Talk:Nizami Ganjavi/Archive 2

A certain user has edited the article from an ethnic centric point of view and I had to revert it
A certain user has changed the ethnicity of Shirin the Armenian princess to an Azarbaijani! This is definitely uncalled for since all sources agree she was Armenian and a Christian and was not a Turkic speaking Azarbaijani. This is totally unacceptable and I do not want to get Armenians involved in this discussion as well. Indeed Turkic speaking Iranian Azarbaijanis did not exist back then and the process of Turkification occurred way after the Sassanids. So let s leave it as scholars know it. And if you need proof, here is when Khosrows advisor and friend looks for Shirin in Armenia: برنده ره بیابان در بیابان  به کوهستان ارمن شد شتابان که آن خوبان چو انبوه آمدندی  به تابستان در آن کوه آمدندی چو شاپور آمد آنجا سبزه نو بود  ریاحین را شقایق پیش رو بود گرفته سنگهای لاجوردی  ز کسوت‌های گل سرخی و زردی

And when there is a castle build for Shirin in Armenia: ذپس از ماهی کز آسایش اثر یافت  ز بیرون رفتن خسرو خبر یافت که از بیم پدر شد سوی نخجیر  وز آنجا سوی ارمن کرد تدبیر

And when Khosrows goes looking for her in Armenia: که چون خسرو به ارمن کس فرستاد  به پرسش کردن آن سرو آزاد

This is not a place to bring political situations of the last 20 years into what has been agreed upon by scholars. I will respond to the rest of the ethnic centeric viewpoint here.

The author also has misquoted some of the verses of Nizami with really poor Persian (and one of them didn't exist) although the issue of Nizamis ethnicity has been settled by scholars. Kurdish mother, and father of perhaps from Qom. This is what Nizami scholars have said and there is absolutely nothing else from his poetry to gain more information. We do not want to bring verses that are ethnic in nature weather pro or con. Here is a very degrading one from Eskandar addressed to the King of Turks and Eskandar does not address anyone else like this and indeed has full respect for the King of Persia: ''' 1) He opened his mouth and cursed at Turks 2) and said: "Without discord/disbelief(fitnah) No Turk is born from a mother 3) do not expect anything from chinni except a movement of an eyebrow (In Persian poetry Chin refers to Uighyur western China and parts of Central Asia while Machin refers to mainland China. For example Ferdowsi calls the ruler of the Turks as Khaghan Chin) 4) because they are covenant-breakers and can not be trusted 5) The wise people of the past said it in truth 6) that there is no honor and faithfullness in chinni 7) They all have accepted Tang-Chesmi (meaning narrow eyes) (like in the mongolian race) (meaning also they can't see well..) 8) they have only seen greatness and wideness in the eyes of others 9) Have you not heared that their love is equal to hate 10) the heart of Turk-e-chinni is full of crookedness 11) If the Turk-chinni had any honor 12) then the earth would be clothed under chinn (Part of Eskandar Nama)'''

Or the ones where Nizami wrote from the Shirvan shah desisting Turkish language and manners and Nizami praises him heavily.

Now this user wrote this verses and I will analyze it:

''In this Ephiopia my Turkishness is not appreciated, That's why my tasty doga [hodgepodge, a traditional milk-based Turkic meal] is not eaten. In Persian: "Torkiemra der in Hebesh neherend, lacherem dugbaje-hesh nehorend". (From: Seven beauties/Haft paykar, fourth epic poem of Nizami).''

First the Persian is horrible: It is Torkiyam raa dar in Habash Nakharand, laajaram Dooghbaayeh Khos Nakhorand.

This is in the end of the story of moral advices and it is when the many moral advices have been given. After finishing all the moral advices (which none of them have anything to do with ethnicity!), the poets complains that many people might not take his advice. Here is wilsons translation after 200 lines of moral advice:

''Be no disciple aspirationless do not be weak of faith in trust in God I, solver of a hundred knotty points, am village-chief, but in the village not If from the road a guest should chance to come, who will there be to set a tray for him? Intelligence discerns what I now say, and what I aim at in this hint thrown out. At destitution I am little vexed of him who’s destitute is my complaint. 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.''

You see this has nothing to do with any sort of ethnicity! And since Turk in Persian meant beautiful lover as opposed to Ethipions in Persian poetry (and these were the mongloid turks as Nizami calls them repeatedly Cheshm Tang (narrow eyed)), he is saying that this moral beauty is not bought in this ugly Ethiopia (Habash). This has nothing to do with ethnicity. After 300 lines of advice, the teacher hopes that his advices will be taken seriously. Else Nizami did not live in Ethiopia. And he does not have even one verse of Turkish (assuming he could speak it) while there were certaintly Seljuqids who could have helped him if he wanted to compose. The fact is that not even one verse of turkish poetry exists from the area before the Mongol invasion. Rumi another Persian poets says: “Gah Tork, Gah Hindu, Gah Zangi, Gah Rumi” (sometimes I am a Turk, sometimes a hindu, sometimes a black, sometimes a Roman). Turk (and these are central Asian Mongloid Turks) symbolically means a cruel lover, beautiful person, a plunderer and also sun (because of the yellow color). A Hindu means dark, night, and also servant. A Zangi (African) means night, total darkness. Even his name is Rumi (Roman/Greek), but this does make Greek/Roman although he had 50 verses of Greek also. A Roman means day, light, total whiteness in Persian poetry. I hope this verse is resolved.

Secondly Doogh (yogurt drink and yogurt) is a Persian word etymologically and its Tukish equivalent is 'Ayraan'. Dooghbaa is a traditional milk based drink but it is in no way Turkish as the word itself is Persian. Sa'adi has referred to it in his poems as well. The etymology is Persian (Dehkhoda). In fact the turkish equivalent for Dooghbaa would be Ayraan-something. Doogh is Persian meaning white (Yogurt) and baa means meal. Like the other word Shoorbaa used for certain variety of soups.

The author then continues:

''Turks, the power of which has risen (towered), Posesse the kingdom (governing) by means of justice (fairness). Since you cherish tyranny, cruelty, Then you are not a Turk, but a Hindu-robber (thief). n Persian: Dovlete torkan ke bolendi kereft, Memleket ez dadpecendi kereft, Chonke to bidadkeri perveri, Tork neyi hendu-ye bidadkeri". (From: Treasure of Mysteries (Secrets), first epic poem of Nizami). ''

Again poor Persian and mispronunciation of words. It is Dowlat Torkan ke Bolandi Gereft - Mamlekat az dad pasandi gereft

This is actually a play on words. The story is in Makhzan al-asraar and it is about a complaint of an old lady (pir-e-zan) to the Seljuq ruler Sanjar. And since Turks in Persian poetry symbolically means ruler/plundered and hindu as a slave/plundered (this symbolism came to Persian poetry though the devastating campaigns of Ghaznavids in India). It is saying that you are acting like a slave and not a master. Again this has nothing to do with Nizami's ethnicity.

The author continues:

Ganja, having tied me up, has firmly taken me, Iraq's wealth I hold without node" (From: Treasure of Mysteries (Secrets), first epic poem of Nizami. Note: Ganja, the capital of Arran/Azerbaijan, was part of the Seljuq Turkic Empire at the time of Nizami with capital in Baghdad -- hence Iraq. Meanwhile, Iran did not exist as a separate or otherwise independent or semi-independent unified state since the 7th century AD and until resurrection in 16th century under Shah Ismail Khatai Sefevi).

Actually Iran was a common term and it referred to a region. Even the Seljuqs used Iran when referring to Iranian territories. So does Nizami. As does Qatran Tabrizi and many other poets. Indeed Nizami refers to the Shirvan Shah not only as the ruler of Arran, but also one who is truly by heart the ruler of all of Iran. What you might say is that “Iranian” state was not created until Safavids just like the republic of Azarbaijan was not created as a state until 19th century. The Seljuqs although Turkic originally adopted Persian culture and manner. And this has no bearing on Nizamis ethnicity since hundreds if not thousands of other Persian poets are known from the Seljuq era. The word Iran is used 20 times in Nizamis poetry. When he praises the Shirvan Shah he says: “In naameh naghz nagofteh behtar – taavoos javaaneh jofteh behtar – khaaseh molki cho shah sehrvan – shervaan cheh keh shahryaar Iran” Translation: This well written story has never been better, It is as beutifull as young peacock throne, For a king like the king of Shirvan,  Not just Shirvan but all of Iran!”. So Iran as geographical entity has been used many times before the Safavid era. Specially it has been used in Samanid, Ghaznavid, Seljuqid..eras.

Now to this  verse:

If my (dear) Turkic (wife Appaq/Afak) escaped from (my) tent, o God, (I beg you) take care of my Turkic-born (son Muhammed)!" (From: Khosrov and Shirin, second epic poem of Nizami)

First of all it is Afagh, not Appaq. Secondly the verse before it is insulting:

چو ترکان گشته سوی کوچ محتاج 		به ترکی داده رختم را به تارج اگر شد ترکم از خرگه نهانی 		خدایا ترک زادم را تو دانی

Cho torkaan gashteh sooyeh kooch mohtaaj Beh torki daadeh rakhtam raa beh taaraaj Agar shod torkam az khargah nahaani Khodaayaa tork-zaadm raa to daani

After the death of the slave girl sent to him by the Sultan of Darband, Nizami writes: ‘’since Turks are indeed in need of migration, my wife plundered my belongings away in a Turkish manner, if My Turkish wife escaped from the tent, O god you best know about my Tork-Zaad”

Nizami uses the word Tork-zaad (born of a Turkish mother). Which in Persian literature lexicon means a son of Turkish slave. That is an Iranian or an Arab married to Turkish slave. For example Ferdowsi says about Hormozd the Sassanid king whose father was a Turk: “Sokhan bas kon ze Hormozd Tork-zaad – keh andar zamaaneh mabaad aan nejaad” (End now the discussion and talk about Hormzod Tork-zaad, may such a race (half turk-half Persian) never exist any time!). Look at Dekhodas dictionary for other examples. So this verse actually shows Nizami was not a Turk, else there would not be any need to use such a term..

Finally the word turk has gained many meanings in Persian literature like the word Qafchaq has. It simply means a beautiful person and it is used heavily in this manner by Attar, Hafez, Rumi, Ferdowsi.. and etc. So even this part about his wife Afaq can be taken to mean she was beautiful like Turks of Central Asia.

Finally lets take a look at this verse:

From Khazar mountains till Chinese sea, Whole land I see full of Turks" (From: Iskender-nameh, 1199-1201, fifth and last epic poem of Nizami. Note: this quote is said by Alexander the Great in the poem).

Actually in the Eskandar Nama, it is made clear that Azarbaijan is a Zoroastrian and Persian strong-hold. This section is about the country of Russia and Alexanders incursion in Russia and how he uses Turks and Russians against each other. Khazars borders has always been from the Darband upward. Both the Sassanids and the Caliphates kept the border at the Darband and the mountains beyond until the Russians destroyed the Khazar empire. So I do not see what this quote has anything to do with Nizamis ethnicity. He mentions Indians, Blacks, Russians, Chinese, Turks, Persians, Romans.. in the Eskandar-nama. So I am not sure what this author is trying to prove.

Finally Nizami uses the word Parsi(Persian) (11) times all in positive manner. The word “Iran” is quoted 20 times. Indeed two of his epics is about full praisal of Sassanid Iran who were enemies of Khazars and Gok-Turks (first two Turkic empires). And in the Alexandar (Dhul-Qarnain) story, the King of Persia is actually praised by Alexander and Azarbaijan is a Zoroastrian Persian strong-hold. I can come up with literally hundreds of verses where he is either praising Iranian or Iranian culture or has some connection with Iran. Culturally, Nizamis Persian poetry is clearly part of the Islamo-Iranian heritage. So lets leave the discussion of his ethnicity to what serious Nizami scholars have agreed upon and is certain. 100% Kurdish mother. Perhaps a father from Qom. And Perhaps a Turkish slave as his wife named Qafqaz. Shirin also is an Armenian in Khosrow o Shirin. Alexander is Greek/Roman (and do not get into that macedonian argument since to Nizami he was Greek). Lili o Majnoon is Arab story. So Nizami has a connection to everyone and is universal. If there was anything else that would make his ethnicity clearer, then scholars would have already shown it. So we will never know more than this with certainty. BTW I also have PhD and lets not write ethnic based articles and then refer to it in Wikipedia. I say lets honor Nezami instead of fighting. His poetry pretty much speaks for itself with regards to the culture he belonged to. Else pretty soon Iranians, Armenians, and people from the Azarbaijani republic and Kurds also will be bickering. I have found many english translations of Nizami's verses (without any ethnic nature although clearly about Iranian Sassanid folklore) that I will put up soon in this article. --Ali doostzadeh 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a lengthy talk, but you are making many misguided assumptions and unscholarly conclusions, while simultaneously attacking anyone who disagrees with you, yet trying to look with peaceful and good intentions. Had this been true, you and a certain other user would note have been 1) deleting verses from Nizami that I have provided (and my verses include far more bibliographic information as to where they are from); 2) by incorrectly providing the dates of Nizami's 5 epic poems, as well as being wrong about the order in which they were written, 3) by denying that in addition to the 5 epic poems (Khamse) Nizami also had a Divan of many lyrical poems, with some 2,000 beyts (couplets) available to us today, 4) by incorrectly translating Nizami from Persian due to not being an expert in 12th century Farsiye Dari language, and more importantly, ignoring the fact that it was written by an Azerbaijani such as Nizami, which is testified by his use (spelling) of certain Persian words in an Azerbaijani fashion (e.g., munjug instead of bundjug) and usage of several Turkic words in the poems (e.g., usaq, alichaq, yataq, bichaq, chariq, papax, chorab, etc), 5) thinking that if Nizami described Turks as with slanted eyes, it is an insult (?! only to a modern-day racist perhaps, but to the rest of us, it is a sign of beauty), 6) talking about Mongols and yellow-skinned (?!) Turks when Mongols WERE NOT EVEN KNOWN TO THE REGION YET and Turks being always WHITE-skinned in Nizami's poems and an example of beauty and courage, 7) by ignoring the affirmation of Nizami's Azerbaijani-Turk ethnicity by multiple scholars of different origin, from different countries, whether Russian or German, Ukrainian or Uzbek, Jewish or even ARMENIAN!

I can go on and on, debunking your talk. Part of your problem is that you, like majority of Iranians, do not have access to ACADEMIC editions of Nizami's poems. Do you know the difference between an academic, scholarly edition and a simple one such as the one you rely upon? An Academic edition compares, critically and textologically analyzes ALL existing manuscripts of Nizami's poems around the world, whilst yours relies on a few of them in Iran. That's why you keep on talking about Nizami's father being from Qom (Kum) when 1) there is no proof of that nature from Nizami himself and 2) and such a line, albeit not about his father, but himself, was added to the later editions of the manuscripts, but absent from all earlier one's, such as one done in 1361 and 1365 and held in Paris National Library. That's why such giants of Oriental studies as prof. E.Bertels dismissed these allegations about Qom -- which was supported by none other than another notable scholar and very famous Armenian poetess M.Shaginyan in her 1950s book -- all of which I dilligently reproduced.

Similarly, she (Shaginyan) dismissed the mistaken assumption of Shirin being Armenian -- how poorly educated one has to be to say that Shirin was Armenian if she just travelled (i.e, not lived!) to Armenia, a geographic concept to begin with as there was no independent Armenia either in Nizami's time or in Khosrov time. I guess F.Kafka was ethnic German or ethnic Czech, since he wrote in German and lived in Prague -- but in reality he was Jewish. Ayatollah Khomeini was probably French -- after all, he travelled and lived in France. And I guess myself, along with you, are pure Anglo-Saxons for writing in English. For your education, Shirin was an Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk -- she had those slanted eyes, that you consider an insult, she drank kumis (the Turkic - nomadic - horse's milk), her ansestor, as mentioned by Nizami, was "mythical king of Turan Afrasiyab", who was also ancestor of Mihin-Banu -- the queen of Arran (Barda) and Shirin's aunt, who pocessed and ruled all of Arran and Armenia. All of this shows that your knowledge of Nizami's works is shallow, it is not enough to be able to read in Farsi or read at all -- one has to know the complex history of the region and have other analytical skills to make proper assumptions and determinations.

Instead of deleting the quotes from Nizami that I provide, the links to other websites that I provide, the biographical information that I cite (!), better add your own fully-cited information.

--70.108.235.71 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me start with your sentences: Thanks for a lengthy talk, but you are making many misguided assumptions and unscholarly conclusions, while simultaneously attacking anyone who disagrees with you, yet trying to look with peaceful and good intentions.

Also it is better to sign in with your previous name or at least the acronym of it (AB).

Again you wrote a lot (I might add with some arrogance) but you were not able to prove anything! Persian is language I know well because I am from Iran. Actually the Persian you typed was terrible and makes the verses not rhyme. And you did not know Dooghbaa and Shoorbaa are Persian words and not Turkish. So you lack basic etymological skills. And by the way you seem to be an economic major (google search), and are not definitely an expert in Persian or a Nizami scholar or Persian literature Professor! So your own composition should be talked about within the discussion page. Doogh means Yogurt based drink in Persian and it is not Turkish word. So you lack basic Persian skills, whereas I can tell easily which word is Persian, which is Turkish, which is Arabic from reading any manuscript. The other word you mentioned Chorab (Sharab) is actually arabic word meaning wine! The word Manjuq/Monjuq could be Persian (Dekhoda) and before Nizami, Asadi Tusi (from Tus Khorasan, the homeland of Ferdowsi) uses it in Garshasp Nama (another Persian epic poem about the ancestor of Rustam). Different pronounciation of the same word with one root exists in many languages. For example Shahr (city) شهر, Shaar شار Both are used by Ferdowsi. I can keep going on and on and you should provice at least the actual verse in arabic script so readers can judge and not just throw out few words. You probably can not read Persian which is Nizamis language. And by the way Sa'adi, Hafez and Ferdowsi have used some some Turkish words as well, so are you going to claim them as Turkish? Or should I claim Fizuli as a Persian since some of his verses are much more Persian than Turkish. Using a few Turkish terms, specially to do with military, tent/camp (alachiq) is common in Persian. Khaghani even uses some Georgian words. And by the way it is better to give a refrence and write the arabic script version off each of the words you claim, and bring the verses. I will show that other Persian poets could have used a few terms. Indeed Ferdowsi and Nizami use much more Greek terms, but are you going to call them Greek. And above Greek, they use much more Arabic terms. So please do not weave so much stuff in order to make claims. The fact is that we only know 100% Nizamis mother was Kurdish. Other than that, some manuscripts have made a reference to him being from Qom, and this is a 'perhaps', 'maybe', etc. 1) I did not delete any of your verses, and I have brought them and responded to them in the discussion page. Discussion of Nizamis ethnicity does need 100 lines or else I would put my article also refuting yours and put much more lines supporting Iranian father

2) I did not incorrectly put Nizamis dates. These have been manipulated by various users over time.  Experts are still not 100% sure about the exact dates of all them. (Said Nafisi).  That is why information was taken from Dr. Iraj Bashiri's page and I will update it accordingly to it.  100% certainty on the date of composition of each manuscript does not exist.

3) Nizami, if he had a diwan (according to dowlat shah samarqandi about 20,000 verses), it has been lost. No serious Nizami scholar has referenced the lines outside of panj ganj and the verses outside of panj ganj are indirect attributions that can not be proved today.  They have been published by by Vahid Dastgerdi by their authencity is not gauranteed like the Panj Ganj.  All Nizami has available to scholars today is the 5 ganj.  There are false attributions to many ancient authors.  Even Hafez, Ferdowsi, Attar, Rumi.  Only the 5 ganj are known from Nizami.  This sort of thing unfortunately has happened and attributing verses to different authors is nothing new.

4) Fourthly Nizami uses Perso-arabic script. Not Azarbaijani script.  And he does not say naharand, but he says nakharand.  I can read the original Persian script and so please do not write false claims.  You were not there to here Nizami pronouncing.  Persian has kh and Nizami has written kh.  If some one well verses in a language, he would pronounce it like the speakers of that language!  And Nizami was certainly amongst the top seven greatest Persian poets and had full mastery of the language.  And for example you did not pronounce the word Dooghbaa correctly, while there no unambiguity for any reader in Persian.  And please provide the verses and not just a word here and there.  For each claim, please provide the verses in Persian.  And Also the verse before and after it.

5) There is no talk of racism. Nizami describes Turks as Tang-Chesm (slant-eyes).  So does Hafez.  So does Rumi.  So does Sanai.  So do many Islamic compositions.  And who said narrow eyes ( slant-eyes) are not pretty?  You are the one being racist.  There is no reference to Turks white skin in any of Nizamis poem.  (by the way the tone of the skin could be light and one can be of Mongoloid race like many Chinese).

But here is many references to narrow eyes.

Here is several:

به نِفرين تُرکان زَبان بَرگُشاد // که بی فِتنِه تُرکی زِ مادَر نَزاد//زِ چينی بِجُز چينِ اَبروُ مَخواه //ندارند پِيمان مردم نِگاه // سُخن راست گُفتند پيشينيان // که عَهد و وَفا نيست در چينيان // همه تَنگ چِشمی پَسنديده اند// فَراخی به چَشمِ کَسان ديده اند// خبر نی که مهر شما کين بُوَد// دل تُرکِ چين پُر خَمُ و چين بُوَد// اگر تُرکِ چينی وَفا داشتی // جهان زيرِ چين قَبا داشتی

(Eskandar Nama)

سرآينده ترك با چشم تنگ فروهشته گيسو به گيسوي چنگ

(Eskandar Nama)

When Eskandar conquers the Qifqach: همه تنگ چشمان مردم فریب فرشته ز دیدارشان ناشکیب (Eskandar Nama)

When Bahram talks to one his servant and compares to her tatar:

گفت کای تنگ چشم تاتاری صید ما را به چشم می ناری ؟ صید ما کز صفت برون آید در چنان چشم تنگ چون آید

I can also show it from about 10 other classical poets and authors that describe turks as tang-cheshm. So if you want to make a point from now on, show the relevant verses.

1) I have access to all Western and Iranian sources. I read a lot of classical poetry while your fundamental problem is that you can not read and understand Persian well.  Like many people in Caucasian Azarbaijan.  2) The USSR sources are not much help to scholars in much aspect because they have been manipulated by ethno-centeric scholars many times. For example Tajiks were forced to learn that Nizami Ganjavi was an Azarbaijani (Turk), but now after the breakup, he is an Iranian in the textbook. Everyone today knows the many nonsense aspect of soviet histiography. Even Stalin made false claims and got involved.  There is a good article in Persian by the way written by an Armenian scholar which totally shows how many soviet scholars after the breakup have said Nizami is Persian and had nothing to do with Turks or Turkish culture. (Indeed if he did, he would write about Kor-Oghlu and Dede-Qorqod instead of Sassanid Persian stories). There is a lot of Armenians, Iranians, Western, Russian.. scholars that have affirmed Nizamis Iranian ethnicity. Specially many Russians after the soviet breakup. One famous RUSSIAN Iranist said: ''Nizami Ganjavi is one of the greatest thinkers and poets of the middle ages and belongs to the exceptional heritage of Persian literature. He had no connection with the current culture of Azarbaijan. And Azerbaijanis (he means the caucus ones that consider themselves Turks) are making a useless effort to claim and make him of their own. At the time of Nizami, Azeri-Turks did not exist in Azarbaijan''. (sovietkaya kultura (soviet culture) magazine, 27 of December, 1988).

Read this article for other former soviet union scholars that have refuted your theory after the breakup: 

And btw what counts is what the most recent sources say. If one Armenian scholar in 1950 said something (and this I haven't seen proof), tens of Armenian scholars are saying the opposite now. Specially with the break up of soviets. At the time of the USSR, such a matter after the verdict of Stalin was not open to much debate! And it could mean being forced into Siberia. Many USSR scholars were coered by different methods and did not have freedom of speech and thought in many matters.

Those multiple USSR scholars when it comes to ethnicity do not have much value and what matters is what the scholars are saying today. And finally you can not prove it from one verse that Nizamis other half was 100% anything from any ethnicity. Encyclopedia Britannica has left that portion as blank. So for now Kurds will claim the ethnic glory, if you will. 3) About his father being from Qom, there is perhaps and we did not say it with certainty! We said some manuscripts.  And these manuscripts BTW are 400 years old and actually biography books more than 400 year old have mentioned this.  Even if this is 100% false, we not know for 100% since it still in some manuscript.  Because even if there is a manuscript older than it, it does not automatically 100% refute it,  since multiple manuscripts could have been extant.  So that is why we use the word Perhaps.  Even if some scholars dismiss it, some scholars have used words "perhaps", "could have been","maybe." . Like CE Wilson, Iraj Bashi and Julia Scott Meysami.  So nothing is 100%.  Only his Kurdish mother is 100%.   That why we did say perhaps, could have been, maybe...

4) Again Shirin was Armenian. And I have shown it from the material above.  Parviz (Persian name) sends his friend Shapur (Persian name) to Armenia to pick her up.  Indeed Shirin is a Persian name as well and Armenian is about 15% middle Persian.  Whereas the earliest manuscripts from Turkish, like the Orkhon inscription, are relatively pure.  Her mother is the ruler of Armenia.  If you can read Persian it is clear.  In google do a search "shirin armenian nizami", see what you get.  Many scholarly references prop up.  In fact "Shirin-e-Arman" is famous saying in Persian poetry.   I have searched the Khusraw o Shirin and was not able to locate Turan.  .  So it is better if you provide the verses in original Persian instead of just talking about it!  Bring the actual Persian verses.  This point for me is sufficient to see you have a major political agenda.  That is not acceptable in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no mention of Shirin being a Turk and Azarbaijani. And Caucasian Arranians (Albanians) were not Turks either. They were a Christian people speaking Caucasian languages whose church merged with the Armenian Church. Also Dr. Moin and Dehkhoda have both also called Shirin Armenian. And the Turanians were not Turks either as all their names in Avesta are Iranian. Like Afrasiyaab, Piran, Peshang, Garsivaz... Caucasian Albania or Arran historically is not part of Azarbaijan. The overwhelming majority of classic sources consider it a separate land. Although sometimes because of administrative reasons, it has been considered part of Armenia or Azarbaijan (below the Aras river). That and Turan is another story though. But you need to bring actual verses about Shirin being a Turk! If you can not and persist changing her identity, I will get other Wikipedians, Armenians and Iranian Wikipedians involved. I have shown from the above verses how Shapur, that is Khusraw's friend, goes to Armenian to introduce Shirin for Khusraw.

Here is another Persian poet, Vahshi baafqi (1524-1576) writing about Shirin the Armenian and clearly and explicitly mentions her as Armenian:

که تا با تلخ کامی‌ها برآید  مگر شیرین لبی را درخورآید چو فرهاد آرزو را در درون کشت  کلید آرزوها یافت در مشت به کلی کرد چون از خود کرانه  بیامد تیر آهش بر نشانه نمود از دولت عشق گرامیش  اثر در کام شیرین تلخ کامیش چنان بد کن شه خوبان ارمن  سر شکر لبان شیرین پر فن

And in another one from Amir Khosrow Dehlavi (1253-1325) who clearly and explicity mentions her as an Armenian:

که در چین بود از ارمن نقشبندی نبشته نقش شیرین بر پرندی And btw her mothers name was not Mihin-Banu(turkish pronounciation), but it was Mahin-Banu. Which is a Persian word, Mahin meaning greatest. If you want your rhymes to work, then pronouncing the word correctly is important. So if I take your argument, then Nizami definitely pronounced words in Persian. BTW both Mahin Banu and Shirin are Persian words and as I said Armenian is about 15% Parthian-Pahlavi. Classical Armenian is much more Parthian-Pahlavi. But samples of classical Turkish (Orkhon manuscript) shows very little Iranic influence and perhaps a few Soghdian words (atlhough Shirin and Mahin-Banu are Persian Iranian and not Soghdian Iranian). 5) I can claim you are a racist. Let us do away with childish characterization of those who do not share your POV.  Nizami uses the term Narrow-eyes for Turks as I shown above.  There is nothing racist about it, since many other Persian poets have used it.  And racism is irrelevant here and has nothing to do with discussion when someone is describing physical characteristics.  The harsh verses about Khaghan Turk are also not racist.  Since concept of racism does not apply to those days..

6) We know 100% Nizamis mother was a Kurd. His father we will never know.  And the only thing reliable from Nizami available to us is his 5-ganj.  Any other verses outside of this is attributed and not taken to be authentic. BTW, not to take your claims seriously, but   Nizami was not even fully Azarbaijani as claim, since he was at least half Kurdish!  And today scholars look for both mother and father to ascertain ethnicity.  I would guess by probability that his other half was Kurdish since virtually all Kurds marry with other Kurds.

7) Finally Nizamis description of Azarbaijan is Persian Zoroastrian stronghold.  All his works are Persian.  None of them have anything to do with Turkish culture like Dede-Qorqord or Kor-Oghlu.  They are about ancient Persian and other Islamic folklores.  But nothing to do with Turkish folklore. 8) We do not want to put 100 lines of bickering about Nizami’s ethnicity in the Wikipedia article. People that will read his poems will pretty much figure it out what culture he belonged to. Even Stalin claimed that Nizami had Turkish works, while no scholar takes such a matter seriously, since Turkish poetry first showed up in the region during Ilkhanid era. We have agreed with other users not to make this article about Nizamis ethnicity but about Nizami Ganjavi. I can come with hordes of arguments. Like why would Nizami constantly praise Ferdowsi and the Persian nationalistic dynasty of the Sassanids. Or why did he belittle Turks through Shirvanshah and praised the ShirvanShah. Or why he doesn't even have one verse in Turkish. And why he derides the Khaghan of Turks so badly. And why he has written that he has looked through Persian, Arabic, Bukhari, Tabari sources, but not Turkish. And many many more arugments. That is why I moved your comments to the talk page about ethnicity. And btw Iranians have so many excellent Persian poets that Nizami Ganjavi is only one of them. So far us it is in no way a life and death issue and there is no need to falsify his background. He was Kurdish mother and I would say most likely a Kurdish father (or perhaps his father was from Qom). The reason is that the name 'raise' Kurd means lady chieftan of Kurdish tribe for his mother and usually Kurds marry within themselves. Specially cheiftans who are of higher class. Of course there is exceptions to the rule, but that is the case overwhelmingly. The fact is that even the translations of Nizami Ganjavi to Azarbaijani Turkish came later than many other modern languages (including English, Russian, French..) and this means Nizami did not have any profound effect on the Oghuz Turkish culture although some Turkish and Indian poets read his work in Persian and were influenced by it.

BTW I had added some of Nizamis poetry unrelated to ethnicity and you deleted it. This is unacceptable as the main point of the article is to write about Nizami. Other users have agreed as well. --Ali doostzadeh 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Extensive comments and corrections are necessary to Ali Doostzadeh’s talk, since he either is very partial, preferring to concentrate on one and not another, or severely misinterprets some facts or mistranslates and misattributes, or is outright false on others. This is a continuation of the general policy of chauvinism, discrimination and racism displayed by some extremists and which results in the well-known events underway right now in South Azerbaijan’s (North Iran) cities of Tabriz and Urmiya, where 100,000’s Azerbaijanis are protesting the denial of their basic rights and general discrimination by the Iranian government and few Persian chauvinists (chauvinism, an extreme form of nationalism, is present in all cultures and people, by no means limited to any one nation in particular). By the way, the constant references that one writes in a “bad” Persian language are another testament of this – although, if I were on the place of the author, I would pay attention to the horrible English spelling and grammar, as well as mistyped Russian (e.g., “sovietkaya kultura” instead of “Sovetskaya kul’tura”) and even mistranslated Persian/Farsi (on that a little bit below).

1) No one has the right to delete any fact-based, fully cited and attributed information or quotes from either Nizami himself or well-known academics and scholars on that issue, especially Russian, Azerbaijani, Jewish, Ukrainian, and in general Soviet – who have made by far the biggest research on Nizami’s heritage in the 20th century, making the most complete ACADEMIC editions of Nizami’s all five epic poems (Khamse, which is an Arabic term by the way). In other words, anyone who does not know Russian language and is not familiar with the research and scholarly works of Russian-language academics is very severely and negatively affected. Any serious Iranian researcher, be it prof. Meisami or prof. Talattof, are at least somewhat acquainted with Russian-language sources and pay tribute to them – while simultaneously revealing the not-very-pleasant details about some Iranian editors and scholars, such as Sarvatian, Zanjani, Hakimi, Muvahhid, Rashid and Ja’fari. Thus, knowledge of Russian for studying Nizami – and any other Azerbaijani, Uzbek, or Armenian and Persian-Tajik poet – is essential and no less important than knowledge of Farsi/Persian and its classical literary version, Dari.

To sum-up, anyone deleting any facts is in essence vandalizing the page and Wikipedia’s rules on vandalizing of pages must apply. Only falsifications and mistakes should be deleted, not objective facts and truth.

Meanwhile, I've never willingly deleted anything that was factual or accurate. I did indeed, REVERT the page back to its original -- why should I spend hours of my time painstakingly editing, while someone comes in and simply deletes my edits COMPLETELY, including the stuff unrelated to ethnicity, such as more correct dates of Nizami's completion of the poems? I did not start this edit-revert nonsense. Hence, if you or others want respect for your work and efforts -- learn to respect others too. And stop your friends from vandalizing the page.

2) Whilst Farsi/Persian language is highly important when studying Nizami’s works, we should keep in mind that I) it was a 12th century Dari, classical literature Persian language; II) it was written in Azerbaijan (Arran), a very distinct and separate geographic, cultural and political entity from either Persia or on a grander scale Iran; III) Iran did not exist as an independent state in Nizami’s time – indeed, Nizami was born, lived and died in the Turkic Seljuk Empire, centered in Baghdad, Iraq (and Nizami mentions “Iraq” more often than “Iran” in his poems) and its constituent part, the Azerbaijani Atabek (Atabeg) state of the Ildenizid’s, the Great/Grand Atabeks (Atabegs) of the Seljuk court and regents of the Turkic Seljuk Sultan himself (in essence, it were the Great/Grand Atabeks from Azerbaijan who ruled the Turkic Seljuk Empire under Sultans Togrul II and Togrul III). To them he dedicated many of his poems, such as “Khosrov and Shirin”. Also, IV) Persian/Farsi, is just like any other language – no more, no less, thus let’s not over-idealize or otherwise idolize it. Which also means that the best way to understand the subtle and complex poetry of such a grand master of poetry, philosophy, and even science as Nizami is to rely on academic editions of his poems and on professional translations or commentary – since each word has many different meanings, especially depending on the context, and sometimes simultaneously means several things – and of course the fact that Nizami wrote in 12th century and we live in 21st century does not help much either. Hence, unless anyone here is an academician and can produce scholarly credentials of being proficient in 12th century Dari, cool down a bit and listen to what world-renowned scholars have to say. Being a native speaker of the 21st century Persian/Farsi is not sufficient – especially since much of our discussions centers on various historical facts and references.

Just so that my hot-headed, trigger- and vandalism-happy opponents understand the point very well, here’s from an Iranian news agency Mehr (published on January 2004), about Dr. Jalal Khaleqi Motlaq, who “is a well-known name in the Farsi language and Iranian literature. He currently lives in Germany and has been editing the Shahnameh for 34 years.” It would be best if all of you read it in entirety, but two main points that he drives home is that academic editions are a hard, but very necessary work, and that despite his study object, Firdowsi, wrote in classic Persian Dari, Iranians had to use the Russian (Soviet) edition of Shah-nameh for decades because that was the only academic edition. Here’s his opinion (remember, he is the #1 authority on Firdowsi, who in his turn is the #1 poet for Persians): “Unfortunately, although Iranians have the knowledge and capability of large tasks they are indolent. Although [non-Iranian] Orientalists do not understand some issues, they follow academic methods and therefore their corrections are better and perfect”.

3) Nizami’s mother was indeed Kurdish – a very well known fact, which is well acknowledged (in all commentaries to all books) of, for example, Soviet and particularly, Azerbaijani, editions. However, let us not forget, than neither Iran/Persia, nor Azerbaijan, nor other regional states are like Israel – nationality passes with father, not mother. Also, Nizami’s mother, Raiseh, was from the noble family of the Shaddadis, who ruled Azerbaijan (Arran) two centuries prior from their capital in Ganja. Hence, she was very much an Azerbaijani Kurd – as opposed to Anatolian or Iranian or other Kurds – and cultural, linguistic and other subtleties associated with any one region are important. Hence, any attacks and farce created by some irresponsible users is irrelevant, and Kurdish mother does not translate into Nizami being Persian or even Iranian.

4) Nizami’s first (first, not third, as Ali Doostzadeh mistakenly claims) and most beloved wife, Afak (Appaq), was Turkic, she was Qipchaq (Kypchaq, Kipchak). This is a very well known fact and anyone trying to dispute that is just as ridiculous as anyone, for example, who says that it was not “Kord” but “Gord”. Nizami himself says she was his “Kipchak idol” in the “Khosrov and Shirin”. Likewise, her true name was Appaq, which means “white” in Turki, and the only reason it became “Afak” was because Arabic doesn’t have the “p” letter and substitutes it with “f”. Also important, all of this is not said by me – this is from all and every scholar who bothered to write on this matter. I wonder why none of those professional scholars thought of what Ali Doostzadeh says about “Tork-zaad \ Turkic slave” or “Afaagh \ Horizon” – I guess none of those giants of Oriental studies knew Persian as well as Mr. Doostzadeh does. Indeed, Mr. Doostzadeh might think he has achieved a breakthrough in the studies of Nizami’s heritage with his sensational writings, but in reality it is all just unsubstantiated talk.

Since we know that Appaq was uneducated and from the steppes (she was a slave given to Nizami by the Derbent ruler), which basically meant she knew only her native language, Turki, and she obviously called herself – as did Nizami in his also native Turki – Appaq, and not Afak. Hence, any one user, who salivates and angrily attacks the “Appaq” spelling, is just incompetent.

Moreover, in the very same beyts, Nizami admits that he modeled his heroine Turkic (Azerbaijani) Shirin after Appaq (Afak): “You too, my Afak, vanished (died) as Shirin”.

And he continues “Allah, take care of my Turkic-born (son)!” This is yet another proof of who was she (Afak/Appaq), their son (Muhammed) and also Nizami himself, since once again, nationality passed through father, not mother, and to write about a “Turkic-born” like this, without clearly identifying whether it means only from a Turkic mother or both parents, for supposedly “Persian” Nizami would be strange. All bizarre opinions that Nizami would somehow mean Turkic-born as derogatory are without any merit – why would Nizami insult his only and beloved son, to whom he dedicated so many verses and sections in his poems, and as such, insult himself, as the father of that Turkic-born “slave”? Moreover, what is anyone talking about when Nizami decided to legally marry Appaq/Afak, make her his legal first wife, instead of just keeping her as a slave and potentially, concubine?! Where is the derogatory and insulting in this that Mr. Doostzadeh keeps on preaching about?!

5) The Qom issue – neither Nizami, nor his father, were from Qom, central Iran – as I stated many times, this is a proven fact by such authorities of Nizami-studies as academician E.E.Bertels and Armenian (!) poetess Marietta Shaginyan. This line was a later addition to the manuscripts and was absent from earlier, more reliable and better, editions, such as the 1361 and 1365 editions in the Paris National Library.

But just in case someone wishes to keep bringing it up, I am afraid they would be shooting themselves in the foot. The problem with all this –and with the subject of Nizami – is that some circles, among which are various Persian chauvinists, is that they 1) deny all history and heritage to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani people, and 2) assume that all of Iran was 100% or even absolute majority Persian or otherwise Iranian-populated. This is not true today, and was not true in Nizami’s time – or before him. It is a well-known fact that Persians came into Iran and north to Azerbaijan around the end of the 7th century B.C. – 6th century B.C. (see Encyclopedia Britannica).

For example, Arabic historian at-Tabari (d. 923 A.D.) wrote than already in 671 A.D., when Arabs conquered Kukhistan in Khorasan (Iran), it was ruled by Turks, and specifically mentions Nizak-tarhan, who concluded a peace deal with Arabs (this and much more other interesting info is from the #1 authority on Turkic history in Russia, prof. L.N.Gumilev, as well as Uzbek prof. Sh.Kamaliddinov and others). None other than a Persian historian Rawandi wrote in his treatise dedicated to sultan of Rum Giyas ed-Din Keykhusrev (1192-1196, i.e., a contemporary of Nizami): “Thanks to almighty Allah … in the lands of Arabs, Persians, Byzanthians and Rus, the [decisive] word belongs to Turks…”

This is not to say that Turkic people were a majority everywhere or were autochthonous – but they certainly were in large, sizeable numbers, sometimes as a majority and often as rulers – well before the 11th century conquest by the Oguz Seljuk Turks of the whole of Iran, Anatolia, Caucasus and Iraq. Relevant Byzanthian, Arabic and even Armenian chroniclers and historians mentions Turks already in 5th century A.D. being sizeable in Caucasus and North Iran (South Azerbaijan) and elsewhere (not to mention Central Asia).

