Talk:Babak

BABAK
I'm amazed at how anti-Iranian and bias Wikipedia is. Shame on you.

Babak Khoramdin was an Iranian figure and national hero of Persian origin, who in the 8th century fought the Arab occupiers of Iran. He was betrayed by Afshin and martyred by the Abasid Khalif.

== "Babak, Can you remember Ardeshire babakan

Are you familiar with the history of Iran, Do you know Ardeshire Babacan, poor Turk find someone of yourselves to honour, to adore. I heard a Turk once said Zardosht has been a Turk! what a poor Turk, what a poor kourooghli!

Correct article
This artcile is not correct. The fact that Babak was Persian or Turkish doesn't change, Babak is born in a small village near Khalkhal, Ardebil and the local people are called Turks nowadays. Son we can say that Babak is the same origin that Rezazadeh, Ali Daei, or any Khalkhali ...

Ethinicity of Babak can not be affirmed definetely. There are not much reliable information about his personal life. Those who defend that he was Persian, assume that the area was 100 % populated by Persians. Because we do not have any certain information about his background, the general characteristic of the area is the best way to have a guess. But, anyway it is going to be a GUESS, nothing more. But in this particular situation even a guess is hard to make. The area was not populated entirely by Persians. There were Kurds, Armenians, Caucasian peoples, and as well as Turks and Arabs living in and around Azerbaijan at that time. The argument that Turks came to the area after the 11-th century is baseless. Old history books may say that, but never forget that official history textbooks are always biased and I mean ALWAYS. No exceptions. Turks have been migrating out of Altays even before 3 century BC. The Chinese, built the Great Wall to stop that. Atilla and Huns destroyed Europe in 5-th century. They were fast moving nomadic peoples and it is not convincing to say that they have missed Persia and Azerbaijan right next to their country while, making their way to France on the West and Korea on the East. Turks had migrated and settled to modern day Azerbaijan in successive waves throughout history. What happened in 11-th century was that, they had finally established themselves as the dominant people of the region. Therefore, it is not correct to suggest that there were no Turks in Azerbaijan at Babaks time. The question is, does the existence of Turks, or Persian for that matter in Azerbaijan mean that Babak was either a Turk or a Persian? No it does not. Those who suggest that he was a Turk, do not have any definite evidence for that. Nor do we have any evidence that he was not, or that he was a Persian. The biggest point though is that the ethnicity is completely irrelevant. The movement was against the chaliphate and period. Nothing else. It was not a Turkish/Persian/Iranian nationalistic movement aginst Arabs nor Zoroastrian religious movement against Islam. There were many ethnicities involvled in the movement, including dissatisfied local Arabs and Muslims. It was a freedom movement. Being the leader of this freedom movement, probaly is the reason for the people who say that he was a Turkish. They feel a connection with their local hero. And that's why they see him as one of their own. Please, do not edit the pages just because you want the things be the way you want them to be. Many people come here to prepare their assignments, we do not have a right to mislead them.

I disagree with the author above.

More on Babaks ethnicity. Ancient Arab historian Ibn Hazm in the book "Religion and People" and ancient Armenian historian Vardan in his "World History" clearly mention Babak as being Persian of origin. There is no sources that claim otherwise. For example in the following book: La domination arabe en Armènie, extrait de l’ histoire universelle de Vardan, traduit de l’armènian et annotè, J. Muyldermans, Louvain et Paris, 1927 written by an Armenian priest prior to the Mongol invasion, we read: "En ces jours-lá, un homme de la race PERSE, nomm é Bab, sortant de Baltat, faiser passer par le fil de l’épée beaucoup de la race d’Ismayēl tandis qu’il.." and thus clearly Babak is mentioned as of Persian race. In Armenian the word for "Perse"(Persian) is Parsik. The name of Babak's father was Mardas (which is a Shahnameh name). His mother in sources has been called Mah-roo (moon face), which is another Persian name. The master of Babak is Javidan poor Shahrak(Javidan=eternal in Persian poor=son and Shahrak=Associated with city) which is another Persian name. Also the two most important commanders of babak are Adhin and Rostam, which are two famous names both in the Shahnameh. Finally the only name that can be used by pan-turanist nationalits Tarkhan is also mentioned as "Tarhan"(which is an Arabic word) in some sources. Besides this name also occurs in the Shahnameh and some sources mention that the Soghdian rulers of Samarghand went by this name. So this was a general military title given to field commanders and that is why Adhin in some sources is confused with this title. Finally it should be mentioned that there is no trace of Turkish in Azarbaijan before the Ilkhanid era on paper, rock, leather, inscription..etc and all sources at that time mention that Azarbaijan spoke Azar-Pahlavi (the local dialect of middle Persian) as it continues today in Talyshi, Kurdish, Tati and other NW Iranian languages).

