Talk:Nizami Ganjavi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Only verse about Nizami's father - main issue

I thought my long discussion with Mr. Baguirov might skew us from the main argument. Here is the only verses we have about Nizami's father: گر شد پدرم بنسبت جد یوسف پسر زکی موءید با دور بداوری چه کوش؟ دورست نه جر چون خروشم؟

The only information Nizami Gives about his father is that his name was Yusuf the son of Zaki the son of Mo'ayyad. Thats it folks! That is it! And that is why I am opposed to manipulation of historical facts. Lets say each generation is about 25 years (although Nizami mentions that he lost his father early in his life and this might make the generation longer) and 1141 was when Nizami was born. Then If Nizami's roots were from Ganja this would place Mo'ayyad his great grandfather in the area of Ganja under Shaddadids when Turkic Oghuz nomads had not yet taken the city from the Shaddadid Kurdish dynasties. Also many many Turks in history have given their tribal affiliation. For example Fizuli was a Bayyat Turk. The Seljuqs were Oghuz Turks and their tribal title says it all. Nizami's father could have been Persian, Kurd, Arab..etc. It shows that his forefather were Muslims for at least three generations back and he did not have tribal lineage from his father side. So the only information we have about his father is that he was a Muslim and his name was Yusuf. And Yusuf (rahmatullah elayh) was the son of Zakki (rahmatullah elayh) and he was the son of Mo'ayyad (rahmatullah elayh). All these names are Arabic as well. As per etymology, Zakki in Arabic means purity. And Mo'ayyad means accepted/supported (by God). And I don't want to hear about how Turks were pure and supported by God and so they chose these names. And as per the language of the area, we know for sure that by the time of Mo'ayyad it was not Turkish. Any sources a century after Nizami (even those sources mention Ganja as a place of Persians(Tajiks) and Turks), does not matter and what matters is the sources about the time of Mo'ayyad. I will not compromise on any psuedo-theory about Nizamis father ethnicity. Indeed even though some sources which is not accepted by all scholars point to Qom (and with such an Arabic name it is possible), that can not be taken surely. All we have is Yusuf the son of Zaki the son of Mo'ayyad. We can put a question mark and say: Persian?Armenian?Kurdish?Arabic?Turkish?Georgian?. And also if anyone wants to put a praise of Turks from the old lady in Sanjars story, then they should also bring the distate of Turks by Alexanders reference to Khaghan or the words of Shirvanshah both composed by Nizami Ganjavi. And also the first part about Nizamis son born of the Qifqach servant later wife where he mentions that "Cho Torkaan gashteh sooyeh kooch mohtaaj - Betorki daadeh rakhtam raa betaaraaj" (Like Turks who are inclined to migrate (referring to nomadic lifestyle of Turks), In Turkish manner has plundered my life-belongings). Indeed Turks were famous for plundering in Persian and that is where the word Turk-Tazi has come from and Mr. Baguirov thought TurkTaz was a Turkic character without knowing that the word means plunderer. I have also already mentioned Ibn Nadeem, Al-Istakhri, Ibn Hawqal(book written around 970), Al-Masoudi, Al-Moqaddasi(born in 954) who have all given information on the language of the area and they all have mentioned Persian, Arabic, Armenian.. None of them has mentioned Turkic as a language spoken in the area. Indeed If Mr. Baguirov is concerned about the history of the Iran, why is referring to Khazars and Huns who never had any significant presence in the area and were removed by the Sassanids and Ummayyads. Why is he not referring to these major travellers who have given a clear description of the language of the area? Why is he quoting an arab court historian about a mythical yemenes king who teams up with Manuchehr and defeats Afrasiyab's incursion in Azerbaijan (Again Turanian are not considered by modern scholars as Turks) and why is he not quoting these Arab/Persian travellers right prior to the time of Nizami? This selectiveness is not scholarly. Some of these scholars I mentioned would be a generation away from Nizami's father. Again all we have is Nizami the son of Yusuf the son of Zakki the son of Mo'ayyad. So any theory claiming Nizami was Turkic is bogus (not only by all the constant rejected arguments), but also the fact that culturally he made all his contributions to Persian and Persians. Here is the direct Arabic quote from the al-masaalik wa al-mamaalik of al-Estakhri(about 977 A.D): ولسان أذربيجان وأرمينية والران الفارسية والعربية، غير أن أهل دبيل وحواليها يتكلمون بالأرمينية، ونواحي برذعة لسانهم الرانية، ولهم جبال يسمونها القبق وتحيط بها ألسنة مختلفة كثيرة للكفار.

Translation: The languages of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Arran is Persian and Arabic. Except the people of Dabil and the surrounding area speak Armenia, and the area of Bar'da speak Arranian, and behind the caucus mountains the unbelievers speak many different tongues.

Source: اصطخري، ابراهيم، المسالك و ممالك، ترجمه سعد بن تستري، به كوشش ايرج افشا ر، مجموعه انتشارات ادبي و تاريخ موقوفات دكتر افشار، 1373، ص 195

Also verified with a computerized version and one translation.

Already mentioned Al-Muqaddesi and Ibn Hawqal. Two other travellets of the same time about (1000 A.D.) who provide us with exact and direct information of the region and they mention Persian, Arabic, Arranian and Armenian.

Also for the user Grand Master, I again reaffirm that I accept the Encyclopedia Britannica, but I will not accept what is not accepted by Western scholars and major scholars after the breakup of the USSR. Some obscure source from the era of Stalin or around his time is not accepted and the USSR scholarship on religion and ethnicity has many holes and flaws. Also we can add that Nizami is widely appreciated in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Tajikistan and amongst Kurds. We can say his cultural heritage is shared. Indeed we should all take pride in him and even Arabs can take pride in him (one of his greatest work was the Arabic Lili o Majnoon). Even Greeks can take pride in him. But his fathers ethnicity will never be known or else scholars would have agreed upon it whereas no Western scholars has ever mentioned Nizami being Turkic. I would not be suprised if Nizami knew Armenian, Turkic, Georgian, Greek and etc besides Kurdish, Persian and Arabic. But all these again does not make his ethnicity any of these groups. --Ali doostzadeh 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, if we agree that Nizami’s ethnicity is not known, let’s omit it altogether, like Britannica did. That may end the edit wars. Also, Nizami’s heritage indeed belongs to the entire humankind and the people you mentioned in particular, but nonetheless Persian and Azeri people were influenced the most. Such poets like Nesimi and especially Fuzuli were influenced greatly by Nizami, and Fuzuli even wrote an Azeri version of Leyli and Majnun. To this day Nizami’s influence in Azerbaijan is enormous. For example the ballet “Seven beauties” by Gara Garayev won an international recognition, and it’s based on Nizami’s poetry. So I agree that we should mention the influence of Nizami in Muslim world and outside of it, at the same time I think we should specifically mention the influence of Nizami on Persian and Azerbaijani literature. Grandmaster 10:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Nizami is big in Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan. Also his influence in the world is tremendous. I think one or two paragraphs about his influence in Azerbaijan and Iran is fine although this is secondary. I think the Kurdish mother should be mentioned as no scholar or source I know has disputed it. Other than that I totally agree with you. Perhaps oneday they will discover a time-machine, but till then, although I believe his father was eiher Kurd or Persian or perhaps an Arabic, I think it is best to leave as is. Also the NOR should be established. --Ali doostzadeh 10:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody objects that his mother was Kurdish, neither does Mr. Baguirov. I think we can include in the article the facts on which we all agree. His mother is one of the points we have a consensus. As for Nizami’s wife, the prevalent view with the scholars, including Iranian ones is that she was Kipchak slave and her name was Afaq. For example, I cited two Iranian sources about Nizami, [1][2] and both of them say that his wife was Afag. In fact, neither of the two sources say “maybe”, they talk about it as a certain fact. Neither of them says anything about horizon. And I don’t think that Iraj Bashiri is a pan-Turkist. If someone thinks that Nizami always referred to horizon and not to his wife, it’s a view of minority and we should go with what the majority of scholars think. If we can make more or less balanced version, it will have no room for future edit wars by other users. Of course, proper references would be useful too. As for Nizami’s influence, it should be a short section at the end of the article. Grandmaster 11:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

While I respond to Mr. Doostzadeh's accusations and propaganda claims, let me state once more that the current version of the page, even the way put forward by Grandmaster, is unsuitable. Why? For starters, it simply says Nizami was born in Ganja, capital of Arran, present day Azerbaijan. Whereas he was born in the Azerbaijani Atabek State, which was part of the Turkic Seljuk Empire. Arran by itself was, depending on times, either name of the central region of Azerbaijan or, before, another name for Caucasian Albania, whose territory was slightly larger than today's Azerbaijan Republic, but coincided mostly. Hence, it is not enough to state the place of birth like this -- the name of the state and the empire have to be mentioned right there too.

Secondly, why are all my quotes of Nizami removed and only the one about Iran left? That's unfair. Moreover, my quotes explain very well Nizami's self-view and fathers ethnicity as Turkic -- what Mr. Doostzadeh doesn't seem to realize is that Nizami did not have to explicitly write "my father was a Turkic ruler/noble", but reveal his Turkishness indirectly or via himself (e.g., see the dogha quote).

Thirdly, I've proven easily and without any doubt that Shirin and Mihin-Banu were Arrani (Azerbaijani) princess and queen, and they were not Christian or Armenian. While some scholars make that error, which as Mr. Doostzadeh shows, is a long-standing mistake in Iranian literature made by many successive writers, it is obviously not so and any reader with critical analytical skills and common sense can see that. It should also be noted that the lengthy description of Khosrov and Shirin with repeated references to Armenia were inserted into the text by Mr. Doostzadeh AFTER our discussion -- his propagandistic way of adding fuel to the fire.

Fourthly, why are absolutely all references and bibliography are either of Iranian origin, much of which was either not critically analyzed by foreign scholars, or outdated -- Mr. Doostzadeh himself stresses this point and Wikipedia wants sources after 1920s -- which means Wilson, Rypka, etc., should and can be easily replaced by those sources whom Mr. Doostzadeh doesn't want to see -- E.Bertels, M.Shaginyan, academician Krymskiy, Krachkovskiy, etc.

As you can see, these are all absolutely fair and legitimate concerns and questions, and while I have tried to address them and balance the bias of the types of Iranian ideologically-motivated editors Prof. Talattof warns us about, they keep on deleting all these references. A compromise version of the page must address this. --AdilBaguirov 18:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern scholars and Encyclopedia Britannica have not mentioned Turkic ethnicity for his father. Else scholars that have called him Iranian and Persian are totally valid. Furthermore, if there are verses in praise of Turks, there are very harsh verses against Turks and those should be put in quote section as well. Why be one-sides? There is a lot in praise of Sassanids. There is a lot in praise of the Kayanid race. And then if Mr. Baguirov is going to explain those quotes, then I will respond to his quote and so on and so forth. Also there is praise of Persians, Romans, Arabs, Shirvanshah.. There is no ideologically motivated Iranian scholar and Dr. Talattof meant Islami/Sufi studies on Nizami as ideologically motivated. That motivated by religion! Simple as that. If not I can email Dr. Talattof and clarify this issue so Mr. Baguirov does not abuse it. As per Shirin, I have said in Persian literature she is considered Armenian and old poets as well have called her Armenian. For example Vahshi Baqfi in his Farhad o Shirin: رسیده در بر بانوی ارمن سر شیرین لبان شیرین پرفن Resideh dar bar baanooyeh Arman Sar shirin Labaan Shirin Por-Fan. Clearly calling Shirim, the baooneyeh (lady) of armenia.

