Talk:Safavid dynasty

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Safavids were Persian

The ONLY official language of Iran during the Safavid empire was Persian, (Farsi). The founder of the dynasty was Persian. The court language was Persian and all official documents and laws were only written in Persian. The Safavids built the Persian city of Esfahan. I will remove all of the POV written by Turkic nationalists. An encyclopedia is a place for facts and truth, not lies and propoganda!!Dariush4444 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

from the Archive

Guys looks like we are starting from the same point again. Please do not discuss topics not related to this entry (for example Armenian genocide and etc). Lets get back to Safavids. Personally I am also of the opinion that we should not put ethnicity in the beginning (weather Shaykh Safi ad-din was Kurdish, Shah Ismail was half this, 1/4 this and 1/4 that, or the dynasty was Turkish speaking in the begining ..). But if people are happy with the current version that is fine. Indeed perhaps the current version edit SA. Vakilian might be acceptable to everyone? Is that so? Mardavich? Atabek? Azerbaijani? GM? Tajik? Kiumars?.. Although Tajik will be back in a couple days and have his own comments. By the way Evan Siegel makes an interesting comment based on Azerbaijani republic book (also mentioned by Mardavich) Soviet Azerbaijani scholarship is capable of a more restrained view of the Turkic character of the Safavids. 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. (A. S. Sumbatzadä, Sh. A. Taghiyeva, O. S. Malikov, Janubi Azarbayjan Tarikhinin Ocherki (1828-1917) (Elm: Baku, 1985), p. 208.). Of course the book he is quoting is from the republic of Azerbaijan and we do not use books from Iran or the republic of Azerbaijan is such enteries, but actually such similar statements can be found in Savory and the recent book I mentioned: Safavids: Recreation of a Persian Empire. For example from the time of Shah Abbas and specially afterwards both the Ghezelbash and Turkic were in decline and we do not know if the dynasty remained Turkic speaking then. If someone can archive and we can start from begining to see the discontents of both sides I would appreciate it. Also please just discuss issues related to Safavids only. We do know that Esmail I knew Arabic, Persian and Turkic from references so those are the languages we should mention. I would probably assume that Ismail might have spoken Gilaki since he was in Gilan and raised there but this is a guess thus not substantiated. Greek though could also be possible but we do not know. Thus Persian, Turkic and Arabic is the ones we have proof for and unless there is shred of positive evidence (specimen or a contemporary book that mentions another language) we should forego it. Personally I do not think the current version vakillian is too bad. What is the opinion of other readers? And once again lets please end discussions not related to Safavids. --alidoostzadeh 04:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, you were the first who proposed Turkic-speaking above anyway, to replace Frye's quote in Iranica. Now you're against it? :) Sa.Vakilian's version is acceptable to me so far, and I provided my comments, which were incorporated. As for book, I wish both you and Mardavich would also agree to use "South Azerbaijan" term, i.e. the title of the book which you cite :). If you don't, then it's not worth picking a sentence out of context. And when you say "we don't know if they remained Turkic-speaking", just recall deep descendant of Safavid, Abbas II, who wrote verses in Azeri Turkic as Tani as late as 17th century. And the two major ruling tribes after Safavis, namely Afshar and Qajars were also Turkic-speaking.

Again, no one denies that influence of Persian wakils increased over time under Safavid rule, yet again, this does not replace the fact that Safavid dynasty was Turkic-speaking as was its founder Ismail. Again, Ali, "might have spoken" is not a strong enough of an argument against "spoken". I think we are going around a circle repeated the same thing, because some people don't want to accept the fact, but argue about the conjectures and interpretations. Again saying Turkic-speaking does not make them less Iranian, so it's important to secede from such intolerant thinking. Thanks. Atabek 11:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources, even the ones written by pan-Turkists, indicate that is not clear if the dynasty remained Turkic speaking for long, therefore describing the dynasty as "Turkic speaking" is incorrect and misleading. And please don't archive open threads with ongoing discussions. --Mardavich 11:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources statement needs a little classification as to which most. And your labeling pan-Turkist of every Wiki user from Azerbaijan resembles quite precisely that of User:Azerbaijani attempting to insert "Musavat is pan-Turkist" dub on every single page. This similarity is actually worth looking into from sock perspective. Nevertheless, the statement of yours above lacks any ground. Pan-Turkism is an idea of establishing supra state unifying all peoples of a single linguistic domain. As such the idea does not exist in practice in Azerbaijan, Turkey or any other Turkic country, it's not recorded in their laws or constitutions, neither country aspires building such a state. Let it alone, Prof. Sumbatzada, who is quite far from being pan-Turkist either. So accusation above is nothing more than a personal attack by yourself and/or(?) :) user Azerbaijani. Atabek 14:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you diverting the discussion again? I label a source however I like to, it's just my opinion about the source, it doesn't mean that you have to agree with my personal views about a book or its author. So please cease the personal attacks, you have been repeatedly warned by other users and administrators that you should only be discussing the article at hand, not other editors. User:Azerbaijani has absolutely no relations to me whatsoever. If you believe otherwise, please be my guest and file a request at WP:RFCU. --Mardavich 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We know that later Safavids were Turkic speakers too. Descendant of Shah Abbas I Shah Abbas II was a Turkic poet, and Iranica says the following about the whole dynasty:

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.

And this is what Adam Olearius said about the language spoken at Safavids court (it was after the reign of Shah Abbas I, I took this from the archive, but the source is not available online now):

Most of the Persians, with their own language, learn also the Turkish especially in those provinces which have been long under the jurisdiction of the Grand Seignor, as Shirvan, Adirbeitzan, Iraq, Baghdad, and Eruan, where children are taught the Turkish language and by this means it is so common at court that a man seldom hears anyone speak the Persian; as in the Grand Seignior’s country, they ordinarily speak the Sclavonian, and in the Mogul’s the Persian. But in the province of Fars and at Shiraz, they speak only the Persian language.

(Source: "The Travels of Olearius in 17th century Persia" (Translated by John Davies (1662); online: http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/olearius/travels.html) Grandmaster 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The link doesn't open. But by Persians they mean people from Persia (even Sherwan or Irevan), not necessarily ethnic Persians. That is why some travellers have also called the Ghezelbash as Persians. This is the convention of travellers when travelling to a geographic region. I did not say the later Safavids knew Turkic or did not, but what I said is the dynasty's court language became Persianized after Shah Abbas weakened the Ghezelbash and moved his court to Esfahan and his descendants kept the capital there. That is initially there was more Turkic probably during Esmail's era while Persian was present. Later on the tide reveresed. Also Atabek, Afshar and Qajars were part of the Ghezelbash, not the Safavid dynasty as you mentioned. What I opposed was the inclusion of purely ethnic related stuff in the introduction. Because one can easily introduce that Safavids origin hailed from Persian Kurdistan (consensus of scholars) and put Kurdish in the introduction and etc... Or go further with Frye and say that Azerbaijanis are mainly descendants of Iranian speakers. Or bring Minorsky's statement that Turkic speaking does not mean Turkic ethnicity. These are stuff that I believe we agreed should not be in the introduction. I agree that the Safavids for the most parts were Turkish speaking although I believe their primary court language became Persian after Shah Abbas made Esfahan capital. Even the Ghezelbash historians wrote in Persian. Turkish could have still been alive but for all practical purposes it was overshadowed by Persian in Esfahan and in the courts. But lets get to the issue here. Looks like Atabek agrees with Mr. Vakilian's edits. I personally although object to putting ethnic related sentence in the begining, do not mind the current version. So lets see if we can build a consensus around this. Looks like GM is okay with the current version. I am not going to speak on behalf on Tajik, Mardavich, Kiumars, Azerbaijani. --alidoostzadeh 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can progress by addressing the issues one by one. As for the language of Safavids, judging by the sources it looks like later Safavids were Turkic speakers too, and the primary language at their court was Turkic according to Olearius. At the same time, the language of bureaucracy was predominantly Persian, so the two languages coexisted. The text is not available online anymore, but it was checked by many users while it was there. And indeed, by Persians Olearius meant all the citizens of Persian empire. Grandmaster 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Minorsky says that Shah Esmail I was bilingual from an early age. Also all the Safavid shah's were bilingual. But can you first tell me what are the issues here? And what issues do you have with the current version of Mr. Vakilian? --alidoostzadeh 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I already said to Mr. Vakilian on his talk that I'm happy with his edits in general. I think he did a great job in presenting the facts in a neutral fashion. Grandmaster 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks that is good to know. Tajik will probably be back in a day or two. I am not going to speak on behalf of Mardavich or Azerbaijan or Kiumars. But I am also satisfied with the current version and I think it is really time to end these discussions. --alidoostzadeh 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I only think that the first line: Safavids are considered the greatest empire does not sound good. We should say something like Safavid dynasty is considered the establishers of the greatest Iranian empire, etc. Also Arabic conquest is mentioned twice in the lead, it is better not to be repetitive. Grandmaster 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would say that Turkic was the cultural language too, since Safavids created poetry in that language, however Persian was the language of the state apparatus along with being cultural medium. They were indeed bilingual and spoke both languages, but they spoke Turkic as primary language at their court and domestic affairs. Grandmaster 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true Safavids created both Persian and Turkish poetry. For example I recall a quatrain in Persian from Shah Tahmasp. But by judging by the amount of manuscripts we have from the Safavid era, if we look at the works produced all over the empire, Persian clearly overwhelms Tukirsh by many factors. About their domestic affair I think it was mainly in the hands of their Wakils. Their military affair was probably done in Turkish at least up to the time of Shah Abbas. Shah Abbas and the school of Esfahan many of whom were available at the court. Hasan Rumlu a Ghezelbash wrote one of the most important books on Safavid history during that era in Persian. I think the current balance is right as you mentioned since it shows both views which are not contradictory.

Toynbee's assessment of the role of the Persian language is worth quoting in more detail[1]:

“ In the Iranic world, before it began to succumb to the process of Westernization, the New Persian language, which had been fashioned into lit¬erary 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 cul¬tural 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 polit¬ical 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 orig¬inal 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. ”

--alidoostzadeh 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

question

One question, wasnt Sheikh Safi al-Din also Persian?Azerbaijani 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He was actually Kurdish but many dialects of Kurdish like Kermanshahi are mutually inteligble to Persian. Amazingly we have manuscripts of Safwat As-Safa before the Safavids (thanks to Togan) and the clear distortions of these manuscripts were made to hide the Shaykhs ancestry and later on Safavids tried to make claims like the Shaykh was Seyyed, Persian (through Sassanid heritage made for shi'ism) and perhaps even Turkish for their ghezelbash followers. Thus twice the word Kurd was removed from these manuscripts which in my opinion is clear 100% evidence. The Shaykh himself was a Shafi'ite like 80%+ of Kurds and virtually all Sunni Kurds today. Virtually all Sunni Turkish speakers have been Hanafite since their conversion to Islam. Khorasani Iranians were mainly Hanafi also and that is why Pakistan and Afghanistan and Tajikistan are also all Hanafi. Imam Abu Hanifa himself was actually Iranian. Another clear 100% evidence that the Shaykh was Kurdish is that there no record of Turks converting to Shafi'ism. Indeed Sunni Turks and Hanafism went hand in hand. [2]

I watered that this information on this article for the sake of compromise, but in the long run all the scholarly sources 10-20 years from now will have this information anyway and it is not information that can be hidden since texts of these ancient manuscripts of Safwat As-Safa are available.. And two contemporary sources Safwat As-Safa and the history of Hamdullah Mustawafi is what we have of the Shaykh. Some informations just take longer to digest in the scholarly world although already consensus by Safavid historians has been reached with this regard and the Shaykhs Sunnism is now a given. But I do think some scholars have overlooked the mutual relatioshhip between Shaf'ite and Kurds and how these two factors really complement each other strongly. That is both factors help prove that the Shaykh was Shafi'ite and a Kurd. Thus the male line of Safavid's is not Turkic and goes directly down to Pirouz Shah Zarin Kolah which is purely Iranic name: Piruz(victor)+Shah(King)+Zarin(golden)+Kolah(hat). But they were Turkified in speech later on much like most Azerbaijanis who genetically do not share genetic patterns with Yakuts[3]. Actually the Oghuz Turks according to Kashghari were Persianized and used a lot of Persian words and had mixed with Persians. So this phenomenon of turkification is probably pre-Islamic and started with Soghdians. Anyways let me know you opinion on the current article. --alidoostzadeh 03:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

attempts at a new consensus

Guys I archived the past discussion. Too many things were being put not related to the Safavids. About the current version looks like Mr. Vakilian and Atabek agree. I personally do not think it is too bad, and I have no problem with the current version. I am not going to give my opinion on behalf of other users so if anyone has a problem with the current version and disagrees with, please state it. --alidoostzadeh 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who agree with the current version: Vakilian, Atabek, Grandmaster, Ali Doostzadeh. I would like to hear comments from other users in hopefully finishing this dispute (Pejman, Mardavich, Tajik, Azerbaijani, Kiumars) --alidoostzadeh 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, the article in its current shape (full of English and other mistakes!) should not be presented even for voting. It really needs a good re-write which can open the door to more arguments. Let’s get it close to a presentable level first otherwise we will end up arguing about changing an “a” to a “the”! We are not in a hurry, are we? Kiumars 19:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the grammer can be fixed. It is the content that we need to agree upon first. If you see any grammatical mistakes feel free to fix it. But right now I need more comments from other users if they agree with the content of the article? --alidoostzadeh 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should ask some neutral native English speaker to help us with the language. Also, what's up with removal of the word Turkic throughout the article? Can anyone provide reasons for this Turkophobia? And what's the point in a statement that Ismail was an Iranian Azeri? There's no such ethnicity, and back in the day all Azeris were Iranian by nationality. Let's stick to the wording we agreed on, or at least observe neutrality. Grandmaster 11:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the word Turkic speaker or Azeri speaker is correct. I thought that was what we agreed upon in the introduction of SA. Vakillian? I have re-added that section. --alidoostzadeh 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixes

I fixed a few English mistakes and I think the followings need to be addressed too.

• The opening paragraph: Safavids (1501-1722); according to the list of the Safavids kings the dynasty lasted till 1760 (Ismail III), it was the empire that ended in 1722-1736! (See the Safavid Shahs of Iran).This discrepancy needs to be explained/sorted.
• Local States:
• 1. “There were too many local states in Iran” is bad English, consider changing to “many” or “numerous”, etc.
• 2. 1500 change to 1500CE. In its current format it can be confused for the number of the rulers on the first read.
• Founder of …
• 1. “His advent to power was due to Turkman tribes”; bad English, consider changing to “was with the support of the …”or “due to the support/help/etc of the Turkman tribes of ..”, etc.
• Beginning!
• 1. (Ottoman Turkish for "red heads" due to their red headgear), this is already mentioned in the section above it. Delete one.
• 2. Safavid's power in Iran was based on the military power of Qizilbash Turkic tribes. It was initially but not thru the dynasty!

I stopped at this point in the article, I will continue later this weekend maybe. Kiumars 05:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiumars, Qizilbash were the major political force in Safavid state, at least till the reign of Shah Abbas I. Initially, their impact on Safavid state was the same as that of janissaries in Ottoman Turkey. But increasingly they integrated with bureacracy when appointed as governors of several provinces. There was no other military power than Qizilbash in Safavid state until the reign of Shah Abbas. Also saying Qizilbash stands for Ottoman Turkish is not quite precise, as Qizilbash means the same in any Oghuz Turkic language, not just in Ottoman Turkish. Regarding Turkman/Turkoman/Turcoman, I would suggest using the spelling (whatever it is) used by major experts such as, in this case, Savory, Frye or Minorsky. Atabek 07:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote the lead. 1. The article is about Safavid dynasty, therefore it should say: Safavid dynasty were... etc. No need to mention Islamic conquest twice. Savory quote is out of place. If it is there to prove that Safavids were ethnic Iranian, we can add quotes stating otherwise for balance. I think the article clealy explains ethnic background of Ismail. Please share your opnions. Grandmaster 12:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version is still POV. It's kind of funny that the same people who always explain that the Safavids had "no ethnic identity" persist on mentioning the Turkic language in the first sentence of the article. At the same time, they close their eyes and pruposely reject the fact that - despite their Turkic language (let's not mention the other fact that the Safavids were bi- and multi-lingual, some of them having a Turcoman mother, others having a Georgian or a Persian mother), the Safavids did have a clear Iranian identity. This is mentioned in Iranica and EI, and there are other sources that mention this. John R. Perry, Proferssor of Persian literature and language, in comment on Roger Savory's "Iran under the Safavids" (Cambridge University Press; one of the standard primary references on Safavid history), explains in the "International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 300-302":

• "... The background of the tripod basis of Safavid power - the pre-Islamic kingly glory (farr), Imāmī Shi'ite eschatology, and Sufi spiritual mastery - is skillfully sketched. ..."

This point is more important than any language spoken by the Safavids. Safavid power, and their claim on the throne of Iran was based on this: their Iranian identity, and their belief to be the reincarnation of the epic kings of the past. Unlike the previous Turkic and Mongol rulers, the Safavids identified themselvs with Iran and with Iran's Persian identity. One of the first things Shah Ismail did after defeating the Shaybanids was to ask a famous poet in Jām to write an Shahnama-like epic about his victories and his newly established dynasty. Shah Tahmasp patronized the creation of a Shahnama that - until today - is considered the greatest of all. At certain points, more than 10 different artists, including Behzad, were working on it (see the detailed information in Encyclopaedia of Islam). How can you deny all of that? Tājik 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No one denies anything. It is there: "reasserted Iranian political Identity". I don't think they identified themselves with Persian identity, why then would they personally write Turkic poetry? Is writing Turkic poetry part of Persian identity? I think the role of each language should be objectively reflected in the article. Grandmaster 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ottoman sultans wrote poetry in Persian. Does that mean that the Ottomans did not identify themselvs with their Oghuz Turkic heritage?!

• "... These Ottoman sultans received a good education during their youth, in which they learned Arabic as a scientific language and Persian as the perfect language for literary expression. As a result many of the subsequent Ottoman sultans, too, showed an interest in Persian literature and even wrote Persian poems themselves. Prince Cem Sultan (Jam Soltān) (d. 1495), Selim I, Süleyman (Solaymān) I the Magnificent (r. 1520-66), Prince Bayezid (d. 1562), and Murād III (r. 1574-95) wrote Persian poetry, collected in divāns (poetry collections), which have survived to the present day (Aydén, pp. 45-56). ..." Iranica

It's a well-known fact that the Ottomans, despite being a highly Persianized family, were still very Turkic in identity. Some of the Safavids may have written poems in Azeri Turkish (others, such as Tahmasp Mirzā and Sām Mirzā, wrote in Persian!), but the ethnical identity of the dynasty was clearly Persian. They believed in the Aryan concept of farr, totally unique if compared to previous ruling houses. This is exactly what Minorsky means when he says that "the language of the Safavids was not their race". They were clearly Persian and Iranian in identity - even more than the Seljuqs. "Reasserted Iranian political Identity" is quite not the truth. The Safavids were identified with Persianness and Persian identity by their nighbours, to an extent that the surrounding Sunni empires even tried to abandon the Persian language because they identified it with the Shia Islam of the Safavids:

• "... 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

All of this is pruposely being ignored in the article, and that's why it is POV! Tājik 14:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Persian identity is POV, not supported by most sources. They were a religious group, not nationalistic. Their claims on Sasanian descent were politically motivated and were aimed to establish legitimacy for their reign, but had nothing to do with ethnic identity. They did not care about that, they were promoting Shia branch of Islam as a base for unification of people of Iran, using force at times. I think Mr. Sa.vakilian was making a good effort in building consensus. But then certain users undid almost all of his edits. We can apply for dispute resolution if we are unable to resolve our differences. Grandmaster 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the "Safavids were Turkic-speaking" is POV, because the Safavid family (and the many women of the royal harem) was much larger than just the rulers. Writing poetry does not define language and identity. If that were the case, then the Ottomans would have been "ethnic Persians and Persian-speakers": Yet, noone claims such a nonsense in the Ottoman page. This article, however, is constantly under POV attack. The Encyclopaedia of Islam wrote a 55-pages-long article about the Safavids, and in no place does it claim that "Safavids were Turkic-speaking". In here, people desperately want to push for this POV. If you are not happy with the words "Persian identity", then also keep out the POV about the Turkish language! Tājik 14:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we know the Safavid's were bilingual or perhaps tri-lingual (if we count Arabic). It is safe to say they spoke more Turkic in the begining of their dynasty and more Persian in the end. Or perhaps to say Azeri-Turkish was a prominent language in their courts but Persian was the predominant culture language of their empire (just judging by the overhwleming amount of manuscripts written in Persian relative to Turkish from that era.) Specially Esfahan was and is a predominant Persian speaking city. But they definitely knew different languages. Their ethnic background at least from the time of Esmail I was mixed as reflected by the article currently. By the way Savory mentions an interesting paragraph: Why is there a such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty , which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties? The reason is that the Safavids, having been brought to power by the dynamic force of a certain ideology, deliberately set out to obliterate any evidence of their own origins which would weaken the thrustof this ideology and call in question the premises on which it was based on. Also Safavids primary identity was Shi'i Islam (which is part of national identity), they were also supporting Shahnameh all over and that shows pre-Islamic Persian nationality being supported as well. But what is interesting from this quote in Savory is that had the Safavid's population access to the oldest extant manuscripts and knew Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili was a Sunni, Shafi'ite and Kurds (who were fighting mainly for the Ottomon sides), the dynasty would have suffered problems of legitimacy. I think we need to mention this fact that the Safavid's tried to obliterate their origin. And then they tried make up new ones (Seyyed, Persian Sassanid, Turkomen) and etc to shore up their legitimacy amongst shi'ites, Iranian Persians and the Ghezelbash. Thus any book written during Safavid era or any post-Safavid manuscript of Safwat As-Safa which claims the Shaykh was a Shi'i is unreliable from every aspect. At least we should mention their deliberate attempt at obliterate their own origin for a sake of legitimacy and this is clear from the distortions in safwat As-Safa. --alidoostzadeh 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I say: just leave this language debate out of the intro. Present the major aspects of the dynasty:

• extreme heterodox Shiism
• Tassawuf mysticism
• a kind of Iranian nationalism, reviving the epic past and identity of the region.

This is according to J. Perry (and R. Savory) the tripod basis of Safavid power, NOT the languages they spoke.

Everything else should be explained in detail in the article, but NOT in the intro:

Shah Ismail was of mixed Aq Qoyunlu-Turcoman, Pontik Greek, Tat-Persian, and Kurdish origin. His kingdom was dominated by two rival groups: the Turcoman military, the back-bone of Safavid power, and the influential Persian bureaucrats and religious authorities, the back-bone of the Safavid da'wa and religious propaganda. For decades, the Turcoman Khans controled the fate of the kingdom. They even chose the kings, as it was in the case of Muhammad Khudabanda: actually, Tahmasp's son Haydar was appointed by his father to become the next Shah. But since Haydar had a Georgian mother and was only supported by the Ustajlu, the Kizilbash put him to death and appointed his brother Khudabanda (born to a minor Turcoman noble) Shah. All of this suddenly ended with the reign of Abbas the Great, himself son of a Turcoman mother: he ended the suprimacy of the Turcomans, moved his capital from Turcoman-dominated Qazvin to the Persian city of Isfahan, appointed Armenians, Georgians, Jews, and Persians to high positions within the government, and changed the Turco-Persian face of the Safavid kingdom into a multi-ethnical and multi-cultural empire. The Safavids patronized Persian high culture and - to a lesser degree - Azerbaijani-Turkic and Armenian art and literature. They attracted Arab saints and ulema, while - due to growing orthodox tendencies within the ruling clan - many Persian artists left Iran for India.

The Turkic poems of the Shahs, the Persian poems of the Shahs and princes, and the art-work of Tahmasp should be mentioned in the culture-section. However, it is totally POV to claim that the Safavids - a multi-ethnical and multi-lingual family - were "Turkic-speaking". Tājik 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, before claiming:

The Safavids patronized Persian high culture and - to a lesser degree - Azerbaijani-Turkic and Armenian art and literature

Will be so kind to provide samples or references to Armenian art and literature which Safavid promoted. Also please, provide references to justify the fact that Safavids patronized Azerbaijani-Turkic culture to lesser extent than Persian high culture, and why is Persian is indicated with the word "high" anyway. Does not it sound a bit racist, when you claim that one ethnic group has high culture? Majority of modern Europeans are on average better educated and can better promote their culture than modern Iranians, this does not imply that Europeans have "high" culture. Atabek 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek 07:51, 19 February 2007; I was not denying the importance of the Qizilbash, what I said was that they lost their military value later in 1590s as the article mentions it later. So the sentense “Safavid's power in Iran was based on the military power of Qizilbash Turkic tribes” needs to be qualified and show that the importance was not throughout the dynasty. Shall we use your own explanations and change the article to “Qizilbash were the main military force of the Safavid's from the beginning until 1590s when Shah Abbas set up a modern army in Iran following repeated defeats to the Ottomans and Uzbeks and losing Georgia, Armania, Mashahd and Sistan.”? The article already says this further down. Kiumars 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Atabek: the term "Persian high culture" is used in Encyclopaedia Iranica and in Encyclopaedia of Islam. That is because the Persian culture was regarded as the highest level of human civilization for many centuries. Until the fall of the Ottomans, the Persian kings of the past remained the model for almost all Islamic kingdoms, and Persian scientists and scholars greatly influenced the entire Islamic world. See the reference I gave above: it clearly says that "Persian was the language of high culture".

As for the Safavid culture and the Shahs patronizing Persian high culture: give me your E-Mail address and I will send you the entire Safavid article from Encyclopaedia of Islam. Persian language and Persian culture were the standard and the model for all other surrounding culture. The vast majority of books were written in Persian. Only the Mughals of India created more Persian books than the Safavids. As for modern Europeans: yes, they DO have a high culture. That'S the reason why you and me communicate in the language of European high culture (=English), why we dress like Europeans and Americans, and why almost everyone in the world tries to be like the Westerners. They western societies dominate all aspects of life, from simple life-style to military and science. 500 years ago, the Persian language had the same position accross all of Western- and Central Asia and India. This is a known fact. Tājik 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik can you please e-mail the whole article from Encyclopedia of Islam. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand Ismail killed his mother, does anyone know when and why? Kiumars 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Safavids being Turkic speakers is verifiable info. Iranica says so:

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. [4]

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. [5]

The Azeri-speaking rulers of the 16th century were Safavids, as we know. Both early and late Safavids were Turkic-speakers, according to the sources. Turkic language was spoken at the court of later Safavid rulers, as attested by Olearius. As for the poetry, both Ottoman and Safavid rulers were Turkic speakers, but Safavids had more Turkic identity, as it was noted by Lewis:

It is ironic that in the increasingly angry correspondence between the two monarchs that preceded the outbreak of hostilities, the sultan wrote to the shah in Persian, the language of urban, cultivated gentlemen, while the Shah wrote to the Sultan in Turkish - the language of his rural and tribal origins.

Bernard Lewis. The Middle East. ISBN: 0684832801

Indeed, why would one write in the language that was not established as a cultural one at that time, especially if he had a chance to respond in Persian, since the letter of Turkish sultan was in Persian? The answer is simple: Ismail felt more comfortable writing in Turkish, which was his primary language. But I see that we are going round in circles. This article has been a source of dispute for more than 2 years now, why don’t we put an end to it once and for all? Why don’t we apply for official mediation? Let’s get knowledgeable and neutral third party users involved, present all the sources and quotes and see what they propose. But the results of mediation should be binding for everyone. Grandmaster 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ali that the attempts of Safavids to conceal their origin should be mentioned in the article. Grandmaster 12:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now judging Turkic vs Persian language, I would say that Turkic was more a domestic language, which they used at their court, while Persian was more an official language, which was used in administration. Safavids patronized both Persian and Azeri culture, so both languages could be considered cultural, considering that they wrote Azeri poetry, but greatly supported Persian literature and cultural traditions. Grandmaster 12:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Grandmaster: the problem with you is that you only pick the information from Iranica that you like while you totally reject others that you do not like. Iranica, for example (as well as the Encyclopaedia of Islam and other sources) state that the Safavids were the first native Iranian dynasty to unite Iran after the Arab invasion. You reject this (although this information is given in the main articles) and claim that "Zands wer ethe first native Iranian dynasty" (which is totally wrong anyway, because even if the Safavids were not native Iranians, the Afghan Hotakis were "native Iranians" and they ruled before the Zand dynasty).

Ismail's letters to the Ottoman sultan do not mean anything, and claiming that "he was more comfortable with Turkic" is pure speculation, keeping in mind that Ismail's letters to Babur were in Persian and not in any Turkic language. Using Azeri Turkish in his letters (those letters were rather poems) could have had - and probably did have - another purpose. It's also interesting the Ottoman sultan wrote his letters in Persian and not in Turkish. Now, following your logic, does that mean that the Ottoman sultan was "more comfortable with persian than with Ottoman Turkish"?! I do not think so. Ismail's letters to the sultan were pure provocation. He wrote in the language of the Aq Qoyunlu who had been defeated by the Ottomans a few decades earlier. The former Aq Qoyunlu tribes of Anatolia were now known as "Qizilbash" ... so, using their lanbguage was rather a political move. Ismail wrote poetry in Persian and he claimed to be a descendant of the Sassanians. I do not think that he "felt uncomfortable" with Persian.

Back to the toppic: either we mention ALL information and ALL infos - no matter if YOU like it or not - or we do not mention any. The question of language has NO IMPORTANCE and should NOT be mentioned in the intro. It neither had ANY effect on the dynasty nor on Iran's history. What DOES matter was the extreme ghulat Shi'ism of the dynasty that managed to convert entire Iran to Shi'ism, and the re-establishment of the "farr" - the pre-Islamic kingly glory - that revived the ancient tradition of Iranian monarchy which lasted until the Islamic revolution. Tājik 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, you're going in circles around a deadlock point, suggesting the same again: to use some Iranica references and not others. Again, Ismail not only wrote to Ottoman Sultan in Azeri Turkic, he also wrote his poetry in this language. People write poetry in a certain language under two circumstances: 1) ask/demanded/paid by someone to do so; 2) consider it their own tongue and feel comfortable expressing their thoughts in it. Obviously, Ismail wasn't the first case, so he was clearly the second. If he didn't feel that Azeri Turkic was his mother tongue, how could he be comfortable writing in it by his own choice? And don't you think that given the fact that Persian was lingua franca in Anatolia and Azerbaijan, and the fact that Qizilbash were largely anti-Ottoman, why would their leader use Turkic language, and not say Arabic to which Safavis claimed their ancestry? It's clear that Ismail wanted to establish new, unique identity, that is Azeri-Turkic speaking, Shiite dynasty, which was cohesively directed against Ottomans and Uzbeks.

There is nothing that makes Safavis a "native Iranian" dynasty in racial (read, Persian) sense as you always imply. Most of Ismail's ancestry comes from Caucasus, Azerbaijan and Eastern Anatolia, which had very little to do with Persians (Fars) people. So the reference to native Iranian is absolutely void, as the very definition of native Iranian changed over time and it's not the same today as it was in times of Safavis. Atabek 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek is absolutely right, and also, Iranica clearly says that Zands were first ethnic Iranian dynasty, and Afgan rulers don’t count, as they were not legitimate rulers of Iran. Btw, David Morgan says the same thing as Iranica about Zands. Grandmaster 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And Ismail was not the only one -- I will start posting the scanned faximilled of letters in Azerbaijani by various Safavid shahs today. --AdilBaguirov 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Grandmaster: your claims are nothing but assuptions. You were given scholarly sources explaining that a) Islamil not only wrote in Azeri but also in Persian b) that his language was not his race (Minorsky!) c) that he regarded himself as the reincarnation of the ancient Iranian epic kings (in total contrast to previous Arab, Turkic, and Mongol rulers). Yet, you reject all of these sources (some of them written by the leading expert on Safavid history, Roger M. Savory) and base all of your assumptions on his remaining Azeri poetry and his Turcoman soldiers. According to your logic, the Ottomans were "ethnic Persians" because they promoted Persian language, wrote their letters to Ismail in Persian, and wrote Persian poetry themselvs. Does this sound logical to you? Your claim that "Ismail wanted to create a unique Shiite Azeri-Turkic identity" is pure POV and has no support in any reliable or scholarly article, wherelse the most authoritative sources (Minorsky and Savory!) agree that he wanted to create a unique Persian (!) Shiite identity. All of the sources are given above! I should you even a direct quote from Iranica which explains that the shift toward favouring Turkic languages in Anatolia and Asia was mostly due to the establishment of Safavid Shiism in Persia, and the fact, that the Persian language was from now on identified with Safavid Shiism - one of the most important reasons for the Ottoman and Timurid sultans to promote Turkic languages (as the "languages of Sunniism") in contrast to the Persian identity of the Safavids ("Persian Shia"). And your comment on the Afghan rulers is pure POV. Who are you to tell whether Afghans were legitimate rulers or not?! They openly challenged the Safavids, defeated them, ended their dynasty, established a short-lived dynasty of their own centered in Isfahan, faught the Ottomans, and were finally removed by another dynasty. I do not accept your POV version, and it's really a shame that this article is so messed up. I do not think that there can be any consensus as long as the Turkish fraction persists on contradicting Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica, and only focuses on the Turkish language of Ismail's poetry, totally ignoring the message of his poetry, the strong Persian nationalist symbolism of his poetry, and the revival of the forgotten tradition of Iranian monarchy - the farr. As I have already said: either we mention BOTH the Turkic language AND the Persian identity of the dynasty, or we leave both of them out of the article. The current article is a laughable joke compared to the excellent article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (which is the standard refernce work of oriental studies) - and this is due to the Turkish POV forced on the article. Tājik 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: here is the quote of Vladimir Minorsky:

• "... 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

Tājik 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah, everyone saw this quote, but then then "one of his grandfathers was Uzun Hasan, a Turcoman emperor" (attribute this quote to me). Also, if the blood in his veins was chiefly non-Turkish, it was certainly not Persian, Afghan or Tajik either, and how much exactly of Tati, Talysh or Kurdish blood was there is also not well established -- in any case, it was not much in Ismail. As of his son getting rid of "Turcoman praetorians", that's not a valid argument -- first, it was really Shah Abbas who really undertook that process, and secondly, it doesn't testify to unTurkishness, rather, it's simple to explain as power struggle, and frankly, after the bad advice Qizilbash's given to Ismail in 1514, any other fully Turkic person would have done the same -- cleansed his ranks of the "old-timers". --AdilBaguirov 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Adil. He was of mixed origin, and he was not more or less Persian, Balouch, German, Italian, Kurd, etc as he was Turcoman. So why should we leave out his other origins and only focus on the highly controversial claim that "he was Turk"?! Only because of his poetry?! If that were the case, then we would have to update the Ottoman dynasty article, claiming that the ottomans were "ethnic Persians", only because their Sultans wrote poetry in Persian and favoured Persian over other languages. Tājik 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The site does not claim that he was of purely Turkic ancestry, it says that Shah Ismail had Azeri Turkic, Pontic Greek and Kurdish origins. Those three are established based on research presented on this talk page, i.e. Ismail's ascendance to Akkoyunlu Turkomans, Ismail's mother being half-Pontic Greek, and Ismail's ancestor Sheykh Safi having Kurdish origins as claimed by Savory. There is nothing Persian (or Afghan or Tajik for that matter) established in Ismail's genetic origin or supported by any scholar.

Now, if you argue about Turkic-speaking part, that's linguistic origin, which was clearly Turkic, because Ismail used this language in official correspondence, state affairs, and poetry. You have not provided poetry of Ismail in other languages to the same extent and amount as in Turkic. If you have those, please, provide them for further discussion. In absence of facts telling the opposite, Ismail chiefly used the Turkic language, hence he was Turkic-speaking regardless of his genetic makeup. We agreed on this earlier with Ali as well, and this is not something that is disputed by any of the cited scholars. Atabek 21:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, this article is not about Islamil, it's about the entire Safavid dynatsy. And that dynasty DID have other genetic origins, including Georgian, Armenian, Persian, and even Afghan and other Turkic traces. Ismail's grandmother was a Pontic Greek princess who claimed descent from the German king Charlesmagne. Safi ud-Din Ardabeli wrote poetry in Old-Azari and in Persian, but not in Kurdish or Turkish.

Your claims about what you call linguistic origin is pure speculation, because we do not know his mother-tongue. As Ali has pointed out, his mother-tongue could have been Greek and not Turkish or Persian. The ammount of poetry does not define ethnicity or language. Bayram Khan, the Qara Qoyunlu-Qizilbash advisor of the Mughal Shah Akbar, wrote most of his poetry in Persian, while only 1/3 of his poetry is in Azeri. Should we now assume that Bayram Khan - known as Bayram-e Turkaman ("Bayram the Turkmen") - was not a Turcoman but a Persian?!

We should not underestimate the importance of Minorsky's statement. Shah's Ismail's language may have been Turkish (to be correct: the language of most of his poetry), but his ethnic origin and his ethnic identity was certainly non-Turkish. Like almost all Azeris, the Safavids, too, were of Iranian origin. They had adopted the Turkish language because of the Turkification processes that took place in the area. But they never lost their original Iranian identity that distinguished them from the Ottoman Turks, or from the Turcoman tribal confederations of the Caucasus.

Except for a few exceptional situations, the Turkish language had no importzance in the developement of Safavid identity. As pointed out by J. Perry and R. Savory (and I say it again: Savory is an authority on the subject! Even if certain people do not want to believe this!), the base of Safavid identity and power were:

• extreme Shiism
• Sufi mysticism AND
• Persian nationalism (reviving the forgotten tradition of Iranian monarchy, in contrast to 800 years of Arab, Mongol, and Turkic rule in Persia)

These three elements were the base of Safavid sucess in Iran. This is exactly why Ismail compared himself to Rustam and Fereydoon, and why he claimed descent from the Sassanians (in contrast to his Turkic and Mongol neighbours who claimed descent from "Turanian heroes").

The Qizilbash movement itself is a continuation of an ancient Iranian cult. Even though at the time of the Safavids the Qizilbash were predominantly Turkish-speakers, the root of the movement was definitely Iranic. And, as pointed out by the great Turkish scholar A. Gölpinarli, the Turcoman Qizilbash were "spiritual descendants" of the previous Iranian movements - all of them centered in Azerbaijan, all of them strictly linked to Persian kingly glory and nationalism, from Mazdak to Babak to Ismail I.

I have no problems with mentioning Ismail's cultural importance for the developement of Azeri-Turkish literature. But this should NOT be mentioned in the intro, because the Turkish language was not as important as some in here claim, and it was not part of Safavid identity. The rivival of ancient Iranian cults, the rivival of the forgotten Iranian monarchy, and the revival of Persian identity under the banner of Shia Islam WAS important and marked the beginning of modern Iran. Tājik 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Tajik, the current page does not say Ismail or Safavis were Turks (although Frye said exactly so). It says that they were Turkic-speaking, which is a statement of a fact supported by many scholars. Since Ismail's mother, Halima Begum, was the daughter of Akkoyunlu Uzun Hassan, a Turkoman leader, it's not hard to assume which language she spoke. Or do you think the daughter of Turkoman king father and Greek princess mother, spoke only Greek as her main language. Such claim does not have any scholarly or even logistical basis. Moreover, Ismail did not write a single word in Greek, how can you claim his mother tongue being Greek from half-Turkic woman?

Your edit saying they were of "Iranian" origin is unacceptable, simply for the fact that majority of Qizilbash were not "Iranian" but "Anatolian" origin. Safavids originated from Ardabil and mixed with Turkomans and Greeks, who are obviously NOT Iranian. So yes, he did create Iranian empire and reasserted Iranian identity, with that I fully agree. But he was not of full Iranian origin, this is plain false. Atabek 00:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Frye indeed says that Safavids were "Azeri Turks". But he also makes clear in the very same sentence that "Azeri Turks" are not Turks by ethnicity, but Turkic-speakers of ethnic Iranian origin.

You also confuse the Safavid dynasty with their Qizilbash subjects. The vast majority of the Qizilbash were ethnic Turks, but this does not automatically turn the Safavid family into Turks.

Besides that, I did not claim that "Ismail was of fully Iranian origin". If you check the history, my recent proposal made it totally clear that Ismail was of "Turkic, Iranic, and Pontic Greek origin". I even mentioned the "obscure, but possible Kurdish origin" of Safi al-Din, and the Aq-Qoyunlu origin of his mother.

I asked you not to revert the new suggestion for at least 1 day, but you promply reverted it, refusing my proposal and - kind of - insulting me on purpose. That way, I do not see any way to reach a compromise, since you do not seem to be able to accept any other version except for your own POV. Tājik 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Azeris are not of "ethnic Iranian origin" as the very definition of "ethnic origin" is tied to genetical and linguistic makeup. If you acknowledge the fact that Turkic tribes infiltrated the region and mixed heavily with locals in Azerbaijan, inhabitants today cannot be of "Iranian origin", period. They're mixed. And Azeris cannot be claimed simply as "ethnic Iranians" also because there's no such ethnic defitinion, there are ethnic definitions of Kurdish, Persians, Tats, Talysh, etc. based on linguistic particulars.

Also, asking without a response is not sufficient Tajik. The consensus means, we agree here, then update, exactly as was done earlier with Ali Doostzadeh and Sa.vakilian, both of which made balanced and reasonable edits.Atabek 01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are by far the biggest hypocrite on the talk page, Atabek. When Richard Frye (who is not even an expert on Safavid history) says that "Azeri Turks founded the Safavid dynasty", you blindly jump on it and defend it as gospel. But when he explains in the very same paragraph (in fact, only one sentense before) that "Azeri Turks" are native Iranians who adopted a Turkic language, you suddenly reject it and come up with your own talk. Why this hypocracy?! Either accept the entire source or reject all of it! Period!

Besides that, you do not owe Wikipedia. You were the one who started this edit-war, and you changed the article without analyzing the previous discussions and without starting a new discussion: [6][7].

You proved your hypocracy even with the source you added to the text. You simply cut it two and left out the part you did not like: "Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty." Purposely leaving out the beginning of the paragraph, which says: "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region." In your hypocracy and aims to present the Safavids as "ethnic Turks", you even go as far as to claim that "Afghans were not native to Iran, because they were no legitimate rulers"?! What has the legitimacy to rule to do with one's ethnic background? The very same source you tried to abuse for your own purposes (the Iranic article "People of Iran" written by Richard Frye) considers the Afghans (as well as the population of Central Asia) as part of the "population of Iran". Tājik 14:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, first of all I would suggest you to refrain from personal attacks such as saying "you're the biggest hypocrite", you have been warned now. Secondly, I am totally in support of Azeri Turkic quote of Frye being fully mentioned now, since you keep editing the page and removing the words Turkic from everywhere. Minorsky also says the language was Azerbaijani Turkish. So just try to take it with some patience. You seem to be the only one, who is unable to come into terms of agreement and consensus, so I will have to request independent arbitration of this page, as this is definitely going to be endless. If three serioius Iranists say language was Azeri Turkic or Turkic, there is no basis or ground for you to remove them. Atabek 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hypocrite" is not a personal attack, that's why I "wikified" the word. The term is the best description for what you are doing in here. I asked you twice not to start an edit war and to leave the text at least for 24h so that others can read and analyze my suggestions. For some reason, you somehow believe to own this article and revert my changes within 2-5 minutes! This is not really a constructive way and will not lead to any improvements. That's why I have posted my suggestion in here (something you have never done and would never do so). As for Frye: he clearly says the Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan are descendants of the Iranian population of the region. Minorsky (who wrote the main article "Azerbaijanis" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam) says the same. He even goes further and explains his statement:

• "... [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. ..."

So please stop pretending, and please stop preventing other users from contributing to the article! There are serious scholars who say that the population of Azerbaijan is non-Turkish in origin, and that the Safavids were a native Iranian dynasty. Why do you reject their works while you ask others to blindly accept your POV?! One thing is for sure: you are totally incapable of properly discussing certain issues and to work for a consensus. Tājik 16:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ardabil, Iran

The city is in Iran. Its not right to say Iranian Azerbaijan, because firstly, its a vast region (not even a single province at the moment) and since when have you ever heard a city being distinguished by its region? I've never heard anyone say Los Angeles (USA California). This is really getting ridiculous. Again, you are blowing something very small and inconsequential into an edit war. Ardabil is in Iran, simple as that.Azerbaijani 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, stop editing the page without agreement. You're truely trying to waste an effort of everyone on this talk page without any respect or consideration to time people on both sides contribute to discussion. Your definition of Ardabil outside historical Iranian Azerbaijan has no historical ground neither in Iranian nor in Azerbaijani historiography. It's simple to mention the fact that Safavid of Ardabil, first proclaimed himself a Shah of Azerbaijan. Atabek 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said Ardabil was outside of Iranian Azerbaijan. Atabek, your really dont read other people's psots before you comment, I can tell...Re-read what I said.Azerbaijani 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since User:Atabek constantly reverts other Wikipedian's edits and constantly starts new edit wars, I will present my suggestion in the talk page. Please read it and explain what you like and what you do not like. I wanted to put this version for at least 24h on the main page, asking other users to read the text and to think about it. Unfortunately, Atabeks automatically reverts all changes, claiming that he is acting on the behalf of ali_doostzadeh and others. I am not interested in edit wars like Atabek, so please read the text in here and discuss it. Tājik 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

User:Tajik's version

[Intro]

The Safavids were a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 to 1722. They originated in Iranian Azerbaijan and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires since the 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.

[Background]

[Origins]

Main article: Safi al-Din

The Safavid dynasty had its origins in a long established Sufi order, called the Safaviyeh, which flourished in Iranian Azerbaijan and Anatolia since the early 14th century. Its founder was the Sufi saint Safi Al-Din of Ardabil (1252-1334), a man of obscure but possible Kurdish and/or Persian origin. Originally, the Safaviyeh was a spiritual response to the upheavals and unrest in northwest Iran/eastern Anatolia in the decades following the 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: Ismail I

The Safavid ruling dynasty was founded by Shah Ismā'il I. Azerbaijani in origin, he was of mixed Turkic, Iranic, and Pontik Greek heritage 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.

His rise to power was predominantly due to massive support from the powerful Turkoman tribes of Anatolia and Azerbaijan 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.

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) 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 Yazd

During the 15th century, the Ottoman Empire expanded across Anatolia and centralized control by persecuting Shi'ism, and eventually outlawed it at the turn of the century. In 1501, various disaffected militia from Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia united with the Safaviyeh Sufi order of Ardabil to capture the city from the then ruling 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

---

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)

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)

Re-Listing of evidence that Safavids were Turkic speakers

Tajik, 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)

"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)

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)

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. Atabek 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Noone in here has every claimed that Ismail belonged to the Persian people. He was Iranian in identity - and the identity of the Iranian peoples is immensly influenced by ethnic Persian identity. Besides that, the Kurds, too, are an Iranic people. Safi al-Din wrote his poetry in 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dariush4444

Can someone explain Dariush4444 that he needs to read the talk page, before blindly reverting the page and inserting clearly baseless ethnic POV in there. Atabek 19:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Atabek

If 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)

What a mess!

Guys I give up, you write whatever you like; and change it as you like. Now I understand why no scholar writes here! I asked a couple of them to take a look and contribute and you know what they said? It is too rude to mention here but be my guest to guess it! BTW I am going to Iran in a couple of weeks for the Nurooz, I will be visiting the Kurdish and Azari towns and people you have never seen (but you write so passionately about them!). I will remember you guys when I talk to my Iranian relatives and friends, and I wish you very happy dreams. BTW Qizil means Golden in Azari and Red in Turkish! You are that close or that far in other statements you make, Yashaseen. Kiumars 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Some unreferenced text

Would 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@ 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)

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)

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

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)

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 Shahrbanu. The 4th Imam of Shiism, 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)

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)

Controversial tag

I don't think this article is too bad to put this tag on it. There may some POV parts. Thus I suggest to remove this tag and put POV tag on each section you'd like.--Sa.vakilian 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Discussions

I think it is enough to attach one tag until the issue is resolved. No need for that many. Grandmaster 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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 Iran from 1501 to 1722. They originated in (Iranian) Azerbaijan and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Azeri Turkic speaking family whose classical and cultural language was Persian, 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.

Tājik 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Persian ethnicity is an innovation of the 20th century and did not exist in earlier times. Persianness - the pride in Persian language, Persian history, and Persian culture - is a universial character in the whole of Greater Iran and is not bond to a certain ethnic origin (see: Hazara, Tajiks, Kizilbash, Durranis, Zahir Shah, Mughals, Mughals, Seljuqs, etc). And even if people do not call this pride Persian anymore, it is still the very same thing. In Afghanistan, the government forcefully changed the name of the Persian language to Dari - but it is still the very same thing. Children are still given ancient Persian epic names, people still remember their pre-Islamic history, and they have converted other peoples - especially the Turks and Mongols - to an extent that they do not remember and recognize their pre-Islamic origin and history. Most of the Arabic and Persian writers, scientists, and scholars throughout history were Non-Arabs and non-Persians ... Yet they identified themselvs with one of these 2 unique identities. And when Ismail came to power, he did the same. By the time of Ismail, the Safavid family - originally an Iranian tribe - had become Turkic in language. But the original Iranian identity, the pride in the pre-Islamic past, the pride in the pre-Islamic heroes, and the unique Imami Shia belief (itself a fusion of pre-Islamic Persian nationalism and anti-Ummayyad Arabic politics) was still alive. When Ismail came to power, he called him a "Shahanshah" and not "Khaqan", he considerd himself a reincarnation of "Rustam" and not of "Alp Er Tunga", he was the leader of the "Qizilbash Surkhjamegan" and not of some "Golden Horde". He himself was not a Qizilbash, and he was not a member of any Turkic tribe. He did not claim to be an Aq Qoyunlu, and he did not claim descent from previous Turkic or Mongolian Khans. THIS is Persian identity, even if it is hard for some Sovietized Azeri from the Republic of Azerbaijan to understand. And the language of culture and administration was still Persian. The Shahs may have written poems in Turkic, but the culture of the Safavid Empire was not limitted to the Shahs (which would have been rather a poor culture). The vast majority of writers and scholars at the Safavid court were Persians, the vast majority of religious teachers and authorities were Persians and Arabs. The Safavids created and patronized the most expensive version of the Shahnama while there is not a single copy 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)

Compromise for introduction

I 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

:) 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)

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)

Three versions two based on S.A. Vakilians

Thanks 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)

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

• The Safavids were a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 to 1722. They originated in (Iranian) Azerbaijan and are considered by many as one of the greatest Iranian Empires since the Islamic conquest of Persia. A predominantly Azeri Turkic speaking family whose classical and cultural language was Persian, 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.

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

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. ”

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@ 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 Assassins were Shia, the Abbasid caliph Mamun al-Rashid was pro-Shia, 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. Tājik 10:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me also add that the article on 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)

Identity issues

Perhaps 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)

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)

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)

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

I wasted lots of my time trying to get an agreement on the terms and conditions but some PEOPLE pissed on all they said/agreed and went back to square one! Guys you have agendas and there is no point discussing anything with you! What is the assurance that we will not be at the same point in two years time? Who is running this show and who has the authority to be the single impartial point of contact? Unless we find one, we will be going round and round and round …. Don’t waist your times till we find that person. Kiumars 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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). You are right though that wiki takes up time. --alidoostzadeh 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)