Also the Abbasid Caliph Mot'asem who put Babak to death was half Turkish. Most of his commanders including Ashnaas, Bugha, Aytaakh were Turkish. Only Afshin was of Central Asian origin (probably Soghdian) and he lated was put to death as well.

Please see the following article for more refrences: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/famous/babak_khorramdin/babakpasokhbehanirani.htm It should also be mentioned that beside Babak, Khorramdin is also a pure Persian word.

Dear Contributor. Thanks for enlightening us. But as much as we would like to, we can not have any definite proof of Babak's etnicity. Part of the reason, as I have written above, is that the area was populated by many different ethnicities and cris-crossed by others migrating through, some eventually settling in. Furthermore, I beleive that this ethnicity question is relavely irrelevant to this article. It is a minor issue and should be treted as such. But in fact a large part of the article here discusses his ethnicity and last additions are really too much of an irrelevant info. I will not edit what you have written as I beleive only you can do so preserving the main idea of your contribution. I would like you to shorten it up and leave the most important aspects. You can transfer them here to the talk page, if you want. Second point, on having no thrace of Turks in Azerbaijan before Ilkhanid Period. I highly doubt it, but before saying anything on the matter I need to have more information. Saying so, I also know that in this case, the absence if evidence can not be considered as the evidence of absence. The reason is that you can not find much of the material evidence either in Central Asia, Altays or Siberia about Turks. I don't see any people claiming that they did not exist in these places. Ancient Turks, being mostly nomadic people did not leave buldings and other such evidence. Therefore, it is impossible to consider this kind of a proof that they did not exist in Azerbaijan before 13'th or 11'th centuries. Last, but not least, how do you convince yourself that a name like Tarkhan (or Tarhan) be it a personal name or a position, has no relation with Turks, especially if it was used in Soghdria and Samarghand, is beyond me. By the way, I am not a pan-turkist nationalist, I'm just a Wikipedian. --TimBits 03:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

=
========================== Dear Wikipedian,

Thanks for your comment.

Again I might have to write more on this manner to clear things up. Two ancients sources explicity mention Babak as Persian(Fars in Arabic and Parsik in Armenian). Ibn Hazm in his al-Milal wal-Nihal explicity mentions Babak, Abu Moslem, Sanbaad and etc. as Persian. Vardan the Armenian historian before the Mongol era explicity mentions Babak as of "Persian(Parsic) race". These are two clear refrences. Until there is an explicit refrence claiming otherwise that Babak was a Turk, then there is nothing to argue about.

Secondly the name Tarkhan or Tarkhaan does not come up in most sources that refer to Babak. Whereas the name of his two main generals Rostam and Adhin come up very frequently. But this name Tarkhan is also in the Shahnameh and refers to a Soghdian commander. Iranians used Shahnameh names even if some of them were of non-Iranian origin. For example Salm, Armayil, Munadhir. Just like Americans use John or Miachle which are Hebrew bible. The Shahnameh is based on the Pahlavi KhwudayNamak which was widely available as attested by Ibn-Nadeem. Also the other version of this name TarHan is spelled with an Arabic "T" and an Arabic "H" and this word has a meaning also in Arabic which is quite different. Dekhoda's dictionary gives Tarkhan as a title used in the military or a "military commander" by Khorasani military commander. Then again we have another military title used with Babak, which is Sepahbod which is Persian. The claim that there is no trace of Turkish language in Azarbaijan before Ilkhanid is not false. There is not a single book or even paper written in Turkish before the Ilkhanid era of Azarbaijan. Also many Turks have used Persian military names and titles: like Tegin, Taghan, Shah. So this evidence against all the evidence of Babaks Iranian origin is null.

