Talk:Amir Khusrau/Archive 1

Untitled
Isn't Amir Khusro also credited with "inventing" the sitar (and some other musical instruments)? Sarabseth 20:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Evidently, the inventor of the Sitar is a different Amir Khusro. I have added a section regarding this in called "Amir Khusro and the origin of the Sitar" in the main article. Kamran Saeed | Talk.

Thanks! He is also sometimes credited with "inventing" the tabla. Do you know anything about that? Sarabseth 28 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)

That is correct. Amir Khusro is said to have fashioned the Tabla as a "split" version of the traditional Indian drum, the Pakhawaj. I have thus far not been able to find any definitive or usable material on the subject, though. Kamran

Do you think there's any harm in adding this to the entry for now: "He is credited with fashioning the Tabla as a "split" version of the traditional Indian drum, the Pakhawaj." Sarabseth 3 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

I did not happen upon this page until now. Sorry for the delay in my reply. I think there is no harm in adding the line for the tabla in the form you suggest, until somebody comes up with more definitive material to either confirm or refute the statement. Should there be a separate section for it, or should the line just be added to the section on the sitar? The section could be renamed to something like "Amir Khusro and the origins of the Sitar and the Tabla". What do you think? Kamran Saeed | Talk.

I changed the section title and added the tabla sentence. I put it before the sitar paragraph; reads better that way, I think. Sarabseth 12:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good! I made a minor edit to correct a couple of typos. Thanks! Kamran 21:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Invention of Tabla and Sitar
There is no controversy that Tabla was invented by Amir Kusro by splitting the traditional indian drum. However there is lots of confusion about Sitar. Sitar existed before Amir Khusro in some form, was reshaped by him, and now is in a form that was reshaped in 18th century. The reason for confusion being that the word Sitar is itself confusing. The word has persian origin and can sound Seh-Taar (3 strings) or See-Taar (30 strings). To add to confusion, there was a legendary sitar player named Khusro Khan in the 18th century, exactly the same time the sitar underwent modern shape. Maybe the 18th century sitar player Amir Khusro got credit for the modern sitar and then the 13th century Sufi Amir Khuro was confused with it.Hassanfarooqi 13:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindvi or Hindi?
There are two entries in "Works" which use the word Hindvi. Should this perhaps be Hindi? Sarabseth 14:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Hindvi is the term for the dialects of central and northern India, basically like Hindustani. Mar de Sin   Speak up!  20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hindawi is the term most commonly used by contemporary sources to describe the range of languages spoken from the Indus to Bengal. Hindii is a word of more recent provenance. See, for example, Lelyveld, D. (1994). "Zubān-e Urdū- Mu‘allā’ and the Idol of Linguistic Origins." The Annual of Urdu Studies 9. I would also suggest that you remove the reference to the Ḳhāliq Bārī  as its attribution has been shown by Ḥafiẕ Maḥmūd Shīrānī, in the frontispiece to the 1773-4 A.D. Anjuman-e Taraqqī-ye Urdū edition of the text, to be apocryphal. The work instead appears to have been written in 1622, and the author went by the name Ẓiyā ud-Dīn Ḳhusrau. The actual intended title of the glossary was Ḥafż ul-Lisān. See Shīrānī, Ḥ. M. (1944). "Dībācha-ye duvum [Second Preface]." Ḥafż ul-Lisān (a.k.a. Ḳhāliq Bārī). Ḥ. M. Shīrānī. Delhi, Anjumman-e Taraqqi-e Urdū. --Haklu 15:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yurikbot
This is getting really annoying! I tried before to get through to Yurik, and I've just tried again. If this happens again, can someone else please try to get his attention? --Sarabseth 02:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything is as it suppose to, see my talk. --Yurik 05:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yurik's reply: "The bot is doing everything correctly: it replaces a link hi:अमीर खुसरो with hi:आमिर खुसरो because the first one does not exist -- its a redirect! You never want to link a page to a redirect as that redirect may change at any point, which would cause conflicts later on. If the first title is the proper one, you should move the hi: article to the new name, which would cause a bot (ANY interwiki bot, not just mine) to update all referencing pages."