In khosrow o Shirin, Aran is mentioned once: "همه اقلیم اران تا به ارمن مقرر گشته بر فرمان آن زن " All of Arran to Arman whas under the command of that women (Mahin-Banu)

Armenia(arman) is mentione 10+ times. 1) Shapur going to Armenia 2) Khosrow arriving to Armenia and meeting Mahin Banu) 3) When shirin leaves Ma'adin (the Persian Sassanid capital) to Arman..

سخن گوینده پیر پارسی خوان چنین گفت از ملوک پارسی دان که چون خسرو به ارمن کس فرستاد به پرسش کردن آن سرو آزاد

The words of the old Persian read He said this from the chronicles of the Kings of Persia That Khosrow sent to Armenia some person Enquiriing about that free tall cypress (Sarv is used a lot in Persian poetry and Shahnameh).

The Encyclopedia Iranica, Dr. Iraj Bashiri and Dr. Talattof have called her Armenian. All these are much more modern sources. Also Arranians(Caucasian Albanians) are not Turks or Azerbaijanis. Also Mr. Baguirov brings this verse:My capital [!!!], my guest, decorate with your attendance/visit; Barda is so joyful in the winter! You should pack up there. In winter times you won’t get any warmer weather than there, There grass is juicy, there water is in excess And many empires had winter capitals including the Achaemenid empire. At the same time the verses he does not like, he omits: به نومیدی دل از دلخواه برداشت به دارالملک ارمن راه برداشت Here Khosrow in search of Shirin goes to the Dar-al-Molk-e Arman (Arman the Capital or the capital of Armenia).

He also brought verses about Turan and Afrasiyab that did not exist in the Khusraw o Shirin. Also what he totally wants to forget is that many poets of the old Days have called Shirin an Armenian princess. Indeed any study on the ethnic background of Shirin, should be a study throughout Persian poetry and texts. The story of Khusraw o Shirin is an old story and is found also in the Shahnameh. So when a reader observes all materials from Shahnameh to Vahshi Baqfi, and sees direct references to Shirin-e-Arman (The Armenian Shirin), then that is the end of the issue.

Professor Rypka in the 1968 version of the Cambridge Encyclopedi wrote his article[3] and does not accept the claims of the republic of Azerbaijan. Let us also recall that Mr. Baguirov is not a scholar of Nizami studies (one must know Persian for example to start off), and when it is his words against the words of modern scholars about Shirin (for example Dr. Talatof and the Iranica article by Dr. Francois DE Blois) , his words can not be taken as authoritative. Recall NOR.

The so called Doghba quote does not reveal that Nizami was a Turk. After many moral advices in Haft-paykar he makes a comment and plays Turk (light) vs Ethiopian (dark). The context is clear and does not have to do with ethnicity. I already also brought the translation from Wilson. Indeed Nizami didn't leave in Ethiopia and Wilson is one of those Professional translators. Also let me add that just like Nizami speaking Persian does not necessarily make him a Persian, Nizami speaking any other language does not make him necessarily from that ethnicity although there is no proof that Nizami spoke Turkish and there are even some Turkish words in the Shahnameh. Also Dooghbaa as mentioned by Dehkhoda and Doogh (Avesta for white) are not Turkic. Hafez has also said "Tork-e-man.."(comparing his heart to a Turk). Rumi says:"somtimes I am turk, somtimes a hindu, sometimes a roman, sometimes a black.." What Mr. Baguirov fails to ignore is knowledge of Persian poetry and he takes a totally ethnic bias viewpoint on romantic poetry. Indeed Nizami in one line says: The Kurd had a daughter with a Turkic feature and Hindu freature.. and etc. Also I would like to mention that there is nothing about Nizami being related to Shaddadids in his work and Mr. Baguirov needs to show this claim also from the actual texts. Also some verses can be taken to mean that he came from a poor background which a Shaddadid background who were a notable family, would not make him poor. --Ali doostzadeh 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I try to achieve a compromise step by step. If we agreed on the intro, we can move further on. Grandmaster 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Again as I said, I agreed Else there are references to Qom. One very old book calls him a "seyyed" (Arab). And Nizami's work reflects Iranian culture (three of his works are directly related to shahnameh). Culturally Nizami contributed to Persian culture and so the man is known by his poetry and the culture he left behind. He is a Persian in a cultural sense as shown by his stories and the language is used. If Mr. Baguirov does not want to compromise then, I will push for a stronger Iranian agenda on this article.

--Ali doostzadeh 21:34, 1 June 2006

OK, I included the line that Ganja was part of Seljuk empire at the times of Nizami as per Britannica. Also I suggest we find some neutral wording for Shirin, i.e. we don’t say that she was an Armenian queen, but say that she was a queen of Arran, Armenia and other (geographic) areas, or omit this altogether, or find some other appropriate wording. As for the verses, we should include only short pieces of poetry, which don’t have any ethnic interpretation, and move large poetry pieces to Wikisource, as Khoikhoi suggested. I also think that the quotes section should be deleted, it does not add much to the article. As for the article structuring, I think we need probably a separate subsection for each of Nizami poems. And the article explicitly mentions Nizami’s contribution to the Persian literature, I don’t think that anyone argues with that. Grandmaster 11:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Mr. Baguirov does want to compromise else I already mentioned that Nizami's heritage is shared by both Iran and Azerbaijan. But just to make the facts straight, Shirin is Armenian Princess according to Persian poetry and biographies. She has never been called Arannian princess in the 5-ganj and the name Arran only comes up once in Khosrow o Shirin where Mahin Banu is called the ruler of Armenia and Arran. Plus a good amount of ancient sources have mentioned Armenia and Arran together. So study of all the Persian poetry (and the story of Khosrow and Shirin has been mentioned by Ferdowsi and Tabari) needs to be done and Shirin is Armenian in Persian folklore and culture. Also Nizami Ganjavi is a "Persian Poet" by definition of Persian poet. He he composed in Arabic, he would be an Arabic poet as well. Had he composed in English, he would be an English poet as well. Just like the term: "He is an English writer", does not mean that the Person is anglo-saxon. See the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as well as Dr. Rudolf Gelpke's translation of the story of Layla amd Majnun where he is constantly mentioned as a Persian poet. The term Persian poet is not an ethnic term. The only thing missing is a line about his fathers ethnicity which we simply can not be sure of, although I am definitely inclinded to say Iranian. --Ali doostzadeh 05:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There won't be any compromoise on Shirin. Prof. Iraj Bashiri, Encyclopedia Iranica, Prof. Talattof.. have said she was Armenian. These are all late sources. Here is a false quote from Mr. Baguriov: Mihin-Banu simply could not have been Armenian (despite processing Armenia as a vassal territory) and were Arranian (Azerbaijani) and Turkic, hence now I will also show that Shirin was not Christian). Of course we know Caucasian Albanians were not Turks despite what Pan-Turkist Chavaunist (this will be the new term I will use for Mr. Baguirov unless he gets rid of the adjectives) say. BTW the capital of Sassanids was in semitic and non-Iranian Iraq. Achaemenids had a winter and summer capital..But furthermore, there is extremly good evidence that Shirin was Christian from ancient books (note there is not a single ancient Turkish book with the word Shirin!). From Cambridge History of Iran,1983,pg 166, volume 3, Prof. Frye): According to Armenian sources..he had a Christian wife called Shirin, and legend also assigned to him aas another wife Maria the daughter of Maurice, which was most unlikely. Here again the legend of Khusraw and Shirin in Persian poetry had many ramifications. Again (same book, pg 946, Christians in Iran, article by Prof. J. R. Asmussen): THe favorable conditions under Hormizd IV whose tolerance is testified to by Tabari, ended in the time of Khusraw II, when Monophsitism became more undert he protection ofS hirin, one of the great king's two Christian wives, and her physician-in-ordinaly, Gabriel. So to rephrase Mr. Baguirov: hence now that it has been shown that Shirin (which is not a Turkic name) is a Christian, she was not an Azerbaijani Turk. There is sufficient amount of verses from Persian poetry calling here Shirin-e-Arman and I brought two examples. Also folks might be interested on one of the verses where Mr. Baguirov translated wrong and mention Jamshid instead of Keykhusraw (two different mythological personalities all together) thus I was not able to find the verse. Unfortunately he translated it wrong both in meaning and context and I quoted a professional translation from a recent book to prove it. Its on point 46 of the last article. Also another interesting detail which I might expand upon later is that Nizami tells the son of Shirvanshah to read Shahnameh (The Iranian national Epic), once again showing that Nizami was fully submerged into Iranian culture and heritage. --Ali doostzadeh 23:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A small mistake by Mr. Baguirov and also a small comment

Mr. Baguirov in his homepage (which shows that he is very nationalist and can not claim to be unbiased specially about Shirin the Armenian) writes:Thus, his Treasure-house of Mysteries was dedicated to Shah Bahram who liked it so much that decided to award Nizami a gift in person of a young slave girl, whose name was Appaq (Afaq). She became Nizami's first and only wife, and the mother of his son Muhammad.[4].

Again we know at least Nizami had three wives during his life time. I have saved the above page in both picture and .html, just in case Mr. Baguirov changes it. Of course these are small mistakes and I am not going to makes insults of Mr. Baguirov's character. Also see the previous page about a quote from the historian Ravandi which was partly misquoted and I brought the full quote.

Also the M. Shaginyan that Mr. Baguirov quotes about Shireen (and opposing all ancient biographers about Shirin from ancient Christian sources(see above) to modern scholars, if she is the same as the following link http://mia.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/shaginyan/index.html] then one has to really consider the ideological background of her. Furthermore I have not seen any evidence she knew Persian academically. Indeed the following biography: [5] shows that she did not major in Persian literature or Iranian studies. Indeed to master Persian literature it takes a life-time at least and to understand Nizami, one must be familiar with other poets specially Sanaii and Ferdowsi very thoroughly. Persian poetry and poets are very related and they help eludicate each others ideas to a large extent. Specially when it comes to poetic symbolism. Also there is much more to write about Nizami's Iranian cultural heritage, for example the article about music and barbad(the Iranian Sassanid court musician) in the book edited by Dr. Talattof and Dr. Clinton. The details Nizami gives about Iranian music has been extremly useful to scholars, but he doesn't write anything about Turkic music.

Also the Encyclopedia Britannica is quoted from the above web-site: - NIZAMI GANJAVI, NIzAMI also spelled NEZAMI (b. c. 1141, Ganja, Seljuq empire [now Gyandzha, Azerbaijan]--d. 1209, Ganja), greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, who brought a colloquial and realistic style to the Persian epic. Little is known of Nezami's life. Orphaned at a young age, he spent his entire life in Ganja, leaving only once to meet the ruling prince. Although he enjoyed the patronage of a number of rulers and princes, he was distinguished by his simple life and straightforward character.

