Iran: From Aryanism to Pan Turkism

2008-06-21T20:15:00.000-07:00

Iranians are Turks

Iran is a multi-ethnic country.: Every country is associated with a major ethnicity. Germans with Germany. French with France. Swedes with Sweden.

An American is a European American.

A Pakistani is a Sindi or Punjabi. A Pashtoon from Pakistan says I am a "Pashtoon from Pakistan". He does not say that "He is a Pakistani".

An Afghan is also a Bactrian whether Pashtoon or Dari speaking Bactrian. Dari speaking turks say they are tajiks from Afghanistan.

Also Russia has many ethnic groups. Those ethnic groups do not call themselves either as Russians. An Azeri or Uzbek citizen of Russia says he is an Azeri or Uzbek from Russia. They do not say "I am Russian".

A Kurd from Iran always says he is a Kurd from Iran. He does not say he is an "Iranian". An Iranian is related to the major ethnic group in Iran. Similar to all other countries. Iran has %40 Azeri Turks and %35 Persians as a proportion Iran's population. Azeri Turks are the major ethnic group in Iran.

Iranian is the name of Nationality. Iranian is not a race. Azeri Turks are "The Iranians". The other minorities identify themselves with their ethnic affiliation.

An Iranian is an Azeri Turk. Iranians are Turks. The rest of Iran identify their ethnicity and say that "I am Persian or Balooch or Lur etc from Iran".

2008-06-21T20:04:00.000-07:00

Neo-Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

With the fall of Byzantine or East Roman Empire in 14 century a branch of Oghuz Turks entered Iran and built the Saffavid dynasty in Iran. Byzantine was a Greek-Roman civilization and was replaced by Ottoman Turks.

The Oghuz Turks who entered Iran are called Azeri Turks as they occupied North-West region of Iran or Azerbaijan province. Most of the natives of Azerbaijan were either killed or driven away from the area. These natives of Iran were Kurds who still live as neighbors of Azeri Turks in Norther west Iran.

In addition to killing Kurds in North West Iran, the Azeri Turks also murdered millions of native Zoarastrians and imposed a branch of Islam called Shia Islam which had very little following except in Lebanon and Bahrain with Persian Gulf.

The Saffavids had very little support from the Persians and other native population of Iran and were viewed with extreme hostility by the natives of Iran.

The Saffavids ruled between 15 century to 1722. The capital of Saffavids was in Isfahan. A combination of conspiracy within the Saffavids state by Persians in alliance with Afghans from Kandhar resulted in an attack by Afghan tribes from Kandahar and sacking the Saffavids capital in 1722. It also resulted in the mass murder of Azeri Turk Saffavids in Isfahan by Afghans and Persians. The Afghans were led by Mir-Wais Hotak the Chief of Gizali tribe in Afghanistan. Persians were led by Karim Khan Zand from the Lur tribe. This ended the Saffavid rule in Iran in 1722.

Mir-Wais Hotak Khan from Kandahar was called "The Protector of Persian Empire" by Afghans and Persians. A Swedish officer working for Mir-Wais Hotak's family in Kandahar describes these events in a book published in London in 1724. Karim Khan Zand from Lor tribe ruled parts of Iran for some period in 17th century.

With the fall of Saffavids in 17 century, Persia was ruled by Afghans. Later an Afghan Empire appeared under the leadership of Duranis.

In 18 century Azeri Turks built another dynasty called the Qajars. As Azeri Turks are hated very much in Iran, so the Qajars decided to have a new identity to call themselves. Due to their contacts with Europeans and finding out about ancient Aryan tribes which existed in the region for thousand years ago, the Qajars adopted the name "Iranian" to call themselves in order to associate themselves with these ancient aryan tribes.

"Iranian" is just a name adopted from European books in 18 century Europe. As the name "Iranian" actually comes from Europe to Iran, it makes a lot of sense to today's Europeans and Americans. But as we will see the name "Iranian" does not make any sense to the natives of Iran.

To the natives of Iran, the "Iranian" identity is entirely unknown. The natives of Iran identify themselves either as Moslems or with the city or region that they reside. The combination of Moslem and location completely identifies a person's identity such as race, culture and language. That is why the term "Iranian" is meaningless term to the natives of Iran as it does not specify any information about race, culture or language or generally the ethnicity of an individual.

To Azeri Turks the "Iranian" identity is very important as they can use it to cover and hide their ehtnicity. "Iranian" gives the impression as if there is an ethnic group called "Iranian" in Iran. There is no such ethnic group in Iran called "Iranian". There are no "Iranians" in Iran. Also "Iranian" is used to present as if Azeri Turks were involved in ancient history of Persia. Azeri Turks have created a whole new imaginary history of Iran based on the invented name "Iranian".

The Nobel Prize Winner, Iranian Shirin Ebadi claims: "I am an Iranian, descendant of Cyrus the Great, the Leader of Iranian Empire" in a speech in Oslo, Norway when she was receiving her Nobel Prize in Peace. This is an entirely ficticious history of Iran where the term Persian has been replaced by Iranian. Azeri Turks as citizens of Iran have suddenly become participants of ancient history of Persia.

There has been a Persian Empire and a Parthian Empire. But no history books have reported any "Iranian Empire". Iran had different names under different periods. Iran has been called Khorasan for a thousand year. There is a mention of "Land of Iran" by Ferdowsi in 10th century A.D. in his book Shahnameh. For Ferdowsi "The Land of Iran" is the present day Afghanistan, Samarkhand and Bokhara in Uzbekistan and Merv in Turkemenstan and Tus in Khorasan. There is no mention of Tabriz, Isfahan or Tehran. Also there is no mention of "Iranian" in his book. In reality there was no "Land of Iran" as his book is only based on epic stories and not real history.

Today, Azeris using the "Iranian" name are making territorial claims on parts of Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq Recently they even have started talking about Armenians as Iranians too.

"Iranian" identity had no significance in Iran. Nobody in Iran addressed another native with the name Iranian.The name "Iranian" assumed a signifcance after the formation of Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979. The Islamic Republic of Iran or Azeri Turk Republic of Iran is a second version of the Saffavids from 15 century.

As the Azeri Turk Republic of Iran started to confront hostilities by the natives of Iran, it started desperately to use the invented "Iranian" identity to be able to promote its agenda and find a social base with the natives of Iran.

On other hand the natives have abandoned the use of the term "Iranian" and have started to call themselves with their ethnic affiliation. The natives of Iran identify themselves as Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Baloochs, Turcoman, Qashqaii, Bakhtiary, Gilani, Mazandarani, Khorasani (Khorasanis are mostly Afghans). As Azeris always hide their ethnic identity, the only ones who are recognized as Iranians are actually Azeri Turks themselves.

The ancient aryan tribes have developed into specific ethnicities and none of them use the name "Iranian". Bactrians are actually Afghans with Bactrian origin which could be a Pashtoon or a Dari speaking Afghan. Also Persians are still called Persians. There are remnants of Parthians in Khorasan and they are identified as either Persians or Afghans. The descendants of Scythians or Sakas are called Nuristanis in Afghanistan. Medes have developed into Kurds.

Several methods are used by Iranians (Azeris) to confuse the natives of Iran about the origin of "Pure Iranians Azeris".

Iranians claim that :

1. Persians are mixed with Arabs due to arab invasion in 6 century A.D.
2. Iranians and Persians are the same people.
3. You can not tell apart an Azeri Turk from a Persian.
4. Iran is not a tribal nation anymore but it is now a "beautiful Azeri Turk Iranian Nation".
5. There is an "Iranian Race" which is a mix of "Persians,Azeri Turks,Mongols,Arabs and Africans".
6. All citizens of Iran are members of the "Iranian Race" and all Look "Iranian".
7. "Iranians" speak diferent languages and have different political views but all look the same.
8. Persians were related to Persian Empire. Because there is no Persian Empire then there are no Persians either.
9. Persians have Blond Hair and Blue Eyes. According to this criteria, then there are no Persians in Iran.
10. Reversing Nationality with ethnicity: Persian is nationality. The whole Middle East and Central Asia is Persian. Iranian is ethnicity. Iranian is a race!!!!

To clear these false statements it is necessary to point out that Arabs have gene marker Haplogroup Eu 10. Nobody in Iran has this gene marker. In addition to that Arabs have their own sub-racial type different from both the natives and Azeri Turks. Consequently nobody is ethnically related to Arabs.

Persians are not a homogenous group and Persian is not a race. Natives of Iran have different origin. In anthropology Persians are defined as either Cromagnid with native origin or Nordic with Aryan origin (Iran: %35 Persian). Azeri Turks are defined as dinaric alpine (Iran: 40% Azeri). Those are entirely different people and belong to different subracial types. Due to propoganda by the regime all Iranians imagine they are Persians. That is not the case. The Persians and Iranians have entirely different cultures. Persians culture is related to ancient Persia, Central Asia and Afghanistan. Iranian Culture is related to Turks in Anatolia and Caucasus.

The Neo-Iranians are the Azeri Turks. Other names that Azeri Turk are called are Saffavids (insurgent groups in Iraq call Azeris for Saffavids). Also Azeris are known as Qizilbash (Red Hat) both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Qizilbash are the remnants of Saffavids army in Iraq and Afghanistan. A famous Qizilbash in Iraq is Mr. Mughtada Al Sadr who originates from the Saffavids Qizilbash army in 15 century in Iraq.

Another fraud scheme is inventing the name "Iranic". Nobody knows what is "Iranic" but using this term Azeris claim that the "Ottoman Empire was an "Iranic Empire" !!!!!

As most of the Azeri Turk or "Iranians" fruad schemes have failed, they are considering to change the name of the country Iran to Persia so they can start with a new fraud scheme called "Neo-Persians". That is Azeri Turks are planning to call themselves "Persians". So far all of their fruad schemes have failed and Azeri Turks remain Azeri Turks or Iranians.

To confuse people, Azeri Turks always write Iranian/Persian meaning these are the same people. This is only fraud.

The correct way to write Iranian is "Iranian/Azeri/Qizilbash/Saffavid".

Azeris are welcome to use the name "Iranian" but none of natives of Iran will use the "Iranian Identity". Azeri Turks are the only "Pure Iranians".

2007-10-31T15:15:00.000-07:00

Iran: From Aryanism to Pan Turkism

The following article "Iran and Azerbaijani Language" published in nationmaster.com is an important article that presents the views and the dilemas of Azeri Turk leadership of Iranian government.

According to the University of Michigan website the Turkish languages are classified according to this scheme: The Turkic languages, belonging to the Altaic language family, may be classified into four groupings linguistically and geographically:

I. Northwestern (Kipchak)

Bashkir, Crimean Tatar, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim,

Karakalpak, Kazakh, Kazan Tatar, Kumyk, Nogai.

II. Northeastern (Siberian) group

Altai, Kyrgyz, Khakass, Shor, Tofa, Tuvanian, Yakut, Yellow Uighur.

III. Southwestern (Oghuz) group:

Azerbaijani, Gagauz, Turkish, Turkmen.

IV. Southeastern (Chagatai) group:

Salar, Uighur, Uzbek.

V. Chuvash.

In other words Azeri and Anatolian Turkish are in the same category and they belong to Oghuz Turk languages. Oghuz Turks came to Iran between 11 and 15 century and settled in Azerbaijan. Any theory about Azeris in Azerbaijan should address these facts. As we will see how the Azeri Turk author of the article avoids these realities and creates an imaginary history for Azeris and suggests solutions that only shows the primitive nature of Azeri Turk ruling elite in Tehran.

On the question of Azeri turk ethnic group in Iran the regime faces the following dilema with different policy implications which has entirely different consequences for the ruling class and their relation with the general population in Iran.

Azeris as "Turkified Aryan Iranians"

First option is to continue the polices of Shah's regime as they have done for the last 27 years and call Azeri turks for "Turkified Aryan Iranians" who are allegedly been turkified by Oghuz Turks from 11 century to the 15 century. That is Azeris are "Iranians" who have lost their language and adopted Turkish language because of Oghuz Turks invasion of Iran. Some Azeris are under strong influence of this theory. Those Azeris think if they refuse to speak in Azeri language or foget the Azeri language, they will be "de-turkified" and "turn into Persians". That is the case with some Azeris that live mostly in Tehran. This option will lead to a stronger protest movement in Azerbaijan for ethnic and cultural rights and can generate momentum for an independent Azerbaijan State which can form a union with The Republic of Azerbaijan and even Turkey.

Azeris as Turks

Second Option is to recognize Azeris in Iran as a turkish ethnic group who have a turkish origin and are not related to the natives of Iran who have non-turkish origins. In other words "Azeris are really turks and nobody has forced them to speak Azeri Turkish language". Related to this option is to recognize Azeri Turk language as an official language and granting full ethnic rights to Azeri Turks. In short term this option will go half way to meet the demands of Azeri Turks in Azerbaijan and it may strenghten the regime in Tehran on a short term basis. But the long term effects of this option will generate a lot of complications which regime will not be able to solve and speed up the down fall of the regime in Tehran.

The long term consequences of this option are the following: If Azeri Turk language is recognized as an official language of Iran then demands will be raised from Azeris that Azeri language should be used all over Iran by the government administration. In other words Iran would be declared a bilingual country where all documnets should be produced in both languages. This is similar to European countries where they have two languages as the official language.

Next there would be a demand for population census to see which language speakers are the majority. Azeri Turks state that Azeris are a majority of the population of Iran that is Azeris are the biggest ethnic minority in Iran which is a correct statement. Then according to rules of democracy Azeri Turk language will be the primary official language of Iran. Just to make sure Azeri Turks are the majority of Iran, there can be a union of The Repbulic of Azerbaijan in the north with Iran and that would gaurantee such a majority.

Persia and Persians as a Myth

Next step would be to degrade the Persian history and civilization as some mythical and remote historical event which is not really related to the current realities of Iran and Azeri Turk history and civilization as the real driving force of Iran. This policy is actually already pursued by many western publications and media which dismiss Persia as a comic story. The movie "300" is a good example of this policy.

Iranians as Turks

Also the existence of Persians in Iran is denied and Persians are called "Iranians" which are of a different race and ethnicity from the ancient Persians. "Iranians" are regarded as turks by some western institutions such as University of Chicago which has produced genetic charts "showing Iranians" to be related to Anatolian turks and the The Republic of Azerbaijan in Caucasus. Actually there is no "Iranian ethnicity" in Iran as it is claimed by these "research institutions". "Iranian" simply means the citizens of Iran and has no racial, ethnic or historical significance.

On the other side these policies would generate a counter force by the natives of Iran and will lead to stronger ethnic identity and opposition to the current pan turkist regime. That is why the regime in Tehran has made a lot of noise about "Persian Empire" and "Persian ancient history" to channel these forces into regime's proper political channels in order to control these forces. It also tries to present the pan turk regime in Tehran as a "Persian Chauvinist" regime!!!! That would strengthen the "Iranian" cover of this pan turk regime making it easier to carry out their pan turkish policies.

Are Azeris "Iranians"??"

Azeris try to attach themselves to the natives of Iran anyway they can to maintain state power. So they have invented something called "Iranian Race". Azeris call themselves "Iranians"!! To the natives of Iran "Iranian" means a citizen of Iran regardless of ethnicity. That is an Iranians could be persian, Azeri Turk, Arab, Jew, Assyrian, Turcoman or anybody else. To Azeri Turks "Iranian" means a race which they imagine they are members of this "Iranians Race". They include some natives of Iran in this race and exclude others such as Jews and Assyrians and Arabs.

