Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 6 February 2007

Iran Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Safavids were Turkic

The official state language of the Safavid Empire was Turkic. The Safavids built Esfahan. They were Azeri Turks. The court language was Turkic. Although anthropologically Azeris are Caucasians and very close to the Persians, their language is different. Countless Genetic tests by WESTERN scientists have proved that Azeris are not the same as Persians. Despite the same linguistic affiliation (belonging to the same family of langauges), Turkic people are spread from Siberia's Yakutia to as far as Europe.

Dispute tag on "Ethnic and Linguistic controversy" section

There is NO controversy regarding the ethnicity of the Safavid dynasty beyond this, and related,[REDACTED] articles. Almost every heavyweight author/middle eastern specialist ive read states as clearly, completely without ambiguity, that they were of Turkish background. All the myriad references, sources and quotes proving this were put up on this talk page months ago when the debate was raging and, having put up major sources which were contested by nothing more than subjective interpretation of ambiguous statemetns from selected sources by Persian POV pushers i washed my hands of the article assuming that a decent state of affairs would naturally come to be - Alas POV and anti-History now permeate this article and atm it stands as an example of how fallible Misplaced Pages can be. siarach 17:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"EI is superior to all other sources"

According to whom? One of the constants in the debates related to this article are the insistence of the pro-Persian faction that their, very limited number and usually taken out of context or subjectively interpreted - the Encyclopedia Iranica was the first pet source to be abused but seems now to have been supplanted by the Encylopedia of Islam, sources are superior to the far greater number of those which explicitly contradict their POV. siarach 00:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Turkish background" by which definition? The article clearly states that from Sheikh Junayd to Shah Ismail, all Safavid Sheikhs had Turcoman mothers. Is that the deffinition of "Turkish background"?! So why then are the Ghaznavids described as a "Turkic dynasty" although starting with Sultan Mahmoud of Ghazna, all Ghaznavid sultans had NON-Turkic mothers (Sultan Mahmoud's mother was a Persian noble from Zaranj)?! Is the language of a dynasty the deffinition for its background?! Then why are the Seljuqs described as "Turkic"?!

Fact is: the origin of the Safavids was EVIDENTLY Non-Turkic, starting with the Tati mystic Sheikh Safi al-Din and his marraige into the Kurdish Gilani clan. THIS is the beginning of the Safavids - both as a family and a mystic brotherhood.

Everything that comes after that has no importance ... The Safavids may had given up their original Iranian dialects in favour of vernacular Oghuz (the language of the Qoyunlu clans), but they have never acted as a "Turkish nationalist movement" (like the Qoyunlu), as a "Turkish kingdom" (like the Ottomans), or as any greater patrons of Turkic language or culture (they did not favour Turkish over Persian).

As for Bernard Lewis: he is not an expert on the Safavids, but an expert on Ottoman history. That's probably the reason why the editors or the Ei asked Prof. R. Savory (THE expert on Safavid history) to write the article about the Safavids, and not him.

Tājik 00:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Need i really point out how utterly preposterous it is to suggest that an academic of Bernard Lewis standing would, either by ignorance or mistake, get something as important as the background, history and ethnicity of one of the most major dynasties in the history of the Middle East wrong? Hiding behind the very lame reasoning that he does not specialise in the Safavids is no excuse - if an incredibly specific, obscure question which only a select few experts in Iran would was what we were debating you might have a case but something as elementary as the ethnicity/background of a major dynasty? No, absolutely not. If the origin of the Safavids was EVIDENTLY non-Turkic then i would expect the MAJORITY of sources to state so rather than the MAJORITY stating that they were Turkic which is the reality. siarach 17:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

B. Lewis says that the Safavids were "Turks" ... that's fine with me. But others, such as R. Frye and R. Savory, do not call them Turks. Now YOU tell me why we should reject the opinion of Frye and Savory and favour that of B. Lewis?!

And do you mean with "majority"?! B. Lewis, and couple of books written by some no-names?! Fact is that the most authoritative work on Islamic history - the Encyclopaedia of Islam - describes them as a native Iranian dynasty from Persian Kurdistan and clearly differenciates them from Turkic, Arab, and Mongol invaders. The Iranian background of Sheikh Safi al-Din is mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Iranica; Sheikh Safi al-Din's Tati poems have linguistic importance in the study of the Ancient Azari language (that means that the Safawaids were already present in Azerbaijan BEFORE the Oghuz dominance).

Tājik 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The shameless way in which you so laughably acclaim any and every source which you abuse to push your POV as "most authoritative" while decrying the huge number which explicitly contradict you as being of no-consequence is really laughable. Incidently the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Islam does state that the Safavids were of Turkic origin, so when you said so emphatically that it did not were you only pretending to have read it or were you lying outright? What sums up the ( sadly justified in this case ) lack of respect accorded Misplaced Pages by genuine academics was the reaction of the SOAS Near and Middle East lecturer, who specialises in Iran, when i told her of the pro-Persian, anti-historical, POV pushing going on on this article ; "Yes, im not surprised that anything on[REDACTED] is subject to abuse by those with some kind of ethnic or political motivation". No matter, if i wasnt busy irl id have compiled the myriad sources and quotes previously put forward stating the turkic basis of the Safavid dynasty and edited the article into a reasonably historically accurate state - i should be free to do so by the end of the week i hope. siarach 10:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to point out that the Encyclopaedia of Islam (which is published in the Netherlands by Brill and has no connection to Cambridge or any institution of the United Kingdom) mentioned by the other editor is not the same as the encyclopedia you're mentioning. I should also state that Misplaced Pages's policy of NPOV explicitly requires that any and all reliable sources be used within an article, and those sources, if reliable and authoritative, cannot be judged by individual editors. Which essentially means that the introduction of this article cannot state that the Safavids were of Turkic (or any) ethnicity. However, the current introduction, which states that they are an "Iranian" ethnicity, is perfectly acceptable. I fail to see what your dispute is or why you have a problem with that, but I would suggest that attacking other editors and using a hostile tone will definitely not get you anywhere. User:Metaspheres 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As well, looking at the section which is in dispute, you are free to add your sources (without removing others, needless to say), though I will say that Bernard Lewis is indeed a controversial one. But you are well within your rights to do so within the limits of NPOV. User:Metaspheres 10:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend a more attentive reading of the situation. For one thing there is no confusion over the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Iran - Tajik made a statement, which was false, about the content of the latter in response to the insertion of a valid reference from that book. I really dont see how you can so clearly contradict yourself by first stating that the article cannot state that the Safavids were "of Turkic (or any) ethnicity" while immediately following with a total endorsement of the current statement which, in the view of the great majority of academic sources, incorrectly puts them forward as being of "native Iranian" ethnicity. So what exactly is your opinion? Is it or is it not acceptable to state the ethnicity of the dynasty ? (quite why it wouldnt be i have no idea). The cause of the dispute - the pushing of incorrect information/pov which flies in the face of acacemic consensus - is quite obvious even to those lacking in any intimate knowledge of the subject.

Misplaced Pages's policy of NPOV explicitly requires that any and all reliable sources be used within an article, and those sources, if reliable and authoritative, cannot be judged by individual editors. Spot on! The cause of the dispute is precisely that one editor has taken it upon themselves to interpret ( bear in mind Misplaced Pages:No original research ) their own limited select group of sources while removing any which contradict their interpretation.

If you had checked the edit history of the article you would be aware of the fact that no, nobody is free to add sources which contradict the views of Tajik as he immediately removes them and replaces them with his own so you would do well to direct any chiding regarding the removal of sources elsewhere. Bernard Lewis is controversial? Oh yes he is viewed as such in certain respects - NONE of which are relevant to this discussion or article. siarach 11:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam on the Safavids

Encyclopaedia 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) ..." (R.M. Savory, EIr, Online Edition, Link)

This quote makes clear that Shah Ismail was neither a Turk, nor an Arab or a Mongol. He is directly compared to the Buyids, the last ethnic Iranian dynasty to rule Persia before the Turkic domination.

As for the origin of the Safavid family, the Encyclopaedia Iranica states (my comments are in ):

• "... Azari lost ground 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, Book 1, p. 240, Link)

If language and preserved poetry are the only definitions of "ethnicity", as some in here claim, then I do not understand why the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs are considered "Turks", although their neither spoke tor supoorted Turkish.

• "... The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish, but the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them. ... Mas'ud I had a good knowledge of Arabic poetry and was a competent Persian chancery stylist (Bosworth, Ghaznavids, pp. 129-30) ... Persianisation of the state apparatus was accompanied by the Persianisation of high culture at the Ghaznavid court. ... The Ghaznavids thus present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianized ..." (C.E. Bosworth, EIr, Online Edition, Link)

R.M. Savory - Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto - writes in another article:

• " ... If one looks at the record of Iranian historians during the same period, the scene is similar: a rather barren landscape relieved by a few lofty peaks. In 1927-8 Ahmad Kasravi led the way with the publication of three seminal articles entitled Nizhad va Tabar-i Safaviyya (`The genealogy of the Safavids'); Safaviyya sayyid nabuda and (`The Safavids were not sayyids'); and Baz ham Safaviyya (`The Safavids again'). Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles, 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. 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, 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", and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i. ..." R.M. Savory

And ths is what the Encyclopaedia of Islam says:

• "... SAFAWIDS , a dynasty which ruled in Persia as sovereigns 907-1135/1501-1722, as fainéants 1142-8/1729-36, and thereafter, existed as pretenders to the throne up to 1186/1773. I. Dynastic, political and military history. The establishment of the Safawid state in 907/1501 by Shāh Ismāīl I (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 ; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khāns. ..." (Savory/Brujin/Newman/Welch/others, EI, Online Edition, PW protected)

Does that need any further explanation?!

I am sure that User:An Siarach disagrees ...

Tājik 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do some Farsi, or even Afghanis try to blur reality so that people think that the Safavid were somehow Persians!!

Sufi al-Din lived more than 150 years before Shah Ismail, and wherever there is anything about the Safavid or Shah Ismail there are loads of Fars, or sometimes non-Fars, who are jumping around saying that the Safavid were Fars (Persians) because there was this guy "Sufi al-Din" who was Persian. Even they say that, well, he wasn't Persian, actually he was Kurdish. Or maybe Luri, or something else, but definitely not Turkic. Well, maybe he wasn't the father of the grandfather of Shah Ismail, but the neighbour, who was not Persian, Kurd, Luri, or even Turkic, but rather Arabic?! Does anybody know this? But we know for sure that Shah Ismail was from Ardebil, he was a Turkic speaking Azerbaijani and his fellow soldiers were MOSTLY the same. His father, mother, and even grand father were most likely to have been Turkic too because simply he was from a Turkic tribe. The important thing is that they spoke Turkic and that was their native tongue and the Safavid kept their native tongue for a very long time even when they had their capital city (fearing the Ottoman Turks) in the center of Persian land Isfahan.

I am an Iranian Azeri and I honestly don't give a damn about the Safavid being Fars, Turk, Kurd or whatever. I think we would have all been better off without bullies and warlords such as Shah Ismail, though his poetry is nice. I admire Shah Ismail for his poetry but I don't give a damn about the Safavid. Historical facts show that the Safavid were Turkic essentially, but no-one is pure, everyone has mixes of other ethnicities or races too. Maybe there are just too many unemployed teenagers around here who have just finished Middle-Eastern manipulative textbooks and have become nationalistic all-the-sudden. I am a bit curious about Afghans editing Iranian history though!!

The facts is that the Turkic Safavid were fighting the Turkic Ottomans because of religion. That is pure stupidity and I have no pride about the Safavid. But distorting historical facts on this website is not good because we are just following the footsteps of our local Middle-Eastern ancestory who did not go by the truth but rather by the rule of bigotry or stupid tribal or nationalistic rivalry.

However I am also proud that so many, even Afghans (such as this Tajik guy) are trying to take pride in OUR (Azerbaijani) personalities ;) Bm79 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have problems to accept scholarly sources, then it's your problem. The reason I am interested in this article (and other Azerbaijani-related articles) is because I am a descendant of the Oghuz Bayat Qezelbashs who were once brought to Afghanistan by Nadir Shah Afshar.

All my changes are based on scholarly sources (as you can see above). The article is about the Safaid dynasty and family, and there is a consensus among scholars that this family was NOT of Turkic descent (as constantly claimed by Turks and Turcophiles), but - most likely - of Iranian Kurdish descent, strongly linked to the Kurdish Sufi-Zahediyah movement as well as Tati-nationalist movements against the Timurids and Il-Khans. What is known for sure is that Safi ud-Din Ardabeli, the origin of the dynasty, wrote poems in Tati and Persian, NOT in Turkish and NOT in Kurdish.

Ismail's father, Seikh Haydar Safavi, was half-Turcoman. He married the daughter of Uzun Hassan, who herself was half-Turcoman and half-Greek.

Noone denies the strong Turkification of the Safavid family (in fact, it is even mentioned in the article!), but claiming that they were "Turks" is most deffinitly wrong, especially in regard of the meaning of the word back then as well as today. The Safavids NEVER acted in the name of Turks in general, nor in the name of the Oghuz (unlike previous rulers, such as the Aq Qoyunlu).

As for the Seljuqs: just like the Safavids and later dynasties, such as the Qajars, the Seljuqs ruled as "kings of Iran". In fact, they even believed (or claimed) to be descendants of the Sassanids and gave their princes Sassanid names, such as Kay Khusrow, Kay Qubadh, or Kay Ka'us. The Qajars - themselvs members of the Oghuz Turcoman tribes of the Caucasus - continuied the Persianization' policies of the Safavids. Just take a look at this old bank-note from the Qajar period:

It clearly says: Shāhanshāh-e Irān. The Qajars were Turkic in origin, but they regarded themselvs Iranians and they also used the Persian language. This tradition was introduced by the Safavids - after more than 800 years of foreign rule in Persia!

So, before starting to insult others (see: WP:civil!), you should take a look at the sources given in the article. If you feel somehow insulted by these scholarly sources, then it's your problem, not that of Misplaced Pages.

And since you are so currious about the people you call Afghans, just check the article Demographics of Afghanistan to learn more about them.

Tājik 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tajik, I am sure there is no way, and no serious reason to try to prove anything to you or to so many others who have their own POV. But you, and many others, because of having either a numerical superiority or probably more stubborn POV, have proven yourselves to make your POV into articles at Misplaced Pages. I shall still show how I still DO NOT understand why someone from Afghanistan come and edit articles about Iran, but that's my problem.

Then again I wish to say this, you would definitely like to distort issues so that you get your POV, OK. But if, for instance, I spoke Farsi and some guy from my ancestory 150 years ago was from Tabriz and spoke Azeri (ie, an Azeri) would that make me a Persian (Fars)? If we are talking about ethnicity, that is a different issue, but if we are establishing what an Iranian meas then that is another whole different subject. Safavids were indeed Turkic speaking people. They were Azerbaijanis. This is a fact. Then, of course, no one is pure or needs to be "pure" either ethnically or genetically. They must have had some Kurdish, Farsi, Greek or whatever in their blood. They did indeed re-built the lost Iran (they didn't call it Persia) and IF some Safavid said that he was a descendant of the Sassanids then he must have had really interesting audience back then, probably naive, but if it worked, then good for him. I stop my arguments here. Please people, editors or administrators, change "Turkmen" into Azeri when you are talking about Iranian Shia Turks, because Turkmen is a completely different thing. But then again, if distortion CAN prevail then Misplaced Pages is still imperfect and has got a long way of solving POV supremacy! Bm79 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone from another country is interested in your country, then you should appriciate it. In case of Iran and Afghanistan, it's not even different histories or cultures - all the same.

What you fail to understand that this talk is not only a bout Sheikh Safi and Ismail, but also about countless other Safawis who lived in those 150 years in between. For example Sheikh Haydar and Sheikh Junayd, or their ancestors.

You also seem to have no knowledge of scholarly sources (in fact, you have not provided ANY reliable sources right now). And as I have said earlier: if you have any problems with scholars or scholarly opinions, it's your problem, not that of Misplaced Pages. Already your protest against the term "Turcoman" (which you wrongly interpret as Turkmen) shows that you are actually not an expert in this field. Tājik 02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate anyone being interested about MY country's history, but I do not appreciate others WRITING or trying to write the history of mt country accoridng to their own opinion. You said turcoman, which is not the term used by editors OFTEN (not all the time) when talking about Turkic tribes of Iranian ruling families. That is completely false. Turkmen means a whole different thing. Please read articles about the Qajar, this article about the Safavid, articles about Shah Ismail I and others and you will see the word "Turkmen" nt turcoman mentioned all over instead of Turkic, Turk or Azerbaijani, which would have been much more appropriate. I AM NOT AN EXPERT. Read wht I write and judge the content, but I did not say I am anexpert. It is written "Persian" when referring to Sheikh Safi which refers not to Iranian (if you click you see) but to the term ethnic Persian, which is not something scholars would agree with. There is no evidence that he was an ethnic Persian, but most probably a mixture. If someone's ethnicity is not very clear then it must be written as so, which has not been the case, because these articles that have alightest information about Azeris are continuously and intentionally manipulated and altered to make them look like Persian, one way or the other or to make them look like non-Azeri, by putting the term "Turkmen". Please take a look at the article about Qajar dynasty too, about Shah Ismail I and this article. Two words used in these articles I have noticed "Persian" when relating to Sheikh Safi and "Turkmen" when relating to Azerbaijanis are false. Bm79 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Serious Problem!! Most information about the Azeris are seriously and continuously manipulated.

Looking at any article about Iran's history or Iran's personalities there are editors out there that are continuously and intentionally creating misconceptions.

For example they put the word "Persian" (which if clicked takes the viewer to the ethnic Persians, not Iranians as a whole) before the name mystic Sheikh Safi al-Din, who WAS by no means "Persian" and could have been more likely to be partly or totally Kurdish, but not Persian. But there are so many out there that will revert in case it is removed.

They will often intentionally replace "Azeri" to "Turkmen" for suggesting the ethnicity of the Safavid or even the Qajar. I edited both and they were reversed by different persons, so I gave up, and the reversing had no reason, one wrote "false information." What is false information? The Safavid or the Qajar were TURKMEN???? The word Turkmen refers to the people of Turkmenistan. No Turkmen ever ruled over Iran. There is no proof for this. When you click on "Turkemn" it takes the viewer to the people of Turkmenistan. The editors intentionally replace Azeri in many cases with Turkmen in order to create confusion. The Safavid and the Qajar came from the teritories located by Azerbaijanis, the spoke Azeri language and there is ample evidence, and they were Shia, and there is ample evidence of these. But so many editors out there would like to create confusion, therefore reducing the value and accuracy of the articles. They are either paid to do so by the Iranian regime in order to create confusion or they are simple Persian (Fars) nationalists who have a lot of free time at their hands.

I edited what was related to Shah Ismail (the founder of the Safavid dynasty) and it was reversed too, twice, so I gave up. Shah Ismail's mother was from the Ak Koyunlu (Aq Qoyunlu) nobility, not Turkem. Again, Turkmen is about Turkmenistan, it has nothing to do with people living in north-west of Iran, where obviously the family of Shah Ismail lived. Then again in order to create confusion Ak Koyunlu was changed to Turkmen.

Falsity prospers at Misplaced Pages as long as there are enough editors out there to write what they wish to be factual and many of them are personally or politically motivated.

I also edited the article about "Iranian Azerbaijan" and it wad all reversed. The article is poor and mostly POV but that serves the POV of so many people who are here to uphold their POV violently and inconsistently.

I think these issues require Misplaced Pages administration to intervene and not allow changes until they are based on reliable proof or references.

