Talk:Safavid dynasty/Archive 2

Suleiman I or Suleiman III?

I am a bit confused as to the true title of the monarch who succeeded Abbas II. He's given as Suleiman I here. The traveller John Chardin, who was at his coronation, wrote a book called The Coronation of Suleiman III. The website isfahan.org.uk [1] says that his original name was Shah Safi, changed to Suleiman III afterwards.

Clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks. -- Peripatetic 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Language of the Safavids

Some individuals are messing up the article by constantly claiming that the "Safavids were Turkic-speaking" ... this enire claim is based on only one single factor: that Shah Ismail Safavi wrote some poetry in Turkish. Let's check out the Encyclopaedia Iranica:

• "...Shah Esma@¿^l wrote poetry under the pen-name K¨atÂa@÷^. Although his son Sa@m M^rza@ as well as some later authors assert that Esma@¿^l composed poems both in Turkish and Persian, only a few specimens of his Persian verse have survived (Sa@m M^rza@, p. 9: one bayt; Fakòr^ Herav^, pp. 68-70: one mokòammas; Tarb^at, Da@neæmanda@n-e AÚdòarba@yja@n, p. 136: three bayts). His poetical output in Turkish, however, is sizeable, though indeterminate due to the absence of critical editions. The oldest extant manuscript of his d^va@n (Tashkent, dated 942/1535) contains 262 qasá^das and @gazals and 10 quatrains (Mamedov, 1975, pp. 13-14), while the second earliest copy (Paris, dated 948/1541) preserves 254 qasá^das and g@azals, 3 mat¯naw^s, 1 morabba¿, and 1 mosaddas (ed. Gandjei, p. 8). In addition to the d^va@n, Esma@¿^l composed at least two independent lengthy mat¯naw^s in the hazaj meter, namely the Nasá^háat-na@ma, which is sometimes incorporated into the d^va@n, and the Dah-na@ma (comp. 911/1505-6). Apart from this poetical corpus that is almost exclusively in traditional ¿aru@zµ (q.v.), there exist a sizeable number of poems in syllabic meter that carry the pen-name K¨atÂa@÷^. Although a strong argument was put forth that these syllabic poems should be ascribed to poets belonging to Bekta@æ^-¿Alaw^ circles in Asia Minor (Gandjei, 1971), the possibility that Esma@¿^l I did in fact compose some of them, perhaps with the purpose of attracting Turkish-speaking tribesmen to the Safavid cause, cannot be precluded. For long his poems were recited in Bekta@æ^-¿Alaw^ circles, and the extremist ˆabak sect of Iraq included some of them in their sacred book (Gandjei, in EI2 IV, pp. 188-89)..."

So it seems like Ismail wrote in both Persian and Turkish, while only his Turkish poems have survived (due to the rise of Alevi-Bektasi orders in Anatolia). It is also attested that with his Turkish poems he tried to attract Turkmen nomads of Anatolia. So, it seems like his use of the Turkish language was rather a "strategic move". It is absolutely no proof for the well-known claim that "Safawids were Turk ish-speaking".

Besides that, let's take a look at what the Encyclopaedia Iranica says about the so-called "Turkish" Ghaznavids of Khorasan:

• "... The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish, but the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them. Yet given the fact that the essential basis of the Ghaznavids' military support always remained their Turkish soldiery, there must always have been a need to stay attuned to their troops' needs and aspirations; also, there are indications of the persistence of some Turkish literary culture under the early Ghaznavids (Köprülüzade, pp. 56-57). The sources do make it clear, however, that the sultans' exercise of political power and the administrative apparatus which gave it shape came very speedily to be within the Perso-Islamic tradition of statecraft and monarchical rule, with the ruler as a distant figure, buttressed by divine favor, ruling over a mass of traders, artisans, peasants, etc., whose prime duty was obedience in all respects but above all in the payment of taxes. The fact that the personnel of the bureaucracy which directed the day-to-day running of the state, and which raised the revenue to support the sultans' life-style and to finance the professional army, were Persians who carried on the administrative traditions of the Samanids, only strengthened this conception of secular power. The offices of vizier, treasurer, chief secretary, head of the war department, etc., were the preserves of Persians, and no Turks are recorded as ever having held them. It was not for nothing that the great Saljuq vizier K¨úa@ja Nezáa@m-al-Molk held up Mahámu@d and the early Ghaznavids as exemplars of firm rule (Nezáa@m-al-Molk, passim; Barthold, Turkestan3, pp. 291-93; Bosworth, Ghaznavids, pp. 55-97). ... Persianisation of the state apparatus was accompanied by the Persianisation of high culture at the Ghaznavid court. Ferdows^ sought Mahámu@d's beneficence towards the end of his life, but Mahámu@d and Mas¿u@d are most notably known as the patrons of Persian poets with a simple, lyrical style like ¿Onsáor^, Farrokò^, and Manu±ehr^ (Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., pp. 173-77; Clinton; Moayyad). The level of literary creativity was just as high under Ebra@h^m and his successors up to Bahra@mæa@h, with such poets as Abu'l-Faraj Ru@n^, Sana@÷^, ¿Ot¯ma@n Mokòta@r^, Mas¿u@d-e Sa¿d-e Salma@n, and Sayyed H®asan GÚaznav^ (Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., pp. 196-97; Bosworth, Later Ghaznavids, pp. 75-77, 107-10). We know from the biographical dictionaries of poets (tadòkera-ye æo¿ara@) that the court in Lahore of K¨osrow Malek had an array of fine poets, none of whose d^va@ns has unfortunately survived, and the translator into elegant Persian prose of Ebn Moqaffa¿'s Kal^la wa Demna, namely Abu'l-Ma¿a@l^ Nasár-Alla@h b. Moháammad, served the sultan for a while as his chief secretary (Bosworth, Later Ghaznavids, pp. 127-28). The Ghaznavids thus present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianised to a perceptibly higher degree than other contemporary dynasties of Turkish origin such as Saljuqs and Qarakhanids. Whereas most of the Great Saljuq sultans seem to have remained illiterate, many of the Ghaznavids were highly cultured; as emerges from the pages of Bayhaq^, Mas¿u@d I had a good knowledge of Arabic poetry and was a competent Persian chancery stylist (Bosworth, Ghaznavids, pp. 129-30); ¿Abd-al-Raæ^d commissioned the copying in GÚazna of a superb manuscript on traditions describing the Prophet which survives today (Stern). ..."

So, before changing this article and thus messing it up with wrong information, the Turcophiles of Wikipedia should start with correcting the Ghaznavids-article. If the language of poetry is the definition for the language or ethnicty of an entire dynasty, than MOST of the so-called "Turkish" dynasties were in reality "Persian dynasties" ... including certain Seljuq princedoms.

Tajik 21:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well. Tajik, you might be horrifed of this, but there is nothing you can do to change things that happened 500 years ago. All you can do is to try to distort facts in places such as Wikipedia. Would you tell me what language would people use if they were from a place like Ardabil, where there is not even a 1% non-Turkic speaking people? Please don't say that it was not Turkish in 1500s. There is no evidence for that. Furthermore, would you please explain that why a non-native person would try to learn a relatively hard and almost non-prestigous language? A language whose speakers were seen as low cultured relative to the speakers of a lingua franca language like Farsi? We absoltely do not have any evidence that Safawids were non-Tukish speakers. And because of the reasons I have stated above, merely Shah Ismail's competence in using the Turkish language in such a level that his poetry is considered amongst the best written in Azerbaijani Turkish, is itself a proof of their native language. Therefore, the onus of proof is on those who claim that they were non-Turkish speakers, not vice-versa. But in fact the issue of their Turkish origin was thoroughly proven above by Tabib, but instead of proving otherwise, people have treated him with such "compliments" of being Turkophile and Pan-Turkist. I will revert the article to the more correct one. Thank you. --TimBits 03:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

500 years ago, Ardabil was not "100% Turkish" ... and it is not 100% Turkish today. Besides that, you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that Ardabil was 100% Turkish. Azerbaijani Turkish was not a foreign language to Shah Ismail, because his mother was half-Turkish (from the family of Uzun Hasan, chief of the Aq Quyunlu Turkmens). You also forget that the Encyclopaedia Iranica is - along with the Encyclopaedia of Islam - the most authoritive Encyclopaedia. As you can read in the Iranica-article above, it is attested by Shah Ismail's son that his father wrote poetry in Persian and Turkish. Many historians today doubt that many of those poems were actually written by Shah Ismail personally (as you can read in the Iranica article). Shah Ismail was seven years old when he was appointed "Grandmaster" of the Safawiyeh, he was not even 14 years old when he started to lead the Qizilbash ... Many of the poems dedicated to Ismail are from that time ... But it does not matter anyway. It is a FACT that today. MOST historians reject the "Turkish-origin" theory. I've read Tabib's discussion and he has not proven ANYTHING. From the very beginningh of the Safavid dynasty, the kings were connected to Persian nationalism opposed to Arabs and Ottoman Turks. That's why the Safavids reintroduced the title "Shahenshah" and claimed to be descendants of the Sassanian kings. It is attested in the Encyclopaedia Iranica that there were many Persian-speaking poets at the court of the Safawids, like Mirza Muhammad Ali Tabrizi. We also know from the Mughal emperor Humayun (who fled to Persia during the Pashtun Suri Dynasty) that Persian was the court-language of Shah Tamasep (Ismail's son). Humayun, whose mother-tongue was Chaghatai-Turkish (see: Babur) took with him countless Persian royals (his wife was a Safawid royal), poets, artists, etc to India, making Persian the new court-language of the Mughals. His son Akbar did not understand Turkish. That's why he ordered the translation of the "Baburnameh" into Persian. Ismail's use of the Turkish language had only one purpose: political propaganda. From the Encyclopaedia Iranica:

• "... The Safavid propaganda (da¿wa). What is clear is that Esma@¿^l reached sanctuary in G^la@n at the court of the local ruler Ka@r K^a@ M^rza@. Esma@¿^l was then seven years old. Five years later, when he was twelve (905/1499), he emerged from the forest of G^la@n to make his bid for power in Persia. Two years after that, when he was still only fourteen, he was crowned Shah at Tabr^z (906-7/1501; Qa@zµ^ Ahámad, p. 85; MozµtÂar, ed., pp. 145-46). Though he was the focal point of the Safavid revolutionary movement, his youth must have precluded him from being the driving force in planning the final stages of this revolution. The driving force consisted of a closely-knit group of devoted qezelba@æ followers known as the ahl-e ekòtesáa@sá (Savory, 1987, X, p. 234). Throughout his five years of hiding in G^la@n, Esma@¿^l had kept in touch with his disciples through a network of officers termed kòal^fa, abda@l, dada, kòa@dem, and p^ra, all under the command of the kòal^fat al-kòolafa@ (Tadòkerat al-molu@k, tr. Minorsky, comm., pp. 125-26 and p. 125, nn. 4-5; Savory, 1987, X, pp. 226 ff.). The function of this network was to disseminate the propaganda (da¿wa) designed to win adherents to the Safavid cause among the qezelba@æ Turkman tribes of Anatolia, southern Caucasus, and Azerbaijan. The original basis of this da¿wa was the traditional relationship between a Sufi shaikh in his capacity as spiritual director (moræed) and his disciples (mor^ds), a relationship which demanded the unquestioning obedience of the mor^d to the orders of his moræed. In the last half of the 9th/15th century, however, the Safavid da¿wa incorporated many antinomian and extremist doctrines characteristic of g@ola@t groups in general (see Hodgson). According to K¨onj^, who was hostile to the Safavid cause, Jonayd's mor^ds openly called him "God (ela@h), and his son, Son of God (ebn Alla@h) . . . in his praise, they said "he is the Living One, there is no God but he" (p. 272, tr., p. 57). In the time of H®aydar's succession as the head of the Safavid Order, the kòolafa@ "came from every direction and foolishly announced the glad tidings of his divinity" (olu@h^yat; K¨onj^, p. 273, tr., p. 57). To make this da¿wa more effective, Esma@¿^l addressed to his Turkman followers simple verses in the Azeri dialect of Turkish, using the pen name (takòallosá) of KòatÂa@÷^ (see ii). These poems provide incontrovertible proof that Esma@¿^l encouraged his disciples to consider him a divine incarnation (see Minorsky). The heady brew of this da¿wa produced in Esma@¿^l's followers a fanatical devotion to their leader that is commented on with astonishment by contemporary Italian merchants visiting Persia (e.g., Angiolello and Ramusio, p. 206). ..."

The Encyclopaedia Iranica is THE authoritive collection - case closed! There is absolutely NO proof for the claim, that Safavids were Turks or Turkic-speaking. All information point to the conclusion that the Safavids were Persian Sufi order, successfully using the Turkish language as a propaganda machine to convert dissatisfied Aq Quyunlu nomads. Tajik 11:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Farsification" and Falsification

Great...another example of Persian chauvinism and ethnocentrism against Azeri history...rewriting history to deny Azeris their place in Iranian history...Persians and Armenians are natural allies, aren't they?

