Talk:Fazlallah Astarabadi (Naimi)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Iran Fazlallah Astarabadi (Naimi) is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] Article title

Fazlallah was also known by his last name of Nâimî. Also, Fazlullah as opposed to Fazlallah is more popular spelling of his name found on Google books, JSTOR, Taylor Francis and other databases. So I think this should be reflected in the title "Fazlullah Nâimî Astarabadi". Atabek 17:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea but I removed the diacritical remarks because they provide the wrong spelling. The actual spelling is فضل الله نعيمی. As per Fazlallah or Fazlullah, I think google books give more [1] on Fazlallah than Fazlullah [2]. --alidoostzadeh 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek can you expand on this quote: " Fazlullah was born in Astarabad, Iran, circa 1339/1340, to the family of a shoe-maker Abu Muhammed Tabrizi<ref name="melikoff1"". What book does it say this? Also you removed the descent from Muhammad, but it is better to put a tag. I can provide to references for him beying Seyyed. --alidoostzadeh 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems Naimi is his pen name (H.Algar. Iranica), but it should not come in the middle as fazlallah Naimi Astarabadi. It might be worth while to put it in paranthesis. --alidoostzadeh 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, but why do you keep renaming the article? Does it really matter where Naimi appears, when many sources call him Fazlullah Naimi, others Fazlullah Astarabadi. Astarabadi wasn't his last name, but the place of birth. Atabek 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The reference is to the book provided by Irene Melikoff, who is an expert on Hurufi and Bektashi research. Melikoff also mentioned that Naimi called himself a Seyyed on the same page. We can mention this in the article. I removed descent from Muhammad because it was unsourced, and Seyyed is only Naimi's claim. Though we can add that because he was Seyyed he may have descended from the family of Muhammad. Atabek 20:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Right. Muslims did not usually have a last name and Astarabadi is the place of his birth obviously, but it is attached to his last name in google books. [3]. Having a place name as last name is common in the Islamic world. Abu Moslem Khorasani for example. But Naimi is not part of his name, but a pen-name. So I put it in Paranthesis so that it is not confused with his name. I have not seen Fazlallah Naimi Astarabadi. If Naimi is inserted, it could indicate his father or ancestor or something. It is his pen-name. As per the reference, I agree the Seyyed should be mentioned since two sources explicitly mention the 7th Shi'ite Imam and also Fazlallah himself mentions he is a descendant of the Prophet of Islam. --alidoostzadeh 20:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[4] It does not say that Nasimi came from Shirvan. So I separated the two sentences. --alidoostzadeh 00:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

Atabek the geographical name Iran is attested every century. So is Persia. Plus the Ilkhanids called their state Iran anyways which was a predecessor. For example, Nizami Ganjavi praises the Shirvanshah rulers as the Shah of Iran and sends his son to learn the shahnameh in their court..--alidoostzadeh 01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Ali, it's been a recent general editing practice on several pages to replace the word Azerbaijan with Baku Governorate and Elizavetpol Governorate, such as [5] and [6]. So given this practice, of adding political-administrative unit names at a time, I believe the removal of the word Iran is also quite valid. No such political or administrative division existed until 16th century. Atabek 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek as I stated, the geographic name Iran like the geographic name Arabia or Africa or etc. has existed in many texts. I am not going to get involved in the other articles and I personally think the edit on Azerbaijani film is really absurd! But name a century and I can can show examples of geographic name of Iran/Persian being used. Ilkhanids and qaraqoyunlu have used it officially as well. So Iran does not need a state to be called Iran as geographical considerations is good enough. It is a geographical, cultural and ethnic term depending on the context. --alidoostzadeh 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Shah of Iran" comment, I thought recitation from poems would not sound valid. After all we have also Shahnameh citing King of Turan, but it was a mystical entity at a time, just like Iran was in the writing on Nizami. Also, I haven't noticed you trying to restore recent mass removal of word Azerbaijan from several pages. Atabek 