Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Edit Dispute Continuing
2 Suggestion
3 On FiruzShah پیروزشاه
4 Minorsky
5 The tomb picture of Sheykh Gilani
6 Pictures
7 Professor Momen
8 Atabeks new suggestion
9 Compromise
10 NO major removals or edits till discussed
11 Ismail I's poetry
12 The lead
13 Page blocked again
14 What seems to be the problem
15 Keep the current but with dispute Tag
16 Were Safavids Shia?
17 Suggestion
18 Summary Suggestion

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)

Sounds good to me Kiumars

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. [1] ::[2] --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 [3]. 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 [Savory][another article] and definite Shaf'ite Sunni sect [Hamdollah Mustawafi], was converted to Shi'ism at aroud (?) and was Turkified and Turkish speaking[other Iranica article,frye article] 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[4] 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. ',[5], 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 [6]: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:

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)

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 wikipedia writes, serious scholars do not look to wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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:

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 [or de jure] 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[1][2], the Safavids were the first native Iranian family, since the Buyyid dynasty, to rule a united Persia.[3][4][5] The Safavids patronized Iranian culture in the manner of their predecessors, with the difference that they were of Iranic stock[2][3]. 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.[6] 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. [7] ..."

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. [7]

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.[6] 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. [7] ..."'' 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. ..." [8]

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 ..." [9]

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 ..." [10]

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)

Tajik, you cannot base the article only on sources you like. I provided a quote from Iranica, saying that the first Iranian dynasty since Buyids were Zands. We cannot simply ignore it. There’s another quote saying that Safavid dynasty was founded by Azeri Turks. You may have quotes stating otherwise, but that simply means that there’s no consensus among scholars on the issue, which means that we cannot include controversial claims about Safavids being first Iranian dynasty since Buyids in the article. Simple as that. The current version is free of ethnic POV and is a compromise. If it "focused on the Turkish POV", as you claim, I would have written the article a different way. Grandmaster 05:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the current version is NOT free of ethnic POV, it only focuses on your POV, which is why I won't accept it as a compromise. You're even trying to push irrelevant info into the article such as Ismail's poetry, to further a particular ethnic POV. Such irrelevant info should be removed, and the article's lead should be changed to reflect the fact that Safavids re-united Iran and strengthened the Iranian identity, regardless of ethnicity. Only then, we can talk about a real compromise. --Mardavich 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NO major removals or edits till discussed

Tajik, I don't understand what you're doing again? Why did you remove the reference to Minorsky article on poetry, it was the one inserted by Ali Doostzadeh. Can you stop editing the site until you resolve the questions here, rather than merely reporting your edits? Buyyids have NOTHING to do with Safavids, and your attempt to mention those in light of our recent agreement is absolutely unacceptable. And what do you mean by "a native Iranian", were the dynasties prior to Safavi "native Martians"? Atabek 17:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My comment above is based on recent edit by Tajik. The current version of the article is acceptable and balanced, so let's leave it at that and discuss everything else here, until we get to further consensus. Thanks. Atabek 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the edit is POV and totally irrelevant to the article. And in this case, it does not matter WHO put it in there. This article is about the Safavid dynasty (your OWN words) and not about Ismail. And thus, Ismail's poetry is totally irrelevnt. What matters is that Ismail - a 12-years-old boy - challenged all surrounding kingdoms and managed to improse his own beliefs on the population of Iran.

And please do not come up with Minorsky, because YOU only pick up those quotes of Minosrky that you like, while you openly reject other quotes (for example his quote above that Ismail's language had nothing to do with his ethnic background). If you persist on quoting Minorsky, then you should accept all of his quotes.

It is not you who decides whether this article is ballannced or not. And in my view, it is NOT ballanced. It is stongly shifted toward the Turkish POV, ignoring major sources - most of all the article "Safavids" by R. Savory, the most authoritative source available right now! Tājik 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Turkish POV with regard to Safavid history, so I am not sure what you mean. Everything currently published is in line with the Talk page. And what's your complaint about? If you complain about the Minorsky reference in Culture section, well, that's part of Safavi culture. Yes, Ismail was a poet of Safavid Dynasty culture, and so was his descendant Shah Abbas II who wrote in Turkic. So was Shah Abbas I, who fought and won wars against Ottomans. So what's your problem?

