Azerbaijani language in Azerbaijan and Iran, this is only an indication of persistent cultural genocide of Azeri Turkic language and culture, which is obviously evident on this discussion page as well. Another example, of you citing, Shahnameh as a foundation of Persian (ethnic) nationalism and linking it to foundation of Iranian (cultural) nationalism. As you see, this automatically excludes all elements even remotely associated with Turkic language or heritage. Quite surprising, I thought that you and few others considered Iranian as multi-cultural defintion.Atabek 06:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, what I said is that before the caucus was ceded to Russia, most written works are in Persian. Then the era of depersinization began. For example there are 4 books on Qarabagh (just checking a website) supposedly from that era, and all are written in Persian. Major history books and etc. were writen in Persian . About Shahnameh I was just showing you why it can not be compared to Qur'an. Anyways we'll discuss these other issues in another topic. Some, even Turks perhaps who did not have ethnic nationalist consciousness might have identified with it, but any turk with ethnic consciousness will not identify with Shahnameh but rather with say Dede-Qorqod as mentioned in the AI magazine as well. --alidoostzadeh 13:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, if this article is only about the dynasty and not about the family, then there should not be any references to ethnic origins or languages, but only information about the dynasty's rule, politics, and achievements. For example, there are 2 articles on the Ottomans: one is Ottoman Empire, the other is Ottoman dynasty. However, in BOTH articles, the Ottomans are labled "Turks" and "Turkish", although they were - definitly - much more mixed with other peoples than the Safavids.

  Besides that, your argumentation is weak anyway, because a dynasty's origin is only defined by the identity passed from father to son - the male family linage. That's why the Ottomans - a highly multi-ethnic and multi-lingual family - are still labled "Turks". It does not matter whether Ismail himself was half-Turk, 3/4-Turk, or whatever. What matters is that the ethnic and national identity passed to him through his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and so forth was clearly NON-TURKIC. Even IF Ismail's mother was half-Turcoman, it still does not give the dynasty a "Turkic origin". Not that the founder of the

  Sebük Tigin

  for more details).

  Despite all of this, the Ghaznavids are considered "Turks". The same goes to the

  Seljuqs

  . As already shown by Ali, even Mir Ali Shir Nava'i considered the Seljuqs "Persians".

  We cannot have double-standards in Wikipedia. We cannot lable lable all kinds of dynasties "Turkish" because of different reasons. We have to have standards. If we mention in here that the Safavids were not Kurds but "of mixed origin", then this has to be the standard in ALL articles, including Ottomans, Seljuqs, Aq/Qara Qoyunlu, etc etc etc. If we are to lable the Safavids "Turks", only because their founder wrote poetry in Turkish, then we will also have to lable the Seljuqs and Ghaznavids "Non-Turks" and "Persians", because they were Persian-speaking.

  Yet, that would be against any reliable scholarly work. The Seljuqs were "Seljuqs" and "Turks", because their distant ancestor - Seljuq - was a Turk. In this case, it does not matter that the founders of the Seljuq synasty were highly Persianized. The Ottomans were "Ottomans" and "Turks", because their distant ancestor - Uthman - was a Turk. And the Safavids were NATIVE IRANIANS, NON-TURKS, and KURDS because their distant ancestor - Sheikh Safi - was a KURD and a NON-TURK. That easy.

  By the way: your comparison of the Shahnama with the Quran is pointless. The Quran is a religious book, and everyone who identifies himself with the Quran is a Muslim in religion and not an Arab. Not the language of the book is important but its message. The Shahnama is not a religious book, and its message is clearly nationalistic: it is a highly anti-Arab and anti-Turkish, Persian nationalist epic. And its message is Persian nationalism and anti-Arab and anti-Turkish propaganda. The fact that Ismail identified himself with the Shahnama proves that he was Iranian and Non-Turkic in identity. That's why Minorsky said that "the question of Ismail's language is not identical to that of his race and nationality"! Tājik 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't the one comparing Shahnameh to Quran, Ali was. Quran is an inspiration book of over 1 billion people, and Shahnameh so far seems to be an inspiration book of a group of Iranian nationalists, trying to erase everything non-Persian from history of their own country. So comparing the two would be a mockery of Islam. And as it's apparent Shahnameh stood at the roots of instigating Turkophobia in Iran.