Middle-Eastern people are not like Westerners, Middle-Easterners will not get along amiably to solve problems. Look at Iraq now! If there is no DICTATOR to tell them what to do and what not to do. And at Misplaced Pages issues regarding the Middle-East and its people (I am Azeri myself, so Middle-Easterner in fact) shall be more dictatorial, less open to individual manipulation, because inaccuracy or chaos will dominate. Bm79 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

About the term "Persian" for Sheikh Safi al-Din

I would like to discuss about this word because sources do not say anything about "Persian". The article says "Its founder was the Persianmystic Sheikh Safi al-Din (1252–1334), after whom it was named."

I clicked on the name and it was different: "Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardebili (of Ardebil) (1252-1334), eponym of the Safavid dynasty, was the spiritual heir and son in law of the great Sufi Murshid (Grand Master) Sheikh Zahed Gilani, of Lahijan in Gilan Province in northern Iran. He was of Persian and Kurdish background. Sheikh Safi al-Din's mother tongue was the Iranian dialect of old Tati. He was a seventh-generation descendant of Firuz Shah Zarrin Kolah, a local Iranian dignitary."

So, how did Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardebili become PERSIAN???? Please bring arguments or edit! As far as I can understand we should wither take "Persian" out because neither Gilaki can mean Persian and neither Kurdish can mean Persian. If it's not about ethnicity but about the country of Persia then why write the word Persian there anyway because no-one ever argued that he was from the greater Persia/Iran of the time (though some people can say that it was split and unrecognised as a country at that time).

Sheick Safi's mother was an Azerbaijani who spoke Azerbaijan's old Tati language, which does not make her a Persian. And his father was from Gilan, who was of "Persian" and Kurdish background. So Sheikh Safi was half Azerbaijani (from mother) and half Kurdish-Persian. How did someone come to the conclusion that he was Persian?

Please dicuss, edit. Thank you! Bm79 04:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tati is Persian. Again, I doubt you are Iranian. First you say there are no Turkomans in Iran, now you dont even know what the Tati language is (there are still Tati's to this day). Also, the term Azerbaijani as an ethnic term (however, the term Azerbaijani as a linguistic term is about 110 years old) is only 50 years old, so, either way, I dont see how you can call anyone born before that time period Azerbaijani, they were and we still are today Iranian...but today we are just Iranian Azerbaijanis. I guess this term is optional depending on the person and time.Azerbaijani 04:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the last time I am writing anything to the member "Azerbaijani", I was referring to other members. Thank you! I am looking for other members and if you will be the only opposer then we will need to ask for admins to come in. And I will not respond to your uncivil attitude any more. Bm79 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tati is a Persian dialect, what more do you want? The only basis for your dispute is that you say that Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardebili spoke Tati and therefore could not have been Persian. But I'm telling you that Tati is Persian. I dont know what else you want here. I'm telling you that the reason for you argument in the first place is incorrect. Simple as that...Are you going to say that Tati isnt Persian? Tats still exist today. The Tati langauge is a Dialect of Persain, just as Dari and Tajiki are. I mean, I'm sorry if this upsets you but I dont know what more to say? Its a very similar language, except if I'm correct, its an older version of the Persian spoken in today in Iran.Azerbaijani 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Tāt" is a Turkic term that describes the Persian people. It has the same origin as "Tādjīk" (Taçikler) and the same meaning.

The Tati people are descendants of Persian settlers who live in Azerbaijan since the Sassanian era.

Safi ud-Din ibn Is'haq Ardabeli is perhaps the most important source for the Iranian Azeri language that is now distinct. Only the Tati language seems do have developed out of it, but the language itself disappeared when Turkic languages started to dominate the region during the reign of the White and Black Sheep Turcoman confederations. Safi ud-Din Ardabeli's dubayt collection in that language, and his own Persian translation are the main source for studying that language.

Thus, the term "Persian" is correct. Besides that, the sentense is referenced. The source is the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon which is the German eqivalent to the English Encyclopaedia Britannica. Tājik 14:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, I am just getting started to learn how this community works and I must say that I had rushed to judge you before, but you seem a reasonable person and bring arguments, which is great. Thanks! I hope I did not upset you :) About the word "Persian" before the name, you see, the issue is that here what we understand from Persian (just click it) is Persians as an ethnicity. And you know very well that Sufi al-Din's ethnicity is not clear-cut by any means. Clicking on his name will just show this, who his parents were. Persian, as an ethnicity, refers to "Persians" as defined in the article about "Persians" and it does not refer to others, and definitely not Kurds. And you can say that even the Tajik are RELATED to Persians but according to the sources Tajik is Tajik and Persian is Persian (ethnicity I mean of course), though their language is very close, written extremely close, but talking not that much. Anyway, Sufi al-Din had a mixed ethnicity, so let's come to a term on how to write about his mixed ethnicity, or just forget about his ethnicity and leave it to the reader to find out by himself, becasue writing "Persian" gives the impression that Sufi al-Din Ardebili was an ethnic Persian, which is not the case, and you know this well. Bm79 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a sensitive issue, and I would even support the idea to remove ethnic lables from all of these articles. Honestly, noone back then cared whether the Safavids were Turks, Persians, or Arabs. What was important was their Shia faith, as a big contrast to everything else that ruled back then. The same goes to the Seljuqs (a powerful Sunni ruling dynasty as a big contrast to the - back then - Shia dominated political scene of the Islamic world), Ottomans, Mughals, and many others. Yet, certain people want this ethnic labeling, and thus, we should try to be as correct as possible.

According to sources (most of all the Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyyah which was written at the Safavid court), Safi ud-Din was a Persian mystic from Gilan who claimed to be a descendant of a certain Firuzshah Zarrinkollah al-Kordi). What we know for sure is that his mother-tongue was neither Turkish nor Persian, but Old Tati. But he also wrote traslations of his poems in Persian, but not in Turkish or Kurdish, not even in Arabic. As for "Tajik": the Tajiks are not only related to the Persians of Iran, they are THE SAME people. They not only speak the same language, but also share the same history, culture, and national identity (going back to the Iranian epic, as preserved by Ferdousi). Only 200 years ago, the Persians of Iran were also known as "Tajik". It just only happens that the Turkish expression "Tajik" establihed itself in Central Asia, while in mainland Iran the term disappeared. The Persians of Western-Afghanistan call themselvs Farsi or Farsiwan, but not Tajik, although most sources classify them as Tajiks as well. Tājik 19:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, some of what you say are not recognised by others, and I sincerely don't know about, as related to Tajik. I cannot say anything about that. But somebody writing poetry in Persian is not a characterisation of his ethnicity. The most important thing must either be his mother (native) tongue and/or who his parents were. And you know that none of them were clear persian. So we shall either remove Persian which does not refer to the language with which he wrote, but to his ethnicity, as we understand today. Back then ethnicity mattered but rligion was more important. People had prejudicies towadr ethnicities even back then. It is also known how much the Kizilbash quarreled with their kings about him appointing Persian to positions. So, let's resolve the word "Persian" and I do not care about ethnicity but I care about fairness :) Bm79 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If we remove the word "Persian" from this article, then we also have to remove it from other articles. This also goes for the words "Turkish" and "Mongol" in many other articles, most of all for peoples such as the Seljuqs or Ottomans, or the Timurids and Mughals, who did not have a clear ethnicity either.

You see, in the article about Shah Ismail I., people want to lable him "Turk" because he wrote Turkic poetry (in addition to Persian and Arabic). Yet, in this article, the same people claim that "poetry does not define ethnicity". Where is the logic?! Either remove ethnic lables from ALL articles, or keep them the way they are now.

An alternative to the word "Persian" would be "Iranian", with a link to the Iranian peoples article.

Tājik 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking for Bm79 but as far as I know Shah Ismail wrote poetry in Persian too (I am not so sure but his poetry was mainly Azerbaijani) but his native tongue was Azerbaijani Turkic. It depends on how you define ethnicity. You cannot define it on what language people wrote. I am writing English but I am not English. It depends on what language they spoke as their native language. Beside this it depends on the parentage. One thing is clear Sufi Ardebili was not a Persian becasue theories go that he has a mixture of Tat-Azerbaijani-Kurdish. So labelling him Persian is not according to the sources. Scorpionf007 17:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is attested by Shah Ismail's son, Sām Mirzā, that his father also wrote poetry in Persian. However, his Persian poems did not have the same effect on the Persian-speaking population as his Turkish poems on the Turkish nomads. The reason for this is very simple: at the time of Ismail, the Persian language had an already established literary tradition (Hafiz, Rumi, etc), and therefore Ismail's Sufi poetry was not anything special ... The Oghuz, however, did not have such a literary tradition. There were only a few Turkish writers. Ismail's poetry had thus a strong influce on the Turcoman nomads, while his Persian poems were lost. He wrote in very simple verses, and his poetry was easy to understand. He was among the very first Turkish poets, but his Persian poetry was no match for the established, more complex Persian poetry tradition. After all, he was still a child (12 years old!)! That's also the reason why the Safavid da'wā -from then on - concentrated itself on the Turcoman nomads and tried to convert them. It'S also improtant to note that a whole bunch of Turkish poems allegedly written by Ismail were the works of later Bektashi Sufis ... written some decades and centuries after his death (see Encyclopaedia Iranica for more information).

As for Safi ud-Din: if you do not like the label "Persian", then change it to "Iranian" with a link to Iranian peoples. That should solve the problem. Tājik 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone else had some talk and some edit and Azerbaijani immediately made another personal attack, probably wanting to say that that member was ME. Anyway, let's ignore that! I am going to change it to "Iranian" and if somebody is against it he/she can see the discussed here. Thanks! Bm79 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edits

Atabek: - This page is being nominated for Safavid topic. If you wish to discuss the Azari identity, you should go to the relevant page. Surena 17:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree in general, but then Iranian stock has nothing to do with Safavid topic either. If you agree, we will remove both references, if you disagree, let's keep them both for clarity. Thanks Atabek 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure to keep you happy is fine with me. My only concern is to convey facts. Surena 17:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem keeping it the way, by why do you remove the whole thing? It says Azeris are Turks but are proud of Iranian identity. Do you deny that? Let's keep it the way it is. Atabek 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Make up your mind and don't change it again. Hopwever, Azaris are not Turk, they are Tukish speakers. Surena 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best rev. is by Tajik right now. Let's keep all refs as they are. As for Azeris being not Turk, do you want to deny Frey or Encyclopedia Iranica? Atabek 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Of Course - Richjard Frye is a historican. I rely on science when come to anthropology. Read Cambridge University DNA mapping of Azaris.Surena 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's keep it at Surena's current rev. "With difference that they were of Iranian stock" implies that predecessors were not. I would get rid of Iranian stock wording. Because the fact that Azeri Turks are not of "Iranian stock" does not make them less Iranian. I think that's the major point many Iranians don't understand. This is not about race but about culture and people. Atabek 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Azaris are anything by Turk - Culturally, historically, and genetically the yare Iranian. However, being a Turkish speaker, doesn't make one to become a Turk, nor a Turk who speaks English, won’t become an English. Surena 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Respect your opinion, but disagree with it as Azeri person. Try to defend your own Rev that we came up to in agreement. Tajik keeps reverting it. This is not serious. Atabek 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version contains stylistic, factual, and spelling mistakes. Its reference to Azeri people is totally misplaced, because this article is about the Safavid dynasty, not about the Azeri people. If you want to have the quote in the article, then place it in the "Ethnic and linguistic controversies" section, but NOT into the intro!

I suggest the following version:

• The Safavids (Template:PerB) were a Muslim dynasty from (Iranian) Azerbaijan that ruled from 1501 to 1736. Despite having adopted the Turkic Azerbaijani language, the Safavids were the first native Iranian family to rule a united Persia since the Buyyid dynasty. The Safavids patronized Iranian culture in the manner of their predecessors, with the difference that they were of Iranic stock. It was the Safavids who made Iran the spiritual bastion of Shiism against the onslaughts of orthodox Sunni Islam, and the repository of Persian cultural traditions and self-awareness of Iranianhood. and acting as a bridge to modern Iran. The founder of the dynasty, Shah Isma'il adopted the title of "Persian Emperor" (Pādišah-ī Īrān), with its implicit notion of an Iranian state stretching from the Hindu Kush as far as Euphrates, and from the Oxus to the southern territories of Persian Gulf.

Tājik 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's first agree on basic fact, which is also part of Encyclopedia Iranica reference. Safavid dyasty was found by Azeri Turks who were found of their Iranian heritage. Do you agree with this wording or not? Then let's move on to discuss Hindu Kush, Euphrates or Buyyids which have nothing to do with Safavid article. Atabek 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the wording "Azeri Turks", because that's not correct. Although Iranica uses this expression in the one sentence you have quoted, it clearifies the complex situation in many other articles (I have already posted some of them further above, including a direct quote from Book 1, p. 240, written by Ehsan Yarshater). The Safavids were Turkic-speaking Azeris, but they were not "Turks" in the classical sense of the word, and they did not consider themselvs "Turks", as 500 years ago, the word "Turk" had a totally different meaning. When Shah Abbas came to power, the dynasty was virtually "Persianized" in all aspects, while the Azeri language remained one of the "house languages" of the Safavid family. Also read the work "Div Soltan" by prof. R. Savory (THE expert on Safavid history), which explains the animosity between "Turks" and "Tajiks" in the Safavid court, and how the Shahs tried to solve the problem. The current version - as it stands right now - is not acceptable. See also the article "Safavids" (also written by Roger Savory) in Encyclopaedia of Islam, THE standard reference work of Islamic studies and history! What makes Safavid rule so special is that the Safavids were NOT Turks. They were the first native dynasty to rule entire Persia since the Arab conquest. The ruled as "Shahs of Perisa" and as "defenders of Persian identity". They even exported this idiology to Mughal India, which served as the main center of Persian language and culture during that time. Tājik 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition Azeri (or Azerbaijani) Turks is used by Swietochowski, Alstadt, Shaffer, Kazemzadeh, M. G. Smith, and you're bringing me one quote from Yarshater? Again, the fact that Azeris are Turks, does not deny their ties to Iran or their pride of it. But trying to take away their origin, is simply racism, which is useless for Iranian side, contributes to nothing but hate. You're only weakening your Iranian identity by claiming Safavis as Kurds or Armenian or anything else, because any reference that you make up 500 years after, when there are pages of Ismail's poetry in Azeri Turkic, will be laughed at. All you're doing is undermining the seriousness of Iranian references. No one is taking Ismail away from Iran, he was a king of Iran and proud to be Shia. But he was a Turk, admit it, live with it, and move on. It does not mean Turkey can claim him, but he was Azeri Turk as confirmed by majority of researchers. Atabek 19:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually contrary to of Iranica’s entry, recent historians such as Hillenbrand, and Canby believe that the Safavids were Talishi and Tati speakers (closely related to Kurds)’ and being the descends of Aq-Qoyunlu was propagated to attract Qizilbash Turks to fight for them. Surena 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't even go there :) If you want we can post there some poems of Shah Ismail in Azeri Turkic, and then you dare to find me one in Farsi. So why do you think "Kurdish" did not write in "Kurdish" or Persian? Ismail's father Heydar Safavi was son of Safi-al-Din, his mother was daughter of Uzun Hassan (AghQoyunlu) who definitely wasn't anything but Turkic.Atabek 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Iranica calls them "Azeri Turks". We cannot distort the source. Grandmaster 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Iranica also makes clear that they were NOT "Azeri Turks", with reference to Savory, Kasravi, and Togan! It clearly says:

• "... Azari lost ground 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, Book 1, p. 240, Link)
• " ... If one looks at the record of Iranian historians during the same period, the scene is similar: a rather barren landscape relieved by a few lofty peaks. In 1927-8 Ahmad Kasravi led the way with the publication of three seminal articles entitled Nizhad va Tabar-i Safaviyya (`The genealogy of the Safavids'); Safaviyya sayyid nabuda and (`The Safavids were not sayyids'); and Baz ham Safaviyya (`The Safavids again'). Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles, 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. 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, 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", and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i. ..." R.M. Savory
• "... SAFAWIDS , a dynasty which ruled in Persia as sovereigns 907-1135/1501-1722, as fainéants 1142-8/1729-36, and thereafter, existed as pretenders to the throne up to 1186/1773. I. Dynastic, political and military history. The establishment of the Safawid state in 907/1501 by Shāh Ismāīl I (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 ; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and khāns. ..." (Savory/Brujin/Newman/Welch/others, EI, Online Edition, PW protected)

Encyclopaedia Iranica is clearly an authoritative source. But you cannot reject the Encyclopaedia of Islam (which is written by the same scholars). Tājik 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, what relevance does 16th century Safavid Dynasty have to 10-11th century Buwayyids? Can you explain this in scholarly terms, please. Thanks. Also why don't you highlight also important parts, see now my highlights in your references, looks much better now. Atabek 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another quote from authoritative source:

The Shi'ite Safavids were of largely nomadic Turkish ethnic origins, but the long-term effect of their unification of Iran and fervent religious transformation was to spread a sense of Shi'ite Persian identity, emanating from Shah Abbas' capital, Isfahan. Aga Muhammad who founded the Afghan Qajar dynasty in 1796, was also of Turkic origins; but Persian society and culture stagnated under their rule, which allowed the country to fall increasingly under British and Russian economic and political hegemony until the Constitutionalist movement of 1905-6.

Anthony D. Smith. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. ISBN: 0631161694

I cited many more previously. Grandmaster 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Afghan Qajar dynasty"?! Yeah ... extremely authoritative ... Tājik 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have to define authoritative source. How come Encyclopedia Iranica all of a sudden became unauthoritative? I thought you loved quoting it left and right on every page? Why it's not admissible now? Atabek 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I just say "Encyclopaedia Iranica is clearly an authoritative source"?! Atabek - with all due respect - you can't read! You proved that a few hours ago when you reverted my changes without even reading the text, claiming that "I had deleted sources".

Iranica is an authoritative source, but it is NOT superior to Encyclopaedia of Islam. In case of the Safavids, Iranica dooes not have a "Safavids" article (you may know that the Iranica is not complete yet!). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, however, does have a "Safavids" article, and it is written by Prof. Roger Savory, THE expert on Safavids history, and one of the very few Western scholars who have dedicated their lives to Safavids and Azerbaijani studies. He has written several works on the Safavids, some of them still being standard reference works. And the Encyclopaedia of Islam - with reference to Kasravi, Togan (a Turkish scholar), and Ehsan Yarshater (!!) - makes clear that the Safavids were NOT Turks. They had adopted the Turkish language due to strong Turcoman influnce (the same way Turkic dynasties in the past, such as the Seljuqs, had adopted Persian), but they had not lost their Non-Turkic identity. They came to power as an "Iranian dynasty" - in total contrast to previous Arabic, Mongol, or Turkic rulers. They revived ancient Persian royal and military titles. And they exported this culture to Mughal India. Tājik 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, it does not matter what they lost or what they gained under which rulers. It matters that Safavids came to power with help of Qizilbash, which was a Turkic tribe. Ismail's mother, Halima Begum, was half-Turk and half-pontic Greek. Ismail himself wrote in Turkic (not Kurdish, not Taati, not Talysh, but Azeri Turkic!) under a pen-name of Khatai. His first kingdom proclaimed was not Iran, but Azerbaijan. You want a reference, here is one for you:

Shah Ismayil defeated the Aq Qoyunlu leaders Alvand and Murad, the former at Sharur in 1501, the latter near Hamadan in 1503; he was crowned Shah of Adharbayjan in July 1501 in Tabriz, where he proclaimed the Shia Ithna-ashriya creed as the state religion (Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 324

This absolutely innocent reference was removed by your compatriot "Azerbaijani" repeatedly when I tried to insert it. Now you want to say that Buawayyids 5 centuries earlier somehow have relevance to Safavis, and the quote above does not?? And stop your "you can't read" quotes, it very much resembles at least one other user. So let's not go there, and try to limit ourselves to the topic ONLY. Again, such discussions are fruitless, because you're driven by POV. If you respect references, let's respect all of them, whether or not they say or do not say what you like. History is not written by a single man. Atabek 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Shah Ismail wrote poems in Persian and Turkish, but only his Turkish poems have survived. Just check the Iranica source you have quoted above. It was attested by his son, Sam Mirza, that he also wrote poems in Persian. However, his poems did not have the same effect on the learned Persian tradition as they had on the still nomadic Turcoman population of the Caucasus (Ismail was still 12 years old!!!).