You're mistaken because Minorsky was selectively quoted by Iranians above as well. If you had a problem with Ali Doostzadeh's edits, you should have complained about the unlocking of the page. Further attempts to abuse the page after the consensus, will result in further blockage, and there is really no point, just because YOU (solely) think otherwise. I expect Ali to address these as well. Thanks. Atabek 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Ali agrees with me. See his comment above. For the time being, the neutrality of this article is disputed! Besides that, see my comments abve the and the direct quote from Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam. I do not know why, but ou purposely ignore those sources! Give me your e-mail address so I can send you the entire EI-article about the Safavids (written by 5 scholars specialized on Safavid history!!!). This Wikipedia article is mostly written by amateurs and non-experts, and it lacks neutrality, credibility, and factual accuracy. The section about the "culture" is messed-up POV and has no support in the EI article. Tājik 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your replacement of word Iran with Persia in introduction seems a rather ethnic-oriented POV. When Western authors refer to Persia in medieval times, they refer to country of Iran, not to the ethnic domain of Persian people. So your argument does NOT quite flow well with Ali's position. If you want to include restoration of Persian sovereignty and Persian heartland stuff implying ethnic and linguistic points, firstly, this isn't true as the state language of Safavids at least during Ismail and Tahmasp was Azeri Turkic, and secondly we will have to reinsert then Frye's quote from Iranica: "Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid Dynasty", which is currently not there due to consensus. It would still be nice to wait and see Ali's opinion. Until then, I reverted back to his revision. Thanks. Atabek 21:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I replaced "Iran" with "Persia", because th word "Iran" is associated with the modern Islamic Republic, while the Safawids ruled over a much larger area, including - in part - the modern states Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, Azerbaijan, etc. Besides that, the term "Persia" is also used in Iranica and EI.

Your assumtion about the "state language" is wrong, because Ismail and Tahmasp did not have any "official language". However, it was Shah Abbas who moved the capital to Isfahan and declared Persian the "official language of the state". This did not have an "ethno-linguistic" background, but was rather based on the Shah's plans to further weaken the powerful Aq Qoyunlu Turcomans ("Qizilbash"). I had given the source in the article, but you (or Grandmaster) have deleted it - I am sure you have an explanation for that!

And I have explained it already many times, and I explain it for you once again (since you seem to be no expert on this field but rather a user who is interested in the subject):

The article about Iran's population, written by Frye, is by far not the best source for this article. The Iranica has better, more specialized articles (and authors !!!) for this. Me and Ali have already explained to you that the most authoritative (and by far the most active) Safavid historian is Roger M. Savory of the University of Torronto. Unlike Frye, he has dedicated his life to Safavid and post-Islamic history of Iran. He is a REAL expert on the subject. Only Minorsky - an expert on Azerbaijan's language and history - comes close to Savory, but NOT Richard Frye who is an expert on Iran's PRE-Islamic and early post-Islamic history.

Tājik 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, Tajik wrote on November 24, 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?!

So Tajik, now, explain to me whether your opinion quotes above on November 24th and February 6th are not a result of clear POV. How come Iranica is right in one case, and wrong in the other, Frye is right in one case, wrong in the other? How qualified are you to judge what's right and what's wrong? The article shall remain the same, although user Mardavich is trying to abuse the site again. We achieved an agreement, you should consult with Ali Doostzadeh, otherwise, the further attempts to edit the site without agreement will result in edit war. Atabek 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also don't like such selectiveness of Tajik when quoting the sources. Frye was considered an authority by him, but now he is not, for an obvious reason. I would like to know how he established that Savory is now the only authority on Safavids? There are many other scholars, and we should report not only the opinion of one scholar, but all opinions existing among authoritative scholars. Grandmaster 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ismail I's poetry