  If you read the correspondence above, I am not the one trying to identify Safavid dynasty as Turkic, you're the one trying to identify it as "originally Iranian" or "originally Persian". I only emphasize that Turkic elements in Safavid dynasty carried dominant in the beginning and equivalent status towards the end of it with Persians. I am not trying to erase a particular ethicity from Iranian history.

  And repeating Minorsky's comment to me has no ground either. Minorsky was wrong, especially because Ismail's mother and grandmother were Turkic, Ismail was primarily Turkophone (as mentioned by Ali above), so what do you think he considered himself Fars by speaking primarily Azeri Turkic language? Atabek 15:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, you are directly calling the Safavids "Safavid Turks", and now you claim that you do not want to identify the Safavids as Turkic?!

  Your comments about the Shahnama - a masterpiece of literature written 1000 years ago - actually shows your grudge against Persian identity and culture. Ironically, what you yourself probably identify as "Turkic" is most likely "Persian" and not "Turkic". The book was written in a time when one of the most advanced civilizations of the world was conquered by nomads of the steppe and of the desert who did not value "civilization" the same way it was valued by the native people. Ferdawsi's immage of Turks and Arabs reflected the way of life of Turks back then. And for centuries, Non-Persians looked up to him, tried to copy his works (to an extent that certain Turkic peoples, such as the Qarakhanids, even turned Ferdawsi's legends into their own origin mythology), or began to identify themselvs with his heroes. Remember that it is not Iranians who owe their identity and culture to Turks. It's exactly the other way around.

  Now you even proclaim that Vladimir Minorsky, one of the most respected and reliable authorities on this subject, was "wrong". Who gave YOU the authority to say that Minorsky was "wrong"?! Are you a scholar to say that?! I do not think that YOU are in ANY respectable position to judge that a world-class scholar like Minorsky was "wrong".

  So, in here, it does not have any point how often you repeat your POV. Leading scholars, such as Minorsky and Savory, all agree that the Safavids were a NATIVE IRANIAN dynasty - the FIRST to rule Iran after more than 800 years of foreign rule (except for a few short-lived native dynasties). "Carrying equivalent elements of Turkic language" is not the same as "being Turkic". The Safavids had no Turkic identity, they had no Turkic culture, they had not Turkish way of life in any means. All of this was evidently Iranian. The only thing "Turkic" was their language, as they had adopted the language of their initial Turcoman "murshids". This process started 2 generations before Ismail (with Junayid) and started to decline 2 generations after him (Abbas I). Before that, the Turcomans had virtually no influence on the Safavids, and after that the Turkic language remaind important, but did not have the same status as Persian. So, the Safavids were an IRANIAN family, with IRANIAN Shia identity (Shia Islam itself is an "Iranian" phenomenon), with IRANIAN culture, who ruled in IRANIAN lands. They only had become linguistically Turkophone ... and now, you show up and call them "Safavid Turks"?! Tājik 16:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik, I have no grudge against Persian people or culture whatsoever. Persian people, language and culture had a great amount of contribution to history and culture of entire Middle East. But I criticize Persian nationalism and attempts to impose the same identity on all Iranians, which only weakens and impoverishes Iranian identity. The same as you say, "they had no Turkic culture" or "they were all of Iranian origin" and this quote of yours:

  Ironically, what you yourself probably identify as "Turkic" is most likely "Persian" and not "Turkic".

  I actually have the same to ask you. Are you sure that with 1000 years of Turkic domination, there is no Turkic culture and no Turkic influence, and not a drop of Turkic blood in veins of Iranian people? It seems you are convinced so (as Friedrich Nietsche said "Convictions are the worse enemies of truth than lies"), which shows how much ethnic nationalism and Shahnameh's demonization of Turks left an imprint on Persian culture and its stereotyping of entire historical origin.

  When I said "Safavid Turks" that's exactly a statement aimed at balancing the POV expressed here that Safavids were of Persian origin without any viable proof. If you dare to say Safavids had Persian origins, well then there is more than sufficient proof both linguistically and culturally, to just claim them Turks similarly. I have provided sufficient evidence to show that Safavid dynasty's court language was Azeri Turkic, although this was being denied all along by yourself and few other contributors. Ali brought evidence that they had some Kurdish origins, so the balance needs to be achieved, instead of reappearing back removing everything related to Turks, trying to purge out the brethren of Safavids, Azerbaijan, and so on.