Can someone who knows that they're doing please make the recommended change? Thanks! --Sarabseth 12:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration
I'm gonna go ahead and change the Hindi translation to the more scholarly IAST or Library of Calcutta Romanization. Thanks. I would really appreciate it if someone would give the Hindi for the Hindi riddles. Mar de Sin  Speak up!  20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I will also later add the Urdu alphabet version of the Hindvi poetry, as that is what the source had originally. Mar de Sin  Speak up!  20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood Song
Does anyone have any objection if we take out the bollywood song, and just retain the lyrics, translation and discussion of Zee Haal-e-Miskeen? --Sarabseth 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think a mutilated version of Amir's poetry by any wood should appear in this article in the first place.Hassanfarooqi 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Khusro was a Turk and spoke Turkish
his origin, self-perception and spoken languages do not seem to be adequately represented in the article. Here are a few sources that clarify the issue:

Dr. Iraj Bashiri. "Originally a Turk, Amir Khusrau spoke Persian fluently and was familiar with Arabic, Hindi, and Sanskrit."

See:,.

Amir Khusrau: Memorial Volume - Page 1, by AmД«r Khusraw DihlavД« - 1975 - 416 pages "Amir Khusrau was proud of his lineage as a "Turk-e-Hindustani", and tradition credits him with knowledge of Turkish, Arabic, Persian and the vernaculars of" 

 Amir Khusrau as a Genius - Page 9 by б№ўabДЃбёҐuddД«n К»AbdurraбёҐmДЃn - 1982 - 125 pages "Khwaja is believed to have said very often to Khusrau, "O Turk! I may get disgusted of my self but never of you". (Munis-u'l-Arwah, by Princess Jahan Ara, MSS, Shibli Academy, Khazinat-u'l-Asfiya"

The Case for Pakistan - Page 117 by M. Rafique Afzal - 1979 - 191 pages "Amir Khusrau (14th century), a Turk of mixed parentage and one of the greatest figures in the realm of Persian literature and poetry" 

The BДЃgМІбє– O BahДЃr: Or, The Garden and the Spring - Page vii by Khusrau - 1852 - 251 pages "His grandfather, who bore the name of Turk, came to ... His son Amir Khusrau succeeded to the royal favour, and enjoyed the confidence and patronage of ..." 

The Visva-bharati Quarterly - Page 157 by Visva-Bharati, Rabindranath Tagore, Hirendranath Datta, Sir Surendranath Tagore - 1923 "725 AH ), "the Indian Turk," stands as one of the leading figures whose appreciation of India, her sciences"

Marx, Great October, India, and the Future - Page 96 by Hirendranath Mukerjee - 1984 "in the 14th century, Amir Khusrau, court poet of the ..., a fine, many-sided genius in love with India (an 'Indian Turk' he called himself) looked about" 

Islamic Culture - Page 219 by Islamic Cultural Board, Muhammad Asad, Academic and Cultural Publications Charitable Trust (Hyderabad, India), Marmaduke William Pickthall - 1927 "Amir Khusrau himself was the son of a Turk-ish father and a Rajput (Rawal) mother, and was born _Jn Patiala. He lost his father early, and his mother's"

Indian Literary Criticism: Theory and Interpretation - Page 92 by G. N. Devy - 2002 - 446 pages "... AMIR KHUSRAU Amir Khusrau (AD 1253-1325) was of Turkish origin;" --Weiszman 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

اَگر فِردؤس بر رُو-ائے زمین اَست،" ہمین اَست-او ہمین اَست-او ہمین اَست۔

Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast, Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast.

If there is paradise on face of the earth, It is this, it is this, it is this (Kashmir)

check: this couplet is thought to be due to mughal emperor shahjahaan and to refer to the valley of kashmir"

>>>>>>>>>>How Can it be due to Shah Jahan when khusrow lived in the 11th century???

source
To User:Weiszman. can you please write the source where he says he is proud to be hindustani-turk? and also the source where he speaks Turkish (what kind?)? Since you have the source, please use exact wording. One of the sources available I looked at does not mention anything about pride. --alidoostzadeh 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is from Google books:

Journal of the Regional Cultural Institute - Page 13 by Muåssasah-i Farhangī-i Minṭaqagahī̊ - 1967 VIII Erdogan MERCIL Journal of the REGIONAL CULTURAL INSTITUTE Winter & Spring 1976 AMIR KHOSROW AND HIS PRIDE IN BEING A TURK ...