There is no "Iranian Race" or ethnicity in Iran. So Azeris add Shia Islam religion to the definition of this race. That is because Azeris have Shia religion then they are members of "Iranian Race". Actually religion is not related to ethnicity as there are both Suni Kurds and Shia Kurds. But all of them are Kurds.

In addition very few care about Shia or Sunni religion in the whole region. The only one who cares about religion is US who wants to ignite religous war in Iraq in order to control all sides and act as an intermediary between "Shia and Sunni " Iraqis.

Also natives of Iran have been Zoarastrians for thousands of years and Shia Islam religion was forced on the natives of Iran in 15 century A.D. by an Azeri Turk dynasty called Saffavids. Superficially the natives of Iran are Shia moslems but in reality they have kept all their Zoarastrians culture and traditions such as Nowrous (the new year) , Zoarastrian Solar Year system and many other Zoarastrian traditions. The only ones who are really fanatic Shia Moslems in Iran are Azeri Turks themselves who do not have a Zoarastrian culture. The Azeri Pan Turks in power in Iran tried to illegalize all Zoarastrian traditions and even forbid the Nowrooz celebarations but failed to impose it on the natives of Iran.

Another component of Azeri Turk "Iranian Race Theory" is anti-Arabism. Azeri Turks look very different from the natives of Iran. So Azeri Turks promote the propoganda that the natives of Iran are "mixed up with arabs". This way Azeri Turks can present themselves as "Persians who are mixed with Arabs"!!!. The reality is Arabs have gene marker EU10 Haplogroup and nobody in Iran has this genemarker except for some few arabs in Khuzestan!!!! So the whole Azeri Turk "Iranian Race Theory" collapses under careful examinations.

Also comparing Arabs in Khuzestan with Azeri Turks, Arabs in Khuzestan province are thousand times more native and indigenous to Iran than the Alien Azeri Turk tribes from Caucasus.

The last component of Azeri Turk ideology is to present Turks as mongols and presenting themselves as "Caucasian Iranians". The reality is mongols are not turks and their language belongs to a different class. Azeri Turk language is not related directly to mongolian languages. That clears and refutes any theory about the "Turkification of Azeri Turks" by mongols. Azeri Turks are the real Turks.

What is Iranian????

Azeri Turks use the term Iranian a lot. But does it mean the same thing to everybody. As we will see the term Iranian means entirely different thing to different ethnicities.

The concept of nationality such as French, German or Swede has taken hundred of years to develop. There has not been such a development in Iran as production relations are still very backward. So Iranian is not the same thing as German or French or even American in Iran.

The link that the natives of Iran were related in the pre-Islamic period was Zoarastrian religion. Kurd, Baluch Persians and other natives were linked with a common Zoarastrian religion. Islam introduced a higher level into this identity and it was called Moslem. That is even non-Zoarastrians were related to the natives of Iran as moslems. Islam did not replace the Zoarastrian identity but simply introduced a higher level of idenity above the natives identity.

The term "Iranian" did not exist in Iran until 18 century which it was introduced to Iran by the Azeri Turks who wanted to include themselves in hisotry and cultural identity of the natives of Iran. "Iranian" identity did not exist until 18 century despite the term "Iran" existed since ancient time. These two terms "Iran" and "Iranian" have entirely different meanings and implications.

Azeri Turks believe that simply because the term "Iran" has existed then there must have been Iranians which is entirely wrong.

"Iran Zamin" was used by Ferdowsi around 10 century A.D. in his book Shahnameh. But countrary to what Azeri Turks claim, Ferdowsi was refering to "Iran Zamin" as Tous (khorasan) Balkh, Kabul, Herat, Kandahar (Afghanistan) and Samarkhand and Bukhara (Uzbekistan). He never mentions Tehran, Azerbaijan or Isfahan or Tabriz as "Iran-Zamin"

When the term "Iranian" was introduced in 18 century by Azeri Turks in Iran, the natives simply replaced "Moslem" with "Iranian". Formally "Iranian" means the citizen of Iran. Anybody can be "Iranian" regardless of ethnicity. So contrary to what Azeri Turks claim, Iranian does not mean "the ancient Iranian aryan tribes such as Persians, Parthians, Bactrians, Sogdians, Scythians etc".

The term "Iranian" as "citizens of Iran" was turned into "Iranian Race". This way Azeri Turks included themselves into a non-existant "Iranian Race". Also "Iranian Race" became an agenda for Azeri Turks and Azeri Turks have started massive migration into non-azeri areas of Iran in order to creat their "Iranian Race".

Also Azeri Turks falsified Persian History and changed the term "Persian Empire" into "Iranian Empire". This way Azeri Turks became participants in an imaginary history of Iran.

Similary Azeri Turks do not have the concept of "Iranian" in their Azeri culture. What they replaced was not even Moslem identity but their own Azeri Turk Tribal identity that was replaced with the term "Iranian". So to Azeri Turks "Iranian" means an Azeri Turk member of "Azeri Turk Tribe". In Azeri Turk cultural identity the concept of "Moslem" does not even exist as they regard other Moslems as alien to their culture. This is despite all their claims to be Shia. Most of their Shiaism is theatrical show and they do not believe in anything beyond their azeri turk tribe. On this shows they go even to extreme with Shia ceremonies such as flogging and injuring themselves with sharp objects in order to impress the audience that they are really Moslems. Ordinary Moslems do not need this kind of behaviour to convince others that they are moslems.

Azeri Turks are not Moslems has been reported by Ottoman Turks, Afghans, and Arab sources for hundreds of years but nobody has been able to prove it. It was based mostly on strange rituals and ceremonies held by Azeri Turk shiaism and forced nature of converting people into Shia religion in direct contradiction with the traditions of Islam.

Concepts such as as German, French and British or American requires high level of industrial, social and capitalist development which is not the case with Iran.

For Azeri Turks "Iranian" is a race which they are a member of that race. That race is an Azeri Turkish race with Oghuz Turks as their origin. By "Iranian" they mean Azeri Turk tribe. That is Iranian. Anybody who is included in their Azeri Turk tribe is considered "Iranian". Others are aliens to the "Iranian" tribe. Therefore most people in Iran actually are not "Iranian" to Azeri Turks. They are part of an alien race that Azeri Turks can use, exploit, rob, steal, jail and murder.

That is the reason that most of the security forces, basijs and hezbollah in Iran are actually Azeri Turks. They show no sympathy on any natives of Iran and freely shoot on people without any concern. The only place they are careful is Tehran and Azerbaijan. "Iranian" is used as a cover for Azeri Turks to hide behind and cheat and rob other people who are not aware of the real meaning of Iranian to Azeri Turks.

To the natives of Iran, "Iranian" is not really the citizen of Iran but it is an equal concept of Moslem. For the natives of Iran, a Iraqi, a Anatolian Turk, Afghan or Turkmen or Arab are as "Iranian" as anybody else. They show the same respect to these people as they were natives of Iran. They look at other natives of Iran not as "Iranian" but as Kurd, Lur, Khorasani, Mashhadi, Shirazi, Gilani and Mazandarani , Kermani etc.

And this the secret to the power of Azeri Turks in Iran. They use the term "Iranian" to cheat and rob the natives of Iran of all their resources. Natives of Iran are not aware of the true meaning of "Iranian" to these Azeri Turks.

What has created an enormous problem for Azeri Turks is that the natives of Iran has started to use the term Persian which excludes Azeri Turks from the "Iranian" identity. The term "Persian" has started to undermine the whole regime and has created a mass movement against the regime as another type of identity is developing in Iran which can make a distinction between an Azeri Turk and the natives of Iran. All the efforts of Azeri Turks to force themselves into the "Persian" identity has failed and it seems that they are not able to find any solutions. Some of them suggest changing the name of the country to "Persia". Other Azeri Turks have started to claim that the term "Persian" is a "CIA Conspiracy". Others try to associate the term "Persian" with Jews or Parsees in India. In reality Parsees in India are not an ethnic group but a religous group as most of them have been integrated to the India society and very few left with their Persian ethnic identity.

Do Azeris look like "Persians"?

Azeris claim that they look like Persians and it is not possible to tell the difference between an Azeri and a "Persian".

The reality is something very different. Firstly "Persians" are not a homogenous group. Persians in Iran have different origin. Some are related to the civilization in Mesopotemia. Some Persians are related to local civilizations such as Elam, Kashan, Jiroft etc. Some Persians have Aryan origin such as Parthian, Bactrian, Sogdian and Original Persians in Pars province and Khorasan. The persians with Aryan origin is only about %10 of the population. But all these persians share common culture, Zoarastrian religion, Persian language, Persian history and civilization and even to some extent ethnicity with each other. Persians are also closely related to Baluchs and Kurds.

Azeris claim they look like "Persians" and point to Tehran as a "Persian City" where both Azeris and Persians live. Also Azeri Turks claim there is a lot of inter-marriage between Persians and Azeri Turks in Tehran and also Azeri Turks are astonished to see some people speak Azeri language in Tehran.

The reality is something entirely different. %70-%80 of Tehran are Azeri Turks. There is a lot of inter-marriage between Azeri Turks and other Azeri Turks in Tehran and also Azeri Turks are very similar to other Azeri Turks. Some Azeri Turks claim they are "Persians" and some admit that they are Azeri Turks. So it gives the impression that Azeri Turks look like "Persians".

Azeri Turks mostly hide their origin and state Persian cities as their origin. Azeri turks claim they are from Mashhad, Shiraz, Caspian Region or they are Lurs. For an outsider who does not even know how a Persian look like, it is very easy to believe Azeri Turks look like Persians.

Also the Azeri Turk regime inTehran tries to confuse people about Azeri identity and phenotypes. The Azeri turk regime strongly promotes Gogoosh, a Persian singer, as a "typical azeri turk". Gogoosh is an ethnic persian whose family has lived in Caucasus and that is why she can speak Azeri language. But she has always stressed in all her interviews that she is not Azeri but ethnically a Persian. After receiving bags of money from the regime, she has changed her view and now Gogoosh claims she is Azeri Turk.!!!!

Strangely the other "Azeri Turk" promoted by regime is Farah Pahlavi, the Shah's wife. Although the Shah himself was related to Azeris, Farah Pahlavi is an ethnic Persian from Mazandaran province in the caspian region. Farah Pahlavi has a typical persian phenotype, speaks with a Persian accent and not an Azeri Turk accent, and displays a Persian culture in her speech and manners. Even if Azeris may change their face with plastic surgery and learn to speak Persian with a Persian accent, to change the culture and manner of speech related to Persians is an impossibility for Azeri Turks as Persian Culture can not be learned in 6 months even if somebody can learn American culture in 6 months. It takes thousands of years to learn Persian culture and it is a barrier that can not be overcome by Azeri Turks.

Persians consider Gilani and Mazandarani as Persians. They are a sub-division within Persians similar to Lurs, Bakhtiarys etc.

This is what Azeri Turks say about Gilani and Mazandarani:

"The Mazandarani and Gilaki groups fall inside a major cluster consisting of populations from the Caucasus and West Asia and are particularly close to the South Caucasus groups—Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanians"

In other words, they claim Mazandarani and Gilani as subgroups of Azeri Turks.

Slideshow: Phenotypes

Persians

Azeris and Oghuz Turks

If Azeris are descedants of Oghuz Turks and they are really turks, then what happened to original inhabitants of Azerbaijan region in Western Iran. It can lead to only one conclusion that is those people have been murdered by the immigranting Oghuz Turks or driven away from these regions such as Kurds who were exiled in million to northern Khorasan. To claim "intermarriage" between Azeri Turks and "Medes"!!!!! who had disappeared thousand years before 11 century would lead back to "Iranian Aryan Azeri" theory which was promoted by "Persian Chauvinist" such as Kasravi!!!! who was actually an Azeri himself!!!!! The murder and exile of Kurds from this region is really what happened but it is not politically expedient for the ruling regime in Tehran to accept.

Azeris as "Original Inhabitants of Iran"

So the article tries to find another solution. That is to claims Azeri Turks were original inhabitants of Azerbaijan since ancient times or Azeris have been in Azerbaijan for 8000 years as some pan turks claim. And Azeri Turks have been speaking Azeri Turk language in this region since ancient times. But Azeri Turks are only related to Azeris in Caucasus only and they have nothing to do with anatolian turks who speak a very closely related turkish language and who also originate from Oghuz turks. So according to the author there was a China wall between Iran and Ottoman Turkey and Oghuz turks could not enter Iran. They only went to Turkey!!!!! Oghuz Turks probably recieved only transit visas to pass through Iran to reach Turkey!!!!

Subsequently the author creates some mythical "Persian Chauvanist" who have claimed some dialects of Persian Pahlavali called "Ancient Azari" language was spoken in this area before Oghuz Turks came and rejects these claims. In reality whatever language was spoken in this region by native tribes such as Kurds and others, those people are either dead or have been driven away from the area by the Oghuz Turks and there is no dispute with the author that those people do not live in this region anymore. But the author claims Azeri Turks did not originate from Oghuz Turks but are Turks native to Iran since ancient time!!!!

Azeri Racial Nationalism

The whole issue of language is actually very minor issue as what the author is going to suggest next. The author introduces two keywords in his article that has a great significance. These keywords are "mingling" and "inter-marriage". When the readers thought the Azeri Turk elite has given up on "Azeri Iranian Aryans" theory, you can see that it is introduced back into the new theory.

"Unity of Turks" or Pan Turkism Azeri Style

The author starts talking about unity of Turks. One would imagine that the author means the unity of Azeris in Iran and Northern Azeris in Caucasus. But the reader is completely wrong. The author is not interested in Azeris in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Next one think of unity with Turcomans who live in Khorasan. No!!!! The author is not interested in Turcomans either. Is the author may be by any chance interested in the unity with the Anatolian Turks. No!!!! Do not even mention it.!!! The author is only very interested in some un-named turks who live in Khamse!!!!

Quote: "It is generally thought that in the land of Persia, nothing is spoken but Persian, and few are aware that Turkish is widespread throughout Iran. It is perhaps even more common than Persian, and many Iranians themselves, if asked if Turkish is spoken in their country, would reply, “Sure, in some provinces like Azerbaijan and Khamse,”"

Where is Khamse?

Where is this Khamse????? Very few Azeris have heard about Khamse!!!! Nobody knows where this Khamse is. Who are these Turks who live in Khamse?? Khamse is a code word for something else. The Qashaqii tribes in Fars province live in a region called Khamse. But that is very strange. Qashaqaiis are in no way related to Azeri Turks. Qashqaiis are combination of Persian and turk tribes who have built a confederation. They speak a turkish language RELATED to TURCOMANS and not Azeri language. But ethnically they are not even related to TURCOMANS. Qashaqiis display mostly Persian phenotypes. In addition to that Qashqaiis have Persian culture which Azeri Turks do not have. My Persian wife knows Qashqaiis very well as she has gone to school with them in Iran.

So why Azeri Turk author is so interested in Khamse???? According to some sources Qashqaiis actually have Aryan origin and are one of the purest Iranians. They have almost the same clothing as Bakhtiary persian tribes. So it is very possible that Qashqaiis have Parthian origin that is in one of the Persian tribes in North East Iran and Central Asia.