Of course Azerbaijan was a stronghold of Zoroastrism – we believe, like many scholars, that Zoroaster was from Azerbaijan. Yet Zoroastrism doesn’t translate into “Persian” – for one, it predates the incursion of the ethnic Persians into northern Iran. Secondly, before becoming Christian, the Caucasian Albans – who were of Caucasian, as well as Turkic and some Iranian origin – were Zoroastrian. Hence, it is not inconceivable for Turkic people to be Zoroastrian – and not be, especially by the time of Nizami, “shamanistic” – which were the Turkic people of the Russian and Central Asian steppes, but not the Caucasian and Middle Eastern Turkic people. The Turkic nation was huge – it is a gross mistake to think of this great nation as all being one, uniform and the same. Otherwise, why did Mongols and Tatar confederation battle Turks? Why did Ottoman Turks battle Azerbaijani and Iranian Turks? And all of them battle Timurleng?

The etymology and origin of the terms “Azerbaijan” along with “Naxcivan” is debated. By Nizami’s time, Turks were majority in many cities of Azerbaijan, as well as Iran, such as Ganja, Beylaqan (Baylakan), Barda, and the language, Turki, was the most popular language – as is derived also from the “conversation” of Nizami with Shirvanshah Ahsatan/Akhsitan I in “Leyli and Mejnun”, where shirvanshah specifically asks Nizami to write either in Persian or Arabic, but not in Turki – to the dissatisfaction of Nizami, who wanted to refuse at first, but was persuaded by his “Turkic-born” son Muhammed, then 14 years old, to go ahead with the request of the shirvanshah. As one of the top authorities in Oriental studies in the Soviet Union, Russian academician Krachkovsky wrote in his 1946 article “Early history of the epic about Mejnun and Leyli in Arabic literature”, Nizami later wrote a verse in response, in which he essentially threw a stone at ethnic Persian (or Persianized Arab) shirvanshah (whose mother was Georgian, by the way) by advising him to become a Turk.

Hence all the one-sided articles about “turkification of the area” by ill-educated pseudo-historians should be left aside.

Also, consider that Tats, Talysh, Kurds, and any other Iranian peoples in Azerbaijan are both in absolute and relative numbers smaller than the numbers of Turkic people in Iran, as well as Azerbaijan or Central Asia. Keep that in mind.

6) Not only Nizami praised or liked Firdowsi (Ferdowsi), but many others, including other Turkic poets and scholars, as well as myself, any Azerbaijani, etc. Also, let’s not forget on whose order did Ferdowsi wrote the Shah-nameh – or we suffer from memory loss? It was none other than sultan Mahmud Ghaznevi – a Turkic ruler of Ghazna. Hence, saying that Nizami was Persian and not Azerbaijani (Turkic) just because he praised Ferdowsi is ludicrous and absurd. Only a modern day Persian chauvinist and racist would assume that everyone is like him, and that everyone Turkic would hate/dislike/look down on anything and anyone Persian (or Iranian in general). In Azerbaijan, the undoubtedly Persian (ethnically) Saadi, Hafiz (Hafez), as well as Persian-Tajik poets Ferdowsi, Jami, Rudaki are very much liked and appreciated.

7) Now with yet another baseless and inaccurate, indeed, totally false statement of Mr. Doostzadeh: “Now as per Albanian, Albanian (Arrani) did not exist anymore during Nizami's time and the Albanian church was already incorporated into Armenian Church and became part of the Armenians”. This is utter and total rubbish from a person who does not know and simply cannot know history of Caucasian Albania (Arran), as most advance research on it is available only in Russian, as well as in Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, English, some German, Italian, Turkish, and only then perhaps in Persian and other languages. Let it be known that the Alban Apostolic Autocephalous Christian Church was illegally abolished and merged with Armenian Apostolic by the decree of the Russian czar only in 1836 (!), with further decision by the Russian Christian Church Sinod on transferal of all property, documents, as well as destruction (!) of some documents in the beginning of the 20th century. Until the 19th century, the ever-dwindling Alban ethnos was still present, and the various Alban principalities were constantly re-established in Arran, particularly the Khachen principality of prince Hasan in 12th century and one of his sons, Shahinshah (that title by then was not corresponding to reality) Hasan Jalal in the 12-13th centuries. This prince/shahinshah Hasan Jalal build the Gandzasar Church in the Gandzasar Monastery in 1216-1238, which was the seat of the Alban Church Catholicos (Pope). There are many famous Alban Christian historians of that era, contemporaries of Nizami. Thus, the Alban ethnos, while severely degraded, was still very much alive and functioning, and any statements to the contrary are false.

Moreover, the “Albans” were never an ethnos in the strict sense – they were a nation, like Iranians or Azerbaijanis or Georgians or Russians – which included many other ethnic groups, in fact, according to Strabo, 26 different ethnic groups, speaking different languages and not understanding each other.

Then, the only rightful heirs to the Caucasian Albans can be only Azerbaijanis – all of them for that matters, from the “purest” of them, the Udins, as well as Lezgins, Gels, Kryzes, Hinalugs, Alpans (none of them kept their Christian faith or alphabet), to the much bigger mass of people who are Azerbaijani Turks, and trace their heritage to such Alban Turkic tribes as Chols, Gargars, as well as Huns, Sabirs, Khazars, and others.

Only a smaller portion of Albans was Grigorianized and became Armenian – those are mostly the inhabitants of Karabakh (Artsakh) and Zangezur (Syunik). Thus speaking of some general “genetic testing” showing that aside for Azerbaijanis, Armenians are “closest people to Albanians” is improper. What are those studies?

8) Neither J.Meisami in her 1995 book, nor definitely prof. Talattof, both Iranians, claim that Nizami was ethnic Persian. Also, neither does Encyclopedia Britannica, opting for the vague and indefinite term “Persian poet”, which essentially means Persian-language poet – which indeed Azerbaijani Turk Nizami, along with Uzbek Alisher Navoi or Turk from India Khosrow Dehlevi were. Any scholar claiming that Nizami’s father was Persian is simply not a scholar – there is not a single shred of evidence of that and plenty of factual arguments of his father and Nizami’s own self-view as Turk.

Indeed, this is why none other than Saeed (Said) Nafisi, whom Mr. Doostzadeh referred to and holds in high esteem, told the visiting Russian (Jewish) academician Marr in Iran in the 1930s: “Nezami is not a Persian poet, he lived and worked in Azerbaijani environment, and his poems are incomprehensible to Persians” (Source: Yu.N.Marr. Articles and messages. Collection of works, Vol. II, p. 266. [in Russian: “Незами – не персидский поэт, он жил и работал в азербайджанской среде, и стихи его непонятны персу”. Ю.Н. Марр. Статьи и сообщения, Собр. соч. т. II, стр. 266]).

Thus, I don’t know how could Nafisi “agree” upon labeling Nizami as ethnic Persian, if he said the opposite to a trustworthy and authoritative academician Marr? Same goes for Vahid Dasgirdi. But then of course we realize how taboo it is in Iran to name anyone, especially famous, as Azerbaijani, or even Turk. Better label everyone “Iranian”, which might over time transform into simply “Persian”, because often that term is all-inclusive, like American, British, or Russian.

9) Whilst it’s nice to see that some Iranians were reading Russian-language sources and carefully saved the 1988 issue of the Soviet Culture magazine, it should be noted that the article by Mikhail Kapustin in that magazine – who never published anything on Nizami before – coincided with a similar article by Armenian author Grachik Simonyan in the Grakan Tert newspaper. Both articles ignored modern research, including by a true Nizami specialist Armenian poetess Shaginyan, and repeated the same old, irrelevant, sometimes false claims – such as the Qom theory – and conveniently ignored all relevant Turk references in Nizami’s works, while selectively citing anything favorable to Iran and Persians, often going overboard by misattributing words of shairvanshah Ahsitan to Nizami himself (which is in essence the same what Mr. Doostzadeh and others do too). So Mr. Kapustin wrote in an era, when pressure of not the Communist party, but money from wealthy and powerful Armenian diaspora was prevalent, especially as the latter fully dominated M.Gorbachev’s government in charge of economy, sciences and culture.

10) Mr. Doostzadeh goes on to make more baseless and groundless assertions: “Neither did the formation of an Azarbaijani ethnic group exist. There is simply not one poetic manuscript of this language from the caucus prior to the Ilkhanid mongol invasion, long after Nizami”

For his knowledge, the following writings in Azerbaijani Turki have been preserved from BEFORE the Ilkanid ear: historian Masud ibn-Namdar (12th century), Alim ibn-Mukhenna (12th century), poet Ali (1233). Of course the fact that there are such great Turkic eposes as Dede Korkut and Oghuz Nameh, which are oral stories from at least 1300 ago, and oldest manuscript of which was written in 1053, and use a very rich language, proving that the Azerbaijani Turki language was well formed by Nizami’s time – although of course its all relative, since the process of evolution and development and perfection is endless. Before Turki became popular among poets in 15th century, Persian was, yet before it, Arabic – read Meisami’s intro on that – or that of Ferdowsi, who as he says himself, saved Persian language from extinction. Today we write in English, a century ago we would have written in French. As the Armenian-edited Great Soviet Encyclopedia acknowledged (the Soviet equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica), “Literary Azerbaijani language began to form from 11th century.” That is, before Nizami.

As famous Arab historian and traveler Ibn Azrak wrote in 1070, “Ganja is the great capital of Turks”. Another historian, of the Khorezm-shah, Jalaladin Mangiburni Nasawi noted, that “In Arran and Mugan, the Turks, like ants, are too numerous to count”. Note that Nizami writes about both Arran and Mugan when describing Shirin and Mihin-Banu.

11) Nizami was a Muslim, and was a Sunni, and a Sufi. He was not Shi’a, and was definitely not a very Orthodox or otherwise strict Muslim, contrary to what ideologically motivated Iranian writers might claim.

12) The shirvanshah’s were only nominally under the Seljuq’s and their regents, the Azerbaijani Atabeks, and did not pay them or mention in the prayers or coins. It is not secret that they were enemies and nemesis, and that’s why Shirvan had a strategic alliance with another nominal vassal, but enemy of Seljuk Empire, Georgia. Akhsitan’s mother was Georgian queen Tamar.

Likewise, Seljuks were no more Persianized culturally than any other Middle Eastern nation Arabized or Mongol Ming Dynasty “Chinized” or Moghuls “Indianized”. Likewise, Persian (Iranian) kings had all kinds of inter-marriages and mixes, and in general, Iran was Turkic-ruled for at least one whole millennium.

13) Here’s another example of Mr. Doostzadeh mistranslating his native Persian language – or actually, the 12th century Dari: “Nizami understood Arabic, Persian, Bukhari(Soghdian Persian/Iranian dialect) and Tabari (Mazandarani Persian/Iranian dialect”. Unknown to Mr. Doostzadeh is that Nizami actually writes and means the following: “In Arabic I read everything and in Dari, The book of Bukhari I read, [as well as] the book of Tabari” (this verse, which Mr. Doostzadeh includes in Farsi, is from Haft Paykar (Seven Beauties)).

Mr. Doostzadeh confuses the famous historian At-Tabari (~839-923) and religious scholar imam Al-Bukhari (~810-870) with “Bukhari” and “Tabari” dialects. Bravo, way to go! Or maybe here too everyone in the world was wrong, and only Mr. Doostzadeh saw the light?

By the way, this verse, along with an analogous verse from Iskandar-nameh (“Aside from newest histories, I also studied Jewish, Christian and Pehlevi books”) is yet another proof of Nizami being non-Persian and being Turk – why on Earth would a supposed “Persian” boast about conducting research in his “native” Dari Persian? Why put “native” Persian on the same line with clearly foreign Arabic (all this despite the fact that Nizami obviously had excellent proficiency in many languages)? Why name clearly foreign Jewish and Christian religions and put the Pehlevi, which is supposed to be the religion of his forefathers, according to Persian chauvinists, on the same line? It does not make sense – it’s the same as Shakespeare writing that he conducted his research in French, Swedish and …. English, and that he consulted Muslim, Jewish and Christian. When we write our resumes or CVs in the USA or UK, do we actually put English language proficiency on it in the section of languages?

14) Afrasiyab, a name that was spelled/pronounced in such a way in Shahnameh, is also known as Alp Er Tung in Turkic mythology. And Mr. Doostzadeh’s name is Ali – does it mean he is Arab?

15) I don’t care what search results from Google will yield vis-à-vis Shirin – I’ve already stated very clearly that she could not have been Armenian, and was clearly Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk. And her name in Azerbaijani, unlike in Armenian, also means “sweet” just as in Persian. For example, Armenian (!) expert on Nizami, M.Shaginyan dismissed the mistaken assumption of Shirin being Armenian – I have the page from her book scanned, just in case someone doesn’t believe. How poorly educated one has to be to say that Shirin was Armenian if she just travelled (i.e, not lived!) to Armenia, a geographic concept to begin with as there was no independent Armenia either in Nizami's time or in Khosrov time. I guess F.Kafka was ethnic German or ethnic Czech, since he wrote in German and lived in Prague -- but in reality he was Jewish. Ayatollah Khomeini was probably French -- after all, he travelled and lived in France. And I guess myself, along with you, are pure Anglo-Saxons for writing in English. Shirin was an Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk -- she had those slanted eyes, that you consider an insult, she drank kumis (the Turkic - nomadic - horse's milk), her ansestor, as mentioned by Nizami, was Turanian ruler Afrasiyab, who was also ancestor of Mihin-Banu -- the queen of Arran (Barda) and Shirin's aunt, who pocessed and ruled all of Arran and Armenia.

Here are some relevant verses (from “Shapur’s story about Shirin”) (quick translation into English mine, the first verses are about Mihin-Banu, Shirin’s aunt):

There, beyond the chain of mountains, … where happy Derbent, and sea, and gulf, There is a woman…. Boiling of her army reached Isfahan. Till Armenia Arran mighty region belongs (is obedient) to her. My ruler, know this: many regions send her tributes like a lamb/cap in hand. In the world there are probably no happier creatures (people). Countless castles she has in the mountains. <….> In the days of rose Madam will travel to Mughan [south-eastern region of Azerbaijan]…. In the mountains of Armenia she roams/roves in the summer [!!! That’s it!] …. And when autumn will come – and there, she does a raid on the game in Abkhazia [that’s northern Georgia!] In the winter she is in Barda. Defiant (scorning) times of year, she lives, forgetting, what is foul weather.

(from “Flight of Khosrov from Behram Chubine”):

In impassible (bad) roads he penetrated into Arran [western Azerbaijan, sometimes all of Azerbaijan], From there he traveled to Mughan [south-eastern region of Azerbaijan (Arran)]: in Mughan did Shirin live [!!!].

Later, there is a chapter entitled “Travel of Shapur to Armenia after Shirin”, in which Armenia is not named anymore, but it is clear from all the previous context that Armenia, a geographic notion, was PART of the greater Arran kingdom of her aunt (not mother, aunt!), Mihin-Banu (or Mahin-Banu) – and Shirin was to be Mihin-Banu’s successor on the throne, according to Shapur’s story to Khosrow.

16) Finally, what is seemingly “insulting” and “derogatory” to Mr. Doostzadeh and various modern day Persian racists in regards to portrayal of Turks in Nizami’s Khamse is actually very much loved by those Turks themselves – of course, this is due to different understanding of the connotations and meanings that Nizami put into that term. What is “insulting” to a Persian when Nizami writes about a “Turkish conquest/invasion/incursion” (“Torktaz” and “Torktazi”), is actually appreciated and liked by an Azerbaijani, since from the whole context of the poems, as is affirmed by scholars, Nizami inputs exclusively positive connotation to that word and those seemingly “violent” and thus “negative” terms. Turks are always used as fair, just nation and rulers (see “Story about the sultan of Sanjar”), great warriors (in a positive way), dedicated and honest, beautiful.

And once again, Mongols were not even known to Nizami. As was not Kor-oglu, who was at best a 17th century phenomenon. Meanwhile, Nizami in his 5 epic poems had to write about what was popular and wanted to the patrons – and even Turkic rulers wanted smth about either Persian or Arabic rulers. What Nizami wrote in his Divan we won’t know for sure – 90% of it is lost. Yet the 10% that remains you should know and not deny that it doesn’t exist – read the very same Dastgirdi or Nafisi for one about the lyrical poems from the Divan (which they separate into several categories ranging from 100% Nizami’s to “maybe/probably” Nizami’s or even most likely not Nizami’s. Which is no different from 5 poems in essence – there too some ideologically motivated scribers made changes and inserted various couples, like with Qom.

Anyways, I can go on and on about this, but have neither the time, nor the will to have a senseless argument.

--AdilBaguirov 05:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Much of what the user wrote has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Nizamis father. He should read this article to know that he can not push his pan-turkistic agenda in Wikipedias main entery: [No Original Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR] So Mr. Baguirov

And let me start with his sentence: Extensive comments and corrections are necessary to Adil Baguirov’s talk, since he either is very partial, preferring to concentrate on one and not another, or severely misinterprets some facts or mistranslates and misattributes, or is outright false on others. (Psuedo-scholars usually use such language since they can not prove their point and need to operate psychologically).

One can take a look at pan-Turkic Chavaunism and racism with regards to Talysh, Tat, Lezgi, Kurd, Armenian people. (Okay you might disagree but there are some people amongst these groups with different opinions and that is what counts). So lets not discuss issues that are not related. Every country in the region has its own problems!

1)	On point one. Again Nizami did not write in Russian.  Many Russian and USSR scholars have confmired Nizamis ethnic Iranian identity.  Specially after the USSR breakup.  Everyone knows that the scholarship of the USSR is tainted.  The user is not aware that the general policy of wikipedia is to use what the most recent scholars think about Nizami and not scholars from 50 years ago from USSR.  What Mr. Adil Baguirov needs to show, is actual sources from foreign scholars after the USSR breakup!  Indeed in the USSR one could not argue with Stalin as the following article has shown.. but after the breakup famous Russian and Armenia scholars totally rejected the theory of Nizami Ganjavi having to do anything with Azarbaijanis.  So Mr. Adil Baguirov needs to bring up new sources and not stuff from 50 years ago by some soviet scholars.  Indeed USSR scholarship was tainted when it came to ethnic issues. It must remembered that Nizamis work were not translated into Azeri-Turkish prior to the USSR era and furthermore Stalin did his best to mold Nizami into an Azarbaijani Turkic speaker. A clear example of two forgeries by Caucasian Azarbaijani scholars is a verse relating Nizamis father to a wolf which does not even have a correct rhyme! and also attemps by some of the psuedo-scholars to change the word Kurd to Gurd which is not supported by any manuscript and furthermore makes the rhymes meaningless. Indeed I can write much about manipulation of history in some of the former USSR countries, but lets stick to the issue.

See the following article, the first one in English and the second one in Persian about USSR scholarship and Nizami Ganjavi: Stalin and Nizami

Indeed in the article above, [Stalin] (one of the greatest mass murderers in history) writes: Stalin even quoted passages from Nizami showing that he was forced to write in Persian language because he was not allowed to talk to his people in their native language  Indeed such a nonsense claiming Nizami as a coward (and indeed no one can create master pieces forcefully in literature in a language they do not want to write in!) under the Seljuqid Turk, deserves only laughter. But USSR scholars could not challenge Stalin. Stalin writes:  He emphasised the view that Nizami was a victim of Persian oppression of Azerbaijanis and he opposed Persian oppression of minorities. This was the nonsense ethnography that USSR scholars were forced to follow.

Fiftieth Anniversary of a great Falsification

What Wikipedia is not Specially the part about Wikipedia is not a soapbox should be read by this person

So Mr. Baguirov whose degree is in Economics and whose opinion goes against major University Professors like Julia Meysari and Iraj Bashiri.. who are not from 60 years ago btw! , is the one vandalizing. Simply said a person that can not read Persian, can not claim to be an expert in Nizami! Whereas for Russian, that is not needed since I brought some major Russian scholars that disagreed with Mr. Baguirov's thesis and I can name some Armenian ones. So although the literature in Russian could be worth reading on subjects of Nizami, it is tainted because of the direct invovlement of Stalin and the USSR. (See below for more comments).

Academic editions of Nizamis jewels also have been carried in Iran by Dr. Baraat Zanjani and this is the latest edition. At least Dr. Zanjani has had 20 years of education of Persian and many years of teaching experience. So he is more of expert, despite the usual character assassinations that will be carried out by non-Persian speakers like Mr. Baguirov.

And also Mr. Baguirov wrote: Also, IV) Persian/Farsi, is just like any other language – no more, no less, thus let’s not over-idealize or otherwise idolize it. A language as means of communications perhaps.  But as you can see by this article, Persian is just not any other language and a language requires culture and history and civilization to produce masterpieces like Nizami Ganjavi.  Indeed this whole bickering proves that Persian is just not another language, but it is amongst the richest languages in terms of literature and lots of people who today can not even read, would love to claim one of their masterpieces as part of their own culture although poetry belongs to the culture it is produced in.  Because it is the property of the language that brings about the masterpieces.  So there is nothing wrong with telling the truth.

Finally unlike Ottoman Turkish or English Beowulf, Persian of Ferdowsi, Rudaki, Nizami, Hafez, Sa'adi, Rumi can be understood easily by anyone that has gone through the Iranian education system. Ferdowsi for example which predates Nizami can be even understood by illiterate people, because it is simple yet profound. Similarly many parts of Nizami. Indeed to understand all of Nizami's poetry you do not need more than a 8th graders education in Persian. This is not over idolazing Mr. Baguirov, it is fact. Persian has changed very little since the 8th century A.D. because its poetry is constantly read by its speakers and so the same words are used and recycled.

Mr. Baguirov continues: ''Being a native speaker of the 21st century Persian/Farsi is not sufficient – especially since much of our discussions centers on various historical facts and references. '', which again is false since much of Nizamis poetry is thought in its original language in the Iranian education system. For example in the third grade text Persian textbook, the first lesson is directly 10 verses of Nizamis praise of God and starts with the line (ay naameh to behtarin sar-aghaaz - bi naameh to key konam baaz). And also his poetry is plastered throughout Persian school textbooks. Also it should be noted for Mr. Baguirov that what is insufficient is NOT knowing Persian! Because Nizami is alive by the Persian language and translations do not do justice to his work. Indeed a translation by a Russian for example, means a translation by someone that does not have the education of the native Iranian. Just like for example if somebody is going to translate poems from English, it is better to have the education of the English system through the 16 years or so, rather than learn it from a few university courses. As per Jalal Khalegh Motlaghi, after the Russian edition, Professor. Dabir Sayyaghi produced another edition. The Moscow edition is also very incomplete and it relies mainly on one manuscript that was not available readily to Iranian scholars at the time. So the process of making a more complete manuscript is an ongoing process and Dr. Motlaghi's monumental task shows it and he himself is Iranian BTW. Also from Ferdowsi there is about 1000 manuscript and the Shahnameh was much more vast than the Pan-Ganj. The Pan-Ganj manuscripts also need to be divided by 5. So the two tasks are very different and definitely the Ferdowsi one is much harder and Dr. Khaleghi Motlaq has shown some of the problems of the Moscow edition (which shows that the USSR is not perfect).

The above articles shows that Nizami was made large amongst the republic of Azarbaijan due to the efforts of Stalins nation building policty. It has very damning quotes from scholars of that republic that is not necessary for me to state it unless the issue continues.

Indeed this strong statement from a Russian scholar of Iranian studies, by the name of Mikhail Kapustin in 1988 (during the time when the soviet union was opening up to the world and there was no pressure on scholars to manipulate fact) wrote in the cultural magazine of Soviets: Nizami Ganjavi is one of the greatest thinkers and poets of the middle ages and belongs to the exceptional heritage of Persian literature. He had no connection with the current culture of Azarbaijan. And Azerbaijanis (he means the caucus ones that consider themselves Turks) are making a useless effort to claim and make him of their own. At the time of Nizami, Azeri-Turks did not exist in Azarbaijan. (sovietkaya kultura (soviet culture) magazine, 27 of December, 1988) was taken from the source above.

This is a strong statement. If I was a ultra-nationalist like Mr. Baguirov I would claim Nizami as a Persian and use such statements and then we would go back and forth. The fact is that Nizami has no verse calling his father any ethnicity and so we must do as Encyclopedia Britannica does. And by the way when judging a Persons ethnicity, we do not use 12th century standards these days, but the modern time, where both female and male lineage are important (thanks to female suffrage). Furthermore many scholars have called Nizami Persian and Iranian, and so I do not want to bring this battle back and forth. The fact is that your quotes of 1950's scholar under Stalin has no academic value compared to the lastest statements of great scholars. Also I do not want to make this a battle about Nizamis ethnicity, but it should be about Nizami and his work. But I can seek Armenians who speak Russian and would help me dig up all the statements with regards to Nizami in that magazine and other magazine close to the breakup. Also Ibn Howqal has clearly mentioned no Turkic in Armenia and Arran and his time is close to Nizamis. So is the book Hodood-al-Alam.

By the way the Russian scholar that made that strong statement is is not Armenian and even if he was, it doesn’t matter! Since you are using some Armenian from 1950, whereas I can use tons of Armenian scholars from now when the USSR censors and Stalin are not at work! And personally there is no proof that Armenians gave Mr. Kapustin money to write this unless Mr. Adil Baguirov has picture of an Armenian giving a suit case of hundred dollar bills to this Russian scholar of Iranian studies! This is what happens when you talk to a pan-turkists (Well Mr. Baguirov calls his opponents many names). Their absurd logic is necessary to deny fact. By the way there is an article about how some Azarbaijani historians deleted some lines in a book about Karabagh in another page. Not that I care, but I do not want to get involved in Armenian-Azarbaijani stuff. Okay? I don’t care, I am Iranian and Iranian ethnicity.

2)	Again I emphasize, the user does not know that Iranians can read Persian language of 12th century with almost no problem. Even the Persian language of Fedowsi and Rudaki are read with no problem.  Modern Persian essentially has changed very little since the Arabic invasion and its develop.  Nizamis being born under the Seljuqids does not mean anything as million of other Iranians were born in it.  The user also does not know something about Iraq which I am forced to tell him.  In Persian literature, the word Iraq is used to refer to two lands.  One is Iraq-e-Ajam (Hamadan, Qazvin, Esfahan..) and one is Iraq-e-Arab (modern Iraq).  Nizamis dedication of poetry to Turkish rulers as well as the non-Turkish ShirvanShah has no bearing on his ethnic identity.   That Jalal Khalegh Motlaqi used  many editions and one was the Shahnameh of Moscrow, has no bearing on the issue of Nizamis ethnicity. The most recent edition of Nizamis work is by Prof. Barat Zanjani which is more updated than any Russian manuscript. Understanding Persian is essential to undering Nizami. Understanding Russian, is not as essential specially with tainted USSR scholarship.

3)	It is good that the user agreed that Nizamis mother tongue is Kurdish. There is no such thing as an Azarbaijani Oghuz Turk Kurd  culturally!  A Kurd is a Kurd.  An Iranic/Iranian speaker with Iranian folklore (Khosrow o Shirin, Shahnameh..) and Iranian language.   Azarbaijanis are defined as Turkic group speaking an Oghuz branch of language.  There is a somewhat uneasy rivalry between Azarbaijani and Kurdish separatist right now in Iran over some mixed cities and Kurds definitely do not get along well with Anatolian Turks (Also speakers of Oghuz Turkic language).  Heck Kurdish politics doesn't bother me and it is not related to this issue.

Kurds have been in the area much longer and can not be absorbed into Azarbaijani Oghuz Turkic grouping. Kurdish mother by ethno-linguistic standard and cultural standard does mean that Nizamis mother is at least Iranian (ethnically). Also when someones mother tongue is Kurdish, most likely they pronounce words in Kurdish! Since Nizami's father died early as well (even if his language was Bantu).

4) The user claims that I said Nizamis third wife was Afaq.  This is just a false lie and I would advise the user to not mistake the whole article, as being written by me.  Indeed different people over time have contributed to it.  The word Afaq is not Appaq.  No manuscript has the word Afaq and Said Nafisi has shown correctly that Nizami just mean that his wife was his horizon and the reading by Vahid Dastgerdi that Afaq was the name of his wife is in dispute.  Here is a serious scholar of Persian whose native language is Persian.  So indeed Mr. Baguirov who can not read Persian and does not know that Persian has 'p' and there is no need for Nizami to put the arabicized version of a name!  Specially when for example he has used Persian pronounciation "alp Arsalan" instead of "alb Arsalan"(Arabicized).  Indeed to the average Persian speaker, the interpretation of Prof. Nafisi is correct. Also it should be remember that she was a slave girl sent by the ruler of Darband. Currently that “Afaq” was her name is in dispute by some scholars and so it is can not be guaranteed as Nizamis Kurdish mother.

What the user does not understand is hat in Persian bot-e-Qifchaq although literally does mean the idol of Qifchaq. But in Persian language, the people of Qifchaq were know to beutifull and symbolically in Persian literature, anyone that was beutifull was called bot-e-Qifchaq, Bot-e-Tabat (Tibet), Bot-e-Khotan (Khotanese), Boto-e-Khata .. That is why this part can be taken into dispute while the Kurdish mother is 100% clear.

All manuscripts have wrote Afaq. There is absolutely no evidence that Afaq is Apaq! Indeed Afaq is a clear Arabic loan-word meaning the sky-horizon. Ferdowsi for example says: در آفاق هر جا ز نزدیک و دور نبد کآن نه فر یافت نه نور

And many other examples in Persian poetry. One can not just make up false claims that 100% her name was Afaq  and then go from Afaq to Apaq (which is not even in any manuscript). That is simply not accurate. One can propose a theory but the accuracy of it is up to debate and it is sufficient for it that some serious scholars dispute it. As per Afagh, she was a slave girl sent to Nizami as a present. And she easily could have learned Persian, Kurdish.. (you do not need education to learn to converse in several languages. Over time it develops.  Plus Nizami had at least two other wives).

Mr. Baguirov writes: Moreover, in the very same beyts, Nizami admits that he modeled his heroine Turkic (Azerbaijani) Shirin after Appaq (Afak): “You too, my Afak, vanished (died) as Shirin

This again is a forgery and lie. Prove it by bringing the original Persian as it is not in the two prints available to me.

Nizami at that part only uses the word Afaq once: سبک رو چون بت قبچاق من بود  گمان افتاد خود کافاق من بود

Furthermore, Nizami uses the word "Afagh" to praise different rulers.. like he calls one of the sultans: The ruler of Afagh (The ruler of horizon).

سرو سر خیل شاهان شاه آفاق  چو ابرو با سری هم جفت و هم طاق

He calls this ruler: The cypress head of the armies of the king of kings of horizon (Afaq)

Here is one about alexandar: سکندر که خورشید آفاق بود  به روشن دلی در جهان طاق بود Sekandar keh Khorshid Afaaq bood Eskandar who was the sun of the horizon

Nizam praising Bahram: شاه آفاق و شهریار جهان The king of Afaqh (horizon) and the prince of the world

If Afagh was the name of Nizami's wife, then indeed the poet would have resevations using such terms and indeed some the above verses would be lewd. For example if your wifes name is YY, then you not call someone else the king of kings of YY. That is why Said Nafisi's intrepretation is correct. All over the Panj-Ganj the word Afagh has been used in its true meaning horizon (about 40 times). And Nizami has said that his wife is like his horizon. BTW I agreed with Dr. Grandmaster to use Iraj Bashiri's information on this, although it is wrong and out-dated. But we must use all of his information and not the ones we like. Also Dr. Bashiri has credential as a major Western University Professor.

Going back to this issue, again Mr. Baguirov has put words in my mouth. Tork-Zaad means born of a Turkish slave and sometimes Turkish mother. And again Nizami could have even continued his symbolic language and for all that is known, he could have meant “turk” to his wife in a symbolic manner as Hafez and many other Persian poets did and did not have an ethnic meaning. This is used a lot in Persian literature and over 90% of verses about Turk/Hindu/Roman/Zanj(African) are symbolic since ethnic conscioussness and pride was not that much of an issue amongst some of the major Persian poets. So this area is also grey unlike Nizamis Kurdish mother. Now as per the word Tork-e-Zaad. Zaadan is a verb to give birth and Tork-e-Zaad in Persian literature as opposed to Turk, means a person whose father is Persian/Arab and his mother is a Turkish/Turkish slave. It is women that give birth and not man incase Mr. Adil does not know! I refer to the Dehkhoda dictionary and examples of this in Persian literature. The first time such a word is used is by Ferdowsi (which Nizami was an avid reader of) when referring to Hormozd the Sassanid king whose father was the Sassanid king Anoshiravan and whose mother was from the Gok-Turks, sent by the Khaghan of Turks as a present to Anoshiravan.:

Ferdowsi says:

سخن بس کن از هرمزد ترکزاد که اندر زمانه مباد آن نژاد

Sokhan Bas kon az Hormozd-e Torkzaad Keh andar zamaaneh mabaad aan nezhaad

The translation is:

End all this talk about Hormozd the Tork-Zaad May such a race (Nezhad) never exist in time

And again Ferdowsi says about Hormozd:

که این ترکزاده سزاوار نیست کسی او را به شاهی خریدار نیست.

Keh in Torkzaadeh sezaavaar nist kasi raa beh shaahi kharidaar nist

This Tork-zaadeh is very incompetent No one supports his kingship

Note Hormozd father was a pure Iranian king by the name of Anoshiravan.

In Dekhodas dictionary we also read: کسی که زنی ترک او را زاده باشد A person who is born by a Turkish female.

So Ferdowsi has already defined this term as you can see above (and this is the first time we see it in Persian literature) and Mr. Adil Baguirov should be aware that in order to study Nizami, one know Shahnameh very well. Indeed Nizami has praised Ferdowsi many times., something no Turkish nationalist would do! And indeed Ferdowsi is the best example of Persian poetry of 9th century. Now by the definition above, Nizami was not a Turk or else there is no need to mention the mixed race "tork-zaad" instead of "tork". The term slave wife is not derogatory because I mean it as the sequential step. She was a slave given by the ruler of Darband to Nizami and then became a wife/concubine (these two are grey areas in some aspects of Islamic law and Nizami had at least three wives in his lifetime).

5) Mr. Adil keeps saying the Qom issue is a proven fact. The fact of the matter is that some scholars have stated it.  Prof. CE Wilson, Prof. Dastgerdi and Prof. Julia Meysami.  Indeed it is not only in some manuscripts, but even in some compositions.  For example a text about the history of Qom, 400 years old has mentioned it.  So this is not 100% proven fact.  It is a “maybe” and “perhaps”.  And about manuscripts, some older manuscripts of Shahnameh for example are less incorrect then some other manuscripts that have come more recent.  It must be remembered that multiple sources for manuscripts have existed.  So again there is no such thing as proven fact, but there is concensus.  So there is a maybe, perhaps and etc.

6) Mr. Adil does not know that at least indo-Iranians where in the area since the time of Mittani. The first mentioning of Persians/Medes (who spoke pretty much the same language as attested by Strabo with slight sound changes) in the area is 832 B.C. in Assyrian chronices.  Indeed Herodotus (1/206, 4/197..), Diogenes Laertius (5/2),  Diodorus  (9/31), Plutarch, ..) have called the Persians as Medes many times, beside the fact that Herodotus, Strabo and Moses of Choren (a paid Armenian!) call the medes Aryan. Also not to digress, but what has the arrival date of Persians in Iran have to do with Nizami!

Also Mr. Baguirov might not know that Turks at that time pretty much has a tribal background. So it was either Oghuz, Qifqach, Khattai, … And Nizami does not belong to either of these, as no evidence has been provided and his fathers name shows no Turkish tribal order either. Zoroasters language is by the Avesta and is very close to Old Persian. See Kent's manual on Old Persian where almost 80% percent of Old Persian and Avesta are the same. Indeed the Avesta was the major tool in deciphering Old Persian. The Caucasian Albanians according to sources were pagans not Zoroastrians. But either way Zoroastrian is an Iranian religion by all accounts and not a Turkic one. As Mr. Baguirov pointed to Turkic Shamanism many times and this was the overwhelming religion of Turks before adopting one of the Abrahamic faiths.

7)	We knows that Turks arrived much later in the area. Mr. Adil Baguirov does not know that Tabari is a Persian historian writing in Arabic and he considers others as Chauvinist.  Indeed remarkable.  And it shows that he is the one that is trying to deny other peoples history!  Although Tabari has nothing to do with Nizami, it would be good that Mr. Baguirov mentioned the Arabic quotes by Tabari.  The problem is that Mr. Adil Baguirov, who lectures authors on geography did not know what Araq-e-Ajam mentioned.  Now he made another mistake because he does not know that Khorasan was not only the western part of modern Iran, but it referred to a large part of Afghanistan and Central Asia.  As per the Nizak Tarkhans, although Tabari mentions them as Turks, others have mentioned them as Hephtalites.  Indeed Prof. Richard Frye mentions

«در منابع غربی و خاورنزدیک لفظ های گوناگون "سکا، هون و ترک" همه دلالت دارند بر مردمان استپ. اما چینیان برای آنان نام های دیگری داشتند. پس همه مردمی که در دشت های آسیای میانه می زیسته اند یا از آن جا به خاور نزدیک یا اروپای شرقی در نیمه اول هزاره اول پس از میلاد آمدند، هون نبودند و این که در منابع غربی یا خاور نزدیک قومی را هون خوانده اند، کنایه از آن است که از دشت های آسیای میانه سرازیر شده اند نه این که به راستی هون باشند».

Which means that in old Western and Middle-eastern historiography, the terms “Scythian, Huns, Turks” and any tribal nomadic group living in central Asia was referred to these names.

The term Tarkhan (and not Tarhan, I am wondering if Mr. Baguirov is from Turkey or the republic of Azarbaijan, since Azari Turkish has kh), is general military title and it was used by Soghdians for example. (See Shanmahe about the Tarkhan of Samarghand whose name is Bijan and who is Soghdian).

Anyways the point I wanted to mention is that Mr. Adil Baguirov has put part of Afghanistan (Central Asia and the Ratbils and Nezak Takhans) as part of modern Iran! Also he did not know the difference between Araq-e-Ajam and Araq-e-Arab, while anyone versed in middle Persian historiography knows it. Finally, if any groups of Turks can be claimed as Azarbaijani, then any groups of Iranians like Soghdians, Parthians, Scythians can be claimed as Persian. So Mr. Baguirov must concentrate mainly on the Oghuz language which Azarbaijani Turkish is descendant of and which was the language of the Seljuqs (Although the seljuqs in Anatolia derided the term Turk).

(with slight repetition)

Mr. Adil Baguirov makes some other weired claims. He wants to say Zoroastrianism is not Persian (it depends on the definition, but Persian means Persian empire of Sassanids who were the main force of Zoroastrianism and Nizami even took some heat from ultraorthodox muslims in praising Zoroastrians), but we all know it is Iranian. Also many travelers have described the language of Azarbaijan during the Sassanid and Islamic era as Persian, Azari-Pahlavi (Azari dialect of middle Persian) and etc. And ancient sources have used the term Persian and Iranian interchangeably. For example Masoudi the Arabi historian writes (and I have brought the Arabic quote unlike Mr. Adil Baguirov):

English: According to the famous historian 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) Persian: «مسعودي» مورخ اوايل سده‌ي چهارم ق. در كتاب خود "التنبیه و الاشراف" (ص 8-77) پس از ذكر نام بلاد ايران (مانند: آذربايجان، ري، طبرستان، گرگان، هرات، مرو، سيستان، كرمان، فارس، اهواز و…) مي‌گويد كه: «همه‌ي اين بلاد، كشوري واحد بودند و پادشاه و زباني واحد داشتند جز اين كه در برخي واژگان تفاوت‌هاي داشتند … مانند پهلوي و دري و آذري و ديگر زبان‌هاي فارسي».

Original Arabic:

فالفرس أمة حد بلادها الجبال من الماهات وغيرها وآذربيجان إلى ما يلي بلاد أرمينية وأران والبيلقان إلى دربند وهو الباب والأبواب والري وطبرستن والمسقط والشابران وجرجان وابرشهر، وهي نيسابور، وهراة ومرو وغير ذلك من بلاد خراسان وسجستان وكرمان وفارس والأهواز، وما اتصل بذلك من أرض الأعاجم في هذا الوقت وكل هذه البلاد كانت مملكة واحدة ملكها ملك واحد ولسانها واحد، إلا أنهم كانوا يتباينون في شيء يسير من اللغات وذلك أن اللغة إنما تكون واحدة بأن تكون حروفها التي تكتب واحدة وتأليف حروفها تأليف واحد، وإن اختلفت بعد ذلك في سائر الأشياء الأخر كالفهلوية والدرية والآذرية وغيرها من لغات الفرس.

And by the way at the time of Nizami, there was still large groups of Iranians in Central Asian steppes, (Soghdians, Chorasmians, Alans) and etc. So the Iranian nation was huge as well and two of the great people are Zoroaster and Cyrus the great known from the pre-Islamic times.

As per the etymology of Azarbaijan, it is just sufficient to say that term Azarbaijan and Nakhjivan are not in any old Turkish manuscripts and this is important point. Also the name is clear and it comes from Atropat, the Median ruler, as Strabo has said. Also the word Atropat is in Avesta and in Pahlavi the name of the province was Aturpategaan. Naxchirvan is not Turkish either and is either Armenian or Persian. The term "Van" mostly likely went from Middle Persian to Armenian. See I.M. Diakonoff, the history of the Medes, where he discusses this name clearly. And also the Encyclopedia Iranica has done nice etymological work on the name. And also see the Encyclopedia Iranica on Azari (ancient language of Azarbaijan) language, to see that Iranian related dialects were still majority before the mongol invasion and even after the mongol invasion. So the people of Azarbaijan were not Oghuz Turks during the of Nizami and new Turkic rulers were just propping up and gradually moving in.