Also we need to consider the majority of names that have shown up more frequently with regards to Babak. That is: Babak (used in the Shahnameh), Javidan poor Shahrak (Babak's masters), Mahroo (Babak's mother), Mardaas (Another Shahnameh name). Babak's two major commanders were Adhin (A pure Persian name also in the Shahnameh) and Rostam (A pure Persian widely attested in the Shahnama). All these are pure Persian names. Also do not forget the title Khorramdin is also a pure Persian word and this religion was an offshoot of Mazdakism. (See Cambridge History of Iran for further information on Mazdakism and Khorramdin). I have brought examples of Iranians using this name "Tarhan", but the word "Babak" is not even in a single Turkish manuscript.

Furthermore I bring you some sources that the area was not Turkish speaking at the time.

1. First we not the Medes we Iranians as attested by every source we have. For example Herodotus calls them explicity as Aryan. So does Strabo. So does Moses of Khoren. Also we have their names in OP inscription which are all Iranian. See the Encyclopedia Britannica or any modern source with regards to the Medes.

2. During the Sassanid era Azarbaijan was a sacred Zoroastrian site and it was part of the Sassanian Persian empire. The Zoroastrian religion was an Iranian religion. The names that the Arab invaders mention regarding those that protect Azarbaijan are: Bahman and Rostam the son of Farrokhzad. Both these names are also Persian like the name Azarbaijan.

3. During the Arabic invasion, in the Book Fotooh Al-Buldaan the area is mentioned as Persian and Kurdish.

4. After Babak.

According to the famous historian (of Arabic origin) al-Masu'di, who lived in the 10th Century AD:

The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenian and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages. (Al Mas'udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8)

Ibn al-Nadim writes in his book al-Fihrist that the language of Iranian people could be divided in five classes including Pahlavi, Dari, Farsi, Khuzi (language of people in Khuzestan) and Soriani. Relying on what Ibn Muqaffa' said, he opined that Dari was the language of courtiers while Farsi was the language of priests and scientists and the language of people of Fars; Khuzi was the language that kings and dignitaries used in their intimate talks. Soriani was the language of people of Iraq while Pahlavi was spoken by people of Isfahan, Rey, Hamedan, Mah (Mede), Nahavand and Azerbaijan.

5. The names of the cities of Babak are all of non-Turkish origin:

a. Babal-Abaad b. Khash c. Barzand d. Ardabil e. Badh f. Daval-rood

Remember with Babak Khorramdin we are talking about 8th Century A.D. where as the Ilkhanid era where we see the first Turkish documents of the region is from the 13th century A.D.

Also we have works of many poets like Qatran Tabrizi in Persian before the Turkification of this region. At the time of Qatran the area spoke the Azar-Pahlavi dialect and not Turkish. A good proof that the area was non-Turkic at the time of Qatran is the many harsh words he says about the Oghuz Turks which travelled from Central Asia during the Ghaznavid era and attacked Azarbaijan.

The oldest written evidence we have from Turks is from Orkhon of Mongolia which also dates after Islam. It is about 730 A.D.. Now compare this for example with the Pahlavi inscription in Meshkin Shahr Azarbaijan which dates back from 300-400 A.D. That is this Pahlavi inscription from Azarbaijan is older than the oldest Turkish writing. After Orkhon, then it is Uyghur Manicheism writing. All this shows that Turkish progressed from the east to the West. At the time of Babak Khorramdin the area was not Turkish. Let me just add some other points. The main generals and enemies of Babak were of Turkic origin: Ashnas, Aytakh, Bugha. Even Mot'asem the Caliph who put Babak to death was half Turkish. Turks were being brought as slaves and soldiers for the Caliphate from Central Asia to Baghdad in large numbers. They served the caliphate system. Also the real Turks were of mongloid race like those seen in Central Asia. For example the Central Asian Turkic languages are much more purer in terms of Turkicness than the Turkic of Azarbaijan or Turkey.

5. Also I refer you to the following article from the Azarbaijani embassy of China:

http://www.kiffer.us/azeri_info/history_of_azerbaijan-emb.htm

With all these evidences and explicit refrence to his Persian origin by at least two ancient historians, there is no shred of doubt that Babak Khorramdin was Iranian and non-Turkic. There is absolutely no evidence to contest all these facts and so until there exist such an evidence, we have no choice but to go along with the existing evidence.