What does Ismail I's poetry have anything to do with this page? This article is about the dynasty, not Ismail. Personal details like that should go to Ismail I --Mardavich 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a consensus result, follow the threads above. We only mention that he wrote poetry in this language. Grandmaster moved it actually to Culture section, which was reverted by Tajik. So we are going back to revert by Ali Doostzadeh with "neutrality" claim from Tajik, which he will have to substantiate. Atabek 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whose consensus? Not mine. Personal details like that should go to Ismail I, it simply doesn't belong here. --Mardavich 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead

The fallowing true and important statements should be added back to the lead:

"which established Shi'a Islam as Iran's official religion and united its provinces under a single Iranian sovereignty, thereby reigniting the Iranian identity and acting as a bridge to modern Iran." --Mardavich 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I think this can be added to the legacy and culture section. But I think the ageement with Shi'ite dynasty should be kept for the first sentence. At least that part of the agreement Tajik also agreed with and so did Atabek/GM and etc. --alidoostzadeh 02:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Page blocked again

Armenian user Nareklm has once again abused the consensus version with help from Mardavich. It's clear that both users make no contribution to either this discussion or the main page, but are only involved in making reverts to my editions. I call onto Ali Doostzadeh to join back and discuss further edits and the way we can protect them. Tajik, this is also result of your attempts to vandalize the agreed version. Atabek 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks and accusations, consider this your last warning. You have to stop seeing the world from your ethnocentric glasses, labeling editors who disagree with you for legitimate reasons as "Armenian user", "vandal" etc. FYI, I am very much involved in this discussion page, look above your post and you'll see two threads by me. --Mardavich 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem

!!!!! man ..what a headache. Can we just mention Ismail wrote Azeri Turkish and some Persian poetry and be done with it?! More stuff about Ismail and Shaykh Safi ad-din can be put in their relavent pages. Also my friend Atabek please stop labeling users by their background! That is definitely wrong also. --alidoostzadeh 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant information, that's the problem. What does Ismail's poetry (In Azeri or Persian) have to do with the Safavid dynasty? --Mardavich 01:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay so it seems this is the only issue. Okay my friend, if you think it is unbalance we can say we have some Tati poems from Shaykh Safi ad-din? Or say we have Persian and Turkish poetry from Ismail? Or if some users really think it is unnecessary it can be removed? Since the discussion was mainly between me and Atabek, I overlooked other users and this is the second time this week. I apologize. I do not think saying Ismail has some poetry is really POV. Perhaps if we write Shaykh Safi ad-din has some Tati poetry then it is balanced in your view? Let me know. Anyways I am out of the discussion on the ethnic background part since we had too many sources that discussed it. --alidoostzadeh 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep the current but with dispute Tag