If "language defines ethnicity", then the Seljuqs were clearly "Persians", because they ruled as kings of Persia, spoke Persian amongst themselvs, gave their children ancient Persian names, and patronized Persian culture, literature, and arts.

As you can see in the article Seljuqs, it's written in the intro that they were "originally of Oghuz Turkic descent" ... so why can't you accept the same truth for THIS article?!

Besides that, where does your source say that the Safavids were "Azeri Turks"?!

Do you want me to quote another excellent source? Here:

• "... 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. ..." - Vladimir Minorsky, in Encyclopaedia of Islam ("Ādharbāyjān", in Encyclopædia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006)

And if you say that "we should respect all sources", then EVEN YOU should admitt that the current version is POV! Tājik 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, I provided you with source that says they were Azeri Turks, it's the one from Frey/Iranica, which Iranians love quoting, and all of a sudden start removing now or trying to find excuses, reword it! I provided you with another one, that shows he first proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan, again, removed by your Iranian compatriots. Now can you, please, explain, what is this racist POV for, and what do you gain from abusing the history this way? Is it such a big deal to admit when half of scientific world insists, and every Iranian from school knows, that Safavi, Afshar and Qajar kings were of Turkic origin, period! They spoke Turkic, period! Does it matter that one of their grandmas or grandpas spoke some other language? Principally, NO, because it's not going to make Ismail write more in Persian than he did (and he wrote NOT when he was 12, he wrote to Ottoman Sultan when he was closer to Chaldiran battle). All three mentioned Turkic dynasties tried to help to build your country after all, why are you so POV racist on this issue? Let me bring you some quote, that may make you as Iranian to rethink challenged chauvinist stances against Turkic references, from the same Tapper:

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

(Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 322)

Nor is this question a genealogical matter. Few named tribal groups in the area preserve even functional genealogies of any depth, and unilineal descent groups of more than a few hundred people are rare. Throughout the millenium of their presence in South-West Asia, as their "racial purity" became diluted by intermarriage with local populations, the Turkic tribal groups have been subjected by various rulers to systematic policies of breakdown, dispersal, regroupment and resettlement. (Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 323)

Now what is that you want to prove? Does it matter that Azeri, who created kingdom on territory of Azerbaijan, called it Azerbaijan, spoke Turkic, wrote poems in it is called Azeri or Azeri Turk or Azeri Taati or Azeri Dari? Does this change in any way his language or culture? And how does Ismail being Azeri Turk make you less Iranian or Persian or take the origin away from you. Why so much POV, blocking, meaningless arguments, just for trying to get you to accept a single fact - that Ismail considered himself Azeri TURK! But he did build a kingdom called IRAN! Be proud of it.Atabek 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to change ANYTHINg. Even Frye 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. ..."

This is taken from the same source you have provided. It's just one sentence earlier! Why did you just pick up one part of that and totally reject the other part?!

What makes the Safavids so unique in Iran's history is that they did not forget or reject their Iranian origins DESPITE having adopted a Turkic language. And by the way: it's not "my country" ... I was born and raised in Afghanistan to a mixed family of Kizilbash-Tajiks, Iraqi-Arabs, and Ghilzai-Pashtuns.

And do not accuse me of being racist. It is mostly you people who flood all kinds of articles with POV. You people had been given authoritative sources (Iranica, Britannica, EI, etc) proving that the Seljuqs were Persian in language and identity. Why do you not show good faith and edit the article Seljuqs?!

This article was totally NPOV until you once again started the edit-war with your POV-pushing. Richard Frye makes it very clear that Azeris - although being called "Turks" - are not Turks at all. Roger M. Savory, THE EXPERT on Safavid history (since you are NO expert on this toppic, and since you are just an amatuer trying to push for your nationalistic POV have no idea of systematic Iranian- and Oriental studies, you probably have no idea who this man is) does not even mention a "Turkish origin".

The Safavids themselvs mentioned in their own biographies that they were NOT Turks.

The problem with you Turkish nationalists is that you have double standards. When it comes to Seljuqs, Ghaznavids, Mughals (who were Mongols and not Turks), etc, you all claim that "language does not define ethnicity". So many sources have been provided in here, clearly proving that the Seljuqs (considered the founder of modern Turky and Azerbaijan), were Persian in language and identity.

But when it comes to the Safavids - the dynasty that reignited the Persian identity, united Persia after centuries of Arab and Turkic rule, and revived ancient national traditions - you all get back to the nonsense that "only because the founder of the dynasty wrote poems in Persian, ALL the Safavids were ethnic Oghuz Turks". This is pure nonsense. Sultan Suleyman of the Ottoman Empire wrote an entire divan in Persian language ... does that make him an "ethnic Persian"?! Have you EVER seen anyone claiming that the "Ottomans were Persians, because their Sultans wrote poems in Persian"?!

Just check history ... when Ismail started to write poems, he was not even 15 years old! That'S also the reason why his poems had no effect on the Persian-speaking world: he was no match for the established poetry of Rumi, Hafiz, and Saadi. But the Turcomans of the Caucasus did not have any literary tradition. That's why Ismail's poetry became so popular. Ismail Safavi is considered the founder of Azeri-Turkish literature - in the 15th century! That's more than 500 years after Rudaki and Firdousi! This is the only reason why his Persian poetry was lost and had no effect on the Persian-speaking world. Your claim that "Ismail considered himself a Turk" is totally hilarious and pointless, because you have no proves at all. And keeping in mind that Ismail tried to insult the Ottoman Sultan by reminding him of his Turcoman Beykiq origin (see Ismail's letters to the Ottoman sultan), it doesn't seem logical that he considered himself a "Turk". When the Kizilbash murdered their Persian leader, the Shah put some of them to death, signalizing his support for the "Tajik" fraction (see: Roger M. Savory in Islamic Studies: Journal of the Central Institute of Islamic Research, "The significance of the political murder of Mirza Salman", Karachi, 1964). Do you have ANY proofs for your claims?! Tājik 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Roger M. Savory (Professor Emeritus University of Toronto, 16 March 1995; The Annual Noruz Lecture Series: 16 March 1995, Foundation for Iranian Studies Washington, D.C.):

• "... 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. ..."

Encyclopaedia Iranica (in the article Esma'il Safawi):

• "... 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 ..."

In the MAIN ARTICLE "Esma'il Safawi", Iranica is fully supporting Roger M. Savory's position: that the Safavids represented the FIRST native PERSIAN dynasty after 800 years of Arab and Turkic rule. That means that both Savory (THE EXPERT on Safavid history) and Iranica, as well as Richard Frye, agree that the Safavids were NOT Turks. Tājik 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Debate of Turk and Safavi

Guys. What timeline are we talking about? Around the time of Esmail I, the Safavid family was turkified in language, but that does not necessarily mean the dynasty was of Turkic origin. A good source from Iranica says they were originally of Kurdish origin: . I believe Frye mentions this as well in one of his books, but I'll double check. Also note another source from Iranica which says the main stage of turkification of Azerbaijan was during the Safavid era when many of the turkomen tribes from Anatolia migrated there. Not to take anything away from Dr. Frye, but Savory is the top expert on Safavid history in the world and his words hold a lot of weight on Safavids than do Frye's (with regards to Safavids). Also he refers directly to an ancient chronicle and one of the ancestors of the Shaikh is Kurd Sanjani... To say Esmayil the first considered himself an Azeri Turk is actually incorrect as the dynasty was trying to make itself of Seyyed (Arabic) origin so that their rule is more legitimized amongst the shi'ite population. He had some Persian poems and more Azeri-Turkish poems mainly on religious themes for his followers, but himself was of mixed ancestry and the Safavids were trying to make themselves legitimate as Seyyeds. Note when Ismail took over Tabriz, he considers himself as heroes of shahnameh. I do not think any sort of Turkic ethnic nationalism was part of Safavids. (Note their biggest enemies were Ottoman Turks and Uzbeks). So Ismail I did not care about ethnicity. Also I do not think this the article that discusses the origins of Azeris but according to Iranica:The language itself provides eloquent proof. Azeri, not unlike Uzbek (see above), lost the vocal harmony typical of Turkish languages. It is a Turkish language learned and spoken by Iranian peasants. . Also we have statements in NW Iranic language from Shaikh Safi ad-din Ardabili. Given the fact that Frye refers to the Azari (Iranian language) by Yarshater, and also the article by Savory in Iranica is specific to Safavids, there is two possibilities. Either Frye is contradicting savory (in this case savory's article is more specific towards Safavids whereas Frye's is not and also savory is far more greater expert on Safavids whereas Frye is more of an expert in many non-Safavid areas) or we are reading him wrong. Frye says: The Azeri Turks are Shi¿ites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty.. But he also says in the same article as tajik mentioned: This could easily allude to the turkomen troops of the Safavids who were founders of the dynasty. Esmail was of mixed origin (Georgian, Turkomen, Iranic..) etc. But the founder of the Safavid order, Shaikh Safi ad-din was a native Iranian who interestingly enough was also Sunni Shafi'i. and I quote the article unambigously: the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family. There is of course a minor difference between dynasty and family. Safavids were originally an Indo-Iranian speaking family, but became turkified and hence during the time that the Safavid dynasty was found, they were by language Azeri-Turks which according to Frye are mainly of Iranian origin (turkified Iranians). Thus the family was of Kurdish origin and actually took pride in being descendants of Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili (where they got their name Safaviyeh from), but by the time the dynasty was formed, the safavid family was shi'ite and Azeri Turkish by tongue. Thus Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili is by no way some obscure ancestors but he was what the Safavids considered to be their main ancestor and where they got their name from. This I think is the key to the dispute and does not contradict Dr. Frye, Dr. Yarshater and Dr. Savory. And I think the quote by Dr. Yarshater is also another key: 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 . --alidoostzadeh 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, thank you for this valuable material and analysis, which I view as balanced attempt to strike an agreement and welcome such. Let me make some points clear. My point was not to investigate the ethnic origin of Safavid family, but to merely mention that Azeri Turks (somewhat of a commonly accepted modern definition of identity) were the ones who found the Safavid dynasty. I do prefer this definition of Frye, for a simple reason, for a modern reader of Misplaced Pages, there is no such identity as Taati or Adhari Pahlavi speaker of Ardabil. But there is a well defined and commonly accepted term of Iranian Azeri Turk, which Ismail's followers and founders, and Ismail himself to some extent were, in modern definition of this term.

As my writing may seem somewhat dry without references, let me first start off with words of Shah Ismail Khatai: "Khataida natiq oldi, Turkistanin piri oldi" -- Godhead came to speech in the person of Khatai, who became the pir of the Turks of Azarbayjan (Vladimir Minorsky quoting his Ahl-i Haqq friends in "The Poetry of Shah Ismail", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 10. No. 4, 1942, p. 1006a) Going further on, "It's a remarkable fact that while Sultan Selim and Shah Ismail both possessed poetic talents, the former wrote almost exclusively in Persian, and the latter, under the pen-name of Khatai, almost exclusively in Turkish" (E.G. Browne, A History of Persian Literature in Modern Times, 1924, p. 12). Minorsky further analyzes why Ismail wrote in Turkish, saying: "The preference shown by the founder of the Safavid dynasty for a Turkish dialence, which as an instrument of poetical expression stood no comparison to the melodious, easy-flowing, and highly polished Persian has much deeper roots. As a poet, Selim appeals to the inner circle of his intimates. Ismail has in view a much larger auditory of his supporters" (V. Minorsky, op. cit., p. 1007a). Although Shah Ismail's ancestors often had a recourse to the Iranian patois of neighborhood of Ardabil (B. Miller sought to explore the connection of this "Adhari" dialect to modern Talyshi in works of Ahmad Kasravi), Shah Ismail must have been bi-lingual from birth (and here Minorsky brings another interesting quote: "The admixture of Chaghatay forms in Ismail's poetry would indicate that he did not feel any one definitive dialect as his own, but this admixture must have a purely literary origin", p 1008a). The language of the divan is a Southern Turkish (Turcoman) dialect directly associated with the so called "Azarbayjan Turkish", as spoken in in North-Western Persia and North-Eastern Transcaucasia. Ismail uses words and forms which are unknown to present day speech, but his Turkish shows traces of decomposition due to the influence of Iranian milieu (V. Minorsky, op. cit.).

Going right along, this maybe a bit remote from topic of Safavis in particular, but it's concerning for me that some Iranian friends are very allergic to every use of the word "Turk" in any kind of discussion. Sufficient to look at several Wiki sites being Rv'ed back-and-forth because of a single expression "Turk". The objective here is to claim Azeris as Iranian, hence Azerbaijan (including Transcaucasian) as a rightful domain of a greater instance of Iran. While I don't consider this particularly inferior, I think Azerbaijan enriched a lot from Iran and its culture, nevertheless, there is a clear attempt to purge any Turkic trace of our origin for the final merger into larger Iranian domain. Let me make some points clear in this regard: "A series of European maps from the 17th and 18th centuries, for example, placed the Iranian lands generally between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Breaking from the Ptolematic tradition, these maps labeled the Iranian domains collectively as "Persia", reflecting the political unity of Iran under the Safavids. These designs in a sense helped to "legitimate" Iran's claims to those provinces, despite the errors and self-serving motivations of the cartographers (Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet. "Fragile Frontiers: The Diminishing Domains of Qajar Iran", International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2, May 1997, p. 207). "Iranian nationalists considered the land mass between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf - as the heartland of the Iranian state (or Iran-zamin), though they did often nurture expansionist fantasies of extending their boundaries to "Rum" and beyond. The historical precedent of defining certain regions or domains as "Iranian", or "Kurdish" or "Armenian" endured and played an important role in the creation of nation-states, many of which correspond to regions existing in medieval and modern maps and texts. However invented these abstractions were in their inception, they are to be distinguished from those "imagined communities" not represented by territories" (Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet, open cit, p. 208). Atabek 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, the article by Frye is very recent, from 2006 I think, so it is most updated. There are many Soviet-era articles that would state the same, I'm just too lazy to find them and post them. When you mention that, "Note when Ismail took over Tabriz, he considers himself as heroes of shahnameh" -- if you imply that a Turkic person cannot be proud or love Shahnameh, you are not correct. Let's not forget whom did the Shahnameh end up written for and paid by -- Sultan Ghaznevi, a Turk (paternal side). Plus you frequently mention how Turkic people such as Seljuks quickly got "Persianized" or otherwise Iranianized, adopted Persian language as second native, wrote poetry and works in it, etc. So loving Shahnameh is nothing out of the ordinary. Turkic people are actually not as obsessed about racial issues as other nations.

You also wrote, "I do not think any sort of Turkic ethnic nationalism was part of Safavids. (Note their biggest enemies were Ottoman Turks and Uzbeks" -- that's also typical -- brothers fight all the time, like khans in Azerbaijan and in Iran, like Slavic principalities, Greek city-states, like Mongols with another Mongol, Teymurleng. Such examples abound. Also, of course Shah Ismail's mother's father was the great Uzun Hasan. So whether there was a Kurdish (others say Talysh, yet others Tat, etc) ancestor in Ismail's lineage (well, in his great grandfather's), it's probably more dilluted than the Greek blood that he also had from his grandmother. Plus, you yourself have reminded me several times that Gen. Yahya Safavi, the Commander of Revolutionary Guards, is Azerbaijani. So why is this contemporary descendant of Safavids an Azerbaijani, whilst his famous ancestor for some reason Kurd (or Talysh, or Tat)? Azerbaijanis and Kurds are similar and are brotherly, but are they the same? --AdilBaguirov 07:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil and Atabek, the Iranica article is actually very recent also: as I just discovered it recently and had it been there before, user tajik would have put it in this article. As I said it is written by the worlds foremost Safavid expert and so it it should be included. Ghaznavids did not really have a Turkish identity and they created a fake shajareh (family tree) linking them to Sassanids as did Seljuqids and etc. That is another issue. General Yahya Safavi I believe is from Azerbaijan (from what I have heared).. else there are people with the last name safavi (nawab safavi who killed kasravi) from other parts of Iran and was not Azerbaijani. Indeed many people of Qajar descent now speak Persian, since Qajars spread out all over. Shah Ismai'l named his sons: Saam, Iraj, Tahmaasp..(shahnameh names) and thus had a strong Persian component to his culture as well. Note none of the Safavids really had a Turkic name and had they been really conscious about ethnicity, they would have chosen some. Shah Esmail, Abbas, etc. were 99.9% Shi'i first and if they saw a Shi'i Arab they would embrace him and if Shah Esmai'l saw a Sunni Turk, God knows best. To bring the point that Shah Ismail I did not care about Turkish nationalism (such a concept really did not exist), his first massacare was in Tabriz where he ordered everyone to either convert to Shi'ism or die and his troops even killed pregnant sunni women.. Although I am not sure when Tabriz acquired Azeri-Turkic language (not in the Ilkhanid era according to recent manuscripts), still similar massacares of sunnis took place. (these are documented although not relavent, but just to show he really did not care about anything except Shi'ism). And the Ottomans really did not care about Turkish nationalism either as we know the word Turk at the times of Ottomans was not positive and also they killed lots of their own shi'ites. Atabek , the translation: "Khataida natiq oldi, Turkistanin piri oldi" -- Godhead came to speech in the person of Khatai, who became the pir of the Turks of Azarbayjan. I do not see Azerbaijan there but Turkistanin which usually in Persian, Arabic, Turkish means Central Asia (it could simply say has followers in wide lands). It is true Shah Esmail's mothers father was Uzun hassan and mother's mother was Georgian I believe (or Greek). But the discussion is not about Shah Esmail, but the Safaviyeh (whose name comes from Shaikh Safi ad-din). I think we need to stick to all three Iranica sources, Shaykh Safi-ad din (Kurdish in origin), Safavids became Turkified (Yarshater) and hence they became Azeri (because of language) Frye. None of these contradicts any of the Iranica article. Shah's Esmail's mother tongue was most likely Azerbaijani Turkish or perhaps Greek or Georgian, but the tongue of Shaykh Safi ad-din was not. There were some smaller Talysh and Kurdish troops amongst the Safavids, but the Bulk of course were Turkomens of Anatolia (Ghezelbash) who spoke Azerbaijani. Atabek on the issue of modern Iranian nationalism and perhaps supra-nationalism, it is not relavent to this article, but each country has it's own ultranationalist(I refer you to Greywolf types also that author is wrong since the term Persia for Iran was used in Arabic literature way before europeans). I think we should focus on the Iranica articles and other sources, but I'll be happy to discuss others matter more via e-mail, but I do not want to go off on a tanget since I think the current lock of the article is easily resolable. Also no one denined that Shah Esmail has Azeri poetry (alongside with Persian). Shaykh Safi ad-din has taati poetry(keh vinam zendegani chon karita, beh del dardeh zharam tan bi-davaayam), some sayings which are really Kurdish (goo harif jaata (Kurdish Haata)) and etc. Either way when it comes to Safavids, Savory is the world's number one authority, yet what he says about Safavids in his book (they became turcophones), does not contradict what Fry says (Azeri Turks, but previous sentence mentions Iranian turcophones as alluded to by Tajik). I suggest the first sentence be r.v.'d back to the original compromised version of long time ago and then the quotes by Frye, Yarshater and Savory can be stated. This way no one can really claim to a POV and delete others POV. Indeed I believe I have harmanized the three quotes.. As per Adil's comment, I believe Kurds, Azerbaijanis, Talysh, Persians pretty much through much interactions have too many overlaps and in history Persians have became Azeris (many families for example migrated from Ashtiyan to Tabriz) and Kurds have become Azeris(Safavid dynasty) and Azeris have become Persians (many Qajars who now speak Persian). This is because of the Islamic religion(and sects within), where 99% of ordinary people did not give a hoot really about ethnicity just like the Safavids would embrace Arabs of Lebanon and bring them to Iran because they were Shi'ites and yet would fight the Ottomans and Uzbeks tooth and nail. --alidoostzadeh 08:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, your last statement is indeed very true. At the end of the day, all are children of Adam and Eve, and Noah, and in case of Turkic and Iranian people's, Central Asia is the homeland.