Dear Contributor. Thank you for the information. 1. I think you did not get my point. I have not challanged your evidence, yet. I only said that there is too much info of the irrelevant aspect and it should be shortened. 2. Nobody said that Azerbaijan was Turkish, or there were no Persians there. Everybody knows that Turkish expansion happended from East to West. But the point is that, the Turkification of the area, did not happen overnight. It is highly unlikely that by 9'th century there was no significant Turkish speaking population-nomad or settled-in Azerbaijan and Iran. 3. Wikipedia policiy is that a position, no matter if it is a minority view or not should be included. And NPOV policiy states that wikipedia can not take sides and prefer one position to another, no matter what. Thank you for your efforts. --TimBits 21:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedian

I am sorry to say but I think you are acting bias. The Turkish language of Azerbaijan is the Oghuz dialect mixed with Persian and Arabic. I agree with you that the Turkification of the language did not happen overnight. Here is how it happened in stages: 1. Oghuz invasion during ghaznavid era which was repelled by Kurdish dynasties of the area. 2. Seljuq invasion 3. Mongol invasion (the majority of mongol tribes were of Turkic origin). 4. Subsequent Ilkhanid, Chupanid and Jalayarid dynasty 5. The Teimurid invasion. 6. The Black sheep Turkomen control of the area. 7. The Safavid who imported most of their troops from Turkomens in Anatolia. 8. Control of the Turko-Mongol origined Qajars of Persia

All these are prior to the movement of Babak. What you say is based on pure conjecture about Azarbaijan with not even single source to support it. You said: "It is highly unlikely that by 9'th century there was no significant Turkish speaking population-nomad or settled-in Azerbaijan and Iran". Do you have any evidence of any Turkish settlement there in Iranian province of Azarbaijan? Which real scholar outside of Turkey/Azerbaijan republic has made such a claim in the last 30 years? You will know that Turks were not followers of Khorramdin (Mazdak sect), but they were either Nomadic Shamans, followers of Manicheism (through Soghdian influence) or Muslims. Also the Khorramdin movement spread throughout all of Persia: "Hamadan, Esfahan, Mahsapandan (Luristan), .." but it did not have any presence in "Turkistan". As I said, there is not even a single trace of Turkish text on rock, paper, leather, manuscript..etc. before the Ilkhanid era from the Iranian province of Azarbaijan or even Aran (the modern republic of Azarbaijan). With due respect I do not think Anatolian and Azarbaijani Turkic speakers existed back then, or else some sources would have to refer to them. Also another good evidence is the final words of Babak Khorramdin(according to Jawama'i al-hakayat and several other books): "Zahi Asani" and "Asani A". Which means "how easy" it was to die for ones cause. Also the people wre allied with Babak Khorramdin like Mazyar were not pro-Turkish either. One quote from Mazyar mentioned by Ibn Khaldun mentions three enemies "Arabs, Turks and Bebers" for the Khorramdin movement. BTW the republic of Azarbaijan has consistently denied its Persian/Zoroastrian heritage since its inception although we know that at the time of Babak, Azarbaijanis were not speakers of Turkic language.

Thanks for your attention.

Dear Contributor,

You have said : I am sorry to say but I think you are acting bias.

I have no bias. You can be sure of that.

The Turkish language of Azerbaijan is the Oghuz dialect mixed with Persian and Arabic.'''

Of course. I don't think anybody protested that. It is true. But Arabic and Persian influence is mainly on vocabulary, not grammar. You would know it if you have some knowledge of the language.

'''Here is how it happened in stages: 1. Oghuz invasion during ghaznavid era which was repelled by Kurdish dynasties of the area.'''

That stage is hardly the first step. It was the first step of Turkish domination in area not the first Turkish arrivals. Turks did not become the dominant element as soon as they appeared. It took a long time and was finally esatblished in 11'th century with Seljuq invasions. For more history of Pre-Seljuq and Pre-Islamic Turkish influence in Azerbaijan, and sources, please refer to other more relevant articles of Azerbaijan History. I do not want to copy and paste stuff from there to here.