Why a Persian looking tribe speaks a language related to Turcomans?? It is very logical as Parthians lived in Turcomenstan before Turcomans migrated there, so Qashqaiis originate from Parthians. Parthians also established settlements in Pars province even under Parthian Empire. Bakhtiarys a neighbor tribe to Qashqahiis are direct desdendants of Parthians and their Persian language has many Parthian words too. So actually Qashqaiis are not really Turks.

Also the author uses the keywords "mingling" and "inter-marriage". But Qashqaiis live in Fars province long away from Azeri Turks in Tehran and Azerbaijan. So what does he means by that???? Does he mean Qashqaiis have "mingled" and "inter-married" with Azeri Turks over such a great distance!!!!

Khamse is moved to Tehran!!!

The answer to these puzzles are solved when the Azeri turk author states that some of them have "migrated" or really have been moved to Tehran. Now the question is why Qashqaiis should move to Tehran for jobs when they are sitting next to the biggest oil and gas reserves in the world in their neighborhood!!!! The answer is "mingling" and "inter-marriage" with Azeri Turks!!!!

Also note that the Azeri Turk author states that:"As for the other parts of Iran, the majority of the people there are not Turks, but there are many among the tribesmen and villagers who are. An exception is the province of Kerman and the districts of Gilan, Mazandaran, Kurdestan, Lurestan, etc., in which there are no Turks except those who have migrated there recently, and they do not consider themselves to be true residents of these provinces."

Azeri Migration to No-Where???

The question is why these Azeri Turks are migrating to Gilan and Mazandaran and Kurdestan and Lurestan. These areas have no jobs to give to Azeri Turks and Azerbaijan has the lowest unemployment rate in the whole Iran? There has been reports of clashes in Mazandran where a whole village with their residents were wiped out. The Mazandarani villagers were either jailed or fled the area. Azeri Turks claimed that they are building "The University of Amol" in that area!!!!

What the author is telling Azeris is this: Azeris you are turks and you are no Aryans. You never "mingled" or "inter-mingled" with the natives of Iran as the structure of a tribe does not permit that in ancient history. But we are going to correct our mistakes. We control the state in Iran and we will use the state to "mingle" and "inter-mingle" with the natives of Iran. We will use the natives as sex objects so that we become "Aryan Azeri Turks". The author also constantly refers to turkish language as a "second beautiful wife" as if they are going to use seeghan or polygamy to achieve their objectives.

Quote: "Turkish is like a beautiful girl who sits idly beside an unveiled second wife who enchants the heart with her jewelry and bewitches the mind with her adornments."

To impress western readers the azeri turk author even grants the title of Persians to the people of Qazvin and Tehran!!!! He calls Tehran and Qazvin for Persian cities!!! Just to mention that Tehran is 70-80% are Azeri Turks. No need to discuss Qazvin!!!

Why the author is making these statements when everybody in Iran knows that Tehran or Qazvin are actually Azeri Turk cities and not Persian cities??

Iran as "Melting Pot Nation"

Quote: "Most villages and tribes in the provinces of Khorasan? and Fars? and the districts of Hamadan and Qazvin and `Eraq? and Astarabad are Turks, and travelers wandering the streets and alleys of Tehran have been astonished?? at seeing the villagers walking about speaking in Turkish. Some of these had migrated from Azerbaijan and Khamse in recent years and stay in the cities and no longer consider themselves to be from their land of origin, but from these cities."

"The Turks and Persians in Iran are not like two separate heaps, but like a chessboard during a game in which each player has penetrated the other´s ranks and the black pieces have mingled with the white ones:"

Nobody is astonished that people talk in Azeri Turk language in Tehran and Qazvin as the majority are Azeri Turks. The reason for these statements are very simple. The author is trying to convey the impression to western readers that Iran looks like USA and every city and every region is mixed up with Azeri Turks which is not correct but it is an agenda which Azeri Turk regime in Tehran is pursuing.

Also Qashqaiis speaking a turkish language has nothing to do with Azeri Turks. Qashqaiis are an indigenous people to Fars province both ethnically and culturally. Azeri Turks are not indigenous to Fars province. Nobody notices that presence of Qashqaiis in Fars province as they share the same culture as the rest of people in the province. But a massive migration of Azeri Turks into Fars province has disastarous social consequences for the population as they are totally aliens to that society. That is why Iran is not USA.

The Azeri Turk author also admits the problems they are facing to carry out their "Azeri Turk Racial Nazi Nationalism" objectives as it describes Iran as a chessboard where every move by Azeri Turks faces a counter move by the natives of Iran.This article compeletly exposes the racial agenda of these Pan Azeri Turk elite in Iran.

Iran is not a "melting pot" nation and is not similar to US. Iran is a multi ethnic country where different ethnicities have kep their ethnic identity for thousands of years and which has been the main obstacle to Azeri Turks gaining total political control in Iran. That is why Azeri Turks are making a lot of noise about "separatism" and have murdered many Baluchs, Kurds and Iranian Arabs recently. Also US is helping Azeri Turks with presenting a lot of theatrical shows and proving that US is promoting "ethnic separatism in Iran". In reality US is promoting "The Policy of Turkification of Iran" and centralization of power in hands of Azeri Turks.

"Beutiful Azeri Turk Iranian Nation"

This is a primitive Azeri Turk elite culture from Caucasus which is different and incompatible with the history and culture of the natives of Iran. Their policy was summed up in a concise statement by an Azeri Turk. He stated: "Iran is not a tribal nation anymore. We are a beutiful Azeri Turk Iranian nation." And these policies by Azeri Turks are financed and sponspored by the western backers of Azeri Turks in Iran for their strategic and economic interest.

Azeri Turks have a right to demand their ethnic and cultural rights. This is supported by all natives of Iran. At the same time the natives have a right to demand their ethnic and cultural rights too as the whole mass media in Iran is dominated by Azeri Turks who are trying to impose an Azeri Turk culture on the rest of Iran. Because of special political conditions in Iran, the pan turks in Tehran do not use Azeri language but use the persian language to promote their objectives.

The Policy of Turkification of Iran

The Policy of Turkification of Iran is also confirmed by other Azeri Turk writers who promote the Pan Turks in Tehran. Mr. Ben Madadi writing in Iranian.com also confirms these policies but from the Azeri Pan Turk regime's viewpoint. Mr. Madadi calls this policy for "Aryanization of Azeri Turks" by the "Persian Chauvanist regime in Tehran!!!" who wants to "aryanize Azeri Turks"!!!!!.

Ben Madadi Quote: "And this is where we find the reason behind all this attempt to Aryanise Azerbaijanis. Taking into account the mass migration of Azerbaijanis (mostly due to lack of investment!!!!! in the region) to Tehran and other Persian areas of Iran it is also very possible that the 24% is no more representative and Azerbaijanis, even taking into account those who consider themselves Azeris in Tehran and other non-Azerbaijani areas, may be somewhere below 20% of the total population."

Mr. Madadi claims that as a consequence of the policy "the Aryanization of Azeri Turks" the number of Azeris will go down in IRAN!!!! Fortunetly or unfortunately for Mr. Madadi, we can assure him that the policy of "Turkification of Iran" will actually increase the number of Azeri Turks in Iran!!!! This is because of the Laws of Genetics where the dominant Azeri Turk genes will predominate and there will be more Azeri Turks in Iran and not less. On the other hand there will be less of natives of Iran!!!!! I am sorry to tell Mr. Ben Madadi that the Azeri Turks will never become "Aryans"!!!! Azeri Turks will remain Azeri Turks!

See also: The The Policy of Turkification of Iran
http://azeriturks.blogspot.com

Pan Turkism and Russia and Turkey

Also Iran as an Azeri Turk country poses a great security risk to Russia as pan Turkism can be promoted in the whole central asia. This would change the balance of forces in the region to the favor of US as opposed to today's situation where Russia is a dominant power in the region. And this is the reason Azeri Turks are promoted by the US, both under Clinton and Bush Administrations.

Pan Turkism in Iran is not an ally of the Pan Turks in Turkey as they have different agenda and objectives. Pan Turkism in Iran does not use turkish language as its medium for their policies as this is not feasable because of the political conditions in Iran at present time. But that may change in near future. It tries to impose its Azeri Turk culutre on the other people under the banner of "Pan-Iranism". It is necessary to point out that Azeri Turks in Iran do not have any "Iranian" or "Persian "culture" as it is evident for the last 27 years of their rule in Iran.

Also Pan Turkism in Iran has a religious character as opposed to the anotolian secular version of Pan Turkism. That is why Pan Turkism in Iran poses even a security risk to Turkey as the Azeris might even try to impose their own version of Pan Turkism on Turkey. That is why Turkey is re-considering its alliances and distancing itself from US and may even form an alliance with Russia to oppose Azeri Pan Turks in Iran. This is actually what happened at the end of Saffavids dynasty in 1722 when both Russia and Ottomans together invaded Iran.

Also note by Pan Turkism, we do not mean the people of Azerbaijan who are demanding their ethnic rights. But we mean Azeri Turks pretending to be "Iranian Nationalist" and are sitting in Tehran and control the regime in Iran.

Classes and Ethnicity in Iran

Azeri pan turks claim that the Pan turk regime in Tehran is a class based regime and it does not represent Azeri Turks. Instead Azeri pan turks promote "the struggle for democracy and human rights" and try to impose the ideology of American Liberals who are the real sponsors of Azeri pan turk regime on Iran. They talk about "pluralism", "democracy", "diversity", "affirmative action for poor minorities such as Azeri Turks", "need to spread Azeri Turks all over Iran to achieve diversity"!!!!!!.

Affirmative action means that "poor oppressed Azeri Turks" should get the best jobs and education on a priority basis because they are oppressed by the "Persian Chauvanist regime of Iran"!!!!

Also Azeri Pan Turks will introduce legislation copied from their American sponsors about "laws against racial and ethnic hatred". That is if the natives of Iran protest against the Azeri Pan Turk regime agenda for the natives, they will be called racist and severley prosecuted for "racial hate crimes"!!!!

The Azeri Pan Turk regime in Tehran has executed 100.000's since 1979. The ancestors of these Azeri Turks, the Saffavids murdered millions of Zoarastrians and Kurds and exiled millions of Kurds to North East Iran. The racial nazi policies of these Azeri Pan Turks such as "Aryanization of Azeri Turks" as described clearly by Mr. Ben Madadi in Iranian.com is completely ignored by the American sponsors of these Azeri Turks. Instead anybody criticising these polices is called "lunatic racist"!!!!

This ideology is very similar to what American liberals promote for African Americans in US and it is copied by Azeri Turks in Iran.

It is important to point out that the regime started with a rudimentary form of class based regime under Ayattollah Khomeini in 1979. But the regime evolved into a complete Azeri Pan Turk tribal regime ending with Mr. Ahmadinejad. This is confirmed even by most leading figures inside the regime stating that the regime in Tehran has no "Persian or Iranian" character.

The reason for this is that Iran is a tribal society and the "Revolution" in 1979 accentuated these tendencies into tribalism in Iran. On the subject of "Revolution" I refer to my blog "Islamic Fundamentalism Made in US".

That is the reason why general slogans for "Democracy and Human Rights" has no effect on this Azeri Pan Turk regime in Tehran and it can only be brought down on ethnic lines.

What is needed is a Karim Khan Zand from Lur tribes or Mirwais Khan Hotak Pashtoon from Kandahar who brought down the ancestor to this regime, The Saffavids in 1722 historically. And those kind of leaders are needed today.

Currently Kurds and Baluchs are leading the struggle but once the rest of natives including Persians join the ranks of Baluchs and Kurds then the end of regime is near.

Pan Turkism and Democracy

Also the natives of Iran should understand that democracy will not solve the problem of ethnicities as it would lead to further turkification of Iran. As we will see later the Azeri ruling elite in Iran will not permit a separate Persian state and want to hang to their power and priviliges so they are proposing a different path. This is the path of "racial azeri turk nationalism" based on the Azeri Turk Saffavids models which is comparable to Nazism Racial policies by the Hitler in the modern time. That is to carry out state racial policies and attempt to change the ethnic composition of the country for political reasons.

For the natives of Iran it is best not to fall into trap of slogans for demcoracy as it will only lead to speedy turkification of Iran. Azeri turks as a majority population will be able to turn Iran into a turkish state and the rules of democracy will permit that. So what remains for the natives is to demand is a federal state at the first stage, and a separate state based on Persian culture and traditions apart from an Azeri turk state.

"Persian State" and "Azeribaijni State"

Persians should demand democracy for a Persian state and not for a Turkish state in Iran. We use a "Persian State" as the term "Iranian State" has been distorted to mean "Azeri Turks". The Persian state is the primary goal for all natives of Iran regardless of their ethnicity. Azeri Turks should also build their own state separate from a Persian state.

Iran: From Aryanism to Pan Turkism
http://aryanpanturks.blogspot.com/

See also: The The Policy of Turkification of Iran
http://azeriturks.blogspot.com

Persians and Hollywood
http://oslonor.blogspot.com

Are there Persians in Iran?
http://iranpersians.blogspot.com/

Phenotypes:

Persians
http://community.webshots.com/slideshow/558225427FXexGJ

Azeri Turks
http://community.webshots.com/slideshow/560864563xcrvxL

Afghans
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20363431@N00/sets/72057594116574438/show/

Join our Group on Yahoo "Persian Aryans"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/persianaryans/

2007-10-30T14:58:00.003-07:00

The Theory of "Azeris as Turkified Iranians"

The theory of "Azeris as Turkified Iranians" is based on the following assumptions:

Mongols invaded Iran
Mongols are "Turks"
Mongols "forced" Azeri language on Azeris
Azeris "forgot" to speak Persian and instead speak Azeri language
Azeris are "Persians"
If an Azeri only speaks Persian language then the Azeri is "De-Turkified" and turns into a "Persian"
Azeris in Tehran who speak fluent Persian language are "Persians"

There are several problems with this theory.

Mongols are not turks and do not speak Azeri language. Azeri language is not related to any mongolian language.
Azeris look similar to Anatolian Turks. Are Anatolian turks also "Persians" who have been turkified???
The theory is correct if applied to Gogoosh who is a Persian looking Azeri. She is ethnically Persian. But the majority of Azeris do not look like Persians and look like Anatolian Turks such as Shirin Ebadi. Therefore they are really turks.

.
This is a genetic chart of Azeris in Iran. As you see Azeris are related to Turkey. The Chart is mislabeled as "Iranians". It should read Azeris in Iran.

This map shows the target areas in Iran for the Policy of Turkification for the first stage. It includes most of oil rich areas of Iran from Caspian to Persian Gulf. It also targets where Persians and Lurs, Gilak and Mazandarani and others have lived since ancient times.