Only a handful of his qasidahs ("odes") and ghazals ("lyrics") have survived; his reputation rests on his great Khamseh ("The Quintuplet"), a pentalogy of poems written in masnavi verse form (rhymed couplets) and totaling 30,000 couplets. Drawing inspiration from the Persian epic poets Ferdowsi and Sana`i, he proved himself the first great dramatic poet of Persian literature. The first poem in the pentology is the didactic poem Makhzan al-asrar (The Treasury of Mysteries), the second the romantic epic Khosrow o-Shirin ("Khosrow and Shirin"). The third is his rendition of a well-known story in Islamic folklore, Leyli o-Mejnun (The Story of Leyla and Majnun). The fourth poem, Haft paykar (The Seven Beauties), is considered his masterwork. The final poem in the pentalogy is the Sikandar or Eskandar-nameh ("Book of Alexander the Great"; Eng. trans. of part I, The Sikander Nama), a philosophical portrait of Alexander.

Nizami is admired in Persian-speaking lands for his originality and clarity of style, though his love of language for its own sake and of philosophical and scientific learning makes his work difficult for the average reader. --

Also Mr. Baguirov mentioned a verse from Lili O Majnoon about Persian and Arab in a certain English to English translation. Mr. Baguirov said: I reluctantly want to remind Mr. Doostzadeh’s of this quote from Leyla and Majnun (which Nizami’s wrote per request of Persian or Persianized Arab Shirvanshah Akhsitan I) spoken by Leyla’s father:

“Reproach has now fallen upon me and it has dared to insult me, calling me Persian: that, I disregard, for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear.” (poetic translation into English by Paul Smith, based on 1945 literal translation of G.H.Darab, London, “Layla and Majnun”, p. 117)

I did a extensive search on the words: Parsi, Farsi, Pars, Fars, Ajam, Ajami and did not find such a verse. But the following verse is found when Layli's father addresses Noufal and even offering her daughter to the cruel Noufal's tribe and asking her to kill her if he wishes..

کای در عرب از بزرگواری در خورد سری و تاجداری مجروحم و پیر و دل شکسته دور از تو به روز بد نشسته در سرزنش عرب فتاده خود را عجمی لقب نهاده این خون که ز شرح بیش بینم در کردن بخت خویش بینم خواهم که در این گناهکاری سیماب شوم ز شرمساری گر دخت مرا بیاوری پیش بخشی به کمینه بنده خویش راضی شوم و سپاس دارم وز حکم تو سر برون نیارم

The verse in question from Layli's father (who is cruel and bad character unlike Shirvanshah and Alexandar) is: Dar sarzanesh Arab fetaadeh Khod raa Ajami laghab nahaadeh

Which translates to: I came to give belittling advice to Arabs And have called myself Ajami (non-Arab)

Then next line brought by Mr. Baguirov does not exist: for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear

Indeed here Layli's father is talking very weak. Also the word Ajami (non-Arab) does not translate to Persian necessary. It just means non-Arab for many cases. Here is a quote from Nizami to prove it:

ماه عربی به رخ نمودن ترک عجمی به دل ربودن

Where he talks about an Ajami-Turk after talking about the Arabic Moon.

So not only is translation wrong and Ajami does not necessarily mean Persian, and the verse after Ajami is not there, but Layli's father is not a positive character in the story. Whereas the verses composed by Nizami through the mouth of Alexandar and Shirvanshah are from two characters Nizami has very highly praised.

The following verse from the Eskandar Nama again shows that Nizami was familiar with the history books and the languages of Hebrew, Nestorian(Syriac or Armenian) and Pahlavi (middle Persian). Also Turkish is not mentioned.

سخنها که چون گنج آگنده بود به هر نسختی در پراکنده بود ز هر نسخه برداشتم مایه‌ها برو بستم از نظم پیرایه‌ها زیادت ز تاریخهای نوی یهودی و نصرانی و پهلوی

Translation (non-poetic and accurate): The words that were like abundant jewls, were dispered in many different manuscripts, from each manuscript I took the main themes In form of poetry I decorated them many(of the manuscripts) from the recent history Yahudi (Hebrew) and Nasrani (Nestorian probably Syriac or Greek or Armenian) and Pahlavi (Middle Persian)

So we are sure that Nizami was familiar with many languages and assuming that he knew Turkish (which is not proved), it doesn't make him Turkish. Just like him being familiar with Pahlavi (and Middle Persian dialects were still strong in the area for example the poetry of Baba Taher is in a Middle Persian dialect), it doesn't necessarily make his father a Pahlavi speaker.

Nizami was at least familiar with other languages beside Persian/Arabic including Hebrew, language used by Nestorians, middle Persian , perhaps Tabari and Bukhari (depending on how one reads that verse and both readings are probable). So familiarity with Turkish which is not proven by any verse does not make him into a Turk.

Mr. Baguirov talked about two unrelated matters. One was the Caliphs using Turkic soldiers against Babak Khorramdin (Buga the Turk) and this has nothing to do with Turkish settlements. The next one was the Huns. Mr. Baguirov said:In 576, a large number of Hun Sabirs, a Turkic people, were resettled into Ganja (Sakashena) (Byzantian historians, Moscow edition, pp. 411-412

Unfortunately the quote is not even direct! I might also add that using sources from 100 years ago like Marquar'ts Iranshahr will not help Mr. Baguirov unless updated by more modern references. Now about Ganja, the Encyclopedia Iranica has an extensive article [6] which has none of the information of Mr. Baguirov and no where is the city called the name Mr. Baguirov references, but it is called Arshakashee. Also considering the fact that the area was under the Sassanid control of King Anoshiravan. Indeed the area was under Iranian control for long time: Perhaps Medes, Definitely Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids.. and then it went to the Arab Caliphates. Also the Huns incursions were beaten by Sassanids later on. Incursion does not mean ethnicity just like Khazar, Russian, Roman invasions of Iran or Caucus does not mean such a group was there and settled in large. As per Balasagaan, I refer to the Encyclopedia Iranica where the Hun theory of one ruler being a Hun is in serious doubt. [7]

As per Huns, the Encyclopedia Iranica has an excellent article[8] and the few Hunnis Sabir military detachments were settled in Byzantium Armenia and the Huns were a mixed group of nomadic people and they were just few military warriors who were assimilated in the larger population and there is no mention of Huns by any Islamic Geographer.

Indeed in Islamic times, Al-Baladhuri has mentioned the Kurds of Balasagaan, but nothing about Turkic people there. Also again I will reaffirm that the Arab and Muslim geographers of 10th century have clearly mentioned the languages spoken in the area and Oghuz Turkic was not one of them. If Ganja was taken by the Seljuqs around 1075 A.D. from the Shaddadid Kurds, and if we do not accept the Qom theory (which is a good amount of books at least 400 old and some manuscripts), then Mua'yyad (Nizami's great Grandfagher) came from the time that Ganja was under Kurdish rule. And these Kurdish rulers fought and defeated Oghuz incursions from Khorasan during the time of Qatran Tabrizi and they were totally alien to the area as proven by the poetry of Qatran Tabrizi (who is by the way the founder of what scholars call "Azarbaijani style of poetry" (Rypka, same article).

Also a funny quote by Mr. Baguirov: (and considering the politicizing of this issue and violent reaction from Persian chauvinists, it is easy to see why no one in the West, not to mention Iran, would dare to call Nizami as an Azerbaijani Turk. Indeed can anyone that claims to be scholarly make such an absurd claim? There was no Stalin in the West as far as I know! Iranians have many great poets and talents in Persian and other Iranian languages and they are not the least violent when it comes to this matter. That is why no Iranian book deletes references to Armenians like Azarbaijani books did! For example the Gathas of Zoroaster which is in a pure Iranian language, Cyrus the Great, Hafez, Ferdowsi, Sa'adi,Rumi, Sanaii, Attar, Nizami, Khajeh Abdallah Ansari.. (There is a book about 10000+ poets). There is news that the Azerbaijani republic has destroyed some Armenian graves and Katchars and monuments. You never or very rarely(maybe some crazy ultranationalist whom I do not know) see an Iranian say Fizuli or Nasimi or some Turkish poet, was not a Turk. Also Iranians today speak and read the language of Nizami Ganjavi (who himself admits that he is alive through his poetry hence the Persian language).

Iranians never claim that the Oghuz tribes were Iranian (although Kashghari mentions that the Oghuz heavily mixed with Iranians). The fact of the matter is that there is not a figure in the stature of Nizami Ganjavi or Khaghani from the republic of Azerbaijan and both of these do not have anything to do with the current language of the republic of Azerbaijan and its Turkic culture. Also Mr. Baguirov has no right to tell us not to study them since not only are they universal figures, but they wrote in our language and produced our culture and did not do anything for Turkic culture. Mr. Baguirov claims Armenians paid Kapustin to write about Nizami! He claims that the scientists of the Western world are scared! He claims Nizami was scared of the Shirvanshah or needed Money and that is why he praised him yet he was angry at him! As you can see the matter of Nizami's father having any relation with an Oghuz Turk has become religious for some groups and weired conspiracies abount. The fact is that for the overwhelming majority of Persian literature and Iranian scientists of the Western World, the primary importance is Nizami and Nizami is great because of the Persian language and style he created and because of his contribution to Persian culture. If he was half Turkic( Mr. Baguirov believes it 110%), then Western scholars would not be afraid! Just like Alexanders Macedonian heritage is being debated while Nizami is not yet a major figure in the West like Khayyam, Rumi, Sa'adi to even bring about such consideration. Also just like Greeks and Armenians can claim current Greek and Armenian scientists of modern Anatolia, Iranians can also do the same, since it is part of their cultural heritage. Just like for example the Orkhon inscription can be considered part of the culture of modern Azerbaijani Turkic group of the caucus although it is in Mongolia. But it is the oldest found inscription of Turkic language.

The fact of the matter is Nizami contributed to Persian culture and language. Virtually all the major characters of his poetry are either Iranian or have Iranian names and none of them has Turkic names except the few Seljuqid Sultans he mentions. For example the information Nizami gives about the Persian mode of music in Barbads court shows awesome familiarity with Sassanid music and he names 30 pure Persian modes of music. Three of his works are continuation and expansion of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh (whom he has praised), whereas he didn't praise any Turkic poet or writer. He didn't write anything Oghuz folklore. He praised the Sassanid dynasties extensively(two of his works is about the Sassanid Iranian folklore) and developed Iranian and Islamic folklore. His mother was Iranian and his father was more than likely Iranian judging from the culture he has produced. It is doubtful that Oghuz Turks at the time who were new immigrants (they took over Ganja in around 1075 A.D.) were capable of producing such culture. Else there would be a Western Turkic Mahmud Kashghari at the time, which there was none. Indeed we can safely say that Nizami's great grandfather lived in the time of the Shaddadid Kurds whose capital was Ganjah. He praises not only Shirvanshah and Alexander and composes some negative poetry about Turks from them, but he praises Ferdowsi and Sanai both who had some harsh poems about Turks (as well poems describing Turks (and these were mongloid Turks) as beauty). Note Ferdowsi praises several Turkic (although originally Turanian and not related to Turks, but at that time Turks replaced Turanians) characters in the Shahnameh as well like Piran and even sometimes Afrasiyaab (although mainly negative but there is a couple verses). Indeed any argument Mr. Baguirov makes about Turks can be found in any Iranian poet. (Praise of Turks outer attractiveness, praise of some Seljuqs and Atabeks (S'adi, Hafez), belittlement of Turkis Bi-Vafaii, comparison of Turk/Hindu, Turk/Black, Roman/Black as symbolism,..).