And by the way some 1946 USSR scholar does not know much about Shirvanshah and Iranian scholars have refuted their silly claims. I have explained the above verse and I will do so again. Firstly Nizami heavily praises the ShirvanShah. Secondly he quotes the Shirvan Shah in beutifull poetry:

تُرکی صِفَت وَفای ما نيست تُرکانِه سُخن سِزای ما نيست آن کز نَسَبِ بُلَند زايد او را سُخن بُلند بايد

Torki-sefat VAFAAYEH (emphasized for explanaion) maa nist Turkish manners are not part of our faithfullness Turkish tongue is not befitting for us The person who is born of great lineage (he is belittling turks) The words of his must be of great ascent (belittling turkish language)

Now what Mr. Baguirov does not know that the term Turk (with many shades of meaning) had also came to mean wrong-doer, plundered. For example Sanai says: To Torki o Hargez Nabood Tork VAFADAAR (You are a turk and a Turk never had any faithfullness). Another poet Asadi Toosi says: VAFAA na-ayad az torkaan hargez padid- vaz Iranian joz vafaa kas nadid Faithfullness has never came from Turks, but from Iranians everyone sees faithfullness Asadi Toosi by the way wrote the Loghotnaameh-Parsi Asadi in Azarbaijan and some of the Azari-Pahlavi terms can be found in that book.

Ferdowsi says about Turks:

Keh torkaan raa baa kherad nist joft (That turks do not possess with logic and wisdom).

Of course a character is saying it, but this is still rough. Also the major dispute between Mahmud and Ferdowsi is rumored to be because of ethnic(Iranic vs Turkic) and religious conflict (Shi'i vs Sunni). Nizami despite being a Sunni, praises Ferdowsi and has shown which side he takes in that dispute and so does the Shirvanshah.

The term bi-VAFAA (faithlessness and honorlessness) about Turks has a long history in Persian poetry and I just mentioned Sanai and Asadi Tusi, two Persian poets, living prior to Nizami. Indeed Asadi Tusi although originally from Tus (Khorasan and also the hometown of Ferdowsi and Nasir ad-Din Tusi and Al-Ghazzali..), moved to Azarbaijan during the Shaddadid era Nizami who was another Persian poet uses the same language

Now what Mr. Baguirov does not mention is very heavy praises Nizami bestows on the Shirvanshah in that poem and he does not belittle the Shirvanshah at all. Mr. Adil Baguirov needs to quote a 1946 USSR scholar whose theory was refuted by Iranian scholars, including the Iranian Azarbaijani scholars Abbas Zarin Khoi. The problem again is the USSR historiography which is not reliable when it comes to ethnic issues. Indeed most of the same USSR scholars also tried to show Nizami Ganjavi as anti-Islam. And some scholars have taken the above couplets to mean that Shirvanshah were not going to be stingy, like Mahmud of Ghazna was to Ferdowsi. Other scholars have simply taken it very literally with no attachments. Also it has been asked of Mr. Baguirov to bring the actual Persian when he referring to Nizamis. And his son and Nizami Ganjavi have also praised Shirvanshah in the introduction. Mr. Baguirov needs to bring verses, something he can not either do or does not wish to do, since he does not have a knowledge of Persian to defends his obscure theories. And let us remember that the Persianized Arab dynasty of Shirvanshah (who drew their lineage to Sassanid kings showing the Iranian ethnic identity of the area) did not understand Turkish, for Nizami to write for them in Turkish! This point is not even mentioned by Mr. Baguirov. Indeed why would an Arab descendant king, who wanted a composition of a pre-Islamic Arab story, and who did not know Turkish, want something in Turkish! The correct interpretation of the above verses, when references with other Persian poets (something Mr. Baguirov does not know, since to understand Nizami one needs to understand Ferdowsi and Sanai and etc..), is clear as I have demonstrated above. Indeed if Nizami had any Turki-Sefat, then he would not heavily praise Shirvanshah and write couplets belittling Turks in his introduction. A poet would never degrade their own kind in this manner and write couplets about it and praise the Shirvanshah.

And Ibn Howal who lived in 980 AD has clearly mentioned the language of Arran, Armenia and Azarbaijan as Persian, Arabic, Armenian … and has not said anything about Turkish! Also unlike what Baguirov thinks, Turks were not even majority in Azarbaijan, after the mongol invasion. See Hamdollah Mosftavafi who wrote about the Iranian cities of Azarbaijan after the mongol invasion. He describes Tabriz, Zanjan, Maragheh.. as all Persian/Pahlavi speaking. I did not get the point about Tat, Talysh, Kurds and etc. But they are Iranians cultro-ethno-linguistically. Just like Turkomens are a Turkic people. What is the problem?

7) About Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi, indeed Mr. Baguiorv perhaps is suffering from memory loss (Just rephrasing his own nasty words).  Because not only his mother might have been a slave of non-Turkic origin, but much more importantly he indeed falsified a geneaology to make him a descent of Sassanid kings.  There is not even one Turkish poem from his court!  And his court poets have consistently referred to him as the king of Iran.  Like Farrokhi and Onsori.

The rest of the racist/chauvinist mumb-jumbo is irrelevant. Indeed Mr. Baguirov keeps writing irrelevant stuff that has nothing to do with Nizami's father!. But it is well known that the Ottomans looked down upon the term Turks and I can provide many references. I do not care about the racist/chauvinist mumbo-jumbo, I care about writing history correctly, as the way it should be. History like today has had racism. Sometimes Turks lived peacefully with Iranians, sometimes they attack Iranian civilization, sometimes there was mutual culture exchanges and etc. For example here is a quote from Aflaki (a student of Rumi) about Turks (indeed the later Seljuqids pretty much did not consider themselves Turks in Anatolia as neither did Ottoman. Their Persianization happened once their domain extended and Persian became their court language). From Aflaki (Rumi's student) ''There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks.        When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times.         But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!"''

So as you can the rivalry between Iranians and Turks existed, which is a fact. Sometimes there was constructive relationship and sometimes destructive (due to constant plunder of various Turkic tribes which had to do with their way of nomadic lifestyle and not necessarily with their genes. Indeed Germans where like that at one time in history and so where the Vikings..).

7) The Albanian-Armenian-Azarbaijani debate is hot one and not necessary.  Sufficient to say is that Albanians are not related to Azarbaijani Oghuz Turks nor Armenians nor Iranians.  They might have been influenced somewhat by Iranians or Armenians or other cultures, but they were not that important in the Persian empire of the Sassanids.  Indeed Armenia was always contested between Rome and Persia, but Caucasian Arran ususally was Persian territory and the Romans even paid tribute in order so that the Persian/Iranian army maintains the city of Darband.  So Mr. Baguirov calling Arranis as turks made the major mistake and by calling shirin an Aranian Azarbaijani Turk showed his lack of scholarship and his ultra-nationalistic manipulation of the issue.  And as per rubbish (again rephrasing  Mr. Baguirov)  you have wrote so much rubbish that if I listed them, it would at least be 20 errors if not! For example the word Manjuq which many Persian poets used. Dooghbaa is Persian word and not Turkish. Also thinking that Central Asia is part of Iran. Or not knowing about Araq-e-Ajam and Araq-e-Arab. Obvisouly as an anti-Armenian, Azarbaijani nationalist, you are trying to belittle the Armenian people. The fact is Armenian present is the caucus is well known before Oghuz Turks. Also as per Ganjah, Ibn Hawqal describes all of Arran and Armenia and he says nothing about Turkic in the area. He calls the languages of the region, Armenian, Persian, Arabic and etc. (See the article Azari in Encyclopedia Iranica)  BTW I have the ARABIC of Ibn Azraq  and it is best if you provide the actual passages in Arabic, since you have made a good amount of blunders already. Indeed Ganjah was the capital of the Kurdish Shaddadids at the time of Ibn Azraq and Nizami was a Kurdish from his mother and all these information makes him likely a Kurd given that a Kurdish chieftans daughter is not given to foreigners by tribal customs unless they were very important, whereas we know Nizamis father was not some Turkic ruler or something. (It is slightly degrading actually as can be seen by somes tribes of Iran even up to today to give daughers away although this mentality is being gradually done away with). Indeed the fact that she is related to a Kurdish chieftan and not slave girl(nothing derogatory about this term), and this makes her ethnic identity very important when discussing Nizami. Indeed Nizamis father died much earlier than her mother, so he had a Kurdish upbringing (assuming that his father was something else).

Also Qatran Tabrizi belittles the horders of Oghuz tribes who attacked Azarbaijan around his time and it shows that they were totally foreign to the area in every aspect. The poetry of Qatran clearly shows that Oghuz Turks who lived a nomadic lifestyle were intruders. Indeed Naser Khosrow in his travels does not say anything about Turkish in the area at the time of Qatran. For example in Ikhlat (a city in modern Turkey), he meantions Armenian, Persian and Arabic. Ibn Hawqal says the languages spoken by people of Armenia and Aran were part of Persian. He writes, ''The language of people of Azerbaijan and most people of Arminiyeh is Persian and Arabic. Some tribes from Armenia and the like speak languages that are like Armenian. The same is true about people in Dabil and Nahvi (Nakhichevan). The language of Barza'eh people is Arani and the mountain known as Caucasus is theirs around which heathens with various languages live.'' (943-969 A.D). Al-Istakhri mentions similar fact. So does Ibn-Nadeem.

8)	Prof. Meisami has mentioned the Qom. Prof Talattof does not mention anything.  Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention anything.  THAT IS WHY I SAID THAT THE ETHNIC BACKGROUND OF HIS FATHER IS UNKNOWN.  OR ELSE THE ENYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA AND MANY OTHER SOURCES WOULD SAY SOMETHING.  HELLOOO!  And by the way CE WILSON translated the Haft Paykar in English and he said Nizami was Persian from Qom.  He is much more of scholar than some pan-turkists and he did not live under Stalin to be forced and manipulated.  The fact is the Qom part is not only in some manuscripts but also in some biographies about the city that are 400+ years old.  Also the villages mentioned still exist today.  So it is a possibility although various degreeness of likelihood can be assigne to depending on different takes.

9) About your point 9. All your mis-readings were easily rejected and is due to your lack of not understanding Persian well plus just copying and pasting nationalistic literature of your republic.  As per the words of Shirvanshah..again the poet that formed the couplets was Nizami and he had the choice not do so.  Shirvanshah was not the poet.  Furthermore the introduction of the poem was written after the composition of the jewel. As per Prof. Kapustin (and not Mr. Kapustin), he is a major scholar of Iranian studies and Persian poetry is very inter-related and for example to understand Nizami, you need Ferdowsi.  Especially the epic of Alexander in the Shahnameh is very close to Nizamis version in many details (Alexander visiting Mecca, Fighting the Khaghan, Fighting the Gog and Magog, Marrying the Daughter).  Also exploits of Bahram Gur and the story of Khusraw o Shirin is included in large parts in the Shahnameh. He is a Russian Professor and you can't degrade him by calling him Mr. and then saying he received Armenian money! (where is the picture of the suit-case and exchange of hands!).

10)	I have Nafisis Book (published in 1960) (with by the way many quotes from European scholars about Nizami and nothing about him being an Oghuz Turki) and he clearly states Nizami as Iranian many times. Yeki Az Bozorgtarin Shaa'eraan Iraan (One of the greatest poets of Iran).   Furthermore in one passage when he quotes Nizamis "Torki sefat vafaayeh maa nist..", he clearly states that many people of Ganjah did not welcome the intrusion of Turks (pg 45) and interprets Nizamis verse in that way (belittlement).   Your Russian source is bogus when someone has a book written by Said Nafisi from 1960 and Said Nafisi did not say such a thing in his book.  Else lets here the Persian words of Dr. Nafisi as he did not speak Russian!  Nafisi's book is also of later date so makes you false claim actually invalud.  Also we do not have such a statement from Said Nafisi and heresay does not count. Indeed the USSR made a lot of bogus claims on ethno-scholarship and Academic Marr is no exception. And what an big time idiot a person has to be to attribute nonsense to Said Nafisi and say that Nizamis poems are incomprehensible to Persians! He might have meant to the average uneducated Persian speaker (one that has not gone through the school system). Whereas Ferdowsi for example is easier to grasp. Any educated Iranian can read all of Nizami and understand it, sometimes with a small dictionary help to look up some terms. Said Nafisi who has full book about Nizami and constantly mentioning him as a Iranian/Persian poet (Shaa'eraan Iran), so we can reject your statement. Also his book is written later than 1934 when Marr dies. So that is a double reject. Finally there is a host of Iranian and Iranian Azarbaijani scholars from Iran who have rejected the Turkic theory. Five of them are: Dr. Dabbir Sayyaghi, Dr. Abodl-ali Karang, Dr. Barrat Zanjani, Dr. Abbass Zayab Khoi,Dr. Amin Riyahi Khoi amongst many others. And they all lived after Stalin and three of them are alive right now.

Indeed none of Nizami's story have anything to do with Oghuz Turkish folklore and that is why his work was translated even later to Azarbaijani Turkish than even English, French and German! Despite the proximity of the two languages! Also Nizami clearly states that he looked into Persian, Arabic, and perhaps Bukhari and Tabari(see my comment and response on this issue) but nothing about Turkish! Either Turkish was not comprehensible to him, or Turks did not posses a literature related to Nizamis stories. Indeed in the following article by a Turkish professor ((Tourkhan Gandjei, BSOAS, University of London, Vol. 49, No. 1, 1986), we read:The Oghuz tribes(Azarbaijani Turkic speakers speak Oghuz language and are considered Oghuz by the nationalists) which formed the basis of the Saljuq power, and to one which the Seljuqs belonged were culturally backward, and contrary to the opinion advanced by some scholars(He mentions a pan-turkic scholar by the name of F.(Fuwwad?) Koprulu), did not posses a written language. Thus the Seljuqs did not, or rather could not take steps towards the propagating the Turkish language, in a written form, much less the patronage of Turkish letters.

And taking your usual unfounded argument,just because he didn't look into Kurdish, it doesn't mean he wasn't Kurdish and didn't know its folklore! The chain of unfortunate absurd arguments never ends, but in the end of it, it will never make Nizami more/less than what is known about him today. The Academic Marr by the way was originally a good scholar, but his later otheories were Psuedo-Scholarly as everyone knows. Also with Stalins interference in ethnic issues, one has no choice but to write the party line. That is why the theories of the USSR about Nizami were debunked around 1988 and that is why you go back to scholars that had no choice in the USSR era and had to follow Stalins lines and can not come up with even single Professor in Persian literature in a major University in the West to backup your claim. Where as I can. Also Said Nafisi, in his book Babak Delawar-e-Azarbaijan clearly states that the Turkic Oghuz language took place later on and Babak was Persian (Pahlavi speaker). Furthermore in describing Nizamis father, he does not say anything about ethnicity and constatly refers to Nizami as an Iranian poet and nothing about being an Azarbaijani poet or anyway related to Azarbaijani Oghuz Turks! Soviet psuedo-Scholarship on ethnicity and religion where even denying Nizami Ganjavis Islamicness and also making up bogus stories like Stalin about him writing in Turkish (something all scholars now agree that is bogus), does not deserve serious attention. Also give your sources for Oghuz Turks (and not Huns of mixed ancestry) encroaching and settling in Northern Iran of today. The Sassanid were pretty much control of the area and the area was Pahlavi speaking even up the 12-13th century as mentioned by many sources. (See Azari (Iranian language) in Encyclopedia Iranica). Also See Safar-Nama of Naser Khosrow, Ibn Hawqal, Istakhri, Ibn Nadeem and tons of other medieval geographers which have described the language of Azarbaijani as Persian/Pahlavi, and that of Caucus as Persian/Pahlavi (which they probably included Kurdish in, since the two languages share about 70% lexicon), Arrani (Caucasian Albanian), Armenian, Arabic..

10) Again I make the statement that there does not exist any Azarbaijani Turkish literature before the Ilkhanids from Azarbaijan. Dede-Korkut by the way uses the word Istanbul (a term around only about 500 years ago) and Farooq Summer has put it way after Nizami.  Its oldest manuscript (and I think there is only one and two) is not that old.  Dede Korkut contains 300 Arabic words and 160 Persian words which shows that it developed way after.  These Arabic words and Persian words did not exist during 1300 years ago in the Oghuz language and the stories of Dede Korkord are indeed totally very different than the stories of Nizami in many respects.  Although I am sure elements of Turkic mythology could be found in the stories, but still the composition is way after Nizami and this has been Proven by Dr. Firouz Mansuri by analyzing geographies, Persian words, Arabic words and etc. in the story. Also more importantly this work was introducted to the world by German scholars and has been incorporated recently into the various Turkic countries identity. Faruk Sumer in dates to the XVI century according one source.

Again TWO different cultures. Mr. Adil Bagiurov needs to provide factual reference from Western Scholars on the first piece of evidence of Azarbaijani Oghuz Turkish language. Indeed Gerhard Doefer has not mentioned any Oghuz Turkish prior to the Mongol invasion from the area as far as I have read his work. Also I checked under Masud ibn Namdar (Namdar btw is a Persian word and that was his fathers name) and only two Azarbaijani sites came up! (the same google sites falsely claimed Qatran Tabrizi and Homaam Tabrizi as a Turk, although the first one totally derided Turks and the second one has some Taati/Pahlavi poetry as well, but no Turkish).

And in the google search on masud ibn namdar one book by the title: "Majmu'a qissas wa-rasa'il wa-ash'ar" came up which does not sound Turkish. The article in Persian I mentioned above has shown many example of falsehood revisionism in the Azerbaijani republic. Even the Avesta has been claimed to be old Turkish!

Also my reference for no Oghuz Turkish from Azarbaijan prior to the Ilkhanid era is the book by Dr. Javad Heyat, Sayrri dar Zabaan Torki (who is well known amongst pan-turkist circles) as well as the book Tarikh-e-Azarbaijan by Dr. Javad Mashkur. Two authors with completely different thought patterns. So it is up to you to provide western scholarly references.

11) Actually no serious Iranian scholar has claimed Nizami to be a Shi’a.  Although there exists some people who are over-zealous, but I am talking about serious scholars.  Plus with the exception of Ferdowsi and Naser Khosrow, the other major Iranian poets are Sunni: Hafez, Rumi, Attar, Sanaii, Nizami, Sa'adi.  As per turkification of the area, this was not written by me! .  Neither is the Encyclopedia Britannica an Iranian source.  Hopefully Genetic tests of the future which have shed light on this issue, will resolve it for those who disbelieve, once and for all.  Recently it has been proven that Yaquts show the least genetic variety amongst all Turkic speaking groups.  This is another discussion though.  But let me mention in one sentence that the amount of falsehood coming out of the some of the scholars of the caucus is overwhelming although I have some articles about it. Basically, Avesta being old Turkish!, Armenians being Turks, Caucasian Albanians being Turks, Medes being Turks, Khazar and Azar have the same root! (example of really crazy etymological work)..such statements were made and are still made by some of the Professors in those caucasian republics while books by some neutral scholars like Prof. Eghrar Alioff have been reported to be burnt by some over-zealous ultra-nationalists.

12) A sufficient proof of Seljuqids being Persianized is their distaste for the term Turk in Anatolia and the negative connotations of the term Turk prior to Ataturk in that area.  Also later kings took names like Kehkhosrow, KeyQobaad... all Shahnameh names.

13) Actually the verse mentioned by Mr.  Adil Baguirov( whose rudeness only exceeds his ignorance) about Bukhari and Tabari is this: زان سخن‌ها كه تازي است و دري در سواد بخاري و طبري وز دگر نسخه‌ها پراكنده هر دري در دفيني آكنده

Zaan sokhon keh taazi ast o Dari Dar savaadeh Bokhaari o Tabari

The translation by Mr. Baguirov has some problems: In Arabic I read everything and in Dari, The book of Bukhari I read, [as well as] the book of Tabari

Because the first line is: Zaan Sokhon keh taazi ast o Dari (Those words that are in Persian and Arabic, and also those in the form of Bukhari and Tabari).

The second line: Dar savaadeh Bokhaari o Tabari

The key word here is سواد whose Persian equivalet is also کالبد. They both mean form.

Again this can be taken two ways. And I had indeed considered it to mean the two Iranian scholars Imam Bukhari and Imam Tabari, but Nizami uses a key word Noskheh-haa(manuscripts), which makes me lean more on Tabari and Bukhari as languages (as some authors have done in Iran and other authors have disagreed). Because the first verse is also about languages as well. If he used Ketaab (books), then I would have the other interpretation. Both interpretation can be correct and historically valid. Because the verse is from Haft-Paykar which is a Persian Sassanid story of Bahram Gur (which btw Nizami describes his battles with Turks gloriously). That is why there is not a strong connection Imam Bukhari here. So it could have been another Bukhari or the language of Soghdians which was rich in folklore. At the same time Sassanid/Iranian folklore was available in other Iranian dialects like Soghdian and Tabari. A good example is the Marzaban-Nama originally in Tabari. These two dialects have been mentioned by different historians. So the verse can be taken either way and has been taken to mean the meaning I gave by some scholars. What is clear is that it has nothing to do with search in Turkish materials.

14) Afrasiyaab of the Shahnameh is Avesta word.  Also all the Turanians in Avesta have Iranian names.  And even if Kashgari assigns Afrasiyaab a Turkic name it is 1500 years after Avesta!  The ethnicity of Turanians is not clear, but most scholars are leading towards an Iranian group.  I ask Mr. Baguirov to provide the verses about Turan and Afrasiyaab in Khusraw o Shirin!  But he didn’t reply yet.  I even provided verses from two other poets about Shirin being Armenian.  (Shirin-e-Arman).  She definitely was not an Azarbaijani Oghuz Turkic speaker.

15). Mr. Adil Baguirov repeats the same statement about Shirin!  But the fact of the matter is that I brought verses from other poets that consider Shirin as an Armenian.  So I am waiting for a reply!  For the rest of his statements also he can not bring the relavent verses.  From example about nomadic horse milk, where is the verse?  Where is the verse about Afrasiyaab?  Where is the verse about Turan in Khusraw o Shirin?  And to show the real ignorance of Mr. Baguirov, it is well known that Shirin  was a Christian and not some Shamanistic horse milk drinker.  According to historical sources, Khorsow married a certain Irene (note it is not a Turkic names) and the Persians called her Shirin.  Also not only in Persian poetry, but in Turkic poetry Shirin is considered Armenian (There is a typo here and Farshad should not be Farhad and Farhad was from Iran and not Central Asia), but  the site is not pro-Armenian: Also this is well known fact around the world

What Mr. Baguirov does (well after he kept calling me names) is that does not look at all the evidences. Indeed Mahin Banu is called the ruler of Armenia and Arran and Abkhazia. But at the same time, Nizami clearly writes tha Khusraw sent Shapur to Armenia, he writes: برنده ره بیابان در بیابان  به کوهستان ارمن شد شتابان که آن خوبان چو انبوه آمدندی  به تابستان در آن کوه آمدندی چو شاپور آمد آنجا سبزه نو بود  ریاحین را شقایق پیش رو بود گرفته سنگهای لاجوردی  ز کسوت‌های گل سرخی و زردی

Line one: “Beh Kuhestan Arman Shod Shetaabaan” ((Shapur who was assigned to retrieve Shrin) was sent hurriedly to the mountains of Armenia)''

What Mr. Baguirov does not know is that Ibn-e-Wazih Ya'qubi and Baladhuri have put a large part of Georgian, Arran and other parts as Armenia. This is a few amongst many and what is important here is that the scholarly community has not disagreed about this fact since at least 1988! And furthermore there is absolutely not even one iota of proof that Shirin was a Turkish Oghuz speaker!

What Mr. Baguirov does not touch upon is the other two poets Amir Khosrow Dehlavi and Vahshi Baqfi who have clearly mentioned Shirin as an Armenian. The relavent verses were already brought. Quoting Mr. Baguirov,How poorly educated one has to be  not to look throughout the Persian literature on the ethnicity of Shireen and then see why in Iranian/Kurdish folklore she is Armenian. Furthermore Mr. Baguirov said before:Shirin was an Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk . But Actually Arrani (Caucasian Albanians) are not Azarbaijani Oghuz speaking Turks! That is like saying Anglo-Saxons are Arabs.

So scholarship produced in the last 20 years had no disagreement on this and Western scholars have always considered Shirin to be Armenian by looking at many different Persian poets. That is the key. You can't analyze Nizami, without analyzing Ferdowsi, Sanaii, Attar, Asadi Tusi... They are all part of the same culture and use the same lexicon. The funny thing is that Mr. Baguirov says: ''And her name in Azerbaijani, unlike in Armenian, also means “sweet” just as in Persian. '' Well actually the word is Persian and not Azerbaijani Turkish originally. This is important and in the pre-Islamic era, Persian had not influence Oghuz Turkish and vice-versa.

What Mr. Baguirov does not know or knows but tries to hide it, is that scholars after the breakup of USSR, as well as Western scholars have mentioned Shireen as Armenian. For someone that does not know Persian like Mr. Baguirov and then claim that he knows more than Persian and Iranist scholars is actually a true show of ignorance. Yes the chapter “Travel of Shapur to Armenia” is very important. Why isn’t it a “Travel to Turkistan”! Although Shireen is an Armenian in Persian poetry (Nizami, Vahshi Baqfi, Amir Khosrow Dehlavi ..) in reality she is said to be the daughter of emperor Maurice by some sources as well. You see when Vahshi Baqfi calls her Armenian, Amir Khosrow calls her Armenian, Iranian folklore calls her Armenian, and even Khosrow sends Shapur to Armenian.. then she is definitely not an Azarbaijani Turkic Oghuz speaker.

16) Mr. Baguirov is racist as well(well he accused me of it but his distate for Armenians shows it). Indeed if Khamseh had anything to do with Azarbaijani Turkic speakers, then it would have been translated long long ago to that language and not in the historically manipulated era of Stalin.  As per praisal of Sultan Sanjar the Seljuq, other Persian poets have done that as well (even some modern ones) and he is known as relative just king.  Also the story is about an old lady complaigning to her.  And whenever the words Hindu/Turk occur together, they are taken as symbols rather than ethnicities.  As per negative words about Turks, we can look at Alexanders reference to the Khaghans and the Shirvanshah said about Turks.  Both justification that no Turk would write such a poetry insulting their own kind.  And as per the term Torktaazi, it does not mean incursion/invasion as much as it closer on the line of plunder. Burhaq Qati' mentions it as Taraaj (plunder). So does Farhang Rashidi, another old Persian dictionary. It comes from the two words Torki+Taakhtan. Such a negative term actually shows how Persian poets thought of plunder and the word plunder being synonmous with Tork-Taazi! And it is a term used by other Persian poets including Sanai. Also Mr. Baguirov does not know that Mongloid race does not mean Mongol. For example Chinese are Mongloid race like the Turkomens and Yaquts. Azarbaijanis and Iranians and Armenians and Greeks are Caucasian racially.

17) The quotes from Diwan of Nizami are not direct but indirect from works of other writers. Their veracity is questionable since a mix up of different poets is very common in Persian poetry.  For example at one time Attar was assigned 100+ works but today it is about 5.  Also here is some very good phrases Nizami praising Persians/Iranians: آهن شه چو سخت جوشی کرد   لشگر ترک سست کوشی کرد

When the king Bahram Gur defeates the Turkish Army of Khaghan and it translates to: The Sword/metal of the King became victorious - the Army of turks becamse wanderless and effortless

لشگر ترک را ز دشنه تیز  تا به جیحون رسید گرد گریز

The army of the turk fromt he sharp spear, fled all the way back to the Jeyhoon. And then afterwards:

هرکسی پیش او زمین می‌رفت  در خور فتح آفرین می‌گفت پهلوی خوان پارسی فرهنگ  پهلوی خواند بر نوازش چنگ شاعران عرب چو در خوشاب  شعر خواندند بر نشید رباب شاه فرهنگ دان شعر شناس  بیش از آن دادشان که بود قیاس

simply translation without imageries and symbolic language: ''Whoever entered the presence of the King (Bahram Gur), hailed his victory. The Pahlavi(middle Persian) Persian cultured musicians, played their lute for him. The Arabs composed poems and played the rhubab. The King who knew the culture, gave them much reward..''

Here is Wilsons translation:

The hardness of the swarthy lions’ claws  pounded the brains of those whose swords were soft Rapid in action as the snake (their) shafts; from their effects the horsemen fell and lay. Through the sharp dagger’s (work) the dust of flight reached the Turks’ army to the Oxus stream The king such store of gems and treasure took that treasurers were troubled in the count. Returning from that conquest to his realm, he showed for (all his) people kindly care. In triumph then ascending to the throne, he garbed the world afresh in 		New Year’s joys All swept the ground before him (with their brows) and, suited to (his) conquest, gave him praise. Singers in Pahlav&#299;, with Persian tunes sang to the harp’s sweet sounds in Pahlav&#299;

The above shows that Iranians and Turks had their traditional border of the Oxus and as has been pointed out numerous times, Bahram Gur is a Sassanid story.

Here is another Nizami verse: همان پارسی گوی دانای پیر  چینن گفت و شد گفت او دلپذیر

Here is another one: And that wise old Persian said (to alexandar) and his words were received warmthly

Indeed Nizamis constant praisal of Sassanid Kings is in the tradition of Iranian poets. So if I were to use your arguments, then his father should be Persian. And every time I looked up Persian he has said nothing negative, whereas with Turk there is some negative verses as well. His fervent praisal of Shirvanshah after Shirvanshahs total belittlement of Turkic shows this as well. And I have read through that introduction many times. Again all sorts of arguments can be made, but in the end there is no direct reference to the ethnicity of his father, and so your POV can not be pushed, specially since not only Western scholars of Persian have not accepted it, but furthemore it has been rebuked by many Iranian studies scholars after the breakup of the USSR. That is why Tajiks were forced to say Nizami was an Azarbaijani during the USSR era (they couldn't argue since Mr. Stalins words were pretty much absolute there), but now they say he is Tajik.

18)	After everything is said and done many many many times, we do not know about Nizamis father 100%. Only his mother is Kurdish and all his work is Persian and  all of them have to do with Perso-Islamic culture if anyone reads Persian and not Turkic Oghuz culture like Dede-Qorqod or KurOghlu.  That is why his works were never translated to Azarbaijani Turkic until 80 years ago! and you do not see Turkish folklore talk about Sassanids, but you do see it talk about KurOghlu, Oghuz Khan and etc.  Two unrelated cultures.   So going back about.  We do not know although most likely one can conjecture Kurdish based on statistics.  We do not know and that is what the Encyclopedia Britannica and other scholars who are neutral and who are of today (the last 15 years)  have said.  Indeed some of them totally rejected the USSR ethnography of  Nizami and that is sufficient proof that Mr. Baguirov can not use material from the USSR from 60 years ago. Else CE WILSON clearly states NIZAMI is Persian. The fact is the Azarbaijani Turkic identity is based on Dede-Qorqrod, Kur-Oghlu and Oghuz folklore. Not Sassanid Persian folklore. So even if Nizami was an African, his culture heritage is for the Persian speaking world and his ethnicity although at least half Iranian, the other half will never be known, but most likely was not Turkish or else he wouldn’t belittle turks in some verses, praise Ferdowsi, praise the Sassanid Kings who were enemies of Turks and finally the name of his father is fully Arabic and does not contain any tribal Turkish title. So instead of jumping on other issues (after all is said and done, not that much hard feelings and I am used to such arguments in Wikipedia), the best way is to put Kurdish mother and then like the Encyclopedia Britannica say nothing else. If indeed Nizami Ganjavi’s ancestry had anything to do with Oghuz Turks or other Turks, Encyclopedia Britannica and the most updated references would have mentioned it, which they do not. I can bring moderators into this debate and they will finally agree with Encyclopedia Britannica and recent scholarship. So let us not make stuff up about his father. Also Mr. Baguirov who does not speak Persian and whose major is not literature, is in no position to prefer one scholar (say from 60 years ago) over another (say from now like Prof. Meysami or Bashiri..).

In the end, Mr. Baguirov can not claim Nizami Ganjavi as Azarbaijani Turk, since Nizami's father's ethnic origin will always been unknown, although most probably Kurdish. His father died early as well and Nizami was brought up mainly by his mother, (in Kurdish culture), so hence Kurdish Iranian ethnicity should be persumed. If the author persist, I will bring other Iranian, Armenian, Wikipedians into the issue and there is a good amount of scholars that have said Nizami Ganjavi is Iranian (Kapustin, Armenian Scholars, CE WILSON, JULIA MEYSAMI (Father from QOM) and most of these sources are much more recent and have nothing to do with the Stalinistic era where attemps where made to make Babak Khorramdin, Qatran, Khaghani, Nizami and etc. into Oghuz Turks.

Any typos and spelling mistakes from the above response is due to the fact that the response is long and unfortunately Mr. Adil Buguirov jumped from Armenians to Persians to Russians being paid by Armenian to Afghanistan to Dede Korkot to.. It has no bearing on the evidence provided and that is not trick to actually disregard the fact that Mr. Baguirov can not prove what he wants to prove, for me, nor the scholarly community of the West as well as those from the breakup of the USSR onwards. Else it would have already been said in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The main focus here is on Nizamis father and there is no verse that mentions his ethnicity and so anything else is guess work although most likely his father was Kurdish, judging by the non-Turkic character of Nizamis five jewels. Also let me assure Mr. Baguirov that Tabari has mentioned couple of persian poets from Azarbaijan in 8th century A.D. So Arabic and Persian developed there very early. Also there is a good amount of firetemples which shows the Iranian characteristic of the region. And also a good amount of Pahlavi inscriptions. Also if somebody say an African writes the best pieces of Irish folklore, in Gaelic, then I consider such a person as culturally Gaelic and not African. So what is really important is culture when it comes to poetry. A poet according to one site: lives through the language. If X was Armenian, but wrote the best Turkish poetry, then culturally he would be Turkish. So this point should also be sufficient. Mr. Baguirov says: Anyways, I can go on and on about this, but have neither the time, nor the will to have a senseless argument. So lets go with what Encyclopedia Britannica says and end it. His Kurdish mother is clear. Also I don't want to put the negative verses about Turks (like the address of Alexandar to Khaghan), the way Bahram defeats them and the Shirvanshah and also reference to the word Tork-taazi and Taraaji. Also Nizami has many positive words about Greeks, Armenians, Persians, Arabs and etc. This does not make him into any of these ethnicites. But that is not what the article is about and we are attempting to introduce the moral and the stories of Nizami Ganjavi. Also translations should preferably be done by actual university scholars. (Like CE Wilson and Julia Meysami). Mr. Baguirov does not know the minimal Persian (all of Nizamis work is in Persian)to cite himself in the main article. This was demonstrated by the discussions above. Else I can take all the text I have wrote already debunking most of the so called original research, and make it into article, (plus some help from those 1988 articles and beyond) and then cite it as reference. But that is against Wikipedias general policy on issues that are disputable. Mr. Baguirov should also be familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines:

[No Original Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR].

Also the following article should be sufficient for this person to stop pushing his unscholarly viewpoint and pick and choosing which scholars he likes or does not like.

What Wikipedia is not Specially the part about Wikipedia is not a soapbox should be read by Mr. Baguirov.

Also since he does not have a sufficient knowledge of the Persian language, and he is not a scholar of Persian litearture, his polemic can not be included in the references. Else I have some polemic works (or could gain access to it) by an Armenian/Iranian/Russian authors and I can also gather all the text here so far, and make a polemic work. And then the article entery would not be about Nizami. That is not the Wikipedia standard. All this said, Nizami contributed to Persian culture and just like some one that composes in English, is an English poet (the term does not necessarily denote ethnicity), Nizami is a Persian poet and contributed to Iranian culture and his works were not translated until the last century in Azarbaijani Turkish. (way after German,French, English...).

Finally, Nizamis father although most likely was Kurdish as well (by simple statistical induction because he married a Kurdish chieftan and himself was not of any known nobility), although perhaps from Qom (as mentioned in some manuscripts).. but He could even have been a mixture. That is I can even say his father was a Georgian/Armenian/Persian/Turk/Kurd/Arab.. because his grandfather might have been Georgian and his grandfathers mother might have been Arab.. and so on and so forth. (who knows?). Unless you have a family tree of his father, then this discussion is over. The fact is we will never know or else scholars would have been unanimous. And so you can not bring ethnocenterism into Wikipedia article, specially since you are not a qualified scholar like Prof. Bashiri, Meysami, Wilson, Kaputsin, Riyahi Khoi,.. and specially many scholars that were not under Stalinistic pressure and are after the breakup of USSR. I could be nationalistic and make up stuff and (much more stronger stuff than the silly arguments debunked above) but I won't. Because there are literally hundreds of verses that can be taken to praise Iranians in one way or another. So lets be more neutral here like the Encyclopedia Britannica. --Ali doostzadeh 10:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Falsification by Mr. Adil Baguirov as well as some comments
Folks,

After searching alittle bit for readily available materials, I found the following falsification by the republic of Azerbaijani historian and ultra-nationalists. See for example these links:

Rewriting History: Recent Azeri Alterations of Primary Sources Dealing with Karabakh

Also this article shows that there are major debates right now about history and identity in the republic of Azerbaijan

Falsification 1)

Thankfully the book of Ibn Azraq is available in both English and Arabic. Indeed it has been translated into English. Under the name ''A Muslim Principality in Crusader Times. The Early Artuqid State'', Carole HILLENBRAND, 1990 (PIHANS, 66), XIII, 260 pp.; ISBN 90-6258-066-1. Thankfully there is a glossary as well and I looked under Ganja. On page 38 we read: Sultan Toghril Beg, son of Sultan Muhammad, who was the ruler of Ganja and Arran and he sent a shihna to them.. As the readers notice, this is totally different than what Mr. Baguirov claimed! Indeed the Seljuqs controlled all of Khorasan, Esfahan, Kerman, Iraq (Both Persian Iraq and Arab Iraq).. and etc. Indeed another Seljuq king by the name of Toghan Arsalan is called the lord of Arzan and Bitlis. The immorality of falsification not withstanding, it is like arguing that since the British controlled India and Hong King, then all Chinese and Indian scholars during their time of control were British!! The next mention of Ganja is on pg 43: In the year 515 (1121-2) there as an earthquake in the city of Janza, which is Ganja. Again nothing as Mr. Adil Baguirov claims! The final time Ganja comes up in this text is on pg 58: ''As for Sultan Toghril Beg, he sired Arsalan-Shah whose mother was the wife of the amir Eldiguz. He is now the Sultan from Isfahan, Hamadan, Azerbaijan and Arran up to the city of Ganja and Shamkur''. (My Note: like overwhelming majority of old sources Azerbaijan and Arran were two separate lands.). So as you folks can see the first part of Mr. Baguirovs claim was a lie and no such statement was found in this historically important text. Also note the hundreds of Iranian poets and writers from all over Iran under Seljuqid administration! The absurdity of this argument was already rejected. It is as absurd as saying that Greek scholars under the Persian empire of the Achaemenids were Persian!

Falsification 2)

This falsification has to do with another big lie. Mr. Baguirov claimed that: For his knowledge, the following writings in Azerbaijani Turki have been preserved from BEFORE the Ilkanid ear: historian Masud ibn-Namdar (12th century). Indeed I not only did a Google search, but I checked couple of major University Libraries. For example see here:. As you can see, the book is in Arabic and it has been translated to Russian. And the title of the book is: Majmūaat qisas wa-rasāiil wa-ash'ār (The complete collection of stories, articles and poems) and the long title is completely Arabic. Note again the book is in Arabic and has nothing to do with Azerbaijani Turkic language!

The above two falsifications is a major breach of Academic honesty (there are much more: 1) where is Turan mentioned in the story of Khusraw o Shirin 2) Where is Afrasiyaab mentioned in this story? And much more….  One can safely say the same thing about the other wild theories of Mr. Adil Baguirov.  Indeed he does not know Persian and yet he wants to claim himself as a great scholar and makes condemnations about scholars.  Indeed the character assassination of the Russian scholar that said Nizami had nothing to do with Azerbaijani Oghuz Turkic speaker is indeed tragic.  Surely, Mr. Baguirov does not have the reputation of Iranian studies scholars in top Russian universities.

Comment 3)

Now those are two major falsifications right in-front of the readers. I am not going to use multiple insults like Mr. Baguirov does, but as we can see, the materials outputed by the people of the republic of Azerbaijani is not reliable. I emailed Prof. Kamran Talattof of the Arizona state University about the claims of some Azerbaijani scholars and he wrote back: ''It seems that many of these former soviet republics have been trying to make history and construct cultural background in the process of their attempt for nation building. The official websites of the Republic of Azerbaijan featured Nezami as one their own many years ago. This happened at the time when our own officials did not care much about our cultural heritage. ''. So Dr. Talattof agrees (unlike Mr. Baguirov claims) that Nizami Ganjavi was not a Turk. Another major orientalist figure, probably the biggest figure I will mention so far is Prof. J. Rypka. In his article: Poets and prose writers of the late Saljuq and Mongol periods Jan Rypka Published in The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 5, 1968, he writes (on pg 568):''Hakim Jalam al-Din Abu Muhammad Ilyas b. Yusuf b. Zaki b. Mu’ayyad Nizami, a native of Ganja in Azerbaijan, is an unrivalled master of thoughts and words, a poet whose freshness and vigour all the succeeding centuries have been unable to dull. Little is known of his life, the only source being his own works, which in many cases provide no reliable information. We can only deduce that he was born between 535 and 540 (1140-46) and this his background was urban. Modern Azerbaijan is exceedingly proud of its world-famous son and insists the he was not just a native of the region, but that he came of its own Turkich stock. At all events his mother was of Iranian origin, the poet himself calling her Raisa and describing her as Kurdish. The only fact known about his youth is that he was orphaned early.''. As people can see, here is the major orientalist on Persian poetry, (his multivolume work History of Iranian Literature is well known), who totally ignores the theory of the republic of Azerbaijan and shows that they are acting nationalistic. This is all the information we will ever have about Nizami for certainty and so polemics must be put to rest.