Meanwhile, we can't compare long diwans of Ismail in Azerbaijani Turki to one short poem in Tati of his great-grandfather (or is he great-great-grandfather?) and a few expressions in Kurdish. One of the reasons that less poetry in Persian has been preserved is probably due to the inferiority of the writings in Persian, since Azerbaijani Turki was more native to Ismail. Considering how picky Persians are about their language, and how much fun they are having in Iran making jokes about Azerbaijanis speaking Persian, this is not a very far-fetched hypothesis. We've been through this many times -- Kurds and Tats, and in general, Iranian-speaking and of Iranian-origin tribes and peoples represented a large segment of populace -- taxpayers, soldiers, administrators, farmers, etc., -- and anyone with leadership aspirations needs to be able to bond with them. That's why we have written megabytes in a foreign language, too, and I hope no one would go, 500 years from now, and declare that Adil Baguirov is an Anglo-Saxon-Slavic-Semite, since he wrote in English and has a Semitic name, with a Russian or Slavic suffix, and likewise with Ali Doostzadeh, who is an American (English)-Arab-Persian. You sometimes over-emphasize the whole issue of names -- whilst it was and is still an important issue for people, we can't say that since so and so had names from Shahnameh, then they were Persian or at least Iranian. For some reason the name Othello is not entirely uncommon in Azerbaijan, as Napoleon in Armenia. Or what about Meloris for Georgians -- Marx-Engels-Lenin-October-Revolution-Iosif-Stalin, by the first letters of the name (after Stalin died, the name quickly changed to Melor)? Meanwhile, I've heard for years that Gen. Safavi is Azerbaijani. Also, let's not forget that Iranian tribes are not aboriginal to the Caucasus and Atropatena/Media area, and came later -- some say in 2nd millenium, others put it much later, at about 7th century BC. The aboriginals, or at least the predecessors, are the Caucasian tribes, origin of whom is unknown. Some of them were assimilated by Turkic and Iranian tribes. That's why Azerbaijanis look different from Persians (obviously there are many similarities, and we are not talking about some radical differences). But even the turn-of-century Brokgauz and Efron in one of the articles I cited for you (or the one you cited to me) had a line about Azerbaijanis being bigger than the rest of the population of Persia. The 1911 Britannica also says that Azerbaijanis make excellent soldiers and 1/3 of Iranian army are them -- why? Can people really acquire such physical traits by linguistics? So all it takes and just switching from "native" Persian to Turki and that's it, one is a totally different man? Probably there are other reasons involved -- different and complex ethnogenesis. Savory's article doesn't state a date, nor does it show recent bibliography. And again, having one Kurd who was a great-great-great-great-grandfather to Shah Ismail does not make the latter a Kurd. Having Kurdish roots is one, but being Kurdish is another. Also, some claim he was Talysh -- in fact, I think that's what you and Tajik told me some months ago when we had a similar discussion. And Tats in Azerbaijan claim Safavid's were Tats. At the same time, Kurds were always fierce and great warriors, and this fact must have been valued tremendeously by Turkic generals like Ismail or his Qizilbash. And if Turkic people know one thing, it's the fight. Learning a local language to be able to appeal to a broader base of supporters, recruits and soldiers is important to any strateg. Especially considering that the other side, Ottomans, has Kurds too, and they should be appealed to switch sides. When these things are at stake, one can change any geneology and declare themselves Marcian -- no wonder we are still confused about Shirvanshah's, who named themselves after Shahnameh, but appear to have been Arabs who were Persianized. Or were native Tats. Or Persians if at the time there were no Tats. --AdilBaguirov 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil the Shaykh has at least 11 Do baytis (44 lines of Tati) and it is in their official biography. Three full sentences in Tati in at least two different contemporary sources. The Shaykh himself did not have any military movement and his sufi order (Safaviyeh) was peaceful. He was a Shafi'ite Muslim (like virtually all Sunni Kurds) whereas Turkish Sunnis have been almost exclusively Hanafite. Without going off on a tanget, the sources mentioned by Savory make it clear he was Kurdish as his ancestor Firooz Shah Zarin Kolah is also Al-Kurd Sanjani. This has been discussed by the Turkish scholar Zekki Valad Togan(see the notes by Savor) and Savory also references him amongst his sources and others have reached the same conclusion. Actually it is Frye article that doesn't state a source and also in the previous sentence it says Azerbaijanis are mainly turkified Iranians. Without getting into details of that discussion, Savory's article is sourced and it is sufficient for it to be from Iranica and from Roger Savory (the foremost Safavid expert) although he has listed references. That makes it sourced, specially since his words on Safavids carries more weight than Frye although as I said it does not contradict Frye either taking into account Yarshater and Frye. Thus the Safavid sufic order started with a Kurd and was of Kurdish origin although it was Turkified (mentioned by Dr. Yarshater). This information needs to be in the article, since the dynasty called its self Safaviyeh and hence Shaykh Safi-ad-din was not just one of their ancestors from the fatherline (and he married the daugher of Shaykh Zahed Gilani), but also the spiritual founder of the Safavid sufic order making him very significant in the equation. That is what exactly Savory means when he says the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family, since the origin of the family is tied together with the Safavid order.

As per Azerbaijanis, physically they are similar to Persian speakers of Gilan, Qazvin, Tats, Kurds and other Iranic speakers in the NW (same geographical region) and perhaps slightly different than the Iranians of the south of Iran with much different temprature and climate and also the much wider availability of meat and dairy product (the best yogurt and milk in the world probably) from Azerbaijan. Mazandaranis and Lurs are probably the largest Iranians physically as almost all wrestlers from Iran are from these two. Azerbaijanis themselves of course have variety as any large group in Iran does. Also the reason a good portion of the soldiers have been Azerbaijanis is due mainly to nomadic tribal organizations of Azeri tribes Ghezelbaash, Shahsevan, Afshar and etc. who were the military backbone of the Safavid Shahs (until the time of Abbas I) and also the later Qajars who used many of the same tribes. The city people contributed less to the military efforts. While Kurdish tribes were mainly Sunni. Usually the villages and tribes in many areas of Iran were Lurs, Kurds and Azeris..etc. Tribes wether they be Lur (very close to Persian), Kurd or Azeri were used in the military. Also I never claimed Shaykh Safi ad-din was Talysh, but his do-baytis are understandable to Talysh, Tats(note that Tati here is not the Tati that is spoken in Azerbaijan republic by some people, but it is like the Tati of Qazvin and Iranian Azerbaijan) and Kurds. I'll leave it to more than qualified scholars like Savory to write about the Safavids origin. Also as I mentioned the Safavids did not really care about ethnic loyalties as they based their appeal on Shi'ism.

Going back to the discussion. I am asking all readers to read my proposal since it is fair to everyone and also it is natural policy. It is not supporting any theory, but it is saying that the sources of Iranica should all be listed. Thus State all three Iranica sources, put the first sentence back to the neutral POV as it was agreed upon with many users in the past. There is absolutely no reason to reject some Iranica sources and accept others and note my proposal is fairer to other users, since if it comes between Savory and Frye, Savory easily has the upperhand when it comes to matters relavent to Safavids and his article is also specifically about Safavid biography. --alidoostzadeh 13:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, just a comment -- when you refer to Frye that he said that Azerbaijanis are mainly Turkified Iranians, here's what he actually wrote: "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. ..." Being mostly Iranian-speakers and Iranian is two different things. And of course mainly doesn't mean all or nearly all. Also, it is not correct, as majority of Caucasus, as well as where Manna and Urartu were located, were mostly of Caucasian stock, not Iranian. So quite the contrary, the bulk of today's Azerbaijanis primary heritage was Caucasian, which was Iranified or Persianized later, and then got Turkified (this chronology is according to the generally accepted contemporary reconstruction of history). Thus, to sum up, serious scholars would never state that Azerbaijanis were originally Iranian -- that's simply contrary to all the evidence that has been literally dug up from ground from Mingechaur and Gabala to Yerevan and Naxcivan. The people of the greater region were mostly of Caucasian and other non-Iranian origin. Hence, when serious scholars write about Iranian roots of modern Azerbaijanis, they simply start their count from a certain period of history. Likewise then, all pro-Turkic scholars can start counting from 5-11th centuries. And of course, the whole premise of gigantic tribes and nations being "something-speaking" in BCs and early ADs is highly contentious as not much evidence remains, and clearly, some nations likes to write more than others. --AdilBaguirov 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil of course the Manna (although having few Iranic names were majority non-Iranian) and so were Urartu. But Urartu's main center was Eastern Turkey and Manna was a small kingdom around Urmia and the Medes basically Iranified them as you mentioned. And of course nations and groups change their language and culture. But at the same time, before Turkification, the Azerbaijan region of Iran and good portion of the caucus (just juding by Iranian names such as Paytarakan, Darband, Ganjah, Shervan..) were Iranian speakers and these people did not disapper, they just became fused with the Turks who were the ruling elite. In the end, probably all of our ancestors were caveman anyways. A good view of the issues is probably the many countries of the American continent which clearly have native population, but have become Spanish. The Iranian roots of Azerbaijanis of course is not just about change of language or etc. It is about Nowruz, the fire-temples, the name of Azerbaijan, cultures supported by Shervanshahs and Seljuqs, the many topynoms and thus the influence is strong. Whereas for example it is almost impossible say to find any trace of Urartu culture. --alidoostzadeh 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Dispute Continuing

Dear Ali, I will address some of your points on allegedly "Kurdish origins of Safavids" within coming days with some more references. Let me make clear something though first. This page is about Safavi dynasty as a ruling elite which resurrected a medieval Iran. It's not about origins of Safavi family, for that there is a page called "Safi Al Din" and another one called "Shah Ismail".

The founder of Safavi dynasty (a royal family descendance) was not Sheikh Safi-ad-Din and not Heydar Safavi Sultan, but Shah Ismail Khatai. As opposed to his grandfather, whom you say wrote 44 lines in Taati, Ismail wrote 100s of lines in Azeri Turkic, which were published as his Divan. His origin from mother's side was half-Turkic half-pontic Greek (his mother Halima Begum was a daughter of Uzun Hassan, who was pure Turk (or Turkoman which ever you prefer) and Despina, the daughter of Pontic Greek king Ioannes IV of Trebizond). Ismail's almost entire support base came from Qizilbash that is Turkoman tribesmen inhabitting Eastern Anatolia. Most of them were practictioners of various Sufi orders including Bektashi, Devshirme, etc. which were persecuted by Ottoman Sultan and joined Ismail instead. So the dynasty, the history of its rise to power has a word Turk or Turkoman "written" all over it, starting with the very definition of the word Qizilbash (which even in modern Azeri Turkic means "red head") to the very language that Ismail used to address his followers. There is no mentioning of Kurd, Taati or anything in ascendance of Ismail to the throne, as you rightfully mentioned, Ismail did not care about ethnic origins and believed to be descendant from Ali.

So I don't see what gives a basis to argue against Frye's simple comment: "Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid dynasty". Were they not? They inhabitted Azerbaijan, as they do now, they did speak Turkic as they do now, and they did call themselves Turk (as majority of Azeris in Iran call themselves and are referred to). So I don't think why the definition, Azeri Turk, although reflecting the reality of both XVIth century and today is so irksome? How how does it make Ismail less Iranian? My more moral question to which I expect a moral answer: Does every single person have to be of Persian/Kurdish/Taati/Talysh of another Iranian-speaking background in order to qualify to be Iranian? Best regards. Atabek 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek I never said that Shaykh Safi ad-din wrote only 44 lines of taati. We have 44 lines of taati left at least from him. Considering taati was never prestigious language, that is significant and considering his taati is understood by most NW Iranic dialects (none have really established literature relative to Arabic or Persian), that is important. But just like Rudaki has written close to 100,000 lines and we only have about 1,000 (1%) (which shows really Iranians were not that great in preserving their heritage and what is left is simply due to the shear amount of works written in Persian), it does not necessary mean he did not have more. As per your moral question, of course Azerbaijanis are Iranian as well. But the turkic language that is in Azerbaijan is relatively recent phenomenon and even in the recently discovered Ilkhanid manuscript, Safinya Tabrizi which is written by a Tabrizi with references to many Tabrizi, there is a lot of native pre-Turkic dialect. Azerbaijanis as descendants of mainly Iranian speakers who were Turkified are considered by all Iranians as Iranians. That is not the issue here, what we are discussing is wether the origin of the sufi order of the Safavids was Turkic (that is important question here with regards to the article as well), and the answer from scholars that have studied Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili is negative. Note for example Seljuqs, Ghaznavids etc.. all had ancestors that eventually lead to a Turkic name. Shaykh Safi-ad-din Ardabili's ancestor Firooz Shah Zarin Kolah was from persian Kurdistan and the Shaykh himself was a Shaf'ite Muslim (as I mentioned all Turkic groups in Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kazakhistan, Kyrghizstan, ...) are Hanafite. And note I did not argue that Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid dynasty but the origin of the Safavid family as Fry alludes to as well in his previous sentence was not Azeri-Turkic and the sufic order started by a Shaykh that was not Turkic speaker.. None of these informations contradict each other and I mentioned that already that the three Iranica sources are easily harmonized.

If this article is about the dynasty and not about the family, then there shound't be ANY ethnic lables, because the Safavids ruled as Shia rulers, and not as "Turkic" or "Persian" rulers.

But if this article is supposed to give an inside into the complex structure of Safavid identity and legacy, then it has to reflect ALL sources (most of all the AUTHORITATIVE works of Roger M. Savory - THE expert on Safavid history, even though Turkish nationalists do not want to believe this!).

@ Atabek: not only Ismail's mother was (partly a Turk), but the mothers of Sheikh Haydar and Sheikh Junayd as well! This is even mentioned in the article. The Safavid family had married into the royal families of Diyabakir and Azerbaijan. But what's so special about the Safavids is that they did not lose their Non-Turkic identity. Their male family-line was still "Safawi" - the same Safavids of Azerbaijan and Diyabakir. Marrying into other royal families and adopting their languages does not change - in an encyclopedic/scientific view - the "ethnic origin" of the families. That'S also the reason why the Seljuqs are still known as "Seljuq Turks". By the time of the Great Seljuq empire, the entire Seljuq family was Persianized - in language, culture, and identity. Yet, they are still known as "Seljuq Turks".

The case of the Safavids is the other way arround: a native Iranic family that became linguistically Turkified and depended on the Turcoman Khans of the Caucasus. But they never lost their original Iranian identity. Labeling them "Azeri Turks" is totally misplaced and against the nature of the Safavid kingdom and its position in history. Btw, 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) ..." 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

As you can see, C.E. Bosworth (one of the main editors of Iranica and EI) does not see the Safavids as "Turks" either!

Tājik 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tajik,

1. First off, I would like to quote your own words just above on this long Talk page, which you made 24 November 2006:

B. Lewis says that the Safavids were "Turks" ... that's fine with me. But others, such as R. Frye and R. Savory, do not call them Turks. Now YOU tell me why we should reject the opinion of Frye and Savory and favour that of B. Lewis?!

Now, I did add the quote back exactly by R. Frye "Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid dynasty", and you kept removing it. May I ask where does the dichotomy in your thought originate from? I hope you and most importantly others can clearly see some POV here.

2. Your comments "But they never lost their original Iranian identity", and " and "a native Iranic family that became linguistically Turkified and depended on the Turcoman Khans of the Caucasus", are not scientifically crisp. Firstly, because there is no ethnicity called Iranian (or Iranic for that matter), there is ethnicity known as Kurd, Talysh, Tat, Azeri Turk, Persian, etc. Secondly, and most importantly, at the time and prior to Ismail's proclaiming himself Shah of Iran in 1502, there was no political entity called Iran, it ceased to exist with the end of Sassanids several centuries earlier. So I am not sure, how does your claim about Iranic or Iranian hold any water with respect to Safavid origins.

3. Here I also wanted to touch some comment from yet another article by Vladimir Minorsky:

"The families of Shaykh Zahid and Shaykh Safi were separate. The pedigree of the former is fantastic. According to the Safvat, p. 51, Shaykh Taj al-din Ibrahim was the son of Raushan-Amir, son of Babil, son of Shaykh Bundar al-Kurdi al-Sanjani (or al-Sinjani)." (Vladimir Minorsky, "A Mongol Decree of 720/1320 to the Family of Shaykh Zahid", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 16, No. 3. (1954), pp. 518-518).

So, bringing more clarity to the words of the respectful Ali Doostzadeh above, I would like to highlight that Sanjani was an ancestor of Ismail by his great grandmother in several generations Bibi Fatima, NOT by his great grandfather Shaykh Safi. This, along with the fact that Ismail's father Haydar, and his grandfather Junayd both married Aq Qoyunlu Turkoman princesses (V. Minorsky, "Shaykh Bālī-efendi on the Safavids", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 20, No. 1/3, Studies in Honour of Sir Ralph Turner, Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1937-57. (1957), pp. 437-450) adds even more to Turkic emphasis in the heritage of Ismail.

4. Continuing in Minorsky:

Elsewhere, p. 12 (of Safvat), the same source affirms that the Sanjani Kurds, led by a king issued from Ibrahim Adham (see R. A. Nicholson in Encyclopedia of Islam) conquered Azarbayjan at the time when the population of Muqan, Aran, Alvan and Dar-i Bum consisted entire of unbelievers, whom the conquerors converted to Islam. Nothing is known of proselytizing activities of the Kurds at an early date.

5. Finally, in Minorsky:

Shaykh Safi claimed the origin of his ancestors from Ali ibn Abi Talib, but there is some uncertainty about it (cf. Safvat, 11, 21). His ancestor in the 7th generation, called Firuz-shah, is said to have been a rich man. He first lived in Gilan, on the outskirts of the forests, at a place called Rangin, and then the Kurdish kings GAVE him Ardabil and its dependencies. Safi al-din's bothers were rich merchants trading in Fars and Hurmuz, see Safvat, 12, 18. (Minorsky, op. cit., p. 518).