If you say so ... -Tajik 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the Safavids

" ... If one looks at the record of Iranian historians during the same period, the scene is similar: a rather barren landscape relieved by a few lofty peaks. In 1927-8 Ahmad Kasravi led the way with the publication of three seminal articles entitled Nizhad va Tabar-i Safaviyya (`The genealogy of the Safavids'); Safaviyya sayyid nabuda and (`The Safavids were not sayyids'); and Baz ham Safaviyya (`The Safavids again')[17]. Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles[18], and argued convincingly that the ancestors of Shaykh Safi al-Din, who founded the Safavid Order (tariqa), were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (az bumiyan-i bastan-i iran budan) and were of pure Aryan stock (juz nizhad-i aryani nadashta and). Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. Kasravi's important articles were published in the journal Ayandeh, which was not readily available in the West, and, despite the fact that they were republished as a pamphlet in 1944, in an expanded and revised form, they unfortunately continued to be overlooked by many historians. These included the Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan who, working on the oldest available MSS. of the Safvat al-Safa, independently reached many of the same conclusions reached by Kasravi thirty years earlier[19]. At the same time, Togan tried to lay to rest the persistent claim by Turkish historians that Shah Isma'il I was a Turk, but this claim resurfaced from time to time in the writings of Turcophiles, such as David Ayalon[20], and was usually based on the fact that Isma'il spoke the Azari dialect of Turkish, which Toynbee calls one of "the vulgar tongues of camp and court"[21], and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i. ..." Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto (one of the authors of the "Encyclopaedia Iranica")

As you can read in the text above, the Safavids were not Turkish ... -Tajik

Tajik, from what I have read, the Safavids were of Azeri ethnic background. Does Iranica specifically state that they were not Azeri, or that they were Kurdish or Persian? SouthernComfort 22:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Azeris are indigenous to Iran (as much as any other Iranian group), so I'm not sure what the dispute here is exactly. Kasravi himself was Azeri. SouthernComfort 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither the Safavids nor the Qajars were Persian ethnically. They were Turkic peoples, precisely the kind Jurabchi is talking about. Yet, neither the Safavids nor the Qajars considered themselves ever anything but Persian. [2] As an example of what I am talking about. SouthernComfort 22:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It is confirmed by the Encyclopaedia Iranica that Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardabili was of Persian heritage. Further, it is confirmed by the Dehkhoda Dictionary that almost all of Sheikh Safi's writings were in Persian (the article is written by Ali Akbar Dehkhoda). The Encyclopaedia Iranica states that the first Safavid kings (including those who lived before the creation of the dynasty) were probably "Turkized". That means that Sheikh Junayed, Seikh Haydar, and probably Ismail and Tamasep were probably "Turkized", but the Turkish influenced was driven back during the reign of Tamasep (something that was already started by Ismail who insited on appointing Persian "wakils" and "wezirs"). This is also confirmed by Moghul historians and even by Babur's daughter, Gulbadan Begum who wrote in Chaghatai and Persian. You can read the online version of the article Esma'il Safawi It says:

• "... The rise of the Safavids. Shah Esma@¿^l came to power as the culmination of two centuries of promotion of the Safavid cause, initially through quiet propaganda carried on by the leaders of a local Sufi order in G^la@n, and ultimately through the militant and revolutionary activity by supporters of the Safavid family among the Turkman tribes of eastern Anatolia, the southern Caucasus, and elsewhere. The Safavid Order, named after its eponymous founder Shaikh S®af^-al-D^n Esháa@q Ardab^l^, who in 700-701/1301 had assumed the leadership of the order formerly known as the Za@hed^ya, first gave evidence of its ambition to achieve temporal power (saltÂanat-e sáu@r^) under its leader Jonayd (851-64/1447-60), who was the first head of the Safavid Order to adopt the title "sultan," indicative of temporal authority (K¨oræa@h, fol. 445b). ..."

The Encyclopaedia Iranica further states:

• "The fact that Esma@¿^l held to his course of appointing Persian wak^ls can only mean that his fear of the danger of concentrating all power in the hands of a qezelba@æ amir was paramount, and the seizure of control of the state by the qezelba@æ immediately after his death demonstrates that the danger was a very real one. ... War with the Ottomans and its aftermath: The active recruitment of support for the Safavid cause among the Turkman tribes of eastern Anatolia, among tribesmen who were Ottoman subjects, had inevitably placed the Ottoman empire and the Safavid state on a collision course. "As orthodox or Sunni Muslims, the Ottomans had reason to view with alarm the progress of Sh^¿^ ideas in the territories under their control, but there was also a grave political danger that the S®afaw^ya, if allowed to extend its influence still further, might bring about the transfer of large areas in Asia Minor from Ottoman to Persian allegiance (Parry, p. 1120) ..."

Tajik 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica

• Safavid dynasty
• Safi od-Din

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

Safi od-Din, a descendant of a family of provincial administrators, obtained his early education in Ardabil, where his family held dependencies as a land grant from the central government. Later, in Shiraz, he was influenced by Sufi (mystical) teachings. He then traveled to the province of Gilan (the Iranian Caspian province), where he spent 25 years as a murid (spiritual follower) of Sheikh Zahid, whose daughter Bibi Fatimah he married. The other spiritual followers of Sheikh Zahid, following his death, transferred their allegiance to Safi od-Din, who then returned to Ardabil, where he formed the Safavid order.

Neither Britannica entry mentions their ethnic background unfortunately, only that they were from Ardabil. SouthernComfort 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Columbia

• Safavid dynasty
• Ismail, Shah of Persia

(säfä´wd) (KEY) , Iranian dynasty (1499–1736), that established Shiite Islam in Iran as an official state religion. The Safavid state provided both the territorial and societal foundations of modern Iran. Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order.

(smäl´) (KEY) , 1486–1524, shah of Persia (1502–24), founder of the Safavid dynasty. He restored Persia to the position of a sovereign state for the first time since the Arab invasion of Persia. Ismail established the Shiite form of Islam as the state religion; this gained him the animosity of the Uzbeks and the Ottoman Turks, who were Sunni Muslims. He warred on the Uzbeks successfully in 1510, and Selim I attacked him in 1514, thus initiating a long series of border wars between the Ottoman Turks and the Persians.

Columbia does, however. But only says they were "Turkic-speaking" and does not identify the exact ethnic background. I don't know about this Kurdish or Persian issue, but I'm more inclined towards Azeri. SouthernComfort 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim that they were "Turkic-speaking" was based on the fact that Ismail wrote many poems in Turkish. But as you can read above, it is attested that he also wrote many poems in Persian. Besides that, writing poems does not define the ethnic background of a dynasty. If that were the case, then the Ghaznavids were naturally Persians, because they were Persian-speaking, they supported Persian literature, and many of the Ghaznavid sultans even wrote Persian poems themselvs. However, the Ghaznavids are still considered "Turkish" ... The Encyclopaedia Iranica is specialized on Iranian and Islamic studies. Thus, it has more weight than Britannica or the online version of Columbia. The "Persian heritage" is also accepted my MOST of the modern historians: "... Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. ..." -Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto, 16 March 1995 Tajik 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Also another historian widely regarded as a capacity in this field, Professor Dr. Monika Grohnke, cites in her habilitation "Derwische im Vorhof der Macht" historical documents, showing that the Safi Al-Din ancestor Firooz Shah "Zarrin Kola" was regarded (as early as during the 13th century) to have been of KURDISH extraction. I have made mention of the fact further up in this discourse.Pantherarosa 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Monika Gronke is a very reliable source. She has also written important works on the "Kizlbash" and on the Shia movement in Iran. Btw: Safi ud-Din Eshaq's heritage is attested in the "Silsilat al-Nisab Safawiyah" ... he was a descendant of the Firuz Shah "Zarrin-Kollah" al-Kordi you have mentioned in your comment. He was married to the daughter of Sheikh Zahed ud-Din Gilani al-Sanjani, a Persian Sufi grand-master from Gilan (originally from Khorasan). Tajik 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

WP policy

May I remind everyone that it is WP stated policy that:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

• "It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research."

Therefore no one has the authority here to make judgments about sources and accuse Dehkhoda Dictionary and Encyclopedia Iranica as being "biased" and "not acceptable as neutral". The fact that it has been cited by these sources which can be verified, makes them 100% sufficient to include in the article.--Zereshk 18:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Safavid origins according to the Encyclopaedia Iranica

Book 1, p. 240, line 6 (left) - my comments are in parentheses --> [...]:

" ... Azari [= Middle-Iranian language spoken in Azerbaijan before the Turkic conquest] lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified ..."

It is further stated in p. 241:

" ... The language of these poems [= Azerbaijani Persian ("Azeri")] is almost identical to that of Shaikh Safi-al-Din's dobaytis ... of the written remains of Azeri, the dobaytis of Shaikh Safi-al-Din are the most important: They are relatively old, their linguistic area and their author are known, and they are accompanied by a paraphrase in Persian which helps their understanding. ..."

• Safavids were Iranian-speaking
• EARLY Safavids (meaning the early grand-masters, like Junayed, Haydar, etc) were Turkified
• LATER Safavids (meaning the Safavid Shahs) were Persianized

This article is about the Safaid DYNASTY ... the DYNASTY itself was of NON-TURKISH (=Iranian) origin; their official court-language was Persian.

-Tajik 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Being Turkified, later being Persianized. Identities are not a little toy like your words. Sound funny. Safavids clearly were Turks. Historian just claim whether they were Oghuz or not. Personally, They weren't Oghuz.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 10:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Safavid threat to the Ottomans was rendered at once more acute and more intimate by the Turkish origin of the Safavid family and their extensive support in Turkish Anatolia"

"The Shah wrote to the Sultan in Turkish - the language of his rural and tribal origins"

Lewis, Bernard The Middle East

"The direction of Isma'il's early campaigns certainly suggset that it was the Turkmen heritage he was primarily interested in."

"The Safawids still mobilized a force essentially of the traditional mongol-turkic type"

"In this way Isma'il ensured that there should be a strong thread of administrative continuity betwen his government and that of his Turkmen predecessors"

"...the originally "Turkmen" character of the regime"

"This is not to say that Isma'il's own beliefs were of an orthodox Shi'i kind. To judge from the poetry he wrote in Turkish..."

Morgan, David Medieval Persia

The Safavids were of Turkic origins - this is beyond doubt and ive never seen it disputed or doubted in any academic title of note. There are various other facts and quotes in addition to the above which prove this also but tbh i cant be bothered looking them up to justify what is already orthodoxy. A History of Islamic Societies by Ira Lapidus is also useful and provides evidence on the matter.

An Siarach

"The Safavids culture, race, and language was PERSIAN! NOT turk."

User:69.196.1.126

History disagrees. An Siarach

• Are you History? A little more pertinence in arguing your point would be more becoming for an ongoing historian. And more useful for the avid reader, seeking enlightenment at WIKIPEDIA. Quite a lot has been cited on this page and the archive above, pointing toward purported ethnic Persian/Kurdish roots of Safi Al-Din. Why snubbing serious scientific findings by capacities in the field as Roger Savory and Monika Grohnke (as well as Mohammad Falsafi), naming just the most notable ones? Pantherarosa 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, why did you consructively contribute to the Sfi Al-Din article, and contradicting yourself blatantly by first bringing KURDISH/PERSIAN lineage into the discussion, while here you deny that, claiming Turkish descent???Pantherarosa 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pertinence? Ive named world authorities on the issue stating quite explicitly that the Safavids are Turkic. You have a rather strange idea of 'pertinence' of you consider this to be anything else. As for Safi al-Din ; yes he was Kurdish. This no more makes the Safavids Kurdish than would Jesus' status as a Jew render the Christians Jewish or Marxs German background all Communists as German. There is absolutely no contradiction in correctly stating the respective Kurdish/Turkic background of Safi al-Din and the Safavid dynasty. An Siarach

• • • kindisches Geschwätz (gibberish)Pantherarosa 03:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Turks but culturally Persian

The Safavids might have had Turkish origins, and I am sure they spoke Turkish. But like the similarly Turkish dynasties in India and Turkey, the language of culture was Persian. Furthermore Shah Abbas moved his capital to Esfahan precisely to "Persianify" his kingdom. he found the Turkmen, Georgian, and Chechen parties at court to be disruptive to affairs of state. He activly promoted a Persian identity for the nation. Thats history. But who cares? It was the past, let go.