Amir Khusrau: Memorial Volume - Page 1 by Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī - 1975 - 416 pages Amir Khusrau was proud of his lineage as a "Turk-e-Hindustani", and tradition credits him with knowledge of Turkish, Arabic, Persian and the vernaculars of ... Snippet view - About this book Weiszman 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the author of that article's is Turkish (his first name is Erdogan Mercill) and he is from Turkey. You need a neutral third party source. Or else there are afghan scholars who have many views which are not scholarly as well.  --alidoostzadeh 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two sources, one by Muåssasah-i Farhangī-i Minṭaqagahī (editor), and one a 1975 book of Amir Khusrau by the Indian Government. Both sources are major. Also, there are many Persian, Indian, Pakistani sources listed on the Wikipedia article about Amir Khusrau, which doesn't raise objections. Erdogan Mercil is Turkish, not obviously not Hindustani Turkish, and the latter were not of the same tribal origin as the Anatolian Turks who were Oghuz. And he is just one of the authors under the editorship of Iranian professor Muåssasah-i Farhangī-i Minṭaqagahī, and with the co-sponsorhsip of the Iranian government. So the source is balanced and favorable towards all the Muslim countries of the region. Don't forget Wikipedia's policy on NPOV and inclusion of all major sources reflecting different points of view. Weiszman 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy does not allow for nationalistic writing. You need multiple neutral sources to verify a statement.  The source by Erdogan Mercil is not neutral.  The second source does not even have an author (which is needed for proper citiation) but I would not be suprised to be the same author.  Neither source says his native language was Turkish.  Indeed I would probably think it was Indic language since he was born in India.  Also you need a primary source about the languages he knew.  thanks  --alidoostzadeh 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir there are no such requirements in Wikipedia about needing to have an author (hello, what about Britannica's articles and other encyclopedia's or journals like The Economist which often don't have any authors listed). Both sources are different, and neither of them is Turkish. In case of Erdogan Mercill he is not a Hindustani Turk and is not the editor of that book, which is an Iranian professor. So both sources are neutral and unbiased, and definitely not nationalist. Meanwhile, other soruces cover his knowledge of Turkish language. Weiszman 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick note: Wikipedia's policies are independent from Britannica --Rayis 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually having an author of the source is the most basic princicple. As per Erdogan Mercil he is not a Hindustani Turk.. He is a Turk from Turkey.  Thus his writing is not neutral even if it is published in an co-sponsered Iranian journal.  Else I can bring the writing of an Afghan writer with a totally different POV about Amir Khusrow.  Thus we need western scholars to discuss the topic.  You need neutral sources to verify the statement.  Also where is the neutral source that he knew Turkish and it was his native language?  I am assuming Hindi was his native language because of the location he was born and he has writings in Hindi but not Turkish (which dialect?)  All of this needs primary sources or neutral secondary sources.  One of your source is from Erdogan Mercil (not neutral).  The other source does not even identify an author.  An identification of an author is a definitely a necessity for proper citation.  --alidoostzadeh 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

and not only Britannica but other publications are independent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy is to cover all verifiable, major or academic claims, and that's what has been done, whilst some unexisting rules are being applied by my interlocutor. You can bring any verifiable and academic Afghani references in English you want per Wikipedia policy. Both sources I've cited are neutral -- both were not published by a Turk (whether Anatolian or otherwise) or in Turkey (or other Turkic states). One source is directly from the Ministry of Broadcasting and Information of India, a state which opposes Turkey for its support of Pakistan (and this source states Amir Khusrau was proud of his lineage as a "Turk-e-Hindustani"), whilst the other is a book edited by an Iranian (Persian?) scholar Muåssasah-i Farhangī-i Minṭaqagahī in a journal that is co-sponsored by Iranian as well as Indian and Turkish governments. So it is very neutral and objective, and not nationalistic. These are simply not fair remarks by you towards these authors and sources.

Not sure which dialect of Turkish, you can find that perhaps, along with which dialect of Persian he wrote and spoke in.

Here's another good reference: Amir Khusrau: Memorial Volume - Page 182 by Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī - 1975 - 416 pages There he also enjoyed the company of his dear friend Hasan Dehlavi. ... master was also deeply attached to our poet and addressed him as the Turk of God. ...