Comment 4)

One of the claims of Mr. Baguirov was that the Iranian academics do not use the critical editions or do not have access to it or.. But the most critical and academic publication of Nizami’s work has been done by Dr. Barat Zanjani. Indeed Dr. Barat Zanjani not only uses previous critical editions from the USSR, Germany and etc, but he shows about 30 examples out of many on mistakes of the USSR edition. The reason is that because the USSR scholars did not understand Persian well like a native speaker, they have made some editions that lack meaning. Indeed some of them were really ridicolous. Professor Zanjani has used more manuscripts  and his edition is more complete than the USSR edition. If there is any need, I will demonstrate it with some of the poor corrections of the USSR edition.

Comment 5)

Another strong pro-Iranian verses (amongst many and I have already brought some negative verses on Turks (three or four times)). نژاده منم دیگران زیردست نژاد کیان را که یارد شکست

Nezhaadeh manam Digaran Zirdast Nezhaadeh Kiyaan raa keh yaarad shekast

Of the noblest race I am, the rest heed my command, Can any bring defeat to the royal Iranian (Kayanid) Race?.

Nizami also praises Romans/Greeks much more than Turks (whom he belittles sometimes harshly). He praises Ferdowsi although no one that has any Turkic consciousness would do so. He is accused by his ultra-orthodox opponents of praising the ways and cultures of Zoroastrians. So one line verses without context and without several verses below and above and without the use of understanding of the language of time and symbolic poetry, is indeed another wrong step which is taken by Azerbaijani republic theoreticians. Indeed I can also write the part about the Khaghan of Turks in the main page and also the big insult from ShirvanShah on the Turkic language and manners. So lets not over do it.

Comment 6)

Virtually all scholars acknowledge that excellent sophisticated poetry is a proof of high culture. And the medium of this high culture was indeed the Persian language. Nizami Ganjavi will never be part of Turkish culture because he contributed to Persian culture. He lives through his medium of expression and the culture that he enriched.

At least from the 8/9th century there is Persian poetry from the area, according to Tabari. Indeed Tabari (under events of 235 Hijra which is equivalent to 849 A.D) says about the ruler of the area:

‌حد ثني انه انشدني بالمراغه جماعه من اشياخها اشعاراً لابن البعيث بالفارسيه و تذكرون ادبه و شجاعه و له اخباراً و احاديث

Rough translation: Mohammad al-ibn Ba’ith (the ruler of the area) composed poetry in Persian(bel-Farsyah) in Maraga..

Also Middle-Persian was spoken in the area as can be seen by the names of the cities of the area and multiple inscriptions in Middle Persian.

We know the Shaddadid Kurdish dynasty of Arran were removed by the Seljuqs around 1067 and their capital was Ganja. The main backbone of the Seljuqs (who were part of the nomadic Oghuz tribes) were Oghuz Turkic tribes. These tribes did not posses high culture and literature and they were very recent migrants in the area. Indeed the Turks and specially the Oghuz tribes are derided by the Iranian poet Qatran Tabrizi (1009-1072). Qatran calls Turks: Khoonkhaar (bloodsuckers), Ghaddaar (exceedingly honorless), Makaar (Liars and falsifiers), Afat (a tragedy!). Ironically Qatran Tabrizi is also molded into an Oghuz Turk in the republic of Azerbaijan! Note I have no problems against anyone that claims to be a descendant of Oghuz Turks today, but a lot of Persian/Arabic poetry and literature is also replete with the barbarism of Turks and specially Oghuz Turks. I have already mentioned that Stalin made a nonsense comment about Nizami having Turkic work! Well pseudo-scholars of Azerabijani republic, have always attempted to attribute falsely any Turkic piece they can find to Nizami although we know that all the work left by Nizami is Persian and this is in all the biographies. But furthermore out of the Russian sources mentioned by Mr. Baguirov (which are useless when it comes to ethnology due to the fact that no one could have challenged Stalins views), the term Azerbaijani can be taken to mean simply born from the current republic of Azerbaijan (which existed with this name only from 1918) and historically for the most part has been called Arran and Shirvan. So it does not necessarily mean an Oghuz Turk was meant by some of these scholars although again their work regarding ethnographics is useless due to the final verdict of Stalin and what is important is to show modern sources from Western Scholars of the last 15-20 years. Going back to the issue of Oghuz Turks, the nomadic Oghuz Turks had their own culture and Nizami had a different culture as evidences by his work. Indeed comparison of Nizami and Ferdowsi shows major intersections whereas comparison of Nizami and Dede Korkord shows two totally different worlds in many aspects. So culturally Nizami is not related to Oghuz Turks in any fashion.

Comment 7)

Encyclopedia Iranica has clearly mentioned Shirin as an Armenian. 

Indeed this is proven by going through many different books of Persian literature and two examples were given by Vahshi Baqfi and Amir Khusraw Dehlavi.

Comment 8)

Finally, the term Persian language poet instead of Persian poet is not used and the correct term is Persian poet. Nizami is indeed today alive through his work and so that is indeed the true nature of Nizami. Because a Persian poet means more than ethnicity and it means culture as well. Since Persian was indeed a cultural language and Nizami belongs to this cultural through his masterpieces. Nizamis poetry is the best proof of the Persian cultural heritage as his stories give scholars detailed information about pre-Islamic Iran.

Finally as per ethnicity, although I am sure that Nizamis father was Iranian (most likely Kurdish),  but since Nizami does not tell us anything directly about his father, then we must just confirm that his mother was Kurdish and be neutral. So he was at least half Iranian and one can not claim him to be a Turk by modern ethnic standards! Even if he was an African, he is assimilated to Iranian culture. Some of these facts could be hard for a person from the republic of Azerbaijan, and I do not want to spread bitter feelings. But the republic through the USSR’s effort has totally turned its back on its in Iranian heritage, its history has been manipulated and it is trying to build a separate non-existing heritage based on falsifications. 

Any revision of the current article and to claim Nizami Ganjavi as an ethnic Turk is an allegation that has not been supported by scholars of the modern times and Western scholars. Also I have done babelfish translation of Mr. Baguirovs diatribe on Nizami and it seems all of it is very much answered above. Indeed it has been shownn false by variety of arguments, some which were given. So stop the historical revisionism and let this article like the Encyclopedia Britannica and other major Western sources, be neutral.

--Ali doostzadeh 08:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Evidence
Ali Doostzadeh (great work by the way) has posted a large amount of evidence. I have not seen any convincing evidence like the ones Ali posted by the opponents. The evidence posted is irrefutable is it not? This reminds of me of a quote:

Do not consider the intestinal conflicts of sects: For, not having found the truth, they went to the invention...

~ Hafez Shirazi Iranian Patriot 00:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Persian Chauvanism Accusations
quote: "Extensive comments and corrections are necessary to Ali Doostzadeh’s talk, since he either is very partial, preferring to concentrate on one and not another, or severely misinterprets some facts or mistranslates and misattributes, or is outright false on others. This is a continuation of the general policy of chauvinism, discrimination and racism displayed by some extremists and which results in the well-known events underway right now in South Azerbaijan’s (North Iran) cities of Tabriz and Urmiya, where 100,000’s Azerbaijanis are protesting the denial of their basic rights and general discrimination by the Iranian government and few Persian chauvinists (chauvinism, an extreme form of nationalism, is present in all cultures and people, by no means limited to any one nation in particular). By the way, the constant references that one writes in a “bad” Persian language are another testament of this – although, if I were on the place of the author, I would pay attention to the horrible English spelling and grammar, as well as mistyped Russian (e.g., “sovietkaya kultura” instead of “Sovetskaya kul’tura”) and even mistranslated Persian/Farsi (on that a little bit below)."AdilBaguirov 05:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to inform you that the Azeri cartoon, of which the Azeri's in Iran are not protesting, WAS DRAWN, AND PUBLISHED BY AZERI'S. Secondly, I would like to mention that it has been proven (by eye witness accounts) that Pan Turks from Turkey and North Azerbaijan have come into Nort Iran handing out Bozkut (Turkish Pan Turk political party) propaganda pamphlets and in some instances even started some of the riots. And another interesting fact that Turks always like to leave out is that Irans dictator right now is an IRANIAN AZERI, khamenei!

All of this "Persian Chauvinism" is a tool by pan Turks to destroy Irans history and Irans national integrity. The Pahlavi's were Gilaki, the Qajars were Iranian Azeri's, and the Safavids were Iranian Azeri's. Never have Azeri's and Persians been bad with each other, infact, they have worked together to create modern Iran. The Safavids and Qajars were Iranian Nationalists. Iranian culture and language flourished under them. Not until Pan Turkism came along that people suddenly started talking about Persian chauvinism, which doesnt exist.

Also, I would like to note that the West only knows Irans history as Persia. Westerners still think that Iran is a fictiotous name imposed on Iran by the shah who wanted to be closer to Nazi's. The fact is that Iran has always been called Iran and other variations of that, but westerners do not know this. They do not know Irans history like us Iranians know it. Persians, Azeri's, Kurds, Balouchi's, etc... know our country and its history, but westerners do not. So the only way to preserve our history in the English language and in the western world is to call it Persia and Persian since that is all westerners know. Trust me, I dont like it being called Persia and Persian, I would prefer Iran and Iranian but in today's world that wont work. Therefore, that is why the term Persian is used. And by the way, half of my family members are also Azeri.

the same thing is done with Rome. A lot of people who were not directly of roman descent were and are still labled as romans. some emperors are labled as romans, some architects are labled as romans, some poets are labled as romans, etc... who were not necessarily roman.

Also, AdilBaguirov makes the same mistakes that many many people make when regarding history. They look at a region during a period of time and they assume that everything coming from that period has to be of a certain something. For example, Turks belive that because Azerbaijani's are speaking a turkic language today, then they have always been Turks. Turks also believe that because Samarkhand, and Bukhara are now under Uzbek control, they those cities have always been turkish cities. ALso turks belive that because Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etc... are now turk administered, that those lands have always been turkic lands. They also believe that because Iranic influences have been wiped out of their countries with the coming of the Pan Turk movements, that the Persian language and iranian culture has never affected them. Many turks actually believe that Norouz is a turkish holiday, and that Iranian culture has never affected them, even though the cultural language of the Ottoman Empire WAS persian.

The user AdilBaguirov is making the same mistake. The Seljuks merely conquered the land but they certainly did not have the man power nor the population to have inhabited all of it. Infact, the Turkification of Azeri's began sometime after the invasion of the seljuks, when many of them actually settled in what is today azerbaijan and turkey. Azeri's WERE iranic at the time of the seljuks and even until ottoman times the major language of the region was a western Iranian language. So do not make the mistake of labling a person just because he lived during a specific time under a certain group of people. Do not make the same mistakes that countless people have made, you must remember that modern day Uzbekistan, turkmenistan, azerbaijan, and parts of anatolia were majority IRANIC/INDO EUROPEAN before, during and for some centuries later.

AdilBaguirov states himself that Nezami was born in the Seljuk Empire and died in the Seljuk Empire, YET NEZAMI STILL USES THE NAME IRAN IN SOME OF THIS POEMS. now why would a Turk, born in a turkic empire, and dying in a turkic empire, every mention iran? why? doesnt that strike as unusual? the fact is that azeri's at the time were IRANIC, and were not yet Turkified. Nezami was not a turk because Azeri's at the time were still an IRANIAN people and not a turkified people. The fact of the matter is that all turks living west of central asia are actually more non turkic than turkic. most western turks are actually turkified. even turks today will admit that their ancestors were anatolians and NOT turks.Iranian Patriot 16:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

--- I think that referring to Armenian sources to prove that all Azerbaijani scientists are falsifiers is not a good idea. Firstly, because the source has an obvious bias. Secondly, if you look at your source, the author does the same falsifications he accuses other of doing. See an example:

Azeri: Gädimdä o shähärin ähalisi ermäni vä ya ashga bir millät imish.

Russian: Zhiteli togo goroda v drevnie vremena byli to li armiane, to li kakoi- to drugoi narod.

And the translation to English by the author: In ancient times it was populated by Armenians or other non- Muslims.

In fact, the original Azeri and Russian texts actually say that it was populated by Armenians or some other people. The word non-Muslim was not used. You can check Persian yourself: Va ahl an shahr dar qadim Armani va ya gheir-e mellat budeand. I’m sure it’s identical to Russian and Azeri versions.

As for Britannica references, I think we can chose the wording similar to the way they handled the issue. See the article from Britannica below:

Nezami or Nizami orig. Ilyas Yusuf Nizami Ganjawi born c. 1141, Ganja, Seljq empire died 1209, Ganja

Greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature.

''Little is known of his life, except that he spent it in what is now Azerbaijan. Only a handful of his qasidahs (odes) and ghazels have survived; his reputation rests on his great Khamseh (“The Quintuplet”), a group of five poems totaling 30,000 couplets, in which he brought a colloquial and realistic style to the epic. The fourth poem, The Seven Beauties, is considered his masterpiece.''

I think we should also say that he was one of the greatest epic poets in Persian literature. Saying that he was a Persian poet may imply ethnicity, and it may lead to continuation of edit wars. I just try to suggest a constructive way out of situation to end this dispute. I think there are things both sides can agree on. Also note that Britannica mentions Nizami in the context of Azeri culture, while saying nothing of his ethnicity:

''Azerbaijan. Cultural life''

''In the course of its long history, Azerbaijan has given the world a number of outstanding thinkers, poets, and scientists. Among the medieval scientists and philosophers, Abul Hasan Bakhmanyar (11th century), the author of numerous works on mathematics and philosophy, and Abul Hasan Shirvani (11th–12th centuries), the author of Astronomy, may be noted. The poet and philosopher Nezami, called Ganjavi after his place of birth, Ganja, was the author of Khamseh (“The Quintuplet”), composed of five romantic poems, including “The Treasure of Mysteries,” “Khosrow and Shirin,” and “Leyli and Mejnun.”''

So saying that he had nothing to do with Azerbaijan is also not correct, Britannica connects him with both Persian literature and Azerbaijani culture. My point is that we can choose such a wording which can be acceptable for both sides and be factually accurate at the same time. So instead of arguing maybe it’s better to come up with suggestions of better wordings and phrases? Grandmaster 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Millat in the correct context
I don't see anything wrong with that article from the Armenian Professor. And BTW that book mentioned by the Armenianan article is not originally Azarbaijani, but it is Persian. The original Persian uses the word: Ghair-Mellat. Here is the actual quote:

اول شهری که در ولایت قاراباغ بنا شده شهر و قلعهء بردع است که سر رودخانه ترتر و در سه فرسخی رود کور واقع است و اهل آن شهر در قدیم ارمنی و یا غیر ملت بودند.

Before modern nationalism, there was three main Millats (nations) in the area (Christian, Muslim and Jews). The author who is a Muslim uses the term Ghair-Millat(non-Millat)(non-muslims) and this term has long usage. Indeed it has always referred to religion and sects. See Dr. Touraj Atabaki's excellent book on the usage of Millat in Islamic times. Indeed in Qajar Iran, a French Person would of the same Millat as an Armenian. So one must be familiar with lexicon of the Qajar usage of this term and again this shows that some of the non-Iranian scholars from the USSR are not well versed in Persian as a native who knows Persian literature is.

Also the Britannica articles says Azerbaijan has given scientists but it does not say those scientists belong to the culture of Oghuz speaking Turkic people. Remember in the other talk we had in another thread, you said even if ancient Azarbaijanis were Iranic, today they are Turks. Well Nizami ganjavi does not change his identity just because of the gradual and sometimes forceful Turkification of Azarbaijan that occured starting around his time. (A new discovery of an old manuscript by the name of Safineyeh Tabrizi from the Ilkhanid era still shows the people of Tabriz speaking Persian and Pahlavi dialects.) Just like the many ancient Greek scientists do not belong to the culture of modern Turkey even though genetic evidences shows Anatolians share more with modern Greeks than any other Turkic speaking group. And a Persian poet does not just mean the author used the Persian language or is ethnic Persian. It means he was involved in the Persian culture and expressed his philosophical, moral, cultural feelings in the language and is alive and known through the culture and language he contributed to. You see if Einstein wrote a book in English, he is an English writer of Jewish origin. As for Nizami we are 100% of Kurdish mother and I would even say his father was about 99% chance Kurdish (although he didn't leave us sufficient information to make 100% sure). But poet is much more important than a scientist when it comes to identity because a poet expresses cultural ideas and thus belongs to the culture that he developed and that nourished him. Nizami's major work are about the Sassanid dynasty and also the Irano-Islamic legend of Alexandar (which is found in large parts of Shahnameh as well). So there is a very important cultural element here that can not be overlooked and even if Nizamis other half was a Martian, he would still be a Persian pory in the cultural sense. Because Persian was his cultural language and legacy of the culture he left behind. Indeed culture is much more important than ethnicity in my opinion. For example Stalin was a Georgian, but he acted like a Russian. Or ataturk was originally Albanian/Macedonian but he became the father of Turks.

While I am at it, let me just add another point or two about one of the other false statements of Mr. Baguirov. Mr Baguirov said: Of course the fact that there are such great Turkic eposes as Dede Korkut and Oghuz Nameh, which are oral stories from at least 1300 ago, and oldest manuscript of which was written in 1053. And this claim is very big lie. There is only two manuscripts of dede Korkut work (compare it to say Shahnameh with 1000+ manuscripts). Dede-Qorqod contains about 150 Persian words and 300 Arabic words. It talks about Iranians (tats) with beards (Oghuz Turks at that time were mainly mongloid like Turkomens) doing Azzan while Iranians were not Islamified yet 1300 years ago. It talks about the land of Rum, while at that time it was not even at the hands of Muslims! Dede Korkut (the culture of Oghuz Turks) is totally from the Oghuz culture. . Indeed to show that is not as old as Mr. Baguirov and other ultra-nationalists claim, the word "istanbul" is found in this book. And I quote: ''The merchants set out on their long journey and traveled steadily for many days and nights. They came at last to the city of Istanbul.''

The name Istanbul was chosen fairly recently (in 1453) for the former constantinope and assuming Dede Qoqod was written in 1453, then there is no way a manuscript exists that is 400 years older. As per the second part of the above sentence and Oguz-Nama, I haven't seen anything reliable from Mr. Baguirov about Oguz Nama. But there is a work by a certain Rashid al-Din Tabib of the Ilkhanid era in PERSIAN commonly also known as Oguz-Nama.. Author: Rashīd al-Dīn Tabīb, 1247?-1318  and the book is written in the Ilkhanid era and has been translated to Turkmen and other languages.

But Dede Korkut/Oguz Nama (the culture of Oghuz Turks) is totally different than the culture of Nizami/Ferdowsi. Dede Korkut is indeed the authentic true Oghuz-Turkic culture. . So is Kur-Oghlu which is mainly Turkic stories. See this interesting article (and note the site is not academic but yet I believe this article to be accurate) on how again Stalin manipulated history with regards to this folk story. Note the author makes another point which is well known and I have already made: '' At the time, the Turkish sultans didn't consider themselves to be Turks, but rather a cosmopolitan people, the Osmanli. In fact, they preferred to follow Persian and Arabic customs and offended the nomadic Turks by insulting their traditions and culture. The Osmanlis behaved not as the ethnic brothers of the nomadic Turks, but as their enemies and conquerors.'' This is what I mean by Persianization and this occured to the Ghaznavids as well as the latter Seljuqids. Also their empire usually was run by Iranian vazirs who did all the administration work and indeed some of them intermarried with the Seljuqids like the famous Nizam Al-Mulk. So the royal Seljuqids even if originally Turkic, mixed with the locals and started to upholad their custom. Another question comes up is why didn't western Oghuz Turkic have any significant literature from the begining of Islam, all the way down to the start of the Ottoman empires? The reason is that you need a complex culture and civilization to produce masterpieces and it does not come overnight. The complexity of the stories of Shahnama/Panj-Ganj relative to Dede Korkut is obvious and shows two different civilizations and culture. The fact is the Oghuz-Turkic culture was not established yet fully around the time of Seljuqids and it took several centuries after to produce Turkish literture. Much like the Scythians of the old days who were nomadic but in around 2000 started settlements and became the ancestors of very complex and cultured Iranian people: Soghdians and Chorasmians.

Also one can do a comparison between Nizamis work and Ferdowsi's work and see that they are from the same culture and why Nizami has expanded on some of the stories of Ferdowsi and the same themes. Culturally Nizami contributed to a civilization and that is Persian-Iranian culture and civilization. What is even the use of claiming him as a Turk, when he was not one and even if there was a 0% chance he was, he was assimilated fully and did not leave even one line of Turkish literature and did not contribute to their heritage.

I didn't even want to bring these issues up and I have a lot more sources to inject into this article about wide range of matters. Specially about Oghuz Turks and their behavior and culture and one will clearly see that Nizami did not have anything to do with this group. Still I don't want to do this, but unfortunately some users are trying to push this article in the wrong direction.

But since I believe in the greatness of Nizami, here is my proposal which stands already and is supported by Western Academics (Wilson, Clinton, Meysami, Talattof, Rypka..) as well as many important USSR academics after the breakup of USSR: '''We say his mother was an ethnic Kurd. He was a Persian poet (definition of Persian poet does not mean ethnicity). Both these terms are used in Western literature. But say his heritage is shared by Kurds and the people of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iran and Tajikistan. (Which is true). He was born in Ganja in the republic of Azerbaijan. (although Qom theory could never be discounted 100% and I could make 1001 arguments by interpolating verses and referring to scholars and etc.). He lived under the Seljuqs. Shireen was an Armenian princess (like the Encyclopedia Iranica and other Persian poets have also confirmed and she is known as Armenian in Persian/Kurdish cultures). All these facts should be mentioned.''' All these facts are already incorporated in the article.

But manipulations of these facts by some pan-Turkist nationalist is not welcomed and is aggression on Iranian heritage. Also today we do not judge ethnicity by 12th century standard and Nizami although most likely fully Iranian, is at least half Kurdish(Iranic) (unanimously agreed by all scholars).

In no way I am going to accept that he was half Oghuz Turkic, when the overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise and Western scholars have not mentioned this either and neither did any historians and biographers of the old ages that wrote about Nizami. Indeed the few Turks that contributed to Persian or Turkic literature and whose name has come up in biographies have been mentioned as Turks. Like Hasan Oghlu of Asfarain. The Nomadic Oghuz Turks that were encroaching on Anatolia and Caucasia were not cultured enough at that time to produce the Nizami Ganjavi.

Indeed if necessary I will against my own will, but for the sake of truth, bring many many quotes from Persian and Arabic poets and writers about the barbarism of Oghuz Turks at the time. So lets not call him an Oghuz Turk when scholars have not said such a thing in the West and outside of the Stalinstic era USSR (which no one can oppose Stalin). To say he was an Oghuz Turk (which modern Azarbaijanis from the republic identity themselves as), is historically inaccurate and is not supported by Western scholars and many scholars of the USSR. Also what I have noticed is that some plagarist might write a book that references some primary sources incorrectly and plagarize them and misquote them. And then another plagarist will refer to the primary source through the first plagarized source!, but will not mention the plagarized source. This method is used a lot by pan-turkist historians. Indeed with all the errors I have shown by Mr. Baguirov, one needs to be cautious and makes sure any statement he makes comes from the primary source and not a secondary source quoting the primary source.

I also btw have some research on the physical features of Turks and Oghuz Turks from Arabic/Persian literature and they are mongloid and it is clear to most scholars that Azarbaijan rebublic experienced a linguistic shift without much DNA variation. Kaputsins strong statement and Stalins manipulations have been already mentioned and I won't go through. Note I am not even pushing a nationalistic line and this is what Western scholars say. (Persian poet, Kurdish mother). If I wanted to be nationalistic, I would make 10001 reasons like Mr. Baguirov about his father being from Qom (since it is in some manuscripts as well as some history books) and he was Iranian.

So friends lets end this issue.

--Ali doostzadeh 23:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

--- I explained why the term persian is used, i wont repeat myself.

also, i think we can all agree that Nezami was not Turkic, that is simple. Now the question is whether to lable him persian or not. If it was up to me and it he west had not adopted the word persia when refering to iran, i would lable him as Iranian, but the fact is that we cannot do that without hurting irans history. Grandmaster, you seem very educated, and you should know that the west does not associate the term Iran with Irans history which goes under Persia. Nezami was Iranian, that is why he wrote about Iran in a time when, as the other user stated, Iran was under seljuk turkic rule. why would a non-Iranian mention Iran as the heart of the world, when technically iran did not exist as a nation at that time. Iranic peoples are the descendents of azeri's and at that time azeri's had not been turkified yet. and since the term Persia is used when refering to Iran in western languages, then the term Persian should be used to describe Nezami so as not to seperate him from Irans history.

by the way, the name Persia is derived from the greek word Persis, which the greeks used to call the second Iranian Empire (achaemenid Persia, 1st was the Medean Empire) after Cyrus the Great's tribe. but you probably already know this.Iranian Patriot 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The poems "The Labors of Ferhad" and the full text of "The Seven Beauties"
...should be moved to Wikisource. I nominate Ali to do the job. ;) &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the Persian Wikisource and here's the English one. &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

About Mr. Ali Doostzadeh's falsifications, misquotes, mistranslations and unscholarly behaviour
Before I go on, I’d like to ask Mr. Doostzadeh to either call me Dr. Baguirov, and not “Mr. Adil” (?!). Adil is a first name, in case he didn’t know, and it’s Semitic (Arabic), like “Ali”. Also, I’d like to ask for everyone to be constructive as well as, refrain from making insulting remarks like “what an big time idiot a person has to be” or “to show the real stupidity of Mr. Baguirov” as Mr. Doostzadeh has done more than once (I wonder if he would dare to say that to my face as courageously as from behind the comfortable seat by his computer).

Mr. Doostzadeh seems to have a lot of time on his hands to drum-up his lengthy accusations and claims. By simply reversing the ideas and assertions put forward by this author (legitimate accusations of bias and racism when it comes to Azerbaijani history and historic figures on the part of such chauvinists as Mr. Doostzadeh), he might think he did smth worthy of being proud of. Mr. Doostzadeh is way out of his league when he makes yet more irrelevant, baseless and groundless assertions about “Azarbaijani Chavaunism” (sic!) – one only needs to compare human rights reports from US State Department, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UN and PACE (EC) on the treatment of minorities in Azerbaijan (quite positive) and Iran (outright negative). This is objective reality and easy to verify, yet has little to do with our discussion, and it is unfortunate that Mr. Doostzadeh retorts to such mud-slinging.

Indeed, it is somewhat inappropriate to hear an Iranian chauvinist talk about human rights in other countries. With Iran currently ablaze in protests against the very racism and chauvinism that I’ve identified Mr. Doostzadeh displaying, and with majority of Iranians of all ethnic backgrounds wanting freedom and democracy in their country, well realizing that the mullah regime has arrested the development of that nation, it is rather strange to hear such biased – and most importantly unwarranted and unneeded remarks – as Mr. Doostzadeh decides to make. If this is discussion about Nizami, it would help to stay as much as possible on the track.

And Mr. Doostzadeh’s comments on the cartoons reminds me of the official propaganda mouthpiece of the mullah regime. Indeed, they have tried to do a primitive damage control in the initial days of the incident, claiming that the cartoonist was ethnic Azerbaijani – even though all South Azerbaijanis vehemently deny that. Although what would that change, there are often a few bad apples on any apple tree. The cartoon incident was the last straw for many, and that’s why we saw up to 100,000 Azerbaijanis protest in Tabriz and other cities, that’s why now there are at least 40 dead due to the Iranian army, along with Basij’s and Ettalaat’s [Iranian KGB] repressive forces trying to control the situation. Mr. Doostzadeh acting as if an agent for these organizations, is parroting and spinning their propaganda stories for Western consumption, as if people don’t have eyes or ears or brains. Go and see for yourselves what the repressive mullah regime is doing to its citizens: http://www.ForAzerbaijan.com and http://www.GAMOH.org. Stories have been printed by AP, Reuters, BBC, etc. Unlike what Mr. Doostzadeh alleges, repeating the Goebbels-style mullah regime propaganda, neither the cartoonist, nor the editor of the official “Iran” newspaper were ethnic Azerbaijanis – and both were dismissed, although that is too little, too late.

Secondly, as even such Iranian nationalist as Dr. Motlaq, the first editor of an academic edition of Shahnameh of Firdowsi (published only in 2004) wrote, Iranians used the Russian-language edition of Shahnameh for decades due to lack of their own academic edition and to this day he admits that the academic methods by non-Iranian scholars in editing ancient and otherwise old texts are superior to that of Iranians themselves. Thus, it shows that without Soviet and Russian-language scholarship Iran’s own history, heritage and scholarship would suffer tremendously. As I’ve outlined before, knowledge of Russian language and familiarity with Russian-language scholarly sources are essential to any serious researcher, in all fields, especially in humanities and in its subject, history of literature. One cannot forget that there have been always large numbers of Iranians coming to study and learn from the people of ex-USSR, be it in nuclear science (to which, besides the point, Azerbaijani scientists contributed quite a lot) to literature. It is that’s why that such an Iranian-American scholar, prof. Talattof remarks that “In the former Soviet Union and in the Republic of Azerbaijan, interest in Nizami has always been impressive” («The Poetry of Nizami Ganjavi: Knowledge, Love, and Rhetoric», edited, introduction, and major contributions by K. Talattof and J. Clinton. New York: «Palgrave Macmillan», 2001, p. 190).

On the contribution of Azerbaijanis to the Iranian literature in general and even to founding (!) of literary criticism in Iran one can read from another well known Iranian (Persian) specialist, Dr. Iraj Parsinejad – who calls none other than Azerbaijani (Turk) Mirza Fath’Ali Akhundzade (Akhundov) as the “founder of modern Iranian literary criticism” (this is despite the fact that Akhundov was not only born not in Iran but in (North) Azerbaijan, but lived, studied and died there too, spending only brief time in Iran and other countries). Similarly, Dr. Parsinejad names several other ethnic Azerbaijanis – so many, that they make-up over half of his book dedicated to literary criticism in Iran. But the most ironic is of course how M.F.Akhundov, a foreign citizen (Russian Empire), who was neither born nor spent significant part of his life in Iranian Empire, who was an Azerbaijani Turk, who clearly worked for Azerbaijani people and his nation, wrote a lot in Russian, Azerbaijani and Farsi, is declared as the founder of Iranian literary criticism and otherwise a top Iranian writer, critic. This is surreal. After such imperialistic approach it becomes clear why Nizami, who had nothing to do with Iran, is declared as Iranian or even Persian, and so many falsifications are many such as the Qom issue, etc.

When Mr. Doostzadeh is completely cornered and out of arguments, he claims that “the general policy of wikipedia is to use what the most recent scholars think about Nizami and not scholars from 50 years ago from USSR. What Mr. Adil Baguirov needs to show, is actual sources from foreign scholars after the USSR breakup”.

By this “logic”, we cannot use Vahid Dasgirdi, who wrote in 1930s, and Said Nefisi, wrote in 1950s, just to name a few scholars whom Mr. Doostzadeh has been mentioning extensively (and which he of course regrets now), as all of them wrote more than 50 years ago. Not to mention the resurrected from naphthalene certain M.Kapustin who wrote his paid-for-by-Armenian-propaganda article in 1988 (in case Mr. Doostzadeh didn’t realize yet, USSR ceased to exist in 1991). Yes, it was a paid-for propaganda article as neither was Kapustin a scholar, nor a Nizami specialist, nor was it coincidence that a simultaneous and similar article by an Armenian author was also published in a Soviet Armenian newspaper as I already revealed. By the way, Mr. Doostzadeh is repeating the baseless claim that Kapustin is a “scholar” of “Iranian studies” – perhaps Mr. Doostzadeh and his supporters would care to present at least ONE article or otherwise scholarly credentials of this WRITER, not Iranian SCHOLAR, on Iranian history/literature? It is weird for me to see non-Russian speakers, who know little about USSR and its history in general, talk about “scholarship” of some Russian writer, who happened to pen what some Persians chauvinists (and certain Armenian circles) want to see, yet try to dismiss such celebrated, authoritative, recognized Soviet academics and scholars as Marr, Bertels, Krachkovskiy, Shaginyan, Aliyev, and others. Also, this is yet another testament of the sub-par standards of Mr. Doostzadeh – what is a “scholar” for him is just a writer, publicist for the rest, as of course it is obvious Mr. Kapustin is no scholar of Iranian studies.

Secondly, ex-USSR scholars *are* “foreign scholars” – it depends what Mr. Doostzadeh means by “foreign”, but from his Iranian-centric perspective ex-Soviet scholars are undoubtedly “foreign”. Or maybe what worries Mr. Doostzadeh is the usage of great and authoritative Soviet and other Russian-language sources – which neither Mr. Doostzadeh, nor other like-minded Persians chauvinists understand or comprehend. This unfortunately has to be said, since Mr. Doostzadeh constantly tries to insult and engages in repeated mud-slinging with regards to languages. By the way, no less than 30 million ethnic Azerbaijanis speak Persian, sometimes as their first, native language. Likewise, I do not think anyone would be as mad as to claim that since 99% of Iranians do not read or understand Pahlavi, then the whole heritage of that era, of Middle Persian language, does not belong to them. If Oscar-winning director and screenplay writer Rustam Ibragimbekov, top detective novel writer Chingiz Abdullayev and celebrated poet and Nizami specialist Samed Vurgun, all from Azerbaijan, wrote/write almost entirely in Russian – does it mean they are not Azerbaijani poets and writers? And why is great Kafka a German writer despite being Jewish and living in Czech capital Prague?

Furthermore, as I clearly argued before, no serious Nizami scholar has the right to ignore Russian-language scholarship on Nizami – and no one does that or even attempts to do that aside from the likes of Mr. Doostzadeh. Every serious Nizami researcher, be it Iranian prof. at Oxford Julie Meisami or Iranian prof. at U. Arizona Kamran Talattof, pay homage to their Azerbaijani and Russian, Soviet and Russian-language colleagues in general – whilst revealing how ideologically and otherwise biased are many Iranian scholars.

Mr. Doostzadeh is showcasing a dangerous ideology, when he pulls all stops to prevent celebrated and authoritative Soviet scholarly sources, well-known and cited in the academic circles worldwide, from being introduced to Wikipedia, whilst simultaneously trying to introduce no-name researchers and sometimes even just writers under the guise of “experts/scholars on Iranian studies”. It is unfortunate that Mr. Doostzadeh engages in such unscholarly, not to mention unethical, activities.

Indeed, all those tall tales about “tainted” Soviet scholarship and other irrelevant misdirected and misguided accusations, then:

1) it is not for a Persian chauvinist, a non-scholar, to determine, as even such true Iranian scholars as Prof. Talattof acknowledge how really tainted Iranian scholarship is and was. Here’s the appropriate quote from his 2001 book: “Adhering too rigidly to any point of view can be problematic, however, as when the editor Pizhman Bakhtiyar eliminates verses that undermine his interpretation. Similarly, some editors such as Sarvatyan [and I should add that Mr. Doostzadeh can be congratulated with being a worthy pupil of Sarvatyan] will sift through many manuscripts of a work to come up with a rendition that suits their purposes”. (ibid., pp. 7-8). As I wrote before, Talattof goes on to name seven (7) Iranian editors of Nizami’s works as “ideologically motivated”.

2) Soviet scholarship was never biased in favor of Azerbaijan, always against – none of the encyclopedias or other sources were edited by ethnic Azerbaijanis, but by Armenians for example. That’s why we find such ancient chronicles (historians) as Koryun (Georgian) and Agaphangelos (Greek) declared “Armenian” by the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (edited by an Armenian, with an additional three Armenians on the board of editors).

3) To sum-up, the baseless claims about the Soviet or Communist system and its bias supposedly affect Nizami ethnicity, are ridiculous. Mr. Doostzadeh is once again forgetting that we base our knowledge of Nizami being an Azerbaijani Turk due to not only historic and other indirect, third-party sources, but Nizami’s own admissions and quotes – which were professionally and well-translated, unlike what Mr. Doostzadeh reads.

Also, why would the Soviets need to falsify ethnicity of Nizami when so many different Iranian peoples lived in USSR? Why not declare Nizami Kurdish – the Kurds never had a famous poet attributed to them and this was their chance, after all USSR setup a so-called Red Kurdistan autonomy in USSR and supported the Kurdish Republic of Mahabbat in Iran in 1940s? The first ethnic Kurdish becoming a full professor was also from USSR, from Azerbaijan – prof. Aliyev.

Also, why was this even needed when Azerbaijanis were not exactly “poor” in poets – we have great Fuzuli (Fizuli) and Nasimi (Nesimi), not to mention few others? Furthermore, why not conceal the ethnic background of another great Azerbaijani poet – Khagani Shirvani – whose father’s (Tat or otherwise of Iranian origin) and mother’s (Greek, Nestorian) ethnicity was public knowledge and clearly spelled out in all books I’ve seen. Where’s the “bias” here, why was it only towards Nizami?

Why did Soviets not always acknowledge that Amir Khosrow Dehlevi was ethnic Turk, despite living in India and writing mostly in Farsi? Indeed, USSR was anti-Turkish state, that claimed lands and privileges from such Turkic states as Turkey, from changing the ethnic make-up of countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgizstan. The longest resistance to Soviet rule was from Turkic people – in Azerbaijan throughout 1920s and in Turkmenistan until 1930s! Almost 200,000 Azerbaijanis – that’s more than half of their population at the time – were deported from Armenia into Azerbaijan in 1947-1953, with half of them dying during forced relocation (i.e., during Stalin and only ending with his death).

Finally, why not declare other poets, like Firdowsi or Jami or Rudaki or others as non-Persian, and instead simply “Tajik”, if there was some “conspiracy” against Iran and Persians?

That’s because there was no “Azerbaijani bias” in Soviet scholarship – only Armenians and those ideologically motivated Persian chauvinists can claim such absurd and comical assertion – to cover up their on bias and favoritism by some Soviet and Western scholars or writers.

Finally, it might be good to spell properly the Russian transliterations – I’ve already kindly provided the correct spelling, it’s not “sovietkaya kultura” but “Sovetskaya Kul’tura”, and that publication was not a “magazine” but a “newspaper”. Mr. Doostzadeh, stop copying non-scholarly flimsy quotes from non-specialists such as Kapustin, abandon those.

Mr. Doostzadeh’s excuse that “by the way when judging a Persons ethnicity, we do not use 12th century time, but the modern time, where both female and male lineage are important” is shaky and strange. Unless Iran and Azerbaijan have changed overnight in modern times, the culture and tradition in those nations prescribe that nationality passes through father, not mother. This doesn’t deny any mother’s rights, or freedom of choice for the child, or otherwise – but nationality passes through father, not mother. It is strange that I have to explain this to Mr. Doostzadeh. Also, in modern time Nizami would have openly called himself Azerbaijani instead of just Turk.

About Armenian revisionism – I can give Mr. Doostzadeh many examples of when Armenians did that (in fact, I did give an example with at least two ancient chroniclers in the GSE), so the recollection of one Azerbaijani supposedly doing that (Mr. Doostzadeh probably means the article by prof. G.Burnutian, who makes several mistakes in his writings) has no bearing on the issue. Mr. Doostzadeh as an Iranian and ethnic Persian should be concerned with plagiarism, revisionism and propaganda from Iran – it is no secret that there is plenty of that in Iran and it would keep Mr. Doostzadeh very busy. Also, Mr. Doostzadeh should not threaten me with escalation of discussion – if he wants to do that, I won’t stand still either.

I’d like to catch Mr. Doostzadeh on his offer to “whereas I can use tons of Armenian scholars from now when the USSR censors and Stalin are not at work”. First, there are no serious Nizami experts in Armenia or otherwise scholars who can dwell on this issue. I, for one, can bring in one such “scholar” in whose “professional” opinion, Nizami was ethnic Arab (LOL!). And second, Mr. Doostzadeh is still clueless as to who exactly was M.Shaginyan. She was not just “some Armenian” (?!), but the #1 Armenian poetess of the 20th century – there is no if’s, but’s or any exceptions, she was the top Armenian poetess, Nizami expert and translator, best, most authoritative, number one, prima, uno in Armenia! And she published her book in 1955, two years AFTER Stalin’s death, just in case Mr. Doostzadeh didn’t realize this. Thus, sorry for contradicting once again, and affirming how incorrect Mr. Doostzadeh is, but it is simply impossible for him to bring anyone of the statue of M.Shaginyan from Armenia to the table. All Armenian writers, no matter how many, would be easily silenced by the towering authority of this woman.