After all this, I was willing to compromise and say Nizami's heritage is shared by Afghanistan,Azerbaijan,Iran,Kurds and Tajikistan (which is true). But unfortunately for some people, it is a matter of religion and they can not live in a world that Nizami's father might not be a Turk, something no Western scholars nor Nizami has mentioned and there is no evidence to suggest such a theory. --Ali doostzadeh 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On Ali Doostzadeh's mistakes, small and not so

I) It is nice to have Mr. Doostzadeh sweep through the Internet in an urge to find any compromising materials, and allege that I’ve made a mistake about Nizami’s wife. For a matter of clarification, that webpage was created in 1996, as it should clearly say in its footer (and Mr. Doostzadeh can check with his backup graphic and HTML page that he saved just in case), and was written by an anonymous author in a newspaper – unfortunately I haven’t saved the copy of the article after I simply put it online. If I myself author something, I put my name on it -- whilst in this case it does not say that I authored it and thus is a pretty good indication that it’s not my work. Plus, being a translated article, it is easy to notice that the English language used is quite simple [and I left it that way, w/o any changes], and perhaps some words fell out. In any case, I’d like to thank Mr. Doostzadeh for spotting this (possible) negligence of the original author, I will note in square parenthesis that Afak/Appaq was not the only wife, but first out of three, as I have maintained many times, including here at Wiki, 10 years after the page’s creation. Taking this into account, I would like to invite Mr. Doostzadeh to review all other pages of the website as well while he is at it – double-checking and proofreading is always welcomed.

Also, we should not forget, that unlike the newspaper article’s author who wrote it 10 years ago, Mr. Doostzadeh just recently claimed here that Afak/Appaq was Nizami’s third wife, on the top of all other mistakes and insults he made. I think it is far more worrisome that he himself does such a mistake today than some anonymous author 10 years ago, and I hope to see one day an apology from Mr. Doostzadeh for first making that mistake, and second denying he ever did, and third, alleging that I have “lied” for mentioning about his mistake until I reposted it again to prove his wrong. That would be fair, wouldn’t it?

II) On Marietta Shaginyan it is unclear what Mr. Doostzadeh was trying to achieve in his research on her – if he wants to assassinate her character, like he attempts with anyone who contravenes him, then it obviously didn’t succeed, as everything I’ve stated on/from her is still very much valid and more. I’ve warned that it would not be in the best interests of anyone to try to downgrade this woman (or anyone other solid scholar and researcher I’ve brought on so far for that matter) and her knowledge of Nizami and otherwise scholarly credentials, yet since such attempts persist, I will spare no effort to invalidate them again and again:

1) M.Shaginyan is the #1 Armenian poetess of the 20th century -- there is no exceptions, exclusions or disclaimers – she was not “one of the top”, but “the top” Armenian poetess. Thus for her knowledge and understanding of poetry she gets a perfect mark (which is 5 in USSR, 4 in USA). She was one of the favorite poetesses of Mikhail Gorbachev, by the way.

2) Her education was impeccable by the time – in 1912 she graduated from the History-Philosophical Faculty of the Higher Women’s Courses institute in Gerye, before that she studied in a top Gymnasium for women in Moscow. In 1913 she published her famous book, Orientalia, which became one in dozens of books she wrote. In 1946 she got her Doctorate in Philology, since 1950 she was a Corresponding Member of the Armenian Academy of Sciences – which is one step below a full rank of the Academician – the top scientific honor and rank in the Soviet Unioni (this info is from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/SH/SHAGINYAN_Marietta_Sergeevna/_Shaginyan_M._S..html) She spoke Farsi, English, German and French, along with Russian, Armenian and some Azerbaijani (http://www.ronl.ru/ritorika/18608.htm). One of her specialties, aside from writing about Caucasus and Orient, was also German writer Gete – who was a big and one of the earliest Nizami-enthusiasts in the West, and whose opinion on Nizami she cites many times in her book. Thus, for her education she also gets a top mark of 5 (or 4 in USA). Anyhow, she is many heads above the funnyman Kapustin, who indeed had zero credentials in Oriental studies or history and even poetry at all (Kapustin is a writer, not a poet and scholar), whom some people like Mr. Doostzadeh like to resurrect from the ashes in their frantic search for any opposition to the views of the great scholars and researchers.

3) Due to her publication of a book about Lenin, in which she uncovered his ethnic roots, it created a firestorm and Stalin personally (!) was greatly displeased. In a special (!) Politburo decree of 5 August 1936, she and her book was severely criticized, and the book banned. So what did displease Stalin in her book? That she uncovered – with full support of Lenin’s widow, Mrs. Krupskaya – that Lenin’s grandfather had Kalmyk (Turkic) blood. Anyways, during the “thaw”, in 1956, that 1936 decree was annulled and the book was allowed (see http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/shaginan.html). Thus, aside for showing that Stalin’s bias was never pro-Azerbaijani and always against anything Turkic (after all, having the founder of USSR being some 25% Turkic was deemed as blasphemous by Stalin), it also shows once more that Stalin could not have ordered or otherwise influence Shaginyan to write smth positive about Nizami being an Azerbaijani poet.

4) Nevertheless, she was not considered a friend of Azerbaijan, and, while fully acknowledging her talents and liking her works, it is doubtful that even one Azerbaijani would consider her unbiased. Which makes her book on Nizami, which she first published in 1955, i.e., two years after Stalin’s death, and rep-published again in 1981, just a year before her own death, so much more precious and important. What is more important, is that he book is fact-based, well researched and cited, with a wealth of bibliography and very coherent. Thus, for her conviction and dedication – she did not change her views on Nizami from at least 1940s until her death despite ample pressure from some Armenian circles – she again gets top marks. Of course, so do the Azerbaijani people, who are discerning readers and can have a fair judgment on any person – even if they consider someone biased and unfair, they still acknowledge their talents and fame, and can still quote her and otherwise refer to her.

5) She did a marvelous translation of Nizami’s first epic of the “Treasure of Mysteries” into Russian in the 1940s and 1950s. Her first book with selected poems from the Treasure of Mysteries, along with comments and introduction, was in 1942 (http://1945.bookchamber.ru/description161321.htm). I have used her translation of several verses in my article and on Wikipedia, and that translation is still used in Russia and Azerbaijan, along with other ex-USSR republics. For her lasting contribution and good translation, which is now time-tested, she also gets a top mark.

Henceforth, all attacks on her educational and scholarly credentials, not to mention poetic one’s, are without any merit and reveal the character and knowledge of her assailant.

Let’s not forget that Dr. Meisami, Dr. Talattof along with pretty much everyone else Mr. Doostzadeh cites, are Iranian (Persian), whilst I have hardly cited anyone Azerbaijani – despite the fact that I have plenty of them to cite. Instead, I’ve limited myself to such giants of Oriental studies in the Western and European space, to which Russia and Ukraine clearly belong, and partially does Caucasus, as prof. Bertels, academicians Krachkovskiy, Krimskiy, as well as Dr. Shaginyan, French prof. Charmoy, Czech prof. Rypka et al. In my article, I go on to cite both Talattof (whom Mr. Doostzadeh didn’t seem to know before our encounter) and Meisami, along with other Iranian scholars and publications.

Thus, as I have proven beyond any doubt in my previous posts – and have done so once more right now – Stalin’s influence or otherwise Communist/Soviet falsifications have not affected Nizami studies in any way and have not tilted scholarship in favor of Azerbaijan (see my previous posts in Archive 1 and Archive 2 for more details). However, what Mr. Doostzadeh tries to avoid is my counter-question about the legitimacy of bringing any Iranian sources – not only are they inherently biased in terms of Nizami’s ethnicity and nationality, but they are all from either undemocratic and indeed totalitarian Shah Pehlevi’s regime (for which Iranian people overthrew him) or, even worse, from the mullah totalitarian regime that has been repressing Iranians since 1979 and, as prof. Talattof’s book I’ve cited says, has been tainting scholarship by “ideologically motivated” editors, which is an academic and diplomatic way of saying they engaged in falsifications. It doesn’t matter if they did it for religious purposes – trying to use Nizami to justify the mullah regime – or for other reasons – bias is still bias, and is still unscholarly.

Thus, M.Shaginyan’s book MUST be cited in Nizami’s Bibliography subsection of his page on Wikipedia (and I have the whole book in my possession, so scans of any pages or even whole book is not a big problem) and so MUST be the relevant quotes from her book. She is more unbiased and scholarly than most Iranian authors, especially from Iran itself (where they are pressured and can get published only with government permission and approval, with censorship affecting all books unlike in USSR), and at the very least on the par with Meisami, who has also done a poetic translation of Nizami’s epic into a foreign language and whose research on biography of Nizami pales in comparison with the massive research carried out by Shaginyan.

III) Then Mr. Doostzadeh makes yet another unwarranted and groundless attack on me, which is actually so full of irony – I will show why. Here’s what he writes, also quoting me:

BEGIN QUOTE

Also Mr. Baguirov mentioned a verse from Lili O Majnoon about Persian and Arab in a certain English to English translation. Mr. Baguirov said: I reluctantly want to remind Mr. Doostzadeh’s of this quote from Leyla and Majnun (which Nizami’s wrote per request of Persian or Persianized Arab Shirvanshah Akhsitan I) spoken by Leyla’s father: “Reproach has now fallen upon me and it has dared to insult me, calling me Persian: that, I disregard, for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear.” (poetic translation into English by Paul Smith, based on 1945 literal translation of G.H.Darab, London, “Layla and Majnun”, p. 117) I did a extensive search on the words: Parsi, Farsi, Pars, Fars, Ajam, Ajami and did not find such a verse. But the following verse is found when Layli's father addresses Noufal and even offering her daughter to the cruel Noufal's tribe and asking her to kill her if he wishes.. کای در عرب از بزرگواری در خورد سری و تاجداری مجروحم و پیر و دل شکسته دور از تو به روز بد نشسته در سرزنش عرب فتاده خود را عجمی لقب نهاده این خون که ز شرح بیش بینم در کردن بخت خویش بینم خواهم که در این گناهکاری سیماب شوم ز شرمساری گر دخت مرا بیاوری پیش بخشی به کمینه بنده خویش راضی شوم و سپاس دارم وز حکم تو سر برون نیارم The verse in question from Layli's father (who is cruel and bad character unlike Shirvanshah and Alexandar) is: Dar sarzanesh Arab fetaadeh Khod raa Ajami laghab nahaadeh Which translates to: I came to give belittling advice to Arabs And have called myself Ajami (non-Arab) Then next line brought by Mr. Baguirov does not exist: for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear Indeed here Layli's father is talking very weak. Also the word Ajami (non-Arab) does not translate to Persian necessary. It just means non-Arab for many cases. Here is a quote from Nizami to prove it: ماه عربی به رخ نمودن ترک عجمی به دل ربودن Where he talks about an Ajami-Turk after talking about the Arabic Moon. So not only is translation wrong and Ajami does not necessarily mean Persian, and the verse after Ajami is not there, but Layli's father is not a positive character in the story. Whereas the verses composed by Nizami through the mouth of Alexandar and Shirvanshah are from two characters Nizami has very highly praised.