They Safavids did not speak Turkish; and even IF, that's only true for the first 2 kings. -Tajik 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I really fail to understand why this is an issue at all, let alone a hotly contested one. The Safavids had Turkic origins and noone is disputing that they became Persian over time. An Siarach

You fail to understand this because you reject the AUTHORITIVE information taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Important scholars from all over the world attest that the ORIGIN of the Safavids was not Turkish. Safi ud-Din Ardabili (who is known for his NON-TURKISH, Azeri-Persian poems) was 100% not Turkish. And even the claim that "Safavids were Turkish-speaking" is wrong, because Persian has always been an important element of Safavid reign. While during the first 3 Shahs Turkmen Kizilbash were the major factor of the dynasty (and thus, Turkish was used by the leading Kizilbash lords and governours) along with Persian (the language of the "wakils", comparable to "wazir"), this Turkish element was eliminated under Shah Abbas who transfered the power of state on NON-Turkmens - mostly on Georgians and Armenians who spoke Persian. He transfered the capital to Isfahan and took the old title "Shahnshah". He eliminated the old Arabic names for the army and instead re-established Persian titles, such as "Sepahsalar", "Sardar", and so on. You can read all the information in the following EIr-article: Abbas The Great, p.71-75 So, BOTH claims are wrong: Safavids were NEITHER Turkish in origin NOR in language. Turkish was not the language of the Safavids but the language of the early Kizilbash (who later became Persianized - both in language and ethnicity). Of course, Safavids had intermarried with various Turkic clans, the most important being the daughter of Uzun Hassan. However, Uzun Hassan's wife was not Turkish but Greek, and therefore, Ismail was only 1/4 Turkish. This does not qualify him to be called "Turkish" ... if you take a look at the Ghaznavids you will easily realized that the so-called "Turkish" Ghaznavids were much more Persian than Safavids being Turkish: "Ghaznavids", Encyclopaedia Iranica Tajik 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: as you can see in the article about Shah Abbas, the Turkoman Kizilbash used the word "Tajik" as a synonym for "Persian", clearly proving that "Tajik" and "Persian" have the same meaning. Tajik 03:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, stop persisting. Their origin was definitely Turkic.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 11:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This has been shown beyond all reasonable(objective) doubt. An Siarach

The Safavids were of Iranian, (Arian) Origin. They spoke Persian, the offical langauge of Iran (Persia) was Persian during their reign, and the Safavid court langauge was Persian. The Safavids were responsible for the revival and "renaissance" of the Persian langauge. Their culture, customs, langauge, and everything else was Persian....not "turkic". These claims are supported by evidence and proof. A few trouble makers on here are posting lies and propoganda that is their own opinion. Western Educational facilites and Scholars have no reason to lie.

The Safavids were PERSIAN!

left unsigned at top of page by User:Darius4444

"lies and propaganda that is their own opinion" - Errr yes and that of Bernard Lewis and various other leading scholars in the field, that of the School of Oriental and African Studies...

"Western Educational facilities and Scholars have no reason to lie." - unfortunately for you and your POV this is true and has been displayed in the various references made to the undeniable Turkic origin of the Safavid dynasty. An Siarach

clear-up

This dispute has been dragging way too long.

Here is what I think may solve some problems:

1. Encyclopedia Iranica is an ultimate authority. That's why the US govt is funding it.
2. That being said, we can add any referenced opposing material to E.I. After all, pluralism is the best solution to any problem. We can present all views. Let the reader decide what is best accurate.
3. Turkish is not the same as Turkic.
4. Being Turkic does not exclude from being Iranian.

--Zereshk 18:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people, especially Pan-Turkists like Khoikhoi and Tabib, do not accespt valid sources. What experts all around the world call "monument of scholarship, briliant, and excelent" [3], these people - blinded by their own anti-Iranian and anti-Persian grudge - call "biased" and "wrong". Tabib even claims to be the representative of the "entire Wikipedia community". That's really hillarious. The Encyclopaedia Iranica is the most authoritive work - written by duzens of REAL experts - and it says: Safavids were NOT Turks and NOT Turkic-speaking. Tajik 00:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Pan-Turkist, thank you. I just want neutral sources, and something called "Encyclopedia Iranica" just doesn't do it for me. Cambridge History of Iran, Columbia, Encarta... they all say that they were Turkic. Now please, why must you do this? --Khoikhoi 00:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusations that others are biased are somewhat laughable when these others have provided world authorities supporting the views they put forward - or do you similarly claim that Bernard Lewis is "anti-persian". Also, ive yet to see anything quoted from this glorious mystical EI which explicitly states that the Safavids "were NOT Turks and NOT Turkic-speaking". Quite simply there are plentiful examples of bias and refusal to accept valid sources in this debate but they are on the side of the likes of Tajik. The Safavids were of Turkic, and Turkish speaking origin. This has been proven and referenced. Safi al-Din was Kurdish - this is undoubted but irrelevant. The Safavids became Persian in language and culture - this is also undoubted but similarly has no bearing on their ORIGINS and what was their dominant language and culture during the early years of their dynasty. An Siarach

Sources have been listed above - and here again for you:

• " ... Azari lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified ... The language of these poems [= Azerbaijani Persian ("Azeri")] is almost identical to that of Shaikh Safi-al-Din's dobaytis ... of the written remains of Azeri, the dobaytis of Shaikh Safi-al-Din are the most important: They are relatively old, their linguistic area and their author are known, and they are accompanied by a paraphrase in Persian which helps their understanding. ..." Encyclopaedia Iranica, p. 238 -->
• " ... If one looks at the record of Iranian historians during the same period, the scene is similar: a rather barren landscape relieved by a few lofty peaks. In 1927-8 Ahmad Kasravi led the way with the publication of three seminal articles entitled Nizhad va Tabar-i Safaviyya (`The genealogy of the Safavids'); Safaviyya sayyid nabuda and (`The Safavids were not sayyids'); and Baz ham Safaviyya (`The Safavids again')[17]. Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles[18], and argued convincingly that the ancestors of Shaykh Safi al-Din, who founded the Safavid Order (tariqa), were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (az bumiyan-i bastan-i iran budan) and were of pure Aryan stock (juz nizhad-i aryani nadashta and). Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. Kasravi's important articles were published in the journal Ayandeh, which was not readily available in the West, and, despite the fact that they were republished as a pamphlet in 1944, in an expanded and revised form, they unfortunately continued to be overlooked by many historians. These included the Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan who, working on the oldest available MSS. of the Safvat al-Safa, independently reached many of the same conclusions reached by Kasravi thirty years earlier[19]. At the same time, Togan tried to lay to rest the persistent claim by Turkish historians that Shah Isma'il I was a Turk, but this claim resurfaced from time to time in the writings of Turcophiles, such as David Ayalon[20], and was usually based on the fact that Isma'il spoke the Azari dialect of Turkish, which Toynbee calls one of "the vulgar tongues of camp and court"[21], and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i. ..." Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto (one of the authors of the "Encyclopaedia Iranica")
• Shah Abbas the Great abolished Turkish, declared "Tâjek" (=Persian) as the new court language, removed "Qzelbash" from the court and installed Persians, Georgians and Armenians as "Wakils" and governours: "Shah Abbas the Great", Encyclopaedia Iranica, p. 71-75

BTW: neither Columbia nor Britannica claim that Safavids were "Turks". There is a difference between "Turkic-speaking" and "Turkic", the same way that there is a difference between "Persian" and "Persian-speaking" or "English" and "English-speaking" ...

Tajik 01:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the failure to distinguish between the Safavid 'family' with reference to Safi al-Din and the Safavid Dynasty was probably the root of these claims that the EI stated they werent turkic. None of those quotes proves that the Safavid Dynasty did not speak Turkish or were not of Turkic stock. The Safavid Dynasty which came to rule Iran was composed of Turkic speaking rulers of who based their power on Turkic support. As previously pointed out Safi al-Din's ethnicity cannot transfer itself onto the Safavid dynasty anymore than the fact that Jesus was a Jew might make the Emporer Constantine Jewish through his acceptance of Christianity. Also, as an aside, it is ridiculously disrespectful for you to talk of 'pan-turkic wet dreams' when these perfectly legitimate views are backed up by the majority of sources cited. Indeed your own view rests on a very deliberate and POV motivated interpretation of references. An Siarach

If that is your opinion, than please go to the article Ghaznavids and change "Turkic dynasty" to "Persian dynasty", because none of the so-called "Turkish Ghaznavids" knew how to speak Turkish [4]. Btw: this is not about how many sources you can find in the internet, but about how many RELIABLE sources you can bring up. The "Encyclopaedia Iranica" is the most authoritive and most detailed source when it comes to Iranian history - much to the dissatisfication of Pan-Turkists. Tajik 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, would it help you if we just said "Turkic speaking" instead of "Turks"? --Khoikhoi 02:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be right to say that they were FIRST Turkic-speaking. Because with the reign of Shah Abbas, the entire government was "Persianized" ... much to the dissatisfication of the famous "Qezelbash". But one thing is for sure: the Safavids were 100% not of Turkic heritage. Safi ud-Din Ardabeli was 100% no Turk. Tajik 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Genetically, the "azari" race is Iranian. They are not turks. they dont even look like turks, (central asian mongols). They are just as Persian as any other Iranian is. All real Azeri people are VERY nationalistic and would do anything to defend and support Iran.

Late Safavids were also Turkic-speaking

I am not going to comment on some Persian nationalist propaganda alleging that Azeris are in fact "Turkified Persians". These allegations have nothing to do with neither history, nor sober mind.

But I am more concerned about the attempt of certain users like User:Tajik to dictate his will to other editors and deny the obvious and well-established fact that Safavids were Turkic-speaking dynasty and originally from Azerbaijan. This issue has been already addressed in detail, and any person can look at Talk:Safavids/Archive1 to find answers to all the questions (s)he has with regard to Safavids origins and mother tongue.

Please, see the posts in Archive1, and particularly,

Quotes from Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta Encyclopedia & Dictionary, as well as Iranian sources themselves, which recognize Safavids being Turkic-speaking and of Azeri origin

Excerpts from the Cambridge History of Iran

Excerpts from Wilber, Donald N., Iran. Past and Present. Ninth edition. From Monarchy to Islamic Republic. Princeton University Press; AND Armajani, Yahya. IRAN, The Modern Nations in Historical Perspectives. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood, Cliffs, New Jersey. 1972

Summary of all the sources and facts discussed, from medieval chronicles (Safwat as Safa, to authoritative Western and even Iranian sources

"Encyclopedia Iranica" which Tajik has as the only source, cannot be considered as a neutral source, since it is written by Persian authors and reflect Persian pov. In any case, Cambridge History of Iran is far more respectable source than some "Encyclopedia Iranica", also medieval chronicles such "Safwat as Safa" clearly mention that Sheikh Safi was a Turk. (see Archive 1 talkpage for details)

Also, Tajik in his last edit, where he ostensibly made a "compromise" and accepted that "early" Safavids were Turkic speaking, claimed that Safavids became native Persian-speakers later ("the Turkic elements of the dynasty were replaced by Persian elements "). This is manipulation with the facts, because, even though it is true that after shah Abbas, the role of the Persian ethnic elements in the Safavid state increased, but the dynasty itself never ceased to be Turkic-speaking and Turkic element was dominant untill the very end of the Safavid state in 1736.

Below is the excerpt from Adam Olearius, a German traveller to the Safavid State in mid XVII c. (after shah Abbas and "replacement of Turkic elements with Persian elements" as Tajik put it):

"Most of the Persians*, with their own language, learn also the Turkish especially in those provinces which have been long under the jurisdiction of the Grand Seignor, as Shirvan, Adirbeitzan, Iraq, Baghdad, and Eruan, where children are taught the Turkish language and by this means it is so common at court that a man seldom hears anyone speak the Persian; as in the Grand Seignior’s country, they ordinarily speak the Sclavonian, and in the Mogul’s the Persian. But in the province of Fars (which is the ancient Persia) and at Shiraz, they speak only the Persian language." (*)In medieval times, term "Persian" was (mistakenly) used to refer to the whole population of the Safavid state (or Persia or Iran) not considering their ethnic background.

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

Here is another quote from another German traveller Engelbert Kaempfer who travelled to the Safavids state in late XVII c.

"'A Turkish dialect, which is a native language of the Safavid dynasty, is widely spread in the Iranian palace. This language differs from the usual speaking language of the country population. The Turkish language is spread in the palace and in the houses of high officials and respectable persons and as a result, it came out, that everyone, who wishes to gain the shah's respect speaks in this language." (Onullahi S.M., Hassanov A. G. "About two more unknown letters of the Safavid rulers" (Safavi hokmdarlarinin daha iki na'melum mektubu haqqinda) Baku 1974 p. 85 (in Azeri)

These quotes are sole evidence to the fact that Safavids always remained Turkic-speaking, even at the late stages of the dynasty. Further removal of the brief and precise facts depicting Safavids as a "Iranian dynasty of Turkic-speaking, Azeri origin" should be considered as (sneaky) vandalism. --Tabib 13:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Encyclopaedia Iranica"

User:Tabib claims that the "Encyclopaedia Iranica" is "not neutral" and "only written by Persian". However, if you take a look at the official website of the Iranica, you will see that the "Encyclopaedia Iranica" is mostly written by western scholars, including the world-famous Richard Frye, Nicholas Sims-Willaims, Mary Boyce, R. M. Savory, etc. In case of the article "Abbas the Great", it is written by no less authority than that of Prof. Savory p. 75, end-notes with reference to Iskandar Beg Monshi, the most detailed biography of Shah Abbas I, and explanation of the "Tathkarat al-Moluk" by the respected V. Minorsky. Here is a list of the "International Committee" of the EIr: [5] and a full list of "consulting editors" [6].

The Encyclopaedia Iranica is THE source for Middle Eastern and Oriental, especially Iranian studies. That'S what world-famous Orientalists say about the Iranica: [7].

User:Tabib rejects the AUTHORITIVE Iranica (authoritive = being more important and more detailed than all other Encyclopaedias) because the Iranica disproves his Pan-Turkist claims. None of the sources provided by Tabib can be considered "equal" to the Encyclopaedia Iranica, not even Columbia or Britannica.

And therefore ---> revert to pervious version.