Also, Mr. Doostzadeh should know that the top advisor, right hand and official to Stalin and all other Soviet leaders until 1970s was Anastas Mikoyan, an ethnic Armenian who fought and killed Azerbaijanis in the first quarter of the 20th century. Mikoyan held a number of high-ranking positions, including as leader of Azerbaijan. Also, Mr. Doostzadeh does not know, that the leaders of Azerbaijan (First Secretary of the Communist Party) in 1920, 1926-1929, and 1933 were ethnic Armenians (and in between of these years, it were always ethnic Russians). So while it’s nice to see Mr. Doostzadeh so scared and senseless from the mythical abilities of tiny Azerbaijan, they do not correspond to realities. There was simply no pro-Azerbaijani bias in Soviet scholarship, quite the opposite. But just to cool chauvinists and propagandists down, in 2002, Russian President Putin in St. Petersburg clearly stated that Nizami was “…the outstanding son of Azerbaijan, poet and thinker Nizami.” [In Russian: “У нас сегодня очень радостное, торжественное событие – мы открываем памятник выдающемуся сыну Востока, выдающемуся сыну Азербайджана, поэту и мыслителю Низами”]. So much for Kapustin’s propaganda! LOL! Then, I know very well that 12th century Dari is very similar to modern Persian, and never said anything otherwise -- Mr. Doostzadeh should stop his cheap insinuations and claims. But in our discussion we obviously talk a lot about subtleties and details – and thus, Mr. Doostzadeh’s admission that “Iranians can read Persian language of 12th century with almost no problem” with key word being “almost”. Mr. Doostzadeh repeatedly acknowledged that he has to verify the meaning of certain words with Dekhoda dictionary, and yet has still failed to properly translate Nizami’s verses such as about at-Tabari and al-Bukhari, not to mention his confusion with Afak/Appaq being Turkic and a first wife, and Shirvanshah Akhsitan I letter to Nizami in Leyli and Mejnun.

Thus, I rest my case – although this incident shows that Mr. Doostzadeh is unconstructive, biased and ideologically motivated, as he is trying to dispute everything and anything, without any merit in doing so. It would have been very strange if everyone were able to understand perfectly their language from 8-9 centuries before – neither Russians, nor English, nor especially Armenians (whose two languages/dialects are about 50% different today than grabar in those times) can claim that!

Furthermore, Mr. Doostzadeh doesn’t need to “explain” anything about Iraq – unlike him, I am using academic editions of Nizami’s work, under professional, scholarly translations and if the non-Azerbaijani translators made the determination to translate Iraq as such, meaning Arabic Iraq, then that’s how I provide it too. Once again, the capital of the Seljuk empire and caliphate was Baghdad, Iraq, and Nizami lived in Seljuk Empire, in Azerbaijani Atabek state and was an Azerbaijani Turk. Thus, translation of it as simply Iraq is correct and appropriate. Here’s the poetic translation by a Western specialist based on G.H.Darab’s literal translation into English which reiterates the Soviet translation I’ve provided previously:

“Ganjeh has imprisoned me; or treasure of Irak would have so easily been mine. For the whole world has cried, “O young man, where is Ganjeh and who is Nizami?” (poetic translation into English by Paul Smith, “The Treasury of the Mysteries”, pp. 249-250)

Thus, here once more Mr. Doostzadeh is displaying his unconstructive stance and jumping the gun.

Whom Nizami dedicated his poems is EXTREMELY important for many obvious and not-so-obvious reasons, especially in the light of Mr. Doostzadeh, like all Persian chauvinists, trying to present the fact that Nizami sometimes based his male hero on a Sassanian king as an “argument” for Nizami’s Persian ethnicity. And of course forgets whom did Ferdowsi write the Shahnameh for and thanks to whom was Persian language and culture saved (a Turk, albeit not Azeri Turk).

Mr. Doostzadeh is once more showcasing his trouble with comprehension and understanding of simple concepts when he declares that “That Jalal Khalegh Motlaqi used many editions and one was the Shahnameh of Moscrow, has no bearing on the issue of Nizamis ethnicity”. Indeed, this was not claimed – instead, I clearly provided Dr. Motlaq’s statement to show that 1) even he considers non-Iranian scholars as superior to Iran’s own despite the latter’s native language proficiency advantage, and, 2) all Iranians relied on supposedly “tainted” Soviet (Russian) edition of Shahnameh – which is actually pitiful and even ridiculous, such a big country as Iran, with some of its representatives obsessed with claiming everything as Iranian, with so many Persian chauvinists around, so much money, and supposedly loving and cherishing their #1 poet, did not have an normal scholarly, academic edition of that epic until 2004! Unbelievable!!!!

Instead of wasting time on claiming Nizami, along with others, from Azerbaijan, it would be better for Iranians to concentrate on protecting the history and heritage that is undoubtedly theirs, such as providing commentary from Dr. Motlaq’s book. It seems like the great Russian proverb “Neighbors fruits from the tree are sweeter than one’s own” best describes this ridiculous situation.

The “user” never “agreed” to Nizami’s “mother tongue is Kurdish”. Don’t put words into mouth and don’t misquote please. It seems like reading comprehension and grasp of simple matters suffers in my interlocutor. Nizami’s mother, like father, died very early, he didn’t remember them well and could not learn Kurdish from her – if she spoke it at all. Even today many Kurds prefer to speak Turkish, Farsi or Arabic which they know better than native Kurdish (of which there are even now three distinct dialects like Kurmanji – which one Mr. Doostzadeh think Raiseh spoke?) By the way, no one is denying that Kurds are Iranian, and thus Nizami had partly Iranian heritage – I’ve always maintained that, including in my Russian-language article reference to which is being constantly removed by Persian chauvinists. Yet Nizami is clear that he views himself as an Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk, or even Ganja Turk, since at the time the fragmentation by cities was prevalent everywhere, including in Europe (Venice Italian, Genoa Italian, Bavarian German, Castillia Spaniard, Moscow Rus, Kiev Rus, Crimean Tatar, etc).

In any case, Turkic people were well present in the Caucasus much before Nizami, as I mentioned, there are numerous even Armenian chronicles (Buzand, Khorenatsi, Gevond), as well as Georgian and Byzantian chronicles who write about massive numbers of Turkic people settling since at least 5th century A.D.

Here’s another quote from Georgian source, O. Tkeshelashvili, G. Kacharava, Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia, 1979: “In 627 Tbilisi was invaded and destroyed by Byzantine and Turk hordes; in 736-738s - Arab military leader Marvan II Ibn Mohammed invaded the city. The Arab invasion had dire results for Tbilisi which in the thirties of the 8th century became the residence of the Arab emir. In 764 Tbilisi was sacked by nomad Turks. In 853 in order to strengthen the caliph rule in Tbilisi the city was invaded by Arab military leader - Buga Turk. In 1037-51s King Bagrat IV tried several times to occupy Tbilisi, but due to unstable political situation existing in the country by that time, it became impossible. In 1045 the ruling power came into the hands of the city aristocracy - Council of Elders, Tbilisi monks. In 1068 Tbilisi was invaded and occupied by the Turkish Seljuks under the military leadership of Alp-Arsland.”

In 576, a large number of Hun Sabirs, a Turkic people, were resettled into Ganja (Sakashena) (Byzantian historians, Moscow edition, pp. 411-412), and thus the “country of Huns” became the land between Araxes and Kura rivers, i.e, Arran (see: Georgian chronicle. S.Takayshvilli, p. 1, 5, in M.Melikset-Bek. History of the appearance of Huns in Eastern Transcaucasus. M., pp. 710-711. Also see A. Artamonov. Studies, M., p. 54. The leaders of those Turkic Huns were called “Tarkhan’s” by Arabic historians (al-Balazuri, p. 209, at-Tabari, III, p. 1179, 1192).

In the V century, in Mughan (Azerbaijan), Huns were also settled, called Turks by Byzantian historians (Pheophilact Simmokatta, M., p. 36, 77, 102, 160). These Huns founded the city Ak-gun (White-day), or Balasagun in Arabic rendition (Marquardt, Eransahr S. 119).

In Arabic language sources, we see many references to Turks in Azerbaijan prior to Arab conquest. Omeyyad caliph Muawiyya asked his Yemeni scholar, Abid bin-Shariye, about Turks and (South) Azerbaijan, to which Abid replied: «Azerbaijan – country, populated by Turks from ancient times” (اشيم كتاب هائی التيجان حيدراباد, Ibn Hashim- Kitab Altijan, Hejdarabad; Togan A. Zeki Validi, Umumi turk tarihine giris, s. 166, Kirzioglu M. Fahrettin, Dede Korkut Oguznameleri, s. 27). This story is repeated in a Persian chronicle by anonymous author in 1126. (مجمل التواريخ و القصص, Mejmul al-tavarikhe ve al-geses, p.103).

A Turkic emir, already Muslim by then, Mubarak at-Turki, built a castle in Kazvin and gave his name to it (ديوان لغات ايلترك, Divan lugat al-turk, P.K.Zhuze).

And of course, despite having Turkic and Iranian elements, Caucasian Albania (Arran) was probably primarily a Caucasian state, with Caucasian languages, not Indo-European or Altaic. Hence, vague and non-definitive statements like “Kurds have been in the area much longer” if meant towards Caucasus cannot be substantiated and compared properly.

Meanwhile, of course there is “such a thing” as an Azerbaijani Kurd culturally. Why can Kurds of Iran be “Iranian”, but Kurds of Azerbaijan cannot be “Azerbaijani”? After all, Azerbaijani is a nationality, not ethnicity – encompassing Azeri Turks, Tats, Talysh, Lezgins, Avars, Kurds, Persians, Jews, Ingiloy, Tsakhur, Turkmens, Turks, Karapapah, etc. In fact, when convenient to his argument, Mr. Doostzadeh claims himself that: “So culture takes primacy”.

Nizami belonged to the distinct and different Caucasian region and Azerbaijani school of poetry – that too is well acknowledged by Dr. J.Meisami, prof. M.Shaginyan, E.Bertels, French professor F.Charmoy, Czech researcher Jan Rypka, Marr, and others. Here are some of their conclusions, which I will simply leave in Russian w/o translation:

«Дело не в том, что закавказских [азербайджанских – прим. авт.] литераторов и ученых было много, гораздо более важным элементом является их своеобразие. Не столько совпадение во времени, сколько это своеобразие является поводом для объединения в самостоятельную группу, у истоков которой, собственно, уже стоит Катран [Тебризи – прим. авт.]» (Рипка Ян, История персидской и таджикской литературы, М., Прогресс, 1970, стр. 199). Эту же мысль подчеркивает Е.Э.Бертельс: «все авторы охарактеризованной группы, начиная с Катрана, обнаруживают известную общность стиля. Она настолько велика, что говорить об азербайджанской школе XII в., мне кажется, мы имеем полное право» (Бертельс Е.Э. «Избранные труды. Низами и Физули». М., Восточная литература, 1962, стр. 74). Согласен с этим заключением и другой известный востоковед, академик Марр: «Низами является своим для Кавказа, в частности для той этнической группировки, которая до последнего времени сохраняла персидскую традицию в своей литературе, то есть для Азербайджана, где гянджинский поэт все-таки более в почете, чем в Персии» (Ю.Н.Марр. «Антология азербайджанской поэзии». М., 1939, с. XIX). М.Шагинян, отмечая особую роль проф. Ф.Б.Шармуа (1793-1869) как одного из пионеров «Низамиведения», пишет: «Шармуа первый заложил основы нашей науки о Низами как о культурном явлении Закавказья. Шармуа первый отметил особенности его словаря, некоторое отличие его языка от языка персидских классиков…» («Этюды о Низами», стр. 66). Шагинян развивает свою мысль дальше: «…в противовес западноевропейским ученым, рассматривавшим великого азербайджанского поэта вне зависимости от его происхождения и культурного окружения, Шармуа впервые обратил внимание на принадлежность Низами к Азербайджану и на отличие не только Низами, но и других поэтов, живших и творивших в Гяндже и в Средней Азии, от поэтов персидских» (там же, стр. 67). М.Шагинян продолжает: «…Низами несравненно теснее, нежели с другими странами Передней Азии, оказался связанным с культурой Кавказа. Наибольшее количество подражаний его поэмам падает не на персидских, а на тюркских поэтов» (там же, стр. 14).

Nizami lived in Seljuk empire, in the Azerbaijani Atabek state – a Turkic-ruled and Turkic-dominated, especially in his city, state, whilst Iran did not exist and was split into several states, including Turkic-ruled – and nearly all of it under the domain of Seljuks and other Turkic people. Thus, Nizami while being a Persian-language poet and contributing to Persian poetry and being one of the greatest such representative, was neither Persian nor Iranian. Unlike Ferdowsi and other Persians, Nizami clearly did not dedicate his works to the greatness of Iran or Persia. He often centered on Ganja and Barda – both Azerbaijani cities. His main heroines, based on his wife Afak/Appaq, were either from Barda or Turkic like Shirin, Mihin-Banu, Nushaba, as well as Fitne, Turktaz, Turknaz, Togrulbek, Afrasiyab and in the opinion of some Nistandarjahan, Shapur, Farhad.

It is yet again funny to read Mr. Doostzadeh’s baseless attack on me: “4) The user claims that I said Nizamis third wife was Afaq. This is just a false lie…” Frankly, I am tired of Mr. Doostzadeh’s groundless accusations and outright falsifications, and would like him to read his own words and print them out for better memory and comprehension: “There is also a theory put forth by the Azarbaijan republic scholars that Nizami's third wife could have been Turkish of Qipchaq” Ali doostzadeh 08:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Doostzadeh, please remember, I am not a Persian chauvinist, and I am not an ideologically motivated Iranian writer, thus I never ever lie or make intentional mistakes.

Then, absolute majority of scholars concur that the name of Nizami’s first and most beloved wife was indeed Afak (and thus was in reality Appaq, which meant white or actually snow-white). I don’t know why would Said Nefisi (do you have a full citation reference?) say that it can’t be a name. Look at this verse from Khosrov and Shirin: “My Kipchak idol! My sensual fragile crop (herb, plant)! Died, like Shirin, you too, my Afak (Appaq).”

Nizami obviously has to use two names, Shirin and Afak, two play off the comparison and one without the other would be less logical and make less sense. Then it would be: “My Kipchak idol! … Died, like Shirin, you too, my horizon”. Even if we accept Mr. Doostzadeh’s always anti-Turkic version that Kipchak means not the Turkic nation, but beautiful lover or some other incorrect version, it would render the whole verse less logical, as Nizami would be talking about some unnamed “phantom”. Thus, it is very hard to accept the theory about Afak (Appaq) being meant as horizon instead of name of his beloved wife.

Thus, as far as accuracy and veracity is concerned of Afak/Appaq or horizon, I am correct, since I base my opinion on each and every scholar I’ve read, whether Western or Soviet, whilst Mr. Doostzadeh’s version is just a theory by a few scholars. If as Mr. Doostzadeh admits, only “some scholars” dispute her name, it’s not grounds enough for accommodating Persian chauvinists’ intentions of erasing and misinterpreting and mistranslating all and any positive reference to Turks, and his Turkic ethnicity, in Nizami’s works. For absolute majority of sources there is no dispute.

Hence, I would refrain on Mr. Doostzadeh’s place to make far-reaching and irrelevant claims to the nature that “what the user does not understand is [t]hat in Persian ….” Yes, the “user” knows very well that in Nizami’s poetry Turk is symbol of courage, fairness and especially beauty, both inner and outer, which is expected from an Azerbaijani Turk, while it is somewhat different in the poetry of ethnic Persians like Ferdowsi.

Mr. Doostzadeh is displaying his bias once more when unprovoked, he makes baseless accusations that Ferdowsi would not be praised by “Turkish nationalist” (who would that be? I am not Turkish in case you mean me). This is a ridiculous assertion – Ferdowsi, as many other ethnic Persian, Tajik, Arab, and other non-Turkic poets are very much liked, cherished and studied in Azerbaijan and other Turkic nations. Ferdowsi was ordered Shahnameh by a Turk, as was the case with many other non-Turkic poets. It is obvious that Persian chauvinists project their own inner image on others and cannot comprehend that beautiful poetry is one, and political, as well as racist views, are another.

Once again, let us not forget, that had it not been for a Turk, there would be no Shahname, no classical Persian literary language, and world would have lost a lot. It was a Turk who ordered the poem, it was him who, despite the not very favorable language, paid for it, and it was him who ordered to transcribe it on many manuscripts and thus save it for the future generations. Instead of being grateful and thankful and appreciative, some Persians grow up to be chauvinists and Turkic-haters. And once again, not only is nationality passing through father, but according to many scholars, Shirvanshah Akhsitan I in his letter to Nizami, when belittling Turks, referred to Sultan Mahmud Ghaznevi and the whole saga about not paying Ferdowsi in gold. Hence, if Akhsitan referred to Sultan Mahmud as a Turk, why shouldn’t others, especially since at least by father he was?

It is amusing how Mr. Doostzadeh completely lost track of his arguments and logic, as he at first went out of his way to argue that Afak/Appaq was not even Turkic, that Kipchak is a metaphor for a beautiful woman. Then, he claims that Afak/Appaq is not even a name of a person, but meant as horizon, in Arabic (I wonder why not use a Persian word). Hence, according to Mr. Doostzadeh, we now have some beautiful person on the horizon. Not stopping here, and forgetting that he already convinced (himself) that there was no Turkic (Kipchak) Afak/Appaq, he then goes way out of his way to “prove” that actually Nizami’s son Muhammed was indeed Turkic-born and that “Turkic-born” in Persian Dari has to be understood as only born from a female, not in general as a product of two equal partners, man and woman.

Mr. Doostzadeh, make up your mind! So did Afak/Appaq exist or not? Was she Kipchak or not? Was she Turkic or not? Was Muhammed, Nizami’s only son, Turkic-born, or he was given birth by a “beautiful phantom [person, slave] on the horizon” (since, according to Mr. Doostzadeh’s dictionary, Turkic can mean only metaphorical “beautiful” and Turkic-born can only be “slave” and Kipchak was a “beautiful person” and Afak/Appaq was a non-existent phantom that actually meant “horizon”)? Also, in that verse he does mention that she was sent by the ruler of Derbend – so does it mean that ruler was the God of sky or smth, that he could send horizon’s to Nizami? One of the problems of Mr. Doostzadeh is that after he insists on understanding any one term in one way, he forgets that the poet could not have done so – there are plenty of synonyms to choose from, and if the poet chooses a word with several direct as well as metaphorical meanings, then he probably intends all of their applicable meanings, and not just one.

The Qom issue is considered to be proven and closed (much like Holocaust, even though some want to dispute it) – that line is false. Just because some still adhere to the outdated and false info, doesn’t mean we have to follow it, as evidence is clear – that line is not present in older manuscripts. If among recent scholars Meisami was not aware of it or mechanically put old information in her 1995 book, that’s not grounds for saying that Nizami could still be from Qom. Let us not forget that Meisami herself is Iranian. Same goes for older research by Wilson (1924) and Dastgerdi (also since 1920’s-1930’s). Especially since he never mentioned it aside for just in one verse in later manuscripts (howcome you haven’t found it in your books?), yet constantly emphasized that Ganja was his “native” city, that he was a “prisoner” of Ganja, etc. Why always say so much about Ganja, yet nothing about Qom? In my opinion, of all Iranian cities, Isfahan was probably the one mentioned and liked by Nizami most, although he wrote about Medayin, Khorasan, etc.

Also, as I said, Turkic people lived throughout and around Iran, and gave several references from Arab caliphate times (8-9 centuries). While I do not have a specific quote about Turkic people in Qom, but since they were all around in and out of Iran, then I don’t see how can anyone make a simplistic argument that “since Nizami (or actually, Persian chauvinists not familiar with the issue, talk about his father) was from Qom, then he must have been Persian”. This is not so, my friends. But still, this is all irrelevant, since the quote about Qom was false and latter attribution by the scribers. As of various biographical compilations, they contain so many errors, that Qom problem is not even the biggest error there.

By the way, there is a Qom village in the mountainous (Kukhistan) Qax region of Azerbaijan, not too far from Ganja.

Nice try, Mr. Doostzadeh, but you are not correct about manuscripts – they are generally more precise and correct the older they are – there is no opposite correlation. Maybe in case of Ferdowsi it was exceptional – I never seen any references about that, so perhaps you can provide us with it. But scholars consider older manuscripts of Nizami’s work as more precise than the later.

Also, once more, Firdowsi and Nizami were different in many ways – not only did they live in different times (almost two centuries apart), but in different regions, adhering to somewhat different literary schools/traditions and whilst one wrote a grand royal epic, the other a more philosophical poetry that was less about nationalism and royal grandeur and more about love and inner beauty. Nizami, as other Azerbaijani Turkic poets such as Fuzuli and Nasimi, of course read, studied, liked, applauded Ferdowsi – and other Perso-Tajik colleagues – but to say that Nizami or other great poets simply tried to imitate Ferdowsi even by giving the same meaning to the words, is inappropriate. Also, whilst in one quote he said he took a fragment from Ferdowsi’s ruby and made it shine bright, on the other, in his very first epic poem Treasure of Mysteries, in the opinion of some, he actually says his rendition is better than both Ferdowsi’s and Sanai’s (“Although the words of that stamp/die/cast are like gold, But cast of my gold is better than that cast…”).

Mr. Doostzadeh’s analysis of who called what the Persians historically is simplistic at best and unreliable. The point indeed goes well beyond Nizami, but in light of various claims by Persian chauvinists, it is important to remember that Iranian population was never uniform and 100% Persian or otherwise of Iranian-stock, and included quite a few Turkic people centuries before Nizami, as well as of Semitic and other stock. Hence I reminded Mr. Doostzadeh of that. Furthermore, here’s another interesting quote from Enc. Britannica, since Persian chauvinists like talking about “Turkification” of Azerbaijan (both North and South) and other areas, and implying the ethnic Persians were either indigenous or “civilized” people well before the Turkic people: “The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia. This population was Persianized during the period of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran (3rd–7th century AD)” ("Azerbaijani." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9011540.) As you can see, Azerbaijanis were Persianized only around 3rd century AD for a few centuries until Arabs.

The purest and most direct descendants of Medes and its nation (which was also not uniform and consisted of different ethnos) are Azerbaijanis and Kurds, Talysh and Tat. Specifically the ethnic Persians (Fars) are hardly in the first line, they follow the abovementioned ethnos – that’s also why the Fars region is in the south of Iran, not north. The “Persians” of the ancient historians are just like the “Persians” of today – anyone from Iran is called “Persian” in the US for example (although “Iranian” is more popular in other countries), no matter what real ethnicity the person is. The Greeks prefer to call Alexander the Great as “Greek” even though he was Macedonian – an example of either bias or just inattention to the matter of ethnicity, which mattered little before (unlike religion).

As of the fake stories about purely “nomadic” and otherwise “tribal” Turkic people, that is not entirely correct, since first we need to establish which region we talk about and at what time. Secondly, how could, for example, Sultan Mahmud Ghaznevi be of “tribal background” – or many other Turkic rulers – who were patrons of the arts and in case of the same Sultan Mahmud spoke fluently Turki, Arabic and Persian? How could “nomadic” people have so many scientists, geographers, doctors, philosophers, poets, writers such as “second Aristotle” al-Farabi (d. 950), Ulugbek, descendant of Timurleng (from Samarkand), al-Biruni (d. about 1050), Jalaledin Rumi, Mahmoud Kashgari (Dictionary of Turkic languages, 1072-1074), etc? How could there have been not only Dede Korqut put in writing in the 11th century displaying a rich language from centuries before, but such eposes as Manas and Kutadgy Bilik by the Kirghiz?

Hence, what matters in this case – and all I set out to show and prove – was that Turkic people had a significant presence and indeed sometimes majority not only in Azerbaijan, but Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia well before Nizami times, several centuries before. Whether they were aboriginal, or came in the BCE (B.C.’s) or “only” just before 5th century AD is irrelevant – what matters is that Nizami lived in 12th century and Turkic people, tribes, nations, ethnos was well present and integrated by then. Nizami’s father was a Turk, and one cannot exclude that on the mother’s side, due to being from the noble family of Sheddadi’s, where intermarriages are common, and living in Turkic-dominated Azerbaijan for centuries, they had Turkic heritage too.

The one who does not know at-Tabari is Mr. Doostzadeh, who totally embarrassed himself with his own improper translation and comprehension of Nizami’s verse about him studying/researching al-Bukhari and at-Tabari’s books. That’s how professional translators write it and interpret it, and it makes far more sense than for Nizami saying that he read in Arabic and in Dari, as well as in [Persian-dialects] Tabari and Bukhari. On one hand Mr. Doostzadeh tries to convince everyone that Persian remained nearly unchanged from 12th century and that various dialects add only minor differences, and yet here, embarrassed of his mistake, he tries to convince us that Nizami would be wasting time and paper on telling in which non-essential (which stems from Mr. Doostzadeh’s earlier assertions about Persian being one language with only minor variations) dialects of the language Nizami knew very well. That’s a double mistake for Mr. Doostzadeh. Not only did Nizami obviously meant the two great scholars revered in the Muslim world – and that’s how it was translated by professional, unlike Mr. Doostzadeh, scholars – but for such a giant poet as Nizami to brag about knowing, aside of Arabic and Persian, also of not very different dialects of Persian as Tabari and Bukhari dialects, would be strange and illogical. And as I stated, a true ethnic Persian or Iranian, when talking to his readers about the great research he undertook in various languages, would never boast about knowing not just some slightly-different dialects of Persian, but Persian Dari language itself. Imagine an American saying he knows Spanglish, Ebonics and Southern “speak” and New-Yorker accent, or for a Russian to say he knows Moscow Russian, Saratov Russian, and Russian from before the 1917 revolution (which had some slight variations in spelling).

Meanwhile, at-Tabari wrote in Arabic, and that’s why many label him as Arab historian – much like other Arab-speaking/writing historians and writers, such as Juvaini. Note that I never said he was Arab, but instead Arabic, which implies language, so accusing me is one more unprovoked and groundless attack. Although it’s good that Mr. Doostzadeh feels how unjust and unfair it is to (mis)label a historic figure as being of a certain nationality (ethnicity) solely based on the language he/she wrote in. That’s exactly what Persian chauvinists have been doing to Azerbaijanis in regards to Nizami.

There is absolutely no proof that Zoroaster was ethnic Persian, and it is not fully clear he could have been Iranian – in fact, we don’t know for sure when he lived, which century, and little remains of his preaching. Some say he was born in Azerbaijan, others in Russia (!), others in Central Asia in either Khorezm or Sogdiana, etc. Despite most scholars agreeing he lived either in 628-551 BC (R.Zaehner, R.Fry), or 750-675 BC (P.du Breuil. Zarathoustra et la transfiguration du monde. Paris, 1978) or 660-583 BC (J.Varenne. Zarathoustra et la tradition mazdeenne, 1966, p. 27) – the Babylonian historian Beroz thought Zoroaster lived about 2000 BC, others made him contemporary of Moses about XIV century BC, Greeks about 6000 BC, Diogenes Laertsi about 600 years before Xerxes, etc. Despite Avesta being about 83000 words, no more than ¼ of it remains from the last Sassanid edition. Thus, ¾ is lost. The oldest manuscripts are all from AD times, I think from XIII century. R.C.Zaehner (The Dawn and the Twilight of Zoroastrianism. London, 1961) says that there is an unprecedented grammar anarchy in the later parts of Avesta. A Russian scholar S.N.Sokolov concurs: “Not a single text, with the exception of Gata/Gita, can be considered as a memorial of any definitive language”. (Avesta language, M., 1961, p. 10). Due to this, “naturally, there is almost not a single question/issue, related to Avesta and the understanding of “dark spots” of its text, which would not been the subject of most heated/furious/sharp philological debates” (I.S. Braginsky, M., p. 191). Only Gata belongs to Zoroaster himself. According to Zaehner, even Pehlevi commentators of Zoroaster did not understand a lot of what they were translating (ibid., p. 27). Thus, considering that so much of the text is lost and that what remains is both filled with errors and also most likely is a translation from another language or even languages, making various assumptions, even if they caught on over time by many scholars, is not right. Afrasiyab was the spelling in Ferdowsi. In Avesta (e.g., XII chapter of Bundahishn) it was Frasiyag or in Videvdat as Frankhrasian. Thus, Firdowsi changed it further. It should be noted, that in the text of the Assyrian king Sargon II, the “mighty Midians (Medes)” are mentioned not as Aryan people and thus are separated from Iranians. Also, in the Biblical “table of people”, Midians are mentioned as descendants of Yaphet, son of Noah. By the way, in Sanscrit language, “Aryan” means the person who knows the truth, and thus is not ethnic-specific. Also, once more, Mr. Doostzadeh, please stop playing with words – both in terms of correctly quoting me, and in terms of not using such diversionary tactics as: “He wants to say Zoroastrianism is not Persian, but we all know it is Iranian” – Persian is one, Iranian is another. Both of those components are present in Azerbaijani nationality, by the way, much like Turkic component is very much present in Iranian nationality. Also, all this hoopla in regards to Avesta, relating to how texts were falsified and misinterpreted in Iran, was described already by British professor and Orientalist, E.Brown, “A literary history of Persia”, Vol. I, 1919, pp. 28-29, where an Iranian Orientalist, Khalevi, explains him many things about ideologically-motivated scholarship in Iran. Turkic people were in majority by the time of Nizami in Ganja, Beyleqan, Barda – and I’ve included enough independent quotes in that respect. Simply saying “So the people of Azarbaijan were not Turks during the of Nizami” won’t cut it. Nizami spoke Turki whether one likes it or not – denying this is pure absurd and contrary to all evidence and Nizami’s own admissions.

Encyclopedia Irannica is far less unbiased than Great Soviet Encyclopedia – at least in the case of the former, we know it was edited and written by Armenians, hence there was no possibility of any favoritism towards Azerbaijanis and Turkic people in general, and we know in advance what to expect from it. With Enc. Irannica it is not as simple, although some entries were written by Armenians. As to how Persian chauvinism is infectious in terms of claiming all and nothing for others, we can see here. The Ambassador of Iran to Azerbaijan, Afshar Suleymani, even claimed that Shahriyar of Tebriz, a famous Azerbaijani Turk poet in the 20th century, was not an Azerbaijani poet but Iranian only.

Neither Scythians, nor Parthians, especially completely, all-inclusively, can be claimed “Persian” or even Iranian, as Mr. Doostzadeh allows himself to do, since modern research is changing its opinion on the ethnic and linguistic origins of these nations and confederations. Much more research is still needed on their roots and background, but one thing is obvious that it is not as clear cut and simple as Persian chauvinists would like it to be.

The yet anther unfounded attack is when Mr. Doostzadeh talks about Khorasan, Nizak-tarhan and which he again misinterprets and misunderstands. I am tired of commenting again and again over the same things, so just will re-quote my previous message: “For example, Arabic historian at-Tabari (d. 923 A.D.) wrote than already in 671 A.D., when Arabs conquered Kukhistan in Khorasan (Iran), it was ruled by Turks, and specifically mentions Nizak-tarhan, who concluded a peace deal with Arabs (this and much more other interesting info is from the #1 authority on Turkic history in Russia, prof. L.N.Gumilev, as well as Uzbek prof. Sh.Kamaliddinov and others). None other than a Persian historian Rawandi wrote in his treatise dedicated to sultan of Rum Giyas ed-Din Keykhusrev (1192-1196, i.e., a contemporary of Nizami): “Thanks to almighty Allah … in the lands of Arabs, Persians, Byzanthians and Rus, the [decisive] word belongs to Turks…””

Hence, all those accusations about not knowing geography of Iran and the region are silly and strange, to say the least – is not Khorasan in Iran? If Khorasan sometimes didn’t belong to Iran – as often happened with many parts of Iran that were taken by stronger neighbors -- does it really change anything? Isn’t it fair to say that Khorasan – unlike Ganja – is more Iranian than not? I hope Mr. Doostzadeh and other Persian chauvinists will be just as sensitive when it comes to discuss Azerbaijan (Arran), Turkmanchay Treaty, etc.

After making all those mistakes, blunders and misstatements about Afak/Appaq/horizon, being first or third wife, Turkic-born son, Shirin being daughter or nice, Armenian or Arranian (Azerbaijani), at-Tabari/al-Bukhari, Mr. Doostzadeh once again states the same thing which had been refuted many times. As I’ve referred already several time, the “conversation” that takes place in the beginning of Leyli and Mejnun epic poem is between Nizami and Shirvanshah Akhsitan I, who was part Persian or Persianized Arab, and part Georgian, and, along with Georgia, was a rival and foe to the Turkic Atabeks and Seljuks, despite being nominally vassal. Hence, these exact words (quote rendered by Mr. Doostzadeh): “Torki-sefat vafaayeh maa nist Turkish manners are not part of our faithfullness Turkish tongue is not befitting for us The person who is born of great descent (he is belittling turks) The words of his must be great ascent” are NOT said by Nizami, but by the Shirvanshah.

Moreover, those are not complete words – there were more interesting verses preceding, here are a few more lines:

“We [shirvanshah] want, that in honor of Mejnun’s love, You graved/cut your words as pearls… [With] Arabic or Persian [language] bridal veil, You will decorate the delight of that newly wed [story].

(The 3rd line can also be translated as: “From Persians and Arabs you can take….”)

Nizami continues the verse, after the words Mr. Doostzadeh quoted, now speaking for himself: “I read this… My face became blood-red, - So, it means I have a slave’s ring in my ear! I don’t have the courage, to write a denial/refusal/rejection, My eyes have become dull, words (reserve/vocabulary) have run dry.”

(The first two lines can also be translated as: “I paled, - so it means/looks like fate/fortune/destiny, the ring of shah’s slave has passed through me!”)

And etcetera, etc., etc. – as we see, Nizami is very much against and unwilling, he is not happy with Shirvanshah’s request and insult of Turks, whom he obviously dislikes.

However, as the verses continue, Nizami describes that his Turkic-born beloved son Muhammed quietly came to him, read the letter, and advised to proceed with the work, as “two pearls are more beautiful in pair than one” (the other pearl being Khosrov and Shirin), and since “shah asked you to compose dastan, to the king Iran is a subject territory and Shirvan…. Here’s your kalam (pen), father, sit down and write!”

Thus, Mr. Doostzadeh and those alike either intentionally (very bad!) or which is probably worse, unintentionally, misinterpret Shirvanshah’s words as Nizami’s – and keep completely quiet about Nizami’s initial furious reaction, anger at the request, and only thanks to yet another Turk, son Muhammed, did Nizami, despite Shirvanshah’s insult, decide to write his pearl.

As is clear from the text, Shirvanshah SPECIFICALLY asks Nizami to write in and use motifs of either Arabic or Persian, implying that never should another language and motives – in which clearly Turki and Turkic is singled out – be used. Whilst Nizami decided to follow the order – he needed the money and above all, he wanted well-deserved fame which was possible only with rich clients, who could pay for many manuscripts to be copied and otherwise distribute those epic poems – he did insert references to Turks into Leyli and Majnun.

This passage proves that Nizami knew Turki language; that he could write in it; that he was favorable of Turkic people, and how much opposition there was from writing in Turki among rich clients whether of Persian background (Shirvanshah’s most likely falsified their geneology to become Arab, and in case of Akhsitan I his mother was Georgian as I said already) or Turkic (Atabeks, Seljuk sultans, etc).

Then, I don’t know what and who refuted academician Krachkovsky, a very famous Russian orientalist and one of main translators of the Quran by the way, but his article had the following verses from Nizami’s response to Akhsitan, of which I translate only the last two lines, and leave the entire verse in Russian: “You, vigilant shah, who knows his business, Then become (now), if you can, a vigilant Turk.”

Хотя чистое сердце и победоносное счастье И являются твоими добрыми советчиками, Все же и от этого советчика с божьей благодатью Выслушай два-три слова, словно утренняя молитва. Посмотри, сколько голов погубил мир, И сколько царей пережил. Ты, бдительный шах, знающий свое дело, Становись же (теперь), если сможешь, бдительным тюрком.

As academician Krachkovsky concludes, this was a very subtle and fine sneer towards the Shirvanshah, as it meant that despite all the achievements of shirvanshah, he is still lacking all the fine qualities of a Turk, and in fact, the advice given to become a Turk is done conditionally, i.e., “if you can”, that is, emphasizing that shirvanshah will still be unable to do that.

Of course Nizami otherwise praised Shirvanshah Akhsitan I elsewhere in the poem – he is after all writing it per the latter’s behalf and is getting generously, we assume, paid. And his Turkic-born 14-year old son has displayed great wisdom is convincing his father to go ahead. Later, it was the Turkic-born son Muhammed who delivered it to the Shirvanshah court to the Akhsitan I. Let’s not forget how much Nizami praised Turkic rulers like the Seljuk Sultans, the Azerbaijani Atabeks, to whom he dedicated more and longer poems.

I’ve said everything in regards to Caucasian Albania and am ready to discuss it in more details separately if needed, since it’s a waste of time to talk about it here now with a person who doesn’t know much about it. It belongs to the history of Azerbaijan as much as Kiev Russia to Russian history, Persia to Iranian history, Alexander the Great’s to Macedonia (as well as to Greece), Egyptian to Egypt’s history and Kaxeti, Svaneti, Abkhazi, and Guriya’s history to Georgia. But I repeat – let me make abundantly clear, if Mr. Doostzadeh is ready to discuss the history of Caucasian Albania, I would be happy to guide him through it.

The Turkic words in Nizami’s poetry are noted in the words of scholars that I’ve read and cited, they are not my own research. I’ve emphasized many times that everything I say is completely based on solid research and scholarly sources, many of which I can easily provide even in scanned form.

Academician Marr was a great historian and Orientalist, and if he wrote that Said Nafisi told him (among other Iranian poets) about Nizami in 1925 (Marr’s book I have with the quote I have from was published in 1939), then I obviously believe him. Marr says many more words about the negative reaction to Nizami and Khagani from Persian intelligentsia in Iran – he also had conversations with “king of poets” Melek osh-Shoera and great-grandson of the famous Kaem Mekam about the negative attitudes towards Nizami in Iran. So it’s not only Said Nefisi. According to Marr, the only “lover” of Nizami’s poetry he met was Vahid Destgirdi.

As Mr. Doostzadeh admits, Nafisi never wrote that Nizami was an ethnic Persian, and instead opting for “Iranian poet”, which is in many ways more acceptable than “ethnic Persian poet”. Since Nizami’s works remain only in Farsi (but at least 90% of his Divan is lost, where non-Farsi verses could have been), and he definitely belonged to the Iranian/Persian cultural space, it is no surprise that an Iranian poet and specialist would call Nizami as an Iranian – especially since “Azerbaijan(i)” was somewhat of a taboo in Iran then and now, it is a national policy to belittle and deny its history. That’s why there are so many protests now in Tabriz and Urmiya – people are sick and tired of this kind of Persian chauvinism. Other cities of Iran with large ethnic Azerbaijani populations are also holding various protest actions.

The Said Nafisi quote in academician Marr’s book proves true with the fact that Mr. Doostzadeh, despite being a native Farsi speaker, is indeed having trouble with Nizami – he not only fails to translate him properly (e.g., al-Bukhari / at-Tabari quote), he not only misunderstands, intentionally or not, various verses (e.g., Shirin being from Arran and Mughan (the historic regions of North Azerbaijan, along with Shirvan and others) and, along with her aunt (here too, Mr Doostzadeh fails to acknowledge his mistake, that Mihin-Banu was Shirin’s aunt, not mother!), being princess and queen of Arran; Shirvanshah Akhsitan I letter to Nizami), but also his bizarre contention that Nizami does not have a favorable attitude of Turks and that he is “insulting” (?!) and otherwise “derogatory” towards his own folks, including, apparently, his own son and thus wife Afak/Appaq (!!!).

The stats on Dede Korkut are not serious – Mr. Doostzadeh should cite his irresponsible words, such as who calculated that, based on which manuscript(s), was it concurred by other scholars, etc. But Mr. Doostzadeh will be unable to do that since his sources are often flawed and biased, and of course in case of Dede Korkut they have nothing to do with reality and with authentic manuscripts and research.

I don’t know why Mr. Doostzadeh is so obsessed with persuading everyone that Turkic people themselves, especially in the ruling elites, didn’t like the term Turk sometimes – whilst indeed there is grain of truth in that, it only helps show under what tremendous stress and pressure Nizami and other Turkic people were from concealing their identity and not writing in the Turki language (which is well displayed by Shirvanshah Akhsitan’s letter in Leyli and Mejnun).

About the view of Turks as just and fair people that Mr. Doostzadeh tries to oppose, let us have Nizami speak for himself once again (I’ve provided this quote before but based on similar Soviet translation) – and without any possibility of mistranslation and misunderstanding as what plagues Doostzadeh’s commentary:

“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)

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)

Now about Shirin, Mihin-Banu being from Arran (Azerbaijan), from city of Barda, and actually being Turkic. None other than Armenian M.Shaginyan dismissed the mistaken assumption of Shirin being Armenian.

Here are the relevant quotes from her book: “Arran princess Shirin” (M.Shaginyan, “Studies/sketches about Nizami”, 1955, p. 23).

“Hammer is mistakenly calling Aghvans [Albans, Arranians – ed.] (inhabitants of Arran) as Armenians”, writes top Armenian poetess and authoritative expert on Nizami and Persian language poetry, M.Shaginyan (ibid., p. 63), in critique of the European Orientalist’s 1818 book on Persian literature.