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The Shah of Iran is not part of the story.. It is in praise of the Shirvanshah, first calling him the Shah of Shirvan than saying no, he is the shah of all of Iran. Same with a praise of another ruler Ala'adin Korpe Arsalan (the ruler of Maragheh) saying" All of the world is a body and Iran is the heart.. and you have the best part..". Fakhr ad-din Asad Gorgani has used it as well.. So has Yaqut, Zakariya Qazvini and etc. So it is an attested name. As per Turan, I do not see anyone addressing a king or ruler (except in mythical setting than later on Safavid times for the Uzbeks). Qatran for example says"Agar daad balaayeh...Iran Virani" which is not even in the praise of ruler but has to do with his contemporary historic events where he uses the term Iran for his land (in a completely contemporary event setting). As per the removal of Azerbaijan, I think there seems to be an admin involved (Tatcher). I am not involved in articles with regards to contemporary republic of Azerbaijan and I care mainly about history. thanks --alidoostzadeh 02:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ali, Shirvanshah was never Shah of Iran. The first Shah of Iran after the "Islamic Conquest of Persia" as it has been argued extensively in Safavid article, was Ismail in 1502. Btw, since you're interested in history only, that article is now a POV and OR disaster as well, mostly misrepresenting or misinterpreting historical facts. But here, the same as Nizami calls a mystical non-existent shah of Iran, Shahname of Ferdowsi refers to king of Turan. I can bring you several quotes from Nizami where he praised Turkic statehood and Turks ("Dowlate-torkan, ke boleidi karaft..."). Atabek 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek. That is not Nizami praising, that is an old lady in the Seljuq story praising them and then belittling them and the contrast between Turk and Hindu has symbolic meaning.

At the same time, Nizami has some harsher stuff about Turks as well in his stories through Alexander and in another place, praises the rules of Sassanids in his stories and etc. These are in stories which could just be a genre Nizami is following. The point is these are in the stories and I am talking about talking outside of the stories. For example outside of the story, he sends his son to the Shirvanshah courts and encourages him to learn shahnameh, praises ferdowsi (outside of his main genre and several times and which you recently wrote Shahnameh has an anti-Turk bias while Nezami's stories are from the Shahnameh and Shahnameh characters appear hundreds of times in history) and despite the endless argument about his father (whose ancestry goes back to Shaddadid times). Or we know outside of the stories that he was raised by his kurdish maternal uncle which shows itself when he says there no sweeter story (again outside of the main sotry) in the world than Khusraw o Shirin. That article thankfully is pretty stable and everyone is happy. But the main point again, the praise of Shirvanshah and 'Ala ad-din Korpe Arsalan is direct and outside of story, but in the introduction. They are called rulers of Iran, because Nizami considers these territories as part of historic Iran. Qatran as I mentioned uses it in contemporary setting to refer to what is happening in Azerbaijan. So does Naser Khusraw..So does Hamzeh Esfahani and other historians and geographers. As per the name Iran being used, as I mentioned Ilkhanid have used it officially way before Safavid. So have Qaraqoyunlu. Indeed, as a "official state term", the Ilkhanids have definitely used it (See the book Anciet Persia by Wieshofer where the Ilkhanid use of the term is mentioned). But as a geographic term, the Samanid and Ghaznavids have used it as well and are praised by their poets as king of Iran as well. I have article about 30 pages where the name Iran has been used in both prose and poetry in non-mythical setting throughout centuries. And as a geographic region, it has been used profusely. Anyways I do not think it is right to retaliate for someone else's action on Azerbaijani films. Hamdollah Mustafawi uses Iran as a geographic region. So does Mir Khwand, and so do many others. And with regards to this article, you can see scholars use the term Iran way before Safavids for Fadlallah and Astarabad. [7]. Also which article is a POV or OR? "Islamic conquest of Persia" ? That one is a tough one to deal. --alidoostzadeh 11:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that line of Nizami was indirectly aimed at Shirvanshah Ahsitan, as Nizami's reaction to Ahsitan's request to write the poem in Persian, the language of "nobility", instead of Turkish, the language of "folk". I wasn't talking about Nizami article, but about Safavid article, which is full of POV and OR. And Ali, there is a distinction between legends, mysticism and historic-geographical