Which real scholar outside of Turkey/Azerbaijan republic has made such a claim in the last 30 years?

OK now. I do not understand the logic of this argument. Acording to this, a scholar in order to be taken seriously by you has to meet these conditions:
 * 1) Be real. Whatever that means.
 * 2) Not be from Turkey/Azerbaijan Republic. Why is that?
 * 3) Claim must be in the last 30 years. So, works older than 30 years do not count?

Why do you think there can not be a scholar from Turkey/Azerbaijan Republic who can be considered a real scholar?

You will know that Turks were not followers of Khorramdin (Mazdak sect), but they were either Nomadic Shamans, followers of Manicheism (through Soghdian influence) or Muslims.

And? I guess you still think that Babak movement was a religious movement.

'''Also the Khorramdin movement spread throughout all of Persia: "Hamadan, Esfahan, Mahsapandan (Luristan), .." but it did not have any presence in "Turkistan".'''

More correctly, it spread in Western part of Iran and not including Khorasan or even central Iran. If you look carefully to the map you will see that Turkistan actually happens to be to the north-east of Iran. To the best of my knowledge, those days there was no TV or Internet, there

=
fore a movement needed to spread to the neighbouring areas before moving to another. It could not jump from Azerbaijan and Western Iran to Turkistan.

'''As I said, there is not even a single trace of Turkish text on rock, paper, leather, manuscript..etc. before the Ilkhanid era from the Iranian province of Azarbaijan or even Aran (the modern republic of Azarbaijan).'''

'''Also the people wre allied with Babak Khorramdin like Mazyar were not pro-Turkish either. One quote from Mazyar mentioned by Ibn Khaldun mentions three enemies "Arabs, Turks and Bebers" for the Khorramdin movement.'''

The Turks who were fighting against Babak were not the representatives of Turkish people. They were professional soldiers, kidnapped or bought while they were child by Arabs and trained by Arabs as slave-soldiers, ghulams or mameluks. They usually did not marry and had no contact with Turkic peoples and were extremely loyal to Arab caliphs. It is therefore easy why Mazyar could consider them as the enemies. And at the same time it should be noted that in 9'th century people did not have much conscience of ethnicity. To the dissapointment of Persian nationalists, I should say that Babak, Mazyar and others were not Persian nationalists, patriots or even were aware of their ethnicties. They just had enough of Arab oppression. They did not revolt because they were Persians and others were Arabs, they revolted because of the oppression. They would most probably do the same even if their oppressors were of the same ethnicity with them. Don't judge 9'th century people with modern values and way of thinking. And by the way, don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that Babak was Turk or was not Persian. The probabilty that he was Persian is greater than that he was Turkish. But, both positions whould be considered. Also, the word Tarkhan is a pure Turkish word. Arabs got it from Turkish soldiers and it was used mostly bu Turkish military generals. As it was the case with the genreal with Babak.

BTW the republic of Azarbaijan has consistently denied its Persian/Zoroastrian heritage since its inception although we know that at the time of Babak, Azarbaijanis were not speakers of Turkic language.

First, I don't care what the Republic of Azerbaijan does and what is the relevence of it to this discussion? Then, you seem to contradict the link you gave in previous edit. In your link to the Azerbaijani embassy in China, there is no denial of either Zoroastianism or Persian heritage, rather there is a confirmation. I do not know what you know about Azerbaijan, but people of Azerbaijan despite being Muslims and having a firm belief in Islam, are actually proud of their Zoroastrian and as well as Christian heritage. And they also consider the Persian influence of their culture on of the central and most important but not the only source of their culture. I hope I am clear enough and by the way, you still have not edited the article. I don't want to edit what you have written. Please, shorten it up, and leave the most important aspects. Thanks. --TimBits 00:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC

=
======

Dear Wikipedian,

As I said we have clear references that Babak Khorramdin is called a Persian. I gave two of them. This means that his ethnic identity is clear unless we have evidence otherwise from other ancient historians. I already considered the only contrary evidence which was the name of one of Babak's supporter: Tarkhan while we have 6 names that are purely Persian that relate to Babak: Babak, Mardas, Mahroo, Javidan, Rostam and Adhin. I mentioned that Tarkhan is a military title and it does not necessarily apply to Turks. As Dekhoda's dictionary also refers to it as the title of Soghdian rules. Just like Persian/Soghdian titles like Tegin, Taghaan, Bagh(beik) and Shah became part of the Turkish lexicon. This name is also mentioned in the Shahnameh. Also many sources have written this name with an Arabic spelling big T and Arabic H and the word could easily be the Arabic word TarHaan with no relationship to Turkish Tarkhan/Tarhan.