Indeed, how poorly versed in Nizami’s poetry and geography one has to be, to say that Shirin was Armenian if she just traveled (i.e, not lived, as is clear from the poem!) to Armenia, a geographic concept to begin with as there was no independent Armenia either in Nizami's time or in Khosrov time. I guess F.Kafka was ethnic German or ethnic Czech, since he wrote in German and lived in Prague -- but in reality he was Jewish. And I guess myself, along with Mr. Doostzadeh, are pure Anglo-Saxons for writing in English. Here are, once more, the relevant verses from “Shapur’s story about Shirin” in “Khosrov and Shirin” that clarify everything very well (translation into English mine, the first verses are about Mihin-Banu/Mahin-Banu, Shirin’s aunt): “There, beyond the chain of mountains, where the entire expanse is beautiful, where joyful Derbent, and sea, and gulf, There is a woman. She has the shine of a royal high office/cloth/dignity. Boiling of her army reached Isfahan. Till Armenia the mighty land/country of Arran belongs (is obedient) to her. My ruler, know this: many regions send her tributes like a lamb/cap in hand. In the world there are probably no happier creatures (people). Countless castles she has in the mountains. How large is her treasury – only Allah knows. <…> For any month … she has countless havens. In the days of rose Madam will travel to Mughan [south-eastern region of Azerbaijan]… to enjoy the tribute of the springtime. In the mountains of Armenia she roams/roves in the summer [!!! That’s it!] …. And when autumn will come – and there, she does a raid on the game in Abkhazia [that’s northern Georgia!] In the winter she is in Barda [that’s back to North Azerbaijan, Arran]. Defiant (scorning) times of year, she lives, forgetting, what is foul weather. There [in Barda] she breathes happier, where it is easier to breath for heart/chest … And there, in her castle, it its beautiful captivity, Her niece [!!!] lives. You would have considered her a diva. <…> She is more beautiful than roses, She was called/named Sweetie, She is – Shirin…. She is said/reputed to be the heir to Mihin-Banu … And after all, Mihin-Banu, who governs/rules/possesses the whole country, has not one/multiple such treasuries”.

In a different verse, about Mihin-Banu:

“She cries about Shirin, she remembers her [dead] brother – father of Shirin. Is again the loss approaching her?” When describing Khosrov’s travel after Shirin, Nizami also has the following lines:

“Then – in Mughan [eastern region in Azerbaijan/Arran] he is; then his graceful figure showing wayfarer, he arrived to Baharzan. <….> Mihin-Banu stands up. Kissing the earth, She said: “Shah!” He replied: “I’m listening”. “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”. Khosrov agreed. He said: “You go. I will follow you to that incredible territory/region”. <…> [What a] fine country! The sparkling wreath and ruler’s throne have been brought [to it]”. As if this was not enough to destroy all insinuations to the contrary and both Mihin-Banu and Shirin being actually from Arran (Azerbaijan), and not Armenia, here’s from the chapter “Flight of Khosrov from Behram Chubine” in “Khosrov and Shirin”: “In impassible (bad) roads he penetrated into Arran [western Azerbaijan, sometimes all of Azerbaijan, the name of the whole country], From there he traveled to Mughan [south-eastern region of Azerbaijan (Arran)]: in Mughan did Shirin live [!!!].” Shirin was an Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk -- she had those slanted eyes, that Mr. Doostzadeh does seem to consider an insult, she (and her people) drank a lot of milk that was dominant in their cuisine (which is another sign of Turkic, nomadic, culture - horses, goats, sheep milk), her ancestor, as mentioned by Nizami, was mythical king of Turan (Turkestan) “Afrasiyab”, who was also ancestor of Mihin-Banu -- the queen of Arran (Barda) and Shirin's aunt, who possessed and ruled all of Arran and Armenia, and indeed nearly all of Caucasus or at least South Caucasus. Not knowing all of this shows shallow knowledge of Nizami's works, as it is not enough to be able to read in Farsi or read at all -- one has to know the complex history of the region and have other analytical skills to make proper assumptions and determinations.

Here’s about both Mihin-Banu and Shirin being descendants of Afrasiyab, the mythical ruler of Turan (Turkestan), the collective homeland of all Turkic people (as opposed to Arya for Aryan, Iranian people), in the chapter “Lecture/admonition of Mihin-Banu to Shirin”, where Mihin-Banu speaks to Shirin:

“He [Khosrov] – is the month, you – are the moon, and our heritage/roots are just as famous/celebrated. Yes, we – are [from] Afrasiyab, if he is equal to Jamshid”.

Since Mr. Doostzadeh repeatedly displays lack of knowledge and understanding of Nizami’s poetry – thus proving that Said Nafisi was right with his quote to academician Marr – and claims, probably only due to his anti-Azerbaijani, anti-Turkic racism – that “everyone knows Shirin was Christian [and thus had to be Armenian]”, here’s an interesting passage from the poem (the verse’s above, as well as subsequent one’s, already proved that Shirin and her aunt 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). From the chapter “Khosrov leaves/abandons Shirin and goes to Rum [Byzantum]. Wedding of Khosrov with Maryam [the Christian daughter of the Christian king of Byzantum]”:

“In Constantinople to the Kaiser/Caesar [ruler] he [Khosrov] has appeared.

Also has become thoughtful then the lord of Rum, And his important head the thought has furrowed. Lucky he has considered for the house Arrival of Khosrov in Rum; and he has embraced him. Having learned, that in numbers of stars there is love/attachment, instead of the insidiousness, To the arrived he has decided to hand over his empire. And to give - though he erected the temple of Christianity - To Parviz [Khosrov] as a wife his daughter – princess Maryam”.

What is the importance of this verse? That is, Nizami emphasizes and indeed stressed an important fact that Maryam was Christian, as was the Rum/Byzantum Empire – something he NEVER did for Mihin-Banu and her kingdom and/or Shirin, her niece and future ruler of the Arran kingdom.

Also, note that Nizami always spells all the names in the Muslim manner appropriate for Persian-language poetry – i.e., Maryam instead of Maria, Isa instead of Jesus, Ibrahim instead of Abraham, Iskender instead of Alexander, Afrasiyab instead of other variations, etc. – thus trying to see him as ethnic Persian for not spelling Azerbaijani and/or Turkic names in the “proper” manner is inappropriate. Even today that Muslim spelling is still prevalent in Azerbaijan, Turkey, other Turkic countries. Thus, so much for Mr. Doostzadeh’s knowledge of Nizami’s poetry, his comprehension of it, and his weak arguments that “his friend Shapur (Persian name)” – and since name is Persian, then Shapur must have been Persian – forgetting his own very correct argument that many Turks have Persianized, especially from among the ruling elites.

In Nizami’s poetry, as stated before and affirmed by Mr. Doostzadeh, being Turkic especially in regards to women meant being beautiful. Nizami constantly emphasized various Turkic-features, such as white skin (and playing it off darker skinned Hindu’s) and Turkic-eyes, which for especially Oghuz, Gok-Turk and other Turkic people of Central Asia, Siberia, Altay, China were slanted. Often, Nizami called slanted eyes as “almonds” due to the shape of that fruit. Here’s one such example in regards to Shirin, from the chapter “Moamings of Shirin in separation with Khosrov”:

“From damp almonds pink jets/keys [tears] flowed [i.e., Shirin cried a lot]”.

Then again: “On sugar lips keys from almonds flowed/have gone”.

It is surprising that one would not notice the extensive references to milk in Khosrov and Shirin. Milk and its derivatives, milk-based products from horse, goat and sheep milk, such as ayran, dogha, doghrama, doghramach, ovdugh, kumis, etc., are a feature of nomadic culture, in this case Turkic. Obviously, food, like music, dances, clothes, etc., become common or similar between cultures after centuries of living side-by-side and intermarriages. Here’s from the chapter “The beginning of Ferhad’s love”:

“There, where in between gloomy mountains the melancholy was stretched, She did not know anything more pleasant than milk.

Even if hundred grades of halvah [a sweet food, generally a desert] would she have in front of her, Yet still, milk would serve her as the [main] food.

But necessary herds were far grazed from her, And the way to them demanded considerable work”.

This verse is to show how important milk was not only for Shirin, but all her people:

“In fact the herd - is far, and in milk – there is a need, Give the talisman, for us to have it always. In between the herd and the palace, in two farsangs [an old measure of length] there is a barrier: Ledges of rocks, and in them a channel to arrange is necessary, So that shepherds can pour in milk in it, So that we could say: we have got milk”

Later, when best friend of Khosrov, Shapur – who was the one to first tell about Shirin and Mihin-Banu to Khosrov, and then first go and meet her, persuade to meet Khosrov – describes Farhad to Khosrov, here’s what he says in a very revealing passage:

“we with him – are of the same age; we were in China given birth. And by the same master was knowledge given to both of us”.

Of course, China, was meant as great geographic concept, which it indeed was, as often there was no unified China but it was split into rival territories under the rule of different dynasties, and if Nizami would have meant ethnic Chinese he would have written “Han [Chinese]” or “Mandarin” or else. But when China was written in many old texts, it often meant Gok-Turks, Uighurs, etc, who lived there en masse. But even if this is not accepted, it is obvious that Shapur could not have been ethnic Persian – despite his Persian name. Thus, no matter how we look, Mr. Doostzadeh is constantly wrong.

Thus, it is no accident, that Turkic Shapur talked to Turkic Shirin and later inherits her kingdom – as the chapter “Wedding of Khosrov and Shirin” says (by the way, note that Nizami’s subtly shows the equality of Shirin and Khosrov via saying that the wedding is between “Khosrov AND Shirin”, whilst in case of Maryam it was “Khosrov WITH Maryam”, a very small but interesting detail).

“With honor did shah/king has given to Shapur all the country, In which once blossomed Mihin-Banu”. And once again, how does Nizami finish his masterful second epic poem? The short chapter is entitled “The meaning of the story about Khosrov and Shirin”. Nizami admits that he modeled his heroine, the Turkic and definitely Azerbaijani Shirin after his Turkic wife Appaq (Afak):

“You too, my Afak, vanished (died) as Shirin”. And he finishes the poem with: “If my (dear) Turkic (wife Appaq/Afak) escaped from (my) tent, o God, (I beg you) take care of my Turkic-born (son Muhammed)!"

--AdilBaguirov 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary of the debate with Mr. Doostzadeh and corrections of his bias and falsifications
To sum-up:

1) As I have repeatedly shown, Mr. Doostzadeh is clearly biased and partial stemming from his obvious racism and chauvinism towards anything positive for Turks, lowering himself as much as mistranslating and deliberately misunderstanding key Nizami’s quotes, taking words out of context of verses and withholding translation of even sentences that follow immediately after his selective, ideologically-motivate translations.

2) Iranian researchers have been identified by Iranian (e.g., prof. Talattof, 2001), A rmenian (Shaginyan, 1955), Jewish-Russian academician Marr (1925, 1930s) as biased and not trustworthy: “[a]s when the editor Pizhman Bakhtiyar eliminates verses that undermine his interpretation. Similarly, some editors such as Sarvatyan will sift through many manuscripts of a work to come up with a rendition that suits their purposes”. (see K.Talattof, pp. 7-8). As I wrote before, Talattof goes on to name seven (7) Iranian editors of Nizami’s works as “ideologically motivated”, and that’s obviously not the limit.

3) To the contrary, Soviet and Russian scholars were the first to make the most complete academic, scholarly, critical editions of all five Nizami’s epic poems as well as remnants of his Divan, and produced more papers, articles, and books on Nizami’s poetry than any other “foreign” country. Iran, on the other hand, did not have anything comparable save Vahid Dastgirdi’s 1930s work and more recent works in the past few years which have not been critically analyzed by the world scholarly community and academia. Taking into the account Talattof et al description, and the situation in unfree Iran under the rule of religious fanatics and mad-men like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it is highly doubtful that world-class scholarship free of distortions and bias can be produced. Unlike Soviet Union, Iran has a stake in making sure that Nizami, along with other Azerbaijani poets, belong only to itself and not Azerbaijan.

4) Despite myself providing several very important verses from different epic poems of Nizami, which unlike others I provide more fuller citation and attribution, making it easier to verify and in general, in a more academic, orderly way, they are constantly removed and purged from Wikipedia by Mr. Doostzadeh and his supporters – whilst I have never deleted the one-sided, taken out of context quote about Iran, out of respect for all of Nizami’s heritage. If he wrote it, I fully acknowledge it and bow to it. Not so for ideologically-motivated biased writers as Mr. Doostzadeh and some other chauvinists. No one has the right to delete – indeed, vandalize – appropriate, accurate and well-cited short quotes of Nizami on his page.

5) The general level of Nizami’s page before my edits was full of not only bias, but simple errors – for example, dates of Nizami’s five epic poems were nearly all incorrect, sometimes by twenty (20!!!) years, despite all modern scholars, among them primarily Soviet one’s, proving without a shadow of doubt the more or less precise dates, based not on blind following of error-laden later biographical compilations (all done centuries after Nizami’s death), but calculations from the academic (critical) editions of his manuscripts – since Nizami often left not overly complicated “codes” of when did he start and/or complete his works. In addition, the order of writings was all wrong – for example, the Wikipedia before my edits stated that Iskander-nameh was Nizami’s 4th epic poem, whilst Haft Paykar (Seven Beauties, Seven Portraits) was his 5th – whilst it is well known that the opposite is true. Despite me making those correction, Mr. Doostzadeh’s ideologically-motivated followers kept on reverting the page back to the one with those gross mistakes.

6) Mr. Doostzadeh is not as well acquainted with Nizami’s works and other important historical details as needed for providing the necessary context for unbiased and non-partisan authorship of articles at Wikipedia. For example, he confuses Shirin as the dauther of Mihin-Banu, and therefore Mihin-Banu as mother of Shirin – whilst Shirin is her niece and Mihin-Banu is thus her aunt, as is clear in the text. Mr. Doostzadeh claimed – on top of much more many mistaken assumptions – that Afak/Appaq was Nizami’s third wife, instead of first. Mr. Doostzadeh at first even denied that Nizami’s Divan is at least partially available to this day – none other than Vahid Destgirdi has conducted excruciating research in making it available to the public, and all scholars accepting that anywhere from 60 to 100 lyrical poems of Nizami’s Divan are authentic.

7) Of course, the list can be continued with more serious “mistakes”, revealing Mr. Doostzadeh’s intentions and bias. Despite at first claiming that I am wrong in saying that there is a difference between modern Persian and 12th century Persian Dari literary language – and immediately contradicting that flawed assertion by saying that: “Iranians can read … with *almost* no problem” [emphasis mine] – he then goes on and makes several critical mistakes in translating the verses, like mistaking Nizami’s admission about reading/researching at-Tabari and al-Bukhari for Tabari and Bukhari dialects of Persian langauge. This silly mistake was done despite the fact that all scholars translate it the way I provided it, and of course stem solely on Mr. Doostzadeh’s unconstructive and chauvinistic wish to contradict everything and anything I say.

Mr. Doostzadeh’s then goes on to both deny that Mihin-Banu and Shirin were Arran’s queen and princess who lived in Mughan and Arran (historic regions of Azerbaijan, along with Shirvan and others) especially in the winter months, mistaking them, deliberately, for Armenians, based on his intentional misunderstanding of a few quotes and deliberate ignorance of others. He also ignores that the other heroine of Nizami, Nushaba from Iskander-nameh, was also a Barda queen. Of course, Nizami modeled them all after his Turkic (Kipchak) wife Afak/Appaq, which he himself admits in the Khosrov and Shirin verse I have provided. The whole issue of Afak/Appaq/horison, Turkic-born/slave/Muhammed, etc., where Mr. Doostzadeh completely confused himself and lost track of his bias (which is what usually happens to ideologically-motivated chauvinists), is just so funny and ridiculous, that should be referred to the text directly, where I discuss it in more details.

8) Mr. Doostzadeh also keeps bringing up the Qom issue, albeit now after discussion with me he is extra-careful and always puts disclaimers to protect himself. The information on Qom is absolutely wrong – especially if we consider what many Persian-language biographers and writers claim, there is absolutely no evidence on Nizami’s father originating from Qom – zero, zilch! Meanwhile, one quote attributed to Nizami about himself (thus, there is already a contradiction, as before it was father, now himself) being from Qom, was proven absolutely wrong and false and is not contained in the earlier manuscripts, which are more reliable. In fact, not only did Soviet (Russian, Jewish and Armenian, as well as Azerbaijani) scholars reject this later addition and proved it to be false, but it was not recognized by serious Western lovers of Nizami, such as the great Gete and prof. Charmoy. Similarly, both XV century Daulet-Shah and XIII century Aufi biographies of Persian-language poets say Nizami was born in Ganja. Although even if it was, I’ve provided plenty of quotes from mostly Arabic as well as Persian sources about Iran and its surroundings, from Afghanistan to Iraq, not to mention Caucasus and Azerbaijan, being full of Turkic people from CENTURIES before Nizami, most importantly from 5th century AD to the Arab conquest, and of course their numbers could only increase with the advent of various Turkic dynasties ruling Iran, Central Asia and Azerbaijan in the time before, during and after Nizami. Of course, let us not forget that there is a Qom village in the mountains (Kukhistan) of Azerbaijan, not very far from Ganja (no more than 150 km). Yet what is more important in this issue is that this information either has to be mentioned with many disclaimers and comments such as about massive population of Turkic people in Iran, not to mention Azerbaijan – as well as similarly contentious, yet not false information such as I provided – or not provided at all. There can be and should be no double standards like what is displayed now.

9) Nizami mentions the following Turkic or otherwise words spelled in Azerbaijani fashion: munjug instead of bundjug (beads), usaq (boy, child), alichaq, yataq, bichaq, chariq, papax, chorab, etc. All these words are from books about Nizami by Azerbaijani researchers such as prof. Aliyev. If needed, the full citation or even scan of the page can be provided. Similarly, Mr. Doostzadeh ignores that dooghbaa, dogh, dogha, is a traditional milk-based Azerbaijani Turkic meal, and has many other culinary derivatives from that word “doghramagh” with the root being “dogh” such as “doghrama”, “doghramach”, “ovdugh”. I do not think anyone would be mindless enough to dispute that such a meal as dogha/dooghbaa is prevalent more in “nomadic” cultures – which means Turkic as Mr. Doostzadeh loves to remind. That food is regarded as 100% Azerbaijani as the art of mugham music or gulesh martial arts by everyone in Azerbaijan, as well as relevant culinary books. Hence, Nizami’s masterful quote reaffirming his Azerbaijani Turkic self-identity, as out of all possible choices and words to choose from, he did not use pilaf, or corn/bread-based or otherwise sedentary, non-nomadic agriculture products, but one of most famous samples of nomadic cuisine: “In this Habash [Ethiopia] my Turkishness is not appreciated, That's why my tasty dooghbaa/dogha [Turkic milk-based hodgepodge] is not eaten”.

10) Mr. Doostzadeh continually ignores or contradicts clear-cut evidence of Nizami’s Azerbaijani Turkic self-view, identification and nationality, his very favorable view of Turkic people in general in all his poems as fair, just, courageous, and beautiful. Mr. Doostadeh’s pulls all stops trying to contradict the uncontradictable about this – despite the fact that 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).

11) 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.

Thus, Wikipedia’s entry should: 1) not have any reference to Qom unless extensive comments are provided such as existence of Qom village in North Azerbaijan, the quote itself being false in the opinion of authoritative scholars and absent from all earlier manuscripts, and Iran having significant Turkic population from before Nizami.

2) It should say clearly that Mihin-Banu and Shirin were Arrani (Azerbaijani) queen and princess, and their capital was Barda. Just like Nushabe from Iskandar-nameh.

3) Nizami’s father and self-view was Turkic, and he was an Azerbaijani poet irrespective of his ethnic background.

--AdilBaguirov 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

China-Turkic connection and why not declare all prominent Turkic people who wrote in Farsi as Iranian or Persian
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.

On the whole Turkic-China connection – the Turkic kaganate (khanate), a massive empire which existed (551/552-744/745) centuries before Nizami and was referred to in various forms by Nizami in his poems, including as China (simply “Chin” as opposed to “Han” or “Han Chin” or any other ethnic Chinese dynasty – from 304 to 439 AD there were sixteen kingdoms in North China alone), or in case of Iskander-nameh as Khotan (which is known as Chinese Turkestan (Turan) in scholarly circles). In Seven Beauties (Seven Portraits), the “Chinese kagan” is making a Turkic incursion into Ajam (Iran). Interestingly, Nizami towards the end of his poem calls his heroine Shirin, whom he modeled after his Turkic wife Afak/Appaq, as “first beauty of Khalluh” – with Khalluh being a city in China and which was associated with and dominated by Turkic people. Similarly, in regards to Shirin, Nizami uses the association with Taraz, a city in southeastern Kazakhstan (Auliye-Ata, Jambul) famous in poetry for its beautiful women. Other such geographic areas featured in Nizami’s poetry for making references about Turks were Yaghma in Central Asia, near Kashgar, and Khatay. About the Turkic Yaghma people Arabic traveller Abu-Dulef wrote they were tall and blue-eyed.

As the leading scholar and top authority on ancient Turkic people’s history, Russian professor L.N.Gumilev wrote in his classic study “Ancient Turkic people” (Moscow, 1993, p. 5), “In the end of VI century, the border of the Turkic kaganate was closed on the West with Byzantium, in the south with Persia and even India, and in the east with China.” A more recent scholarly study is by D.M.Iskhakov and I.L.Izmaylov in the chapter “Turkic kaganate” of the book “Tatars” (Moscow: Nauka Government Publishing House, 2001). Among other preeminent scholars was Dr. S.G.Klyashtorniy, who authored, among many books and articles, the relevant article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (edited by an Armenian writer): “In the 60’s of the VI century Turkic people have crushed the Ephtalites state [Hephthalites, who constantly fought the Sassanids] in Central Asia. In 3rd quarter of the VI century the North Chinese states of Zhou and Tzi dynasties fell into vassal dependence from the Turkic kaganate. The Turkic kaganate in the union with Byzantium began wars with Iran over the control of the Great Silk Road. In 571, after the campaign of Turkic people to Iran, the border has been established on the Amur-Darya river, and in 588-589 the Turkic kaganate attached several areas on the Western shore of the Amu-Darya river. In 576 the Turkic people took Bospor (Kerch), and in 581 besieged Hersones [all on Black Sea]”.

Here are some appropriate English-language summaries from prof. Edward Vajda of Western Washington University on the rule of Turkic people in Northern China for much of the first and quarter of the second millenniums A.D. (C.E.):

The Hsiung-nu (Xiong-nu) Period (250BC-450AD)

The first powerful steppe confederation in present-day Mongolia was probably led by Turkic-speaking tribes, some of whom later went westward and became the Huns, who, led by Attila, were the terror of Europe. The Xiong-nu repeatedly invaded Han China, who responded by extending its political influence along the Silk Route far into Central Asia. The eastern Hsiung-nu divided into northern and southern branches, the latter falling under the influence of Chinese culture. In 155AD the Northern Hsiung-nu were destroyed and replaced by a people of Mongol stock, the Hsien-pi. These, in turn were replaced in 402AD by another Mongol-speaking group, the Ju-Juan (whom the Chinese disparagingly called the Juan-Juan, a pun which means "unpleasantly wriggling vermin"). While Mongolia was controlled by these Mongolian-speaking tribes, much of northern China continued to be ruled by the Hsiung-nu and other Turkic-speaking peoples.

The Uighur Empire (744-840)

The Turks were displaced in 744 by their cousins, the Uighurs, who set up their own Empire centered in present-day Mongolia. The Uighur adopt Manichaeism (a religion originating in Persia from a mixture of Iranian Zoroastrianism and Christianity) and develop a vertical script based on an alphabet used in Persia (the old Sogdian script). This new Uighur alphabet supplants the writing of the Orkhon-Yenisei inscriptions. The Uighurs are allies of the Tang Chinese and absorb many traits from their sedentary culture. In 840 the Uighur Empire is destroyed by the still nomadic Kirgiz (ancestors of the modern Kazakh). Remnants of the Uighur flee their base in Mongolia and enter present-day Xinjiang, where most of their six million descendants live today.

Steppe kingdoms in North China (840-1278)

As the Tang Dynasty moves toward collapse, a number of steppe peoples rose to dominance in northern China. They inclued the Mongol Khitan, the Tibetan Tanguts, and the Jurchens, ancestors of the Manchu. Meanwhile, on the steppes and forests of Mongolia, Chingiz (Genghis) Khan unites all of the nomadic tribes, a process completed by 1206. The Mongols conquer all of the kingdoms of northern China. By 1278 Kubilai Khan conquers southern China, as well.

--AdilBaguirov 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

what you dont understand is that azerbaijan is only 16 years old! if anything, nizami was arrani (the name of the region was arran) and not azeri, since azerbaijan did not exist then. are you going to claim mossadegh, khamenei, kasravi, and others... as azerbaijani's even though they were/are clearly iranian. yes, they were also of azeri descent but at the end of the day, they were iranians. the same with nizami, he was of azeri descent, but at the end of the day he was iranian, or as westerners say persian. end of story. i hope you understand now.Iranian Patriot 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear IranianPatriot -- I respect your opinion and indeed it is radically different from what the likes of Mr. Doostzadeh claim. If Nizami's page were to reflect what you said, then I would have probably never bothered to edit the page at all. However, what I see is nearly complete denial of all rights of Azerbaijan to its heritage and history - and our most reverred and beloved poet, thinker, philosopher and simply human being.

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?

Finally, Azerbaijan Republic as a modern state starts its history in 1918, when the First Republic was founded -- and by the way officially, juridically recognized by Iran, ruled by the Azerbaijani Kajar (Qajar) dynasty. From 1920 till 1991 the Second Republic existed -- while not real practically, but theoretically Azerbaijan SSR could succeed from USSR. It had its own Constitution, Parliament, Flag, Hymn/Anthem, even Ministry of Foreign Affairs and representations in several countries. And finally the Third Republic from 1991. That makes our modern -- I stress this word -- existence far more than 16 years. 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)


 * I suggested exactly the same. Even Britannica in the article about Nizami does not say that he was a Persian poet, but says:


 * Nezami or Nizami orig. Ilyas Yusuf Nizami Ganjawi born c. 1141, Ganja, Seljuq empire died 1209, Ganja


 * Greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature.


 * And Britannica mentions Nizami in the context of Azerbaijani culture:


 * Azerbaijan. Cultural life


 * In the course of its long history, Azerbaijan has given the world a number of outstanding thinkers, poets, and scientists. Among the medieval scientists and philosophers, Abul Hasan Bakhmanyar (11th century), the author of numerous works on mathematics and philosophy, and Abul Hasan Shirvani (11th–12th centuries), the author of Astronomy, may be noted. The poet and philosopher Nezami, called Ganjavi after his place of birth, Ganja, was the author of Khamseh (“The Quintuplet”), composed of five romantic poems, including “The Treasure of Mysteries,” “Khosrow and Shirin,” and “Leyli and Mejnun.”


 * I suggested to employ the same approach here. Why not saying that he was a great poet, who made an outstanding contribution to Persian poetry? That would help avoiding disputes. And claims that Nizami had nothing to do with Azerbaijani culture are also not fair, see Britannica. So I think we should find some wording, which would be acceptable to everybody. For example, to please Iranian users we agreed to say in the article about Ismail I that “he was also a prolific poet who, under the pen name Khatâ'i, contributed greatly to the development of Azerbaijani as a literary language”, instead of saying that he was an Azeri-Turkic poet. Why is it OK in that case and is not acceptable here? Grandmaster 06:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Again nothing about Nizami Ganjavi's father from Mr. Baguirov
Folks sorry about any spelling mistakes, but the logical content of the response below is very clear and shows why Mr. Baguirov can not show one proof of Nizamis father being Turkic and he has turned to thousands of unrelated issues. One gain Mr. Baguirov made a host of false claims. I am not here to write millions of lines of irrelevant commentary and political rhetorics, but let me just point out some of the falsifications from before and some of the news one.. I did not make any comments on the Iranian cartoon and the issue of the Azerbaijni cartoonist irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly I already pointed out some mistakes in Mr. Baguirov’s arguments and falsification and let me repeat them briefly: Falsification 1)

Thankfully the book of Ibn Azraq is available in both English and Arabic. Indeed it has been translated into English. Under the name ''A Muslim Principality in Crusader Times. The Early Artuqid State'', Carole HILLENBRAND, 1990 (PIHANS, 66), XIII, 260 pp.; ISBN 90-6258-066-1. Thankfully there is a glossary as well and I looked under Ganja. On page 38 we read: Sultan Toghril Beg, son of Sultan Muhammad, who was the ruler of Ganja and Arran and he sent a shihna to them.. As the readers notice, this is totally different than what Mr. Baguirov claimed! Indeed the Seljuqs controlled all of Khorasan, Esfahan, Kerman, Iraq (Both Persian Iraq and Arab Iraq).. and etc. Indeed another Seljuq king by the name of Toghan Arsalan is called the lord of Arzan and Bitlis. The immorality of falsification not withstanding, it is like arguing that since the British controlled India and Hong King, then all Chinese and Indian scholars during their time of control were British!! The next mention of Ganja is on pg 43: In the year 515 (1121-2) there as an earthquake in the city of Janza, which is Ganja. Again nothing as Mr. Adil Baguirov claims! The final time Ganja comes up in this text is on pg 58: ''As for Sultan Toghril Beg, he sired Arsalan-Shah whose mother was the wife of the amir Eldiguz. He is now the Sultan from Isfahan, Hamadan, Azerbaijan and Arran up to the city of Ganja and Shamkur''. (My Note: like overwhelming majority of old sources Azerbaijan and Arran were two separate lands.). So as you folks can see the first part of Mr. Baguirovs claim was a lie and no such statement was found in this historically important text. Also note the hundreds of Iranian poets and writers from all over Iran under Seljuqid administration! The absurdity of this argument was already rejected. It is as absurd as saying that Greek scholars under the Persian empire of the Achaemenids were Persian!

Falsification 2)

This falsification has to do with another big lie. Mr. Baguirov claimed that: For his knowledge, the following writings in Azerbaijani Turki have been preserved from BEFORE the Ilkanid ear: historian Masud ibn-Namdar (12th century). Indeed I not only did a Google search, but I checked couple of major University Libraries. For example see here:. As you can see, the book is in Arabic and it has been translated to Russian. And the title of the book is: Majmūaat qisas wa-rasāiil wa-ash'ār (The complete collection of stories, articles and poems) and the long title is completely Arabic. Note again the book is in Arabic and has nothing to do with Azerbaijani Turkic language!

The above two falsifications is a major breach of Academic honesty (there are much more: 1) where is Turan mentioned in the story of Khusraw o Shirin 2) Where is Afrasiyaab mentioned in this story on the same verse as Jamshid? And much more….  One can safely say the same thing about the other wild theories of Mr. Adil Baguirov.  Indeed he does not know Persian and yet he wants to claim himself as a great scholar and makes condemnations about scholars.  Indeed the character assassination of the Russian scholar that said Nizami had nothing to do with Azerbaijani Oghuz Turkic speaker is indeed tragic.  Surely, Mr. Baguirov does not have the reputation of Iranian studies scholars in top Russian universities.

Falsification 3) While I am at it, let me just add another point or two about one of the other false statements of Mr. Baguirov. Mr Baguirov said: Of course the fact that there are such great Turkic eposes as Dede Korkut and Oghuz Nameh, which are oral stories from at least 1300 ago, and oldest manuscript of which was written in 1053. And this claim is very big lie. There is only two manuscripts of dede Korkut work (compare it to say Shahnameh with 1000+ manuscripts). Dede-Qorqod contains about 150 Persian words and 300 Arabic words. It talks about Iranians (tats) with beards (Oghuz Turks at that time were mainly mongloid like Turkomens) doing Azzan while Iranians were not Islamified yet 1300 years ago. It talks about the land of Rum, while at that time it was not even at the hands of Muslims! Dede Korkut (the culture of Oghuz Turks) is totally from the Oghuz culture. [16]. Indeed to show that is not as old as Mr. Baguirov and other ultra-nationalists claim, the word "istanbul" is found in this book. And I quote[17]: The merchants set out on their long journey and traveled steadily for many days and nights. They came at last to the city of Istanbul. These were all major falsifications which Mr. baguirov chose to ignore in his latest message. Now lets see what new stuff Mr. Baguirov has falsified a new since a week ago. As per Mr. Adbil Baguirov lets remember he chose to use insults many times and now he asks for respect. I have a PhD in an unrelated field like Mr. Baguirov but I will not call him Dr. and He can call me Mr. But I am willing to keep tone free from any rhetoric and irrelevant comments as much as possible. All the mumbo-jumbo about the UN and etc. is not related to the issue of Nizami’s father. So I won’t even get sidestepped. But here is are some new false comments by Mr. Baguirov.

Falsification 4) Another false claim of Mr. Baguirov:  Ferdowsi was ordered Shahnameh by a Turk, as was the case with many other non-Turkic poets. . This statement is false today (had Mr. Baguirov read any of the recent scholarship of Ferdowsi including that by Dr. Khaleghi Motlaq).  Indeed Ferdowsi started his work during the Samanid era.   How many unsubstantiated claims is Mr. Baguirov going to make?  He then continues: It was a Turk who ordered the poem, it was him who, despite the not very favorable language, paid for it, and it was him who ordered to transcribe it on many manuscripts and thus save it for the future generations  Again repeateding the same statement without doing any research!  Indeed Ferdowsi as shown by his biographers started the Shahnameh before Mahmud came to power! .    (I can act like Mr. Baguirov and make tons of insults after correcting him on this issue, but lets just proceed).

Falsification 5). And indeed Mr. Baguirov falsifies another quote from the panj-Ganj and claims:  Look at this verse from Khosrov and Shirin: “My Kipchak idol! My sensual fragile crop (herb, plant)! Died, like Shirin, you too, my Afak (Appaq). The fact is such a verse does not exist! Else Mr. Baguirov show us the original verse if you are truthful.    The original verse is this Mr. Baguirov!

درین افسانه شرطست اشک راندن گلابی تلخ بر شیرین فشاندن بحکم آنکه آن کم زندگانی چو گل بر باد شد روز جوانی سبک رو چون بت قبچاق من بود گمان افتاد خود کافاق من بود

Indeed I am not sure what educated person would translate the last two verses: Sabok roo chon bot-e-Qabchaq man bood – Gomaan oftaad khob ke-Afaaq man bood into:''My Kipchak idol! My sensual fragile crop (herb, plant)! Died, like Shirin, you too, my Afak (Appaq)'' Indeed the word shirin is not even in the same like as the idol of Qifchaq! This is a major falsification. You see there is a big difference here! FROM now on we should demand Mr. Baguirov to use the original Persian verse as Nizami Ganjavi did not write in Turkic or Russian! What has happened here is that line 2 and line 5 have been mixed. Whereas line 1 and line 2 which are the full couplet have nothing to do with bote-e- Qapchaq. As per the absolute majority of sources, again on this matter of interpretation of this verse, if such a false translation of the Persian was made by the USSR scholar, then their opinion really has no value. Indeed Nizami Ganjavi does not use the word Apaq even once whereas Persian has p. Indeed Nizami Ganjavi uses the word Afaq as 46 times in his poetry to mean horizon! Indeed no ancient source has mentioned that Nizami Ganjavi had a wife named Afaq. So in this matter Mr. Baguirov needs to prove his point by the original Persian and not just quote some scholar. There is no verse where Shirin and Bot-e-Qapchaq are used in the same couplet. Indeed Said Nafisi who is a native speaker of the language is more authotarative than the translator who madeup such a false verse! MR. Baguirov by using verses that does not exist has shown that he completely lacks any credibility to discuss issues about Nizami’s wife. He is only copying polemic materials and indeed he has no choice since he can not read Nizami in its original language.

His verse did not exist. But the above persians verses can be taken as metaphor and there is no reason for me to take side on this issue, since we will never know for 100%. All we know is that even if she was a Turkic slave given by the ruler of Darband, this does not make Nizami’s father a Turk! And furthermore we know that there is no manuscript with Apaq and Nizami uses the term Afaq about 46 as meaning horizon and it would be rare for a poet to suddenly mean a different thing by using this word! And also at the same time, call other rulers, the ruler of Afaq!, which would be lewd! So about Nizami’s first wife which was given to him as a servant/slave by the ruler of darband as a gift, we simply do not have much information to make anything clear Said Nafisi on page 12 in his 1982 version of his book on Nizami Ganjavi has totally shown that “Gomaan oftaad khod ke-afaagh man bood” means that Nizami Ganjavi considered her to be all of his horizon. Which makes much more sense. Now I will make some comments and the they will show more falsification of history and verses by Mr. Baguirov.

1) MR. Baguirov wants to impress us with USSR scholarship and mentions the Shahnameh. But the Russian version of the Shahnameh has become obsolete.   Indeed the Moscow edition was compiled between 1966-1971 and now after 20-30 years it has been replaced by the Sayyaghi and now the Khaleghi Motlaq edition.  We do not reject USSR scholarship, but there is no doubt that USSR scholarship was tainted by many ethnic and religious biases.  As mentioned in the following article.

See the following article, the first one in English and the second one in Persian about USSR scholarship and Nizami Ganjavi: Stalin and Nizami

Fiftieth Anniversary of a great Falsification

Indeed all we need to show is that Stalin got involved and falsely claimed that Nizami had Turkish verses! As the article above shows. There is nothing else we need to prove on this matter that USSR scholarship was tainted! Indeed hundreds of scholars were sent to Siberia just for expressing their opinion that Stalin or Mir Ja'far Bagheroff did not like. The question is that after Stalin put up his verdict about Nizami’s ethnicity and he did not mention anything about his Kurdish background, could USSR scholars freely express their opinion about his ethnicity. The answer is no as the following articles shows: Fiftieth Anniversary of a great Falsification

Only after the breakup of USSR Armenian and Russian scholars protested the former claims made by the republic of Azerbaijan on Nizami. So while no scholars in any fields of humanities rejects the works of USSR scholar, still some aspect of them are under serious consideration. That is why many of the republics have totally rewritten their history after the breakup.

2) Another mistake Mr.  Baguirov makes is that he calls Mirza Fath Ali Akhunzadeh a Turk.  For MR. Baguirov’s information, Akhunzadeh in his biography says: although some think I am a Turk from Azerbaijan, but my father was actually a Persian from Rasht (Gilan).   Here is his actual words: من اگرچه علي الظاهر ترکم اما نژادم از پارسيانست. جدم حاجي احمد از رشت آمده در آذربايجان توطن اختيار کرده است. پدرم ميرزا محمد تقي و من خودم در آذربايجان تولد و پرورش يافته‏ام Transliteration: ''Man agarcheh ala' al-zaaher torkam amaa nezhaadam az paarsiyaanast.  Jadam Haji Ahmad az Rash Amadeh dar Azarbaijan Tavaton Ekhtiyaar kardeh ast.  Pedaram Mirza Mohammad Taghi o Man khodam Azarbaijan tavalod o parvaresh yaafteh-am"

Also one does not deny that Turks later on adopted Persian poetry but we are here talking about Nizami Ganjavi’s father. So Mr. Baguirov’s point again has nothing to do with the issue. Also Persians could have written Turkish as well, and one example here is Akhoundzadeh who is ethnically non-Turkic according to his own biography. 

3) Mr. Baguiorv should know that in the main wikipedia article there is no mention of Vahid Dastgerdi and Said Nafisi!  So I am not quoting old sources.  The latest about Nizami Ganjavi’s ethnicity has come from Prof. Meysami, Rypka, Bashiri, Talattof and etc and Encyclopedia Britannica.   Mr. Baguirov has no right to call M. Kapustin weird names just because this scholar who actually knows Persian made very strong statements that is not liked by Pan-turkists.  Indeed this scholar made his statement in 1988 which makes a very good source.  Although USSR ceased to exist in 1991, things were much more open in 1988.  Furthermore, Mr. Baguirov has to now show us a picture of suitcase that shows Mr. Kapustin receiving Armenian money!!  Such absurd claims actually shows that Mr.  Baguirov can not counter the arguments of major Iranian scholars.  Indeed he is in no status to do so.  And it can easily be seen that Nizami Ganjavi does not have anything to do with Turkish culture. All one has to read is Ferdowsi and Dede-Qorqod and see which culture Nizami belonged to!

4) Much comments about things unrelated to Nizamis father are not necessary. Indeed Mr. Baguirovs arguments have all been answered and that is why Western scholars also do no call Nizami Ganjavi Turkic.  But the Armenian article of that scholar which showed that the Azerbaijani republic published books have deleted Armenians is indeed DAMNING.  It shows that the Azerbaijani republic scholars have no credibility and will do anything in order to deny other ethnic groups historical rights.  I will also bring a clear false verse madeup by Azerbaijani scholars.  Indeed the verse does not have proper style and rhym! 5) Mr. Baguirov writes: '' Why not declare Nizami Kurdish – the Kurds never had a famous poet attributed to them and this was their chance, after all USSR setup a so-called Red Kurdistan autonomy in USSR and supported the Kurdish Republic of Mahabbat in Iran in 1940s?’’ Because the number of Kurds was not as great as Azerbaijani Turks and Kurds did not have their own state! And many other reasons. The fact is we can see the tainted of USSR scholarship when Stalin claims that Nizami has some Turkish works! And no even challenged him! Indeed who is going to challenge Stalin in the USSR!? 6¬) MR. Baguirov mentions Fizuli and Nasmi and says Azerbaijanis are not exactly poor in poets. Mr. Baguirov! I never claimed Azerbaijanis are poor in poetry (although relative to Arabic and Persian poetry,  Turkic does not have the same status in Islamic times).  But in case MR. Baguirov does not know, Fizuli and Nasimi were both from the Turkemens of Baghdad and Iraq!  Also they appeared at a time when western Turkish poetry was getting off the ground whereas no sample of Turkish poetry exists from Nizami's time.  So indeed there is actually none of the stature of Nizami or even Fizuli from the current area of the republic of Azerbaijan that wrote in Turkish!  INDEED MR. BAGUIROV CAN NOT SHOW EVEN ONE MANUSCRIPT OF AZERBIAJNI TURKISH BEFORE THE ILKHANID ERA FROM THE CAUCUS.  He claimed a certain Masud ibn Namdar wrote Turkish and was proven wrong.  He claimed a certain Oghuz nama was Turkish and was proven wrong... 7)To claim that the USSR was anti-Turkish is also wrong, since for example they gave major Tajik areas like Samarghand and Bukhara to Uzbekistan. Or predominatently Armenian KArabagh was given to Azerbaijan although the Armenian inhabitants did not want this.  Indeed the treatment of Talysh and the removal of Red Kurdistan  is also important to mention.