END QUOTE

What Mr. Doostzadeh is missing again, is that all I did is simply quote from the English-language (!) source! Moreover, that literal translation into English was done by none other than a fellow Persian, whom Mr. Doostzadeh holds in high respect – G.H. Darab – and then rendered into a poetic form by a Western researcher and poet, Paul Smith. I’ve even clearly indicated that, by providing a citation even with a page number! Yet, Mr. Doostzadeh in his blind rage still prefers to slam and insult me, and blame for every trouble that he has – even though I am just the messenger, and have quoted a respected ethnic Persian translator who wrote his book in English.

I want to note again – this is not my translation into English but Dr. Darab’s, who was Persian and unlike Mr. Doostzadeh, was a professional translator and a professor in London. Hence, unless Mr. Doostzadeh now wants to accuse his fellow compatriot G.H.Darab of bias and falsifications and wrong translations, the quote I provided very much stands and is a valid, correct translation by an ethnic Persian scholar, and Mr. Doostzadeh cannot make irrelevant claims about Soviet bias and chase Stalin’s ghost. Thus, it shows that Mr. Doostzadeh’s own books and sources are biased and incorrect, which is partly due to what I said all along – he is not using the academic editions, but selective versions under the editorship of those Iranina writers whom Dr. Talattof calls “ideologically-motivated”.

In other words, unintentionally for his cause, Mr. Doostzadeh showed that censorship is alive and well in Iran, and that all negative and “critical” verses and lines are eliminated by the mullahs. This is very unfortunate that they would go as far as deleting the line the didn’t like. This is the latest example of what Dr. Talattof wrote about – ideologically-motivated Iranian editors of Nizami’s works. And shows how correct academician Marr was in the 1930s when so many prominent Iranians (Persians) gave him the impression of disliking Nizami, and Said Nafisi openly acknowledging it at true for Persian intelligentsia.

As of “Ajami” – by the 12th century it mostly meant Iranians or Persians, and that’s how it is mostly translated. For example, in Arabic, Ahl-ul-Ajam means Iranian people/nation, and “Ajam” in general meant Iran in Nizami’s poetry. Although Ajami does have sometimes a meaning of “non-Arab”, as some other meanings, it depends on time of the writings and the context, and I let professional translators make the determination. In this case they (G.H.Darab) translated it as Persian. Mr. Doostzadeh is no professional translator – he is completely confused about the 12th century Farsi-e Dari and makes embarrassing mistakes such as about at-Tabari and al-Bukhari as “Tabari” and “Bukhari” accents of the Farsi, or in other instances.

Mr. Doostzadeh is himself confused and is disproving his own attempts, since “Ajami-Turk” in Nizami’s poetry cannot mean “non-Arab Turk”, as that would be absurd, but means a Turk from Iran. Good to know about this acknowledgement about Turkic people in Iran from before and during Nizami times – why not add it to the quotes in Wiki page?

By the way, similarly, Nizami uses the terms Tork-e Chin, Tork-e Khotan, Tork-e Hallah, Tork-e Chigil, Turkman, Khirkhiz, etc.

In fact, the Encyclopedia Iranica that Mr. Doostzadeh holds in high regard says the following in a relevant article of its most recent edition (Ajam, p. 700): “Ajam, the name given in medieval Arabic literature to the non-Arabs of the Islamic empire, but applied especially to the Persians”. Note that Nizami’s poetry was neither “Arabic literature”, nor did he live in an Arab “Islamic empire” (although Turk Seljuks did reside in Baghdad and ruled the caliphate, much like later did the Ottomans). Thus, even Arabs themselves “applied [Ajam] especially to the Persians”.

This article in Iranica continues: “[a]nd the Persians had achieved a position of power in the Islamic world comparable to their numbers and capabilities, “’Ajam’” became a simple ethnic and geographical designation; hence in geographical literature of the Saljuq period and after we find Mesopotamia referred to as ‘Eraq ‘Arabi, in contrast to the northwest Persia or Jebal, the ancient Media, called ‘Eraq ‘Ajami.” So there you go, Iranica clearly spells out that by the Seljuk period – that is, when Nizami lived – Ajami mostly meant Persian and Ajam mostly meant Iran/Persia. Thus, Mr. Doostzadeh is wrong again in his protests.

IV) In his another example of bias and unqualified credentials as a translator of 12th century Dari, Mr. Doostzadeh makes the following allegations (his quotes follow):

= BEGIN QUOTE

The following verse from the Eskandar Nama again shows that Nizami was familiar with the history books and the languages of Hebrew, Nestorian(Syriac or Armenian) and Pahlavi (middle Persian). Also Turkish is not mentioned. سخنها که چون گنج آگنده بود به هر نسختی در پراکنده بود ز هر نسخه برداشتم مایهها برو بستم از نظم پیرایهها زیادت ز تاریخهای نوی یهودی و نصرانی و پهلوی Translation (non-poetic and accurate): The words that were like abundant jewls, were dispered in many different manuscripts, from each manuscript I took the main themes In form of poetry I decorated them many(of the manuscripts) from the recent history Yahudi (Hebrew) and Nasrani (Nestorian probably Syriac or Greek or Armenian) and Pahlavi (Middle Persian) So we are sure that Nizami was familiar with many languages and assuming that he knew Turkish (which is not proved), it doesn't make him Turkish. Just like him being familiar with Pahlavi (and Middle Persian dialects were still strong in the area for example the poetry of Baba Taher is in a Middle Persian dialect), it doesn't necessarily make his father a Pahlavi speaker. Nizami was at least familiar with other languages beside Persian/Arabic including Hebrew, language used by Nestorians, middle Persian , perhaps Tabari and Bukhari (depending on how one reads that verse and both readings are probable). So familiarity with Turkish which is not proven by any verse does not make him into a Turk.

= END QUOTE

Where do we begin? Well, first of all, no one said that since Nizami knew Turki, he was a Turk. Instead, I’ve provided quotes from himself, where he says he is a Turk, along with evidence from scholars who all say that Afak/Appaq, who was Turkic Kipchak, was uneducated and that meant she didn’t speak any other language but her native Turki. Thus, Nizami had to speak with her in some language, didn’t he? Finally, Ganja, along with all other citied of Azerbaijan (both North and South) had huge Turkic population and was ruled by Turkic dynasty of Atabeks, and in general, it was a Turkic Seljuk Empire. Trying to deny that Turki was a common language in the area at the time of Nizami is absurd and contrary to evidence.

Secondly, my own opinion of the quote I’ve already provided: “In Arabic I read everything and in Dari, The book of Bukhari I read, [as well as] the book of Tabari” (this verse, which was also included in Farsi in the Wiki Archives, is from Haft Paykar/Seven Beauties). Why on Earth would a supposed “Persian” or any Iranian boast about conducting research in his “native” Farsi-e Dari? Why put “native” Persian language on the same line with clearly foreign Arabic (all this despite the fact that Nizami obviously had excellent proficiency in many languages)? It does not make sense – it’s the same as Shakespeare writing that he conducted his research in old French and his own native …. Old English.

Thirdly, as Mr. Doostzadeh has correctly stated and hinted many times, there was very little literature in Turki in Nizami’s times – it certainly paled in comparison to literature in Arabic, Greek, Aramaic, Persian, etc. Hence, it is not surprising that Nizami did not state that he conducted research in Turki – even centuries later another great Azerbaijani poet Fuzuli complained about lack of literature in Turki, etc. Of course, Nizami himself complained in Haft Paykar about not appreciating his Turkishness, and in Leili and Majnun about Shirvanshah specifically asking not to write anything in Turki, but in either Arabic or Farsi.

Fourthly, Mr. Doostzadeh did an excellent job on several occasions in emphasizing that the ethnic Turkic rulers and nobility were culturally Persianizing (and before that Arabizing), and sometimes were even ashamed or otherwise uncomfortable with calling themselves Turkic. Indeed, sometimes some Turkic people, like Kipchaks, Huns, Pechenegs, Uyghurs, Tatars, etc., tried not to called themselves “Turk” and insisted on their own names/identity, thus leaving the common name “Turk” mostly for Oghuz Turks and few others.

Because of this, those Turkic rulers, like Ghaznavis or Atabeks or Seljuks, were not interested in Turkic history per se, they were interested in the “great kings” that were before them – which in their limited worldview were only either Arab caliphs or Iranian shahs or some mythical rulers. It was impossible for the likes of Nizami to want to write – and for the likes of Sultan Togrul II or Atabek Jahan Pahlevan or Sultan Mahmoud to request – about Attila, or mythical Queen Tomris or to be compared to Oghuz Kagan. This was all associated with “nomadic” Turkic culture which was deemed inferior to the “great” and “civilized” Iranian or Arab (semi-) sedentary cultures. Those Turkic rulers obviously wanted to be the greatest and wanted to be compared to their great predecessors – ethnicity at the time didn’t even exist per se, there was only tribal, religious and maybe national-state affiliation/allegiance. This is where the advantage of a sedentary culture glowed best – unlike nomadic cultures, they had not only rich oral tradition and history-telling, but writing. And all those Turkic rulers, like many others before them, instantly wanted to live in those great palaces with beautiful manuscripts encrusted with expensive stones and miniatures about their “achievements” and their great life. Poetry of the time is full of unimaginable epithets about some provincial ruler being brighter than sun and glowing at night greater than the moon, being the ruler of the universe, etc., -- who really believed this pathetic stuff? Probably no one, but still, people enjoyed it then – and still enjoy it now.

This is by the way also important in the context of how Nizami redefined the view of Turks in Persian-language literature – before him, Turks, being feared by Persians, were described by mainly ethnic Persian and Tajik poets as cruel plunderers, but after Nizami it became symbol of beauty, courage and unstoppable or otherwise impossible to resist attack/charge. When “Torktaz” or “Torktazi” terms were used, including for names of his heroes, it was not in the strict military and negative “Turkic plundering” definition of Firdowsi et al, but in context either a sudden, out of the blue incursion, or of love and even sexual, as an “incursion” (e.g., see Turktaz begging Turknaz, or Bishr seeing a beautiful woman in “Seven Beauties”).

It would be interesting to hear thoughts about Nizami’s usage of the “Torkan-e galam” term – that is, “writing Turks”, “Turkic authors/writers” – whom are briefly mentioned, as ethnic Turks did not dominate the writing guild at the time nor was there much literature in Turki using Arabic script.

Fifth, there was never a “Nestorian language” per se, although sometimes some mistake what was clearly a religious movement for the one common name of the Syriac/Aramaic/Assyrian language(s). Yet more importantly, “Nestorian” surely could not have meant “Armenian” as they lived fairly compactly and had a pretty good following of their own Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) Church since 301/314 AD and in fact, Armenians were devout Monophysites – whilst Nestorianism is all about Duophysite doctrine (like Georgians – thus Georgians have far more possibility of being Nestorians than Armenians). “Nestorians” were generally referred to and understood to be either Greeks or Syrians/Assyrians (like John Nestorius himself, who was probably Greek, but not Assyrian and did not know Syriac language). Of course, it is possible that 1% of Nestorians were even aborigens of Australia or native Americans or Armenians, but this is not a serious preposition.

In the non-poetic literal translation of prof. Bertels, made from an ACADEMIC edition of Nizami’s epic (unlike whatever Mr. Doostzadeh is using), it was: “Aside from newest histories (I also studied books/manuscripts) Jewish, Christian and Pehlevi, Choosing from each book/manuscript what was the most precious in it. From each shell I extracted/chose its grain. Language/theme after language/theme I collected/assembled treasure, And from all of this built one whole” (in Russian: Кроме новейших историй (я изучал и книги) Еврейские, христианские и пехлевийские, Выбирая из каждой книги то, что было в ней драгоценным. Из каждой скорлупы вынимал ее зернышко. Язык за языком я собирал сокровище И из всего этого построил целое. (Искендернаме, ч. 1, подстр. пер. Е. Бертельса, стр. 71)).