Again dear Ali Doostzadeh and Tajik, nowhere does it mention that Firuz-shah (and 7 GENERATIONS BEFORE!!) was a Kurd, he was only granted land by Kurdish rulers of Gilan. Best regards. Atabek 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atabek, of course Lewis is not authority on Safavids. Savory is an authority on Safavids as he has written books and articles just in relation with Safavids, so is Valid Zekki Togan (Turkish scholar), Michelle Mazzaoui, and etc. While the Minorsky source is also good, it is also dated (1957), but I'll read over his article soon as well. Amongst Iranian notables one can cite Nasrallah Falsafi and Kasravi (whose work has been praised by Minorosky) can be mentioned who discuss the issue. It is a fact that the ancestors of Firuz Shah hailed from Persian Kurdistan. As per Iran there always have been a geographical entity named Iran in that period although not a political state or government. Authors like Hamdullah Mustawfi have used the term. Iranic is a general term like Turkic, Germanic, Slavic and etc. (note you used the word Turkic emphasis in the heritage yourself whereas Turkic is not a particular identity or ethnicity either). For example all Iranic groups share shahnameh mythology, Chaharshanbeh souri, Nowruz, Sizdah Bedar, Yalda, had zoroastrian ancestors, common history and etc. Thus the bond is stronger than say Slavic and Azerbaijanis are also part of the same history and culture, but for historical reasons, their language has been Turkified (which is fine and does not weaken their link in any way with Iran). Of course I am not supporting any panism, but Iranic, Germanic, Slavic are ethno-linguistic groups. That aside, we all already know that the Safavids married within Kurds, Gilaks, Turkomens and etc in later generations;. The discussion is about the origin of the Safavid order with regards to Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili who founded the Safavid order which was the genus of the Safavid dynasty. Scholars consider him a Kurd for a variety of reasons, which is mentioned in the different sources of Savory. Yes Shah Ismai'l despite his mixed background is considered by me to be an Azeri. But the founder of the Safavid order is considered a Kurd. I'll look into the Minorosky source you mentioned tommorow as well try to mention the reasons why scholars consider him a Kurd (besides being a Shaf'ite, having poems that are mutually understand to Kurdish and hailing from Persian Kurdistan). Of course these are just for further discussion, but from scientific standard, if we are quoting one Iranica article, we can not discount two, specially one from Savory. Tajik also quoted another article by Savory before the Iranica article: Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. Have a good one for the night. --alidoostzadeh 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, with all due respect, why is the opinion of Frye, Lewis, Minorsky and other authoritative scientists ignored and Savory is emphasized as the "most authoritative researcher on Safavids in the world", what gives you basis to make this claim? Here I would like to bring yet another quote from Iranica, which highlights that Kurdish origin of Sheykh Safi was a conjecture rather than a proven fact. Also, I want to add that the definition of "Kurd" in those times was very obscure, and did not necessarily imply ethnic origin of Kurd in modern pan-nationalist sense. See below:

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.

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v13f3/v13f3001d.html

So perhaps, a good idea to resolve the dispute would be to bring all relevant references here in a more or less manner reflecting the amount of research to either Turkic or Kurdish version of origin, and let each reader of the page make his/her own conclusion. Sincere regards. Atabek 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Atabek is absolutely right. The current version of the article presents the Kurdish origin of Safavids as a fact, while Iranica says that it is just a version (they may have been of Kurdish origin), and that Safavids were “for all practical purposes Turkish-speaking and Turkified”. I think that the article should fairly present all opinions on the origin of Safavi clan (not dynasty, because dynasty starts with Ismail I), at the same time it is beyond any doubt that Safavid dynasty were Azeri Turks, as attested by Iranica. The ethnicity of one ancestor does not make all the descendants member of the same ethnicity. A good example is Pushkin, whose great grandfather was Ethiopian, while Pushkin himself was Russian, despite his physical appearance being different from Slavic. So I think we can include in the article that according to some scholars Safavids may have been of Kurdish origin, while other scholars don’t support this view. At the same time the dynasty was definitely Turkic, they spoke Azeri language and some of them even greatly contributed in development of Azerbaijani poetry. Grandmaster 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, you say: "As you can see, C.E. Bosworth (one of the main editors of Iranica and EI) does not see the Safavids as "Turks" either!", but Bosworth didn't mention anything about alleged Kurdish origins of Safavids! In fact, Bosworth, who is one of the two editors of the book, whilst the article author is an Iranian, F. Daftary, mention everyone from Ghaznavids to Qajars, but skip Turkic Afshars and Safavids. Thus, I am puzzled why would you attribute to Bosworth an agreement on Kurdish origins. Also, per Atabek's quote from Iranica about "may have been Kurdish", the encyclopedia is not only not sure, but also cites the very same Savory, plus some Matthee. So the end result is that more reputable and authoritative scholars support the Azerbaijani and Turkic version, than the Kurdish.

Also, clearly, the #1 person in the history of the Safavid dynasty is not the founder of the dynasty, but the founder of the Iranian state as we know it, that is, Shah Ismail. His great-great grandfather might have been half-Kurdish, but that is less relevant for the Safavid dynasty (dynasty denotes royal origin, which means its relevant only from 1501, not 1300's). --AdilBaguirov 02:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I remember in conversation with you and Ali some time ago I listed several official letters and edicts written by Safavids in Azerbaijani Turki. I have a faxsimille of a few of them. And of course there was no need for Shah Ismail to write letters in Azerbaijani to Sultan Selim, but he did. Likewise, as I've already said before, perhaps the greater reason why we have less writings in Persian than in Azerbaijani by Shah Ismail is probably because he knew Azerbaijani better, so wrote less, and when he did write in Persian, his Persian poetry were inferior. --AdilBaguirov 02:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment on Adil’s post. The founder of the dynasty, which is the subject of the article, was Shah Ismail. The dynasty starts with the first ruler in a certain genealogical line, and the first ruler was Ismail. And the clan of Safavids, which existed long before the dynasty, was founded by Safi al-Din, whose origins are obscure, as Iranica says. Ethnicity is not something that remains unchanged thru generations, even if we assume that sheikh Safi was Kurd, it does not follow that all of his descendants were Kurds too. Ismail did not speak any Kurdish and never associated himself with Kurdish people, he was an Azeri Turk, as most sources say, and so was the dynasty. Grandmaster 08:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Suggestion: since the Safavid rule was mainly based on religion, I suggest we remove all ethnic lables and theories from the INTRO. The intro should only give a brief summary of the article, i.e. explaining the importance of the dynasty for declaring Shia Islam as the official religion of the country, and for re-igniting the Persian identity of the nation that was more or less lost after the Mongol invasion. The "ethnic origins" debate should be presented in detail and in a NPOV way in a special section, giving an insight into all valid theories and sources. What do you think? Tājik 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On FiruzShah پیروزشاه

Friends, It is in the older manuscripts of Safwat as-Safa clearly saying پیروز شاه زرین کلاه الکرد سنجانی. I'll bring details soon (thanks to Velid Zekki Togan (a prominent Turkish scholar if you check sites like jstor)) really although Kasravi had mentioned this earlier. But Dr. Togan actually did all the HW since he put exact copies of the Persian in his paper of the manuscripts and the oldest extant manuscript whereas Kasravi just quoted the relavent couple lines of the older manuscripts and Togan as savory mentioned reach his conlusion indepent of Kasravi which is always good when scholars reached the same conclusion. I think if we want to be fair, we need to quote all the Iranica sources like Atabek mentioned. We can work out compromise like we have done in other articles so that everyone is satisfied. Note this al-Kurd Al-Sanjani in the oldest extant manuscript of Safwat as-Safa is used as direct reference to Pirooz Shah. Dehkhoda mentions this as well in his dictionary. Of course there is independent al-Kurd Al-Sanjani used for Shaykh Zahed Gilani which is interesting and mentioned by minorsky. Of course that portion is more fantastic ancestory of Shaykh Zahed Gilani as mentioned by minorsky. I'll have more comments later on tonight or perhaps tomorrow. I hope we can learn a lot by just analyzing all the extant sources. I was able to obtain the two minorsky articles mentioned by our friend Atabek. Minorsky does not mention Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili's ethnicity ..but he has made some interesting comments that impress on the discussion. He does mention the Shaykh once with his pre-Turkic language of Azerbaijan poems. Over-all, what seems very scientific is that Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili who started the Safavid order was of Iranic linguistic background and later on his ancestors turkified (Frye's previous sentence alludes to this in my opinion and Yarshater mentions this...) and so does the new source that says for all practical purpose they were turkified. Note Frye does not mention the ancestory of Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili neither. Savory and Yarshater are more explicit. And why is Savory is better source than say Lewis on Safavids? That is a good question and one just has to look at the publications they have had with regards to Safavids to get the answer. Savory have many books and articles specific on the Safavids. So let me bring the new sources I found today (not new really since Prof. Togan found them) and after everyone reads it, then we can say more about the discussion. I think to be ultimately fair, since Iranica is a very new source and thus specializes on Iran related topics from major Professors in Harvard, Columbia and etc, it takes some predecence over sources. Thankfully all the sources so far mentioned have been scholarly. Over-all there is no denying that by the time of Shah esmail I, the Safavid order was turkified linguistically although culturally Shah Esmai'ls attachment to the Shahnameh and claiming himself as a successor of Fereydoon, Rostam and etc, also shows strong Iranian nationalist culture (at least in my opinion). Thus Shah Esmail is really like all the regional people (Kurd blood, Azeri blood, Greek Blood and who knows perhaps the Arab blood although discounted by scholars.). Interestingly despite his fervor for shi'ism, he never converted his mother who remained a christian till her death. Thus his mother really despite her ancestry is not culturally one of the Muslim groups of the middle-east, since religion was a big part of culture. I agree with Atabek when he said: So perhaps, a good idea to resolve the dispute would be to bring all relevant references here in a more or less manner reflecting the amount of research to either Turkic or Kurdish version of origin, and let each reader of the page make his/her own conclusion. Sincere regards. . None of us can claim to be a Safavid expert without knowing Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Azeri, Tati, English,French..and reading large number of documents and books on the Safavids. So in the end as Atabek said we can only put the relavent sources. But since the primary identity of the Safavids during the Shaykhs time was sufism and the primary identity of the Shah Esmail was Shi'ite Islam, I think their primary is religious and not ethnic. On a side note, I read on non-scholarly ethnic-based site today that the story of Kur-Oghlu is actually anti-Shah Abbas and anti-Safavid because of their increasing Persianization. Something not relavent, but nevertheless Shah Abbas's relocation to the city of Esafahan, his disposal of the ghezelbash tribes and his centralization around Esfahan Persianized the Safavids to a large extent. Thus it seems we have Kurd->Azeri->semi-Persian and today descendants of Safavids can be found amongst different linguistic groups in Iran. The opinions I wrote from myself are side notes which is just to have discussion to learn more as I note when we have discussions and even friendly debates, in the end everybody wins by learning something. --alidoostzadeh 02:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

just as a side an article that has similarities to the discussion.  :: --alidoostzadeh 03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay now let me provide the proof from Zeki Velidi Togan since Kasravi might not be acceptable to some people (although Kasravi clearly also refers to the oldest extant manuscript in Iran pre-Safavid and directly in this manuscript it mentions Pirooz Shah Zarin Kolah Al-Kurd Al-Sanjani). But since some users might dislike Kasravi (although Minorsky praises his scholarship), it is indeed good that Professor Togan wrote the Persian in each manuscript and Prof. Togan himself writing in many western journal articles and being quoted and also of Ottoman Turkish origin, should be acceptable source to all the friends discussing the issues. Prof. Togan examines three manuscripts of the Safwat al-Safa (biography of the Shaykh as mentioned. Note it is also very good to have biography of the Shaykh . The manuscripts examined by Prof. Togan are dated 1485 (pre-Safavid)(A), 1491 (pre-safavid)(B), 1508 (post-Safavid)(C).

In manuscript script A we read and I will highlight the relavent portions with the word Kurd. فصل اول در ذکر نسب شیخ قدس سره شیخ صفی الدین ابوالفتح اسحق ابن الشیخ امین الدین جبریئل ابن الصالح قطب الدین ابوبکر ابن صللاح الدین رشید ابن الحافظ الکلام الله ابن عواض ابن بیروز الکردی السنجانی رحمته الله علیهم ِDirect translation: Chapter one on the ancestory of the holy shaikh Safi al-din Abul-fatah Eshaaq ibn Al-Shaykh amin al-din Jebrayil ibn al-saaleh Qutb al-din abu bakr ibn salaah al-din rashid ibn Muhammad al-Hafiz l-Kalaam allah ibn avaaz (with arabic ع and ض unrelated to Persian aavaaz)ibn birooz al-Kurdi al-Sanjani may God's mercy be upon all of them. In manuscript A again we have again: چون نسبت فیروز با کرد رفت صدرت حال انچنان بود که در وقتی لشکر کرد با لشکر پادشاهی که از ف since the ancestry of Pirooz was Kurdish.

In manuscript B we also: چون نسب پیروز با کرد رفت since the ancestry of Pirooz was Kurdish.

It is also true that in manuscript A, there is another Kurd as mentioned by Minorsky (Shaykh Bundar Al-Kurd Al-Sanjani) but this Kurd is in relation with Shaykh Zahid and it is actually in another Chapter of Safwat al-Safa describing the ancestory of Shaykh Zahid..

I'll have more to say tomorrow in this spot..since I need to spend sometime outside of the internet for today.

(actually just my suggestion after getting out of the internet for a second):

The Safavids Shi'ite dynasty recreated Persia(nothing ethnic here just what the west called the empire) as a unified political entity based on the Shi'i religion. The Safavid Sufi order initiated by Shaykh Safi-al-din, of possible Kurdish and definite Shaf'ite Sunni sect , was converted to Shi'ism at aroud (?) and was Turkified and Turkish speaking by the time of their political rise.

Something minimal and succint and to the point as above would do. (Note I did not see anything from Lewis or Frye or Minorsky on the origin of Shaykh Safi al-din. Actually on Frye if my memory serves me right, might have alluded to the Kurdish ancestery of the Shaykh in one of his books, but I don't have the book with me although I ordered it today to double check). Minorsky's article is actually more pro-Kasravi and Minorsky was a big fan of Kasravi.. If one searches hard enough it is probable that one can find him alluding to Kasravi or Togan. Lewis is out of the ball park and has not contributed iota of originality to Safavid studies. Note despite my 100% belief that the Safavids had Kurdish origin as proven by Dr. Togan (which basically leaves no doubt with ancestor such as Pirooz Shah Zarin kolaah) and despite the strong statement by Savory:Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. ',, I emphasize possible here. Although Savory is really the ace of Safavid history and his statements hold much more weight. The reason I did this is to make sure everyone can share in Safavids. Note neither Prof. Frye or definitely not Lewis is a Safavid historian. Furthermore note, I mentioned many times that the Safavids were not a ethno-natiolistic group and they could not have been given that Esmail himself was of multiple ethnicity and in the end if they were proud of anything, it was their wannabe Arabness through their creation of false family-tree of being Seyyeds. Esmail I was not proud of anything except being Shi'i Muslim. The religious poems he wrote for his turkomen followers was simply that religious poems for his followers. Savory makes an interesting note to this effect :Between 1508 and 1524, the year of Esmail's death, the shah appointed five successive Persians to the office of wakil. Of the five, the first died a year or so after his appointment, and one chronicle makes the significant statement that he "weakened the position of the Turks. --alidoostzadeh 05:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, I would like to emphasize once more that Savory was the one who explicitly said in the quote I included above:

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.

Also as mentioned above by Minorsky, Firuz-shah was the ancestor of Sheykh Safi in 7th generation. If we assume average generation length of about 25 years, that's nearly 175 years. Can you claim that ethnic identity of the person 7 generations later was precisely the same as that of one of his ancestors 175 years ago? I don't even know what ethnicity one of my ancestors could be in 1830, neither I think many of us could.

One more fact, again mentioned above, that al-Sanjani was the ancestor of Sheykh Zahed not Sheykh Safi.

Yet another reference says:

Throughout Iran several of the most prominent Sufi orders were evolving in a more Shi`i-orientated direction. The most important of these, from the point of view of the future history of Iran, was the Safavid order of Sufis. This order was founded by Shaykh Safiyu'd-Din (650/1252-735/1334) in Ardibil in north-west Iran during the Ilkhanid period. He was a Sunni and during his lifetime became sufficiently influential to include most of the inhabitants of Ardibil among his disciples. He was probably of Kurdish or Turkoman origin but the later Safavid kings concealed their ancestry so as to claim descent from the Seventh Imam, Musa al-Kazim. (Moojan Momen. An Introduction to Shi`i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi`ism. ISBN: 0300035314)

I am sorry, I can't consider Kasravi as a serious historian neither I think many Azeris do. The reason is not just due to the fact that Kasravi was not a professional historian, he was a theologian by education and a poet. The reason is because Kasravi was politically motivated, was a nationalist with often openly radical views. He was prominent for claiming famous medieval poets Jalaleddin Rumi as somewhat mentally retarded, and Hafez as an alcoholic, which contributing to self-ruining of his credibility as a serious scholar. But Kasravi is a matter of a separate subject.

About excluding ethnic origin altogether, and mentioning just Shia, I disagree, respectfully. We should provide the full picture based on references we have. Also, I would like to remind that this page is called Safavid Dynasty, and not Safavid Order. A dynasty, as outlines in Wiki article devoted to this definition, is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations. Sheykh Safi was not a ruler, Ismail was, hence Ismail is a founder of Safavid Dynasty. And he was Turkified and did have his base mostly among Turkoman Qizilbash warriors. It's true that Ismail has weekened the power of Qizilbash appointing the Persians or the "men of pen", with whom "men of sword" had problems. Process of Qizilbash weakening was even more highlighted during the reign of Ismail's son, Tahmasb and finished under Shah Abbas I, who gave clear preference to Persians and Caucasian Christian subjects.

Anyways, I will put up some first draft of proposed consensus draft tomorrow and we can discuss it letter by letter, iron it out, and update the page. Best regards Atabek 12:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Dear Atabek, Savory's article on Iranchamber and Iranica is from at least 2000. The Iranica article with enteries E-Z(after Prof. Yarshater decided that it would better to have the enteries in non-alphabetic article and available as soon as possible) are new and are from 2005-2006. Also the author who is referring to Savory does not quote Savory directly, he is just referring to Savory who believes that Safavids were of Kurdish origin, but himself is being cautious. He is saying they may have been of Kurdish origin based on referring to Savory. Also I said nothing about Kasravi (although I know he did not regard sufism high nevertheless I never have heared him say Rumi was mentally retared..) and my main source is Prof. Togan who himself is Turkish and native of Turkey. I directly referred to Professor Togan. And in the end Prof. Togan has referred to the two oldest extant copies of Safwat al-Safa (his versions were older than Kasravies). The Kurd Al-Sanjani is not an ancestor, it is part of the name of Pirooz Shah in these two extant manuscripts as mentioned by Prof. Togan. Kasravi's work are quoted by Minorsky and Frye and his book on the Iranian constitutional revolution is really the only and best source. But I did not say anything about Kasravi since Prof. Togan had manuscripts independent of Kasravi. Moojan Momen is not an authority on Safavid or as Savory would say: "Safavid Historian'.. One can find many authors as well referring to the Kurdish origin of Safavids directly or with possibility, but none of them are "Safavid Historians". The Safwat al-Safa is the only biography of the Safavids before the gaining of political power.

pg 381 of "Islamid Desk Reference" By E. van Donzel who says the dynasty was "Turkish speaking and quite probably of Kurdish origin".

pg 83 of "history of Iran", richard elton, "man of uncertain but probably of Kurdish origin".

Modern History of the Kurds By David MacDowall pg 50.

A History of Islamic Societies By Ira Marvin Lapidus: "A Sunni Sufi religious teacher descended froma Kurdish family in NW Iran.

Richard Tapper (the same author you quoted): Shaikh Safi and his immediate successors were renowned as holy ascetic Sufis. Their own origin were obscure; probably of Kurdish or Iranian extraction, they later claimed descent fromt he Prophet. pg 39. (Shahsevan..)