Hakeem Abdul Hameed Felicitation Volume: Presented to Hakeem Abdul Hameed on His 75th Birthday - Page 171 by Abdul Hameed, Mālik Rām - 1982 - 311 pages (Allah's own Turk) Khusrau to lie buried next to him. ... Amir Khusrau insisted on adding the suffix 'Dehlavi' (ie of Delhi) to his name as a sentimental ... Weiszman 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources need to be verifiable. That is at the least, they should have is an author.  Note again the sources.  The  source Muåssasah-i Farhangī-i Minṭaqagahī is not even an scholar's name.  The fact is publishing does not necessarily mean the publisher endorses viewpoints.  What matters is the scholar who writes the article.  In this case, the scholar is a Turkish scholar and his academic credentials are unknown.   The second source does not have an author's name.  Ministry of Broadcasting and Information of India is not a scholarly source (and it could even reprint the same scholar).  It requires at least an author who is an expert in the literature.  Wikipedia requires scholarly sources.  Read the article on original research.  First comes primary sources, then secondary sources written by renowned experts and finally teriatary sources like Britannica.  So basically you have two sources: 1) Ministry of Broadcasting and information of India.. this does not have an author and is not an academic source.  2) A Turkish writer in a journal co-sponsered as you say by three governments (Turkey, Iran, India).   So it is sponsered by Turkish government as you as well.  So it is not neutral.   Finally no one virtually denies Amir Khosrow had a Turkish father (some afghan scholars do), but what is important is where does it say 1) his native language was Turkish.  2) He was proud of his ethnic origin (something un-sufi like).  And indeed if he had any sort of ethnic pride as you claim, he would write a verse in Turkish as well as he did in Hindi.  Sufis are univeralists. As per the title Turkullah, it was a title conferred on to him by Chishti  and it means beloved of God as one of the meanings of Turk is beloved in Sufi literature. Where as Dehlavi was a title he chose for himself.  Anyways if you can provide academic references (verifiable) then it is correct.  The one from JSTOR was academic but did not mention anything about ethnic pride or native language.  --[[User:Ali doostzadeh|alidoostzadeh] 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir there are no such requirements about which you speculate above - could you please point out based on which rules of Wikipedia you make-up the above rules of yours and don't recognize the sources I've brought? After you do that, we would have a more productive discussion.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of India is a major and verifiable source, and definitely should be included. It is also arguably academic, as obviously ministries contract their best scholars to write the official, state position on the matter. Being a collective work for Indian government it will include the research by best Indian, and not Turkish or Persian, scientists and academics. It would be funny had it been otherwise. India is a major state with proud history and heritage, and can manage to write books about itself for its own government without anyone's help. Therefore, the source is up to Wikipedia rules. The other source is also a collective authors work which is edited by an Muåssasah-i Farhangī-i Minṭaqagahī, and the publication is sponsored by three governments, two of which share historic and linguistic ties being Indo-Aryan, and being opposed to Turkey for whatever reason. Most importantly it is published in India, not anywhere else. Therefore any type of bias in favor of Turkey or Turks is impossible. If you sir have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Several sources already presented identify Amir Khosrou as a Turkish-speaker (see below two more references). Additionally, Amir Khusrau, was a court poet, who had lived in the courts of the rulers of Khilji and Tughluq, Turk rulers of India. He had encyclopedia knowledge and essentially was a linguist, as spoke and wrote in many different languages, and it would have been simply incomprehensible if he would have known Arabic, Hindi, Sanksrit, several other dialects of India, Persian, Dari (he distinguished between the two), and not Turkish! Moreover he was a "soldier by profession" (Devy, 2002: 92) and all terminology in military was in Turkish.

Additional quotes from the book that are from Amir Khosrou himself: "Because it is such a marvellous and meaningful work, it has been translated into Persian, Turkish, Arabic and Dari." page 94.

"It shall be improper on my part to talk of Persian, Turkish and Arabic and beguile myself of their virtues." page 95. That's the proof from him that he knew Turkish.

By G. N. Devy. Indian Literary Criticism: Theory and Interpretation, Orient Longman, Published 2002. 

Amir Khusrau: Memorial Volume - Page 1 by Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī - 1975 - 416 pages Amir Khusrau was proud of his lineage as a "Turk-e-Hindustani", and tradition credits him with knowledge of Turkish, Arabic, Persian and the vernaculars of ... 

Hazrat Amir Khusrau of Delhi - Page 4 by Mohammad Habib - 1979 - 110 pages Amir Khusrau was born in India, and his mother was of Indian birth. ... an acquaintance with Turkish, but he never seems to have written in that language, ... 