I got separate emails from users Mardavich and Tajik saying they do not agree with the current article and also they were not happy with me for compromising again on another article. Tajik told me flatly: I do not accept this version.. So I guess we need to have the dispute tag there until everyone is satisfied. I request everyone though to not add or delete anything from the current version and just discuss the issues that are of concern. I am not concerned anymore about the ethnic part since I think the first line about Safavid's being Shi'ite dynasty was agreed upon with everyone. The current version just reflects the consensus between me, GM and Atabek and it should be there and not changed until new consensus is reached (which I will not be involved in terms of ethnic stuff). I do not think it is wrong to mention Esmail I composed poems in Azeri turkic in this entry and although not 100% relavent to Safavid dynasty, it is good information. I added Persian as well since it is a fact. Other than that, if there is any quote that any user thinks it should be included that has implications to ethnicity of Safavds, please bring it forth and lets discuss it but I won't discuss it since I do not want to be involved in the ethnic part anymore and I think a balance has been reached with the current version. It is obvious that Safavid did a lot for Iran and Shi'ite/Persian culture as mentioned by Frye in his Golden age of Persia. We can add this to the Legacy and Culture section without referring to any say ethnic background of Safavid and Safavids were Turkic/Persian..etc or etc. These parts were not under dispute. I consider myself out of the discussion about ethnic issues on this article. Safavids were Greek, Kurd, Persians, Azeris and Greeks and etc. I will contribute towards legacy, political history and culture from scholarly links which do not have to do with anything with Safavid's multi-ethnic background and being Kurd, Azeri, Greek, Persian dynasty which has been discussed too much now. I think the current wording of the first line about them being a shi'ite dynasty is good. I am going to add some quotes about Islamic and Persian philosphy (mainly through Surawardi) which continued during the time of Safavids from Frye in the culture section. (Mulla Sadra, Shaikh Bahai, Mir Damad).. It doesn't have to do with any of the Safavid Kings and their background.--alidoostzadeh 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still have no clear understanding of what is actually disputed. Can anyone please explain the problems they have with the current version? If the problem is that the article does not say that Safavids were native Iranian/Persian, then there's nothing that can be done. It does not say that they were Azeri Turks either, despite that being the opinion of the majority of sources, including Iranica. Compromise does not make happy both sides, but there's no other way out of this dispute. If there are any other problems, let's talk them over. Grandmaster 06:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Safavids were native Iranian. Native Iranian is different from native Persian, you could be Azeri and native Iranian. However, that't not the problem. My main issues are the lead (see my post in the above threads) and the irrelevant crap about Ismail's poetry. --Mardavich 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But even Iranica does not say that they were Iranian. I quoted the article from Iranica saying that first Iranian dynasty since Buyids were Zands. I have more sources on that. I think it is better to leave such claims out of the article. The intro should be very simple and non-controversial. We compromised “founded by Azeri Turks”, you should compromise something too. And calling “crap” the poetry of Shah Ismail, who was one of the greatest Azeri poets, is really something you should be ashamed of. The poetry of Ismail is mentioned in the culture section, I don’t see why it should be a problem. What’s wrong with mentioning the fact in the relevant section? I would like to know how it is irrelevant to the culture section. Grandmaster 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Safavids were Iranian, that's a fact. You don't know the definition of who is Iranian and who is not. You don't have to be a Persian to be a native Iranian, man ozom turkam hamda irani. Read WP:NPA, and don't tell me to be ashamed of anything, I am not calling the poetry of Shah Ismail “crap”, the mentioning of his poetry is irelevnt crap that POV-pushers here are trying to shove into the article at any cost. This is not Ismail's article, this is suppose to be an encyclopedic article about the Safavid dynasty. Shah Ismail may have been or done a lot of things in his free time, but that's irrelevant to this article. --Mardavich 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The word Iranian has two meanings – nationality and ethnicity. Including that term in the lead would be misleading, as there’s no consensus among the scholars on the ethnic roots of Safavi clan. But we can mention that they reunited the historical Iranian lands and even expanded them under the single rule, it is factually accurate and I have no objections to that. As for Ismail, I don’t see how his poetry is irrelevant to the culture section. His poetry is one of the most significant cultural contributions of Safavids, and deserves a brief mention in the culture section, while the article about Ismail provides detailed review of his poetry. If poetry is not culture, then what is it? Also, please mind civility, calling contributions of other editors “crap” and labeling them as “POV pushers” will not help resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 08:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of ethnicity, Safavids were IRANIAN, that's the consensus among ALL the scholars. And what part of irrelevant don't you understand? If you want a compromise, then you should be willing to compromise, it's your choice. Either we agree to remove all ethnicity-related POV bits, such as the irrelevant bits about Ismail's poetry or I will adding the following sourced bits of information to the article:

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v13f3/v13f3004a.html

The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are ShiÂ¿ites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/reflections_safavid_history_historiography1.php

"Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan"

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v8f1/v8f1010.html

"This official version contains textual changes designed to obscure the Kurdish origins of the Safavid family and to vindicate their claim to descent from the Imams."