Can you claime ethnicity of 7th generation? If there is a family tree, in my opinion yes. But no one is claiming ethnicity here, the order which gave rise to the dynasty was of Kurdish origin or as I my compromise version said: Probably. There would be no dynasty without the Safavid order. Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah was a prominent man. Esmail I was also the head of the order which became militant and created the dynasty. I believe my compromised version is actually showing everything: possible Kurdish origin (although my personal belief is 100% after reading Prof. Tigan and as Savory mentions the concesus amongst Safavid historians and furthermore within 10 20 years it will be a common fact since concensus is developing amongst Safavid historians), Turkified and adoption of Turkish language(mentioned in Iranica articles) and conversion of the order to Shi'ism perhaps during the time of Haydar or Junayd (something which one can easily find the date for). What was brought from Prof. Togan is really sufficient enough for the ethnic identity of the Shaykh since there is no other sources available that calls his ancestors anything else. But I am waiting for your compromised version as well, since different people have written different compromised version. --alidoostzadeh 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Safavid identity was not only about their ethnic origins (and as already shown by Ali, they were originally an Iranic clan). The Safavids marked a change in the Islamic world, and they are strictly linked to Shia Persia, Shia Persians, and a Shia Persian identity - in total contrast to Sunni Turkic Anatolia and Sunni Turkic Central Asia. Iranica says (in regard of Safavid-Timurid relations):

• "... 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

So, the Safavids were strictly attached to a Persian identity, so that even the language they represented - the Persian language - was marked as "language of heresy" by their Sunni counterparts. This is, most likely, also the reason for the language-switch in the Ottoman Empire (and in Pashtunistan). From now on, the Persian language, the "language of the Persian Safavids", was the "language of Shia heretics", while Chaghatay, Arabic, and Ottoman Turkish became the "languages of Sunni Islam".

Tājik 13:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That is true the Safavids legitimacy was based on their descent from Shi'i Imams and not on ethnic origin. --alidoostzadeh 15:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish origin of the clan is just one of the versions. Historians say that the origin of Safavids is obscure, so I think we should not present Kurdish origin as fact, but as an opinion of some scholars. There was a good quote from Iranica, here’s another one:

Throughout Iran several of the most prominent Sufi orders were evolving in a more Shi`i-orientated direction. The most important of these, from the point of view of the future history of Iran, was the Safavid order of Sufis. This order was founded by Shaykh Safiyu'd-Din (650/1252-735/1334) in Ardibil in north-west Iran during the Ilkhanid period. He was a Sunni and during his lifetime became sufficiently influential to include most of the inhabitants of Ardibil among his disciples. He was probably of Kurdish or Turkoman origin but the later Safavid kings concealed their ancestry so as to claim descent from the Seventh Imam, Musa al-Kazim.

Moojan Momen. An Introduction to Shi`i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi`ism. ISBN: 0300035314

As you can see, this source says that he was either of Kurdish or Turkoman origin, without giving preference to any. Plus Safavids manipulated with their genealogy to take political advantage of their descent. Grandmaster 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The manipulation was mostly pro-Turkic (see the source to Iranica). That'S why sometimes Safi ud-Din is described as a "young Turk" in the Safawat as-Safa. Those changes were made during the reign of Shah Tahmasp who was first only a puppet of the powerful Qezelbash leader Div Soltan Rumlu. Tājik 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Turkic? They claimed descent from Sasanids and seventh imam, how’s that Pro-Turkic? Grandmaster 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The manipulation was mostly pro-Turkic (see the source to Iranica). That'S why sometimes Safi ud-Din is described as a "young Turk" in the Safawat as-Safa. Those changes were made during the reign of Shah Tahmasp who was first only a puppet of the powerful Qezelbash leader Div Soltan Rumlu. Tājik 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Turkic? They claimed descent from Sasanids and seventh imam, how’s that Pro-Turkic? Grandmaster 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

After Ismail's death, his son Tahmasp became king at the age of 10. Shah Isma'il had already appointed Div Soltan as Tahmasp's "Atabeg", and thus he became the de facto ruler of the Empire. One of his first moves was the murder of the powerful Persian vizier Jalal ud-Din Muhammad Tabrizi. Most of the Kizilbash accepted his rule, the Ustajlus being the only exception. The animosity between Div Soltan Rumlu and Kopek Soltan Ustajlu lead to civil war. Div Soltan defeated the Ustajlus (who fought with "Tajik" support) and continued his policies, until Shah Tahmasp established his own personal independence and put him to death.

The manipulation of the Safavid chronicals were mostly during Div Soltan's reign ... an attempt to link the Torcuman Kizilbash directly to the family of Sheikh Safi. I also suggest: Roger M. Savory, "The significance of the political murder of Mirza Salman", in "Studies on the history of Safawid Iran" Tājik 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Safi ud-din is not described as a young turk in Safwat As-Safa (I think some guy made such a claim but you should always ask for the Persian of the source),. The person that made this claim is writing about a Persian source and then puts in a Turkish word (Genc Turk)(young turk) in a Persian text that has not entered Persian. Ganj means treasture in Persian and any statement should have at least a valid source. Through the works of Prof. Togan we have the oldest extant manuscripts of Safwat As-Safa with regards to the biography of the Shaykh which is pre-safavid. The Safavid ancestery in the Safavid times was geared to making them descendants of the Imams. As per the book of Moojan Momen,he is not a Safavid historian. I think we should mention directly that in the oldest extant manuscripts of Safwat As-Safa the Shaykh is described as being of Kurdish descent. These manuscripts are all from pre-safavid times. Whatever our opinion of the Shaykh is, the fact that the oldest extant and pre-safavid manuscript describes his ancestery as Kurdish is not a personal opinion or POV. And if we are talking about scholars, Roger Savory, Mazzoui and etc. are the prominent Safavid historians who have written many books and articles on Safavids. That is why a good portion of the Safavid articles in Iranica are done by Prof. Savory. If there is evidence specially pre-Safavid that the Shaykh is called a Turkomen, then it should be brought forth. Note I brought the exact Persian sentences from the two oldest manuscripts of Safwat Al-Safa (thanks to Prof. Togan). --alidoostzadeh 17:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should come to a reasonable compromise here. This dispute goes on for years, and to put an end to it I think we should make account of all existing positions and present them in a fair manner. I think it is possible, and in my personal opinion the article should say that while the dynasty was Azeri Turkic, its origins are obscure and according to some scholars they were of Kurdish origin, while others disagree. As you can see, the sources quoted by Ali also say that Safavids were probably of Kurdish origin, i.e. they don’t claim it as a fact, as the current version of the article does. I think the only way to resolve the dispute once and for all is to include all the existing views in a fair manner, and then nobody would feel the need to make dramatic changes to the article. According to the rules we don’t make our own research, but report what authoritative sources say, and there are different opinions among them. From what I can see most sources say that Kurdish origin was possible, but they don’t claim it as a fact. And responding to Tajik, it does matter who changed the genealogy, if the purpose was to claim descent from Seventh imam and Sasanian kings, it was definitely not pro-Turkic. Grandmaster 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have already suggested above, I think that the intro should have NO ethnic lables. Everything in concern of ethnic origins, language, etc should be mentioned in a special section in a NPOV manner. As for the manipulation: the Safawid chronologies were first written to declare the Safavids "Sayeds". Later on, it was changed again to declare the Safavids "Kizilbash/Turcomans". The second change was reverted, while the "Sayed" claimed remained. And, btw, I do not think that there can be any compromise as long as you persist on calling them "Azeri Turks" in the intro. Tājik 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tajik here that the intro should lack any ethnic labeling. Also GM said: its origins are obscure and according to some scholars they were of Kurdish origin, while others disagree, but Prof. Savory gives a stronger statement with regards to the opinion of scholars:Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan.. A consensus is fairly strong word. Also my version I thought was a compromise. I did not even add probably or 100% (like Savory did in his Iranica article), but I put possible. And I did not add Azeri Turk, but Turkish speaking. Note that we have no statement from any other scholar, let alone one that of the stature of Savory on what is the consensus. Only Savory has mentioned what is the consensus and there can only be one consensus amongst the relavent scholars with regards to an issue. That is the nature of an scholarly consensus. Despite this consensus, and I emphasize despite this, I put the word possible. So the word some scholars consider them of Kurdish origin and some do not actually is superceded by the word from Prof. Savory with regards to the concensus today. Listing all the sources on Safavids will require guidelines (what is the scope of the scholars, which scholars..Kasravi is not acceptable to some, maybe Y is not acceptable to others) and then we waste hours of our life (life is short anyway). Thus I think the statement with this regards needs to be succient (two three lines at most). What are the sources should be included from what time line? 100 years ago it was common knowledge that Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili was a Shi'ite. Perhaps another proposal is to just list the 4 Iranica sources (since they are all very very new) and supercede any older source. I think the evidence is clear from the oldest exant manuscripts of safwat as-safa. Prof. Momen wrote his book 22 years ago. I have emailed Prof. Moojan Momen to seek what his latest opinion on the matter although he is not a Safavid Historian. For example Achaemenid historians like Briant or Parthian historians like Wolski have devoted their whole life in studying one period of history. It is the same with the likes of Savory and Mazzaoui. Despite the fact that Prof. Savory mentions consensus (and this statement is many times stronger than some scholars believe X and others Y), I have put the word possible. I think some flexibility is needed from all sides and not 500 lines of back and forth polemics about the origin of Safavid. Just two or three sentences. Of possible Kurdish origin, but Turkified and Turkish speaking by the time of Esmail I.. That's all that is needed. If not, I am proposing all users should accept that we should at least be succint as possible (this will make go along way in making sure there is no edit-wars) and just use the most up to date sources. --alidoostzadeh 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Minorsky

Let me add that Minorosky in the article cited by my friend Atabek has made couples of points that is also relavent. The first poem as mentioned by Atabek is actually an Ah-e-Haqq poem (which is a sect that has large Kurdish and some Azeri/Persian followings in Iran) and is not that of Esmail. Of course he was the Pir (guide) of some Turks as most of the tribes loyal to him where turkomens (a smaller number of Kurds and perhaps Lurs too), although (of Azerbaijan) is not directly in the poem. But Minorsky makes an interesting statement at the end of that article: 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. Alread, 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). Minorsky also says (part of it pointed out by tabek) in the same article:Shah Ismail, even though he must have been bi-lingual from birth was not writing for his own heart's delight. He had to adress his adherents in a language fully intellgible to them, and thus the choice of the Turcoman Turkish became a necessity for him. Shah Ismai's son Saam (Shahnameh name) Mirzaa states that his fater wrote also n Persian, and as a sample quotes one single verse. Some traces of Persian poetry are found in one Paris M.S.; but this exception all the known copies of Khatai's Divan are entirely in Turkish. Note let me add that we only have about 1-2% of Rudaki's work left today and many books of many scholars from the past are gone. My friend Atabek said: why is the opinion of Frye, Lewis, Minorsky and other authoritative scientists ignored and Savory is emphasized as the most authoritative researcher on Safavids in the world. With the exception of Lewis who is not a Safavid scholar (Minorsky is one since he has written some comprehensive articles on Safavids), perhaps my friend Atabek did not see the last page of the article and I of course give him the benifit of the doubt. Lewis as I mentioned is not in the same league. Frye also mentions that the majority of Azerbaijanis were Turkified Iranian speakers in his previous sentence. But I'll have more on Frye soon (within a week) once his books arrives. But I think the quote above from Minorsky is important to the discussion. At the end though, Minorsky has long passed away (although this quote above directly discusses the ancestry) and Frye is not of the same caliber as Savory in Safavid issues although Frye's previous sentence as mentioned by Tajik also has important bearing on the article. I still believe my purposal was fair to everyone and in the long term whatever[REDACTED] writes, serious scholars do not look to[REDACTED] for scholarship and we are just quarreling over what our belief is or else any neutrality would indicate that we mention the scholarly consensus. --alidoostzadeh 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I like your repeated argument about Rudaki's poetry being mostly (98%) lost as a reason of perhaps why Khatai's writings are overwhelmingly in Azerbaijani Turki. Ismail wrote mostly in 16h century. What about my similar argument about Nizami, who lived in 12th-13th century, and whose writings in other languages - such as in Arabic, to show his devotion to religion and consistent with Azerbaijani poets writing just a century ago mostly in Arabic - or in Turki, to show his devotion to his Turkic wife? As I said, I like your argument, and am receptive of it -- but are you ready to consider the same towards other poets, such as Nizami, against whom the main argument used by all is that he wrote only in Persian, even though 90% of his Divan, for example, is lost, as are probably some other poems?

Secondly, I don't see the logic between "chiefly non-Turkish" blood in Ismail, and his son "Shah Tahmasp began to get rid of his Turcoman praetorians". In fact, there is a direct contradiction -- Minorsky always acknowledged that Ismail had at least some Turkic blood, and then you basically implied, by citing a relevant passage, that Ismail wrote a lot in Turkic because he needed to appeal to a large number of his followers (interesting, why did his powerbase from "Persian Kurdistan" needed to be addressed in Turki?). So we get the image of Ismail who really needed Turkic people. Meanwhile, his son is getting rid of his Turcoman praetorians -- and that is somehow linked, by implication, that it could have been because of "chiefly non-Turkish" blood. Doesn't make any sense. Moreover, it's not true -- by the time of Shah Abbas, the Qizilbash were the overwhelming commanders not just in armies, but regions of Iranian Empire (I don't remember the exact number, but it was like 95%). In any case, this last paragraph was apparently written in a hurry by Minorsky and creates more questions than answers them. --AdilBaguirov 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil, the fact that Rudaki's poems are gone comes from many Tazkerats about poets and Tazkerats(biographies) mention Rudaki's lot. One of his piece was entitled Kalila Demna which according to some sources was at least 10,000 verses and few specimen survives today mainly from those biographies and those specimens are in Persian. Thus this is almost sufficient proof that Rudaki had a work named Kalila Demna which has not reached us today and the few Persian specimen show the work was Persian besides authors mentioning it that was Persian. This is a strong proof. Now if someone says some poems of X have not survived, there is no way one can make a guess about the language of the poems. Indeed by probability, they would be in the language that the author wrote his surviving manuscripts from. They would not definitely be in say Azerbaijani Turkish from Nezami's time, because by evidence there should be some other Azerbaijani Turkish specimen from Arran, Shervan, Azerbaijan, Maragheh etc. from that same time by other poets. At least one between the duration of his life. Note with Rudaki, the language is mentioned as Persian. The thing is we can not conjecture without proof. Ali Sher Navai for example when mentioning Nezami refers to him as a Persian poet amongst Ferdowsi and others. Alisher Navai also mentions some Turkish poets and admits there is only one good one. If Alishehr said Ferdowsi or another for example had Turkish poems, then that would be a good source. For Shaykh Safi- ad-din that is the same. I would not accept he was a Kurd unless I see direct evidence from the oldest extant manuscripts of Safwat As-Safa. Now I see it thanks to Professor Togan who thankfully was also from Turkey and Turkish speaking (thus he can not be labeled ). That is what scholars look at as well. Is there is a single Tazkera for example says X wrote in Greek or in another language other than Persian and perhaps Arabic? On Shah Esmail we have a few Persian specimen, and also words of Sam Mirza (his own son) that he also had Persian poetry. The number can not be determined, but Sam Mirza is specific that they existed. Thus we have the word of his son. That is sufficient proof. As per Esmail's reason to write in Turkish, Minorsky said it was for his Turkomen followers. Maybe he is wrong, but he is an expert on the area and I do not see anyone here on his level. Today there is also a Gilani sufi order which has no supports in Gilan although originally it was founded by Abdul Qadir Gilani. The Gilaki speakers of Iran are all Shi'ites. But the Qadiri order founded by the Shaykh has followers that can be found from Indonesia to Morroco, but there is actually no followers amongst the Gilaki people in Iran. Similarly, the Safavids despite having some Kurdish Shi'ite followers were transformed into a shi'ite order and attracted Turkomens of Anatolia who were mainly Shi'ite of the heterodox belief, Syria,..etc. And also I never said Esmail had a power base in Persian Kurdistan. What we said is that Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili hailed from Persian Kurdistan and I this was the word of Prof. Savory. Where did I say Esmail had a power base in Persian Kurdistan? If you look at the names of Ghezelbash tribes most of them can be located outside of Iran as well: Rumlu (from Rome i.e. Turkey), Shamlu (from Sham i.e. Syria), Qaramanlu (from another city in Asia minor), .. How a Sunni Shaf'ite order transformed into a heterodox order where Turkomen's thought of Esmail as an incarnation of divinity is complicated process described by Mazzaoui and Daftary, but since everyone seems to be just interested on petty ethnic issues, no one is interested in the meat of Safavids and their shi'ite identity which was non-ethnic. Either way, Esmail's had to definitely tend to his heterodox Turkmen followers since they were his followers. I am of course suprised by the fact that Esmail converted most of Iran to Shi'ism (mainly by force), but did not convert his Christian mother. Either way, my argument about Rudaki was exactly to the author who said Persians were good at keeping all their poetry (I am not sure who it was and I do not need to check since it is the argument that counts), but it was just to make point that this is not true. That was just general blank statement without any research.

There is a Diwan-e-Manijak mentioned by Naser-e-Khusraw in his Safarnameh and he mentions it as specifically as a Persian diwan (so we know the language) but only few verses survived. If he had just said Diwan-e-Manijak without mentioning the language, then it would be impossible to identify it as a Persian Diwan. Furthermore when few specimen survived in some Tazkerats and they are in Persian, then one can conjecture (although still never with 100% until it is observed) that there is such a Diwan. Indeed in one book there are biographies about 400+ poets of Arran, Shervan and Iranian Azerbaijan who wrote all in Persian and few specimens from each are mentioned, but only few of those diwans have survived. Now take the other case. Lets supposed despite these facts, Persians were good at keeping all of their diwans. Such an argument would be impossible to prove, since one has to prove it and then it does not really bear on Esmail's ethnicity. Say Esmail wrote no Persian poetry and his son Sam Mirza is wrong and those few specimens left today are not his. This would not be sufficient to prove Esmail's multi-varied bloodline (for example Greek) or full Turkic bloodline or whatever. What is sufficient is texts like Safwat As-Safa where specific family tree of the Shaykh are discussed. Note the Iranica article also states that Esmail tried to weaken the power of the Ghezelbash by creating the offical of Vakil. Shah Abbas though was the one that finally did this. All these points were made by me to show that Esmail was not any sort of ethnic nationalist. I know from reading pan-turkist pamphlets that Shah Abbas is actually hated by pan-turkists because he moved the capital Esfahan and weakened the power of Ghezelbash. Esmail also weakened the power of Turks according to one chronicle mentioned again Iranica. Pan-turkists in Turkey and even some in Azerbaijan do not like him because he made wars against ottomans and Uzbeks (two other Turkic empires) and actually weakned the Ottomans power. As I mentioned they were if anything pro-Arab since they wanted to be related to the Imams to gain legitimacy. Their identity was Shi'ite. If one is to write 500 lines about Esmail's Kurd or Greek or Persian or Turk or whatever ancestry then one should write 500,000 lines about his Shi'ism since that was his identity. Praetor according to my oxford dictionary: each of two ancient Roman magistrates ranking below consul and thus Esmail by appointing Persian vaziers and creating the office of Vakil and then Tahmasp weakening this rank and finally in the end Shah Abbas greatly weakened the Ghezelbash elite. Had the Safavid identity been Turkic instead of Shi'ite (for example Sassanids identity was based on Zoroastrianism but by extension Zoroastrianism was Iranian religion where Shi'ite Islam is more universal, but nevertheless its origin is from Arabia and Arab portions of Iraq), they would not have weakened Turkic power represented by the turkomen/ghezelbash tribes (many sources mention this, just check the Iranica enteries on Abbas , Esmail ..). As per Minorsky being in a hurry when writing the 5 lines of addenum, I do not think seo by the principal of Ockham's razor. I'll be happy to discuss topics not related to the Safavid ethnicity via e-mail, but right now the argument is back to Safavids. Toward this effect Minorsky makes a point relavent to the article. But then some users say he was in a hurry, another user says Kasravi called Rumi/Hafez mentally ill (even if he did what does this have to do with manuscripts of Safwat as-Safa ), another user might say that the following author is messed up and Safavids were 100% pure Kurds...Another use might say that author is a pan-turk. Thus we need a better solution in this article where balance is made. Some users might think Safavids 100% Azeri Turks (they do not even like to say Azeri Turks are mainly natives that were Turkified in speech but claim they are 100% Oghuz Turks). Another use might think Safavids were all Persian culture. Another use might think Safavids where ..