As for "Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyya": it is the MAIN source of the Iranica authors and ALL of them (including the famous TURKISH historian Zeki Velidi Togan) agree that, according to the Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyya, the origin of the Safavids was IRANIAN (Kurdish) and not Turkic [8]

Tajik 11:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

None as authoritative as Iranica? But he mentions Encarta and Colombia encyclopedias, Cambridge History of Iran, and so on. El_C 11:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about Iranian studies, and in this case, the "Iranica" is THE most authoritive Encyclopaedia, because - unlike Encarta (which is not really "authoritive"), Britannica, Columbia, etc - the Iranica is specialized on these issues. The "Encyclopaedia Iranica" is a grand-project of the Columbia University (in cooperation with many other universities worldwide, including the famous "University of London" or "Universität Tübingen" in Germany) and concentrates on the Islamic and pre-Islamic history of Iran and the Middle East. The Iranica has more information about the Safavids than Columbia, Britannica, and Encarta TOGETHER. It is written by respected orientalists (Richard Frye, Prof. at the Harvard University, is considered the "grandmaster" of Iranian studies, Nicholas Sims-Willaims is the one who translated the "ancient scripts of Bactria", and so forth). In not so far future, the "Iranica" will be the main source for the Britannica or for Columbia. This discussion is totally hillarious. A known Pan-Turkists like User:Tabib is argueing that the Encyclopaedia Iranica - a grand-project of a respected major university and funded by many governmental institutions in the US and EU - "is not neutral, because it is written by Persians". This is totally hillarious! Iranica says that the Safavids - being descendants of the Perso-Kurdish mystic Sheikh Safi ud-Din Ardabeli (who is known for his Persian and Pahlavi peoms) and of the Persian Sufu grand-master Sheikh Zahed Gilani as-Sanjani - were of IRANIAN origin. Besides that, it is attested by the Iranica that during Shah Abbas' reign, the Turkoman elements of the dynasty (including the role of the early Turkoman "Qzelbash") were removed and instead replaced by Persian elements (for example Persian military titles like "Sepahsalar", instead of Arabic military titles that were used by the Turks). He declared the Persian city Isfahan the new capital of his empire, signilizing his independence from the Turkoman militia in Qazvin and Ardabil. He removed all Turkoman "wakils" and instead appointed Persian, Georgian, Indian and Armenian "gholams". Persian became the "lingua franca" of the dynasty, and the main language of court. That's why even the successors of the Safavids - the Afsharids and Qajars, both Turkoman in ethnicty - were Persian in language and culture. Tajik 13:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Tabib's sources only prove that the Safavids were Turkic-speaking, but not that they were of Turkic origin. According to User:Tajik's sources, however, the origin of the Safavids was Iranian. So, claiming that they were of Azeri origin is wrong. I consider Tajik's version the better solution.

Suggestion

Avoid any mention of their primary language in the intro paragraph. Instead create a new section entitled Language listing the appropriate sources for both sides. How many sources for the idea that Safavids were originally Turkic-speaking and later becoming Persian-speaking, and how many sources for the idea that Safavids were Turkic-speaking to the end? SouthernComfort 15:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not only about language, but also about the origin of the dynasty. Claiming that Safavids were of "Azeri origin" is absolutely wrong. They were surrounded by Turkic tribes (the soc-called "Qezelbash"), but they were not Turks in heritage. They themselvs (starting with Shah Ismail I.) claimed to be descendants of the Persian Sassanid Shahs - so, obviously, they did not consider themselvs "Turks". This is also attested by a few letters that Shah Ismail had sent to the kings of Hungary and Spain, in which he urged the "Christian powers to join the Persians (his own Empire) against the Turks (Ottomans)" [9].

Tajik 21:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Safi al-Din

The Safavid dynasty had its origins in a long established Sufi order, called the Safaviyeh, which had flourished in Azerbaijan since the early 14th century. Its founder was the Persian mystic Sheikh Safi al-Din (1252–1334), after whom it was named. Alright, we need to clarify this so as not to confuse the reader regarding whether Safi al-Din was of Persian and/or Kurdish descent, and also in regards to the Azeri/Turkic nature of the dynasty as a whole. Britannica only says he was born in Ardabil [10]. BBC calls him a "Persian nationalist" [11]. SouthernComfort 09:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Columbia encyclopedia says:

Safavid

(säfä´w d) (KEY) , Iranian dynasty (1499–1736), that established Shiite Islam in Iran as an official state religion. The Safavid state provided both the territorial and societal foundations of modern Iran. Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order. [12]

SHAH ISMA‘IL, FOUNDER OF THE SAFAVID DYNASTY. In 1501 Isma‘il occupied Tabriz and proclaimed himself shah. Within a decade he conquered the territories constituting present-day Iran as well as Iraq and parts of eastern Anatolia. His ascension to power culminated a long struggle by the Safavid movement, which had built a mass following in northwestern Iran and eastern Anatolia, especially among the Turkoman tribesmen. These followers of the Safavids, known as the Qizilbash (“Redheads”) because of their distinctive red headgear, felt a devotion to Isma‘il both as a temporal leader and as head of the Safavid religious order. Isma‘il, who claimed descent from the founder of the movement, the Sufi leader Sheik Safi al-Din (1252–1334), embraced Shi’ism, although some of his beliefs—in his own divine qualities, messianic mission, and infallibility—reflected the religious syncretisms of the contemporary Safavid milieu.[13]

So he claimed descent, but was he really a direct descendant? And even if he was a descendant, by the time Ismail I became the ruler of Persia Safavids were Turks, not just Turkic speakers. Grandmaster 10:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica p. 240, online-version:

Book 1, p. 240, line 6 (left) - my comments are in parentheses --> [...]:

• " ... Azari [= Middle-Iranian language spoken in Azerbaijan before the Turkic conquest] lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified ..."

It is further stated in p. 241:

• " ... The language of these poems [= Azerbaijani Persian ("Azeri")] is almost identical to that of Shaikh Safi-al-Din's dobaytis ... of the written remains of Azeri, the dobaytis of Shaikh Safi-al-Din are the most important: They are relatively old, their linguistic area and their author are known, and they are accompanied by a paraphrase in Persian which helps their understanding. ..."

Another reliable source says:

• "... If one looks at the record of Iranian historians during the same period, the scene is similar: a rather barren landscape relieved by a few lofty peaks. In 1927-8 Ahmad Kasravi led the way with the publication of three seminal articles entitled Nizhad va Tabar-i Safaviyya (`The genealogy of the Safavids'); Safaviyya sayyid nabuda and (`The Safavids were not sayyids'); and Baz ham Safaviyya (`The Safavids again')[17]. Kasravi disputed the validity of the `official' Safavid genealogy contained in the Safvat al-Safa and followed by most later Safavid chronicles[18], and argued convincingly that the ancestors of Shaykh Safi al-Din, who founded the Safavid Order (tariqa), were indigenous inhabitants of Iran (az bumiyan-i bastan-i iran budan) and were of pure Aryan stock (juz nizhad-i aryani nadashta and). Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. Kasravi's important articles were published in the journal Ayandeh, which was not readily available in the West, and, despite the fact that they were republished as a pamphlet in 1944, in an expanded and revised form, they unfortunately continued to be overlooked by many historians. These included the Turkish scholar Zeki Velidi Togan who, working on the oldest available MSS. of the Safvat al-Safa, independently reached many of the same conclusions reached by Kasravi thirty years earlier[19]. At the same time, Togan tried to lay to rest the persistent claim by Turkish historians that Shah Isma'il I was a Turk, but this claim resurfaced from time to time in the writings of Turcophiles, such as David Ayalon[20], and was usually based on the fact that Isma'il spoke the Azari dialect of Turkish, which Toynbee calls one of "the vulgar tongues of camp and court"[21], and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i. ..." Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto (one of the authors of the "Encyclopaedia Iranica")

So, there are enough RELIABLE sources disproving the claims made by Tabib and some of his servants in here.

Tajik 10:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Only one source, encyclopedia Iranica, which is not enough to substantiate your claims. Grandmaster 10:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Iranica is an authoritive work. It contains the most complex biographies of the Safavids, and it contains the most detailed history-summary of the dynasty. The Iranica says that the ORIGIN of the Safavids (=Sheikh Safi al-Din and Sheikh Zahed Gilani) were not Turks (=Azeri) and therfore, your claims are disproved by the most authoritive work avalable! And by the way, the second source was written by no one less that Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto, THE expert on Safavid history! And he confirms: Safavids were NOT Turks, but Iranians! Tajik 10:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

We cannot base the article only on encyclopedia Iranica and ignore other sources. It’s simply against the rules of Wikipedia. Iranica is a view of minority and should be attributed as such. The majority of sources claim that Safavids were Turks. You cannot discard such reputable sources as Columbia and Encarta encyclopedias and many others. Grandmaster 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Encarta does not say that they were Turks. Encarta does not even say that they were Turkic-speaking. The problem with you is that YOU ignore AUTHORITIVE sources. This is not about the quantity of sources, but about the QUALITY of sources. And in case of the Iranica, which itself is a collection of many other authoritive sources, it is a superior source because of quality and quantity. Right now, you have only a few sources supporting your views and most of them are no match for the Iranica. You are not only ignoring authoritive sources but also a neutral intro, which proves that you are not interested in imporoving the article. You are pushing for a one-sided pan-turkist POV ... and THAT is NOT what Wikipedia is supposed to be! Tajik 17:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt impartiality of Iranica. It does not allow for discussion of conflicting views, as authoritative scientific publications normally do, and supports only a certain POV. Wikipedia should not be a place for pushing any nationalistic POV, including Persian one. Grandmaster 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

New subsection under Origins

Just a very rough draft to get things started. All relevant sources should be included. It may require its own article. SouthernComfort 11:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• agreed Tajik 11:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence until it is sourced: He was Junayd's grandson and a descendant, on his father's side of Sheikh Safi Al-Din, and, on his mother's side, the grandson of Uzun Hasan, the founder of the Ak Koyunlu. In the meantime I have changed the sentence as per the Columbia article. If Iranica states different, I suggest including both sides, and perhaps a new section regarding Shah Ismail's background. SouthernComfort 11:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I had already posted the source: Ismail I. Safavi (from "Encyclopaedia Iranica")

• "... ESMAÚ¿ÈL I S®AFAWÈ, SHAH ABU'L-MOZ®AFFAR b. Shaikh H®aydar b. Shaikh Jonayd, founder of the Safavid dynasty, born on 25 Rajab 892/17 July 1487 in Ardab^l died on 19 Rajab 930/23 May 1524 near Tabr^z (H®ab^b al-s^ar, Tehran, IV, p. 428; MS London, British Library, Or. 3248, fol. 304a; Qa@zµ^ Ahámad, fol. 211b; MozµtÂar, ed., p. 608). The dates of his birth and death are recorded in the chronograms "tÂolu@¿-e nayyer-e ˆa@h Esma@¿^l" and "kòosrow-e d^n," rspectively (H®osayn^ Estra@ba@d^, pp. 32, 52). ... The reign of Esma@¿^l 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). ... The rise of the Safavids: Shah Esma@¿^l came to power as the culmination of two centuries of promotion of the Safavid cause, initially through quiet propaganda carried on by the leaders of a local Sufi order in G^la@n, and ultimately through the militant and revolutionary activity by supporters of the Safavid family among the Turkman tribes of eastern Anatolia, the southern Caucasus, and elsewhere. The Safavid Order, named after its eponymous founder Shaikh S®af^-al-D^n Esháa@q Ardab^l^, who in 700-701/1301 had assumed the leadership of the order formerly known as the Za@hed^ya, first gave evidence of its ambition to achieve temporal power (saltÂanat-e sáu@r^) under its leader Jonayd (851-64/1447-60), who was the first head of the Safavid Order to adopt the title "sultan," indicative of temporal authority (K¨oræa@h, fol. 445b). At the time, Persia was divided between three rulers: the Qara Qoyunlu Jaha@næa@h (q.v.), who ruled over Azerbaijan, ¿Era@q-e ¿Ajam, ¿Era@q-e ¿Arab, Fa@rs, the shores of the ¿Oma@n sea, Kerma@n, Sar^r, Armenia, Georgia, and all the land up to the borders of Syria and Ru@m; the Timurid ruler Abu@ Sa¿^d, who ruled over Transoxiana, Turkestan up to the borders of Ka@æg@ar, Daæt-e Qep±a@q, Ka@bol, Za@bol, Ma@zandara@n, and Khorasan, up to the borders of ¿Era@q-e ¿Ajam; and Malekæa@h Yaháya@ S^sta@n^, who was the hereditary ruler of S^sta@n (MatÂla¿-e sa¿dayn, ed. ˆaf^¿, II, pp. 1212-13, 1317). Jaha@næa@h ordered Jonayd to disband his forces, depart from Ardab^l, and leave Jahanæa@h's dominions, and threatened that should he fail to comply with these demands, Ardab^l would be destroyed (H®ab^b al-s^ar IV, p. 425; MozµtÂar, ed., pp. 35-38; MS London, British Library, Or. 3248, fols. 18a, 19a). Jonayd fled, and was ultimately given sanctuary by Jahanæa@h's rival Uzun H®asan (q.v.), the chief of the Aq Qoyunlu confederation, with whom he stayed for three years and forged an alliance by marrying Uzun H®asan's sister K¨ad^ja Begom. Jonayd was killed in battle against the forces of the ˆ^rvanæa@h Kòal^l-Alla@h in Joma@da@ I 864/March 1460 (H®ab^b al-s^ar IV, p. 425, 428; MozµtÂar, ed., pp. 38-40; H®asan Ru@mlu@, ed. Nava@÷^, I, pp. 407-9; K¨onj^, pp. 266-69; Eskandar Beg, pp. 17-18, tr., I, pp. 29-31; Hinz, p. 48; Roemer, in Camb. Hist. Iran VII, pp. 201-2) and was succeeded by his son H®aydar, who continued the alliance with the Aq Qoyunlu by marrying H®al^ma Beg^ AÚg@a@ (H®ab^b al-s^ar IV, pp. 425, 428) or H®alima Begom, also known as ¿AÚlamæa@h Begom (MozµtÂar, ed., p. 41; Eskandar Beg, p. 19, tr., I, p. 31; MS London, British Library, Or. 3248, fol. 20b), or Marta (Sarwar, p. 24, f. 22). H®al^ma Begom's mother, Despina Kòa@tu@n, the wife of Uzun H®asan, was the daughter of Calo Johannes, the penultimate Christian emperor of Trebizond (Angiolello and Ramusio, p. 73). Like his father Jonayd, H®aydar aspired to temporal power as well as spiritual: "His secret aspiration was to have dominion over territories and subjects . . . inwardly, following the example of shaikhs and men of God, he walked the path of spiritual guidance and defence of the faith; outwardly, he was a leader sitting on the throne in the manner of princes" (Eskandar Beg, p. 19, tr., p. 31). ... his involved crossing the territory of the ˆ^rva@næa@h Farrokò-yasa@r, who appealed for help to his son-in-law, the Aq Qoyunlu chief Ya¿qu@b, and the combined Aq Qoyunlu and the ˆ^rva@n^ forces defeated H®aydar on 29 Rajab 893/9 July 1488 at T®abarsara@n near Darband; H®aydar was killed in battle (H®ab^b al-s^ar IV, pp. 432-34; K¨onj^, pp. 280-307; MS London, British Library, Or. 3248, fol. 21a-b; MozµtÂar, ed., pp. 43-47; H®asan Ru@mlu@, ed. Nava@÷^, I, pp. 615-19; Eskandar Beg, p. 19, tr., p. 32; Wa@la, pp. 54-57; Za@hed^, p. 68). For the second time in little more than a quarter of a century, the Safavid movement lost its leader, but did not fade into oblivion. Of the three sons of H®aydar, the eldest, Sultan ¿Al^, succeeded him as head of the Safavid Order, but ¿Al^ and his two brothers, Ebra@h^m and the youthful Esma@¿^l, were arrested with their mother in Ardab^l, and imprisoned in the EsátÂakòr fortress in Fa@rs (896/1491; Qa@zµ^ GÚaffa@r^, fol. 199a; H®ab^b al-s^ar IV, pp. 435-36; MozµtÂar, ed., pp. 47-48; Wa@la, pp. 57-59; H®osayn^ Estra@ba@d^, p. 28) ..."