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v13f2/v13f2024i.html

"Thus Turkish nomads, in spite of their deep penetration throughout Iranian lands, only slightly influenced the local culture. Elements borrowed by the Iranians from their invaders were negligible."

These are just a few of the reliable sources I have that contradict everything you say. So tell me GM, do you want a real compromise or not?.--Mardavich 10:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromised? Who is it a compromise to still include the term Azeri, an identity which still did not exist? According to which name convention? It's like calling Phrygians, Armenians, just because Armenians were Phrygian colonists at first and one of the founding nations of the Armenian identity. Calling compromise for something which obviously should have never been included to replace it with still something which is bogus at best could not be used as a working draft, regardless of how far as a compromise it is claimed/alleged to be. Compromise it not a bargin, I gave you that, you give me this; this is sure not the way it works. I may not have read all the sources there is to read, but have read Daniel L. Elton work on Iran history, he is known to be a recognized authority in the field, when I started making some changes on the article, such as adding the paranthesis, (contiguous with, but not to be confused with, the new Republic of Azerbaijan to the north) (comming directly from his work, and I don't know of anyone in the academia disagreeing with) which is obvious and sure very relevent to add, I was reverted by Tabib, claiming it to be POV. It is really amazing how Adil, Dacy, and you Grandmaster can still use this double standard. In one hand, shouting Albanians in any given occasion, when there was a recognized Armenian identity, throwing an Azeri identity still not formed in this and every possible article. If professor Daniel L. Elton is considering Safavid Iranian history, I don't think it gives you or anyone the right to dismiss a majority position. Besides, it is also recognized that it was founded mostly by ethnic Kurds(with heavy Persian heritage), while the ruling was under Turkic language. But if this is enough for you to call it Turkic, or at worst Azeri, an identity not existing at that time. Then maybe you should use the same standard for Albania, which was for a long time used as a Satelite of Armenia, even Armenian being the elites and ruling language. Now, what you say, do we use the same standard? Fad (ix) 08:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the discussion or you are here to pursue certain users who contribute to this article? I don’t mind using the terms Turk and Turkic, other people do. Grandmaster 08:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And did you actually read my comment? Pursue? Are we again at it with such accusations? My critic was on the uses of the word Azeri. Fad (ix) 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster 08:33, 7 February 2007; one of the main problems behind some of the arguments and confusions here is using English words/names that do not correspond exactly with the native words/names; e.g. in Iran the Azeri language is called Turkey by most people and people refer to themselves as Turks but these don’t mean the same as Turkish language or race. Kiumars

The terms Azeri Turks and Azeri/Azerbaijani are quite legitimate in historical context and are used to differentiate Azerbaijani Turks from those of Anatolia. Those terms are used in historical context by such authoritative sources as Iranica, see quotes:

The Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty. [11]

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. [12]

However, I don’t mind using the word Turk/Turkic either. I think Iranian editors prefer the terms Azeri/Azeri Turk to distinguish Azeris from Turks of Turkey, but I think both Turk and Azeri Turk/Azeri is correct. So I don’t mind it either way. Grandmaster 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear All, Just as an user following this discussion page, I observe there are very very hot disscusions about his ethnicity here. I don't want to interfere in your discussions as I don't have enough knowledge about Safavid, but I am sure Shah Ismail was not so obsessive about his ethnicity as we are. It is better we respect him and don't pay too attention to this issue. In my idea insisting that he was only Kurd/Persian/Tat/Turk is useless and the compromised version is good. Thanks Sohanaki 08:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Were Safavids Shia?

The articles say" The Safavid dynasty was a Shiite Dynasty, which originated in Iranian Azerbaijan, and ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722." but this souce [13] claims that Safavids were not Shi'a. They were Sunni and Ahmad Kasravi has established this as a fact that the ancestors of Safavids were Sunni. Sheikh Safi-eddin Ardebili, the grandfather of Shah EsmAiil Safavi was Sunni although Safavid sheikhs were more like Sufi masters than theologians. Any idea? Kiumars

Of course the founders of the clan were Sunni, everyone recognizes that. But the Safavid dynasty's founder, shah Ismail, was Shia.