2007-10-30T14:58:00.001-07:00

Iran and Azerbaijani Language

Contents

* 1 Iran and Azerbaijani Language
* 2 Azerbaijani language & Iran
o 2.1 The Turkish Language in Iran
* 3 External links

Iran and Azerbaijani Language

Azerbaijani language & Iran

There are more than 30 million speakers of Azerbaijani that live in Iran, mostly in the region of South Azerbaijan. The second largest region inside Iran where Azerbaijani is spoken is the province and city of Tehran, where more than 6 million Azerbaijanis reside. According to ethnologue, most of Iran's citizens (37%) speak Azerbaijani as a mother language. The dialects of the various Azerbaijani tribes (Turkic tribes of Shahsevan, Afshar, Pichaghchi, Qaraqozlu, Inanlu, Baharlu, Teymurtash, Qajar and others who are spread out in the South Azerbaijan region and other parts of Iran) is the same as the Azerbaijani spoken in the Republic of Azerbaijan and South Azerbaijan. Turkmen and Qashqayi, two other major Turkic languages spoken in Iran, compose an additional 5% of Iran's speakers. Altogether, approximately 35-42% of Iran's population speak Turkic languages.

Despite the fact that Azerbaijani is a dominant language in Iran, there is not even one 24 hour television station, 24 hour radio station or official usage of the language across the country. Azerbaijani is not taught at even one school in Iran, not even in the region of South Azerbaijan. The only Azerbaijani publication in Iran is "Varliq" which is a magazine that was established in 1978. The denial of national, cultural and linguistic autonomy for Azerbaijanis has created a complex situation in Iran.

During the age of nationalism, Iranian writers sought to destroy the existance and historical background of the Azerbaijani language and nationhood. Thus, there were many different works conducted by Persian nationalists that tampered with the name of the Azerbaijani language as well as it's historical affiliation.

The term "Azari" was created by Persian chauvinists as the "true language of Iranian-Aryan Azerbaijan" and it was taught (and is still taught) in schools across South Azerbaijan that the artificial "Azari" language was an Indo-European (Aryan) language which was spoken in the region prior to the 10th century. One of the advocates of this theory was Ahmad Kasravi, whose ideological convictions and political goals tainted the identity of Azerbaijanis and the Turkish language in Iran.

The term "Azeri" is derived from the Arabic term "Al-Azeriye" which was a designation used by the Arab historian Yaqut Al-Hamavi in the 13th century for the language of the people of Azerbaijan. Prior to the 13th century usage of this word, there was no description of an "Azeri" or "Azari" language which the Persian chauvinists have falsely designated as "the ancient language of Azerbaijan." During the 20th century, the artificial usage of this word for tactics of brainwashing and effacing the true historical and linguistic roots of the Azerbaijani people was and still is common in Iran.

The "Al-Azeriye" which was used by Al-Hamavi was the name of the Turkish language of Azerbaijan spoken in that era, which was a dialect seperate from Turkish spoken in Turkey or central Asia. Thus, the word "Azeri" which is synanomous with the Azerbaijani (Azerbaijani Turkish) language is noted as "seperate language which existed in ancient times in Azerbaijan" by Persian sources including chauvinist encyclopedias. It is noteworthy to mention that Kasravi himself, before creating the false "Azari" language states that:

' "The Turkish speakers among the Iranian population who were spread through every region of Iran were not Persians who were forced to abandon their original (Iranian) language and forgot it and learned Turkish. No one spoke Turkish as a result of being vanquished by the Turkish conquerors over their lands..."'

-Kasravi (Al-Irfan magazine pp. 121-123 circa 1922)

In his later writings which are used in Persian sources (history books, encyclopedias etc..) he adopted the opposite view of the Azerbaijani language, claiming that the Azerbaijanis spoke an "Iranian" language and that they were forced to speak Turkish bebinning in the 10th century. The propaganda that was initiated by Kasravi and other Pan-Persian ideologists is still common in Iran and the school of Persian chauvinisim which does not recognize the existance of any official language or nation inside Iran besides Persian is still active. Sources regarding Azerbaijanis, the Azerbaijani language and history which come from Persian nationalists and Iranian books are not valid.

The Turkish Language in Iran

By Ahmad Kasravi

I: Introduction1 -

It is generally thought that in the land of Persia, nothing is spoken but Persian, and few are aware that Turkish is widespread throughout Iran. It is perhaps even more common than Persian, and many Iranians themselves, if asked if Turkish is spoken in their country, would reply, “Sure, in some provinces like Azerbaijan and Khamse,” and many of them would explain this by the proximity of these provinces to the Caucasus or to Ottoman territory.

I have never seen, either among Iranians themselves or among foreigners who talk about Iran and its affairs, anyone who has discussed this, the truth of this matter. As for the Iranians, even those who speak Turkish claim that it is a foreign language which had penetrated their country during times of Turkish and Mongol rule and had spread and become popular at sword-point. They ceaselessly despise and loathe it and would love to eliminate it and wipe it out from their provinces and exchange it for sweet Persian. As for foreign books, the Orientalists who discuss Turkish and the peoples who speak it it limit their discussions to the Ottomans and the people of Turkestan and the Muslims of Russia known as the Tartars and rarely say a word about the Turkish speakers of Iran; and those who discuss Iran and the language spoken there talk about Persian and its dialects, such as Gilaki or Mazandarani or Lurish, etc., which are current in this or that province of that land. But as for Turkish, they neglect to mention it except rarely, when they say that it is popular particularly in Azerbaijan. Probably most of their information came from travelers or embassy staff or missionaries who generally witnessed nothing but the cities and provinces [sic], particularly the national and provincial capitals, and they rarely took the trouble to travel to the villages or the tent camps of the wandering tribes to discuss their languages or their other affairs. In addition, Persian includes works of art and the most precious literature, such as the poetry of Sa`di and Ferdawsi and the like. And so the commentators on Iranian affairs neglect to notice any other language spoken there, such as Turkish. Compared to Persian, Turkish is like a beautiful girl who sits idly beside an unveiled second wife who enchants the heart with her jewelry and bewitches the mind with her adornments.

But we want to travel down this road not taken and open the gate never before opened. We do not claim that this article is perfect, nor do we attempt a thorough investigation. Rather, we are satisfied to limit our discussion and its subject matter to our travels in the provinces of Iran, and perhaps some of al-Irfan’s readers will supply details to what we have summarized and perfect what we have left incomplete and call to our attention our errors. We have divided the article into four sections. II: Are There More Turks or Persians in Iran?

Turkish is not limited to one province of Iran, as some maintain; rather, it is spread throughout every province and district, as we have said. The Turks 2 and Persians in Iran are not like two separate heaps, but like a chessboard during a game in which each player has penetrated the other’s ranks and the black pieces have mingled with the white ones: Among the villages in which the inhabitants speak Persian, one sees villages in which the people speak Turkish, and many Persian cities, such as Tehran or Shiraz or Qazvin or Hamadan, are surrounded on all sides by Turkish villages or tribes; indeed, the people of the latter two cities understand both languages and speak both of them.

It is difficult to decide these days whether there are more Turks than Persians. This can only be decided after a census is taken which distinguishes Turks from Persians, but the Iranian government has not to this day conducted such a census of its citizens or the population of its provinces, let alone distinguish Persian from Turk. His estimation generally inclines the author to the belief that the majority are Turks, but we will not speculate idly, but stick to the research we have conducted which we present below, with general and approximate figures.

1. Azerbaijan, which is the largest of Iran’s four provinces,3 and Iran’s most important. It has a population of one and a half million souls, and the district of Khamse, which is generally populated, among its nomads and settled people, its villages and its cities, by Turks (along with a small minority of Mokri Kurds in Azerbaijan who speak Kurdish) and do not understand Persian until they are taught it by a teacher or an official.

2. Most villages and tribes in the provinces of Khorasan and Fars and the districts of Hamadan and Qazvin and `Eraq and Astarabad are Turks, and travelers wandering the streets and alleys of Tehran have been astonished at seeing the villagers walking about speaking in Turkish. Some of these had migrated from Azerbaijan and Khamse in recent years and stay in the cities and no longer consider themselves to be from their land of origin, but from these cities.

3. As for the other parts of Iran, the majority of the people there are not Turks, but there are many among the tribesmen and villagers who are. An exception is the province of Kerman and the districts of Gilan, Mazandaran, Kurdestan, Lurestan, etc., in which there are no Turks except those who have migrated there recently, and they do not consider themselves to be true residents of these provinces. That Russian adage is true which says, “There is no reed without a knob.” Indeed, Mazandaran has two Turkish tribes, along with their clans, and in Sari, the capital of that district, over twenty Turkish clans which have migrated from all over Iran and settled there, and they no longer speak Turkish.

We have decided, as we have said, to explain nothing except what can be explained with Arabic numerals, and estimations and speculation are absolutely unsatisfactory.4

III: Are They Turks or Are They Turkified?5

When Turkey’s propaganda intensified in the beginning of this century (the thirteenth AH) and the Ottoman political perspective turned from pan-Islam to pan-Turkism, the Turks of Iran, and particularly the people of Azerbaijan, could not be left out, and they spread the propagandists and published articles in their newspapers appealing to the Turks of Iran and proving that they were Turks just like them.6 And then came the Caucasians, who tugged at their heartstrings, appealing to them and demonstrating that they should form their own independent state called the Republic of Azerbaijan, even though there was no relationship between their lands and Azerbaijan except their being neighbors. They did not suspect that the people of Azerbaijan were zealously upholding the torch of Iran, but believed that they bore it reluctantly and unwillingly and that they would not hesitate to separate from Iran and unit with them because of their common bond of language and faith and their unity of race and descent; they would then transfer their capital from Baku and make Tabriz the capital of Azerbaijan. They tried to spread propagandists and sent missions to call on the Azerbaijanis to unite with them and to instigate them to help them. Their press published articles which struggled to advance this goal, with Aciq Soz (or Plain Talk) in the lead. Its editor, the illustrious, talented writer Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of the Musavat Party7 and the Iranians were angered at this republic being called ``Azerbaijan, and no sooner had one or two articles appeared on this theme in the Caucasus than the Tehran press swung into action and rose up in defense and responded, with the semiofficial Iran and its illustrious, talented writer Malek osh-Sho`ara Behar in the lead. The two journals polemicized with each other and debated, going at each other this way and that, this one answering that one and laying waste to all its accomplishments, that one going after this one and demolishing all it had built. The issues were as follows:

1. Were Baku, Ganje, and other lands situated in the South Caucasus part of Azerbaijan and was there an excuse for the people of those lands to call their republic “Azerbaijan”? 2. Were the people of Azerbaijan, Khamse, and other Turkish-speakers of Iran of Turkish descent who had migrated from Turkestan, or were they Persians who had been compelled to speak Turkish because the descendants of Chengiz Khan had overrun their lands and so had come to completely forget their original Persian language?

But the polemics, no matter how long they lasted, came to no conclusion, nor did either side achieve a clear victory over the other, for neither side looked at the issue from a scientific perspective free of prejudice; rather, each side wanted to come up with an historical or scientific basis, both of them in a very shaky and confused way, to build upon their political prejudices as they pleased. Before long, the Bolsheviks swept over the Caucasus and the attention of the little republics there were turned from interfering with others and it became more urgent to use their means of defense and their guns to protect their own lands from their enemies rather than using their pens to propagandize others to join them.

But the issue is not so enigmatic if it is examined fairly and free of prejudice, for Iran borders on the steppes of Turkestan, crowded with roving Turkish tribes, herders of horses and livestock. Their places of settlement, situated between those steppes and Transoxiana and Asia Minor, were known since ancient times for the land’s lushness and the abundance of plants and pasturage and a plenitude of gardens and widespread lushness. Indeed, in the earliest times and before these times, it had been a refuge for these tribes. They took refuge there when they had been defeated by the enemy and they beat a broad path to Transoxiana and Syria or to any region they pleased when they became hard-pressed in their deserts or there was a shortage of pasturage or herbage. The deeds of Hulagu Khan and his descendants and Amir Timarlang and his, as well as the Seljuks, including their overrunning of Iran and their dividing between themselves the lands beyond were no different than those of their ancestors in prehistoric times. Iran did not have a wall like China did to restrain or block them; they burst through her borders along with their children and women and horses and livestock, and divided up the length and breadth of the land in search of safety and pasture. They settled wherever they pastured and lay down their bindle stiffs. If a parcel of land caught their eye, they took it for themselves to settle in and live there to benefit from and to utilize, and no more than a decade or two would pass before they would forget their commitment to their old land and would not return to or recall their former homeland but mix in with those around them and learn their culture and mode of dress and accept their religion.

As for language, it is the firmest of those factors which distinguish one people from another, and it is not as easily and quickly abandoned and forgotten as the others. If one language encounters another, it competes with it and overcomes it and does not abandon its position, even if it receives a clear imprint from it and accepts a large corpus of vocabulary and expressions from its rival. As for Turkish, which had witnessed all those settlements in Transoxiana, its speakers did not easily forget or forsake it as much as they forsook and lost their other characteristics. Since we only intend here to summarize this process, we should say that there are two possibilities here: either the migrants are a small number and settle among an indigenous population which is larger and more powerful and they defer to them and settle among them and live with them, in which case it would not take long before they intermarry with them and are overcome because of their small numbers and weakness and are incorporated into them so that they become indistinguishable from them. Then Turkish would despite its firm roots-have had to have been abandoned and forgotten and leave its position for Persian or to whatever language the native population spoke. Otherwise, the nomads might be a large population with might and stamina who, whenever they settled in a parcel of land, would occupy it and expel those who lived there or subjugate them to their domination and build independent villages and cities and, on more than one occasion, countries of sufficient stature as to be mentioned in the history of Iran, e.g., in the case of the Aq Quyunlu and the Qara Quyunlu tribes, for example, there was no question of their abandoning Turkish for any other language; rather, it was for the native population who were subjected to their rule and mingled with them to be assimilated into them and see their language turkified and changed to Turkish, and not the other way around.

In short, the Turkish speakers among the Iranian population who were spread through every region of Iran were not Persians who were forced to abandon their original language and forgot it and learned Turkish. No one spoke Turkish as a result of being vanquished by the Turkish conquerors over their lands, as was the opinion spread throughout Iran; the Turkish speakers are nothing but the descendants of the Turks who had migrated in ancient times from Turkestan in search of safety and pasture and became conquerors of Iran and spread throughout it and settled here and there in tracts of land and mingled with the population over the course of time and intermarried with them and followed them in their customs and clothing and religion,8 although they have preserved their Turkish language and their descendants still speak it (although there are some of these Turks who have assimilated into the indigenous population and have forgotten their languages as well.

Proof of our claim, in addition to what has been outlined above, comes from the history books. To force a people to abandon the language into which they had been born and to forget it and to speak a foreign language against their will and to carry this to extremes–in this, the Arabs were supreme. They defeated the Iranians and captured their princes and kings and uprooted their rule and ruled over their lands and stripped them of their independence and spread among them their Islam and their Koran and governed them for centuries on end and made Arabic the language of letters and the Court and prohibited the people from writing in any other language and settled among the defeated two or three thousand poets and scholars and had them teach Arabic and spread it and habituated some hundred thousand writers with this language; but despite all this, the Arabs were never able to get the Iranians to repudiate and abandon their Persian language and exchange it for Arabic.9 This is in addition to the differences between the two sides in appearance and distinctions in sensibility and character, which cannot be explained except by a difference in race and ancestry with the native population. We do not claim that the people of Azerbaijan or all speakers of Turkish in Iran are pure Turks like their brothers among the Turks of Turkestan; this is put the lie to by the plain senses. Similarly, we do not claim that Azerbaijan has been a cradle of Turkish since ancient times; indeed, the Medes who had lived in Azerbaijan and Hamadan and `Eraq thousands of years before them were not Turks, as claimed by some extremist Turkish leaders. Such a claim is nothing but a falsification of history.