The source confirms that:

- Ismail was a descendant of Haydar and Junayd AND of Safi al-Din Ardabeli

- Ismail's mother was related to Uzun Hasan

- Ismail was not a Turk, but a Persian (see the very first part of the text!)

Tajik 18:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tajik you are full of contradictions. You wrote that they were an Azerian clan, Ismail' mother was half of Turkmen. They were mostly kurdish and so on. I can find lots of sources that shows Safavids were of Turkic origin. There is a documentry of BBC about Turks, Safavids handled as a Turkic empire. Besides, I can find some word to prove that they were of Turkic origin in Iranian Encyclopaedia.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Fron Encarta encyclopeida. It says nothing about Kurdish origins of the dynasty.

During the 15th century several competing families and tribes, mostly of Turkic origins, ruled over various parts of Iran. Notable among them were the Safavids, who headed a militant Sufi order founded in the northwest by Shaikh Safi of Ardabīl in the early 14th century. His descendant, Ismail I, conquered first Tabrīz and then the rest of Iran. [14] Grandmaster 19:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, my feeling is that we should keep the intro paragraph ambiguous as far as their ethnic background is concerned and simply provide all the relevant sources from both sides (and any other side) in the new section under Origins. SouthernComfort 06:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the rules we should reflect all existing major POVs on this issue. So I agree, we should include all the existing versions about the possible origins of the dynasty. But please also note that the founder of the dynasty was not Sheikh Safi, but it was Shah Ismail I. Sheikh Safi was the ancestor of Safavids dynasty, or they claimed that he was, but first king of the dynasty was Ismail I. He was definitely an Azeri Turk, because not only he spoke Azerbaijani Turkic language as his mother tongue, he made it the official language at his court and wrote poems in Azeri. So regardless of his origin, he was an Azerbaijani Turk. Ethnicity is based on the language in the first place, so from this point of view Safavids were a Turkic dynasty. Grandmaster 10:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It says nothing about Kurdish origins of the dynasty. Tajik claimed it at the diss. of Oghuz Turks. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 07:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell none of the sources connect the Safavids (who were definitely not Turkmen) to the Oghuz. SouthernComfort 07:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. They weren't Oghuz. I think there is a misunderstanding. Tajik claimed that It says nothing about Kurdish origins of the dynasty. in the disscussion page of Oghuz. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

@ Grandmaster: your "Encarta" source does not say that Safavids were Turks. It simply says that "most of the powerful clans were Turkic-speaking" and that "Safavids were one of those clans", not necessairily among the Turkish ones!. Besides that, Encarta's short summary is no match for the complex scholarly articles of the Encyclopaedia Iranica! As for Shah Ismail: where did you get the ida that Ismail was an "Azeri Turk"? It is attested by Ismail's son that his father was also fluent in Persian and wrote many poems in Persian. He was raised in Fars and in Gilan, not in Azerbaijan! And as you can read in the text above, many Turkish poems allegedly written by Ismail were actually written by Turkish Alevits many years after his death. His Turkish poems were propaganda - he wrote Turkish letters to the Ottomans, and the Ottomans replied in Persian. It was Shah Ismail Safavi who ordered many Persian scholars and artists to his court, including the famous Persian panter Behzad Heravi. Azeri-Turkish was Ismail's court-language, because his court was run by Turkoman tribes (Ramlou, Shamlou, Qajar, etc). If the court-language is a definition for a dynasties heritage, than MOST of the so-called "Turkish dynasties" were not Turkish, but Arabic and Persian - most of all the Seljuk Turks and the Ghaznavids who were Persian-speakers. You're explanation does not make ANY sense. The ORIGIN of the Safavid dynasty was NOT Ismail, but the person who gave the dynasty his name: the Persian mystic Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardabeli. He was the first grandmaster of the Safavi clan and therefore, he was the origin of the Safavids. Tajik 11:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

@ TuzsuzDeliBekir: it is not me who claims that Shah Ismail was of Kurdish origin, but the "Silsilat al-Nasab Safawiyah", the official chronology of the Safavid family, written 400 years ago at the Safavid court in Isfahan! They themselvs claimed to be descendants of Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardabali who himself was a descendant of Firuz Shah Zarrin-Kollah al-Kordi! This is also attested by Roger M. Savory:

"... Today, the consensus among Safavid historians is that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan. ..." Roger M. Savory, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto (one of the authors of the "Encyclopaedia Iranica")

Prof. Savory is one of the world's leading scholars regarding Iran's Islamic history and the history of the Safavi family!

Tajik 12:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, you use only one of the sources ignoring others. It is against Wiki rules. This is one of the sources quoted by Tabib:

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

The Cambridge History of Iran (in eight Volumes). Volume 1. The Land of Iran. Edited by W.B.Fisher, Cambridge at the University Press, 1968. Page 434. Grandmaster 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there are better sources available than that, which use the proper and accurate Turkic rather than Turkmen. SouthernComfort 14:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

@ Grandmaster: if transfering the capital from Isfahan to Tehran was because the Turkish Qajars wanted to be "near their tribes", then the question remains: why did the so-called "Turkic" Safavids transfer their capital to PERSIAN Isfahan, FAR AWAY from "Turkic Azerbaijan"? And, btw, it is not me who is ignoring sources, but you people! You ignore the most authoritive source, the famous Encyclopaedia Iranica. Oh, and here is another one from one of your favourite sources - MS Encarta:

• "... On his accession in 1588, Shah Abbas I, greatest of the Safavid rulers, gave up lands to both opponents, buying time to organize a European-style standing army with the help of English experts. He used this to expel Portuguese traders from the island of Hormuz in 1602, to defeat the Turks in 1603, and to take Baghdad in 1623. He won back all the territory lost to the Turks, and extended his dominion eastwards through Afghanistan and northern India as far as the Indus valley. Abbas made Eşfahān his capital and reformed the bureaucracy and economy; his reign is also notable for the commencement of trade with the English East India Company. However, his successors were far weaker figures. During the century following his reign, Iran steadily declined. In 1722 the country was conquered by a rebel Afghan army under Mir Mahmud and the Safavids were overthrown. ..." [15]

As you can see, even your "Encarta" clearly distinguishes between "Iranian Safavids" and "Turks" ... Tajik 16:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you say clear for this sources ? I didn't see any distinguisable link in it. Come onnnnnnnnnnnnn.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It absolutely does not matter. Fact is: we have sources supporting the Azeri origin, and we also have strong sources disproving it. And therefore, there is no need to mention the alledged "Turkish origin" in the intro because that would be against all the sources that do not support that claim! Tajik 20:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkish refers to Oghuz Turks. If you look at above, I agreed that they weren't Oghuz. Dont try to take us to other place. They were of Turk, this is an absolute fact that you dont understand. You should find more relevant sources for you claim. There are lots of Turks sources, besides Ottoman sources too. Why don't you talk about them ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not need "more relevant sources" - I have presented the Encyclopaedia Iranica, disproving your claim. The "Encyclopaedia Iranica" itself is a collection of countless other strong and reliable sources. It was not written by nationalists and it is considered as one of the most impotant scholarly works in the fields of Oriental and Iranian studies! Your sources are no match for the "Iranica" ... You are not able to prove your claim that the Safavids were "of Turkish origin", because there are enough sources disproving your claim! Tajik 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranica is not the most authoritative source, it is just one of the sources. You can’t base the article only on one source, ignoring others, it is against the rules of Wikipedia. In this case Iranica is a view of minority and should be described as such when mentioned in the article. And please stop reverting the intro, it is simply a vandalism. There are things everybody agrees with. 1. Safavids were a Turkic speaking dynasty. 2. They were from Azerbaijan province. That’s what the current intro says. So your persistence on your version is a POV push and I’m considering taking this issue to mediation/arbitration. Grandmaster 05:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Iranica is one of the most authoritative sources when it comes to Iranian history, since it involves so many different contributors, most of them non-Iranian. So it is an excellent source. However, it does not seem to clarify the issue of the ethnic and linguistic heritage of the Safavids. Again, I don't see any way to resolve this issue unless we keep the intro paragraph ambiguous and simply mention the Turkic aspects in the section I have suggested. Otherwise, there will be endless revert wars. Both sides need to be willing to compromise and to be reasonable. SouthernComfort 11:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SouthernComfort - there is no need to mention the ethnic background in the intro, most of all because it is disputed! Then, all other sources should be mentioned equally in a new paragraph. Tajik 13:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said Iranica was not authoritative, I said that it is one of the authoritative sources, because other sources quoted here are authoritative as well. I think that we can mention in the intro the facts that are not disputed by anyone. 1. Safavids were a Turkic speaking dynasty. 2. They were from Azerbaijan province. If there’s a consensus of the sources on these facts, why can’t we mention them in the intro? Grandmaster 08:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

These are not "facts accepted by everyone". I have shown you passages from the Iranica that DISPROVE your claims that they were totally "Turkic-speaking". It was attested by Shah Ismail's son that his father wrote poems in Persian (after all, all claims that "Shah Ismail was a Turk" are based on the fact that he also wrote poems in Turkish). It is attested by many other sources that Shah Abbas removed Turkish (Qizilbash) elements from his court, transfered the capital from Turkish Azerbaijan to Persian Isfahan, changed Arabic and Turkish military titles to Persian military titles, re-printed the famous Shahnameh (which was already re-printed by Shah Tahmasp [16]), etc etc etc. And there is no need to mention Azerbaijan in the first page, because the origin of the Safavids as a Sufi clan was not only Azerbaijan, but also Kurdistan, Gilan and Khorasan. Tajik 09:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your last point is that this article is not about the Sufi order, but the political dynasty that was borne out of it, and was established by Shah Ismail. The Safavid dynasty begins with him, so we need to focus on his ethnic and linguistic background, and that of his descendents. I would like to know if Grandmaster would object to the removal of "Turkic" while keeping mention of "Azerbaijan" in the intro paragraph. SouthernComfort 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Sheikh Safi also of ethnic Gilaki background? SouthernComfort 18:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids were a Turkic speaking dynasty, to say the least. The Columbia encyclopedia says: Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order. Even later Safavids spoke Turkic, see Adam Olearius chronicles:

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

(Source: "The Travels of Olearius in 17th century Persia" (Translated by John Davies (1662); online: [17])

The dynasty starts with the first monarch in the dynasty, in our case it is Ismail I, and I agree with SouthernComfort that we need to focus on his ethnic and linguistic background. And they were originally from Azerbaijan, even though later the capital was moved to Persian Isfahan due to political and military reasons. Grandmaster 19:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica:

• "... Babur not only wrote the 'Babor-nama' but works on Sufism, law and prosody as well as a fine collection of poems in Cagatay Torki. In all, he produced the most significant body of literature in that language after Nava'i ... His 'Diwan' includes ... poems in Persian and with the long connection between the Mughals and the Safavid court begun by Babor himself, the Persian language became not only the language of record but also the literary vehicle for his successors. ..." "Babor", p.322

According to this passage from the EIr, the influence of Persian on India's Mughal-history was based on the influence of Safavids on the Mughals. This means that Safavids MUST HAVE BEEN Persian-speaking to some extent, ortherwise the Safavid influence on the Mughals would have been Turkish and not Persian! Tajik 01:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica, too:

• "... Clues to his [Sultan Hosayn Bâyqarâ] personality can be found in his own works, written under the pseudonym Hosayni, such as his collection of poems (divân) in Chaghatay Turkish (see CHAGHATAY LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE), which was dedicated to Mir Ali-Shir Nava'i; the Safavid shah, Soltan-Hosayn I (1105-35/1694-1722), considered it worthy of a translation into Persian (Gandjeï, in EI2 III, p. 603), though modern critics consider it of little value. ..." [18] Tajik 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tajik, but your quotes don’t prove that Safavids were predominantly Persian speaking. It does not mean they did not speak any Persian at all, of course, but Turkic language dominated. The reason why Safavid shah ordered a translation of a Turkic poem into Persian was not because shah did not understand Turkic, but simply because he might have wanted more people to get familiarized with that poem. The fact that he considered the poem worthy of translation shows that he understood it in the language of the original, so it rather proves my point, than yours. Grandmaster 06:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with Grandmaster. Tajik's quotes from the Encyclopaedia Iranica are enough to remove the `Turkic-speaking of Azerbaijani origin´ tag of the intro. There is absolutely no need to mention that Safavids were Turkic-speaking, because - as obvious from the quotes above - they were as much Persian-speaking as Turkic-speaking. Grandmaster also forgets that the Turkish language at the Safavid court was predominant not because of the Safavids themselvs, but because of the Kizilbash Turkomans who were the `de facto´ rulers of Persia until they were removed by Shah Abbas the Great. The Persian influence on India and the Safavid Shahs' interests in Persian poetry, culture, history and so forth is a strong proof for the important Persian character of the Safavid court. This does not mean that the Safavids were totally Persian. But it clearly disproves Grandmaster's claim that `Safavids were Turks´. I also recommend everyone to read the article about Bayram Khan in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bayram Khan was an ethnic Turkoman Kizilbash from Badakhshan, who became the father-in-law of the Mughal Shah Humayun and the most important leader of the Mughal army. Bayram Khan was a descendant of the Qara Qoyunlu and he wrote poems in Persian and Turkish. It is very interesting to note that 2/3 of his poems were written in Persian, including his famous Diwan, and only 1/3 in Turkish. --134.100.99.144 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that sources pretty much demonstrate that Safavids were predominantly Turkic speaking even at later times, when the capital was moved to Isfahan. And the early Safavids were Turkic-speaking to the extent that the founder of the dynasty was one of the greatest Azeri-Turkic poets. Yes, Safavids loved Persian culture, cared much about Persian poetry and arts, but they still were of Turkic background. And even after shah Abbas rule Turkic remained the predominant language, and even ethnic Persian people learned the Turkic language to speak at the court, and Safavids never discouraged their court from the use of the Turkic language, which shows that they were quite happy with that, and Turkic language was not something unfamiliar or undesirable for them. It was their native language. Turkic people played a significant role in Iran’s history and contributed a lot to strengthening of Iranian statehood. This should not be denied, because Iran is a home for Turkic people as well, and their contribution to Iran’s rich history has to be appreciated. As an Azeri, I have much respect for the great Persian culture, history and arts, but I don’t find attempts by certain people here to deny Turkic contributions to be justified by anything. Grandmaster 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources - and most of all those from the authoritive Encyclopaedia Iranica - clearly demonstrate that the Safavids were not as "Turkic" as you claim. And it is well attested in many sources, that especially after Shah Abbas came to power, Turkic certain elements were removed by force (much to the disappointment of the Turkmen Qezelbash) and were replaced by Persian element. Shah Ismail Safavi not only wrote in Turkish, but also in Persian. And the Turkish language was important to the Safavids, because the Turkmen Qezelbash were the most important pillars of their rule. The problem with you is that you purposely ignore other sources and want to push for your own version. There is absolutely no need to mention in the article that Safavids were Turkic-speaking, most of all because they were not Turkic-speaking at the end. The Safavids have always been a symbol for Persian nationalism, not for Turkish nationalism. They are known as "Persian Shahs" throughout history, and they were the ones who revived the Persian identity in Iran after so many centuries of Turkic and Mongol rule. If they had considered themselvs "Turks", they would have forced the Turkish language on the people of Iran the same way they forced Shia Islam on the people. The article does not deny the Turkic elements of the Safavids. It is about the INTRODUCTION ... and right now, it is onyl you and Tabib pushing for a POV. Tajik 11:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids were not as much nationalistic rulers as much they were religious ones. So they never promoted a certain language and culture at the expense of others, while they forced shia islam on sunni people. It is interesting that even after as you say shah Abbas removed Turkic elements from the court, it still remained Turkic-speaking, as evidenced by Adam Olearius, who traveled to Isfahan a few years after shah Abbas’ death. So yes, they were a Turkic-speaking dynasty to say the least, and this is how Columbia encyclopedia puts it. Grandmaster 12:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The source you mention does not say that Safavids were Turkic-speaking, but that Turkish was an important language of the Safavid court. This was due to the influence of Turkmen Qezelbash. "Removed" does not mean that all Qezelbash were eliminated. It simply means that Shah Abbas managed to gain his independence from Qezelbash chiefs and centralize the government (which was a feudal one ruled by various Qezelbash chiefs before). The Qezelbash were still important to the Safavid dynasty, and that's what the sources are saying: that Turkish was used by these Qezelbashs. So, again, your version is POV and not neutral. You purposly ignore other sources ... and I suppose that this is because of your Pan-Turkist motivation. Tajik 13:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I find Iranica to be a strong POV source. Look at the quote you made:

At the same time, Togan tried to lay to rest the persistent claim by Turkish historians that Shah Isma'il I was a Turk, but this claim resurfaced from time to time in the writings of Turcophiles, such as David Ayalon, and was usually based on the fact that Isma'il spoke the Azari dialect of Turkish, which Toynbee calls one of "the vulgar tongues of camp and court", and had written poems in Azari under the pen-name of Khata'i.

So this professor Savory does not deny that Ismail I spoke Azeri language and wrote poems in that language, but still insist that he was not Azeri, because one of his ancestors about 200 years ago was allegedly an ethnic Kurd. I have already mentioned on the other talk page the Russian poet Alexander Pushkin, whose grandfather was from Ethiopia, and he himself looked a little different from an ordinary Russian man. He is the greatest Russian poet, and not the Ethiopian one, despite his very close ancestor being of other ethnicity. As for your claims the Turkic language being spoken at the court exclusively by Gizilbash people, sources don’t say that. They say that one could seldom hear anyone speak Persian language at the court and even ethnic Persian people learned Turkic. So this obviously was not a coincidence and was not only the influence of Gizilbash, but it was a reflection of the fact that Safavids were also Turkic speakers themselves and encouraged the use of this language at their court. As for you pan-Turkist accusations, they are ridiculous, because you can’t see me editing pages not related to Azerbaijan. I don’t take much interest in other Turkic nations, even though I have an enormous respect for all of them. It is like pot calling kettle black, you obviously try to push your Persian nationalistic and anti-Turkic POV by denying obvious facts. Grandmaster 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What you call "POV" is actually the most authoritive source available. The ORIGIN of a dynasty is always defined by the male linage. Shah Ismail claimed to be a descendant of Sheikh Safi and of the Sassanian Shahs of Iran. You are contradicting yourself, because on one had, you argue that "Shah Ismail cannot be considered Iranian", although it is attested by many sources - including his sons - that he knew Persian and that he wrote Persian languages, while you claim that "all Safavids were Turkic-speaking because Shah Ismail wrote poems in Turkish". You have not provided a single source which 100% supports your claim that ALL Safavids were Turkic-speaking. You should take a look at your own sources:

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

"Sclavonian"?! In Persia? In Azerbaijan? So obviously, this Grand Seignor is NOT the Safavid Shah! And it is very obvious, from the second part of that sentence, that the Grand Seignor, in whose country people speak "Sclavonian" (=Slavonian = Slavic language), must be the OTTOMAN ruler (Ottomans ruled many Slavic peoples in Europe). This source simply explains that Persians who lived in the regions that once were under Ottoman rule for some time (Iraq, etc) also learned Turkish, and that the language was very common at court. But where does it say that Safavids were Turkic-speaking? And besides that, your own source contraditcs your claim that Sheikh Safi was not important to the Safavid linage. In fact, according to Adam Olearius, being a descendant of Sheikh Safi was a very important to the Safavid Shahs:

• "... They call their kings Shah, Padshah, and Padishah, words which have in a manner all the same signification, to wit, that of king or lord. Yet does not the emperor of the Turks, when he writes to the king of Persia, give him the quality of Shah, but that of Shih Ogli, that is to say, ecclesiastic, or son, or kinsman, of the prophet. ... Most authors give the kings of Persia of the last race the quality of Sophi, and the kings themselves, especially those who have any zeal for their religion, are much pleased with the addition of that quality to their titles, out of the affection they bear Shih Sofi, or Safi, the first institutor of their sect, as the kings of France take the quality of most Christian; those in Spain that of most Catholic, and those of England that of Defenders of the Faith. Whence they say, Ismael-Safi, Eider-Sofi and of this a man must take notice in the reading of their history, inasmuch as if he do not, he may confound the names of the kings, and attribute that to one which is to be understood of another. ... The kingdom of Persia is hereditary and may be enjoyed not only by the children lawfully begotten but also for want of such by natural children and the sons of concubines who inherit the crown as well as the others, nay they are preferred before the nearest of the collateral kindred and the nephews, since the sons of concubines and slaves are not accounted illegitimate in Persia, as we have said elsewhere. For want of sons the crown falls to the next of kin by the father’s side, descended from Safi, who are as it were princes of the blood-royal, and are called Schich Eluend. [19]

Your own source disproves your claims. You have to come up with better sources. And now, please stop to mess up the article with your Pan-Turkistic POV and do not change the neutral introduction. Btw, here is another source:

• "... Saffavid (Safavid): Dynasty of Kurdish origin which ruled Iran during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. ..." "Dictionary of Islamic Architecture" Tajik 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My source does not disprove any of my statements. I don’t know if Grand Seignior is a reference to an Ottoman or Iranian ruler, but the phrase “it is so common at court that a man seldom hears anyone speak the Persian” refers to Safavids court. And yes, Sheikh Safi was important to Safavid dynasty, I never said he was not, they claimed descent from him, so obviously he was important, but he was not the founder of the dynasty, as he was not the king! The dynasty is considered founded by the first king of the dynasty, and not by one of his remote ancestors, even the most regarded one. He was one of their ancestors at best, and he was the founder of the Sufi order, but not the dynasty. Enough already! None of your sources said that they were not Turkic speaking, by the way, on the contrary. Look at my previous posting. And I referred to the Columbia encyclopedia as well. And your intro is not neutral too. It says they were an Iranian dynasty, which indicates their Iranian origin, while it is disputed. The neutral intro should say: The Safavids were a dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 to 1736, etc. So indeed leave the article alone and stop pushing your chauvinist POV. And dictionary of Islamic architecture? I have plenty of such sources to back up my position. Grandmaster 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, looks like you broke 3RR rule, it’s time to stop. Grandmaster 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The dynasty was founded by a 14-year-old from Gilan who was crowned in Azerbaijan. That 14-year-old wrote poems in Persian and Turkish and he was known as the "Persian Shah" all over the region. If you have problems with the word "Iranian" (which, btw, is linked to the article History of Iran and not to Iranian peoples) then feel free to change it to "a dynasty that ruled Iran". But your claims that the Safavids were 100% Turkic-speaking up to 1722 is deffinitly wrong, because they never considered themselvs Turks and never claimed to be Turks. And there is a difference between "seldom" and "100% Turkic-speaking" ... the expression "at court" is about the courts in all the regions that were once under Ottoman rule, while the author makes clear that in traditional Persian regions, such as Shiraz, the language was Persian. It is you who is pushing for a Pan-Turkistic, un-scholarly POV, rejecting authoritive sources with quality. Tajik 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw: you have already broken the 3RR rule twice ...

Taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

• "... Safavid Dynasty (1502–1736), Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shi'ite Islam as the state religion of Iran was a major factor in the emergence of a unified national consciousness among the various ethnic and linguistic elements of the country. The Safavids were descended from Sheykh Safi od-Din (1253–1334) of Ardabil, head of the Sufi order of Safaviyeh (Safawiyah), but about 1399 exchanged their Sunnite affiliation for Shi'ism. The founder of the dynasty, Isma'il I, as head of the Sufis of Ardabil, won enough support from the local Turkmens and other disaffected heterodox tribes to enable him to capture Tabriz from the Ak Koyunlu (Turkish: “White Sheep”), an Uzbek Turkmen confederation, and in July 1501 Isma'il was enthroned as shah of Azerbaijan. By May of the next year he was shah of Iran. In the next 10 years he subjugated the greater part of Iran and annexed the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad and Mosul; despite the predominantly Sunnite character of this territory, he proclaimed Shi'ism the state religion. ..." [20][21]

So, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Safavids were an IRANIAN dynasty. No mentioning of "Turkish" or "Turkic-speaking" ... but I am sure that User:Grandmaster considers the Encyclopaedia Britannica "Iranian POV" as well ... Tajik 22:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is some information about Shah Ismail's father, Sheikh Haydar Safavi (from Encyclopaedia Britannica):

• "... Sheykh Heydar, one of the founders of the Safavid state (1501–1736) in Iran. Haydar inherited the leadership of the Safavid order, a Shi'ite Muslim movement in northwest Iran. He was raised in the city of Amid, but when the Kara Koyunlu empire in western Iran disintegrated in 1467, Haydar moved to Ardabil (now in northwest Iran), where he formally became the head of the Safavid order. ..." [22]

So, even Shah Ismail's father was from Kurdistan, from the city "Amida" (modern Diyarbakır), which is still dominated by Kurds.

Tajik 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tajik, none of your sources prove that Safavids were not Turkic speaking. Now I refer you to the encyclopedia Iranica, which you consider to be the most authoritative source on the entire planet with regard to the discussed issue. This is a citation you made yourself in one of the above sections:

Taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica p. 240, online-version:

Book 1, p. 240, line 6 (left)

Azari [= Middle-Iranian language spoken in Azerbaijan before the Turkic conquest] lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular.

For some reason you decided to omit the words “and adopted Turkish as their vernacular”. But as you can see, your own source proves that this clan became Turkified by the time it became a ruling dynasty, i.e. became Turks.

Also see the Columbia encyclopedia:

Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order.

So both sources agree that Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty, moreover, Iranica claims that the originally Iranian-speaking clan became Turkic. Case closed. I will regard your continuation of the revert war as nothing but vandalism. Grandmaster 08:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Turkic-speaking" and "Turkic", the same way there is a difference between "Spanish-speaking" (like in South America) and "Spanish". The early Safavids had adopted Turkish, because they were under Turkman influence. But NONE of your sources supports your claims, that they were Turkic-speaking till the end. Besides that, you also claim that they were of "Turkish origin" (="Azeri origin") which is not supported by ANY of the sources above. In fact, it is disproved by the Encyclopaedia Iranica and by the Encyclopaedia Britannica (not to mention the other sources that directly link the Safavids to Kurds and Kurdistan). I am going to revert your POV ... please stop ignoring sources. You are pushing for a very obvious Pan-Turkist agenda and propaganda. Tajik 11:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Tajik, I’m gonna try this once again, but I reserve the right to apply for mediation/arbitration, if you keep on pushing your POV despite your own sources indicating the opposite to your claims. Right now I’m not insisting on mentioning that Safavids were Turkic, the intro proposed by me only states that they were Turkic-speaking, as per Columbia encyclopedia. You say none of my sources supports this, well, check Columbia. I see no reason why you should remove from the intro the fact that they were Turkic-speaking. This is confirmed by your favorite Iranica, which says that Safavids adopted Turkic as their vernacular, i.e. native language, and became Turkified, i.e. became Turks. This is what your most authoritative source says. As for the Azerbaijani origin of the dynasty, ask yourself a couple of simple questions. What was the original capital of the Safavid state and where the Safaviyye order was based at Ismail I times? You know the answer. So stop vandalizing this page and pushing your POV. And one more thing. Your recent postings, including accusations of pan-Turkism, etc, are nothing but a personal attack on me, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. I expect you to observe these basic rules towards your fellow-editors. Grandmaster 15:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranian POV do have a space

First of all, how could it be called Turkic Azervaijani, when to concept of Azerbaijani identity was non existant in those periods? If my memory doesn't fail me, it was called Turkic speaking in the past history of this article which is the most accurate description. And I find it rather hypocritic from Tabibs part to add a totally disputed tag in another article because while the large majority of historians accept a POV which is different than Turkish and Azeris POV in the other cases. If one was to use his standard a totallydisputed tag should be added in this article because the Iranian POV is not presented. Furthermore, in the past Tabib has deleted a sentence I have included, quoting from a Western Iranologist depicting the identity of the founder, and my action was in good faith trying to resolve the conflict. While I wasn't even denying the Turkic speaking nature of the dynasty, neither the quote I have added was, he deleted it, and the only reason how I could explain this act was because there was the word Kurd in that edit. No matter what, if Turkish positions have spaces in articles where the majority of historians thesis is opposit to theirs, I don't see why Iranian thesis should not have a place in an article in which the majority of historian disagree with that position. Regardless of what is true or not, Wikipedia present positions and I believe that a section on Iranian position would be a fair thing to do, in which the Encyclopedia Iranica is included. And if Tabib is up to his own standards he would add a totally disputed tag in this article until it is done as he does in other articles the content he does not like. Fad (ix) 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What "Iranian position"? There is none displayed here. Iranica's contributors are mostly non-Iranian, and they do not operate from some sort of pro-Iranian POV - that's why it's funded by the American government. The issue is whether or not Iranica actually says anything about the Safavids ethnic background, which doesn't seem like it. SouthernComfort 10:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to help, my point was more like if this position exist there should be no problem giving it space. As for the Dynasty official language, I also always thought it was mostly Turkic dialects, and I believe previously a better suited proposition saying that it was Turkic speaking was better. Also, some Kurdish origine which I have previously added deleted by Tabib should also be indicated about the founder. Anyways, it's up to you guys to sort this out, I am not getting involved there. Fad (ix) 03:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

During his reign, the official language at the royal court was Azeri

There was no language called Azeri at that time, the position of James J. Reid was that the court language is claimed to be Chaghatay Turkish, but John E, Woods made the distinction between 'elite' and ' lingua franca' and claimed that for this reason it would be a mistake to claim so because the ruling elite according to him still spoke not only various Turkic languages, but also Kurdish and even Luri dialects. Fad (ix) 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

See Ancient Azari language. SouthernComfort 10:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the Royal Court, and Azeri as in Azerbaijani Turkic, I don't know much about ancient Azari to comment. Fad (ix) 03:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Northern Iranian Language ? What is that ?--TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The article deals with the pre-Turkic indigenous language of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan). I pointed it out to clarify to Fadix that there has always been a language called "Azari/Azeri," both pre-Turkic and post-Turkic. SouthernComfort 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the article. I am confused of which it says. Azeri Turkish is just an accent of Turkish. gramatical rules are the same. Do Azeries have some works of it ? I really want to see. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't deal with Azeri Turkish, but the language of Azerbaijan before the Turkic arrival. SouthernComfort 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids were Iranian by ethnicity and Persian by culture

The official and court langauge of Iran during the Safavid Empire was Persian/Farsi. The Shahs,(kings) all spoke Persian as their first langauge and all offical documents were in Farsi, (Persian). The Safavid Era is sometimes called the renaissance of Persian culture as thousands of important scientific and educational works were completed (in Persian) at that time. Ex. Firdowsi's great Persian epic the "Shahnamah",(book of kings).

"Azerbaijani" people are from the Iranian race. Their genetics are the same as Persian peoples'. This has been proven countless times by scientific tests and independent studies. I am Iranian and I know for a fact that "Azeri" people are the most loyal, patriotic, and nationalistic Iranians of all. In Iran we are Iranian first above and beyond anything else!!

This disscusion is not about how demographic of Iran is. Besides, this isn't for today. We are disscussing of the past. It is an absolute fact that Safavids were of Turkic. I thought that we closed this. Am I wrong ?--TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Safavids were Persian

The Safavids were Iranian and their culture was Persian. The only real turks are the ones in mongolia and outer China.

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

by that, I am asking you to stop this non-sense revert war.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 13:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Safavids culture, ethnicty, and langauge was Persian

The links posted above are not valid because they are all from a biased "turkic"/muslim website. All scholars and WESTERN universitys agree that the Safavids were racially and linguistically IRANIANS....There is no such thing as "turkish". Turks are just a mix of MANY different races and cultures!

More evidence that Safavids were an Iranian dynasty and represented Iranian characters

Taken from the authoritive "Encyclopaedia of Islam":

• "... SAFAWIDS , a dynasty which ruled in Persia as sovereigns 907-1135/1501-1722, as fainéants 1142-8/1729-36, and thereafter, existed as pretenders to the throne up to 1186/1773. I. Dynastic, political and military history. The establishment of the �afawid state in 907/1501 by � Shāh Ismā�īl I [q.v.] (initially ruler of Ā�dharbāyj��ān only) marks an important turning-point in Persian history. In the first place, the Safawids restored Persian sovereignty over the whole of the area traditionally regarded as the heartlands of Persia for the first time since the Arab conquest of Persia eight and a half centuries previously. During the whole of that time, only once, during what Minorsky termed “the Iranian intermezzo” (334-447/945-1055), did a dynasty of Persian origin prevail over much of Iran [see BUWAYHIDS]; for the rest, Persia was ruled by a succession of Arab caliphs, and Turkish and Mongol sultans and kh�āns. Secondly, �Shāh Ismā�īl I declared that the I�thnā �Asharī form of �Shī�ī Islam was to be the official religion of the new state. This was the first time in the history of Islam that a major Islamic state had taken this step. Ismā�īl's motives in making this decision were probably a combination of religious conviction and the desire to provide the nascent S�afawid state with an ideology which would differentiate it from its powerful neighbour, the Sunnī Ottoman empire. At all events, the policy had [VIII:766a] far-reaching consequences, because it introduced into the Persian body politic the potential for conflict between “the turban and the crown”, between the shahs, representing “secular” government, and the mu��tahids, whose dream was theocratic government. This conflict, always latent, emerged into the open from time to time during the �ā��ār period, and finally burst forth with cataclysmic force in the Islamic Revolution of 1979. (i) The origins of the Safawids: The origins of the �afawid family are shrouded in some mystery, and the mystery is compounded by falsifications which were perpetrated, probably during the reign of Ismā�īl I and certainly during that of Tahmāsp I [q.v.], in order to produce an “official” S�afawid genealogy [see SI AL- I II, Bibliography ]. Petrushevskii thinks that the fabrication of the “official” �afawid genealogy occurred even earlier, at the beginning of the 8th/14th century (see B. Nikitine, Essai d'analyse du �Safvat al-S�afā , in JA [1957], 386). There seems now to be a consensus among scholars that the Safawid family hailed from Persian Kurdistān, and later moved to Ā�dharbay��jān, finally settling in the 5th/11th century at Ardabīl. There, they lived an uneventful life, gradually acquiring a reputation for piety which attracted to them disciples ( murīd ), but it is only with the birth of � Shay�kh �afī al- Dīn in 650/1252-3, the eponymous founder of the �Safawiyya or �Safawid order, that �Safawid history really begins. ..."

If you want to read the entire article (51 pages!), send me a Wiki-Mail, and I will send you the article (PDF).

Tajik 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of this encyclopaedia before. Who wrote it and how come it is the most authoritative now? I thought the most authoritative for you was Iranica. Even if we assume that it is the most authoritative, it does not say that Safavids were not Turks, it just repeats the allegation about Kurdish origins of the dynasty. So no, nice try, but Safavids were Turks. Stop messing with the article, Tajik, it is enough already. You can present a million documents, created by entities, sponsored by the Iranian government, but all they can claim is that the dynasty was of Persian origin. But Persian origin does not mean that they did not become Turks by the time the clan became a dynasty. If you look at Azeris, most of them were originally Caucasian Albanians, who adopted Turkic language and converted to Islam and became Turkic people. The same with Safavids, Persian (or Kurdish, to be precise) origin does not mean a thing. The important thing is that when Safavids became a dynasty they spoke Turkic language as their native tongue, and this is confirmed even by Iranica. Grandmaster 05:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Islam (information at Amazon.com [30]) is one of the most important encyclopaedias in the world. It is written by more than 100 experts mostly from Europe and America, among them P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, E. Bosworth, E. v.Donzel, and W.Heinrichs (who are the main editors). Along with the Encyclopaedia Iranica (which is written by the same authors but is specialized on Iranian history) it is the most authoritive collection of information in regard of Islamic and Oriental history. The Encyclopaedia of Islam is not only one of the most expensive encyclopaedias but also obligatory for professional Oriental studies.

As for the Safawids, I tend to agree with Tajik. The current version is not neutral, because it only reflects the pro-Turkish opinion but leaves out the other side of the coin. 3 major sources (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, and Encyclopaedia Britannica) have been presented by Tajik to support his claim. It is against Wikipedia's law to reject these 3 sources in favour of the pro-Turkish version. The best solution would be an introduction that does not mention the language of the dynasty at all. None of the encyclopaedias that have been mentioned in here actually write anything about the Safawid's language in the introduction. --213.39.197.196 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But this source does not say Safavids were not Turks. It just says that they were of Persian origin, which does not mean they did not become Turks by the time they became a dynasty. Origin means nothing, what language did Ismail I speak? According to Iranica, it was Azeri Turkic. Grandmaster 10:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the entire article, but you are correct that the introduction does not say they were not Turks. But it does not say that they were Turks or Turkic-speaking, either. You are contradicting yourself. The native tongue of Shah Ismail is not known. We only know that he wrote some poetry in Turkish. But the Iranica also explains that he wrote poetry in Persian. Besides that, this article is about the entire dynasty, not only about Shah Ismail. As you can read in the online version of the Encyclopaedia Iranica [31], Shah Abbas changed the dynasty, most of all by challenging and successfully eliminating many elements of Turkish culture and identity. So, in here, we have a major source that disproves your claims that Safawids became Turks (which is not true!). The Safavids - originally a Persian family from Kurdistan - were Turkicfied due to Turkish influence through the Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyonlu sultans. But they never lost their Persian identity (which was one of the main reasons why the called themselvs "Shahs" instead of "Sultan" and claimed to be descendants of the Sassanian kings of Iran). After the reign of Shah Abbas, the dynasty was re-Persianized: Persian became the major language, ethnic Persians and Iranians replaced the Turkish Kizilbash, Persian military titles replaced traditional Turkish titles, etc. You cannot deny this. And that's why your version of the intro is not neutral. It's only one part of the truth, not the entire truth. You cannot just reject major sources. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. --213.39.197.196 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read the intro? It says: The Safavids were initially a Turkic-speaking Iranian dynasty that ruled Iran from 1501 to 1736, etc. This is exactly what you’ve just said. You said it yourself: The Safavids - originally a Persian family from Kurdistan - were Turkicfied due to Turkish influence through the Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyonlu sultans. What is not true in the intro? What’s the point in reverting? It’s nothing but vandalism and a POV push. As for Encyclopaedia of Islam, it says nothing about the language the Safavids spoke. How can it be used as a proof in this dispute? Grandmaster 10:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, which part of his message don't you understand?! If the "Encyclopaedia of Islam" and "Encyclopaedia Iranica" do not mention the language of the Safavids, then it's because that information is not needed! It is you who is pushing for this useless information. Just keep the language out of the intro! The Safavids were IRANIAN by heritage, they were influenced by Turkic dynasties, and they were re-Persianized when Shah Abbas came to power. Safavids represent Iranian culture, they re-established Persian identity, they are connected to Persian nationalism and they are considered the beginning of modern Iran which is deffinitly a Persian-dominated nation. What's your point with that language thinng?! Britannica does not care about the language, Encyclopaedia of Islam does not care about the language, Encyclopaedia Iranica does not care about the language ... why do YOU stick to it?! Tajik 18:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Iranica does mention the language of Safavids. If Encyclopedia of Islam does not mention the language of Safavids, it does not mean that we should not as well. Columbia does mention the language too. Safavids represent Turkic culture as much or even more than they represent Persian, Ismail I is one of the greatest Azeri poets and is a symbol of Azerbaijani nationalism, there’s a statue of Shah Ismail erected on one of the main squares of Baku. I don’t understand your persistence on removing any mention of the Turkic background of Safavids, it is nothing but a POV push, despite so many authoritative sources, including Iranica, the most authoritative in your own words, proving that they were Azeri Turks. Grandmaster 19:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If Azerbaijanis consider Shah Ismail one of their greatest poets, then it's good for them! But that does not make him an Azeri-Turk, the same way the Turkish Ghaznavid Sultans or Seljuq Sultans who wrote poetry in Persian do not become Persians. It is attested by Shah Ismail's son that his father also wrote poetry in Persian - with the same purpose: propaganda. It just happens that his Turkish poems survived while his Persian poetry did not. The information from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, from the Encyclopaedia Britannica and from the Encyclopaedia Iranica point to an IRANIAN dynasty (your claim that they were Azerbaijani-Turks is WRONG!) - the first native Iranian dynasty in 800 years! - who re-introduced Persian identity, culture, and language to Iran (a land that was ruled by Mongols and Turkmens for the past 200 years). Most of the scholars and poets at the Safavid court wrote poetry in Persian, Shah Abbas eliminated Turkish elements and removed the Turkish Qizilbash militia (you can read that in the Iranica: "Shah Abbas the Great"). There is no need to mention the Turkish language in the intro, because to the Safavids, Persian was as important as Turkish. If you mention Turkish, then you have to mention Persian as well - or you leave out both languages. The problem with you is that you purposely ignore major sources and you are not ready to compromise. You are pushing for a Pan-Turkic agenda ... and that's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Tajik 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • It is apalling to see sensible, academically arguing editors such as Tajik having to waste precious time in warding off unsubstantiated and, sometimes, downright silly assertians with regards to the ethnical background of the Safavids. This TALK page contains very valuable scientific citations (go back a YEAR, to ARCHIVE 1) which offer very clear and convincing historic sources/evidence, pertaining to a Persian/Kurdish background of the Safavid EPONYM, Sheikh Safi Al-Din Ardebili. The only recorded "Turkish blood" introduced into the family, over the centuries, was that of Uzun Hassan's Daughter , who was half Greek (Trapezunt Princess) and mother to the first Safavid Shah Ismail I. With a Turkish speaking mother, who would be surprized to learn that Ismail spoke the Language and even wrote poetry in it? Also note:

The ORIGIN of the Safavid Family is documented in the "Safwat as-Safa", a chronology preserved to this day, written on orders of the early Safaviyeh Sufi Masters, before the dynasty's founding, narrating the family's descent. It starts with Sheikh Safi Al-Din's tenth century descendant Firuzshah "Zarrinkulah" (Golden Cap). It is said that (according to TOGAN "Origine") he had been part of the conquest of Azerbaijan, together with the Kurdish prince Mamlan bin Wahsudan of the Rawwadid Dynasty, in the 1020s AD and been granted Ardebil as a fiefdom. His descendant, Sheikh Safi's father, Amin-ad-din Gibra'il was a wealthy farmer and his mother was the daughter of Gamal Baruqis Dowlati of the village Baruq near Adebil. The forefathers of Safi Al-Din, as well as his siblings and descendants are documented in many chronicles, that have been preserved until today. There is ample evidence as to their ethnicity. They are universally regarded as Kurds/Iranians, except for a few contenders, who theorize that the Safavids may have had Arab or Turkic forbears, without accepted evidence, though. The "Disputed" Tag is required to remain in place as the unprepared reader, not aware of this ethnicity dispute, will unwittingly be fed inacurate information. That is certainly NOT THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA! Pantherarosa 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ismail did not only write poetry in Azeri Turkic language, it was his native tongue, as attested by Iranica:

p. 240, online-version:

Book 1, p. 240, line 6 (left)

Azari [= Middle-Iranian language spoken in Azerbaijan before the Turkic conquest] lost ground [in Azerbaijan] at a faster pace than before, so that even the early Safavids, originally an Iranian-speaking clan (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular.

Also see the Columbia encyclopedia:

Founded by Shah Ismail, this Turkic-speaking dynasty claimed descent from a Shiite Sufi order.

His origin could be whatever, even ethnic African, it doesn’t really matter, if you dig Sheikh Safi’s own origin it is quite possible that you find that his grandfather was of Arabic or Georgian descent. The important thing is what language Ismail I spoke himself. And sources, including Iranica, say that Safavids spoke Turkic. Grandmaster 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

References in Regards to Safavid Azeris as Persians

The Republic of Azerbaijan comprises the Transcaucasian or northern part of the historic region called Azerbaijan. Known to the ancients as Albania, the area was linked to the history of Armenia and Persia, particularly after its conquest (4th cent.) by Shapur II. Overrun later by Mongols, it was divided after the fall (15th cent.) of Timur into several principalities (notably Shirvan). The territory of the present Azerbaijan was acquired by Russia from Persia through the treaties of Gulistan (1813) and Turkamanchai (1828).[32]Zmmz 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is this supposed to prove? I never argued that many Azeris were descendants of Iranian-speaking people, while many were descendants of Caucasian people, who adopted Turkic language after the Turkic conquest of the area. It does not mean that they are currently Persian or any other people, they are Azerbaijani, Turkic people. For some reason certain Persian editors take Azeri Turkic origins of Safavid dynasty with great animosity, while millions of Azeris are loyal citizens of the state of Iran. I see this as disrespect for Azerbaijani people, who deserve recognition of their role in the history of Iran. Grandmaster 05:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your intro gave the impression the dynasty were a Turkish one like the Seljuks, so I added the word native Iranian that should clear it up. Azeris are not Turks, they are Iranian people who speak an ancient Turkic dilect.Zmmz 06:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry man, Azeris are Turkic people. Open any encyclopaedia at all, you’ll see that. The origins can be whatever, but what is really important is the language. Azeri language is one of the Turkic languages, so Azeris are Turks. Of course they have a lot in common with Persians in terms of history, culture, customs, etc, but they still are Turks. I actually find your last edit (native Iranian dynasty who speak an ancient Turkic language) to be pointless, of course nobody spoke modern languages at that time, even Persian, Russian and English of that era were different from the same modern languages. So I suggest you remove the word “ancient” and revert back to your previous version, it made more sense. Grandmaster 06:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

AZERBAIJANI'S ARE TURKIC

Azeri's are a part of the Turkic race.

Iranians and the persian diaspora try to subvert this fact due to their fear of Azeri Turkish uprising.

Babak Khorramdin

Babak Khorramdin was a Persian Hero and an Iranian nationalist. Turks were still in mongolia during his time. Here is an article from the wikipedia encyclopedia to support the truth...not lies and propoganda spread by pan turkists.

Bâbak Khorramdin (around 795, according to some other sources 798-14.3.838)- One of the leaders of khorramdinân (persian: those of the joyous religion), which was an iranian nationalistic movement fighting the Arab inside Iran.

An Iranian hero born in Balal Abad (Qaradag) region of Azarbaijan close to the city of Ardabil. After his father’s death in his early teen, he was given the responsibility of his 2 brothers and mother during a traditional Zartosht ceremony in Fire-temple, which used to involve a glass of Azari wine and wearing a purple ribbon around body. By the age of 18 Bâbak had established himself in the city of Tabriz and was engaged in the arms trade and industry.

Later on, this engagement gave him the opportunity to travel to different regions like Caucasia, Middle East and Eastern Europe and familiarised him with history, geography and language of the countries and nations in these regions. During all these time, Azarbaijan was constantly invaded by Bani Abbas Arab dynasty (Caliphate).

Witnessing all these pressure being exerted to Iranian people, forced Bâbak to join the Khorramdin movement in “Ghaleh ye Bâbak” (Bâbak Castle), in the sensational mountains of Qaradag. His skills in the latest battle tactics accompanied by the knowledge of history and geography strengthened his position as a most favorite commander during the early wars against Arabs.

Bâbak was a highly spiritual and educated person who respected the Zartoshti identity of his nation. He made every possible effort to establish reasonable political and cultural relationships with other regions of Iran and also with leaders such as Afshin and Maziyar to form a united front against the Arab Caliph.

One of the most dramatic periods of Iran and Azarbaijan history was set under the Bâbak’s leadership between 816-837 AD. During these most crucial years, Iran fought against Islam and Arab culture.

Eventually Bâbak, his wife and his warriors were forced to leave their command post (Ghaleh ye Bâbak) under a very difficult situation after 23 years of sensational campaign. He was eventually betrayed by Afshin and was handed over to the Abbasid Caliph.

During Bâbak’s execution, caliph's henchmaen first cut his legs and hands in order to convey the most devastating message to his followers, legend says that our Bâbak bravely rinsed his face by the drained blood pouring out of his cuts, thus depriving the Caliph and the rest of the Arab army the sight of his paled face which was the result of heavy bleeding.

In recent years, the Azari nationalists have tried to portrait Bâbak as a Turkish nationalist, fighting for Azarbaijan’s independence, even though there are no historical records to indicate such a notion. On the other hand, it is firmly established that at the time of Bâbak, the Turkish speaking people have not yet arrived in Azarbaijan: Bâbak could almost certainly not understand a word of Turkish.

Although claims have been made about a Turkish cognate for his name (Bay Beg), it is doubtful that this is more than a coincidence, since Bâbak is a pure Persian name as attested by the name of the founder of the Saasaanid Persian empire: Ardeshir-e-Bâbakan (Bâbak being Ardeshir’s ancestor, not to be condused by the subject of this article) who lived several hundered years prior to Bâbak khorramdin. Thus in the time of Bâbak, there was no separatist national feeling in Azarbaijan and Bâbak did not fight for Azarbaijan’s independence but for Iran’s independence of which Azarbaijan was a native part.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babak"

In the times of babek Azerbaijan was part of Iran, but they were refered as Azeris. If you have to divide Iran then Babek would be a Azeri. But this article goes so far that is refers Babek as a Persian, if you want to sort Babek into a national group then first should be Zoroaster & Azeri after that Iranian

Safavids were Persian

The Safavids court langauge was Farsi. The official language of Iran during their reign was also Farsi. The Safavid era is known as the Persian renaissance as many important Persian literary works were created in that era, like Firdowsi's great national epic the "Shahnamah", (book of kings). There race and ethnicity was Iranian. That's why the content of the article will remain the way it is and I will make the appropriate changes regularly.