Meanwhile, this passage from above source is interesting: ". I think Safavid's goal was to be the Abbasid Empire of the post-Moghol times and this was the same goal that Ottomans had and that was the reason of their fierce competition. I think as time passed, more and more, their goal changed, and they became a Persian Empire. I think if their original goal had been just to be the unifiers of Iran, maybe they would never have bothered with Shiism as their flag of unification and would have used "Persianization" as their flag of unity from start, the same way GhaznaviAn had done in the pre-Moghol era." --AdilBaguirov 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov; I don't know the guy, I just came across his site when searching for data on the web; so I cannot vouch for him or his comments; the only thing I referred to was Kasravi's remark (that can be verified).Kiumars

Safavid Origins: The Empire was founded by the Safavids, a Sufi order that goes back to Safi al-Din (1252-1334). Safi al-Din converted to Shi'ism and was a Persian nationalist. The Safavid brotherhood was originally a religious group. Over the following centuries the brotherhood became stronger, by attracting local warlords and by political marriages. It became a military group as well as a religious one in the 15th century. Many were attracted by the brotherhood's allegiance to Ali, and to the 'hidden Imam'. In the 15th century the brotherhood became more militarily aggressive, and waged a jihad (Islamic holy war) against parts of what are now modern Turkey and Georgia. The Safavid Empire dates from the rule of Shah Ismail (ruled 1501-1524). In 1501, the Safavid Shahs declared independence when the Ottomans outlawed Shi'a Islam in their territory. The Safavid Empire was strengthened by important Shi'a soldiers from the Ottoman army who had fled from persecution. When the Safavids came to power in 1501, Shah Ismail was 14 or 15 years old, and by 1510 Ismail had conquered the whole of Iran. Guys read the rest of the article; it is very interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/safavidempire_1.shtml Kiumars

Suggestion

Dear Mardavich, would you be happy with this: The Safavid dynasty was a native Shiite Dynasty from Iran who originated in Iranian Azerbaijan. They unified and ruled Iran from 1502 till 1722.. This is explicitly saying they were native Iranians, but also explicitly does not denote any ethnic link (which I think is the concern of GM since Iranian denotes also Indo-Iranian whereas the Safavid dynasty was neither pure Altaic or pure Indo-Iranian but in the end they are Iranian by common definition). About the poetry, how about as GM suggested move the poetry part to the culture section of the page as it belongs to culture? Thus nothing ethnic is added either and nothing is deleted either. I think adding all the ethnic stuff collected from this talk page (all the quotes above) will clutter the page too much. I think we should finish the ethnic stuff..Safavid's contribution to Persian culture and etc. can be put in the culture section as well. But I think discussion of the ethnic origin of Safavids should have ended..for this entry. --alidoostzadeh 13:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I have seen a long ghazal from Shah Esmail in Persian ( think 20 verses) at least. I am not sure where only one verse remains comes from? --alidoostzadeh 13:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone show me examples of weasel words and unverified claims? According to the rules, the tags should be substantiated on the talk page. So I’m waiting for those who attached the tags to explain them. And Ali, please check the article about Ismail in Iranica:

Shah Esmail wrote poetry under the pen-name Khatai. Although his son Sam Mirza as well as some later authors assert that Esmail composed poems both in Turkish and Persian, only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived (Sam Mirza, p. 9: one bayt; Fakòri Heravi, pp. 68-70: one mokammas; Tarbiat, Daneæmandan-e Adarbayjan, p. 136: three bayts). His poetical output in Turkish, however, is sizeable, though indeterminate due to the absence of critical editions. [14] Grandmaster 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear GM. Exactly what I am saying Ghardash. A Mokhammas is at least 20-30 verses. I have seen that Mukhammas is a Persian article a while back and I believe it was about 30 verses.. A Mukhammas is a long poem. You probably know the word Khamse (five) from Nezami. Mukhammas is a poem that has 5 verses one after another with the exception of the last verse which rhymes throughout the poem. Usually at least 20-30 verses are in Mukhammas. So I changed it appropriately. I guess this article needs a lot of rework since it seems it was not agreed upon by everyone. Till then, I am not in the article with regards to ethnic issues. But mukhammas is definitely more than one verse if you are aware of Persian poetry. --alidoostzadeh 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely trust your knowledge on this. I just showed you the source of info. Grandmaster 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not satisfied Ali. This doesn't look like a real compromise to me, Grandmaster doesn't own this article and I won't allow him hijack it. The poetry section should be removed altogether, it's completely irrelevant. --Mardavich 06:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As the poetry issue only applies to Ismail (not all Safavids dynasty) then I think it better be moved to the Ismail I article. Kiumars

I’m not happy with the current version either. I think the article should say that Safavids were Azeri Turks as per Iranica and many other sources. However, I agreed to compromise version to put an end to the dispute that goes on for a few years. But if you gonna insist on you Iranian origin version, I might as well retract my agreement to compromise, as I think it suppresses the important info on the ethnic background of the dynasty. And show me a rule that does not allow including the info about poetry into the articles about ruling dynasties. I think poetry is perfectly relevant to the culture section, where it should be briefly mentioned. Grandmaster 07:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GM, then why don't we quote the previous two sentences from the same source, Professor Richard Nelson Frye, which clearly states: "The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia. The Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty." While we're at it, we could also quote the Iranica source specifically saying Safavids had Kurdish origin...thus complementing Professor Frye and not contradicting him. --Mardavich 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary Suggestion

As it's not quite clear what some users do not agree with in the current version of the article, and why it's considered non-neutral or disputable, it would be nice, if those users would, under this thread, summarize (with numbered line items), which text they exactly do not agree with. Atabek 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some users think the poetry of Shah Ismail I put in the begining is irrelevant. Other than that, I think the begining sentence according to some users needs to put more emphasis on Safavid unifying Iran under one government and being natives from Iran. I'll wait for Tajik, Surena and Mardavich to respond. --alidoostzadeh 01:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that forgery of his main language and removing references to poetry of Ismail will in any way strengthen his connection to Iran or credibility of the article. What puzzles me even more is an attempt to replace Iran with Persia in the text. Why?? This is not just a matter of principle, it's an undeniable fact that Shah Ismail was also Khatai, a poet who wrote in a language which is today known as Azerbaijani. It was part of his identity, and which was also the identity of Safavid state of Azerbaijan and subsequently Iran. Atabek 01:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was a Safavid state of Azerbaijan per se, Shah Ismail proclaimed himself the king of Iran. Also I think Mardavich just wanted to moved it to the culture section. I am just repeating his opinion here since you asked for it. About Iran and Persia, in the western literature they are used synonomously as a geographic region for at least a long long time perhaps since the time of the ancient Greeks. Definitely during the Roman empire. Either one is fine though..--alidoostzadeh 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ali, Safavid state was first proclaimed in Azerbaijan, when Ismail proclaimed himself the Shah of Azerbaijan in July of 1501 in Tabriz. This is referenced by R. Tapper, as well as, Minorsky and Savory and is a fact, whether his ancestor was or was not Turkic, Persian, Tati, Taleshi, Kurdish is a secondary question. He became the Shah of Iran almost a year later, in May of 1502. Ismail could not proclaim himself a king of country before actually controlling it.

I did not oppose moving the note on poetry of Ismail to culture section, I opposed completely removing that note or insulting Ismail's poetry with indecent words like Mardavich did above. But at least the main language of Ismail's state communication should be highlighted, as every state or dynasty ruling it is identified with usage of a certain language. That language was Azeri Turkic, which is also mentioned by Iranica, Minorsky, Frye, and Savory. So whether this is presented in link with poetry or not does not really matter, the poetry note only serves as a scholarly support.