IV: Which Turkish?10

It is clear that every language whose speakers are spread through diverse regions and distant reaches, and is conversed in by various peoples and comes into contact with numerous other languages and is spoken by settled people and nomads, city-dwellers and villagers, will separate into different dialects, just as did Arabic and Persian, for example. Naturally, Iranian Turkish, or Azerbaijani,11 is not the same Turkish which is spoken in Turkestan, the cradle of Turkish, nor the same as that which is spoken in the Ottoman Empire, nor is it the same as that which is spoken in the Caucasus or by the Circasians12or by other Russian Muslims. It is distinct from each of these dialects, the speakers of which cannot easily communicate with each other in some cases. It might not be very far from the mark to use the distance between the residences of these peoples who speak Turkish as the scale to compare the difference between the different dialects: the Caucasian lands connect Azerbaijan with Ottoman territory and Turkestan and Astrakhan and Daghestan and Qazan, etc., and so Caucasian Turkish is closer than its sister languages to Azerbaijani Turkish, and forms a link between it and the Turkish of the other countries mentioned above.13 But if we were to consider Azerbaijani Turkish a language in its own right, it has all that a language needs to be a refined language, despite the fact that it is not a literary language; indeed, it has in itself all the criteria and qualities which would distinguish itself over many refined languages, and it is proper to discuss this and put one’s mind to it, but we will not ramble on about this, but mention a few of these criteria:

1. An abundance of tenses and forms. Thus, the past tense in this language has fourteen modes. I say fourteen modes and not fourteen forms [sighe] like in Arabic, while the Arabic and Persian languages use no more than four or five forms of the past (like dhahab, qad dhahab, kan dhahab [=he went, he had gone, he was going]).14 The Arabic imperfect, which occupies a place in most languages between the present and the future, each has four forms: one, the present, one the post-present or the near future15 and the two forms, the conditional and the optative, along with the future, which is expressed in Arabic by adding the sin or sawf to the imperfect form.

2. Fixing the nouns and constructions and their capability to express every similar meaning. The author finds hundreds of meanings which cannot be translated into most other languages. In Persian, for example, one expresses the meanings ofharwal, `ada, and rakadh16 by one word, david[=to run]. But in Turkish, each of them has its own separate word. The examples of this are beyond reckoning.

3. Its possession of plain and simple rules free of irregularities and a passive and conative, which does not exist in most languages. Thus, in Persian and in English, one says “Zaid and `Amr beat each other,” instead of “Zeid beat `Amr,” and “Zeid became beaten,” instead of “Zeid was beaten.” This is an irregularity which is the rule in Persian and is not removed. But in Turkish, we add something to the verb and it becomes the conative and if one adds olma, it becomes the passive, and if one adds dir it becomes the transitive: verdi=struck, vurushdi=struck one another, vuruldu=was struck, vurdu[r]du=caused him to strike.17 4. Regularity of its grammatical laws. Its exceptions and irregularities are rare, contrary to Persian and most European languages, which have many irregular verbs and exceptions from their rules, and contrary to Arabic, which has many weak verbs. 5. The existence of a special sign for the infinitive, makh, distinguishing it from the noun and the other forms, contrary to Arabic. 6. The existence of a means of emphasis, achieved by adding b or m to the first letter; qapqara=pitch black. This is the rule of emphasis with colors.18 7. The existence of words made by alterations in the first letter, having the effect of generalizing them; ketab metab=the book and whatever is like it.19 V: Books and the Press20

Turkish in Iran is a spoken and not, as we have indicated above, a literary language. We do not know what became of it during the time of Hulagu Khan and his Turkish descendants–was it the language of the Court and of writing under his rule or not? But from what we see and hear in recent times, it has been despised and reviled as the language used by foreigners, and this contempt and dislike of it persisted even until the days of the kings who arose from those who spoke it, the Safavids and the Qajars. Indeed, the Safavid age was the worst for Turkish, since it was then that the fires of war between the Iranians and the Ottoman Turks were aflame. This conflict persisted from the time of Shah Esma`il, the first of the Safavids, down to the days of Shah Sultan Hosein, the last of them, and one can see from expressions used by the Iranians of that day their opposition to the Ottomans as their conflict involved even the language they spoke. The fate of poor Turkish in this age was no better than the fate of a beautiful young lady who married someone whose family was in a blood feud with her family and take out their anger and loathing for her families crimes on her and seeing in humiliating her a way of slaking the thirst in their hearts. As if that were not enough, few even among her children wrote in Turkish since they were not used to writing in anything but Persian. Indeed, most of them are not able to read it well either, and consider it easier to write in Persian.21 During the 1905 Constitutionalist revolution, over thirty magazines were founded and published in Tabriz and the other cities of Azerbaijan, but only three of them were written in Turkish, and none of them came out except for a few issues, no more than you could count on your fingers. In addition, consider the scholars and poets who have arisen in the last centuries. The famous poets from Azerbaijan and Khamse were renown for their eloquence and the excellence of their verses22 and only a few of them were written in Turkish. We wish here to present something of the history of the three magazines and their poets. Here are the magazines:23 1. Shekar. Its editor was Mirza Manaf Sabetzade.24 It was published during the beginning of the revolution and closed down after a few issues came out. The editor then traveled to the Caucasus and became famous among its poets and published some of his poems in Kavkaz. He returned in 1337 (?–AK) [1918-19] to Tehran as a Majlis representative of the people of `Ashkabad. There he stayed for a few months, whereupon he returned to the Caucasus, where he resides still. 2. Molla `Amu. It was published in Devechi, a borough of Tabriz, by one person in 1325 [1907]. The people of that borough had allied themselves with the Shah (the now-deposed Mohammad `Ali ) after having been his fiercest enemy. The hatred and rivalry between them and the population of the rest of the boroughs, which supported the liberal factions and the Constitution.25 Molla Amu rebuked the liberals and blamed them for every evil and injustice.26 3. Sohbat. This was published by Mirza Sayyed Hosein Khan, the editor of `Adalat. It was closed down after it published a few issues because of an article in some of its issues [sic] in which he advocated women’s liberation and the lifting of their veils.27 Its editor was exiled after he was declared an infidel and an apostate from the Faith.28

As for the poets, we mention the one who has authored a printed divan or book in Turkish and some biographical facts. Perhaps we will gather some information about them and present a detailed biography of them and introduce them to the readers of al-`Irfan with samples of their translated poetry after we return from our trip and we have the opportunity to study or seek out information from their [sic; in the dual] sources, with the help of God and His might.29 1. Dakhil.30 His name was Mullah Hosein and he was from Maraghe and a follower of the late graced Sheikh Ahmad Ahsa’i.31 It is clear from his poetry that he was informed about ancient philosophy and Sufi terminology. I believe I heard some of his verses when I was living in Najaf or Kerbala for a while to study Arabic. As for his poetry, it was written in a number of volumes and printed more than once. Most of them, if not all, were marsiyes recalling the tribulations suffered by the Twelve Imams, especially the third of them, Hosein b. `Ali. He wrote, I believe, over thirty thousand verses while staying in Kerbala, according to my reckoning. Each subject had a separate chapter. Nothing exceeds them in verbosity, no one has built such a shrine on a grain. It relates bizarre events and tales not mentioned in any other book or found in the imagination of any story teller. Thus, when Sultan Qays, King of India, left to hunt on `Ashura,32 and chased a gazelle. He pursued it and became separated from his army. A lion was in front of him and blocked his way and compelled him to appeal to the Shi`ite Imam. He called out his name and he heard him, and came to save him. He was covered with wounds dripping with blood.33 the daughter of one of the tribes which was chief of the Arabs, went to save the prisoners and chiefs of the martyrs of Kerbala from the clutches of Yazid’s armies, the women fighting along with the former just like heroes, etc.34 Perhaps this helped greatly in popularizing his verses among the people and aided in their reception among their readers and made them pleasant to those who listened to them. In any case, one who saw these verses recognized that he was eloquent and skilled in the arts of speech, and had adopted a new way and had brought to his poetry novel content and ideas which were not banal. Most of his verses were sweetened by the sweetness of beautifying originality. He mixed historical events with superstitions and forged hadiths, just like his brothers, Homer the Greek and Ferdawsi the Iranian. 2. Mullah Mohammad Baqer Khalkhali. We do no know anything about him except that he wrote a book calledTha`labia which related the story of Tha`lab in the land of Isfahan who unable to support himself and was forced to abandon his home and go abroad. Imitating Kalila wa Dimna,35 he related the story of Tha`lab and his adventures, his mother and his wife, the chicken he stole on his journey and then escaped from him, the wolf he met and his getting it trapped, etc. He would take every opportunity to find a moral to the story or an edifying lesson or proverb which would benefit the reader. He emphasized strongly the need for effort and toil and denounced idleness. He launched an attack on polygamy. He did all this in a simple and popular fashion. This book was printed more than once.36 3. La`li.37 He was originally from Nakhichevan but, after studying in the Russian schools, migrated to Iran, where he settled in Tabriz.38 There, he met with success among the elite; they adored him and admired his learning, his literacy, and his wit. But he became a Frankifier and went about dressed like a European, and he did not restrain his liberty of expression from uttering things in a way which conflicted with the beliefs of the common people and ridiculing things which they held dear. He mocked whom he pleased, including the powerful and the influential. He suffered torment at the hands of the common people and the powerful and ultimately tired of his residence in Iran and decided it was best to return to the Caucasus. He migrated to Tbilisi and decided to settle there, where he stayed until he died some sixteen years ago. He put many well-known stories and witticisms into circulation.39 As for his divan, it has gone through more than one printing and contains all forms of poetry, eulogies, ghazals, satire, ribaldry, and buffoonery. His best poems are his satires, and the people have memorized some of his satires and repeat them and use them in their mockery. One of them is a qaside satirizing the villagers and disparaging their customs. These satires drew down on him the villagers’ ire and the poet stood up to them and answered with a qasida, and both qasidas are famous. 4. Shokuhi.40 His real name was Haj Mehdi and he was originally from Tabriz but, out of poverty, was compelled in his youth to travel. He roamed all over Azerbaijan and ultimately reached Maraghe and lay down his bindle stiff and became a merchant and a man of means. His business prospered and his situation improved and his station never declined there until his death, after which his descendants resided there. As for his poetry, he wrote few eulogies and ghazals and many buffoonerys and satires and mockeries. He composed his biography, relating the travels of his youth and the difficulties he encountered therein, then the hardships he endured in Maraghe at the hands of his jealous rivals, etc., all of this in popular terms mixed with satire and witticisms. His divan was printed and is famous and some of his other writings were also printed, including his Debate between Wisdom and Love. He has written many books in which are gathered witticisms, and they have been printed with his divan. 5. Sarraf. His name was Haj Reza and was from a wealthy family in Tabriz which was engaged in money-changing. He died in recent years. He was known for his eloquence in composing ghazals; his famous ghazals passed from mouth to mouth and were chanted and recited by the people. His divan was printed. He also wrote ghazals in Persian. Sarraf’s brother was a clergyman of Tabriz famous for his eloquence,named Mirza Ja`far, a student of the late Sheikh Hadi Tehrani, who lived in Najaf, where he died.41 6. Raji,42 I do not remember their names or anything about their lives except that they had divans printed. Raji was from a famous family in Tabriz and made the pilgrimage to God’s House, the Haram, towards the end of his life; while he was returning, his ship sank and he died along with the other passengers.

As for the clergy, I do not know if any of them wrote scholarly or religious books in Azerbaijani Turkish except for a treatise, Be `Aqa’ed-e Shi`e, attributed to Mullah Ahmad Ardebili, known as Moqaddas, but I have never seen mention in the biographies of the clergy mention of this book among Moqaddas’ writings, and the truth of the matter is unclear.45

In addition, there is a large body of books of stories, religious traditions, and marsiyes composed in Azerbaijani Turkish and printed, but it is not worth mentioning most of them except in passing.

So we conclude what we wanted to say at this point, but we must make one comment before we finish: Azerbaijani Turkish is lacking in sufficient books and magazines, and this is the reason her children are not accustomed to reading Turkish and prefer to read in Persian. The books and magazines from the Caucasus are a remedy for this lack and fill this void, and many of these, in all manner and class, have been imported in recent years, and there is not a library in Tabriz which does not have a large quantity of books from the Caucasus; indeed, in the year 1334 [1916], a library belonging to a Caucasian was devoted to these publications, and there was neither a Persian nor an Arabic book to be found among them. As we have said, Caucasian Turkish is not very different from Azerbaijani Turkish, and it is not difficult for the people here to read the former. The reading of Turkish has advanced these past years and is still on the rise every day, and perhaps this is the dawning of a literary renaissance of the Turks of Iran which will put an end to the time of poor Turkish’s humiliation and degradation and the drawing close of the days when her sons will give her proper recognition and refrain from being ungrateful to her and not giving her what she is due.