'''First of all, Arran is and was a part of Azerbaijan not another province apart from Azerbaijan. But as it is a contoversial debate I will not get into that here. As for the evidence, you can be sure that there is nothing but the evidence of Turks in Azerbaijan before Ilkhanid period. Again, as I do not prefer to copy and paste from other pages, I simply invite you to check about it in relevant pages.'''

Note I said there is no textual written evidence of Turkish before the Ilkhanid era from Iranian Azarbaijan. That is there is no written Turkish text before the Ilkhanid era. If Turks had settled in this area for 4-5 centuries beforehand, then we would have some cultural works left from them. All sources we have from the area by Ibn Howqal, Masudi, Ibn Nadeem, Baladhuri, etc. mention that Azarbaijan is Pahlavi(middle Persian)/Persian speaking. As per Arran being part of Azarbaijan, I have a book that has examined virtually all the sources. About 90% of all sources separate Arran and Azarbaijan. Amongst those 10%, most of them consider Arran as being part of Armenia. The only time Arran is considered part of Azarbaijan is due to political ruler which has control over all two or three areas(Armenia includes). Of course I have no problem with the name of Azarbaijan being at the north of Aras since it is an Iranian name and the people there are free to choose what they would like to name their land. As you said that is another topic, which does not concern us. But what is important is that the name Azarbaijan and all the names of cities during Babak's time have Persian etymology. For example " Barzand, Balal Abaad (the city Babak was from), Khash, Daval rood, Ardabil,..". If there was a significant Turkish population at the time of babak, then some cities mentioned by geographers (like Ibn KhurdadBeh or Ibn Howqal) should have Turkish roots.

'''The Turks who were fighting against Babak were not the representatives of Turkish people. They were professional soldiers, kidnapped or bought while they were child by Arabs and trained by Arabs as slave-soldiers, ghulams or mameluks. They usually did not marry and had no contact with Turkic peoples and were extremely loyal to Arab caliphs. It is therefore easy why Mazyar could consider them as the enemies. '''

Mazyar refers to Turks, Arabs and Berbers and does not distinguish. Also the Azarbaijani Persian poet Qatran Tabrizi clearly disparages Oghuz Turks which attacked Azarbaijan in the Ghaznavid era.

'''And at the same time it should be noted that in 9'th century people did not have much conscience of ethnicity. To the dissapointment of Persian nationalists, I should say that Babak, Mazyar and others were not Persian nationalists, patriots or even were aware of their ethnicties. They just had enough of Arab oppression. They did not revolt because they were Persians and others were Arabs, they revolted because of the oppression. They would most probably do the same even if their oppressors were of the same ethnicity with them. Don't judge 9'th century people with modern values and way of thinking. '''

I have to clearly disagree. Have you heared of the Shu'abiya movement? Have you read the history of Tabarestan by Ibn Esfandyar? Have you read the poetry of Qatran Tabrizi? Let me just bring on quote from Mazyar from that history book: "Me, Babak and Afshin had agreed upon in secret to throw out the rules of the Arabs and bring it back to the family of Kasraviyan (i.e. Sassanian)". This is clearly a nationalistic statement. Also the Shahnameh is another important display of the Persian nationalism long before European nationalism. Nationalism has always existed in Iran. I would read about the Shua'biyyah movement with this regards. Also the Pahlavi texts from 9th century are very clearly anti-Arab and sometimes Anti-Roman/Anti-Turk. For example, although not agreeing with the text, Arabs in one ancient Pahlavi text (after the Islamic invasion) are regarded as the children of the seed of Ahriman(the devil). So this is example of ethnic consciousness and nationalism.

'''And by the way, don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that Babak was Turk or was not Persian. Theprobabilty that he was Persian is greater than that he was Turkish. But, both positions whould be considered.'''