  My first quote from Frye, has been purged out of the article on the first hour that I put it in, and it took lines of discussion to put it back in. Why? Isn't this an indication of ethnocentric nationalism trying to modify the truth and fit a certain faulty ideology? This is all a big stereotyping problem, by admitting the Turkic part of Safavid origin, we do not attribute them to Turkey, we only want to show the truth based on various scholarly works. My point is, if we need to get this article to a perfect condition and make it a perfect example of cooperation and compromise and scholarly excellence, we need to be tolerant, balanced and put aside stereotyping imposed by Shahnameh or otherwise ethnic nationalism. Thanks.

  WP:CIVIL

  !

  Your quote from Frye was rejected, because you - based on your own anti-Persian ethnocentrism - purposely cut the text and only quoted the part you liked. While Frye indeed says that "Azeri Turks founded the Safavid dynasty", you purposely kept out the previous sentense which explains that "Azeri Turks are Turkic-speaking Iranians", thus supporting Savory's statement that "Safavids were a native Iranian dynasty".

  You also continue your lie, claiming that I "deny the status of Azeri Turkic" in the Safavid court. This is pure nonsense, because I have never denied the importance of the Azeri language and its speacial status in the Safavid family. It is indeed you who is denying the fact that the Safavids were not "Turkic-speaking" but "bi-lingual", and that neither Azeri nor Persian were considered "foreign". You persist on the old Pan-Turkist claims that "Safavids were Turks and Turkic-speakers" and that "Persian was only the language of bureaucracy".

  As for the influence of Turkic on Iranian traditions: you were given specific and reliable sources underlining the fact that neither Turkic nor Mongolian had any significant influence on native Iranian traditions and cultures. The Turks were not numerous when they entered Iran, and their sucess was mainly based on the internal conflicts of native dynasties and nobles, wherelese the Turks had stable and powerful clan and family confederations. When the Turks conquered Iranian lands, they were mostly supported by the native people because they brought stability to a land that had lost its political status and stability since the Arab conflict. Preior to Turkic and Arab rule, Iran was ruled by dozens of small local dynasties, of which the

  Seljuqs

  were the first dynasty to unitq the Iranian lands after the Arab conquest.

  And in order to rule over Iran, the Turks quickly adopted Iranian culture and traditions. The Seljuqs openly adopted the Iranian concept of monarchy, they adopted the luxurious way of life of previous Iranian Shahs, they adopted Iranian royal titles, they adopted the Persian language, and they promoted this culture to all the lands they conquered.

  The Turks only ruled the Iranian lands, they did not introduce new customs or cultures. They only thing they kept was their language - in a highly modified form, influenced by Persian and Arabic. Turkic culture had no influence on Iranians. The Turks abandoned their own culture, their nomadic way of life, their Shamanist beliefs, their traditional Turkic names, etc etc etc. The number of Oghuz Turks in total was less than 100,000 - and the Oghuz were the largest of all Turkic tribes in Iran! Do you really think that these 100,000 Turks had ANY significant cultural or "genetic" influence on a population that numbered in the millions?! A population that was culturally superior to the nomadic conquerors?! The problem with you is that you are not ballanced at all, and that you have some kind of hate or grudge against the Persian culture and identity. I do not know where this attitude comes from, but it does not help us at all.

  So please stop your agenda, and please stop lying. Tājik 19:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik, I think you went a little overboard on personal attacks, but that's a separate subject which is being addressed. Regarding your unreferenced material about 100,000 Oghuz Turks seems nothing other than speculation without factual proofs. I have no interest in responding to that. Returning to subject of matter Safavids, here is yet another link from Columbia Encyclopedia piece on Safavids referencing 3 scholars, one of them the favourite Savory [56]. Interestingly, there is only one mentioning of the word Persian in there, and that's Persian Gulf. In the rest, it clearly says, Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty without any extensions. Thanks. Atabek 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Unreferenced?! What are you talking about?! Here, directly from the Encyclopaedia of Islam:

  • "... We need not assume that the actual numbers of the Turkmens were very large, for the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads. Yuri Bregel has implied, working from the 16,000 Oghuz mentioned by the Ghaznawid historian Bayhaki as present on the battle field of Dandankan (Tarikh-i Masudi, Tehran 1324/1945, 619), that we should probably assume, in this instance, a ratio of one fighting man to four other members of the family, yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khurasan at this time (Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). ..."