Thus, the translation is somewhat different from Mr. Doostzadeh’s. And since “Nestorian” could not have been understood as a “language” in this verse, but only as “people, culture, books, script”, and Yahudi can be understood even today as either Hebrew (language) or Jewish (culture, nation, people, books, script), Mr. Doostzadeh’s translation is incorrect. Ironically, in fact, Wikipedia’s own page, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yahudi, says: “Yahudi – Jews, Judaism, Hebrews” – it doesn’t even allow for primary understanding of Yahudi as a “langauge”. Similarly, “Pahlavi” must have meant not the language per se, but the script or otherwise Iranian books. Thus, we get a supposedly “native ethnic Persian” boasting for the second time about knowing “his” old script, which was kind of a norm for an educated Persian anyway. Thus, it is an additional proof of Nizami not being and not feeling himself as not only ethnic Persian, but Iranian.

V) On Ganja and Turkic population in Azerbaijan (North and South), a lot of sources and information was provided, and I am glad that Mr. Doostzadeh has found out about the massive settlement of Turkic Hun Sabirs in Byzantin Armenia – thus himself disproving his own latest attempts at arguing that even if there were Turkic people in the region long before Nizami, they were simply “warriors” and were only doing “incursions”, not actually living, making families, mixing with other people.

Otherwise, the Iranica article omits to cite the massive amount of Russian-language scholarship on Huns, Sabirs, and other Turkic settlements in the Caucasus and Iran long before Nizami – which is strange, after all, the only nation with access to archeological and other artifacts crucial for scholarly study of those tribes, peoples, and that part of history, were Russians, Soviets, and in general people who were part of Soviet Union. No Western or Iranian researcher (the latter had hard time researching their own country, much less try to venture out beyond their borders) could have conducted this research – hence it is strange, to say the least, to see such notable omission from E. Iranica. I repeat, no serious scholar can avoid massive amount of world-class Russian-language scholarship on this and other regional matters – that is, if they are serious academics. But if they are biased and want everything to fit their prejudiced view, the of course it is understandable.

VI) However, I am glad that Mr. Doostzadeh trusts E. Irannica, because in the very page he cites, about Ganja, it clearly states and shows that the state in which Nizami was born, lived and died, was the Atabek of Azerbaijan state: “It thus came under Saljuq control and, in the later 6th/12th century under that of the Atabeg line of Ildegizids (see ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚZòARBAÚYJAÚN)….. The new town became the focus of a great period of efflorescence, seen in the laudatory verses quoted by Mostawf^ (Nozhat al-qolu@b, pp. 91-92) and its nurturing of the great poet Nezáa@m^ Ganjav^.”

Just as Iranica refers us, we go to page 890 for the “Atabakan-e Adarbayjan” article: “Atabakan-e Adarbayjan, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arran and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Atabaks” (atabakan-e a’zam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), the effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181, in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arran and Azerbaijan…” This is what I have been writing all along and in line with every Soviet and Russian-language source I’ve cited. Hence, since there are no objections now, I will edit Nizami’s page to reflect this important fact, that not only was he born and lived and died in a Seljuk Empire, but as part of that empire, his country was called the Atabek’s of Azerbaijan State – which was not just some principality, but actually ruled the entire Seljuk Empire (and they did so longer than E.Iranica admits – e.g., the Great Atabek Jahan Pahlivan Ildeniz died in 1186, not arbitrary-chosen date of 1181, whilst actually INCREASING his domain and being FULLY in control of the Seljuk Sultan, Togrul III by the time of his death).

VII) I don’t know why Bosworth says that Ganja was taken by Seljuks only in 1075 – Sultan Togrul I took Tebriz in 1050s I think, and in 1054 went to Ganja, where its ruler, Shavir, agreed to become his vassal. It’s true that Shaddid ruler Fadlun III periodically tried to be independent, but Sultan Malik Shah put an end to this by sending Turk general Bugay and capturing Fadlun. It should be noted that Shaddids ruled for about 100 years – thus, one should not present it as if Ganja was always theirs and they were ruling it from times immemorial. They were just another dynasty and the last of Iranian origin – from there on, Ganja was firmly ruled by successive Turkic dynasties. From there on Ganja was firmly ruled by Turks – in fact, Sultan Malik Shah put his own son Giyas ad-Din Tapar in charge of Ganja, which long remained one of the seats of the Seljuk. The very same Giyas ad-Din Tapar became a Seljuk Sultan after his father and ruled from 1105 to 1117. That’s the time of Nizami’s parents being born.

VIII) On Qatran Tabrizi, who was a Ganja poet originally from Tebriz, and who also lived in Naxcivan, whom Mr. Doostzadeh mentioned – here’s what H.B.Paksoy, top Western scholar on Turkic epos’, among which is his study of Dede Korkut, translated into English (one relevant verse from Qatran): “Speaking of these Oghuz, the great poet of the eleventh century, Getran Tebrizi Emir Shamsaddin [1012-1088]d wrote:e

These Turks arriving from Turkistan Accepted you as their ruler Separated from their relatives and relations Began living under your rule Now they are everywhere Prepared to serve you”

(from: Getran Tebrizi, Divan (Tabriz, 1333 [1916/1917]) p. 5 [in Perso-Arabic script], as printed in: H. B. Paksoy, Ed. CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery of History (New York/London: M. E. Sharpe, 1994) 201 Pp. + Index. ISBN 1-56324-201-X (Hardcover); ISBN 1-56324-202-8 (pbk.) LC CIP DK857.C45 1993 958-dc20], http://aton.ttu.edu/Introduction_to_DEDE_KORKUT.asp)

I have at least two more verses where Qatran writes about Turkic beauty, including one specifically about a Turkic beauty in Ganja.

So here once more Mr. Doostzadeh seems to be confused – he brings up the name of this great Azerbaijani poet in Persian language literature (and indeed, perhaps Getran was of Iranian origin), who clearly is well aware of Turkic presence in Azerbaijan (both North and South), and in fact writes about Turks “everywhere” in 11th century Ganja – Naxcivan – Tebriz. And of course he means the Oghuz Turks – not Turkic people in general.

Interesting, that aside from poetry, Qatran also wrote a dictionary, “Loghat-e Gatran”, which later became to be known as “Tafasir fi lughatil-furs”. Yet here’s what one source wrote of him: “Nasir-i-Khosrov, a well-known Persian poet, and contemporary of Qatran Tabrizi write about him in his Safar-nameh: "In Tabriz I met a poet named Qatran. He wrote good poetry, but did not know Persian well. He came to me bringing the Divans of Manjik and Daqiqi (Persian medieval poets), which he read with me questioning me about every passage in which he found difficulty. Then I explained and he write down the explanation. He also recited to me some of his own poems".” (http://literature.aznet.org/literature/qtabrizi/qtabrizi_en.htm)

IX) There are many references and instances about plagiarism, falsifications and other bias in Iranian scholarship, as already cited e.g., from Prof. Talattof, hence Mr. Doostzadeh should not try to engage into a mud slinging contest. Similarly, there are many instances of far more credible Armenian destructions of Azerbajani memorials in Karabakh and other Azerbaijani lands and falsifications of history, which became even a famous joke/anecdote in USSR. It sounds as crocodile tears of Armenian government propaganda – one should ask instead, where are all the Azerbaijani mosques in Yerevan? Many have been destroyed (!) whilst others have changed names into “Turkmen” mosques just in time for Turkmenbashi’s visit there. Meanwhile, Armenian churches in various parts of Azerbaijan, including one in downtown Baku, are preserved and protected from vandalism.

In fact, Armenian government propaganda and their lobbyists are sometimes manufacturing stories about “bad Azerbaijanis” themselves for propaganda purposes and here’s some interesting facts, from an Armenian (!) newspaper, in English, with all the photos, showing how Armenians themselves have been destroying their own (!) historical heritage, with no one to blame: http://hetq.am/eng/society/0604-tapan.html I repeat -- this is from an authoritative and independent Armenian source – Hetq Online, from Armenia itself, story filed April 10, 2006, by Edik Baghdasaryan!

For relevant articles from unbiased sources like famous Russian-Soviet Academician B.B. Piotrovsky, the top expert on the history of Urartu, about highly primitive and outrageous Armenian scholars’ falsifications on Urartu supposedly being a proto-Armenian state and even some Dr. Suren Ayvazyan reading an Atabek coin, which was inscribed in Arabic, not from right to left, but in Armenian (!?) from left to right – that even generated a letter of outrage from academician Piotrovsky (whose wife was Armenian, by the way), printed in the Armenian Academy of Sciences journal in 1971 (full citation in Russian: Б.Б.Пиотровский «Письмо в редакцию» Историко-филологический журнал 1971 № 3 с.302-303). I have the relevant text in my possession in case needed.

Also, late in 19th century, the greatest – at the time – Georgian poet, publicist and writer, count Ilya Chavchavadze wrote an excellent book (which in 1902 was translated into Russian and published again in Tiflis), which he entitled: “Armenian scholars/scientists and shouting stones”. The book was about wholesale falsifications of Armenian scholars about Georgian history, pilfering from their churches, misinformation to foreign travelers and visitors, etc. The “shouting stones” in the title of the book denoted the stones from Georgian churches and cemeteries that were stolen by Armenians and after some modifications presented as Armenian. I have that book also in my possession, in original old Russian script. Similarly, a Russian ethnographer of the Caucasus, V.L.Velichko, writing on behalf of Russian czar in 1897-1903, cited both Chavchavadze and brought in additional facts of falsifications and unscholarly actions. I have this book in my possession as well, also in original old Russian script. Or just recently, in 1997-98, another Armenian researcher, P.M.Geruni, went further: he claimed that 200 km from Yerevan near the Sisian mountains there is an “ancient Armenian observatory”, which he dated at – prepare yourselves – 5,000 BC – yes, that’s right, five thousand BC! Here’s the full citation in Russian to this wonder of scholarship, in case you want to laugh: П.М.Геруни «Карахундж или Караниш - древнейшая обсерватория в Армении» // IV съезд астрономического общества 19-29 ноября 1997 г. М.1998. с.350-363.

Thus, I have shown a long string of unscholarly actions, falsifications and bias among a variety of Armenian historians throughout the entire 20th century and starting out at least in 19th century. Can anyone accuse of Azerbaijanis the same? Nope, even G.Bournoutian, whom I mentioned before, himself admits that, in his opinion, all Azerbaijani books until 1960s or so were OK and truthful, and then just turned “bad” due to his object of interest, who is just one person.

Although, Bournoutian makes many mistakes in his article, from misidentifying his primary target to mistranslating from Persian into English. Moreover, Azerbaijanis never falsified that book – they gave academic comments in the book and justified what they did, so it was not some stealthy actions. And it is based on plenty of Russian and Armenian scholars works in early 20th century, as well as 19th century, showing that Karabakh was never inhabited by an Armenian majority. Additionally, the Azerbaijani authors of the Karabakh-nameh,

Bournoutian also attacks a very reputable American scholar and top specialist on the history of Azerbaijan in USA, prof. Altstadt, thus showing that he just dislikes everyone and anyone who doesn’t say what he likes. Pair that with the fact that all his such articles were published only by Armenian journals, which are not read by anyone, are not peer-reviewed and have nearly zero scholarly credibility, and all his books are published by Armenian-co-owned Mazda Publishing in California – i.e., never by a credible, academic, university publication – and we have a good profile of who Bournoutian is and what kind of a historian he is.