1al-`Irfan, vol. 8, no. 2, November 1922, pp.121-23. 2We call Turkish speakers “Turks” for purposes of brevity. 3Iran is administratively divided into four provinces [vilayat]-Azerbaijan, Khorasan, Fars, and Kerman, and more than ten districts [ayalat], such as Mazandaran, Gilan, Kurdestan, etc.--AK 4Here, we put Turkish on one pan of the scale and Persian and all its dialects, such as Mazandarani, Gilaki, Lurish, Kurdish, Samnani, etc., on the other, and if we meant classical Persian and compare it with Turkish, Turkish would overwhelm it in a way no one could gainsay.--AK 5al-`Irfan, vol. 8, no. 3, December 1922, pp.209-13. 6This propaganda did not do the Ottomans much good, and their efforts came to naught, for indeed, Azerbaijan’s people have a lofty station and are on a high peak in Iranian society, particularly after they entered on the path of constitutionalism and sacrificed so much in life and property as to immortalize their memory in the history of Iran. They would not abandon their prominent position to take up another and where they would perhaps be begrudged even a pair of shoes. Moreover, they expected no good to come of its propaganda, which was only to deceive them. Moreover, religious enthusiasms were still significant in the Orient, and pan-Islam made more of an impact on the Iranians and was more useful to the Ottomans than this propaganda. As for the [Muslim] Caucasians, their propaganda fared no better than that of the Ottomans, despite the religious unity between them and the people of Azerbaijan and despite the linguistic unity between them being stronger and more powerful and the Azerbaijanis’ profound and sincere feelings of gratitude towards their brothers for having saved them and their hope that some good would come to their land from an Islamic government being formed between them and [the Muslim part of] Russia; they still rejected this propaganda because, as we have said, they did not see it in their interest to leave Iran and join with any people. They appealed in those days, through their journals, saying that Azerbaijan will not be separated from Iran (“Azerbayjan joz’-e la yanfaq-e Iran ast.”) and advised their brothers in the Caucasus to stop interfering in Iran and adopt a policy of peace and friendship with her.--AK 7This propaganda spread throughout Azerbaijan, since in those days, the Caucasian press reached Azerbaijan sooner and less expensively than the Tehran press did; moreover, it addressed the people in the language they had grown up in, while the Tehran press addressed them in the language they had to learn later and which they did not understand except with difficulty. The Caucasian press spread as soon as it arrived)literacy in Turkish had achieved an unprecedented scope. Yet, as I indicated above, the response to this propaganda was that it was not in their interest.--AK 8The Turkish tribes settled around Astarabad known as the Turkmans still adhere to their old Sunni faith just as they maintain their mode of dress and many of their customs, too, and have not mingled with the Persians except a little.--AK 9There are some who hold the popular belief that the Turkish conquerors settled a large number of their troops among the Iranians and mingled with them and intermarried with them and got the people to learn their language and that the Iranians spoke it either to curry favor with the Turks or out of fear of them, and gradually forgot their original language and never through of it or spoke it again. This is similar to what we have said, but there is not enough to confirm this claim, since this reasoning does not explain how the number of readers of Turkish find themselves isolated on all sides among the number of readers of Persian who surround them.--AK 10al-`Irfan, vol. 8, no. 4, January 1923, pp.290-93. 11The authors of the Russian Caucasus adopted the name “Azerbaijani Turkish” or Chaqtai for both the dialect which is spoken by the people of the Caucasus and the Azerbaijanis since there was not, up to the end of the past century (the thirteenth century AH) a great difference between them. But in this article, we only call Azerbaijani the Turkish which is spoken by the Turks of Iran.--AK 12The Circasians actually speak Kabardian, a North Caucasian language, related to Abkhazian, and is a non-Turkic language. 13It is worth noting that Turkish, as it developed in its branches and subdivisions, never reached the level of diversity of Persian in its branches and subdivisions despite the fact that Turkish is more widespread in more far-flung regions and is spoken by various peoples and has encountered foreign languages. The explanation for this is to be found by comparing the two languages as they exist with Iran. Turkish as it exists in Iran is not a written language, and despite the fact that it has spread to every region, from East to West and from North to South, it was untouched by distortion or alteration which would lead to distinct dialects in any region, and if we compare the Turkish of Tabriz with that of Shiraz, we would see that it has the same intonation and quality of pronunciation of words so that the speaker of one would astound the speaker of the other and make him smile and would have no difficulty in understanding what the other was saying, while Persian has divided into about fifteen different dialects, including Mazandarani, Taleshi, Gilani (Gilaki), Sede’i, Samnani, Kashani, Lurish, Kurdish, Sejestani, etc., each of which differs from classical Persian so that none of its speakers can understand it, and vice versa. Despite the fact that Semnan is not far from Tehran (at most four parasangs), the difference between the language of its people, known as Semnani, a dialect of Persian, and classical Persian is no less than the difference between French and Italian. Similarly, Mazandarani, which is doubtless a branch of Persian, is difficult for me, although I have learned Persian in my youth and have lived among its speakers from infancy to youth and have studied in Tehran for a not brief period. While I am writing these lines, I am listening to what is being said outdoors. When they sing some Iranian New Years songs in Mazandarani, the sound of it thrills me, but I understand only a little of what the words mean, despite the fact that I have spent three months in Mazandaran and have lived among its people day and night and have memorized all the words I have heard and their meaning.--AK 14So in Turkish we say, for example, gidajaqmish which, were we to try to translate it into Arabic, we would have to say, kan `azm `ala-dh-dhahab [=he was intending to go] which, as you see, is a lengthy composite phrase. It is similar with Persian. As for the fourteen forms of the past, they are: 1) gitdi, 2) gidub, 3) giderdi, 4) giderdi [sic], 5) gitmishdi, 6) gidejaqidi, 7) gididi, 8) gitsidi, 9) gidirmish, 10) gidirmish [sic], 11) gitmish imish, 12) gidijaqimish, 13) gitimish, 14) gitimish [sic].--AK 15The imperfect, if we study it closely, has three forms:

1. The present, as in “My father invites you.” 2. The post-present, as in “I will sit for a little and then we will leave.” (This is not the same as the future, in which the letter sin or the particle sawf is added to the present. This is what we call the future, for which Turkish uses the suffix <>jaq, as in gidijaq (sayadhahab [=will go]). 3. The continuous, as in, “Fishes live in water,” or, “The crocodile is moving his lower jaw.” In Turkish, each sense has its own form, gider and gider [sic]. As for the continuous, it, too, has two forms: the present continuous, which is actually happening, in the first sense (“Ben madraseye gitiram,” “I am going to school.”) and the present continuous, which has not yet happened but will, in the second sense (“Sabahdan madraseye giteram,” “I am going to school tomorrow.”) or, in the future tense, “Sabahden madrase[ye] gidajakam [gidajaqam],” “I am going to school tomorrow.” As for our optative and conditional, they are “gitme” and “gitde.” [sic; he meant gide and gitse, respectively.]--AK 16To walk quickly, to dash, to gallop; in Arabic, the meanings are not significantly different. 17Kasravi uses an Arabic circumlocution; the fourth Arabic conjugation would have done the job. 18In Arabic, one emphasizes colors by using specially appropriate words: al-aswad al-halik, al-ahmar al-qani, al-asfar al-faqi`, al-akhdhar an-nadhir. In Persian, one expresses emphasis by repetition (siyah siyah). In Turkish, one expresses emphasis as we have said: qap qara, qap qermezi, yam yashil, sap sari, kum kuy, aqap aq.--AK 19If one were to say to a servant, “O biri otaqdan ketabi gettur,” “Go bring the book from the other room,” and in that room there were, in addition to the book, magazines and papers and maps, and the servant only brought the book, one may add the generalizer and say, “...ketab metabi gittur,” and he will bring that book and all that is like it, including the magazines and papers and maps. The generalizer has two other expressions; First, one alters the word by adding r after the first letter of the word, e.g. zarzabel [for zarbel=garbage] for garbage or whatever is like it; the second is expressed by repeating the word after altering its first vowel, e.g., deri dari=skin and anything like it. These two expressions are generally accepted usage as opposed to the first, which is use as a standard.--AK 20al-`Irfan, vol. 8, no. 5, February 1923, pp. 364-69. 21The reading and writing of Turkish among Azerbaijanis has spread and become more popular than ever in recent years and the people’s enthusiasm and receptivity has been increasing every day. The cause is the arrival of magazines from the Caucasus and their plentiful pressruns and their spread among the people. For the discredit reading Turkish has fallen into is due to nothing but the meager quantity of books in that language. Some of these magazines are famous among the Azerbaijanis and have many readers, especially those like the famous magazine Molla Nasr od-Din, etc.--AK [When Kasravi traveled to Tbilisi in the aftermath of World War I, he met members of the circle around this satirical weekly and found himself in complete agreement with them. (Zendeganiye Man (publisher, place, date), pp. 73-74.)] 22Among these poets were the lofty, excellent, eloquent Mirza Mohammad Taqi Hojjatoleslam, a Sheikhi cleric from Tabriz and author of the Alafiyat ol-`Arabiya ot-Turkiya, famous for its satires the contemporary motesharre` clergy in Tabriz. His wit vexed its targets and disturbed the peace and brought things to the point of riot , and the government intervened and banned al-Alafiya from publication and being read and gathered all copies of it. I would have liked to quote some of its verses, but I only remember some snatches of it from here and there.--AK [This author lived from 1248-1312 [1831-95, approx.] and wrote under the pen name of Nayyer. He was a descendent of Mullah Mohammad Mamaqani, a leader of the Sheikhis. (Mohammad `Ali Tarbiat, Daneshmandan-e Azarbayjan (Tehran, Matba`eye Majles, 1324 [1945]), hereafter, DA. One author writes of its being filled with obscure references to current events, something which few living readers have mastered. (Mehdi Mojtahedi, Rejal-e Azarbayjan dar `Asr-e Mashrutiat (Tehran, Naqsh-e Jahan, 1327 [1959]), p 54) 23Much material has been published since then on the press in Iranian Azerbaijan. 24Properly, Mohammad `Abdol-Manafzade. (“Shekar” in DA, p. 411.) 25This hatred and rivalry reached the point where civil war broke out in Tabriz. It continued for days. Not a few famous people from both sides were killed. The flames were cooled with the government’s intervention and the restoration of security in Zil-Hejja 1325 AH [December 1907], but before three months, the volcano of a second war, more severe than the first, exploded and the bazaars and the alleys and the squares were seized with fighting. The storage depots and shops were looted and set ablaze. The fighting lasted over three months, and some five thousand were killed on both sides, and most houses and mansions were demolished by the cannons which were fired by both sides: every day, over a thousand shells were fired in battle. This war ended with the liberals’ victory and the expulsion from the city of the fighters of Devechi and the Shah’s troops, who had been sent to aid them. The leader of the liberals during these events was the famous intrepid hero, Sattar Khan. Then the city was blockaded on all sides upon the Shah’s orders and cut off from food for nine full months. This, too, ended with the entry of Russia and the dispatch of its troops to Azerbaijan. What happened then is recorded in the books covering these events. Haj Mohammad Baqer, a Tabriz merchant, recorded these events up to a point in a book and got it printed. [Balvaye Tabriz] Mr. Edward Browne, the famous British Orientalist mentioned some of these events in his book, The Persian Revolution.--AK 26Molla `Amu is discussed at length in Kasravi’s Tarikh-e Mashruteye Iran (Amir Kabir, Tehran, 1975), pp. 636-38, where an article from it is provided. 27The article in question has been reprinted in Molla Nasr od-Din, and has been translated into Persian by the translator of the present work. 28Two other magazines were published in Turkish in Tabriz: Azarbayjan and Molla Nasr od-Din. We neglected to mention them because the first was founded under the auspices of the Ottomans while they were sending their armies to Tabriz and occupying it. They installed Majd os-Saltane, a notorious advocate of separation from Iran and unity with the Ottomans and a leading exponent of Turkish in Azerbaijan, as governor when they were there, from 1334 to 1337 AH [1915-18]. The manager of this paper and its editor were two brothers, Iranian citizens but born and raised in Trabezon, an Ottoman city, and had graduated from the French school there. They did not publish more than six issues of the magazine, and it closed with the evacuation of the Ottomans from Azerbaijan. As for Molla Nasr od-Din, it was more prominent than the torch above a banner for its reform, its satire, its criticism, and its cartoons. It was founded in Tbilisi and continued publication for eight years, after which it closed, I believe, during the beginning of the World War. It resumed publication during the beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution and then it closed down again. It did not resume publication until its editor, Mirza Jalil, an Iranian who lived in the Caucasus, migrated to Azerbaijan and settled in Tabriz. He gathered readers around him and requested that it resume publication. His request was accepted and Molla Nasr od-Din began to be published in Tabriz, this happening last year, in 1339 AH [1921]. But it did not continue publication, but closed after having come out eight times, after which Mirza Jalil returned to the Caucasus. This magazine is mentioned in the French publication, Revue du Monde Mussulman, [cite ] which considered it excellent.--AK [Kasravi is wrong about Azarbayjan, confusing the Constitutionalist period magazine with Azarabadegan. See his Tarikh-e Mashruteye Iran, pp. 271-72 on the Azarbayjan of the Constitutionalist period and his Zendeganiye Man, p. 87 for his account of Azarabadegan. Evan Siegel’s An Iranian Poet’s Duel over Iranian Constitutionalism, to be published, corrects some of Kasravi’s lingering misconceptions over the former and supplies some background to his account. The best monograph on Azarbayjan is Raoul Motika’s Die Zeitung Azarbaygan (Tabris, 1907): Inhalt, Umfeld, Hintergrund (Munchen, 1992). 29A few years after this article was published, the newly-established Soviet Azerbaijani government published Fereydun bey Kocherli’s Azarbayjan Adabiati (Elm, Baku, 1978), II:382-87 ( hereafter refered to as AA), which documents the history of Azerbaijani literature. Ten years later came Tarbiat’s DA, which included more material on Iranian Azerbaijan and listed dozens of authors who published in Azeri Turkish. Another source which should be mentioned is Hadiqat os-Sho`ara, which seems to include much information on Azeri Turkish literature and is a major source for Tarbiat; we have been unable to locate it. 30Correcting Dakhal in the original to Dakhil in DA and AA, which provides many samples of his eulogies for Imam Hosein. He was a contemporary of Kocherli’s (op. cit., II:382), the latter having lived between 1863 and 1920. 31The founder of what was to become Sheikhism. 32The ninth, i.e., of the month of Moharram, the day of Imam Hosein’s martyrdom. 33Pearl’s Shine. 34Substantially the same story is reported Ivar Lassy, The Muharram Mysteries among the Azerbeijani Turks of the Caucasus (Helsingfors, 1916), pp . . 35A collection of stories much like Aesop’s fables. 36Kocherli specifically cites the difficulty of obtaining samples of this poet’s works as an illustration of the problem of studying Iranian Azerbaijani poetry. (AA I:69.) Tarbiat reports that he lived to 1310 AH [1892-93] and that his book was a “masnavi” (DA, p. 62.) 37Mirza `Ali Khan Shams ol-Hokema (1845-1907). (AA, II:218-19) 38His parents were from Yerevan. He himself was originally from Tabriz, where he studied traditional Iranian medicine. (loc. cit.) 39For example, he related the following about himself: I saw one day a villager driving ahead of him a tired donkey who was staggering this way and that. I cocked my ear towards them and said, “I see your donkey is very tired.” He said, “No sir, he’s not tired, he’s a poet and is thinking to compose verses.” I then looked and saw the donkey’s belt had come undone and was hanging down. I said, “His belt has come undone, uncle.” He replied, “No problem sir, the Frankifiers never tighten their belts.” I realized that that fellow recognized who I was.--AK 40Haji Mehdi Tabrizi A’inesaz (Mirror-maker). Died 1314 AH [1896-97]. (“Shokuhi” in DA, p. 199.) 41His divan was published first in 1344 AH [1925-26], after his death in 1325 AH [1907]. (“Haji Reza Saraf” in DA, p. 230.) He was a disciple of Sayyed `Abdol-`Azim Shirvani, the famous Muslim modernist. Although not as perfect as Fozuli, since they were written in a common style, his verse was more popular. His divan included 2500 verses, mostly in Turkish, albeit very Persianized. He wrote love poems as well as popular marsiyes. (“Haj Reza Saraf” in Mehdi Mojtahedi, Rejal-e Azarbayjan dar `Asr-e Mashrutiat (Naqsh-e Jahan, Tehran (?), 1948), pp 108-110.) 42Haji Mirza Abol-Hasan Tabrizi (1247-93 AH [1830-76]) (“Raji” in DA, p. 155). 43Sayyed Abol-Qasem, a Sufi poet born in Qarajedagh, d. 1262 [1846]. Followed Hafez in style. His divan was printed in Tabriz and is well-known. (“Nabati” in DA, pp. 370-71.) He was born during the brief reign of Mohammad Shah. His eloquence was said to stun the people with astonishment. He was known for his extreme asceticism and his piety and his purity. His children went on to become famous preachers and eulogizers of the Imams. (“Seyid Abulqasim Nabati” in AA, I:470-93.) 44Mohammad Amin Tabrizi. His divan was repeatedly reprinted and was well-known. (“Delsuz” in DA, p. 151.) 45Mullah Ahmad died in 993 AH [ ], and he was famous for issuing a fatwa declaring wine to be pure. As for the above-mentioned treatise, Haj Sheikh Mohammad, a cleric from Tabriz, translated it into Arabic and Sheikh Esma`il translated it into Persian, and the two translations were published in book form. The Persian translation is better than the Arabic one, although Sheikh Esma`il was a firm follower of his in scholarship and literature.--AK [According to Tarbiat’s source, he died in 997 [ ]; he produces a list of his works. (“Ahmad b. Mohammad Ardibili” in DA, pp. 31-32.)]