But this is the point. As long as we do not have any clear refrence in any ancient text that mentions him as a Turk, then we can not assign probabilities. We have texts before the Mongol era and one of them very close to the era of Babak, both from non-Iranian historians that clearly mention Babak as "Persian". We also have to establish what is a Turk and what is a Persian. Today there is not any difference between the two except language and culturally a Turkish speaker from Azarbaijan is closer to a Persian speaker from Tehran than any other people. But we are talking about the time of Babak where there was a major distinguishment both racially and culturally. All the classical Persian sources mention Turks are Asiatic (mongloid) in race. That is why they are called "Tang Cheshm" (narrow-eyed) in all Persian sources ranging from the poetry of Nezami,Hafez.. all the way to major history books of the time. We can clearly argue that at the time of Babak, there was not a formation of Azarbaijani or Anatolic Turkic speakers. These people are mainly the product of the Turkic language brought by Central Asiatic invaders imposed on the native Iranian, Albanian, Armenian, Greek, Kurdish.. populations. For example when we are talking about Turks in the old days we have their tribal affiliation: Oghuz, Uyghur, Qafqach, Joghtayi.. With regards to Babaks ethnicity, our problem can be cleared up more (if necessary) by considering that the Oghuz dialect that our dear Azarbaijanis of the world speak, came long after Babak Khorramdin. At the time of Babak, the area was speaking a middle Persian dialect and Babak practiced a Persian religion: Khorramdin. Also we can not consider the fact that Babak was a Khazar Turk as we know they were followers of Judaism and not Khorramdin (Mazdak/Zoroastrian sect). Also their border was around the vicinity of Darband.

'''More correctly, it spread in Western part of Iran and not including Khorasan or even central Iran. '''

That is not correct. The Khorramdin movement spread to Esfahan and Rayy (modern Tehran). In fact some sources give its first revolt in Esfahan. There is also a strong Khorasani connection since mention of Abu Moslem being a revered figure in the Khorramdini movement comes up frequently. Although it should be mentioned that Khorasan was under Tahirid control and the movement could not pose a challenge in the area.

BTW A real scholar in my opinion would be one that has many articles in international journals. An example from the republic of Azarbaijan is Prof. Eghrar Alioff. His history book which is also translated into Persian: "The history of Atoorpaatekaan". As per that text in Azarbaijani embassy of China, it was changed recently after some pan-turanist agitators did not like the historical facts written in that article. Here is the text prior to the change: http://www.kiffer.us/azeri_info/history_of_azerbaijan-emb.htm And here is the text after the change: http://www.azerbembassy.org.cn/eng/historical.html

And this is exactly what I mean by the republic of Azerbaijan denying its Iranian(Indo-Iranian/Persian) heritage, which was its major heritage prior to the Turkification of the region. How many people in that republic can understand Nezami, Khaghani, Ghatran. I feel that the denial of origin of Babak Khorramdin or other Persian historical figures from the area is another step in this direction. Thanks for your attention. I would research more on the Shua'biyah movement to see a clear example of nationalism that was clearly anti-Arab (and not just anti-Caliphate).


 * ) I see. You got to write something, even if it ment repeating everything you said before, cause otherwise it would be accepting the other view. Real childish, I should say, but I will not play along.

You go ahead with your search and I will see what can I find to even further prove what I was saying. Take care, till then. --TimBits 02:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedian,

Part of the previous answer was repetition. But part of it was not. For example the first revolt of the Khorramdin movement did not occur in Azarbaijan and furthermore this movement was widely spread throughout Persian even in the central regions. Also the movements of Mazyar and Babak by every sense of the word was nationalistic. An ally of Babak Khorramdin in the central region of Esfahan by the name "Ali Mazdak" is mentioned in the sources as being killed by the Caliph forces. Also the Khorramdin movement did have supporters in Georgia/Armenia amongst Christians.

Take care till then

"Babak", Can you remember Ardeshire babakan!????!!!!?
Are you familiar with history of Iran ,Do you know Ardeshire babakan ,poor turk find someone of yourselves to honour ,to adore. I heard a turk once said Zardosht has been a turk ! what a poor turk ,what a poor kourooghli!

Cleanup
This disambiguation page has been cleaned up by the disambiguation wikiproject. De se rt A ng el    03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)