8) I Did not understand the point about Tajik and Persian.  Both these words mean the same thing.  So Ferdowsi being a Tajik means Ferdowsi is a Persian.  Indeed a Tajik simply means Persian!  I have already shown Azerbaijani bias by the quotes of Stalin.  When Stalin gets involved on one side, then this is bias.  No other way out.  Also today Tajik means Persian speakers, turks also used these term for any Iranic speaker at ancient times including Kurds, Soghdians and etc.  But todays Tajik are Persians of Central Asia. 9) As per transliterations of a Russian maganize, MR. Baguirov is the last Persian that should talk specially with his horrible transliteration of Persian. Furthermore unlike Mr. Baguirov my source is a major Iranian journal called Iranshenasi and the quote from Mr. Kapustin is there. Actually much more damaging information is in that same article. Indeed an Armenian Iranian studies Professor wrote the article and was familiar with all the scholarship and he is a University Professor unlike our non-specialist friend, Mr. Baguirov. He quotes Stalin and how even the USSR republic of Azerbaijan tried to introduce Avesta as part of their culture!

9)	Again the point about ethnicity of Nizami will mention both father and mother. Many Abbassid caliphs had Turkic or Persian mother and these are all mentioned in relavent sources.  Indeed to show the strength of mother in ethnicity, these Abbasids caliphs would choose Turkic/Persian over Arabs in their government.  This shows that the ethnicity of mother was very relavent.

10)	Mr. Baguirov claims Nizami today would have called himself an Azerbaijani Turk!! But sorry Mr. Baguirov this is not in his poetry and by making such comments, you are indeed showing that you are just here to prove a point that can not be proved. Unless you had some contacts with Nizami Ganjavis spirit?!

11)	Mr. Baguirov calls me an ethnic Persian whereas I did not say anything about my ethnicity. I'll let him be confused.  Also I am not Armenian either.

12)	 As per serious Armenian scholars in Persian poetry there is a good amount of them mentioned in the article below: Indeed Armenia has much stronger Iranian studies program than the republic of Azerbaijan.  And I can mention many serious Armenian Iranian scholars and some are mentioned in the article above.  For example Dr. Garnik Astarian is a major scholar of Iranian studies whereas I have not seen anyone of his stature from the current republic of Azerbijan.

13)	 As per Nizami being an ethnic Arab, again we do not know exactly what his father was, but large amount of Arabs did settle in the area since the Arabic invasion. Indeed Mr. Baguirov again shows his ignorance by thinking this theory is ridiculous.  Whereas this theory is totally plausible as well.   Because simply we do not know enough about Nizamis father and there is a lot of proof about Arab settlements in the area as well.  So even the theory of his father being an ethnic Arab can not be rejected!

14)	 A constant naming of 1955 source of one Armenian scholar who wrote during the USSR era, does not count against the countless Armenian Iranian studies Professors who have mentioned that Nizami Ganjavi was not Turkic.

We look at the scholars have to say today and indeed what all Western scholars have said. If Encyclopedia Britannica, Iranica, Talattof, Wilson, Rypka, Kaputsin, Meysami, .. do not mention anything about Nizami being Turkic, and only mention Kurdish mother and sometimes a Persian father, then we can not get involved in the  arguments of Mr. Baguirov. Indeed if I were to pick and choose, then any theory can be made plausible. Today modern Western scholars, Encyclopedia Britannica, Iranica and etc. have said nothing about Nizami being an Azerbaijani Turk. Indeed once Stalin made his statement, then going against the current could mean Siberia, even after his death. Only in 1988 did couragerous Armenian and Russian scholars totally debunk the claims made in the last 50 years by some scholars manipulated by Stalins order about Nizami being Azerbaijani Turkic. Indeed Nizami Ganjavi had no status in that republic and all these false claims were made to make an identity for that republic. Indeed the Turkic people there were called tatars by outsiders and not Azerbaijanis. 15)	President Putin is no scholar. And Nizami indeed was born in what is called the modern republic of Azerbaijan.  He is as much as the son of the land, as the ancient Greek scholars are the son of the land of modern Turkey.  Mr. Kapustin is a scholar of Iranian studies where as Mr. Putin is a president of a country.  The two are incomparable.  As per Mr. Kapustin, it is up to Mr. Baguirov to do the research and see why he is a Professor whereas Mr. Putin is not! LOL!

16)	 Mr. Baguirov should know that my reference to Dehkhoda about the quote Bukhari/Tabari languages/scholars was to show that both interpretations are valid.  Indeed one Iranian Scholar has preferred languages.  Indeed Persian poetry uses a lot of words that are open to great interpretation even during their own time.  Best example is Rumi and Hafez.  I can show two different translations of Rumi with totally different meaning.  Even today, the exact meaning that many  poets are trying to convey is disputed by scholars and only the poet knows best.  Even at their own time!  Simple things like this should be known by Mr. Baguirov. I am sure they are known, then why keep persisting?

17)	 As per Afaq there is no mention of Apaq in any of Nizami’s poetry.  And I have shown how Afaq has been used as horizon throughout Nizami’s poetry and the explanation by Dr. Nafisi is most likely.  Else Persian has “p” and Nizami Ganjavi could have used Apaq which he did not!  Indeed he has used the term Afaq 46 times as meaning horizon.  So we would have to take this into consideration.  Also there no example of a Women being named Afaq in historical times and so to extrapolate Apaq from Afaq is indeed not supported by manuscripts and is based on a Guess that can not be verified in any manner. 18)	 MR. Baguirov should know that every Iranian can understand Rudaki and Ferdowsi perfectly. These were poets before Nizami. Indeed this is an important quality of the Persian language which scholars have mentioned. The reason is of course the recycling and rereading of Persian poetry constantly throughout the Persian speaking lands. Even Sassanid Pahlavi is more than 50% understandable as I can demonstrate if Mr. Baguirov knew Persian. 19)	The term Iraq as I mentioned could mean Iraq-e-Ajam and Iraq-e-Arab. Either way this point has nothing to do with nizami Ganjavi being a Turk!  We have quotes from the mongol era that the city of Ganja was a mix of Tajiks (Iranians) and Turks.  But we know this was not the case during the time of the Shaddadid where the area was non-Turkic.  The best proof of this, is the harsh words used for Turks by Shaddadid court poets like Qatran.  So the Turkic population was relatively new in the area.

20)	To offer the greatest works on poetry to the local ruler has nothing to do with Nizamis father. Mr. Baguirov puts words in my mouth and jumps the issue.  Indeed although the Seljuqids were Turkic (although mixed in with other groups), they were patrons of Iranian and Persian culture and many Iranian poets dedicated their work to them.  The reason is simple.  The lands they had conquered were non-Turkic, but the people tried to get on their good-side and also they tried to appease the people.  Indeed culturally Seljuqs were more Persian than Turkic and I can argue this by mentioning how the Seljuqids of Anatolia and the Ottomans were many times more supportive of Arabic and Persian than Turkic.

21)	Although before the Moscow edition of Shahnameh, there was a French edition. Mr. Jalal Khaleghi Motlaq considers the methods used by Western scholars in gathering all manuscripts as superior.  This method has been part of Iranian studies now for over at least 30 years.  Indeed the short-comings of the Moscow edition has been demonstrated by Mr. Khaleghi Motlaq.  So the USSR scholars while making some improvements had their own short-comings.  Else we can see good examples of corrections in the USSR manuscript relative to the French edition.  And the Khaleghi Motlaq edition shows many mistakes in the USSR edition.  Again all these points have nothing to do with Nizami Ganjavi.  The current edition of the 5 jewels by Dr. Barrat Zanjani is superior to any older editions since it uses the older editions, more manuscripts and also Dr. Zanjani is a native speaker of the language.  Indeed he has shown many mistakes in the USSR edition which one can look at the Khaleghi Motlaq edition. The USSR edition was from about 1970 and indeed now it is obsolete thanks to Khaleghi Motlaq edition. The best and most latest editions of Nizami Ganjavi are also from Dr. Zanjani.

22)	Mr. Baguirov says: '' today many Kurds prefer to speak Turkish, Farsi or Arabic which they know better than native Kurdish (of which there are even now three distinct dialects like Kurmanji –which one Mr. Doostzadeh think Raiseh spoke?)’’.

Nizami Ganjavi’s mother was a Kurd as affirmed by all scholars. Considering the fact that Shaddadians were also Kurdish speakers and their capital was in Ganja, there is no proof that Kurds spoke Turkic as their mother language. Indeed the recent condition that some Kurds speak Persian or Turkic or Arabic first unfortunately has to do with modern state nationalism and having an official language. Just like many people in the former USSR spoke Russian first. Else at that time of Nizami, there was no official languages and so Kurds spoke their language first. This shows that Mr. Baguirov does not consider the difference between modern era of nationalism and medieval history. As per the dialect of Kurdish spoken by Nizamis mother, it would depend on her Kurdish tribe which we can not be sure of.

23) Mr. Baguirov continues  Yet Nizami is clear that he views himself as an Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk, or even Ganja Turk, since at the time the fragmentation by cities was prevalent everywhere,

Whereas Nizami Ganjavi has not and never called himself an Azerbaijani Turk or a Ganja Turk. Indeed Western scholars would have mentioned this fact, which they did not!

Mr. Baguirov wants to claim that Nizami’s Ganjavis father if not an Oghuz Turk might have been related to the Huns or Khazars! But we all know that Khazars main border was Darband and although the Huns might have made some incursion, they were repelled back! Let us recall that Azerbaijanis are not Huns or Khazar Turks, but they are Oghuz Turks. Else one can claim that the Soghdians or Kurds are the same as the Talysh. Lets be consistent. Note the quotes by MR. Baguirov has nothing to do with large Turkish settlements in ancient period in the caucus. It has to do with the invasion of Turks( Khazars, Huns and etc). Indeed we know that Russians also invaded and pillaged the Caucus and even northern Iran. But this does not mean there was large Russian settlements in Ganja or that any famous person from the area can be considered Russian due to the Russian invasion!

23)	The quote from the book of Al-tijan is indeed one of the biggest lies made up by Pan-turkist historians. Indeed the quote is about an ancient Yemenese mythical warrior named Ra’esh.  In the book Tajarob al-Umam by ibn Maskawayah, Ra’esh helps the legendary king Manuchehr defeat the legendary Turanian king Afrasiyaab.  Indeed the quote has nothing to do with Turkish settlements and the quote refers to the Turanians occupying Azerbaijan and then the mythical Ra’esh the Yemenese king coming to the aid of the Iranian king and repelling Afrasiyab.  Weired stories like these were made up by Shu'abiyyah movements.  Some claimed that Zoroaster was Abraham and claimed Zoroastrianism was practiced from Sudan to China.  Such stories and myths are not taken seriously in light of the fact that all geographers and travellers to Azerbaijan and Arran have mentioned the languages of the area before the Seljuqids. BTW, today (within the last 20 years) the Turanians are not considered Turkic by the majority of scholars. Also as you can see the quote is totally mythical a Indeed this is what happens when people do not read the whole page and just cut out one line out! In that book al-tijan it says Azerbaijan was in the “hand” of Turks (legendary mythical Afrasiyab) and this shows that they were occupying it(and not aboriginals) until Ra’esh the mythical Yemenese king came and forced them out with the help of Manuchehr! Here is the Persian translation of the whole story from Tabari.

نخستين نويسنده‌ي پان‌تركيست مي‌نويسد: «يكي ازاسناد مهمي كه ازحضور اقوام ترك زبان درآذربايجان پيش از اسلام حكايت دارد "اخبار عبدين شريه" [در متن چنين است] است. عبيد در دوره جاهليت در يمن به دنيا آمده و يكي ازمعمرين و جهانديدگان دوره خلافت معاويه بوده است. معاويه اورا به دمشق دعوت كرد و از اخبار عرب و ملوك آن قوم جويا شد و وي به پرسش‌هاي معاويه پاسخ داد. به دستور معاويه اخبار او تدوين گرديد […] درجريان گفتگوي عبيد با معاويه دوبار ازآذربايجان سخن به ميان آمده است. معاويه گفت: خداوند تو را چيزها دهاد، از حال آذربايجان بگو؟ عبيد گفت: آذربايجان از سرزمين‌هاي ترك است و تركان در آن گرد آمده‌اند. بار دوم عبيد از حمله رائد كه از امراي يمن بوده به آذربايجان سخن گفته است. معاويه گفت يا عبيد سخن‌ات را دنبال كن! گفت : ... جنگ را به تأخير افكند. پس تركان و خزران پيمان شكني كردند .... [در متن چنين است] معاويه گفت: ترك و آذربايجان كدام است؟ عبيد گفت: يا اميرالمومنين اين دو سرزمين آنان است! اما حقيقت آن است كه چنين كتابي اساساً وجود ندارد و تاكنون هيچ پان‌تركيستي نشانه‌ي نسخه‌ي اصلي كتاب را نداده و از متن اصلي آن چيزي نقل نكرده بل كه از نوشته‌ي پان‌ترك‌هاي ديگر اين مطلب را اقتباس كرده است. دوم اينکه خزرها در زمان امويان به ايران و قفقاز و آذربايجان حمله کردند و انها هرگز و هرگز از مردم بومي آذربايجان نبودند. بلکه اگر شماها مي خواهيد آذربايجاني ها را به خزرها ربط بدهيد مسئله خودتان هست ولي آذربايجاني ها نه نياکنشان يهودي بودند و نه زبانشان ترکي خزري است بلکه زبان انها ترکي اوغوزي است. (دکتر هئيت)

! نويسنده‌ي پان‌تركيست مي‌نويسد: «طبري مي گويد: "منوچهر در آذربايجان با تركان جنگيد ... كيخسرو و فرزندان او در آذربايجان با تركان جنگيدند .. و گشتاسب در آذربايجان با تركان جنگيد و عده زيادي از آنها را كشت". وي حدود تركان را از آسيا تا روم مي‌داند. اين نوشته حضور تركان را حداقل همزمان به دوران كيانيان مي رساند!!

جداي از اين كه اشخاص مورد اشاره‌ي اين نقل قول همگي اسطوره‌اي‌اند و در نتيجه اخبار منسوب به آن‌ها نيز از مقوله‌ي اساطير به شمار مي آيند، بايد گفت كه چنين رواياتي در كتاب طبري وجود ندارد و به خوبي آشكار است كه پان‌تركيست‌هاي شرور چون هميشه كوشيده‌اند كه توهمات و تخيلات روان‌پريشانه‌ي خود را به مورخان كهن و معتبر نسبت دهند. اما اصل روايت طبري كه اين دو نويسنده‌ي پان‌ترك داستان خود را با نيم‌نگاهي به آن ساخته و پرداخته‌اند، و گويي كه هيچ كس نمي‌تواند پرده از نيرنگ‌شان بردارد، به طبري نسبت داده‌اند، مي‌گويد كه كه رائش بن قيس، شاه اسطوره‌اي يمن، در زمان منوچهر، پادشاه اسطوره‌اي ايران، در آذربايجان به تركاني كه آن را تصرف كرده بودند حمله برد و بسياري از آنان را كشت و اسير گرفت (تاريخ طبري، ترجمه‌ي ابوالقاسم پاينده، بنياد فرهنگ ايران، 1352، ص293). جداي از اين كه همه‌ي شخصيت‌ها و وقايع اين روايت طبري اسطوره‌اي هستند و اين روايت، در اصل، بازگو كننده‌ي يك افسانه‌ي متأخر عربي است، در آن، از تركان نه به عنوان مردمان و اهالي آذربايجان، بل كه به عنوان تصرف كنندگان آذربايجان (كه ممكن است خاطره‌اي به جا مانده از حملات پياپي خزرهاي ترك‌زبان و يهودي مذهب به اران و آذربايجان باشد) سخن رفته است.

قصه مندرج در تاريخ طبري (جلد اول، ترجمه ابوالقاسم پاينده، انتشارات بنياد فرهنگ ايران، 1352، ص 293، سطر 13-5) چنين است: «به پندار هشام بن كلبي، رائش بن قيس بن … ، پس از يعرب بن قحطان بن … و برادران اش، پادشاهي يمن داشت و پادشاهي وي به روزگار منوچهر بود و نام اش حارث بود و رائش از آن رو لقب يافت كه با قومي بجنگيد و غنيمت گرفت و به سوي يمن بازگشت و از آن جا به كوهستان طي، سپس انبار و سپس موصل حمله برد و سالار سپاه وي يكي از ياران اش به نام شمر بن عطاف بود، و در آذربايجان به تركان كه آن سرزمين را به دست داشتند حمله برد و بسيار كس را بكشت و اسير گرفت و ماجراهاي خويش را در دو سنگ بنوشت كه در ديار آذربايجان معروف است». چنان كه مي بينيد، ما در اين جا فقط با يك افسانه سروكار داريم، با شاهي افسانه اي به نام رائش كه در زمان شاه اسطوره اي ايران، «منوچهر» مي زيست،و با لشكركشي افسانه اي اين شاه اسطوره اي يمن به آذربايجان و ايران! يعني، افسانه در افسانه! سواي اين نكات واضح، در همين قصه هم، «تركان» ساكنان و مردمان آذربايجان دانسته نشده اند، بل كه از آنان به منزله اشغالگران آذربايجان سخن رفته است كه اين سرزمين را تصاحب كرده بودند (به دست گرفته بودند) و اين شاه افسانه اي يمني نيز آذربايجان را از سيطره آن ها خارج كرده است. بديهي است كه اگر تركان ساكنان بومي آذربايجان از بدو تاريخ بودند، هرگز - حتا در متن اين افسانه نيز - نيازي به بردن نام آن ها به اين شكل متمايز و خاص،و با عبارت «آن سرزمين را به دست داشتند» نمي بود.

Some of the yemenese myths go as far as saying that the yemenese king took over India, Rome, Persia.. All these have to do with the counter Persian nationalism (Sh'uabbiya) and are part of Arab myths some which were mixed with Persian myths (Manuchehr and Afrasiyab mixed in with Ra'esh). Kitab al-tijan fi muluk Himyar (The Book of Crowns on the Kings of Himyar) is taken as a mythology book and the stories there about Ra'esh and his battles with various people are part of Arab folklore and not history. What is clear is that are many stories in Ctesias,Herodotus, Tabari and etc. which are not take seriously by all scholars. For example Tabari attributes Zoroastrianism to the mythical figure of Jamshid. Another time another Arab author considers Abraham a descendant of Zoroaster. Many stories convluted by the Shu'abbiyah were made up and it is up to modern historians to examine their veracity.

I have available a more detailed article in Persian on this manner of convulted history. Sufficient to say that any geographer and historian that has described the language of the area, has never mentioned Turkic until the Seljuqids. (with the exception of Khazaras who were mainly held off at Darband). Also the Turkic slaves taken from Central Asia and used in the caliphs army does not mean Turkic settlements in Azerbaijan. Neither does the Turkic commander under Arab Caliphs (Bugha, Ashnaas, ..) who were sent from Iraq to quell the Babak Khorramdin (Iranian) Mazdakite revolt. And all scholars agree Azarbaijan was part of Iranian Mede, Achaemenid, then Parthian, then Sassanid and Turks never had this area on their hand and the mythical characters of Ra'esh and Afrasiyaab and Manuchehr.. are folklore and myth. Much like the pre-Sassanid portion of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, where Rustam is a mythical character. In that time myths and history were convoluted. Again I remind that there is not even a single manuscript of Turkic from the area at the time of Nizami and furthermore the oldest Turkic document according to Britannica is the Orkhun inscriptions of Mongolia.

Also let me just quote Baladhuri (original Arabic) about the conquest of Azarbaijan in its original Arabic: اصل روايت بلاذري:

فتح أذربيجان حدثنا الحسين بن عمرو الأرديلي عن واقد الأرديلي عن مشايخ أدركهم أن المغيرة بن شعبة قدم الكوفة والياً من قبل عمر بن الخطاب، ومعه كتاب إلى حذيفة بن اليمان بولاية أذربيجان. فأنقذه إليه وهو بنهاوند أو بقربها. فسار حتى أتى أردبيل، وهي مدينة أذربيجان وبها مرزبانها، وإليه جباية خراجها. وكان المرزبان قد جمع إليه المقاتلة من أهل باجرون وميمذ والنرير وسراة والشيز والميانج وغيرهم. فقاتلوا المسلمين قتالاً شديداً أياماً، ثم أن المرزبان صالح حذيفة عن جميع أهل أذربيجان على ثمان مئة ألف درهم وزن ثمانية، على أن لايقتل منهم أحداً ولا يسبيه ولا يهدم بيت نار، ولا يعرض لأكراد البلاسجان وسبلان وساتر ودان، ولا يمنع أهل الشيز خاصةً من الزفن في أعيادهم وإظهار ما كانوا يظهرونه. ثم أنه غزا موقان وجيلان فأوقع بهم وصالحهم على إتاوة.

Note Baladhuri mentions Kurds of Balasagaan, Sabalaan, Saataroodaan. He also mentions Marzaban (Sassanid Gaurds). In another quote he mentions how Arabs bought land from Persians of the area. In another part he mentions the Persian word Khaaneh (house) as meaning dwelling place in the language of Azerbaijan. All these facts are very important. Also Baladhuri considers both Aran and Armenia as part of Armenia (has a separate chapter on the conquest of Armenia) and it is not the same geographical entity as Azerbaijan.

Also let me note that the Ummayads and Khazar empires had some fights over a period, but the relative border of Darband was held up by the Arabs and any Khazar incursions below Darband although occured during the Ummayad time, was eventually pushed backed. Indeed the incursions of Khazars and the eariler huns did not change the native population of the area and let us remember that the Khazars were at least a very multi-ethnic empire and the Huns although not related to Oghuz Turlk. As per Hunnish incursion into Persia proper, the Cambridge History of Iran says at most the huns devasted the area and then later on the Sassanids were able to fend them off.

24)	 As per name Kazvin, Kasghari’s dictionary calls it the place of amusement for Afasiyab’s daughter Gaz!! But modern scholarship has shown that this is just another mythical absurd theory and the name Ghazvin has to do with the Caspians and the Caspians are today known as either Iranian speakers or perhaps Hurrian speakers. Indeed the older name for the city was Kazhvin and zh is not in the Turkic language.  (Dehkhoda)  Kashvin is also mentioned.  So the myth pertepurated by Kashgari has no historical basis just like the take over Afrasiyaab and calling him Alp Tongra is not taken seriously by scholars, because Afrasiyaab is a dragon fiend in Avesta and is a mythical creature. (See comments 46).

25)	When speaking about ethnicity, Kurds are Iranic people and Azerbaijanis according to Mr. Baguirov are a Turkic people. We are not talking about citizenship as the republic of Azerbaijan did not exist back then. And indeed Iranian Azarbaijan has always been part of Iran historically and the caucasian Albania was part of the same land as Iran for a long portion of its history(Qajar,Safavids,Sassanid(good portion), Parthian(good portion),Achaemenid).  The name Azarbaijan is not mentioned even in one ancient Turkic source and is clearly Iranian.  Azarbad, Azarbad-gaan, Azargoshnasp, Azar-barzin, Azar-mehr, Azar-farr.. all names related to Zoroastrians and Iranians.

26) The term “azerbaijani” school of poetry is simply meant to differentiate between Indian, Iraqi and Khorasani styles of poetry.  It has no ethnic value.  Indeed other poets from different areas would write in different styles of poetry.   As per Jan Rypka and Julia Meisami, as Mr. Baguirov knows, these scholars did not accept the pan-turkist claim of Nizami Ganjavi being Turkic in any way.  Indeed Khaghani Shirvani which Mr. Baguirov agrees was not a Turk was part of the same Azerbaijani school.  As was Qatran Tabrizi who had a lot of  anti-Turkish polemics.  And Jan Rypka has mentioned that Qatran Tabrizi was the founder of what scholars call Azerbaijani style and he definitely was not a Turk.

26)	Tons of other Persian poets lived under Arab, Turkic, and various other empires. This does not change their ethnicity.  Nizami’s work is dedicated to the greatness of Persia because it has to do with ancient Persia.  That is the theme of the work.  BTW both Barda, Darband and etc. are mentioned in the Shahnameh as part of Iran.   His wife was given to him as a slave by a ruler of Darband.  Shirin was Armenian. Nushaba(Persian name) was Arranian  not Turkish. (Although a mythical character).  Turktaaz (plunderer) does not mean  a  Turk and indeed she was not a Turk!  Fitnah was a girl from Chinese Turkistan just like Nizami mentions 6 other girls in the story of Bahram Gur from the 7 regions of the world.  By the way the concept of the world being 7 regions is directly from the Avesta and the concept of Iran being the center of the world is directly from Zoroastrian manuscripts.    Now lets mention some major Iranians: Bahram, Khosrow, Dara, Alexanders wife, Barbad, Nakisa, Shapur, Bahram Chubin,.. Indeed two of the main figures Bahram and Khosrow were Persian. Alexander was a Roman. Lili o Majnoon was Arabs. So Nizami talks most more about Persians, then Romans, then Arabs, then the rest is about Indians, Chinese, Blacks, Turks. Also just to show the absurdity of Mr. Baguirovs argument, Ferdowi mentions Turks much more than Nizami! Also he mentions Mahmud of Ghazna! So by Mr. Baguirov’s absurd arguments, he must have been a Turk!

27)	Again in the main article I have clearly mentioned that his first wife was the Turkish slave given to him by the ruler of Darband. Some edits have not been made by me and I do not need to respond to them.  Also typos and small mistakes relative to the major errors of Mr. Baguirov is insignificant.

28)	 Mr. Baguirov claims he is not ideologically motivated but the falsifications I brought in the beginning speaks otherwise.  Indeed his hatred of Armenians is apparent.  As per chauvinism, lets say that Persians never committed ethnic genocides like Turks/Mongols/Oghuz tribes.  So lets keep issues not related to Nizamis father out of the equation.  The Western scholars are not Persian chavaunists! what ever that means.

29)	Again Mr. Baguirov needs to show one manuscript that names Afaq as Appaq.  And indeed Mr. Baguirov falsifies another quote from the panj-Ganj and claims: ‘’ Look at this verse from Khosrov and Shirin: “My Kipchak idol! My sensual fragile crop (herb, plant)! Died, like Shirin, you too, my Afak (Appaq).’’

The fact is such a verse does not exist! Else Mr. Baguirov show us the original verse in Persian. FROM now on we should demand MR. Baguirov to use the original Persian verse as Nizami Ganjavi did not speak Turkic! As per the absolute majority of sources, again on this matter of interpretation of this verse, if such a false translation of the Persian was made by the USSR scholar, then their opinion has no value. Indeed Nizami Ganjavi does not use the word Apaq even once whereas Persian has p. Indeed Nizami Ganjavi uses the word Afaq as 46 times in his poetry to mean horizon! Indeed no ancient source has mentioned that Nizami Ganjavi had a wife named Afaq. So in this matter Mr. Baguirov needs to prove his point by the original Persian of the mentioned verse and not just quote some scholar. Indeed Said Nafisi who is a native speaker of the language is more authotarative than the translator who madeup such a false verse.

Mr.. Baguirov by using verses that does not exist(I will show a good example of this sort of forgery in the last part of this response) has shown that he completely lacks any credibility to discuss issues about Nizami’s wife. Indeed the whole verse can be taken as metaphor and there is no reason for me to take side on this issue, since we will never know for 100%. All we know is that even if she was a Turkic slave given by the ruler of Darband, this does not make Nizami’s father a Turk! And furthermore we know that there is no manuscript with Apaq and Nizami uses the term Afaq about 46 as meaning horizon and it would be rare for a poet to suddenly mean a different thing rather than horizon! And also call other rulers, the ruler of Afaq, which would be lewd. So about Nizami’s first wife which was given to him as a servant/slave by the ruler of darband as a gift, we simply do not have much information to make anything clear about her name despite what some scholars have conjectured.

30)

Hafez uses the term Turk the most for beautiful person. Indeed Nizami also calls Turks bi-vafa(unfaithful, deli por kin (a heart full of hate, doer of taaraaj(plunderer), doer of Kooch(migration which is a nomadic lifestyle).. and other titles. Whereas Hafez always mention them positively much more than Nizami. Can we claim Hafez to be an Azerbaijani Turk! Indeed Mr. Baguirov makes many illogical claims that are very sad! Even Ferdowsi mentions the beauty of Turks. And btw all these Turks according to all these sources were Cheshm-Tang as mentioned by Nizami, Hafez, Sanaii.. Cheshm-tang means narrow-eyes (mongloid eyes) like the Turks of Central Asia..

31) The Qom issue can never be closed when at least 400 year old manuscripts and some old biographries mention it.  Specially when other old biographies also mention it.  It can be said to be unlikely, but nothing is absolute here when talking about the biography of ancient poets.  Also different theories put him or his father as from Qom.  Indeed Nizami could have been born in Ganja but his father could have easily been from another city.  All we know is his father was named  Yusuf the son of Zaki the son of  Mo’ayyad.  If we consider this lineage, then most likely his lineage is a native of Ganja, while Ganja was a home of the  Shaddadid Kurds during the time of his Grandfather and so this again adds more credibility to his other half being Kurdish.  Indeed most Turks at that time had their tribal names: Seljuq, Alp-tegin (relation to Mahmud of Ghazna), QaraKhataiis.. Nizami did not have any names related to Turks. And the Qom mentioned by Nizami is near Tafresh/Taa which would make it the main Qom of Iran right. Indeed the people of Ganja before the last century always thought Nizami was a Qomian and at one point Said Nafisi mentions a major disrespect to Nizami's grave which I will go into detail if necessary!

32) As per the historical quotes Mr. Baguirov gave about Turks, they either had to do with Huns, Khazars or some Turks being used as soldiers in Baghdad.  Also we know that Turks were not settled at the time, but were nomadic people.  Also Mr. Baguirov makes a valid point, that even if Nizami’s father was from Qom, how do we know he was Persian?  Well there existed only two ethnicities at Qom at that time, either Persian or Arab.  Either choice could have been plausible, but Persian is most likely given Nizamis familiarity with Persian as a native.  Also the village mentioned in those manuscripts “taa” and “Tafresh” are both part of the Qom of Central Iran and not any other Qom.  Either way, now Mr. Baguirov can lnow why the claims about an Arab father is not ridiculous and why without doing further research, he can not just blast this or that scholar of his choosing!  Manuscripts have various sources. Indeed Mr. Khaleghi Motlaq does not just rely on older manuscripts, but some of the manuscripts he uses are more recent then some of the oldest manuscripts and he has shown various reasons why some of them are more correct.

33)	Mr. Baguirov claims:  Also, once more, Firdowsi and Nizami were different in many ways . Indeed I never claimed they were not different.  Firdowsi was different from Attar and Nizami from Khaghani...But what I did clearly mention is that Three of Nizamis  story are based on Shahnameh.  Haft Paykar, Eskandar Nama and Khosrow o Shirin.  Indeed there is alittle differences in some places, but the main theme is the same.  Nizami praises Ferdowsi heavily.  Nizami does not use any Turkic folklore like Dede Qorqod or KurOghlu.   He uses Iranian folklore and so his poetry is indeed in the line of Iranian heritage!  An important detail Mr. Baguirov wants to forget.  Indeed Nizami is culturally from the same culture as Ferdowsi and does not have any relationship with Turkic Oghuz cultures.  He urgest the son of Shirvanshah to read Shahnameh!

34)	I have used the terms Persian and Iranian interchangeably as cultural terms. Nizami Ganjavi is a Persian poet because he wrote in the language, lives through the language, contributed to the heritage of the language and is alive through the language and culturally contributed to the development of Persian and Persian culture through the language.  He didn't do anything for Turkic and Turkic languages and even though he influenced Indian, Georgian, Turkish, Armenian.. and other people, he did everything for the Persian language .  So this is the term Persian poet.  I did not make any claims on Nizami’s father, but I said most likely he was of Iranian stock and Kurdish.  So lets not confuse the issue here.  As per the Medians, they spoke an Iranian language as Old Persians, Avesta and they are Iranians.  So they are not related to Oghuz Turks whom Azerbaijanis of today consider themselves descendant of. Indeed the Medes heritage is shared by Kurds and Talysh people.

And the Medes were Iranian speakers and thus to claim Azerbaijanis as direct descendant of medes, would make Azerbaijanis as Iranians instead of Turks. Something which is not the policy of the republic of Azerbaijan and something which the pan-turkist views of Mr. Baguirov does not agree with. Indeed as another user said, language is the foremost marker of identity for Azerbaijanis and thus they are Oghuz turks. And yes the term Persian, Azerbaijani, Russian, German are fluid. I have given the definitions within their context here. But when discussing the issue of Nizami's father, we are being clearly ethnic.

35)	Mr. Baguirov makes another claim full of errors:''As of the fake stories about purely “nomadic” and otherwise “tribal” Turkic people, that is not entirely correct, since first we need to establish which region we talk about and at what time. Secondly, how could, for example, Sultan Mahmud Ghaznevi be of “tribal background” – or many other Turkic rulers – who were patrons of the arts and in case of the same Sultan Mahmud spoke fluently Turki, Arabic and Persian? How could “nomadic” people have so many scientists, geographers, doctors, philosophers, poets, writers such as “second Aristotle” al-Farabi (d. 950), Ulugbek, descendant of Timurleng (from Samarkand), al-Biruni (d. about 1050), Jalaledin Rumi, Mahmoud Kashgari (Dictionary of Turkic languages, 1072-1074), etc? How could there have been not only Dede Korqut put in writing in the 11th century displaying a rich language from centuries before, but such eposes as Manas and Kutadgy Bilik by the Kirghiz?''

I am not sure where to start. How about Al-Farabi? Al-Fabaris ethnic background is in dispute and indeed he uses Soghdian but not Turkic in some of his references. One ancient author has called him Iranian and another Turkic. .  More importantly Al-Farabi was from Kazakhistan and was not an Oghuz Azerbaijani Turk. Indeed Eastern Turks through their contacts with Soghdians picked up civilization. In the Cambridge history of Iran we read: '' There are many borrowings from Middle Iranian in Turkish culture to be mentioned. Although the Turks learned writing soon after the foundation of their empire, their oldest inscription, as we have seen, was in Sogdian, the lingua franca of the time and in the Sogdian script, as is shown in the inscription near Bugut. Only with the beginning of the nationalism at the start of the 8th century did the Kok-Turks, and later the Uigur Qaghans in the 9th century, write their inscription in their own language alongside a version in Chinese or Chinese and Sogdian. The script used for these inscriptions, the so-called Kok-Turks “Runic” writing, was a lively adaptation, perhaps by a Sogdian, of cursive Aramaic, and indeed the Sogdian, “Uigur” and Manichaen scripts can all be attributed to the ephigraphical inventiveness of Sogdians.''

So this has nothing to do with Western Turks and Seljuq nomads who by even pan-turkist sources lacked a large amount of ethnic cultural self identity.. Indeed it is almost like saying since the ancient Indians and Iranians are indo-European speakers, then the ancient Russians and Germans had a long civilization. The next one is Ulugbeck who was a descendant of Timur lang and again an Uzbek. He lived between (1394-1449) and many Iranian scholars were present in Samarqand and he learned from them and they learned from him. Again he was not a Western Oghuz speaking turk but is an Uzbek. The next big lie is Al-Biruni by Mr. Baguirov. Indeed Biruni was a (iranian) Khawrezmian and spoke no turkic. in his list of turkic month names (which are merely ordinals), he adds ''I don't know what they mean and I don't knwo the (exact) order'' His ordering in fact has errors. Again in his Athar al-baqiya he says the people of Chorasmia are a branch of Persians(Iranians). و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس The quote is taken from Birunis monumental work Al-Athar al-Baqia fi Al-Qurun Al-Khalia. The quote translates to: "And the people of Khawarazm are a branch of the Persians". Indeed Biruni gives us valuable work on Chorasmian/Soghdian (two eastern Iranian languages) and correctly mentions their months and customs.

The next one Jalal-ad-dIn Rumi was born from Balkh. Indeed even his son mentions three times in his poetry that he doesn’t know Greek/Turkish well, although he lived in Anatolia. Also Franklin Lewis has given the most complete biography on Rumi and he was a Persian from Balkh (Again nothing to do with Azerbaijani and Oghuz speakers of that area).

Mahmud Kashgari was an Uighyur or an Eastern Turk not an Azerbaijani Turkic. And as his name indicates he was from China (Kashgar). The Kutadgy Bilik again is after Shahnameh and is by Eastern Turks. The Manas does not have anything to do with Oghuz Turks. As per Dede-Qorqod I have shown that the work uses Istanbul. And indeed Dede-Qorqod which has been written way after Nizami Ganjavi, shows a primitive and nomadic culture unlike any of Nizamis’ Panj Ganj.

All these facts show that Turkic people of Seljuqs and Nomadic Oghuz tribes which the modern Azerbaijani, Anatolian and Turkmen languages are descendant of, did not produce any significant culture at that time. (note I am not putting anyone down and every civilization without doubt at one time or another started from nomadism.)

36)	Mr. Baguirov repeats the nonsense that Nizami’s father was a Turk but indeed if that was the case, then all modern Western scholars would have mentioned it and they didn’t it. So indeed trying to repeat something 1000 times does not make it true.

37)	On the issue of Bukhari and Tabari languages, again the verse of Nizami can be interpreted either way and has been by some Iranian scholars. Indeed Mr. Baguirov who does not know Persian and had mistakes Jamshid for Keykhusraw is in no position to judge!  There is no such thing here as “professional” translators.  Scholars can vary on the meaning of a verse and this is the case in this manner.  Indeed different English translation of Rumi show very different divergences in some aspects.  As per the languages of ancient Tabari and Bukhari (Soghdian), they are very different than Persian although Iranian.  Indeed Kurdish is much closer to Persian than these two languages.  The problem with Mr. Baguirov is that he makes one false statement after another.  As per Imam Tabari and Imam Bukhari.  These are indeed Arabic writers of Persian/Iranian origin.  Just like Nizami is a Persian poet with at least half Kurdish origin and the other half never being known. This issue needs to be clarified. Tabari’s nationality is very clear and well known throughout the Islamic world. So is Imam Bukhari’s. But Nizami’s father is not well known and although most likely Iranian, we will never known. Also as I said I considered both viewpoints, but after looking at the verse closely, I agreed with some Iranian scholars like the writer and research Kazem Azari.

38)	As in his usual routine, Mr. Baguirov claims: There is absolutely no proof that Zoroaster was ethnic Persian, and it is not fully clear he could have been Iranian – in fact, we don’t know for sure when he lived, which century, and little remains of his preaching.

Again I never said Zoroaster was from the Persian group of Iranian if we are talking about modern Persian ethnicity (although Persian and Iranian are equivalent by Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Armenians..). But he was Iranian as not only his name is etymologically Iranian, but the only surviving work we have from his is the Gathas which is Iranian language and has nothing to do with Turkish. All the names of the Gathas are Iranian. Indeed the first mentioning of any inscription related to Zoroastrianism is the Old Persian inscription. His location of birth is also today consider Central Asia and Balkh and Chorasmia. This is due to the fact that the archaic language of the Gathas is eastern Iranian. Indeed his language, that is the language of Gathas, is put around 1000 B.C. by most scholars. The major scholars on Zoroaster like Humbach, Hoffman, Boyce, Frye, Zaehner, Skjaervo, .. have never had any doubt about his Iranianness. Indeed Mr. Baguirov who is not up to date with modern scholars and quotes scholars from 100 years ago, mentions something correct from a scholar from 100 years ago:’’Not a single text, with the exception of Gata/Gita, can be considered as a memorial of any definitive language’’. Also not to bounce around the transliteration argument again, but the book is called Gatha and the Gita (Bhagavad Gita ) is a book in Sanskrit not related to Zoroastrianism. Indeed the Gathas is the only manuscript we have of Zoroaster and his heritage and this is in pure Iranian language. It was the key in deciphering Old Persian and has nothing to do with Turkish! As per the Medes being an Iranian people, the Encyclopedia Britannica is sufficient. Mr. Baguirov makes the absurd claim: It should be noted, that in the text of the Assyrian king Sargon II, the “mighty Midians (Medes)” are mentioned not as Aryan people and thus are separated from Iranians. Again this shows he is cut & pasting some material without thinking and proper reading. Neither are the Persians called Aryans by Assyrian king Sargon II! Indeed the Persians are called Aryans only in their own inscription during the Achaemenid era. But here is a well known quote or two from Greek historians. Strabo, in his "Geography", mentions the affinity of Mede with other Iranian languages: "The name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations." (Geography, 15.8)

Mede words in Old Persian or Aryan are common, as these two languages were from a common origin. For example, Herodotus mentions the word Spaka (dog), still found in Iranic languages such as Talyshi(spi) and also related to Persian Sag. Note the closeness to old Slavic. Indeed Old Persian/Avesta/Sanskrit are all very close to old Slavic. The following Iranian words are similarly thought to be of Median origin (Diakonoff, history of the medes): Farnah: Divine glory; (also appears in Avestan), Paradayda: Paradise, (as in Pardis پردیس) Vazraka: Great, (as modern Persian Bozorg بزرگ), Vispa: All, (as in Avestan and Old Persian and Pahlavi), Mitra: The Indo-Iranian deity, Xshayathia (King).