Islam in the Indian subcontinent.: The Non-solemn Rites - Page 28 by J. (Jan) Gonda - 1980 It is said that at the master's death Amir Khusrau, called ‘God's Turk' by Nizamuddin, 

Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond - Page 179 by Carl W. Ernst, Bruce B. Lawrence - 2002 - 272 pages Having taken counsel with his friends, Amir Khusrau once again came before the Shaykh. ... “All right, Turk,” said the Shaykh, “what do you ... Weiszman 21:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are in wikipedia OR document.. As per Indian ministry no that is not a scholarly source.  It needs at least an author to be verifiable.  See secondary sources: means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars.  Can you provide the author's name?  Something published by Indian ministry could have various authors like your first.  I agreed that he was called Turk(beloved) of God by his master Chishti.  But that title has a sufic intrepretation as mentioned by my source.  As per the fact that he was acquainted with Turkish, again none of the sources you brought have said it was his native language (the one he was raised with by his mother and father).  So you need a neutral source about his ethnic pride.  The first one was a Turkish source and the second source does not have an author.  I don't care about Iran, India, Turkey and etc.  You need to provide an author of the article (verifiable).  --alidoostzadeh 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is from the page you provided: []

There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions.

Further:

Secondary sources draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. [...] Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible.

'''Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.'''

As one can see, there is absolutely no requirement about a single author - it would be simply impossible for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia to make such a requirement. Instead, Wikipedia policy clearly stated that the more people edited an article the better, and put primary emphasis on known publishing houses and university presses. In both cases the publications are known and major in their local context, in India. Therefore, the objections over the two sources are exaggerated.

Let us not misinterpret the rules, stay true to what they say and abide by them strictly. Weiszman 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay let us not misinterpret. Primary sources come first.  Then it says about secondary sources:This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians..  Now where is the name of the scholar for the Indian publishing house?  That is a simple requirement.  If we do not have an author then publishing house by itself is not sufficient.  A publishing house can even publish a counter claim of another author and then respond or just quote an author and etc.  So basic requirement is the name of the scholar.  The scholar at least needs a name.  It could just be re-print even for all I know of the other source.  As per the other source, it violates wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view because of the nationality of the scholar (unless he is part of western univeristy).  If he is from a Turkish university then one should fine a better source.  I don't quote people from Iranian or Afghan universities on matters of dispute.  I have explained the turkullah part in detail above.  It was a name given by Chishti and it means beloved(Turk in sufic literautre) of God.  Also it would be good to show a source about his native language (Hindi or Turkish or something else)?  --alidoostzadeh 22:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir you are not keeping in line with Wikipedia policy - see above, there are no such requirements on mandatory listing of an author. There is simply no such requirement for a work that does not cite the author. If you want to find out more then contact them directly as I am just citing the source. The reference I provided above for the source is more than sufficient for the bibliography - a collective work like an Encyclopedia, The Economist, government documents, etc., often do not have one author or do not reveal one like is in case of The Economist. If you go to the Google page of the publication, and type in "editor", only one result will come, from page 2, of Prof. Salim Neysari, Ph.D. (USA), Professor of the University of Tehran. Additionally, in the Foreword there is an "An Excerpt of a Message of Imperial Majesty the Shahanshah | of Iran on the World Congress of Iranology | Principles of Iranian Monarchy A Statement of the Imperial..". Unless there will be any evidence of concrete objections from Wikipedia policy, I won't comment on this again, as its clear that my citation and source is acceptable per Wikipedia rules of verifiability, NPOV, attribution, etc. etc.

Native language is because he is a Turk through his paternal line, is viewed as a Turk by many of his contemporaries, is a military man, etc. He didn't write in Arabic or some other important languages that he knew either, or at least there is no record left. According to him he was most proud of Hindi language and was in love with India, not any other country, nation or language of the region. We can remove that word, "native", if it raises such huge objections, although it's obvious that it was native to him since he was a Turk. Objecting to that on the grounds of not being explicitly written in some source is not very productive. Weiszman 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course native needs a scholarly source. Just because his dad was turkish does not necessarily connect it to native (see the verse below).  Specially since he was born in India.  As per the other sources.  Note by the principle of OR, it needs a verifiable author.  That is just following Wikipedia's guidelines.  As I said it can even quote the same source or be a quote in citation.  The other source is also not a reliable western scholar.  What is the credential of the Turkish scholar from Turkey who wrote the article?  I am keeping inline with the policy of OR in wikipedia.  Let me repeat.  I asked for the credential of the Turkish scholar (and obviously we do not quote scholars from universities of Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan on matters with regards to nationality).  Per the second source, it is totally reasonable to ask for the author's name since the matter has been brought up and the fact is that statements about a poet needs to be from reliable scholars as per wikipedia OR policy.
 * For now feel free to add the non-Turkish source from Indian broadcast, but please state the source (according to Indian broadcast..). But the native language part needs a scholarly source and my guess would be that small migrants adopt the language of the local population and Hindi would be more native to him.  Unless you have a scholar stating otherwise.
 * Actually the part about knowing turkish needs to be verified. According to this very scholarly source:

. Amir Khosrow made the following lament in Persian: The tongue of my friend is Turkish ,and I know no Turkish. It is by a foremost scholar in sufism. Note this is also a primary source. --alidoostzadeh 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

per above, both sources cited (both are Indian), are okay per Wikipedia policy. They are cited in full with URL link added for verifiability. If you sir have more of same complaints, please take them to higher authorities. Amir Khosrow spoke Turkish as many other sources testify. The source you provide follows those lines you quote saying that Turk meant beautiful, thus the "foremost scholar in sufism" suggests to read it as 'The tongue (or language, speech or words) of my friend is beautiful, and I know no beautiful language'. Weiszman 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the other source was by a Turkish author. But we agree on the Indian broadcasting source, but we need to name the source in this case. According to India..broadcasting .. Since it pretty much says the same thing as the Turkish source, there is no need to mention the other source. As per the above line, it can be translated in many different ways. But the scholar has not translated Turk to beautiful here like the statement turkallah (beauty of God) which was translated by another scholar. She does mention though that Turk had multiple meanings. Either way there is no support right now for the native language part. --alidoostzadeh 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * we should not approach this selectively. Neither of the sources are Turkish - they are not published in Turkish language or in Turkey, and they are not edited by Turks. Only one article is written by a Turkish author, but since it is edited by an Iranian professor and published in India, there is no possibility of unfounded claims or nationalistic pro-Turkish bias. Both books are different from each other. Both should be cited to show a diversity of sources and prevent future disputes from other users. Wikipedia does not have a policy on limitation of citations, and having two citations is very reasonable and not making the text clumsy. Amir Khosro's knowledge of Turkish is shown by his own statement: "It shall be improper on my part to talk of Persian, Turkish and Arabic and beguile myself of their virtues." (By G. N. Devy. Indian Literary Criticism: Theory and Interpretation, Orient Longman, Published 2002, page 95.

) One cannot talk about virtues of a language without knowing it. Weiszman 02:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they can, they can read it in translation. The other statement is more direct and says he does not know Turkish, so I believe both statements should be there.  About the two others, one is written by a turkish scholar.  And of course Iranian/Indians are not going to edit someone else's work. Your other source on the other hand had no authors.  And the source should be stated.  Furthermore there is no source that Turkish was his native language.  So that needs to removed.  --alidoostzadeh 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does he say he doesn't know Turkish - the line is clearly interpreted by the "foremost scholar in sufism" (your words) to mean "beauty" in the context. He knew Turkish both according to his own writing and secondary sources (both of which were presented above). Turkish was native to him since he was a Turk, was a Turkish soldier, lived and served in the Turkish court, and was an educated man, polyglot, linguist, who knew many difficult languages (such as various dialects of Hindi, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian) and not knowing Turkish in such circumstances was virtually impossible.


 * Then, to clarify for some, the job of an editor and publisher is to edit the works submitted to them, and publish only when they comply with certain rules and requirements. So it is rather strange (to put it mildly) to say that "of course Iranian/Indians are not going to edit someone else's work". Both sources should be cited, both are impartial, and neither need to be identified in the text body itself as they are fully cited with URLs below in the bibliography. Weiszman 06:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again no sources. Where does it say he knew Turkish?  And what source says his native language was Turkish?  I did not rule out he knew Turkish.  But you need scholar to assert his native language was Turkish.  Saying virtually impossible and circumstance and etc. is your opinion which doesn't mount to anything frankly.  I can easily say hindi was native to him and in the Turkish court they spoke Persian like the Ghaznavids did for example.  So anyone can make up guesses.  You need a source about native.  And no, editor does not necessarily edit others work and it is not strange to publish someone else's work in full because not everyone cares as much.  And yes we can identify the Indian Broadcast by name although the academic credentials of the Turkish scholar has not been brought yet and so it is not verifiable. And also read what the foremost scholar of sufism said.  She said turk has multiple meaning, not just beauty.  But knowing no beautiful language is not translated by her and that makes less sense.  She translats I do not know Turkish..which makes sense in Persian.  So I guess we can mention this also since it is verifiable?  I should add that there are lots of scholars that simply use the term Persian Poet for Amir Khosro and I can justify inserting it since they are verifiable?  I think we should be reasonable.  --alidoostzadeh 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources on his knowledge of Turkish were already presented. Here is more:

Mohammad Habib. Hazrat Amir Khusrau of Delhi, 1979, p. 4
 * "As a linguist, our author had Persian and Turkish for his mother tongues/*) while his command over Arabic was as great as that of its greatest men of letters."

Islamic Cultural Board. Islamic Culture, 1927, p. 219
 * "Amir Khusrau himself was the son of a Turkish father and a Rajput (Rawal) mother, ... Though he wrote in Persian, he was at home in Hindi and Turkish. ..."


 * His own poem from Amir Khusrau: Memorial Volume, by Amir Khusraw Dihlavi, 1975, p. 98 (note what he says about Persian -- "did not know any Persian", which, like in the other similar quote about Turkish, doesn't mean he didn't know the language, just considered various dialects of Hindi superior and better to all other languages):


 * (1) '''Farasi boli ai na...
 * ... boli ai na Turki ... '''
 * ... pai na Hindi boli
 * arsi aye Khusro
 * kahe koi na balaye (Arsi)
 * '''Did not know any Persian
 * (In Persian it is called Aaina)
 * In Turkish I searched
 * but did not find'''
 * In Hindi tongue one feels peculiar Khusrau says,
 * none can tell (Mirror)
 * Some songs,

credits him with knowledge of Turkish, Arabic, Persian and the vernaculars of ..." Amir Khusrau: Memorial Volume, by Amir Khusraw Dihlavi, 1975, p. 1
 * "Amir Khusrau was proud of his lineage as a "Turk-e-Hindustani", and tradition

by Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī - 1975 - 416 pages There he also enjoyed the company of his dear friend Hasan Dehlavi. ... master was also deeply attached to our poet and addressed him as the Turk of God. ...
 * Here's another good reference: Amir Khusrau: Memorial Volume - Page 182

by Abdul Hameed, Mālik Rām - 1982 - 311 pages (Allah's own Turk) Khusrau to lie buried next to him. ... Amir Khusrau insisted on adding the suffix 'Dehlavi' (ie of Delhi) to his name as a sentimental ...
 * Hakeem Abdul Hameed Felicitation Volume: Presented to Hakeem Abdul Hameed on His 75th Birthday - Page 171

that are from Amir Khosrou himself: "Because it is such a marvellous and meaningful work, it has been translated into Persian, Turkish, Arabic and Dari." page 94.
 * Additional quotes from the book by G. N. Devy. Indian Literary Criticism: Theory and Interpretation, Orient Longman, Published 2002.

"It shall be improper on my part to talk of Persian, Turkish and Arabic and beguile myself of their virtues." page 95. That's the proof from him that he knew Turkish.


 * Islam in the Indian subcontinent.: The Non-solemn Rites - Page 28, by J. (Jan) Gonda - 1980, "It is said that at the master's death Amir Khusrau, called ‘God's Turk' by Nizamuddin,"

"Having taken counsel with his friends, Amir Khusrau once again came before the Shaykh. ... “All right, Turk,” said the Shaykh, “what do you ..." Weiszman 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond - Page 179, by Carl W. Ernst, Bruce B. Lawrence - 2002 - 272 pages, :
 * None of the sources above except the first one show he knew Turkish. But even that source is not primary but we'll leave it although it says Persian was his mother tongue as well and another source says he was native in Hindi. 1) The hindi line has not been brought in full.  But doesn't say anything about native. One even says Persian as native.  As for the proud again it is from Indian broadcasting without any author and I think you will need an author for that.  The credential of these sources need to be academic.  I think the article is fine the way it is and I am removing my citation tag although there is no proof he knew Tukish.. but we'll leave it since it is not a big deal.  --alidoostzadeh 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have left the matter of pride to be discussed by other users although as a Islamic Mystic/Sufi poet I do not think amir khosrow took pride in any lineage. We have various sources on native language (hindi,persian,turkish..) and so I left out the word native.