facts. Please, point me to a published historical map, preferrably from a reliable souce, which shows Iran existed in circa 1340. The name Iran was used in the same mystical content as Turan, while the state of Iran did not exist as such until Shah Ismail's reign in 16th century. As for Qaraqoyunlu, they were mostly rulers of Azerbaijan not Iran. And please, WP:AGF, I am not retaliating but simply using the same line of thought as in films. Based on this line of thought followed throughout embattled articles on Azerbaijan, it seems that Azerbaijan simply did not exist and everything from Black Sea to the border of China was called Iran (and sometimes even Persia) for 3000 years. Turkic tribes did not exist, Ferghana was Iranian, Uzbeks (!) were Iranian, Anatolia is Iranian, and Turks appeared out of blue in Central Asia and invaded Iran. Turan was "Iranian", while Ferdowsi specifically refers to Turks as inhabitants of Turan. Anyways, I hope we are here to discuss and contribute consistent, valid and impartial history and not WP:SOAP. Thanks. Atabek 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Atabek your saying I should assume good faith, but unfortunately I see some bad faith from your side. Anyways I am assuming good faith. But for example where did I say that Uzbeks were Iranians? Or for example on Turan, the Avesta predates the Shahnameh by 1500 years. I wrote the article keeping in mind that the Avesta Turanians were the original Turanians. 100% of the Turanian names in Avesta have Iranian etymology. In the Shahnameh it is about 97%(Ashkabus, Piran, Afarsiyab, Aghrirath,Tooraj,Arjasp, Namkhwast Hezaran, Vidarafsh Jadu..). In histography, Avesta since it is from 1500 years ago has more prominence on the background of Turanians than the Shahnameh. So that is why Avestanian scholars are unanimous that the Avesta Turanians (the oldest text mentioning them) are Indo-Iranians. As per Ak Koyunlu ruling Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan is not separate from Iran. But I meant the Ak-koyunlu who are addressed as the Shahanshah Iran by the Ottomons. Now about Nizami. I do not want to get into Akhsatan complicated issue, but the statement about calling him the Shah of Iran is not in intro of intro, but in the next section which starts the praise of Axsatan. The intro intro section was actually written after the book was complete. So it is not a reaction as they are in two separate sections. Specially given the fact that he praises Akhsatan heavily, sends his son to be educated with the son of Akhsatan, there is no need to conjecture a "reaction" . So the statement you brought is unrelated to the part I have in mind where he praises Akhsatan heavily. In reality what Akhsatan means by "Torkaneh Sokhon" is verses composed by Nezami (Akhsatan was not a poet) and has to do with the story of Mahmud and Ferdowsi. We do not have any turkish poetry from the time of Nezami to say Nezami wanted to write in Turkish. Specially since the introduction was composed after Nezami composed the whole poem. Torki/Torkaneh Sokhon is used as "vulgarity"(and I am not condoning it) in Persian poetry. Actually Fizuli for example calls Turkish "Alfaz-e Rakik" (Vulgar). So did the Ottomons. This attitude is wrong, but it existed at that time for variety of reasons. For example Khaghani says: "Ba adab naan khwor o Torki nakhor" (Eat the bread with manner and not Turkish style). This negative attitude towards Turkish was also common among Ottomons and Seljuqs. Of course the attitude is wrong, but it is fact and I am not the type of person to insert all sorts of negative quotes in Wikipedia about other cultures. I am just mentioning it in the conext of that line. Anyways the Shirvanshah who requested Lili o Majnoon from Nizami did not know any Turkish for Nizami to fulfill their request in Turkish. If Nizami wanted to write Turkish, he would have for the works he dedicated to Seljuqids, Atabeks and etc and/or if such tradition existed, one of the many poets of that time would have composed it. So there was no sort of "reacion" reason for calling him the Shah of Iran. But going back to the name Iran. As I mentioned it has been used consistently in terms of geography, culture and history. Not just in mythical poetry. For example if you disagree with the intrepretation of Nizami on praising the ruler of Maraqah (so there is no reaction here if we assume there was one with Shirvanshah) and Shirvanshah as the rulers of Iran, I can bring a verse from Qatran when he was traveling above the Aras river:"Taa beh Araan toi, Madaar 'Ajab - Keh Beh 'Aran Hesad Berad Iran" (While you are in Aran, do not be suprised that if Iran becomes jealous of your prescence there). There is nothing mythical about this verse. For example the book Masalek al-absar fi Mamalek-almsar calls the part of Iran controled by Mongols as "مملكه‌الايرانين" (country