Herodotus mentions: 7.62) "These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians;

Also all the Avesta names have etymologically Iranian roots and Prof. Mayrhofer has painstakingly shown the etymology of all the 400 or so names. Also Moses of Choren calls the Medes, Persians and Parthians as Aryans. See History of Armenians, Translated by Thompson, pages: 117-119, and pages 164-168. Also I should mention that in the Avesta, Zoroaster is called Aryan many times.

39)	Mr. Baguirov mentions:  Turkic people were in majority by the time of Nizami in Ganja, Beyleqan, Barda – and I’ve included enough independent quotes in that respect. This is an emotional statement.  Has he taken any census and where is the reliable quotes in their exact language!?  Indeed how can one discount Arabic sources which claim that the language of the area was Persian, Arabic, Armenian and Albanian?  For example Naser Khosrow said nothing about Turkish in this region.  He lived pretty much during the time of the great grandfather of Nizami.  Neither did Ibn Hawqal.  Neither did Al-Masoudi.  Neither did Ibn al-Nadeem.  Abu Abdollah Bashari Moqaddasi in his book divides Iran into eight climatic regions noting, The language of these regions is Persian; however, some of them speak Dari and some complicated; and all those dialects are called Persian.

Masoudi believed that Pahlavi, Dari and Azeri were of the same origin and combination of their works was the same and all of them were considered among Farsi dialects.

Abu Abdollah Mohammad ibn Ahmad Kharazmi, who lived in the fourth century A.H., attributes Persian language to people of Fars and the language of priests and believes that Dari was the language of courtiers. With regard to Pahlavi language, he writes:

''Pahlavi is one of the Iranian languages used by kings. The work has been attributed to Pahleh, which encompasses five lands: Isfahan, Rey, Hamedan, Nahavand and Azerbaijan.''

Estakhri says in his book, al-Masalek and al-Mamalek that the language of people of Azerbaijan is Arabic and Persian. Such illogical statements by Mr. Baguirov is indeed unfortunate. Is there indeed any census from the time to claim that the majority of this city was this and that during Nizami's time!? 40) Scythians and Parthians [www.parthica.com] are considered Iranian by Encyclopedia Britannica. Parthians are very clear because of the linguistic evidence they have left behind.  Also according to some sources they were a branch of the Parni(Persian Farnah) tribe of Scythians.  Scythian is also pretty much agreed upon by all modern scholars.  Only pan-turkist chavaunist who claim Caucasian Albanians, Sumerians, Elamites, Urartians, and tons of other people in order to make themselves a history, have problems with history.  Indeed the falsification of history by the two countries of Turkey and republic of Azerbaijan is well known.  Ataturk even claimed ancient Sumerians and Hittites were Turks!  Our friend Mr. Baguirov claimed Caucasian Albanians as Turks!  Some of the scholars from these two countries  have no shame when it comes to plundering the ancient heritage of people that did not have anything to do with Turks! Indeed for Parthians we have about 300 pure Iranian names(from Nisa beside their kings names) and I would look under Arsacid in Encyclopedia Iranica for tons of references. It is a well known fact that Parthians were overlords in Armenia and about 15% of Armenian is of Iranian origin. Encyclopedia Iranica and Britannica have both considered Scythians and Parthians as Iranians. Whatever the Soviet Encyclopedia said, it is outdated relative to these sources. Plus the encyclopedia Iranica is authored by many western scholars and is in parterneship with Columbia University. Also let me add again that Encyclopedia Britannica also mentions the Scythians, Medes, Parthians as all Iranians. Here are some portions of Britannica. On Medes ''the mid-9th century BC, two major groups of Iranians appear in cuneiform sources: the Medes and the Persians. Of the two, the Medes were the more widespread and, from an Assyrian point of view, the more important group.'' On Scythians: member of a nomadic people originally of Iranian stock who migrated from Central Asia to southern Russia in the 8th and 7th centuries Bc . On Parthians: ''who was chief of the Parni, a member tribe of the Dahae confederation, must have begun his struggle against the Seleucids from 247 BC, the year from which the Parthians dated their history. This does not necessarily mean that Arsaces was crowned king in 247. Other Iranian dynasties (e.g., the Sasanids; see below The Sasanian period) dated the beginning of their eras from the time when they began to establish their power rather than from the time of coronation of the first monarch of their line.

... Their language was closely related to Scythian and Median. ''

Also the Manichean Parthian texts are widely available in major libaries.

Indeed I know Azerbaijani scholars have made very false claims on claiming these groups as Turks and refer to some sources 80 years old like the Japhetic theory of Marr (who also considered Kurdish as Japhetic too). But recent discoveries are fairly clear.

41)	Shahryar was an Iranian national and an ethnic Turkic poet. I have no problem with that.  Lets get back to the issue.

42)	Mr. Baguirov said: ''The yet anther unfounded attack is when Mr. Doostzadeh talks about Khorasan, Nizak-tarhan and which he again misinterprets and misunderstands. I am tired of commenting again and again over the same things, so just will re-quote my previous message: “For example, Arabic historian at-Tabari (d. 923 A.D.) wrote than already in 671 A.D., when Arabs conquered Kukhistan in Khorasan (Iran), it was ruled by Turks, and specifically mentions Nizak-tarhan, who concluded a peace deal with Arabs (this and much more other interesting info is from the #1 authority on Turkic history in Russia, prof. L.N.Gumilev, as well as Uzbek prof. Sh.Kamaliddinov and others).’’

This again shows the lack of resources of Mr. Baguirov who uses a translation without checking the Arabic or doing proper research ont he source Indeed the Nezak Tarkhans did not control part of Iran. Khorasan was a large area that referred to part of Iran, Central Asia and Afghanistan but Mr. Baguirov mentions Iran. But as per the Nezak Tarkhan and their area of control, I refer folks to this article Bactrian Documents from Ancient Afghanistan and. Indeed in these two articles we do not see anything about Khorasan of Iran! Indeed the Nezak Tarkhans today are known as Hephtalites by scholars and the origin of Hephtalites is not clear. For example the following recent article claims them to be related to Pashtuns: X. Tremblay, Pour une hstore de la Sérinde. Le manichéisme parmi les peoples et religions d’Asie Centrale d’apré les sources primare, Vienna, 2001, pp. 183-88

And an older source considers them Iranian: K. Enoki, ‘On the nationality of the Hepthalites’, Memoirs of the Research Department of Tokyo Bunko, 18, 1959, pp. 1-58. And Al-Masudi considers them related to Soghdian.

So right now even the ethnic background of this group is not clear (Tibetian, Iranian, Mongol, Turk, Tocharian... have all been suggested), but what is clear is that Khorasan of Iran was not under their domain and indeed it was part of the domain of the Sassanids when the Arabs attacked. Just like the Azarbaijan of Iran and parts of the caucus up to Darband which was under Sassanids and then it became part of Ummayyads. Some sources also considered Nezak Tarkhans Hephtalites as Turks. But we must remember that Islamic/Arabic/Persian geographers many times called any nomadic people from Central Asia as Turks. So we will leave the origin of Hephtalites for scholars, but indeed they were not Oghuz Turks and some say they were mixture of mainly Iranians, with some Hunn/Turkic elements.

43)	 Mr. Baguirov also quotes something very useful although the quote has been disfigured somewhat. He mentions this quote: None other than a Persian historian Rawandi wrote in his treatise dedicated to sultan of Rum Giyas ed-Din Keykhusrev (1192-1196, i.e., a contemporary of Nizami): “Thanks to almighty Allah … in the lands of Arabs, Persians, Byzanthians and Rus, the [decisive] word belongs to Turks….  The actual quote can be found in the Cambridge History of Iran, in the article "The Iranian World", by CE. Boseworth.  Prof. Boseworth writes(pg 15): (When the saljuqs first appeared in Transoxiana and Khurasan in the 5th/11th century, they came as marauders and plunderers. It has been suggested that the Turkish peoples' conversion to Islam and their consequent zeal for Jihad (holy war) helped them to overrun so much of the Middle East. It is true that in the course of the 5th/11th century the Turkmen carried on warfare against the Byzantines and Christon kingdoms of Armenia and the Caucus, and that the Saljuqs achieved some prestige in theyes of the orthodox by overthrowing Shi'i Buyid rule in western Iran. Sunni writers even came to give an ideological justification for the Turks' political and military domination of the Middle East. The Iranian history Ravandi dedicated his history of the Saljuqs, the rahat al-sudur wa ayat al-suru(solace of hearts and signal for gladness, beguin in 599/1202), to one of the Saljuq sultans of Rum or Asia Minor, Ghiyath al-Din Kai-Khusrau b. Qilij-Arsalan. Ravandi tells of a hidden, supernatural voice from the Ka'ba at Mecca, whih spoke to the Imam Abu Hanifa(major muslim figure of Iranian origin) and promised him that as long as the sword remained in the hands of the Turks, his faith(that of the Hanafi law school, which was followed par excellence by the Turks) would not perish. Ravandi himself adds a pious doxology:'' Praise be to God, He is exalted, that the defenders of Islam are mighty and the followers of the Hafani rite are happy and joyfull! In the lands of the Arabs, persians, Byzantines, and Russians, the sword is in the hands of the Turks, and fear of their sword is firmly implanted in all hearts!''. Also typos do occur (no big deal if the logic is sound), but in this quote here it makes a significant difference. Because sword and word are two different concepts and bring out two different meanings.

Indeed this quote shows that Nomadic Seljuq Turks just conquered the area and were not natives. They conquered lands of Persians, Arabs, Byzantiums and Russians.. So you can not claim scholars from these ethnic groups to be Turks, just because they were under the Seljuq empire. Also I might add that Iranian Sunnis were very happy that the Seljuqs took away the influence of the Shi'ite Buwayids and many Iranian Sunnis praised the Seljuqs and became their ministers and even intermarried with the Seljuqid household. Indeed what mattered foremost was Sunnism and Shi'ism.

44)	The quote of Nizami from the mouth of Shirvanshah are couplets that were written and composed by Nizami. Indeed Nizami was the was that wrote and composed those couplets from the mouth of Shirvanshah.  Shirvanshah’s were not poets!  Let us analyze it and firstly remember that the Persianized Arab descendants (indeed they made a geneology tracing their background to the Sassanid general Bahram Chubin) were not Turks and if Nizami wanted to compose Turkish, he would do it for the Seljuqids and not Arab/Persianized kings!  This should be enough to reject the claims of Mr. Baguirov but we will analyze his false claim in more detail.  The beginning of that section is as follows (all quotes checked from Barrat Zanjani edition as well checked with Vahid Dastgerdi edition and an internet edition): 45)	1) Nizami Ganjavi receives a letter from the king  as he said: در حال رسید قاصد از راه آورد مثال حضرت شاه بنوشته به خط خوب خویشم ده پانزده سطر نغز پیش After reading the letter(not poetry), Nizamis first word is: هر حرفی او او شکفته بافی افروخته تر ز شب چراغی Translation: Every word of that letter is like a blossomed garden, all of it is more bright than the lights that are lit at night.

So this shows that Nizami was totally pleased with the letter unlike what Mr. Baguirov claims.

The claims of Mr. Baguirov is nonsense and there nothing about force on this mannter.

خواهم که بیاد عشق مجنون رانی سخنی چو در مکنون For the sake of love of Majnoon, I want you to compose like the pearls in shells در زیور پارسی و تازی این تازه عروس را طرازی

Mr. Baguirov who does not know a word of Persian further claims:  (The 3rd line can also be translated as: “From Persians and Arabs you can take….”)

It actually translates to: the ornament of Persian and Arabic, make this new bride take shape.

Lets continue. Indeed here is one of the most ridiculous mistakes of Mr. Baguirov coming up. Mr. Baguirov claims: ''Nizami continues the verse, after the words Mr. Doostzadeh quoted, now speaking for himself: “I read this… My face became blood-red, - So, it means I have a slave’s ring in my ear! I don’t have the courage, to write a denial/refusal/rejection, My eyes have become dull, words (reserve/vocabulary) have run dry.’’ The actual lines are these: چون حلقه ی شاه یافت گوشم از دل به دماغ رفت هوشم نه زهره که سر ز خط بتابم نه دیده که ره به گنج یابم سر گشته شدم در آن خجالت از سستی عمر و ضعف حالت کس محرم نه که راز گویم وین قصه بشرج باز گویم فرزند محمد نظامی آن بردل من چون جان گرامی این نسخه چو دل نهاد بردست در پهلوی من چو سایه بنشست داد از سر مهر پای من بوس کای آنکه بر آسمان زدی کوس خسرو و شیرین چون یاد کردی چندیدن دل خلق شاد کردی لیلی مجنون ببایدت گفت تا گوهر قیمتی شود جفت این نامه ی نغز گفته بهتر طاوس جوانه جفته بهتر خاصه ملکی چو شاه شروان شروان چه که شهریار ایران...

Indeed as he continues, Nizami says that since the story of Lili o Majnoon takes place in a desert and since it does not have much beauty and romance compared to Khosrow o Shirin and since he is old, he was a little not sure if he can accomplish this task. But then his son urged him on and Nizami happily continues! So the story has nothing to do with being forced to compose a masterpiece in one language or another!. Indeed the poets complaint is about the bareness of the story and nothing to do with being forced! Anyone with first grade knowledge of Persian can see this, but unfortunately the absurd claims of the scholars of the republic of Azerbaijan knows no bound. As you can see, Mr. Baguirovs statement has absolutely nothing to do with Nizami getting mad! Indeed Nizami writes 90 lines in praise of the Shirvan Shah! 90 lines and yet Mr. Baguirov claims Nizami was mad at Shirvanshah ! As if Nizami who according to the false claims of Mr. Baguirov was a Turk! Would be scared to take his case to the Seljuqs! And as if a poet can be forced to write Persian for an Arabo-Persian King like Shirvanshah who did not know Turkish!!

Finally the words of Shirvanshah were composed into poetry by Nizami and their total degradation of Turks ,and indeed some say it refers to Mahmuds treatment of Ferdowsi (which sounds much more reasonable), shows that Nizami did write negative stuff about Turks.

Nizami chose to compose these verses and I have already brought similar verses by other Persian poets and I will do so again He quotes the Shirvan Shah in beutifull poetry:

تُرکی صِفَت وَفای ما نيست تُرکانِه سُخن سِزای ما نيست آن کز نَسَبِ بُلَند زايد او را سُخن بُلند بايد

Torki-sefat VAFAAYEH (emphasized for explanaion) maa nist Turkish manners are not part of our faithfullness Turkish tongue is not befitting for us The person who is born of great lineage (he is belittling turks) The words of his must be of great ascent (belittling turkish language)

Now what Mr. Baguirov does not know that the term Turk (with many shades of meaning) had also came to mean wrong-doer, plundered. For example Sanai says: To Torki o Hargez Nabood Tork VAFADAAR (You are a turk and a Turk never had any faithfullness). Another poet Asadi Toosi says: VAFAA na-ayad az torkaan hargez padid- vaz Iranian joz vafaa kas nadid Faithfullness has never came from Turks, but from Iranians everyone sees faithfullness Asadi Toosi by the way wrote the Loghotnaameh-Parsi Asadi in Azarbaijan and some of the Azari-Pahlavi terms can be found in that book.

Ferdowsi says about Turks:

Keh torkaan raa baa kherad nist joft (That turks do not possess with logic and wisdom).

Of course a character is saying it, but this is still rough. Also the major dispute between Mahmud and Ferdowsi is rumored to be because of ethnic(Iranic vs Turkic) and religious conflict (Shi'i vs Sunni). Nizami despite being a Sunni, praises Ferdowsi and has shown which side he takes in that dispute and so does the Shirvanshah.

The term bi-VAFAA (faithlessness and honorlessness) about Turks has a long history in Persian poetry and I just mentioned Sanai and Asadi Tusi, two Persian poets, living prior to Nizami. Indeed Asadi Tusi although originally from Tus (Khorasan and also the hometown of Ferdowsi and Nasir ad-Din Tusi and Al-Ghazzali..), moved to Azarbaijan during the Shaddadid era. Nizami who was another poet of the area uses the same language.

Here is another one about the Khaghan of Turks in the Eskandar Nama: when Alexander (who is praised highly by many Muslims because he was believed to be the Dhul-Qarnain of the Qur'an) addresses the Turkish Khaghan on his way to conquer parts of Central Asia and Western China (Chinese Turkistan) : به نِفرين تُرکان زَبان بَرگُشاد که بی فِتنِه تُرکی زِ مادَر نَزاد زِ چينی بِجُز چينِ اَبروُ مَخواه ندارند پِيمان مردم نِگاه سُخن راست گُفتند پيشينيان که عَهد و وَفا نيست در چينيان همه تَنگ چِشمی پَسنديده اند فَراخی به چَشمِ کَسان ديده اند خبر نی که مهر شما کين بُوَد دل تُرکِ چين پُر خَمُ و چين بُوَد اگر تُرکِ چينی وَفا داشتی جهان زيرِ چين قَبا داشتی ''' 1) He opened his mouth and cursed at Turks 2) and said: "Without discord/disbelief(fitnah) No Turk is born from a mother 3) do not expect anything from chinni except a movement of an eyebrow (In Persian poetry Chin refers to Uighyur western China and parts of Central Asia while Machin refers to mainland China. For example Ferdowsi calls the ruler of the Turks as Khaghan Chin) 4) because they are covenant-breakers and can not be trusted 5) The wise people of the past said it in truth 6) that there is no honor and faithfullness in chinni 7) They all have accepted Tang-Chesmi (meaning narrow eyes) (like in the mongolian race) (meaning also they can't see well..) 8) they have only seen greatness and wideness in the eyes of others 9) Have you not heared that their love is equal to hate 10) the heart of Turk-e-chinni is full of crookedness 11) If the Turk-chinni had any honor 12) then the earth would be clothed under chinn (Part of Eskandar Nama)'''

Also I remind Mr. Baguirov has now Nizami has called Persians: “Daanaa” (wise). Praises Ferdowsi. Also the play of the word Hindu and Turk symbolically has no ethnic connotation and the praise of the Sultan Sanjar is indeed common for other Persian poets even up to modern times. Indeed Nizami praises Arabs a lot and this does not make an Arab does it? A story of Nizami from point of view of an old lady praising Sanjar after her complaints does not make Nizami’s father a Turk. Just like Nizamis praise of Bahram Gur or Alexandar or whatever does not make him into a certain ethnicity.

As per the claim of Mr. Baguirov:“You, vigilant shah, who knows his business, Then become (now), if you can, a vigilant Turk.

Error not found in either Vahid Dastgerdi or Barrat Zanjani. Where is the original Persian?! Bring three lines before and after it as well. Again how many times Mr. Baguirov do we have to put up with the fact that Nizami did not write in Russian and his ethnicity was manipulated. (I have analyzed Mr. Baguirovs claim in my newer message).

Indeed the 90 lines of praise for the Shirvanshah is sufficient to show that Nizami praises his greatly. For example: “daanayeh romooze Asemaani” (The knowner of the celestial secrets”). “Shah-e Sakhi Akhestan keh naamash, mehri ast keh mehr shod gholaamas) (The generous king AKhistan whose name, is as benovelent so much that the sun became his slave).

Indeed Azerbaijani and USSR scholars made many false verses and attributed to Nizami with false meanings. If Nizami was mad at the Shirvanshah, he would at least say one line of negativity (bring the original Persian) about him, whereas he has 90 lines praising him! Indeed it is sad when someone like Mr. Baguirov can not read Persian or else I am not sure after reading the 90 lines of praises, he would believe such false stories. Indeed there is no history of Turkish literature at the time of Nizami from the area for Nizami to compose in Turkish and follow a tradition! Also Nizami does not mention anything about needing money and indeed he was well taken care of. Furthermore for all his poems, he got rewards and this was nothing new for poets of that time.

46) Another mistake of Mr. Baguirov:Afrasiyab was the spelling in Ferdowsi. In Avesta (e.g., XII chapter of Bundahishn) it was Frasiyag or in Videvdat as Frankhrasian. . Actually in the Avesta it is Frangrasyan. (Yasht 5).  And the Bundahish is a Pahlavi book and not part of Avesta.  In the Bundahish it is Frasiyav  and finally modern Persian which is a continuation of Pahlavi it is Afrasiyab.  I have a fair knowledge of the heritage of ancient Persia and indeed Nizami's work reflect the culture of ancient Persia and is invaluable tool for scholars studying the Sassanid culture of Iran.  Also Again I remind that Azarbaijan in the Eskandar Nameh is a place of Zoroastrians, with zend, Avesta, firetemples, Hirbod (fire priest), Mobed( Magian).. and etc.  No signs of Turkic Shamanism and Nomadism.  Also it is not bad to point out that there are Iranic nomadic people as well, like the Pashtuns, Baluchs, Alans.. So nomadic culture is not necessarily Turkic culture.

47)	Back to the issue of Shirin, I already brought two other poets Baqfi and Dehlavi who called her Arman. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Iranica calls her Armenian.  So all the extrapolations of Mr. Baguirov is really useless since he does not have the credibility of the Encyclopedia Iranica.  Also let me quote the book mentioned by Mr. Baguirov: The poetry of Nizami Ganjavi, Knowledge, love, and rhetoric by Kamran Talattof and Jerome W. Clinton (One of the greatest Western Scholars of Iranian studies of all times and a Professor of Princeton university before retirement).  On pg 4 first line: .. Armenian princess Shirin.  Also per the information of Mr. Baquirov, Caucasian Albanians were not Turks and he has to first decide wether he wants to make Shirin a Turk or a Caucasian Albanian, then discuss the issue of Shirin.  BTW it is correct that Mahin Banu is the aunt of Shirin, but Mr. Baquirov is incorrect about the word Turan and Jamshid/Afrasiyaab (in the same couplet) in Haft Paykar and he fails to bring the original Persian. T

I looked at different editions. Of course Turan and Afrasiyab themselves are not Turks either in the Avesta. As per the queen Nush-aba, again her name is Persian, like Mahin Banu like Shirin. None of these characters had Turkish names! The quotes by Academic Marr are valueless and madeup. Much like weird theories about linguistics and Japhetic languages and how Kurdish is even a Japhetic language. Indeed he does not having any articles that are scholarly about Persian poetry. Nizami Ganjavi and Khaghani were very well known and respected in the Persian speaking lands of Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. The best proof of this is to look at biographies of Persian poets by Jami and also the Majma’ Al-Fudhala by Mohammad ‘Aref Laghaii and Habib al-Sayr, and Khulasato’ Al-Ash’aar by Kashani, and Salm-Al-samawaat by Kazerooni, Mir Hossein Doost Sanahbali in tazakoreyeh Hossein, the book Atashkadeh and many many other books written at least from Jami all the way to today! Indeed this again shows that Mr. Baguirovs faulty materials can not be trusted! Of course we do not see even one translation of Azerbaijani Turkish prior to the USSR of any of Nizamis 5 works! And how many biographies of Nizami do we see in Turkish (prior to USSR) compared to dozens of Persian sources all over from Iran and some even from India. None of what Mr. Baguirov said about Shirin had even one Persian quote.

Indeed he is just regurgitating polemics of the people of the republic of Azerbaijan. Nizami’s chapter about finding shirin is that Khosrow sents Shapur to Armenia. Not to Turkistan! Nizami never mentions Tang-e-Cheshm for shirin. Indeed all the names of the story are Persian and none of them are Turkish. Shirin, Mahin Banu, Shapur, Nushaba, Baharzan.. Where is the Oghuz Turkic? There is not even one verse in Persian poetry that claims Shirin was a Turk and the unclear polemic of Mr. Baguirov has not changed the opinions of any serious scholar. Why should Persian be so dominant culturally that all these people do not have a Turkic name assuming the 0% chance they were Turks!

I ask Mr. Baguirov again to bring the verses about Turan and Afrasiyab/Jamshid about Shirin that he mentioned in the original Persian. Lets see it. Also Mr. Baguirov ignores the fact that Shirin not only to Nizami, but to many other poets is known as Armenian. I already name two Baqfi and Dehlavi. And I brought the relevant verses from these poets. As per poorly versed in Nizami’s poetry, I doubt Mr. Baguirov with many of his mistakes knows more than the scholarly articles of Iranica written by French scholars! Mr. Baguirov claimed that I opposed the fact that Turks were fair people. Indeed many mongloid people are fairer than Caucasoid people like many Chinese who are brighter than your Italian, Greeks, Iranians and Turks. What Nizami mentions about Turks is “cheshm-tang” (narrow-eyed). This is mentioned by many poets and historians. Skin tone has nothing to do with race generally! Indeed there is Alpinos with white skin but with African features. Let me just quote some major Persian works about Turks being mongloid people. The last one is about Oghuz Turks. But before that we will look at two depictions of two ancient king. A statue of Kul-tigin, one of the rulers of Gork-Turks.A figure of Darius the Great, the Achaemenid Persian emperor: 

Nizami: نظامي: سرآينده ترك با چشم تنگ فروهشته گيسو به گيسوي چنگ

Nizami again: ز بس کاورده‌ام در چشم هانور ز ترکان تنگ چشمی کرده‌ام دور Translation: I have brought so much light in the eyes that I have driven the narrow-eyes of Turks far away!

Hafez: حافظ: به تنگ چشمي ان ترك لشكري نازم

كه حمله بر من درويش يك قبا آورد

Sanai: سنايي غزنوي:

مي نبيند آن سفيهاني كه تركي كرده اند مچو چشم تنگ تركان گور ايشان تنگ و تار

Rumi: دو چشم ترك خطا را چه ننگ از تنگي چه عار دارد سياح جهان از اين عوري A poet by the name of Madih who gives a physical description of Oghuz Turks:

«همه پهن رويان كوتاه قد همه رويشان بود بي خط و خد همه تنگ چشمان بيني دراز همه بد دهانان و دندان گراز همه تندخويان و با كين و خشم به مال يتيمان سيه كرده چشم همه تيره راي و همه بدگمان كمر بسته در غارت مردمان

And much much more..

Let us not review some of the of the verses Mr. Baguirov brings without any actual quotation of the actual Persian. But to show the absurdity of Mr. Baguirovs false verse(where is the Persian) is priceless. Here is the quote from Mr. Baguirov: ''He [Khosrov] – is the month, you – are the moon, and our heritage/roots are just as famous/celebrated. Yes, we – are [from] Afrasiyab, if he is equal to Jamshid''

(I have bolded Jamshid on purpose) If one knew the least about history of the region and mythical history, they would know that Afrasiyab is actually also a descendant of Jamshid. Because Fereydoon marries Jamshids two daughters. Fereydoon has three sons, Iraj, Turaj and Salm. And Afrasiyab is a descendant of Turaj. Indeed the above shows that Mr. Baguirov lacks the historical understanding of Shahnameh and Iranian mythology (which is used heavily by Nizami) in order to understand the above verse does not make any sense! Since Afrasiyab is not from a different root than Jamshid!

In case anyone is interested here are all the occurrences of the word Jamshid in the Panj Ganj: 

It occurs 17 times. As you can see the verse of Mr. Baguirov is not found.

Also Mr. Baguirov might not know, but the Caucus was always called Armenia/Arran and Turan is exclusively Central Asia and Western China! Also again one of the characters of Khosrow o Shirin have Turkish names! None of them! Indeed if all these characters that Mr. Baguirov falsely claims to be be turks were so much without identity that they didn’t have Turkish names, it is indeed a sad reflection of their culture. Also let me add the amount of times Nizami Ganjavi uses the names of Persian mythical heroes of the Shahnameh is tremendous and probably at least 200 times+. Why doens't he mention characters from Manas, Kur-Oghlu, Dede-Qorqod..?(of course everyone knows these stories were composed after). But why not write about mythical Turkish characters?

Now as per the issue of Turan Dr. Richard Frye in his book the Heritage of Persia says:The Tur people may have been a group or tribe of Iranian nomads in Central Asia whose name came to be applied to all nomads in that region.(Heritage of Persia, pg 41)

Even going further about Iranian epics: ''The extent of influence of the Iranian epic is shown by the Turks who accepted it as their own ancient history as well as that of Iran..Afrasyab appears several places in the Avesta with the form of the name Frangrasyans. There he is a semi-mythical figure, a kind of historicized evil spirit or dragon, one who holds back water (from Iran)...''

Now let me further say that Ferdowsi sometimes praises Afrasiyaab as well and indeed in the Cambrdige History of Iran, Volume 3 part II, Professor A. Von Gabain in his article "Irano-Turkish relations in the late Saanian Period" clearly mentions that the ancient Turanians were not Turks. Indeed I have already mentioned that etymologically, all Turanians in the Avesta have clear Iranian and non-Altaic name.

Now the verse in question that Mr. Baguirov falsified has an easy and straight forward translation: If he (Khusrau) is the moon, we are then the sun; If he is Kay Khusrau, we are Afrasiyaab.

(pg 257, Layli and Majnun, Love, Madness and Mystic Long In Nizami's Epic Romance, by Ali Asghar Seyyed Gohrab, Leiden, 2003)

Here is the actual Persian: گر او ماهست ما نیز آفتابیم و گر کیخسرو است افراسیابیم

Gar oo maahast maa niz aaftaabim wa gar KayKhusrawst afraasiyaabim

AS you see there is no Jamshid! The difference between Jamshid and Kaykhusraw in Persian mythology is like the difference say between Zues and Apollo. (two totally different characters). And furthermore there is nothing about the descendant of Afrasiyab. In the Shahnameh, Keykhusraw (the grandson Of Kavus from the father's side and grandson of Afrasiyab from the mother's side) fights Afrasiyaab and finally Vanquishes him after many many hardship and battles. Now the symbolism here and there is nothing about being a Turanian and then jumping from a Turanian to a Turk.

Also let me add that I have some very new references about Shirin being Chrisian and a historical figure, and I will share it once Mr. Baguirov writes his next response..

Mr. Baguirov should know that almond (baadaam) and tang-e-cheshm (narrow-e-eyed) are two different types of eyes. Although again one has to ask for the original persian. It is important that Mr. Baguirov brings the original Persian. Also Almond eyes were symbolic for beutiful eyes and it could just mean "eyes" in general, since more eyes are in general almond and in Persian poetry eyes and almond can be used interchangeably. Almond is a nut btw and not a fruit.

Here is an example of almond eyes with clearly a non-mongloid feature and the person is not a Turk:  Here is more details on different types of eyes:  And here is an example of what I believe is tang-e-cheshm(narrow –eyes/closed-eyes) (from Yaquts who are the purest Turks):  In this page they are referred to as oriental eyes. Any event Nizami Ganjavi like other Persian poets used the word almond (which could also come in different shapes and sizes depending on regional variations) to eyes . So saying tears from Baadaam just means tears from eyes.

As per Dooghbaa and Doogh, all Iranians drink Doogh (Ayran in Turkic) and it is one of their favorite drinks. It is an Avesta word meaning white. Indeed before Nizami, other poets use this word many times. Naser Khosrow has mentione it at least 3 times. Dooghbaa is also mentioned by Sa’adi. Indeed the word Dooghbaa is Persian and not Turkic. So the word baa which means Khoresht. Indeed the drink is common in any farming culture of the area and it is ultimately derived from the cow or sheep! As per Kumis, Mr. Baguirov failed to provide the relevant Persian verses and even transliterate this word correctly in Persian. Also the argument is extremly weak from another aspect. Since when was the bad habit of drinking Vodka amongst the different people of the USSR made all of them Russian! Indeed unfortunately Muslims drink it too. Also this again does not stand a chance against all the authors and poets who have considered Shirin as an Armenian. Also so has Dekhoda. The cow is heavily praised in Indo-Iranian culture and it is the most sacred creature of Ahuramazda in Zoroastrian. Not only its milk, but even its urine was known to have beneficial effects. Indeed there is no religion that places as highest regard for the cow as Zoroastrianism and the creature is mentioned repeatedly in the Gathas. Indeed just to demonstrate:  Also there is a lot of Iranian nomads too who use a lot of dairy products. And also borrowing food from different cultures has long been tradition although again Zoroastrianism praises milk highly as probably do other religions. Indeed Nizami Ganjavi was derided by orthodox Muslims for praising Zoroastrian stories! This indeed shows his strong admiration for the ancient Sassanid empire.

All the verses of Mr. Baguirov are indeed useless when he can not bring the original Persian. Since many of them do not exist and are made up by the psuedo-scholarship of the republic of Azerbaijan. (see my comment on one of these notorious false verses in end made up in that republic.)

I commend him at least that originally he brought some Persian (even with the wrong transliteration and pronunciation and that is better than being empty handed). Indeed by using materials from various Persian poets, the Armenianness of Shirin is well known. The Christian Shirin is a well known charcter. Indeed Shirin and Farhad and Khosrow are part of the common folklore of Persian/Kurds/Iranic people just like KurOghlu is for Turks.

Summary of the debate with Mr. Baguirov

1)	Mr. Baguirov does not know Persian. Does not bring verses in original Persian.  He does knot sufficient Persian or else he would not make such a big deal about Bukhari and Tabari languages/peoples.  I have also done an altavista translation of the Russian text of Mr. Baguirov and thankfuly all of it has been rejected by the arguments I have given.

2)	USSR scholars are well known to be ideologically motivated. Whereas some Iranian scholars only might be ideologically motivated with regards to Nizamis Islamicness.  But Western Scholars have never mentioned Nizami Ganjavi having any relationship with Turks.  Indeed Mr. Baguirov fails to mention the whole quote of Prof. Talattof: A number of ideologically motivated interpreters such as Muhammad Taqi J'afari, Ab al-Husayn Muvahhhid...have focused primarily on Islamic and Sufi elements in Nizami's stoies(pg 190).  Why did Mr. Baguirov not mention the whole quote while had the book readily available?  In the above line ideologically motivated does not give any feeling of unscholarly since Nizami was indeed a Muslim and Sufi.  Ideology here means religious ideas and these works had to do with the religious aspect (ideology) of Nizami's work.  That simple!  It does not mean the ethno-religious falsification of the USSR that claimed Nizami was a bad Muslim or he was something he was not. What is ideologically motivated politicaly is when Stalin claims Nizami wrote part of his work in Turkish! Or that Nizami was anti-Islam! Writing about the ideaological aspects of Nizamis religion is not distortion! I should also mention that in the USSR, the Iranian and Turkic connections of Azerbaijanis many times were belied and indeed a clear definition did not exist for scholars at that time to claim Nizami. Today the definition which is linguistic is Oghuz speaking Turkic people. Also the Prof. Talattof that Mr. Baguirov quotes has clearly written: seems that many of these former soviet republics have been trying to make history and construct cultural background in the process of their attempt for nation building.. Indeed I have already shown much bias from the USSR scholarshipStalin and indeed have shown false verses madeup by such scholars. You know something is unhealthy when Stalin is invovled and claims Nizami had Turkish verses! You know something is unhealthy when some psuedo-scholars makes up verses about Nizami but the verses do not rhyme! If this was the leader(stalin) then what were the followers? Indeed some of them tried to show that Nizami had Turkish works! and Indeed some of these scholars still persist and find a random turkish poem and attribute it to him! Although Western Turkic poetry was not available during the time of Nizami.

3)Mr. Baguirov could not prove that Nizamis father was an Oghuz Turk, speaking the Oghuz Turkic of modern Azerbaijan or a similar Turkic language.  Indeed that is why all scholars are only unanimous about Nizami’s Kurdish (Iranic) mother.  That is it.  No matter how many thousands of pages of polemics Mr. Baguirov writes with wrong verses, translations, verses that do not exist and etc.,extrapolations, ignoring various sources,  this fact will not change.

4)Nizami Ganjavi was not translated to Turkish until during the time of Stalin! Indeed Russian, French, English translations existed way before Azerbaijani Turkish.

5) Mr. Baguirov makes claims that I denied Nizamis Diwan. What I denied was that many of poems are not authentic according to different scholars.  This again has nothing to do with Nizami Ganjavi's father.  I have the whole diwan published by Vahid Dastgerdi and also the book of Sai'd Nafisi which contains the Diwan, available.

6)	All the dozen Turkish words used by Nizami are used by other Persian poets.  Indeed Mr. Baguirov is really ignorant not to know that the word Munjug is used by Asadi Tusi prior to Nizami.  The word Ushaq is used by Sa'adi and Khaghani.  The word Doogh means white in Avesta and has nothing to do with Turkish.  Indeed Mr. Baguirovs claims is a false as if we say since Fizuli uses at least 20% Persian words, then he is a Persian.  Indeed lets just sit back and look at the absurdity of Mr. Baguirovs argment: “Since Nizami mentions a yogurt based drink, then he is a Turk”!  So we must say Sa’adi and Naser Khosrow are Turks!  And all the Pahlavi manuscripts were the cow and all of its fluids are praised heavily are Turks!  Indeed one wonders what will the pseudo-scholars of the republic of Azerbaijan will weave next in order to claim the unprovable.   (although sometimes they are indeed creative).

7) Finally the main issue is about Nizami Ganjavi’s father. If there was any proof that he was Turkic, then indeed major western scholars like Wilson, Rypka, and etc. would have accepted it.  Also the name Iran as geographical entity is mentioned many times by Nizami: “Hameh Alam tan ast o Iran del – Nist gooyandeh Zin Ghiyaas Khejel – Chonkeh Iran del-e Zamin baashad – Del ze tan bah bood, Yaqin baashad” (The whole world is a body and Iran is its heart, None can have any wrong-feelings about this comparison,  Since Iran is the heart of the earth, know well that the heart is the best, with certaintity).  So where is the praise of Turkistan?  Also let me remind Mr. Baguirov that the Azerbaijan is Nizamis poetry is strictly below the Aras river!  It is Zoroastrian, not Nomadic Shamanic Oghuz culture.  Also the Medes and Atropat are Iranian and Iranic!  Britannica clearly mentions Medes as Iranian.

8) As per the other user, neither Khaghani and Bahmanyar were Turkic. Indeed Mr. Baquirov clearly says Khaghani was not Turkic.  So the 12 century cultural life of the republic of Azerbaijan was not related to Oghuz Turkic and Kur-Oghlu and Dede-Qorqod.  The Seljuqs promoted Iranian culture and that is why there is not even a manuscript of Turkic (although Mr. Baguirov made a false calim) from the area at that time of Nizami!

Mr. Baguirov who does not know Persian and so he can not read Nizami. For example he didn't know the word Doogh has a clear Iranic root. He is in no position to discuss Nizami Ganjavi's ethnicity and the uses of verses that are madeup by the republic of Azerbaijan is indeed a proof of the fact that many of the materials from that republic is extremly ethno-centeric. Indeed a scholar from the republic of Azerbainan of 1980 forged the following verse: Pedar bar pedar mar-maraa tork bood - beh farzaanegi har yeki gorg bood!! The problem with this scholar is that the word Tork and Gorg are never rhymed in any Persian poetry and indeed violate the rules of Persian poetry. Furthermore Gorg(Wolf) is belittled in Nizami Ganjavi's poetry and although Turks had much respect for the wolf, the wolf is seen as heineous creature in the poetry of Nizami Ganjavi! (One can use all sorts of arguments like these!). Here is the translation of the madeup verse by the scholar of the republic of Azerbaijan: My father from generation to generation was a Tork - IN wisdom each one was like a gorg(wolf). Indeed this is the sort of polemical manuals Mr. Baguirov quotes from. This is the ideologically motivated scholarship of the repbulic of Azerbaijan, some of the scholars of the republic of Azerbaijani who delete quotes about Armenians and makeup quotes that do not even rhyme!

9) As per treatment of minorities the USSR republics are all very much well known for ethnic cleansing and assimilation policies. The majority of Azarbaijanis of Iran (many of whom consider themselves Iranic and not Turkic) are patriotic and indeed the leader of the country is Azerbaijani and wide amount of interrmarriage and participation in the government and economy has made them Iranian first.  But at the time of Nizami Ginjavi, there was not concept of the Azerbaijani statehood and we can not claim Nizami to be an Azerbaijani Oghuz Turk ethnically just because the majority of people in Azerbaijan speak this language today.  Also we can not claim Homer and many ancient Armenian/Greek scientists and scholars of Turkey to be Turkish!  Indeed the name Turkey is fairly recent for an ancient area.  Also one can make a point of various Talysh, Lezgin, Armenian separatist movements.  Lets discuss Nizami's  and not write three-five pages about Mr. Aliyev or Mr. Khamenei.

10) My information is mentioned by all Western scholars. Kurdish mother.  Father unknown.  There is absolutely nothing to suggest that his father was Turkish and I can make many arguments much stronger than Mr. Baguirovs (all of whose arguments were rejected), that his father was Iranian and some were already made. Indeed the the times he belittles Turks are very harsh and no Turkic poet would compose such verses (He did compose them) about their own race.  I would mention that he is culturally connected to both Azarbaijan and Iran and also Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kurds.  But when no major western scholar has mentioned absolutely a Turkic father  and many former USSR scholars oppose it today (all Tajik, Armenian and many Russians..), when there is no verse about it, then we can not just because of ultranationalistic reasons, mislead readers!. And the fact of the matter is that Persian-Speakers of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan today are the ones that can read Nizami and his culture continues through the Persian language. --Ali doostzadeh 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)