  At the time of the Seljuq-Ghaznavid wars, the total number of Oghuz was some 60,000-70,000 - in a time when Baghdad alone had a population of more than 300,000! My number was even 40,000 more than the actual number suggested by scholars.

  Their success in Persia is mentioned in Iranica:

  • "... After nearly 200 years since the rise of the Saffarids in 861, this was the first time that all of Persia and its dependencies came under a single and powerful rule which did not dissipate and disband after a single generation. ... By all accounts, weary of the miseries and devastations of never-ending conflicts and wars, Persians seemed to have sighed with relief and to have welcomed the stability of the Saljuqid rule, all the more so since the Saljuqids mitigated theeffect of their foreignness, quickly adopting the Persian culture and court customs and procedures and leaving the civil administration in the hand of Persian personnel ..." [57]

  It was not a "Turkic mass-migration" that elevated Turks to the ranks of kings and sultans, but rather the political instability of the native dynasties in contrast to the highly disciplined and stable Turkic clans, as well as the assimilation of the new Turkic rulers into traditional Persian culture, customs, and identity. It was not until the rule of the Turco-Mongols that "Turks" - a general word applied to Central Asian nomads - began to develope some sort of "national identity". This is very clear from the writings of Mir Ali Shir Nava'i who considered the Seljuq sultans "Persians" (Sart and Farsi) in contrast to the Mongosl and Turks of Central Asia whom he generally labled "Turks".

  As for the Columbia Encyclopaedia: it is not really a scholary or reliable source. It even claims that Sultan Muhammad of Ghor was "Afghan": [58] Keeping in mind that the

  Afghans or the meaing of the word "Afghan") nor in geo-historical aspects (see Afghanistan), the Columbia Encyclopaedia is not qualified to challenge the EI or the EIr. In the article "Abbas I" the same Encyclopaedia calls him "Shah of Iran" who "fought Uzbeks and Turks", assuming that he was neither an Uzbek nor a Turk. And even IF the CE were a reliable scholarly source, it still wouldn't support your claims that "Safavids were Turks", as it only mentions that the Safavid family was Turkic-speaking (this is what we have long been mentioning in the article and in the talk). So what's your point?! Have you actually read Savory's "Iran under the Safavids"?! Tājik 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Guys lets concentrate on Safavids as I was reading this discussion which might spin out.. I'll invite you to try the procedure I mentioned bloew. But one quick comments. Atabek, Minorsky is of course relevant to the article as he is well qualified historian who has written many articles and books on the caucus , safavids, aq-qoyunlu , mongols.. etc. As per Shahnameh I was just telling you what it was without judging it. thanks..hopefully will see some positive comments when I come back monday. --alidoostzadeh 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik, again yielding some 64,000 Turkmens moving into Khurasan at this time, means the population that resettled in Khorasan province not entire Iran, Azerbaijan or Anatolia. The total population of Khorasan even today can be compared to population of Baghdad, Tehran, or any other large Middle Eastern megapolis. So yet again, the figure that you presented "some 100,000" does not have a basis and is unreferenced. Considering your opinion that "Turkic-Mongol people" are cultureless, while Persians had supposedly of such a "high culture" that even sky wasn't the limit, and with Seljuqs adopting the Persian culture, it's impossible that 100,000 nomads took over millions of people, imposed their language, military rule in many areas and mixed to create a new ethnos in Azerbaijan, Khorasan, and as far south as Fars/Qashaqai areas. There must have been either some superior numbers among nomads or some unexplainable degradation or cultural decadence among the locals. Atabek 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, you are indeed a master in rejected facts and sources. The Oghuz Turks who came to Anatolia and Azerbaijan were the ones who had previously moved into Khorasan. That's why still today the culture of Anatolia and Azerbaijan reflects the original Khorasani culture. Only a few thousend European conquerors were enough to change the linguistic map of Africa and - especially - South America. And what you in person still fail to understand (or simply do not want to understand) is that the Turkic-speaking population of Anatolia, Azerbaijan, etc are NON Turkic in origin. They simply adopted the Turkic language of the Turkish conquerors. The same way millions of people around the globe adopted Frenhc, Spanish, or English. In Iranian lands, the traditional homelands of Persian language and culture, these Turks were not able to impose their language on the population. In other areas, however, especially in Anatolia where the Greek and Christian population had either been killed or resettled, the remaining part adopted the Turkish language of the new rulers. The large Kurdish, Zaza, and Arab populations in Turkey prove this. That's why Frye explains that Azeri Turks and Anatolian Turks are descendants of previous native peoples, either Iranian, Greek, or whatever. The "genetical" influence of ethnic Turks on these populations was not significant at all. That's why Turks in Turkey today look like Greeks and Iranians and Afghans and not like Yakuts or Kazakhs! "Turkification" in Western Asia and in Iranian lands was purely linguistic. The number of Turcoman nomads was way too small to have any "genetical" influence. You also forget that the modern success of the "reformed" Turkish language was mainly due to Atatürk's new laws. He forced this new language on everyone in Turkey, and thsoe who refused to accept it were labled "enemies of the state". Many "Turks" today are descendants of either European Muslims or native Anatolian Muslims who were converted to Islam by the Ottomans. They are not "ethnic Turks" in the original sense of the term. All academics and scholars in this field agree with this ... for some reason, it's only Turkish nationalists who do not want to believe this. After so many centuries, the Turkic population in the original Turkic homelands as well as in Central Asia is not more than a few millions. The only 3 Turkic-speaking populations that have exploding population-numbers are the Anatolian Turks, the Azeri Turks, and the Uzbeks. Interestingly, these are also the 3 Turkic-speaking populations that had most of the contact with the native populations ... wherelse Kazakhs, Kyrgiz', and other Turkic peoples are less than 10m. Strange, isn't it?! The 100,000 Oghuz Turks did not "take over millions", they established themselvs as monarchs, adopting the traditional concept of Persian monarchy, and mixed with local populations by marrying native nobles. That's how Arabs conquered Iran, and how 20,000 Greek soldiers of Alexander conquered Iran. How did the Russians conquer the Turkic lands?! Did they send millions of their own people to conquer these lands or only a few thousend soldiers?! In only 70 years, the Russians assimilated the region ... Just take a look at Azerbaijan. The Turkic rule in Azerbaijan and Anatolia lasted much longer. Tājik 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tajik, the fact that Turkic tribes (regardless of the questionnable numbers you present) came in and mixed with local populus to establish a new ethnic identity which is known today as Turk, does not give you a basis or right to claim them of Iranian origin. After all, there are people in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, who have Turkic (race) roots, but they don't call themselves Turks. They're Turkmens, Uzbeks and Kazakhs respectively. So were inhabitants of Turkey and Azerbaijan, during the last several centuries known and called as Turks (or "Tork" how they spell it in Iran). The disagreement is that you're trying to associate every spelling of the word Turk with Turkic race. According to this logic, every use of Persian then should be considered Iranian, and thus Iranian would be inapplicable to about 40-50% of Iran's current population.

  What Russians did in Caucasus was much worse than what you describe trying to portray their colonial policy in rose colors. They resettled scores of Armenians from Ottoman Empire and Persia into Caucasus, Karabakh and Iravan khanates in particular, thus establishing an enclave of population with territorial claims. You can read the works of Russian ambassador to Persia, the famous Russian poet A.S.Griboyedov, who ended up being killed in Tehran exactly for such Russia's colonial and expansion policy. The result today is the deepest conflict and war in Caucasus. Atabek 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek, "Turk" is a general term applied to a certain people: nomadic horsemen of the steppe. The problem with you is that you want to indetify a dynasty of 500 years ago with the modern meaning of the word "Turk" which did not exist preior to the "Young Turk" revolution. While you strictly reject the more general definition of the word "Persian" which is not only limitted to a single ethno-linguistic group but to an entire multi-ethnic civilization, you do not have the same standard for the word "Turk". In this case, you do not accept the original meaning of the term and want to push for the more general definition of the term. Once again, you prove that you have double-standards. The same way you accept one part of a source and reject another part of it, here, too, you have double-standards.

  Have you ever read Mir Ali Sher Nava'i's works?! He was a contemporary of the Safavids and Ottomans, and he explains what the word "Turk" ment at that time: Central Asian Chingizid nobles. Former nomadic nobles who traced their origins to the Mongol wariors of Genghis Khan. That was the meaning of "Turk" back then. People who had a similar culture or language to the "Turks" were known as "Turkmen" - "like Turks": Non-Chingizid nomads who spoke a Turkic language. That's the reason why the Ottoman sultands desperately rejected the term "Turk", although it was well-known that they had a Turkic origin. That's the reason why the more "original" Turkic

  Karamanoglus

  proclaimed Turkish their "official language" (the first Turkic dynasty every to abandon non-Turkic languages in favour of a Turkic language), revolted against the Ottomans and fought them, in part because the Ottomans denied their own "Turkishness".