External links

Wikipedia
Turkish Language in Iran edition of Wikipedia

* azeri.org
* Iran’s Azeri-Turks Linguistic Orphans: An Interview with Dr. Reza Baraheni
* And our tongues have become dry

2007-10-30T14:56:00.000-07:00

Aryanism, a threat to Iran and the region Worse than Islamic fundamentalism

by

Ben Madadi
17-Sep-2007

My often remarks and writings about Iranian-type Aryanism has been vigorously attacked by many Iranians. Although many Iranians would argue that Iranian Aryanism is inoffensive and is only needed for identifying what being an Iranian means, the sole purpose of using a race (as it is perceived) to identify a nation is ominous enough to be addressed as a serious issue.

The huge number of Iranians, especially those in the diaspora who have still kept their Iranian identity alive, who believe in an Aryan nation is a simple sign that the issue is not a marginal one. And this is the reason for my preoccupation (or obsession as some Iranians may say) with this subject as I have also had first-hand experience of the Aryanist ideology when I used to live in Iran.

Do the Western governments, in America or other places, and also Iranians in general, ever think which kind of a regime would replace Iran's Islamic government in case it fell? I say there is a serious case for seeing an Aryanist regime to replace the Islamist one. An Aryanist regime that may prove to take Iran to disintegration and Iranians to civil strife, doing no good for either Iran or the region. Iranians are not yet prepared for a full-fledged democracy in which human rights are respected and minorities protected.

Western governments, especially the US administration, must think many times before wishing for the annihilation of the Iranian Islamic government. Although the IRI is a relatively dangerous one it has not proved yet prepared to do anything serious other than annoying Israel. Such fundamentalist regimes are usually more in danger of implosion than being destroyed by an outside force, so time may just be enough to solve what is seen as an imminent threat.

The same also happened with Communism, which was far more dangerous than Iranian Islamism. Many Iranians, and Westerners alike, hating the Islamic regime of Iran, for simply being Islamic, do not contemplate about what is going to replace it. Well, I actually believe that Westerners think about this issue quite enough after having had the experience of Iraq.

Iranian Aryanists see all non-Aryans (as they perceive them to be non-Aryans), Turks, Arabs, Jews etc as threats to their existence and identity. Araynist blogs are full of texts describing not necessarily America, but more likely Israel, then Turkey and Azerbaijan, and let's not forget Arab states, as threats. Such an Aryanist regime may prove far worse than a Shia extremist regime, for both Iranians, and the region.

In my previous article (Azerbaijan in Iran) I had mentioned a few things that angered Iranian nationalists, believers in an Aryan Iran. I had mentioned about how human rights are not respected in Iran regarding the use of local or minority languages, Azerbaijani (or Turki as they call it in Iran) in this case, and anti-IRI Iranians attacked this as being untrue, because people are allowed to use Azerbaijani (and other languages such as Kurdish etc) among themselves.

Yes, maybe there is a country in the world where using your own mother tongue is also banned at home (I don't know any but there may be, who knows!), which is not the case in Iran! Using local languages where people (24% Azeri/Turki, 8% Gilaki and Mazandarani, 7% Kurdish, 3% Arabic etc according to the CIA) speak other languages than Farsi (modern Persian language) in any official (local schools, institutions etc) way is not allowed, though the Iranian constitution has expressly allowed it.

I must make this clear that the Islamic regime is not an Aryanist regime and the pursuit of discriminatory policies against minorities (ethnic or religious) are because of utter disrespect for human rights of individuals or groups in general and not due to an ideology based on race or nationality. Iranian ethnic minority groups' activists have been, and are, subject to being imprisoned or killed for demanding their rights, because they are seen as threats toward the ideology of Shia Islam and also possible threats toward the territorial integrity of Iran.

Let's go a bit deeper into the issue of Aryanism in Iran and see what it is about! I have been accused to giving the sense that Iranian-type (also used in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, India and some other countries) Aryanism is different than what Aryanism was known up to about 60 years ago in the Christian world. Locals may have come up with their own definitions of Aryanism (do Iranians know that Tajikistan has officially adopted the shape of the Swastika to identify with?) but looking into the modern history of the Middle East, and Europe, we can see that the use of the phrase 'Aryan race' first started to appear in the West, referring mainly to non-Jewish north American and northern Europeans.

The term was adopted by the Nazis for blaming non-Aryans (primarily Jews, but also Gypsies and some other perceived non-Aryans) for causing all the troubles of the world up to that point. Nazis, to justify their theory, accused Britain and America, as being nothing but Jewish puppet states where the Jews controlled everything and that was, according to the Nazis, the cause of those countries' official dissociation from the Nazi Aryanist ideology. This was in ignorance of the fact that it was mostly Britain that promoted the Aryan theory not only in the Christian world but also throughout the world (especially India and the Middle East) far before the Nazis took over Germany.

And this was the time (after the Christian world started and perfected the theory) when there are first cases of referring to Aryans and the Aryan race in Iran and other Middle-Eastern regions. There are ancient texts when pre-Islamic Persian rulers have used the word Arya to identify themselves, but we have little idea what exactly they referred to (it was not about race anyway), and beside all this, Iranians, the region, and the whole world has changed so much ever since, people have moved, have adopted different religions, languages and habits. And what is with this pause? Why there is no mention of the Aryans, the Aryan race or ideology, until Europeans bring it to the Middle East?

All we can see in Middle Eastern, Iranian and alike, writings are either related to Islam, or to various other social, political or scientific preoccupations of their relevant times. Therefore, although Iranian, Afghan, and other Aryanist nationalists may argue otherwise, it is clear that the adoption of the Aryanist ideology had, and still has, its inspirations and roots in the modern Christian world's Aryanist theory that was dropped when the second World War ended. Unfortunately the Middle East did not drop the theory, having been largely unaffected by the war.

There is also this confusion in the Middle East to what actually means Aryan. Although the original European theory refers to Aryan as a race, which is an extremely unscientific and flawed theory, some Iranians may often prefer referring to it as a group of people who speak Indo-Eruopean languages, while a race at other places and contexts. If I say that Aryanism, or saying that Iranians are Aryans, is racism, then Aryan nationalists will argue that being an Aryan is not about race, but about being part of the group of Aryan speakers. Then the problem, also argued by some Iranians in my previous article (Azerbaijan in Iran), comes up when they clearly use Aryan as a race by referring to Iranian Azerbaijanis as Turkified Aryans, and the Safavid dynasty also as Turkified Aryans!

According to them although the Safavid were Turkified, like most of the rest of Azerbaijan (an Iranian area), 500 years ago when Shah Ismail took control of Azerbaijan, later the whole Iranian plateau, they were Aryans because some 300-400 years before that (800-900 years ago) their forefather was 'clearly' a Kurd, hence an Aryan! They ignore that the Safavid considered themselves descendants of the prophet Mohammad, therefore in case we go back even further in time, they must have been Arabs. We may even go back in time and consider the Safavid monkeys because according to modern scientific theory we were all some kind of monkeys at some point.

There is this serious theoretical problem about Aryanism in Iran. Is it a race-based theory, or is it a language-based theory? Do we consider Uzbeks, who are Sunni Asiatic (of Asian race, i.e. looking somewhat like Chinese), Aryans? They speak a Turkic language but they celebrate Norouz and have a culture that is extremely similar to the Iranian culture. Do we consider Germans Aryans? Do we consider Kurds Aryans? Do we consider Azerbaijanis Aryans? What about Turks? Do we consider Turks in Turkey Aryans? They don't look like any other race than Iranians, do they? So, what is being an Aryan?

It means NOTHING. It is not a race. It fails to meat any criteria to be defined. It is nothing but a means of justifying failings and short-comings by blaming others (for instance Arabs, Turks or Jews), therefore running away from realities. Racially speaking you can be Caucasian, Asian, African, American, or mixed. There is no Aryan race out there. Is being an Aryan about being an Indo-European? That cannot be a definition of a country or a nation then. Why not drop the Aryan word then because it has been so much misused and abused by the Nazis? This was the reason the Christian world dropped the term.

If being an Aryan is being an Indo-European then Azerbaijanis are not Aryans. They belong to the Turkic-speaking group of peoples, just like the Uzbeks or the Turks of Turkey, though they may belong to different races (Uzbeks are Asians while Turks and Azerbaijanis are Caucasian). Azerbaijanis were (as many scientific studies show) some Iranic-speaking people, or peoples, at least partially, probably related to Persian, just like the Talysh or the Kurds, some 900 years ago or so.

However they were a different people than the Persians, again just like the Talysh, the Kurds or other Iranic peoples. Then they got Turkified, they adopted, developed and perfected a united Turkic language that is different from all other major Turkic languages. Now, if we consider Azerbaijanis as they used to be some 900 years ago (therefore "Aryan" as Iranian Aryanists claim) then we can, again, go even further in history and find out what the inhabitants of Azerbaijan were some 10,000 years ago, or maybe even before. We can do the same for the rest of Iran, and nobody will be either Persian or anything similar to it because as we know Aryan tribes (Indo-European speaking peoples) moved to the region from somewhere else (probably to the north), and there were some original inhabitants of the area before the Aryans moved into the Iranian plateau.

How can Iranians be Aryanists then when being an Aryan means pretty much nothing? And, what is wrong being an Iranian anyway? Fars (ethnic Persian) Iranians can be proud of their rich literary heritage (world-famous Persian poets like Khayyam, Saadi, Hafez, Ferdousi etc), which is one of a kind in the world, while other Iranians can also be proud of their own language, culture and history. Relating being an Iranian, or relating the Iranian identity to Aryans, is doing nothing but harm to Iran and its image not only among non-Persian Iranians but also to the wider world.

In case being an Iranian does need a definition then it can be this: most Iranians speak an Iranic language and they are Shia Muslims, or simply anyone holding an Iranian citizenship. Then, as many Aryanist Iranians see, there is a serious problem with having some one/quarter (24% or so) of the population (Azerbaijanis) being non-Iranians whose historical contributions to the modern Iran have been far greater than the Iranic-speakers!

And this is where we find the reason behind all this attempt to Aryanise Azerbaijanis. Taking into account the mass migration of Azerbaijanis (mostly due to lack of investment in the region) to Tehran and other Persian areas of Iran it is also very possible that the 24% is no more representative and Azerbaijanis, even taking into account those who consider themselves Azeris in Tehran and other non-Azerbaijani areas, may be somewhere below 20% of the total population.

Unless Azerbaijanis are Aryanised (as Iranian nationalists attempt to do) what can the identity of Iran do with positive, or negative, but extremely important Iranian names such as, Shah Ismail (the founder of the modern Iran), Shah Abbas (Iran's greatest post-Islamic ruler), the Safavid, the Qajar, Sattar Khan (the leader of Iran's freedom-seeker Constitutionalists)? What Iranian nationalists miss though is that the only thing that may increasingly cause a serious rift between Azerbaijanis and the rest of Iran is nothing but this Aryanising attempt itself.

And the problem with Azerbaijanis (which occurs when defining Iran as a country where most people speak an Iranic language) can be solved by accepting and acknowledging the realities and respecting non-Persians' own languages, traditions and customs by not only allowing them but also promoting them as Iranian riches. Few non-Persian Iranians genuinely desire separation and Azerbaijanis in particular have historically been attached to Iran, nowadays even more due to having so many relatives living outside Azerbaijan-proper.

Azerbaijani Turk rulers of Iran knowing that they were the rulers of mainly Iranic-speaking country adopted Farsi (Persian) as the official language of Iran so there is no real problem of having a country where there is a large non-Iranic-peaking minority group, that may no more be that large afterall.

2007-10-30T14:34:00.001-07:00

Иран: от Aryanism панорамный Turkism

В следующей статье "Иран и азербайджанского языка", опубликованном в nationmaster.com является важным, что статья представляет мнения и dilemas азербайджанских турок руководство иранского правительства.

По данным Мичиганского университета сайте в турецком языках классифицируются в соответствии с этой схемой: В тюркских языков, принадлежащих к алтайской языковой семьи, могут быть отнесены к четырем группам языка и географически:

# I. Северо-Западном (Kipchak)
# Башкирский, крымских татар, Karachay - балкарцы, Караим,
# каракалпакском, казахском, татарском Казань, Kumyk, Ногаи.

# II. Северовосточный (Сибирского) группы
# Алтая, Кыргызстана, Khakass, шорского, Тофа, Tuvanian, якутского, Желтые уйгуры.

# III. Юго-западная (Oghuz) группы:
# азербайджанский, гагаузский, турецкий, туркменский.

# IV. Юго-Восточной (Chagatai) группы:
# Салар, уйгуры, узбеки.

# V. чуваши.

Иными словами азербайджанского и турецкого Анатолийского находятся в той же категории, и они принадлежат к Oghuz турок языках. Oghuz турки пришли в Иран между 11 и 15 века и поселились в Азербайджане. Любые теории о азербайджанцев в Азербайджане следует рассмотреть эти факты. Как мы увидим, как азербайджанский турок автора статьи избежать этих реальностей и создает воображаемой истории азербайджанцы и предлагает решения, которые только показывает примитивный характер азербайджанский турок элиты в Тегеране.

На вопрос азербайджанской turk этнической группой в Иране режима, сталкивается со следующими dilema с различными политики, которая совершенно иным последствиям для правящего класса и их связь с населением в целом в Иране.
Азербайджанцы, как "Turkified арийской иранцы"

Первый вариант - продолжение политики от шаха режим, как они это делали на протяжении последних 27 лет и призываем азербайджанский turks для "Turkified арийской иранцев", которые якобы turkified на Oghuz турки с 11 века до 15 века. Этот вариант приведет к укреплению движение протеста в Азербайджане этнических и культурных прав и может генерировать импульс для независимого азербайджанского государства, которые могут создать союз с Азербайджанская Республика и даже Турции.
Азербайджанцы как турки

Второй вариант заключается в том, чтобы признать азербайджанцев в Иране как турецкие этнические группы, которые имеют турецкое происхождение и связаны не с выходцами из Ирана, которые, не турецкие корни. Иными словами "азербайджанцев действительно turks и никто не заставляют их говорить азербайджанский турецкий язык". С этим вариантом является признание азербайджанских турок языка в качестве официального и предоставления полного права этнических азербайджанцев турками. В краткосрочной перспективе этот вариант пойдет на полпути для удовлетворения потребностей азербайджанских турок в Азербайджане и, возможно, укрепления режима в Тегеране краткосрочной основе. Но в долгосрочной перспективе последствия данного варианта, будет много сложностей, которые режим не сможет решить и ускорить вниз падения режима в Тегеране.

В долгосрочной перспективе последствия этого варианта заключаются в следующем: Если азербайджанский турок язык признан одним из официальных языков Иран требует затем будет поднят из азербайджанцев, что азербайджанский язык должен использоваться по всей Иран в системе государственного управления. Иными словами Иран будет объявлен двуязычной страной, где все documnets должны составляться на обоих языках. Это похоже на европейские страны, где они два языка в качестве официального языка.