Regarding Iran vs. Persia, this really sad that you hold such an indifferent view. When it comes to claiming non-Persian Azeris, Kurds or others as Iranian, the word Iran is insisted upon. Yet when it comes to writing an article about ethnically non-Persian ruler of Iran, it's OK to be shown as Persia? In my personal opinion, such a division is sad and only reminds that very recent anti-Azeri "cartoon" incidents in Iran, may have actually roots in Iran itself. Regards. Atabek 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek 05:39, 8 February 2007; there is no such a thing as Persia (as a country as known in the west) in the vocabulary of the Iranians. Pars is only one province of Iran and they also call themselves Iranians. As Ali said Persia is a foreign name for Iran and it has been used to call the same entity we Iranians call Iran. So even if Chinese called us zing-zang-zoon; it would be Iran = Persia = zing-zang-zoon! Kiumars

Atabek 05:39, 8 February 2007; do you really think a 14 year old orphan child could claim the kingdom and conquer the whole Iran in a few years? It was all a political movement planed and executed by the Iranians who wanted to break from Arab and Turk invasions. Safavids killed more Turks than any other Iranian dynasty! These all have been discussed in the article and links I wonder why you still ask such questions! Kiumars

Kuimars, for all practical purposes, Iran embodies the definition of a country and a nation, whereas Persia (even if in medieval Greek/European spelling implying Iran) limits verbally to a single ethnicity. And this is not about who killed whom, and whether or not Safavids loved or hated Turks (obviously Safavid ideology was beyond ethnic lines, it was religious, and of Arab-origin at that). It's simply about referenced facts and material, the fact is that Ismail proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501, and Shah of Iran in 1502. The fact was documented in Encyclopedia Iranica and expert historians on Safavids. And I hope the discussion and the general thought on this page will liberate itself from concentration on words Turk to concentration on essense of references. Thanks. Atabek 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek; re: "whereas Persia (even if in medieval Greek/European spelling implying Iran) limits verbally to a single ethnicity." Can you please provide references so that I can check the authenticity of this claim? This is all new to me! I think you are confusing Persia with Persians (the latter refers to a single ethnicity; the former is the name of a country). Kiumars

Atabek 07:17, 8 February 2007; Oops! Sorry, I think we are saying the same thing! I too believe that Iranians should be used instead of Persians. Kiumars 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek; Re “obviously Safavid ideology was beyond ethnic lines, it was religious, and of Arab-origin at that”; I beg to differ with you again, look what Safavids did to the religions (especially the Arab version of Islam i.e. Sunni!). Safavids use the religion as a weapon to fight all enemies of Iran in any form or shape; they killed the Saufies, sunnies, shias, Turks, Turkmen, Arabs, and even those Iranians who did not fit into Safavids nationalistic views! Safavids used the religion to serve the state the same way that Spanish did to wipe the Islam from Spain. Kiumars

Dear Atabek where does it say he proclaimed himself Shah of Azerbaijan in any of these books or shah of state of Azerbaijan? I would appreciate the reference to increase my knwoledge with this regard. As per court language, it seems both Persian and Azeri was used. Specially when Esmail I created the office of Wakil, he left the matters related to governance to the Wakil/Vazir bureaucracy. The Ghezelbash for the most part were not court officials except their leaders. Probably Esmail I court had more Azeri but by the time of Shah Abbas Persian was probably used more due the court being in Esfahan. One of the famous ones in Shah Abbas's court was Shaykh bahai..Both languages seems to have been used in the court and documents in both exist from royal court. --alidoostzadeh 12:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Edit Dispute Continuing

Suggestion

On FiruzShah پیروزشاه

Minorsky

The tomb picture of Sheykh Gilani

Pictures

Professor Momen

Atabeks new suggestion

Compromise

NO major removals or edits till discussed

Ismail I's poetry

The lead

Page blocked again

What seems to be the problem

Keep the current but with dispute Tag

Were Safavids Shia?

Suggestion

Summary Suggestion

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search