  The Safavids were neither "Turks" nor "Turkomans". They were not nomads, but traced their origins to a well established Sufi order of Persia. They considered themselvs "Iranians", and the Šāhnāmaye Tahmasp - the royal Shahnama of Shah Tahmasp - propagates this in every page. The Shah is portrayed as the "great hero of Iran" and fights the "evil Turanians": the Turkic Uzbeks. One of the major problems of the Safavid empire was the constant confliect of the Turcoman military with the Persian nobles. It was Iran's interior "Iran vs Turan" war. And Tahmasp's admiration for Ferdawsi's and Nizami's Persian nationalist writings just proves that the Safavid Shahs considered themselvs "Iranians" and NOT "Turanians" ("Turks").

  The modern definition of "Turk" was established after the creation of the Turkish Republic. On Atatürk's orders, everyone in the new nation was labled "Turk". Even the Kurds were labled "Mountain Turks". Although European's called the Anatolian population "Turks" way before (the same way they called everyone in the Persian Empire "Persians" and everyone in India "Hindus"), the term "Turk" itself was not really a self-designation of the Anatolian population. In case of Azerbaijan, the people even kept their pre-Turkic identity: Azeri! They are only called "Turks" by the Persians, because in the Persian language (and mind), the term "Turk" is still an insult. This is not only the case in Iran, but also in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

  You have to give up your double-standard:

  • either accept the strict ethno-linguistic definition of both terms, "Persian" and "Turk": that would mean that the Safavids were NEITHER Persians (
    Persian people
    ) NOR Turks (Central Asian Turco-Mongols)
  • or accept the wider, more general meaning of both: "Persian" = everyone who lives in "Persia" and/or identifies himself with the Persian culture/language/identity/history; "Turk" = a heterogenious group of different peoples with different backgrounds who speak a Turkic language, but do not share the same origin, history, or culture.

  The modern ethnic identity of a Turk is the product of Atatürk's revolution, bot that of a small number of Central Asian nomads who conquered Anatolia and Azerbaijan centuries ago. Tājik 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Uzbek and Shaykh Safi ad-din and a poem from Esmail I in PersianInterestingly the Uzbek ruler when fighting Esmail I says:I have heared Shaykh Safi was a Sunni... Also part of Persian letter from Esmail I to the Uzbek Khan: غالبا گروه مکروه و آن طایفه بی شکوه تاراج و یغمای اموال مومنین را رواج و احیای دین خاتم نبیین و خون ناحق و کفر مطلق را رونش ...و در نهایت شقاوت آرای باطله و اهوای فاسه را قوانین مصطفوی و قواعد مذهب مرتضوی انگارند Part of the quincit poem of Esmail I : چو آفتاب رخت نیست ماه در خاور نهاده پیش قدت سرو، سرکشی از سر ندیده است چو روی تو ای پری پیکر ب زیر زلف دو تا، چون نگه کنی بنگر که از یمین و یسارت چه بی قرارانند --alidoostzadeh 05:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Partial part of Esmail I's proclamation from Alem Araay Abbassipartial from an article from Safavids in Persian which directly quotes Alem Araay Abbassi and I will mention the Alem Araay Abbassi portion: هم در اوایل جلوس امر کرد که خطبای ممالک خطبه ائمه ی اثنی عشر علیهم صلوات الله المک الاکبر خوانند. اشهد ان علیا ولی الله، و ، حی علی خیر العمل، که از آمدن طغرل سلجوقی (528 سال قبل)از بلاد اسلام بر طرف شده بود به اذان ضمیمه کنند. This is pretty much what Encyclopedia of Islam says based on the book Habib al-siyar: Coins were minted in his name; the ��khut�ba was read in the name of the Twelve Imāms, and the Imāmī rite was proclaimed the true religion. Thus I will look into Habib al-Siyar and Alem Arraay Abbassi for the full proclamation of Esmail I. Till then I believe we should stick with the two EIs or any other source written by any Safavid historian. --alidoostzadeh 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note the above Persian is directly from Alem Araay Abbassi after Esmail I captured Tabriz, but is only partial part of Esmail I's proclamation unfortunately. But In due time I will provide all the proclamation or someone else is free to take the lead and provide the original Persian proclamation from Habib Al-Siyar and Alem Araay Abbassi (two important Persian books on Safavid history written in their era). Till then, (and I'll do my best to get hold of the above two sources), I propose we stick with the two EIs on Esmail's proclamation and not make another issue. --alidoostzadeh 01:04, 5 March 2007 (UT

  What is being discussed now? I think the discussion went off topic again. I proposed a new version of the intro, it was rejected without any explanation. If we could identify what was wrong with it, we could have found the ways to resolve the dispute. I think Ali can propose his own version, and we will discuss it. But I want him also to check my proposal and tell me which part he considers to be unacceptable, and propose better wording instead. Grandmaster 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe it was discussed above. --alidoostzadeh 13:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  References on Shah of AzerbaijanGetting back to the main subject, Ali, you are yet to present a viable counter evidence that denies Richard Tapper's quote. Above is not counter evidence, and trying to repeat that Tapper was anthropologist while not showing a single reference from Savory or Frye to Shah of What exactly did Ismail proclaim himself in 1501 in Tabriz, does not work either. While, here are few more relevant references:

  • "...he largely owed his success in leading a campaign into Tabriz where he enthroned himself as Shah of Azarbaijan at the beginning of 907/July 1501." (S. A. I. Tirmizi, "Indian Historical Vistas", Munshiram Manoharlal, 1980, p. 12).
  • "He then captured Tabriz and established himself in control of Azerbaijan" (Richard Ernest Dupuy, Trevor Nevitt Dupuy. "The Encyclopedia of Military History from 3500 B.C. to the Present", Harper & Row, 1986,
    ISBN 0061812358
    , p. 505)
  • "Now in control of Azarbayjan, Isma'il was crowned in Tabriz in 1501." (David J. Roxburgh. "Prefacing the image: The Writing of Art History in Sixteenth-Century Iran", Brill Academic Publishers, 2001, p. 18)
  • "The Safavid state began in Azerbaijan when Isma'il, now thirteen, entered Tabriz, proclaimed himself shah..." (Lawrence Davidson, Arthur Goldschmid, "A Concise History of the Middle East", Westview Press, 2006, p. 153)

  Tabriz was capital of Akkoyunlu Turkic state, and historical center of Azerbaijan. So these along with reference to Jean Aubin about "key to Azerbaijan" and EI reference on control of Azerbaijan only show that Ismail considered himself the Shah of this particular domain, Azerbaijan, in 1501. So the name Azerbaijan must be present in the current introduction as it defines the very roots of Safavid Dynasty. Also, I saw some stuff above about Kurdish (?) being court language of Safavids. I believe you would agree this looks rather comic. Atabek 07:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again none of these contradicts the two EIs. They contradict Esmail I's proclamation in Tabriz mentioned by Tapper! His proclamation in Tabriz was about making shi'ism the official religon rather than: I am the shah of Azerbaija. He then captured Tabriz and established himself in control of Azerbaijan Now in control of Azarbayjan, Esma'il was crowned in Tabriz in 1501,"The Safavid state began in Azerbaijan when Isma'il, now thirteen, entered Tabriz, proclaimed himself shah..." does not have Esmail I's proclamation. Esmail I's proclamation is in the primary source Habib al-Siyar and 'Alem Araay Abbassi which needs to be brought forth. I have brought them forth partially right now (one from EI and one from another article). What I brought from EI (Encyclopedia of Islam) it contradicts Tappers quote about Esmail I's proclamation in Tabriz. Since EI directly quotes Habib Al-Siyar on Esmail I's proclamation, that is important. --alidoostzadeh 13:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't contradict EI, but they, especially this one:

  • "...he largely owed his success in leading a campaign into Tabriz where he enthroned himself as Shah of Azarbaijan at the beginning of 907/July 1501." (S. A. I. Tirmizi, "Indian Historical Vistas", Munshiram Manoharlal, 1980, p. 12).

  contradict your assertion that Ismail did not proclaim himself Shah of Azerbaijan. Ali, this is not a serious argument. If you can prove that you're more qualified to judge than any of the scholars I so far bring, including Tapper, Tirmizi, Jean Aubin, etc., then I would agree with you. But so far you seem to bring bits and pieces of medieval manuscripts that say nothing about the fact you're arguing about. They don't deny it, they just say nothing. Don't take this personal please, but this is not just scholarly argument, it seems to be just an attempt to purge out the reference which for unknown reason hurts nationalistic desires of Persians to disassociate Safavids from Turks, Azeris and Azerbaijan. Atabek 15:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Atabek Jean Aubin's quote was not relavent. Also three of the four quotes you brought supported my version. I agree that Esmail enthroned himself Shah of the land he ruled (hence Azerbaijan). My issue was with proclamation. Procalmation can be taken as direct statement from Esmail I. This is where the disagreement lies because the partial portions of Habib Al-Siyar and Alem Araay Abbassi mention his proclamation: (12 Imam Shi'ism and etc..) mentioned by EI. Thus when someone makes a proclamation there should be a direct source. I do not even know what a book on Indian historical vistas and its author have to do with the Safavid and I consider EI (Encyclopedia of Islam) in this care more relavent. BTW I am not trying to be nationalist on this one, I am just trying to make sure we put the right proclamation of Esmail I. Esmail I's proclamation as far as what I have seen is ordering 12 Imam Shi'ism as official. --alidoostzadeh 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, then, Ali, if you agree with the fact that "Ismail enthroned himself as Shah of Azerbaijan" (instead of proclaimed himself), I think we have a consensus on that one then. Jean Aubin's quote is relevant, because it shows that at the time when Ismail crushed Alvand Mirza, and awarded Amir Zakarya the title of "key of Azerbaijan", he implied that his objective (the object behind the key) is Azerbaijan. Thanks. Atabek 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure I mentioned Esmail I became Shah of Azerbaijan and then from there, the rest of Persia.. My issue was with the proclamation which needs direct source or one from a historican. Anyways see you monday. --alidoostzadeh 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That actually was the original quote, Ali, in Founder section (with reference to Tapper), so I don't know why we had to argue about it for pages just when I tried to insert the number reference to Tapper. It's good I guess that we have some more references now.Atabek 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  

  More EvidenceAgain, here is more evidence, on top of the incredible amount of evidence that Tajik and Ali have already been brought up.

  Here is a quote from Donald Wilber (Iran Past and Present page 66-67):

  "The Safavid period saw the reestablishment of a truly native Iranian dynasty after the lapse of eight centuries, and the resulting revival of national spirit and unity may be compared to the movement which sprang up when the Sassanian dynasty arose after the long Graeco-Parthian domination of the country. The founder and first ruler of the Safavid dynasty, Shah Isma'il, came into prominence as the leader of seven Turkish tribes of Azerbaijan. These tribes, known collectively as the Qizil Bash or "Red Heads," could put 70,000 armed horsemen in the field. Isma'il himself was not a Turkish chief but had won respect as the descendant of a long line of religious leaders and the head of an order of dervishes. The progenitor of his like was Shaykh Safi Ad-din of Ardabil, a Moslem saint, preacher, and workder of miracles, who lived from 1252 until 1334."

  Atabek, the evidence is overwhelmingly against your POV.Azerbaijani 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
  2. ^ [http://www.tau.ac.il/dayancenter/mel/lewis.html Iran in History by Bernard Lewis
  3. ^ "... Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. [...] Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it. ..." Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
  4. ^ "Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?" R.M. Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), Page 3
  5. ^ ^{a b} R.M. Savory, "Ṣafawids", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006: "... the Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia [...] During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed "Iranian intermezzo", did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [...] For the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khans ..."
  6. ^ "... The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty ...". Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
  7. ^ "The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com ), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified." Encyclopaedia Iranica. Iran. The Safavids (1501-1722)
  8. ^ Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
  9. ^ [http://www.tau.ac.il/dayancenter/mel/lewis.html Iran in History by Bernard Lewis
  10. ^ "... Although many languages and dialects are spoken in the country, and different forms of social life, the dominant influence of the Persian language and culture has created a solidarity complex of great strength. [...] Likewise the Baluch, Turkmen, Armenians and Kurds, although with bonds to their kinsmen on the other side of borders, are conscious of the power and richness of Persian culture and willing to participate in it. ..." Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
  11. ^ "Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?" R.M. Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), Page 3
  12. ^ "... The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty ...". Encyclopaedia Iranica. R. N. Frye. Peoples of Iran.
  13. ^ "The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com ), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified." Encyclopaedia Iranica. Iran. The Safavids (1501-1722)
  14. ^ Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History,V, pp. 514-15)

  Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safavid_dynasty/Archive_7&oldid=1225106713"