Either way if X were Kurds or Turks or Greeks or Blacks or Germans, Misplaced Pages community due to their POV allegiances can not determine that and neither say GM is going to believe all of Tajik's viewpoints and neither is Tajik going to accept all of GM's viewpoints on Safavid. Virtually everyone that edits is not a scholar of the field they are editing. Scholars can determine the truth by consensus since they do not have to worry abou 3RR, edit wars and lock down of articles, (and I am making general statement here about Misplaced Pages and not any specific article), vandalism, being called chavaunist or pan-turkist and dispute tags. Thus what we need is an agreement and wording that is neutral and fair for everyone and is also balanced. That is what I attempted to do with my few lines. I shed the probably and consensus of scholars with Perhaps. Note the position of strengh is definitely with a statement like the consensus of scholars.. is. That is super strong statement and no matter how many opinions are put on Safavids, such a statement will make sure what the mainstream viewpoint is. I also mentioned that by the time of their dynasty they were turkified and turkic speaking. Note eventually turkification starts somewhere since Turkic languages are around 2000-3000 years old and IE are about several thousand also. Eventually somewhere people were IE fied or Turkified or Iranified or whatever and many times Turkified people are Iranified or Iranified people are Turkified and etc.. Thus lets forget about other issues and I would like to see your suggestion. I have seen Tajik's. I think Mardavich, Azerbaijani, Pejman, Zereshk..other Iranian users will agree with me. I have seen GM's suggestion. I have seen Atabek's suggestion (he suggests stating opinions of different scholars but then when the source stated by savory about consensus of scholars, the balance would not be in favor of Atabek's or GM's or ..). Then we all collect all the suggestions in one spot and we can all discuss it and see whose suggestion is the most balanced. I think having two three lines is better for everyone instead of 20 paragraphs dealing with Safavid's ethnic identity. Safavids obviously considered themselvesdescendant of the Prophet (which scholars now believe was madeup) from the male line and also considered themselves Shi'ites first. --alidoostzadeh 05:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, first of all the information that Kasravi was implying Mevlane Jelaleddin Rumi's mental retardation (in my wording), came from the following article by fellow Iranian: "Confused, deluded, and prone to hallucination were the attributes with which Kasravi distinguished Maulana Jalal al-Din Rumi." (http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri/Authors/Kasravi.html) Another comment on Hafiz, says: "Hafiz's addiction to alcohol, Kasravi believes, intensifies his inability to think straight and speak coherently". Of course, I cannot consider the source deeply scholarly, yet I don't see the reason why the fellow Iranian would lie about Kasravi's descriptions. Pending the verification of these statements, I do want to emphasize again that Ahmad Kasravi was not a historian but a theologian by profession, and was, politically motivated in his work. I am sure you will not dispute these facts.

I agree with you that the nature of Kasravi's views is a subject of separate discussion. I just wanted to highlight that using Kasravi to authenticate anything related to Azerbaijan would be pretty much equivalent to using Ziya Gokalp or Alparslan Turkesh as experts on Azerbaijani history.

Returning to the Safavid topic and attempting to come to consensus, let me outline some of the biases in your otherwise well prepared posts, which I think you may need to address before we proceed:

1. The founder of dynasty is its first ruler (Shah Ismail), while we are arguing about the origin of Sheykh Safi (the founder of order not dynasty) for whom there is a separate Wiki page.

2. Sheykh Safi's origin may have been Kurdish (and here only Savory is considered by you to be expert on Safavis as he is the only one who confirms so). Moreover, Sheykh Safi "is Kurdish" due to his ascendance in 7th generation to Firuz Shah, who was also allegedly Kurdish only because he was from Iranian Kurdistan. Full genealogical tree through 7 generations is yet to be presented, and you seem to show no doubts that every single path of that tree from Firuz Shah to Sheykh Safi must have been Kurdish and must have absolutely precluded anything called Turkic, Persian or else.

3. While the Safavid dynasty was brought to power by the Turkoman tribe of Qizilbash, while Ismail did address his audience primarily in Azeri Turkic through his well known poems, we concentrate on 44 lines that Sheykh Safi wrote in Tati. Moreover, while claiming Sheykh Safi above as Kurdish, you don't seem to explain why he wrote in Tati and not say in any of Kurdish dialects.

4. While Tahmasb, the son of Shah Ismail, was the ruler of Safavi Iran and continued to enjoy the courtesy of Qizilbash, we identify Sam(?!) Mirza of 16th century as son of Ismail (due to Minorsky), refer to few (yet to be identified) poems in Persian. While descendant of Ismail, Shah Abbas II wrote poetry in Azeri Turkic, under the pen-name Tani, still, let's find reference to prove even this wrong :)

5. While Ismail had a confirmed Turkic grandfather (Uzun Hassan, father of Despina and father-in-law of Haydar Safavi) and a confirmed Turkic grandmother (Uzun Hassan's sister, the wife of Shaykh Junayd), we exhaustively attempt to emphasize on his Greek, Kurdish or elsewhere origin tracing back to Firuz Shah now in 10+th generation.

6. While much esteemed Iranist historian Frye says: Azeri Turks found Safavid dynasty (that's an entity that unified and ruled Iran in 16-17th century, we see Tajik, a big fan of Frye, now saying Frye was wrong.

Dear Ali, I think in order for us to come up with consensus and fair version, we need to depoliticize the efforts of writing history on Misplaced Pages. I frankly care less if Safavi's identity is written as Turkic, Turkish or Turkoman, he was first Shah of Azerbaijan then Shah of Iran, and that won't ever change. But I do assure you, no one on the planet can prove to any serious historian that Ismail Safavi was anything less than what's today defined as Turkic-speaking Azeri of Iran, based on the facts brought by both sides so far in discussion, references to Savory, Frye, Minorsky, few others that we all cited. Here I would like to bring you one more quote, confirming this, again from Encyclopedia Iranica:

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. (Encyclopedia Iranica, article on Azeri Turkish by G. Doerfer, pp. 255-258).

As consensus is still yet to be achieved, I guess, we should just summarize the points of our conversation that we seem to agree on. I agree that we should indicate in origins section that Safavid dynasty may have had mixed Kurdish and Turkic origins, but it's clear that by the time of Ismail's ascendance to power, the dynasty was Turkified as a part of ongoing process in the region. Influx of a large number of Turkoman tribesmen from Anatolia (referred to as Qizilbash), in support of Ismail, mainly contributed to his ascent to power. Thanks. Atabek 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, stop lying and stop writing wrong accusations. As I have said above: you seem to lack the ability to read! I have NEVER said that Frye is wrong. If you persist on this false claim, then please give the correct quote! There is no doubt that Prof. Richard N. Frye who has dedicated his entire life to Iranian studies is an excellent scholar, and that his statements are improtant. But - as Frye has written in his book "Greater Iran", which is in part an auto-biography - he is no expert on the Safavid period. Like Mary Boyce, Richard Frye is specialized on the pre-Islamic history of Iran, and he is an expert on the Sassanid dynasty.

Savory, on the other hand, is fully specialized on the Safavids and related history. He has written improtant books about the Safavids, the Safavid policies, religion, etc etc etc. He has even worked on the history of single characters, such as Div Soltan or Mirza Salman (which R. Frye has NOT)! This is the reason why SAVORY has written the respecitive articles about the Safavid in Iranica and EI, and NOT Frye or Lewis. I really do not understand why you people have suddenly discovered Richard Frye?! And I do not understand why you people have suddenly discovered the Iranica?! (which is a prositive developement!). When Iranica-articles are presented supporting the FACT that the Seljuqs were Persian-speaking and considered themselvs "Persians", then these articles are emidiately rejected by the "Turkish fraction" ... but in here, you persist on ONE SINGLE sentence of Richard Frye (who is a specialist on the pre-Islamic history of Iran), while you totally reject the works of R. Savory (THE expert on Safavid history) and V. Minorsky (an expert on Oghuz languages and history).

Tājik 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, I wrote this above, but I am rewriting it, in case, you didn't notice :) my questioning of your logic above:

"1. First off, I would like to quote your own words just above on this long Talk page, which you made 24 November 2006:

B. Lewis says that the Safavids were "Turks" ... that's fine with me. But others, such as R. Frye and R. Savory, do not call them Turks. Now YOU tell me why we should reject the opinion of Frye and Savory and favour that of B. Lewis?!

Now, I did add the quote back exactly by R. Frye "Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid dynasty", and you kept removing it."

Tajik, please, answer the question I posed before your personal attack upon myself with "stop lying" stuff. Generally, I would suggest that you cease your talk on this page, as so far it hasn't contributed to achieving any consensus whatsoever simply because you're clearly racially/politically motivated. The activity of yours as well as few other users is mainly directed at reverting my edits rather than contributing any new references. I think Ali Doostzadeh, myself and few others are able to achieve the consensus just needed to reflect the truth about Safavids. Thanks. Atabek 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atabek. I am aware the Kasravi wrote a repudiation of sufism (Sufi-Gari). That is his personal opinion. It does not have anything to do with Safwat As-Safa and that is what I said. What does Kasravi's opinion on Safwat as-Safa have to do with sufism and rumi? One can disagree with Kasravi's opinion on say religion and religious sects whereas when it comes to facts like Safwat As-Safa, no opinion is involved since he is simply quoting it. Prof. Togan had the oldest extant manuscript and we do not even need to quote Kasravi. Kasravi is quoted by Frye, Minorsky, Savory and etc. So your opinion on him with regards to matter of history is wrong and Frye and Minorsky never quote people like Ziya Gok-Alp and Alp Arsalan Turkesh and etc. On regards to a) The Safavid Sufi order gave rise to the dynasty. That is important to point out. Also as just mentioned by Minorsky and others, Shah Esmail I can only be considered Azeri-speaking and turkified. b) Full geneological tree from Father's side is presented from Togan to at least Pirooz Shah Zarin Kolah. I have the Persian text of the oldest Safwat As-Safa manuscript infront of me, it leaves no doubt and that is why consensus amongst Safavid historians have been reached. It is really due to Professor Togan's work. c) Taati of Shaykh Safi is mutually intelligble with Kurdish, furthermore it shows that the language of the area was taati. The Taati of Shaykh Safi ad-din has been connected to Talyshi(Miller), ancient Azeri, Kurdish and etc. because all these languages are from the same root. Much like Anatolian and Azeri. Indeed Talyshi and Kurdish of West Azerbaijan are very close and this shows actually that the fertile plains of Azerbaijan was turkified whereas the Kurdish population who mainly lived in the mountain areas and the Talysh population who lived in the forests where able to keep their language. A recent manuscript by the name of Safinayeh Tabrizi also shows that the language of Tabriz in the Ilkhanid era was not yet Turkish. . d). Saam (Shahnameh name) was one of the sons of Esmail. Along with Iraj, Tahmasp, Bahram (all names from Shahnameh). Minorsky is not the only one that identifies him as a son of Shah Esmail. There is enough sources on the children of Esmail I. Als evenif Shah Abbas wrote some Persian and Azeri poetry, it just means the family was turkified. e) No one denined that Shah Esmail had Turkic blood through his mothers side or even through one his forefather who might have married a Turkic speaking women. At the same time one can not deny that Shaykh Zahed Gilani whose daughter was given to Shaykh Safi ad-din was not Turkic either. Neither was Shaykh Safi ad-din. Along with the Greek blood and his mother remaining Christian, Shah Esmail indeed is of mixed blood. And regarding what you said:: no one on the planet can prove to any serious historian that Ismail Safavi was anything less than what's today defined as Turkic-speaking Azeri of Iran, based on the facts brought by both sides so far in discussion, references to Savory, Frye, Minorsky, few others that we all cited.. Yes no one can deny he was Turkic speaking, but if you had read the end of the Minorsky article:The question of the language used by Shah Ismail is not identical with that of his ‘’race’’ or ‘’nationality’. That was Minorsky. Savory in Iranica article directly refers to the Kurdish origin of Safavids. And Frye also says in the previous sentence that Azerbaijanis were Turkified Iranians. Lewis does not have any expertise in the area of Iran and Safavids. Thus if we want to quote Frye, we need to quote the context. Also I did not see Tajik say Frye was wrong. Tajik was wondering why the previous line of Frye's quote was also not given any attention. Also with Minorsky, the addenum should not have been overlooked. I think that is fair demand.

Also I did not see Tajik say Frye was wrong. Tajik was wondering why the previous line of Frye's quote was also not given any attention. Also with Minorsky, the addenum should not have been overlooked. I think that is fair demand. َAlso Tajik is totally right about Professor. Savory. َAt the same time I ask my friend Tajik to use more friendly language. These are all discussions. I have been accused of writing stuff before which I have not and the best way to respond is to say where!

On a side note the Doerfer quote by Atabek was interesting. But on the city where Emad-al-din Nasimi was born no definite concensus has been reached. One ancient chronicle puts him amongst the Turkomens of Iraq. (Tarikh-e-Baghdadi). It is also true that many military and government terms in Persian were from Turkic origin. Although they are not used today after modernization of Iranian military in the last 80 years based on European models were Persian terms were coined up for European terms. And of course Persian has influenced Uzbek, Anatolian and Azeri and etc and vice-versa.

Anyways lets not go into side issues. We are making major progress, you said: I agree that we should indicate in origins section that Safavid dynasty may have had mixed Kurdish and Turkic origins, but it's clear that by the time of Ismail's ascendance to power, the dynasty was Turkified as a part of ongoing process in the region. Influx of a large number of Turkoman tribesmen from Anatolia (referred to as Qizilbash), in support of Ismail, mainly contributed to his ascent to power.. I agree and we are getting close. I also say we put in Greek as well since Esmail was 1/4 Greek and his mother who remained Christian probably was culturally Greek as well. The origin of Esmail I was definitely mixed and there is really no may have been mixed. And then put a line about the Safavid Sufi order which gave rise to the dynasty was started by Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili, perhaps of Kurdish origin. (reference Savory). That is all. Note the statement consensus of Safavid historians by Savory and also the two oldest extant manuscripts of Safwat as-Safa where the Shaykh's ancestors are clearly called Kurdish are much stronger. It was the Shaykh that conceived the order who really laid the ground works of the Safavid dynasty. The Shaykh had many Iranic followers as well Mongol/Tatar/Turkic followers. The oldest definite ancestors of Safavids forefathers is Pirooz Shah Zarin Kolah. There is no doubt that the Safavid order was started by Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili. I think the fact that the Safavids were natives at least from their forefather's is important because that makes a native dynasty unlike say the Arabs or Mongols. Thus we are getting closer to reaching an agreement. (Turkified and Turkic language by the time of dynasty, mixed ancestry, Shaykh Safi perhaps of Kurdish origin). We should also mention that the Safavids wanted to be known as descendant of Shi'ite Imams and Shi'ism was their primary identity. This should be in the begining. --alidoostzadeh 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, I think Tajik can answer for himself to the quote of his own words which I brought above. I personally will not respond to him from now on, as I think his personification of this otherwise useful discussion does not contribute to anything. Also, let's leave Kasravi alone, as I said Azeris view of Kasravi is the same as Iranian's view of Alparslan Turkesh. If someone has radical personal views, it certainly diminishes his credibility. That is to say, Adolf Hitler did not establish himself as a scholar with the fact that he wrote Mein Kampf, although his book is also being quoted by many scholars.

Now, again, I think you're going a bit out of line trying to devote half of Safavid Dynasty page to Safi ad Din. There is a separate page for that. It's important to understand the following points again:

1. The founder of the dynasty was Shah Ismail, who was a Turkic speaker of mixed Azeri Turkic, Kurdish and Greek heritage. His advent to power was due to Turkoman tribes of Anatolia and Azerbaijan, which is also supported by Frye's claim that "Azeri Turks were the founders of Safavid Dynasty". These tribes were known as Qizilbash (Turkic for "red head") due to their headwear. Ismail first proclaimed Safavi Shia state in Azerbaijan in 1501 (ref. R. Tapper), and year later, in 1502, in all of Iran (ref. Savory, Frye, etc.). Shah Ismail was also known as a poet, under the nickname of Khatai. The collection of his poems written in Azeri Turkic (ref. Minorsky) were published as a Divan. For the rest of Shah Ismail's genealogical tree and poetry, there is Shah Ismail I wiki page.

2. The founder of the Safavi order was Sheykh Safi ad-Din, who is believed to be of Kurdish origin by some historians (here you can quote Savory's claim to Firuz Shah being a Kurd, and Minorsky's quote that Sheykh Safi ascended to him in 7 generations). For the rest of Safi's genealogical tree, there is Safi Ad Din wiki page.

3. In the introduction, we can say: "Safavid was a Shiite Dynasty, which originated in Iranian Azerbaijan, and ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722."

4. Safavid's power in Iran was based on the military power of Qizilbash Turkic tribes ("the men of sword", as ref. by several historians) balanced with the bureaucratic power of Persian "wakils" ("the men of pen", as ref. by several historians). Ismail explored the first element to excel to power in Iran, however, his successors, and most ostensibly Shah Abbas I successfully diminished the Qizilbash influence on the affairs of the state.