Далее будет спрос на переписи населения, чтобы знать, какие языка составляют большинство. Азербайджанские турки, что азербайджанцы большинство населения Ирана это азербайджанцы крупнейших этнических меньшинств в Иране, который является правильным заявлением. Затем в соответствии с нормами демократии азербайджанский турок язык будет основным официальным языком в Иране. Просто чтобы убедиться, что азербайджанские турки составляют большинство Иран, не может быть союза В Repbulic Азербайджана на севере с Ираном и которые гарантировали бы такое большинство.
Персии и персов как мифа

Следующий шаг будет ухудшать Персидского истории и цивилизации как некоторые мифические и отдаленных исторических событий, которые вовсе не связаны с нынешними реалиями Иран и Турк азербайджанской истории и цивилизации, как реальной движущей силой Иран. Эта политика фактически уже проводимой многих западных изданий и средств массовой информации, которые уволить Персии в историю комиксов. В фильме "300" является хорошим примером такой политики.
Иранцы как турки

Кроме того, наличие персов в Иране отказано и персы называют "иранцы", которые имеют иной расы и этнической принадлежности, с древних персов. "иранцев", считаются turks некоторых западных институтов, таких, как Чикагский университет которая подготовила генетических карт "с указанием иранцев", связаны с Анатолийского turks и Республика Азербайджан в Закавказье. Вообще-то нет "иранской этнической принадлежности" в Иране, как это утверждают эти "исследовательские институты".

С другой стороны, такая политика будет создавать силу противодействия со стороны выходцев из Ирана и приведет к усилению этнической самобытности и оппозиции к нынешней общеевропейской turkist режима. Именно поэтому режим в Тегеране сделал много шума о "Персидском империи" и "персидский древней истории", чтобы передача этих сил в режим надлежащие политические каналы, с тем чтобы контролировать эти силы. Он также пытается представить сковороду turk режима в Тегеране, как "персидский Chauvinist" режима! ! ! ! Это позволит укрепить "иранской" прикрытием этой общеевропейской turk режима упрощает выполнять свои турецкие общеевропейской политики.
Азербайджанцы и Oghuz турок

Если азербайджанцы descedants от Oghuz Теркс и они действительно turks, то, что случилось с коренными жителями Азербайджана в регионе Западной Иран. Это может привести только к одному выводу, что эти люди были убиты на immigranting Oghuz турок или изгнаны из этих регионов таких, как курды, которые были высланы в северные млн. Хорасан. Утверждать "смешанные" между азербайджанцы и турки "Мидии "!!!!! , которые исчезли тысячи лет до 11 века приведет к "арийской иранских азербайджанцев" теории который был способствовать "Персидский Chauvinist", таких, как Касрави! ! ! ! , который фактически является азербайджанский сам !!!!! Убийство и изгнания курдов из этого региона действительно то, что произошло, но это не политической целесообразностью для правящего режима в Тегеране согласиться.
Азербайджанцы, как "Оригинал Жители Ирана"

Так что статья пытается найти другое решение. Это утверждает азербайджанский турок были исконными жителями Азербайджана с древних времен и азербайджанцы были в Азербайджане по 8000 годы в некоторых общеевропейских turks претензии. И азербайджанские турки были выступая азербайджанский турок языка в этом регионе с древнейших времен. Но азербайджанские турки только связанные с азербайджанцев на Кавказе, и только они не имеют ничего общего с anatolian turks которые говорят очень тесно связаны турецкий язык и которые также исходить от Oghuz turks. Поэтому в зависимости от автора имеется Китайской стены между Ираном и Османской Турцией и Oghuz turks не могли войти Иран. Они только пошли в Турцию !!!!! Oghuz турок, вероятно, получил лишь транзитных виз через Иран достичь Турции! ! ! !

Затем автор создает некоторые мифические "Персидский Chauvanist", которые утверждают некоторые диалекты персидского Pahlavali называется "Древний Азари" язык говорят в этой области до Oghuz турки пришли и отвергает эти претензии. В действительности любой язык выступал в этом регионе в родной племен, таких, как курды и другие, эти люди либо погибли, либо были изгнаны из района в Oghuz Теркс и нет спора с автором, что эти люди не живут в этого региона больше. Но автор заявляет азербайджанский турок не было Oghuz турки, но турки родной Ирана с древнейших времени! ! ! !
Азербайджанские расового национализма

Весь вопрос о языке действительно незначительные проблемы, как то, что автор собирается предложить следующее. Автор вводит два ключевых слова в его статье, имеет большое значение. Эти слова, "смешения" и "смешанных браков". Когда читатели мысли азербайджанской элиты турки дал на "Азери иранских арийцев" теории, можно увидеть, что представляет обратно в новой теории.
Единства турок или Пан Turkism азербайджанском стиле

Автор начинает говорить о единстве турками. Можно себе представить, что автор означает единство азербайджанцев в Иране и Северной азербайджанцев в Закавказье. Но читателю совершенно неправильно. Автор не заинтересован в азербайджанцев в Азербайджанской Республике. Следующая мысль о единстве с Туркоманс, которые живут в провинции Хорасан. Нет! ! ! ! Автор не заинтересован в Туркоманс либо. Автор очень заинтересована в некоторых снимите с именем turks кто живет в Khamse! ! ! !

Цитата: "Это общее мнение, что в земле Персии, ничего не говорил, но Персидского, и лишь немногие знают, что турецкий широко распространена на всей территории Ирана. Это, возможно, даже более, чем персидская, и многие иранцы сами, если ли является турецкий говорил в своей стране, будет ответ "Конечно, в некоторых провинциях, как Азербайджан и Khamse", "
Где Khamse?

Где это Khamse ????? Очень мало азербайджанцев слышали о Khamse! ! ! ! Никто не знает, где этот Khamse есть. Khamse это кодовое слово для чего-нибудь еще. В Qashaqii племен в провинции Фарс жить в регионе, призвал Khamse. Но это очень странно. Qashaqaiis ни в коей мере не связаны с азербайджанских турок. Qashqaiis являются сочетание персидском и turk племен, которые создали конфедерацию. Они говорят на турецкий язык ТЕМЕ к Туркоманс и не азербайджанском языке. Но этнически они даже не связанных с Туркоманс. Qashaqiis отображения основном Персидского фенотипов. Кроме того Qashqaiis иметь Персидского азербайджанской культуры, которые турки не имеют.

Так почему азербайджанский турок автор настолько заинтересованы в Khamse? ? ? ? Согласно некоторым источникам Qashqaiis фактически арийской происхождения и является одним из самых чистых иранцев. Кроме того, автор использует слова "смешения" и "смешанных браков". Но Qashqaiis жить в провинции Фарс долго от азербайджанских турок в Тегеране и Азербайджана. Итак, что же он означает этим? ? ? ? Неужели он означает Qashqaiis иметь "смешанный" и "- в браке" с азербайджанских турок за такое большое расстояние! ! ! !
Khamse переехал в Тегеран! ! !

Ответ на эти загадки будут решены, когда азербайджанцы turk Автор заявляет, что некоторые из них "мигрируют", или действительно были перенесены в Тегеране. Теперь возникает вопрос, почему Qashqaiis должна двигаться в Тегеран на работу, когда они сидят рядом с крупнейших запасов нефти и газа в мире, в их окрестностях! ! ! ! Ответ "смешения" и "смешанных браков" с азербайджанских турок! ! ! !

Также обратите внимание, что азербайджанский турок автора говорится: "Что касается других частях Ирана, большинство народа там не турки, но есть много среди племен и жителей деревень, которые. Исключение составляет провинции Керман и районах Гилан, Мазандаран, Курдистан, Lurestan и т.д., в котором нет турок за исключением тех, кто мигрировали там недавно, и они не считают себя действительно жители этих провинций. "
Азербайджанской миграции Нет - Где? ? ?

На вопрос, почему эти азербайджанские турки уезжали в Гилан и Мазандаран, и Курдистан и Lurestan. Эти районы не имеют работу, чтобы дать азербайджанские турки и Азербайджане самый низкий уровень безработицы в целом Иран? Там были сообщения о столкновениях в Mazandran когда вся деревня их жители были уничтожены. В Mazandarani жителей либо заключении или покинули район. Азербайджанские турки утверждают, что они строят "Университет Амол" в этой области! ! ! !

Что автор говорит азербайджанцы это: азербайджанцы вы turks, и вы не арийцев. Вы никогда не "смешанной" или "- в смешанной" с туземцами Иран как структура племени не допускает, что в древней истории. Но мы собираемся исправить наши ошибки. Мы контроля государства в Иране, и мы будем использовать состояние "смешение" и "между смешиваться" с жителями Ирана. Мы будем использовать жителей в качестве сексуальных объектов, чтобы мы стали "арийской азербайджанский турок". Автор постоянно ссылается на турецкий язык в качестве "второго красивые жены", как будто они намерены использовать seeghan или полигамия для достижения своих целей.

Цитата: "Турецкий - как прекрасная девушка, кто сидит сложа руки рядом с обнародовал вторую жену, кто enchants сердце ее украшения и bewitches ум с ее украшения."

Чтобы убедить читателей в западной azeri turk автор даже дает название персов к народу Казвин и Тегеран! ! ! ! Он призывает Тегеран и Казвин персидских городов! ! ! Достаточно упомянуть о том, что Тегеран имеет 70-80% являются азербайджанский турок. Нет необходимости обсуждать Казвин! ! !

Почему автор делает эти заявления, когда все в Иране знают, что Тегеран и Казвин фактически азербайджанский турок города, а не персидских городов? ?
Иран как "Таяние горшок нации"

Цитата: "Большинство деревень и племен в провинциях Хорасан? И Фарс? И округах Казвин и Хамадан и `Eraq? И Astarabad - турки, и путешественников бродят по улицам и проходы Тегерана были удивлены? ? Тому, что сельские жители пешком около выступая на турецком языке. Некоторые из них мигрировали из Азербайджана и Khamse в последние годы и пребывания в городах и не считают себя со своей родине, но из этих городов. "

"Турки и персы в Иране - это не две отдельные груды, но подобно шахматной доске во время игры, в которой каждый игрок имеет проникли в других званий и черные кусочки имеют смешанное с белой них:"

Никто не удивлен, что люди говорят на азербайджанском языке турок в Тегеран и Казвин, как большинство азербайджанских турок. Причина таких заявлений очень просты. Автор пытается создать впечатление на западных читателей, что Иран выглядит и США каждом городе и каждом регионе смешано с азербайджанских турок, которые не исправить, но это программы, азербайджанский турок режима в Тегеране проводит.

Также Qashqaiis говоря, турецкий язык не имеет ничего общего с азербайджанских турок. Qashqaiis - коренной народ в провинции Фарс как этнически и культурно. Азербайджанские турки не коренные провинции Фарс. Никто не отмечается, что присутствие Qashqaiis в провинции Фарс, поскольку они имеют одинаковые культуры, как и остальные люди в провинции. Но массовая миграция азербайджанцев турками в провинции Фарс в disastarous социальные последствия для населения, как они полностью иностранцев в этом обществе. Вот почему Иран не США.

Азербайджанский турок автор также допускает, стоящих перед ними проблем выполнять их "азербайджанский турок нацистской расовой Национализм" целей, так как он описывает Иран как шахматная доска, где каждый шаг азербайджанских турок стоит борьбе перейти на уроженцев Iran.This статьи compeletly раскрывает расовой дня этих общеевропейских азербайджанской элиты турки в Иране.
"Beutiful азербайджанский турок иранской нации"

Это примитивное азербайджанской элиты турки культуры с Кавказа, которые отличаются и несовместимы с историей и культурой жителей Ирана. Их политика была подытожил в сжатой заявлением выступил один из азербайджанских турок. Он заявил: "Иран - это не страна племен больше. Мы beutiful азербайджанский турок иранской нации. " И эти политики азербайджанских турок финансируются и sponspored в западных спонсоров азербайджанских турок в Иране за их стратегические и экономические интересы.

Азербайджанские турки имеют право требовать их этнические и культурные права. Это поддержано всеми жителями Ирана. В то же время жители имеют право требовать их этнических и культурных прав, также как в целом средства массовой информации в Иране преобладают азербайджанские турки, которые пытаются навязать азербайджанский турок культуры на остальную часть Иран. Из-за особых политических условий в Иран, сковороду turks в Тегеране не используют азербайджанском языке, но используют персидский язык в целях содействия их целей.
Пан Turkism и России

Кроме того, Иран в качестве страны, азербайджанский турок создает большую угрозу безопасности России в общеевропейском Turkism может способствовать в целом Средней Азии. Это изменение баланса сил в регионе в пользу США, в отличие от сегодняшней ситуации, когда Россия является доминирующей властью в регионе. И это причина азербайджанский турок поощряются со стороны США, как по Клинтона и Буша администраций.

Пан Turkism в Иране не является союзником Пан турок в Турции, которые имеют различные символы. Пан Turkism в Иране не использовать турецкий язык в качестве средства своей политики, как это невозможно в силу политических условий, в Иране в настоящее время. Но это может измениться в ближайшем будущем. Попытка навязать свою азербайджанский турок culutre на других людей под знаменем "общеевропейских Iranism". Необходимо отметить, что азербайджанские турки в Иране не имеют никаких "иранской" или "персидский" культура ", как очевидно, за последние 27 лет их правления в Иране.

Кроме того, Пан Turkism в Иране религиозный характер в отличие от anotolian светский вариант Пан Turkism. Вот почему Пан Turkism в Иране даже создает угрозу безопасности Турции, как азербайджанцы могут даже попытаться навязать свою версию Пан Turkism Турции. Вот почему Турция повторного рассмотрения союзов и дистанцируется от США и даже может сформировать альянс с Россией против азербайджанцев Пан турок в Иране. Это фактически то, что произошло в конце Saffavids династии в 1722, когда Россию и турки вторглись в Иран вместе.
Пан Turkism и демократии

Кроме того, выходцев из Ирана должно понять, что демократия не решит проблему этнических как это приведет к дальнейшему turkification Иран. Как мы увидим позднее азербайджанской элиты в Иране не позволят отдельным Персидского государства и хотят подвесить их власти и priviliges поэтому они предлагают иной путь. Это путь "расовой azeri turk национализма", основанный на Saffavids модели, которые можно сравнить с нацизмом расовой политики на Гитлера в современном времени. Именно для выполнения государственных расовой политики и попытки изменить этнический состав населения страны по политическим причинам.

Для уроженцев Иран лучше не попадать ловушку лозунгов для demcoracy как это приведет лишь к скорейшей turkification Иран. Азербайджанские turks как большинство населения сможет превратить Иран в турецкий государства и норм демократии, что позволит. Так что остается для местных жителей является требование федеративного государства на первом этапе, и отдельный государства, основанного на персидском культуры и традиций наряду с азербайджанской turk государства.
"Персидского государства" и "Azeribaijni государство"

Персы должны требовать демократии для Персидского государства, а не для турецкого государства в Иран. Мы используем "Персидского государства", как термин "иранского государства" был искажен как "азербайджанский турок". В Персидском государство является основной целью для всех жителей Ирана, независимо от их этнической принадлежности. Азербайджанские турки должны также создать свое собственное государство отдельно от Персидского государства.

Иран: от Aryanism панорамный Turkism
http://aryanpanturks.blogspot.com/

См. также: В политике отуречивания Иран
http://azeriturks.blogspot.com