Hence, it’s better if different fences are chosen as targets by the likes of Mr. Doostzadeh – anything related to Azerbaijan and its history represents quite an interest to me and I am ready to talk about it at length – and over the years have amassed an impressive library.

X) On the population of Azerbaijan (especially North (Arran), as well as a bit about South (Azerbaijan)) during and after the Arab conquest from Arabic-language chroniclers of the time. (The huge Turkic population just before the time of Nizami was shown in details before).

First, Arab sources noted that among the city residents, in Arran people spoke “Arrani” (!) and in Azerbaijan – “Azeri” (From: Al-Istakhri, “Kitab masalik al-mamalik”, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Leiden: Brill, 1870 (BGA, I, p. 192); al-Moqaddasi, “Akhsan at-takasim fima’rifat al-akalim, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1876, II, p. 378; Yakut, “Mu’jam al-buldan”, Beirut, 1950, Vol. I-IV, I, p. 173.

Secondly, Al-Moqaddasi said that the Farsi speech/pronunciation of the inhabitants of these areas resembled that of Khorasan residents, whilst in Arabic only traders and feudal chiefs could speak well (al-Moqaddasi, “Akhsan at-takasim fima’rifat al-akalim, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1876, II, p. 378).

Thirdly, Arabic sources also mention the multitude of different people and languages that existed in the Caucasus at the time, especially among mountainous residents of Arran and Azerbaijan (Note: 50% of current Republic of Azerbaijan are mountainous). Specifically: “mountains of Abu Musa [Karabakh], which belonged to Arran, are inhabited by tribes/peoples among the nations/peoples of Arran” (al-Masudi, “Muruj udh-Dhahab wa Maadin ul-Jawahir ("Meadows of Gold Mines and Precious Stones"), ed. By Barbier de Meynard, French tr., 9 vol., Paris, 1861-77, from Vol. II, p. 75.

According to Ibn-Hawqal, in the mountains of Caucasus they spoke in 360 languages (Abu’l Kásim Ibn Haukal, “Kitab al-Masalik wa-al-Mamalik (The Book of the Routes of the Kingdoms)”, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1873 (Bibliotheca geographorum Arabicorum [=BGA], II, p. 248). On the next page, 249, he notes that he had doubts about this until verified it himself and saw that indeed, there are many different languages.

Al-Moqaddasi notes that in Ardabil’s mountainous villages alone there were 60 languages (ibid., p. 375).

Finally, as already mentioned and confirmed by Enc. Iranica, IX century author al-Balazuri (“Kitab futuh al-buldan”. Leiden, 1866, p. 203) and X century Al-Istakhri (ibid., pp. 191-192, footnote “k”) and al-Masudi (ibid., p. 75) – and confirmed by Minorsky (V.F.Minorsky. “History of Shirvan and Derbent in X-XI centuries”, Moscow, 1963, p. 214, footnote 115) citing Byzantium chronicler Constantine Bagryanorodniy – Turkic people White Sabarts (Sabarta Asfala), after war with another Turkic people, the Pechenegs, settled and lived on a large territory from Ganja to Tiflis.

Hence, we see that 1) the ethnic and linguistic makeup of Azerbaijan (both North and South) was far from simple, with many languages, including those not understood by Arabic and Persian speakers, 2) more evidence about Turkic population in and near Ganja well before Nizami or his grandparents, and 3) that “Azeri” and “Arrani” were different languages, and certainly different from Farsi or Arabic.

XI) Now, once again, what makes Nizami an Azerbaijani poet – I’ve said many times, and will just re-quote my summary to the user IranianPatriot: I clearly show and state that Nizami indeed: 1) was one of greatest Persian language poets, and 2) belongs to Iranian culture and Iranian/Persian cultural tradition, heritage and space. But at the same time: 1) Nizami was not ethnic Persian; 2) Nizami was not exclusively an Iranian poet or Persian poet. Indeed, because he was born, lived and died in Azerbaijan Atabek state of the Seljuk Empire -- and Iran did not exist as one country at the time, indeed, Iran did not exist at all from the Arab caliphate invasion in the 7-8 centuries until 1501-1502 -- Nizami was more Azerbaijani, than Iranian. There are countless examples of poets of one origin living in yet different place and writing in yet another language. I gave an example of famous Jewish writer Kafka who lived in Czech capital Prague but is considered a German -- and not Israeli -- writer. There is also William Saroyan -- an ethnic Armenian who is considered to be an American writer. Similarly, why is Ottoman sultan Selim, along with other Turkic people, who wrote only in Farsi, still recognized as Turkish, Turkoman, Turkmen or Azerbaijani rulers, poets, etc., but not Nizami?

<…> And of course Azerbaijanis are an ancient people (but a modern nation) with very rich history -- and have many examples in history when either partially, or fully, the historic lands of Azerbaijani people were unified. One such example is the Nizami-era Azerbaijani Atabek state of the Ildezid dynasty. By the way, what is your response to Tajikistan, which has less history of independence than Azerbaijan yet shares so many great figures with Iranian (Persian) culture, such as Ferdowsi? Thus, despite Nizami being a great Persian language poet, belonging to the Iranian culture, he does in no less way to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani culture -- which despite closeness, similarities, is nevertheless a stand-alone, separate culture and nation. That was true from the times of Medes and Atropatene, which was always either fully independent or semi-independent from the rest of Iran. --AdilBaguirov 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And before that another relevant passage: “Also, to show the baseless and illogical approach taken by some Iranian ultra-nationalists to deny Nizami to Azerbaijan, is that Jahanshah, the Turkic ruler from the dynasty of Kara-goyunlu (Gara-goyunlu), which ruled much of Iran, who wrote in Persian under the pseudonym Khagigi (Haqiqi), is not claimed as Iranian or Persian – despite being very liked by poet Jami. Neither are Sultan Yagub (Yaqub) from Ak-goyunlu (Ag-goyunlu) dynasty/empire or Sheybani khan or even Ottoman sultan Selim – all of whom also, sometimes exclusively, wrote in Persian. Meanwhile, despite writing much in Azerbaijani, shah Ismail Sefevi Khatai (Hatai) is considered as an Iranian ruler and poet – which he of course was, but just like Nizami or Khagani or some others, belongs to both Azerbaijan and Iran.” AdilBaguirov 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the serious modern Western scholars, including of Iranian origin like prof. Meisami and prof. Talattof, claim Nizami being ethnic Persian, preferring to avoid this issue (and considering the politicizing of this issue and violent reaction from Persian chauvinists, it is easy to see why no one in the West, not to mention Iran, would dare to call Nizami as an Azerbaijani Turk).

In addition, what makes Nizami an Azerbaijani poet is not his Turkic identity and ethnicity – Azerbaijan has always been home to people of Caucasian, Semitic and Iranian origin. Also, all Persian, Arabic language and script literature and heritage, as well as Alban script, Orkhon script, Mongol-Yughur script, Pehlevi script, etc., are of course also part of Azerbaijani culture, tradition and heritage if they were done on the historic territory of Azerbaijan by the people who today are collectively known as members of the Azerbaijani nationality. If tomorrow there will be someone of clearly Iranian, Semitic or Caucasian origin who becomes famous in Azerbaijan, should they be called Azerbaijani or Iranian? The answer is obvious. Thus, even if Nizami were to be of not Turkic stock, but Iranian, Semitic (Arabic) or Caucasian, he would still be Azerbaijani by virtue of being born, living and passing away on the territory of the land he loved and epitomized, leaving such a fond memory and love instilled in each and every Azerbaijani, especially those from Ganja, dedicating so many verses and references. Existence of Azerbaijan Republic is a reality, however uncomfortable and irritating for some, and thus are the realities on the ground. It is incomprehensible, how can Iran claim both unquestionably ethnic Azerbaijani Shahriyar poet from Tebriz and clearly Turkic by father Nizami from Ganja as “Iranian”, along with going as far as claiming M.F.Akhundov as “father of modern Iranian literary criticism”. Imagine, if Turkey, or Turkmenistan, tomorrow declare that all famous people of Turkic heritage, irrespective of the lands they lived in, are “Turkish” or “Turkmen”, instead of Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Tatar, Kyrghiz, Kazakh, Uyghur, Karachay, etc. --AdilBaguirov 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This still stands very much valid – Nizami is an Azerbaijani poet not because of his Turkic self-view and nationality, but because of all other reasons as well – Azerbaijan has always been home to various ethnic groups, specifically Caucasians, Iranians and Semitic people who lived alongside with Turkic people and merged into the Azerbaijani nation. And this process was continuous. If tomorrow an ethnic Lezgin or ethnic Talysh (by either parents) poet who was born, lived and died in Azerbaijan, becomes famous, does it mean that we cannot refer to that poet as an “Azerbaijani poet”? Sure, we can! Of course, we can add “…of Lezgin/Talysh origin/roots/background/ethnicity”, but the poet would still be very much an Azerbaijani poet! Similarly, if any Turkic poet in Iran – be it an Azerbaijani as Shahriyar (his takhallus) of Tebriz or some Turkmen or Turkoman or Qashqai – become famous, they would still be Iranian poets, albeit of course any Turkic country could be very proud of them too.

XII) I’ve mentioned Shahriyar intentionally in my previous post. I am not sure to be glad or confused by Mr. Doostzadeh’s quote: “Shahryar was an Iranian national and an ethnic Turkic poet. I have no problem with that. Lets get back to the issue.” Well, that’s what I said about Persian uneasiness (and which Mr. Doostzadeh tried to disagree, yet has proven me right with his yet another confusion) to admit anyone as Azerbaijani and substitute it instead with more vague “Turk(ic)”. Shahriyar was not just Turkic – much like Salah-ad-din was not just “Iranian” or President Putin not being just “Slavic” – Shahriyar was Azerbaijani, like Putin is Russian and Saladin being Kurdish. Yet the Iranian Ambassador to Azerbaijan several months ago declared – simultaneously, at the same time – both Nizami and Shahriyar are not Azerbaijani poets, but Iranian poets. Whilst no one has denied them those rights – or ever forbade Iranians to be proud of them – at the same time it created a firestorm among all Azerbaijanis that both poets were declared as only Iranian. The most ironic was the logic – since Nizami wrote in Persian (which was not just Persian, but Farsi-e Dari, a classical literary language common for everyone, just like English today for everyone), he was “Iranian”, as is Shahriyar, since he was born and lived and died in Iran. The funny and ironic is that with Shahriyar, unlike with Nizami, we have plenty of poems in Azerbaijani and his knowledge of Azerbaijani language and affirmation of being Azerbaijani is not really at question. Yet Persian chauvinists still put these two poets in the same category and declare them both as Iranian. Isn’t this ridiculous?

XIII) Per M.F.Akhundov being a “Caucasian Turk” (Azerbaijani) and not ethnic Persian, I can quote that very same modern Persian author, Dr. Iraj Parsinejad from that very same book “History of Literary Criticism in Iran”:

“Taking up the cudgels for Akhundzade in this issue is fellow Caucasian Turk…” (p. 54)

“It appears that his own erroneous reading of these poems is responsible for much of what he perceived to be wrong. Akhundzade was a native speaker of Turkish and had learned Persian and Arabic as second and third languages at school. The influence of Turkish on his pronunciation of Persian or European words, and on Persian sentence structure, is at times quite obvious.” (p. 64)

I have the pages scanned and in my possession in case needed.

XIV) Final comment is on repetitive declaration of Mr. Doostzadeh and some others that Nizami wrote in Persian (Dari) and in Arabic script, and since neither are official in Azerbaijan (Republic) and since a lot of Azerbaijanis don’t know it, hence Azerbaijanis do not have a right (?!) to call Nizami “Azerbaijani”. To this I’ve given several responses, none of which were answered or invalidated in any way, and would like to sum them up again. First, although estimates vary, about 25 million Azerbaijani Turks along with other Turkic people live in Iran today – and they both speak Farsi, can read Dari and write in Arabic script. Since that’s the majority of ethnic Azerbaijani population anywhere in the world, the whole premise of the inherently weak excuse drummed up by some Persian chauvinists is already invalidated. But it’s true that most Turks cannot read any Ottoman and Arabic script, including what’s written on their palaces in Istanbul – I guess then all that history of the Muslim era does not belong to Turks and all those Ottoman sultans were not really Turks, they were some aliens from Mars. However, I want to take it further and remind everyone that most Iranians today cannot read Avestan (Zend, Old Iranian) language or Pahlavi (Middle Iranian) for that matter and the Pahlavi script. Yet, as Mr. Doostzadeh repeatedly says, they claim it. Why? If most Azerbaijanis actually CAN read Nizami, Khagani, Qatran, and others in original Persian Dari (at least of what remains of their works, I repeat the contention that they might have had in Turki or other languages as well) and thus can fully claim those poets as their own, then how can ethnic Persians claims anything from Pahlavi script and Avestan when they don’t know it, when they can’t understand it? You see, Mr. Doostzadeh, everything in life is a two-way street, or a sword with two razor-sharp edges. If you are not careful, you can easily burn yourself – like you did once again with this argument and logic behind it. I hope from now on the groundless and illogical claim on Nizami being solely Iranian poet based on drummed-up arguments about which language and script he used, won’t be an issue.

At the end of the day, most scholars and certainly most people don’t care what nationality was Nizami – they care about the poetry. But everyone wants the facts straight – and neither the Qom theory, nor Shirin being mistaken for an Armenian or Christian or “daughter” of Mihin-Banu, nor denial of Turkic presence in the area well before Nizami, nor denial of his favorable view and many relevant Turkic verses, nor denial that he was born in the Atabek state – help in getting those facts straight. Vandalism of the Nizami page by non-experts, especially after the comprehensive discussions on this page, are not permitted and will be constantly reverted. --AdilBaguirov 06:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Intervention

OK, this page needs intervention of admins and mediators. I see that this can go on forever. I for one don’t understand why the quotes section includes only the quotes that suit a certain POV while other quotes are being removed? Grandmaster 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for intervention. Mr. Baguirov also makes large amount of mistakes again that I will have to correct. Specially the mistakes about Qatran Tabrizi were very large and this is due to the fact that Mr. Baguirov is not aware that a group of Oghuz Turks came from the Ghaznavid domains to Azarbaijan and Arran during the GHaznavids time. Also the Encyclopedia Britannica has one mention of Nizami Ganjavi as a Persian poet. In the 20th century the critical study of imagery in Oriental poetry was taken up by Hellmut Ritter in his booklet Über die Bildersprache Nizamis (1927; "On the Imagery of Nizami"), which gives a most sensitive philosophical interpretation of Nizami's metaphorical language and of the role of imagery in the structure of Nizami's thought. Ritter's criticism is basic to the study of many other Persian poets. Slightly later, the Polish scholar Tadeusz Kowalski tried to interpret the "molecular" structure of Arabic literature--the absence of large units of thought or architectural structure--typical of the greater part of Islamic literatures, which might be described as "carpetlike." This "molecular" structure can be related to the atomist theories and occasionalist world view embodied in Islamic theology, which, unlike Christianity, does not admit of secondary causes and requires only short spans of hope from the faithful. In a number of articles, and in many books, E.G. von Grunebaum has pioneered this interpretation of literary structure. Other important critical works include S.A. Bonebakker's book on the rhetorical importance of tawriyah (ambiguous wording); Manfred Ullmann's excellent study of rajaz-poetry and its place in Arabic literature; and C.H. de Fouchécour's detailed analysis of the descriptions of nature in early Persian poetry.

Copyright (c) 1996-2006 Encyclopedia Britannica Online

In the west at that time, nobody has talked about Nizami being Turkic (Rpyka, Wilson, Gelpke, Mattin, Hill, Brown, Darab..). A comprehensive response to some of the latest wild claims of Mr. Baguirov will be coming forth. --Ali doostzadeh 07:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that the Britannica article about the poet prefers different phrasing. This dispute can go on endlessly, so I suggest we apply for mediation. Otherwise, we can agree on some compromise version, but the compromise should be observed and the parties should keep their word and not change their opinion every time someone new joins the editing. I’ve made a similar compromise on Shah Ismail I, even though sources like Iranica call him an Azeri poet, but still to please Persian users we wrote that he was “a prolific poet who, under the pen name Khatâ'i, contributed greatly to the development of Azerbaijani as a literary language”. If you don’t want to have more balanced versions of intros for disputed figures, I don’t think we can hold on to compromises we’ve made elsewhere. Grandmaster 07:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And also could you please explain to me, why you remove the quotes by Adil, but leave only those you like? I don’t think this is an acceptable way of editing the article. Grandmaster 07:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Again the quote by Mr. Baguirov does not agree with Wilson's translation and he does not read or understand Persian and so he is translating from either Russian or Azerbaijani, where as Wilson's translation is professional. Also there is negative quotes about Turks, for example Alexanders address to the Khaghan, the Shirvanshah quote, Nizami calling Turks Nomads and Taaraaj. So to be fair, these verses should be brought as well. My response to Mr. Baguirov will be ready soon enough --Ali doostzadeh 09:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So do you think that the following quotes are incorrect:

“In this Habash [Ethiopia] my Turkishness is not appreciated, That's why my tasty dooghbaa/dogha [Turkic milk-based hodgepodge] is not eaten”. (In Farsi-e Dari: "Torkiyam raa dar in Habash Nakharand, laajaram Dooghbaayeh Khos Nakhorand". From: Seven beauties/Haft paykar, fourth epic poem of Nizami).

“Reproach has now fallen upon me and it has dared to insult me, calling me Persian: that, I disregard, for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear.” (poetic translation into English by Paul Smith, based on 1945 literal translation of G.H.Darab, London, “Layla and Majnun”, p. 117).

“Rise of Empire of Turks was due to their love of justice. You’re no Turk! A plundering slave, fostering injustice.” (poetic translation into English by Paul Smith, based on 1945 literal translation of G.H.Darab, London, “The Treasury of the Mysteries”, p. 160).

09:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi suggested to remove the quotes section altogether. What do you think of it? I don’t think anyone has any right to remove the quotes he does not like and keep only those he prefers. That’s clearly against the rules. Grandmaster 09:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The first quote is a wrong translation and here is Wilsons:This Ethiopia likes not Turkish wares hence it will have not palatable curds Whilst in this furnace which one’s nature ripes as grape unripe I still was somewhat raw, Fortune made use of me as grape unripe, made of me verjuice-tutty for the sight. Since I have reached the state of the ripe grape, I’ve suffered often from the stings of wasps. The wine which is a spiritual draught for earth is not the grape worth more than this? I follow up the path they know of me hence frozen water I am called by them. Water when it is frozen, as they say, is not a fount of water, but of gold.

The second quote again is in Paul smith's, who also mentions Nizami had Armenian manuscript. But I brought the actual Persian and the second part was an addition and did not exist in the Vahid Dastgardi's version. The third quote is about an old lady complaining to the Seljuqs.

Also negative quotes about Turks abount.. Like the ones from Shirvanshah, Bahram defeat of Turks, Alexanders belittlement of Turks..

But I think it it is a good step, since then we would be fighting about which nationalist quotes and anti-Turk or anti-Iranian(which does not exist by the way as I have shown in the original Persian and it is from Layli's dad) quote to put up. I agree lets forget the quote section and I think the two exceprts about Farhad and also knowledge is sufficient. --Ali doostzadeh 10:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should come to common grounds on this article and other similar ones, because otherwise I see no end to edit wars. And it would be nice if agreements were honored, because we don’t change our mind about the things we agreed on. I should also note that Dastgardi’s editions are not considered reliable. See Iranica:

There are many manuscripts and printed editions of the K¨amsa and also some manuscripts containing the two parts of the Eskandar-nama on their own, but the first serious attempt at critical editions of the two Alexander poems were published in Baku in 1947 by Ä. Ä. Älizadä (Sharaf-nama) and F. Babayev (Eqbal-nama). The recent edition of the Sharaf-nama by Behruz Tòarvat^an (n.p., 1368 ˆ./1989) mainly reproduces the text and apparatus of the Baku edition, but it also contains explanatory notes. The editions by Hasan Wahid Dastgerdi (Tehran, 1316-17 ˆ./1937-38 and frequently reprinted) are marred by their uncritical and arbitrary handling of the text and must be used with caution, though Dastgerdi's explanatory notes are not without value. The references below are all to chapter and verse of the Baku editions. There are complete translations of both poems in Russian verse (tr. K. Lipskerov, Baku, 1953 and reprints) and prose (tr. Y. E. Bertel's and A. K. Arends, Baku, 1983) and a literal, and barely readable translation of the Sharaf-nama in English prose, with copious extracts from Indian commentators, by H. Wilberforce Clarke (The Sikandar Nama e Bara‚, London, 1881). A fairly free German prose paraphrase of both parts, with omissions in the prologues and epilogues, was prepared by J. Christoph Bürgel (Das Alexanderbuch, Zürich, 1991), unfortunately based on Dastgerdi's edition. [9]

In fact, the edition of Iskandarname by Azerbaijani scholars is considered the best. Grandmaster 12:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The article says: The recent edition of the ˆaraf-na@ma by Behru@z Tòarvat^a@n (n.p., 1368 ˆ./1989) mainly reproduces the text and apparatus of the Baku edition, but it also contains explanatory notes.. So it is a better edition. Also per Haft Paykar: More recently, the Haft peykar was re-edited by the Azerbayjani scholar T. A. Magerramov (Maharramov) (Moscow, 1987). This edition quotes variants from fourteen manuscripts, the Ritter/Rypka edition and the uncritical edition by Wahá^d Dastgerd^ (Tehran, 1315 ˆ./1936 and reprints), but Magerramov made no attempt to divide the manuscripts into families and in this regard his version is a step backwards from the Prague edition. There is also an edition by Bara@t Zanja@ni (Tehran, 1373 ˆ./1994), but the present writer has not been able to consult it. In the following, all references are to chapter and line of the Prague edition.. The current editions by Dr. Barrat Zanjani are the best editions and in order to show this, one needs to read his introductions were he shows many of the errors. I have access to both Zanjani and Servatiyan edition. As per the issue, I also agree that we should come into agreement. But this means everyone and not just me and you. --Ali doostzadeh 13:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)