of Iran). Rashid ad-din Fazlallah also uses the term . As per Iran being used by the Ilkhanids, I mentioned the book Ancient Persia by Josef Wiesehofer which he mentions in the introduction that the Ilkhanids called their state Iran. But going back further, we can see that Samanids and Ghaznavids were called Shahs of Iran. Anvari, Onsori, Farokhi Sistani all have called Mahmud as the king of Iran. Istakhri (Arab historian of that time) says: "There is not a more developed, complete and beautiful area than the Mamalek-i Iranshahr (Lands/regions of Iranshahr))". Rudaki praising the Amir of Samanid Abu Ja'far Ahmad ibn Mohammad: "An mah Azadegan va Mafkhar Iran" (That moon of the free (another name for Iranians is Azadegan) and the pride of Iran). Onsori asking the Karakhanid Turks help for example against Oghuz Turks consistently mentions Iran in that poems. All these are not in the context of myths but current events. But just to show it more, take another good example. Hakim Meysari, who was a doctor, wrote the book Danesh Nameh. This book has nothing to do with the courts, dynasties and is written during the Samanid/Ghaznavid era. It is written by everyday person who is a physician. He was contemplating to write the book in Arabic or Persian. He says in the intro: "Wo Pas Goftam keh Zamin maast Iran - Keh bish az Mardomaanash Parsi Daan" (I told myself that our land is Iran and hence the majority of its people know Persian). This is at least 500 years before the Safavids. So he wrote the book in Persian. Anyways I am not here to bore myself or talk unrelated issues, but there are many references. Now what do you want me to respond to when you say: "it seems that Azerbaijan simply did not exist and everything from Black Sea to the border of China was called Iran (and sometimes even Persia) for 3000 years". I never made such a statement. As we know Azerbaijan as part of Iran in Mede, Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid era existed. Then we have Arab and subsequent Turkic rule, but still the Turkic dynasties that ruled Azerbaijan also had control of Iran and Azerbaijan was part of Iran and still there is a region in Iran with this name. The actual linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan was gradual. But for example, even 100-200 prior to the Safavid era, we have lots of Fahlaviyyat (Vernacular Persian of the region) from Tabriz. This can be found in such poets as Baba Faraj, Mama 'Esmat Tabrizi, Pir Zehtab Tabrizi ..I never claimed or said Anatolia is Iranian either. (Perhaps the Kurdish section had a strong presence since ancient times). I am here to contribute to history articles. About the composition of Central Asia before Islam, you can refer to Frye, Bailey or Bosworth. The expansion of Turks from Altai (for example Yakuti has almost no Iranic words) is well known fact and comes after the Iranian expansion. Such expansions are common in history. The first time Iranians met Turks is during the Gok Turk [8] era. Picture of Kultigin for example clearly displays that Turkic as a language expanded through an elite class. (Probably Iranian as well). For example the Arab expansion after Islam. Or the expansion of Spanish into the American continent. So anyways, going back to the matter, if you disagree with 100% of the stuff I said, here is a source: [9] that says Astarabad, Iran. What suprised me though was that a smart guy like yourself would put a tag on Nasimi writing in Persian. It is all over google books, Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam. But I am assuming good faith, although initially I thought it might have been on purpose. On articles like Azerbaijani films, it seems there is an admin involved. It is not my responsibility to be involved there or even take a line of thought from one article and apply it to another article. On the Safavid article, I am not interested right now to contribute. I am married, have a post-doc, and I am busy and unfortunately that article just took too much of my time and in the end nationalists from both sides did not give in. I have better things to do. My suggestion is that the article which has been plagued by two years of constant edit warring should simply represent both views with different non-intersecting sections. Also valid sources from actual Safavid historians should not be intrepreted by wiki users. Even if Savory says there is a consensus it does not seem to say 100% of scholars but just a majority. So any view can be presented there but it should be broken into two different sections so there is no need for a tag "This article contradicts itself". Both sides have to simply accept there are different POV's and then write the scholarly version of their view in the section appropriated for them. Thanks and I hate writing long responses but it is habit.--alidoostzadeh 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)