Thanks. Atabek 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atabek. Azeris view of Kasravi does not exist and is not monolithic. Some Azeris like him, some don't. I personally like his history books. For example Shahriyaraan Gomnaam and obviously Minorsky liked his history writing skills. But I left him alone anyway and mentioned Prof. Togan. I think what you suggested is great. I applaud your compromising spirit. As per user Tajik, and you and me,.. things get debated sometimes, but we must not resort to personal attacks. In the end though Azerbaijani culture despite being turkified in language is a great part Iranic as well (Mugham music for example was performed in Persian until 100 years ago according to one source I read and Hajibeyef also wanted to do the story of Kaveh and Zahak but that was too risky so he stuck with KurOghlu)). I will wait the response of other users and then I think its all good. Have a good one. --alidoostzadeh 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The tomb picture of Sheykh Gilani

Bellow is the tomb picture of Sheykh Zahed Gilani, the spiritual leader of syekh Safi-al-din in Lahijan  :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/interactivity/yourphotos/story/2007/01/070130_lahijan.shtml

Sohanaki 10:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Very nice pictures from the above user. We should probably find some pictures from Kalkhuran where members of Safavid family are buried and put it in the article. --alidoostzadeh 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Professor Momen

Professor Momen is very respected scholar of Shi'i and Bahai religion. After emailing him, he said: It is almost thirty years ago now that I was writing this book , I have not myself specialized in Safavid history and By the way where did you get your information that he (Shaykh Safi ald-din) was Shafi`i from?. Of course we know the Shaykh was Shafi'i (like virtually all Sunni Kurds and unlike virtually all Sunni Turks (Central Asia and also Tajiks and Afghans and Pakistanis are Hanafi as well)/Turkic-speakers (Turkey) who are Hanafi) from Mustawafi who lived at the time of the Shaykh and directly and explicitly mentions this. (I can email Khoikhoi the email). Thus I think it is best to stick with very recent sources like Iranica and Safavid historians in the area. So far the discussion has been Savory, Frye and Minorsky. I do not see any contradiction between what these authors have wrote. Savory is right when he says the Safavid family was originally of Kurdish origin (I downgraded this to perhaps), Frye is right that the Safavids rised from Azeris and in the previous line he says Azerbaijanis are mainly Turkified Iranian speakers (mainly Kurds, Talesh, Tats...) and finally Minorsky is right that language does not equate race or nationality. Ultimately the Shafi'iteness of the Shaykh and direct explicit reference to Piruz Shah Zarin Kolah's Kurdish ancestor leaves no doubt in my mind although I have suggested perhaps. --alidoostzadeh 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, as Professor Momen rightfully mentioned, you should provide at least one reference that says Sheykh Safi was originally "Shafii" as opposed to "Sufi", both exactly as spelled. Now, the discussion here is not about origins of Azerbaijani people, which is a subject of another discussion (you're wrong on claiming that Azerbaijanis are simply Turkified Iranian speakers, because 30+% of Azerbaijanis are Turkified Caucasian peoples as well as descendants of some pre-Oghuz Turkic tribes, such as Huns and Khazars. This page is only about the origins of Safavid dynasty which ruled Iran in XVIth century. Thanks. Atabek 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atabek, Shafi'ite is one of the four Sunni Schools of thought. A Shafi'ite person can be a sufi (for example Shams ad-din Tabrizi). Similarly with a Hanafite person like Ghazzali and a Hanabali person like a Khwajah Abdallah Ansari and ... Now as per the Shaykh being Shafi'ite, this is spelled out by Hammd-Allah Mustawafi. I can bring the original Persian even. «مردم اردبيل اکثر بر مذهب امام شافعی و مريد شيخ صفی الدين عليه الرحمه هستند». Translation: The majority of the people of Ardabil are followers of Imam Shafi'i and follow Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili. Similarly in the oldest extant manuscripts of the Safwat Safa the Shaykh clearly says he is Sunni. I have another reference to the Shaykh being Shafi'i from classical texts which I can bring in due time. Note any geneology of the Safavid family after the rise of Safavids has been tampered with greatly. Because they required legitimacy amongst their followers. Kurds were Sunni's mainly and thus for the Shaykh to be known as a Kurd was not good. Thus they made him into a descendant of Shi'ite Imams and perhaps the Safavid order which also included the followers of Shaykh Zahed Gilani (since Shaykh Safi ad-din was a follower of Shaykh Zahed) was majority Turkomen. Thus Hadeeths were made and spread widely that the 3rd Shi'i Imam married the daughter of the last Sassanid king. Thus in this way the Safavids claimed descendant of Imam and Sassanid king. I would not be suprised in another book during the mid Safavid times, the Shaykh might have been called a Turk in order to keep the loyalty of the Turkomens as much as possible. Thus all these associations are made-up and that is why Safavid era manuscripts of Safwat as-Safa deleted all portions referring to Piruz Shah Zarin Kulah. Thus any scholar would simply look at the genealogy of the Shaykh from manuscripts before the rise of the Safavids and Safwat as-Safa manuscripts before the Safavid era are the best we have. Simply because Safwat as-Safa was written by someone who was from the same era as the Shaykh. Anything after the rise of Safavids is subjet to religious and ethnic manipulation. In these pre-safavid manuscripts it is clear the Shaykh is neither a Turkomen (Ghezelbash), nor a Shi'ite. He is Shafi'ite Sunni who (according to these amnuscripts) ancestors migrated from Persian Kurdistan and twice there is reference to PiruzShah Zarin Kulah being a Kurd. Despite all these facts which I think are overwhelming, we need just two three lines so that everyone is happy and you suggested it above. The reason I call the Ghezelbash as Turkomens is also due to the fact that they were called Torkomans and eventually according to many sources (Peter Golden, Faruq Sumer, some Iranica articles), they were the main force behind the Turkification of Azerbaijan. The Turkification and Shi'ification of large portion of the caucus was also due to the Safavids and Qajars. . --alidoostzadeh 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabeks new suggestion

I am copying user Atabek's new suggestion. (If anyone knows how to Archive, we should do it since many sources have already been discussed back and forth and now we just need a wording that is accurate and everyone is also happy).

Atabek wrote: 1. The founder of the dynasty was Shah Ismail, who was a Turkic speaker of mixed Azeri Turkic, Kurdish and Greek heritage. His advent to power was due to Turkoman tribes of Anatolia and Azerbaijan, which is also supported by Frye's claim that "Azeri Turks were the founders of Safavid Dynasty". These tribes were known as Qizilbash (Turkic for "red head") due to their headwear. Ismail first proclaimed Safavi Shia state in Azerbaijan in 1501 (ref. R. Tapper), and year later, in 1502, in all of Iran (ref. Savory, Frye, etc.). Shah Ismail was also known as a poet, under the nickname of Khatai. The collection of his poems written in Azeri Turkic (ref. Minorsky) were published as a Divan. For the rest of Shah Ismail's genealogical tree and poetry, there is Shah Ismail I wiki page. 2. The founder of the Safavi order was Sheykh Safi ad-Din, who is believed to be of Kurdish origin by some historians (here you can quote Savory's claim to Firuz Shah being a Kurd, and Minorsky's quote that Sheykh Safi ascended to him in 7 generations). For the rest of Safi's genealogical tree, there is Safi Ad Din wiki page. 3. In the introduction, we can say: "Safavid was a Shiite Dynasty, which originated in Iranian Azerbaijan, and ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722." 4. Safavid's power in Iran was based on the military power of Qizilbash Turkic tribes ("the men of sword", as ref. by several historians) balanced with the bureaucratic power of Persian "wakils" ("the men of pen", as ref. by several historians). Ismail explored the first element to excel to power in Iran, however, his successors, and most ostensibly Shah Abbas I successfully diminished the Qizilbash influence on the affairs of the state.

My comment: I agree with all these suggestions. --alidoostzadeh 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, thank you for the consensus. I would like to encourage other users to provide their comments as well. I also wanted to highlight something I forgot to mention before. I noticed some edits which say Safavid was a ruling dynasty of Iranian empire, others dispute saying Persian empire. First of all, there was no such word as "empire" in reference to Safavi state, it was known as "Dowlate-e Safavi Iran" in Persian, in Azerbaijani history books, it's "Iran Safaviler Dovleti" in Azeri Turkic. Foreign sources refer to it as Safavid (or Safawid) Iran or Safavid Persia. Thanks. Atabek 02:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Atabek. I think empire or kingdom is a better term. Here are some Safavid terms used for Iran: Mamalek Iran, Dowlat Shahanshahi, Molk-e-Iran, Welayat-e-Iran, Mamalek-e-Fasih-ul-masalek Iran, welayat Iran zamanin, Ajam,Molook-e-Ajam,.. Ottomans besides Iran called it Ajamestan, and of course Iran (Sultan Selim has a poem boasting: when I my armies attacked the land of Iran.....). The equivalence of the world Millat with Nation or Dowlat with State is modern European concepts that have changed the meaning of these words. The world Millat actually meant religious community. Similarly the word Dowlat meant many things like dynasty, fortune, government, wealth, power, reign..One of these terms, Shahanshahi (King of kings) denotes more of an empire. The Safavids at their height were definitely an empire: containing Caucasia, Iraq, big portions of Afghanistan and important portions of Turkomanistan and Pakistan. Sassanid, Parthian, Achaemenid, Safavid, Seljuqs, Ghaznavids and even Qajars.. are referred to in good portion of the Western literature as an empire.. Take care and I hope to see other inputs as well. --alidoostzadeh 03:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Atabek proposes a reasonable compromise. Grandmaster 08:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the new suggestion, except for the Qizilbash part. Since I have written the article Kizilbash - based on Iranica and EI information - I think it is wrong to claim that only the Turcoman tribes of Anatolia were the "Kizilbash". Qizilbash is not the name of an ethnic group. There were - evidently - many Non-Turks n the movement, for example the prominent Zand family who were ethnic Lurs, or the Siah-Kuh tribes. Tājik 09:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No one can exclude that there were some non-Turkomans among Qizilbash as well. But according to Minorsky and Savory, Qizilbash comprised mostly of Turkoman tribes of Anatolia. Those were a primary support against Ottomans, as Ismail used them to attract the audience of Eastern Anatolia, where Sufi orders were increasingly spread (Bektashi, Alevi, Naqshbandi, etc.) It's also a fact that many Persian-speaking wakils, appointed by Ismail later, were killed by Qizilbash. And this had more to do with ethnic and language difference, as well as with military vs. bureaucratic backgrounds, than with anything else. I doubt if the core of Qizilbash was from Lurestan or comprised mostly of Persian speakers, such things would happen. Atabek 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the majority of the Qizilbash were Turcomans. I was just trying to explain the actualy meaning of the word. "Qizilbash" is simply a term to disignate a wide variety of Shia militant groups, including modern Alevits in Turkey and the pacifest Shia Sufis of Afghanistan and Pakistan (who are not really Turks). Maybe we should just leave the word "Qizilbash" out of the intro and instead say "Turcoman" and "Persian". BTW: the murder of the 3 Persian wakils (out of 5) was not really an act of racism. The Qizilbash were just insulted because they were ordered to follow someone who did not belong to their particular tribe. As I have already mentioned above, the Kizilbash also killed each other because of this rivalry ... That's the reason why the Shah had to limit their power. Tājik 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The compromise seems good. In point one, perhaps mentioning his grandfather Uzun Hasan might be good, since it entitled him inter alia to the possessions of his grandfather, and perhaps weakened his direct male descendants who were enemies of Ismail. In point two, the Safavids actually remained the shah dynasty past 1722, until the advent of the Qajars, as Zands (who are considered Kurdish, although Lurs are also considered Kurdish by the latter) never declared themselves shah's, and Afshar's were not really legitimate. Perhaps saying "...and intermittedly until 1780s." On a separate note, perhaps for a different page, we can also mention that in the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Order (higher than a medal) of Shah Ismail is one of the highest state honors. --AdilBaguirov 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a first compromise in a Turko-Persian war, and it must be celebrated and cherished, my congratulations to both parties! Any compromise makes somebody unhappy, otherwise it would not be a compromise. Barefact 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no Turko-Persian or Turko-Iranian war. I am not going to compromise with you that Ossetian is not an Iranian language. Azerbaijanis are not Turks either (like Turkomens or Tatars or Uzbeks or Kazakhs and Uighyurs), they are Turkic speakers, but have mainly Iranian culture (Mugham music, Nowruz, Charanshabeh Suri, Zoroastrian temples scattered, the name Azerbaijan). They have more in common with other Iranians than say Uzbeks or Turks of Anatolia or Tatars or.. Usually a compromise takes place when something is not 100%, but both sides believe in their viewpoint 100% and they must both compromise which is really respecting the other human. --alidoostzadeh 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no compromise yet ;) Could someone maybe write the actual intro in here, so we can have a vote on it? Thx. @ Adil: I do not think that it has any improtance or value to mention Ismail's grandfather in the intro. As for the Lurs: the Lurs are NOT Kurds. Unlike the Kureds who speak a NORTH-western Iranian language, the Lurs speak a SOUTH-western Iranian language, closely related to Persian and Bakhtiari (which, btw, is derived from Bactria) Tājik 00:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik. I think over all everyone agreed with Atabek's suggestion. I'll let Atabek and you write it since he was the one that locked it. On the Kizilbash you are right that there was some Kurd and Lur tribes and Perhaps some Persian nobilities , that is the nature of a confederation. But the overwhelming bulk was definitely Turkomens. I think the points outlined by Atabek is good. Also about Naghshbandi, Atabek Jan that is a strict Sunni order and usually Naqshbandi's do not like Alevi people of Turkey. I am going to request an unlock and we'll put the bulk of them being turkomens. The Ghezelbashaan in Afghanistan could actually be just a name in general for Shi'ites and that is how it is to some extent today with Zazas in turkey where I have heared that the Turks and even Kurds call them with this name because of their relgion. Zazas were not in any way related to the Safavid Ghezelbash and thus I think the term Ghezelbash became a generic term for Shi'ite (of whatever background). Much like the term Farangi (Frank) became equivalent to Christian and European in Middle Eastern literature. And increasingly Iraqi Sunnis are callking all Shi'ites as Safavids! (do a google search and you'll see many links) But the Kizilbash/Ghezelbash/Qizilbash (I guess we should follow Iranica notation since Q and K and Gh are different sounds) of Safavid time was mainly turkomen. We will put mainly Turkomen and then you discuss the peculiarities in the Kizilbash article you created. We can put the Shah Esmail/Ismail medal in the see also section. --alidoostzadeh 01:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll actually make some modifications and changes that were proposed Atabek..since I just requested an unlock and received it. --alidoostzadeh 02:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, thanks for your modifications, I am glad that we achieved a consensus. Regarding user Barefacts' comment about "Turko-Persian war", it's sad that some people perceive the discussions this way and live with a 500-year old "Safavi-Osmanli" confrontation psychology. Azerbaijani and Iranian cultures carry a significant component of Turkic and Persian influence, perhaps to larger extent in one and lesser in the other of each. But instead of stereotyping or building enmities, ideological barriers, wasteful RVs and RRs, we need to embrace and cherish the diversity. I have to say, that I haven't seen as many Turks (of Anatolia) feeling the same way against Iranians. But for those, who click that "Edit" button to remove yet another "Turk" statement that is causing allergy on Azerbaijani sites, I suggest to think that after 1000+ years of major Turkic presence and intermixture in the region, do you truely believe having 0% of Turkic blood in your veins?

Ali, regarding your comment: "They have more in common with other Iranians than say Uzbeks or Turks of Anatolia or Tatars or..", true, Azerbaijanis share many traditions with Iranians, such as Novruz (which, by the way, is also celebrated by Uzbeks, Kazakhs, and Turkmens). But Azerbaijanis also share a lot in common with Anatolian Turks than Uzbeks, Tatars, or even Turkmens do. Sufficient to mention the "dastan of Dede Gorgud", legacy of Koroglu, poetry of Fizuli, and the fact that population of Eastern Anatolia speaks pretty much Azeri Turkic dialect. So again, only through mutual respect and understanding we can accept and enjoy each other's culture. Thanks. Atabek 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek of course we are all mixed. But the majority of Iranians and Azerbaijanis look like the figures of Persepolis and not like Turks (Turkemen, Uighyurs, Kazakhs). Thus we can assume Turks did not have much of a genetic influence whereas they did have language replacement via elite dominance. As per the book Dede Qorqud it was only discovered 150 years and as far as I have read it has only two manuscripts. The Safavid kings on the other supported Shahnameh as their myths and history. Thus I am inclined dede qorqud was a recently and then brought into Azerbaijani culture. If you go the farthest village in Iranian Azerbaijan they know the story of Rostam & Sohrab. But if you ask them what is dede qorqod they will not know. Fizuli also is not understood by people from modern Turkey or Turkemens. He was definitely a great figure who wrote in three major languages. For his Turkish poetry though some knowledge of other languages might be required and that is why Iranian Azerbaijans understand him. He is appreciated by everyone, but even his Turkic poems have more to do with all Iranians than say Kazakhs and Uzbeks..etc. Koroghlu is also a story that is in Tajik poetry as well. Either way there is no denying that Iranians influenced Turks/Arabs and Turks influenced Iranians and Arabs and Arabs influenced Iranians/Turks and etc. So we need to accept this diversity as you pointed out. --alidoostzadeh 13:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

The current version is way better than before, but it still has some minor mistakes or it lacks certain information.

For example: I have removed the info about Ismail's poetry, because it has nothing to do with this article. I also think that Atabeks suggestion, to mention the "ballance" between Qizilbash Amirs and appointed "wakils" should be mentioned in the text.

At last, I also think that the importance of the Safavid state for the revival of the Persian identity should be mentioned. Even if Ismail were 101% Turk, his empire was still resposnible for creating this new Persian identity that still characterizes Iran. This is mentioned in all scholarly works, most of all in the complete article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and in the Iranica artile "Esma'il I".

Maybe we could add some sentences from the previous intro into the article:

• ":.. The Safavids (Persian: صفویان‎ ) were a Muslim dynasty from (Iranian) Azerbaijan that ruled from 1501 to 1736. Despite having adopted the Turkic Azerbaijani language, the Safavids were the first native Iranian family, since the Buyyid dynasty, to rule a united Persia. The Safavids patronized Iranian culture in the manner of their predecessors, with the difference that they were of Iranic stock. It was the Safavids who made Iran the spiritual bastion of Shiism against the onslaughts of orthodox Sunni Islam, and the repository of Persian cultural traditions and self-awareness of Iranianhood. and acting as a bridge to modern Iran. The founder of the dynasty, Shah Isma'il adopted the title of "Persian Emperor" (Pādišah-ī Īrān), with its implicit notion of an Iranian state stretching from the Hindu Kush as far as Euphrates, and from the Oxus to the southern territories of Persian Gulf. ..."

Tājik 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We should report what most of the reliable sources agree on, and don’t take one over others. Persian identity is POV and is just an opinion of some scholars, but not all. Iranian origin is also opinion of some and is reported as such. Claiming that Safavids were first Iranian dynasty after Buyids is not supported even by Iranica, which says that first Iranian dynasty were Zand.

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.

I think the article is Ok the way it is, inclusion of strong claims will not change it for better. Grandmaster 11:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik please add the Wakil part (if it hasn't been added). Right now I do not have time till 12-14 hours from now. Any other statement should be discussed in the talk age. I think the portion starting from: It was the Safavids who made Iran the spiritual bastion of Shiism against the onslaughts of orthodox Sunni Islam, and the repository of Persian cultural traditions and self-awareness of Iranianhood. and acting as a bridge to modern Iran. The founder of the dynasty, Shah Isma'il adopted the title of "Persian Emperor" (Pādišah-ī Īrān), with its implicit notion of an Iranian state stretching from the Hindu Kush as far as Euphrates, and from the Oxus to the southern territories of Persian Gulf. ..."'' is good for the legacy section and I believe it is there right now. --alidoostzadeh 12:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

@ Grandmaster: the "Iranian origin" and "first native Persian dynasty since Arabic conquest" is supported by both Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam (since - in this case - Iranica does not have an specialized article about the Safavids, the EI article "Safawids" is the most authoritative source available):

• "... 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. ..."

Encyclopaedia Iranica (in the article Esma'il Safawi):

• "... 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 ..."

And this is what the Encyclopaedia of Islam says:

• "... 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 ..."

According to both - Iranica AND EI - the Safavid dynasty was the "first Persian dynasty to rule Iran since the Buyid Empire". The Encyclopaedia of Islam (article written by Roger M. Savory!!!) even CLEARLY distinguishes the Safavids from the Turkic dynasties in Iran's history.

With all due respect, Grandmaster. This is not the first time that you try to fool everyone by throwing arround false claims and accusations. Maybe you should - at least once - read the sources provided by others instead of rejecting them from the beginning on!

I do not agree with the current version, because it only focuses on the Turkish POV - purposely ignoring other major sources. It is not me who is ignoring sources - it is YOU. Tājik 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Iran articles
• Unknown-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Unassessed Azerbaijan articles
• Unknown-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles