Talk:Nizami Ganjavi/Archive 4

Some other mistakes by Mr. Baguirov

Folks I will fix any spelling or grammatical mistakes tomorrow, but the logic of this essay is sufficient. Specially see the part about Qatran Tabrizi where Mr. Baguirov makes a big blunder (point 8). Thanks to Mr. Baguirov I have written a lot of good work on Pan-turkism(close to 100 pages now) and indeed in an appropriate time, I will edit it into a good solid manuscript. Also see my point 4 about Nizami and his son and why Nizami was definitely not Turkic. (well we already know he was at least half Iranian for sure, but the other half is proven easily in point 4). Also the discussion was harsh sometimes (And Mr. Baguirov threw in more than his share of insults), but I am glad it is taking a friendlier tone.

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

Falsification 2) This falsification has to do with another big lie. Mr. Baguirov claimed that: For his knowledge, the following writings in Azerbaijani Turki have been preserved from BEFORE the Ilkanid ear: historian Masud ibn-Namdar (12th century). Indeed I not only did a Google search, but I checked couple of major University Libraries. For example see here: For example see here: [1].. As you can see, the book is in Arabic and it has been translated to Russian. And the title of the book is: Majmūaat qisas wa-rasāiil wa-ash'ār (The complete collection of stories, articles and poems) and the long title is completely Arabic. Note again the book is in Arabic and has nothing to do with Azerbaijani Turkic language!

The above two falsifications is a major breach of Academic honesty (there are much more: 1) where is Turan mentioned in the story of Khusraw o Shirin 2) Where is Afrasiyaab mentioned in this story on the same verse as Jamshid? And much more…. One can safely say the same thing about the other wild theories of Mr. Adil Baguirov. Indeed he does not know Persian and yet he wants to claim himself as a great scholar and makes condemnations about scholars. Indeed the character assassination of the Russian scholar that said Nizami had nothing to do with Azerbaijani Oghuz Turkic speaker is indeed tragic. Surely, Mr. Baguirov does not have the reputation of Iranian studies scholars in top Russian universities. Falsification 3) While I am at it, let me just add another point or two about one of the other false statements of Mr. Baguirov. Mr Baguirov said: Of course the fact that there are such great Turkic eposes as Dede Korkut and Oghuz Nameh, which are oral stories from at least 1300 ago, and oldest manuscript of which was written in 1053. And this claim is very big lie. There is only two manuscripts of dede Korkut work (compare it to say Shahnameh with 1000+ manuscripts). Dede-Qorqod contains about 150 Persian words and 300 Arabic words. It talks about Iranians (tats) with beards (Oghuz Turks at that time were mainly mongloid like Turkomens) doing Azzan while Iranians were not Islamified yet 1300 years ago. It talks about the land of Rum, while at that time it was not even at the hands of Muslims! Dede Korkut (the culture of Oghuz Turks) is totally from the Oghuz culture. [16]. Indeed to show that is not as old as Mr. Baguirov and other ultra-nationalists claim, the word "istanbul" is found in this book. And I quote[17]: The merchants set out on their long journey and traveled steadily for many days and nights. They came at last to the city of Istanbul. These were all major falsifications which Mr. baguirov chose to ignore in his latest message. Now lets see what new stuff Mr. Baguirov has falsified a new since a week ago. As per Mr. Adbil Baguirov lets remember he chose to use insults many times and now he asks for respect. I have a PhD in an unrelated field like Mr. Baguirov but I will not call him Dr. and He can call me Mr. But I am willing to keep tone free from any rhetoric and irrelevant comments as much as possible. All the mumbo-jumbo about the UN and etc. is not related to the issue of Nizami’s father. So I won’t even get sidestepped. But here is are some new false comments by Mr. Baguirov. Falsification 4) Another false claim of Mr. Baguirov: Ferdowsi was ordered Shahnameh by a Turk, as was the case with many other non-Turkic poets. . This statement is false today (had Mr. Baguirov read any of the recent scholarship of Ferdowsi including that by Dr. Khaleghi Motlaq). Indeed Ferdowsi started his work during the Samanid era. How many unsubstantiated claims is Mr. Baguirov going to make? He then continues: It was a Turk who ordered the poem, it was him who, despite the not very favorable language, paid for it, and it was him who ordered to transcribe it on many manuscripts and thus save it for the future generations Again repeateding the same statement without doing any research! Indeed Ferdowsi as shown by his biographers started the Shahnameh before Mahmud came to power! . (I can act like Mr. Baguirov and make tons of insults after correcting him on this issue, but lets just proceed). Falsification 5). And indeed Mr. Baguirov falsifies another quote from the panj-Ganj and claims: Look at this verse from Khosrov and Shirin: “My Kipchak idol! My sensual fragile crop (herb, plant)! Died, like Shirin, you too, my Afak (Appaq). The fact is such a verse does not exist! Else Mr. Baguirov show us the original verse if you are truthful. The original verse is this Mr. Baguirov! درین افسانه شرطست اشک راندن گلابی تلخ بر شیرین فشاندن بحکم آنکه آن کم زندگانی چو گل بر باد شد روز جوانی سبک رو چون بت قبچاق من بود گمان افتاد خود کافاق من بود Indeed I am not sure what educated person would translate the last two verses: Sabok roo chon bot-e-Qabchaq man bood – Gomaan oftaad khob ke-Afaaq man bood into:My Kipchak idol! My sensual fragile crop (herb, plant)! Died, like Shirin, you too, my Afak (Appaq) Indeed the word shirin is not even in the same like as the idol of Qifchaq! This is a major falsification. You see there is a big difference here! FROM now on we should demand Mr. Baguirov to use the original Persian verse as Nizami Ganjavi did not write in Turkic or Russian! What has happened here is that line 2 and line 5 have been mixed. Whereas line 1 and line 2 which are the full couplet have nothing to do with bote-e- Qapchaq. As per the absolute majority of sources, again on this matter of interpretation of this verse, if such a false translation of the Persian was made by the USSR scholar, then their opinion really has no value. Indeed Nizami Ganjavi does not use the word Apaq even once whereas Persian has p. Indeed Nizami Ganjavi uses the word Afaq as 46 times in his poetry to mean horizon! Indeed no ancient source has mentioned that Nizami Ganjavi had a wife named Afaq. So in this matter Mr. Baguirov needs to prove his point by the original Persian and not just quote some scholar. There is no verse where Shirin and Bot-e-Qapchaq are used in the same couplet. Indeed Said Nafisi who is a native speaker of the language is more authotarative than the translator who madeup such a false verse! MR. Baguirov by using verses that does not exist has shown that he completely lacks any credibility to discuss issues about Nizami’s wife. He is only copying polemic materials and indeed he has no choice since he can not read Nizami in its original language. His verse did not exist. But the above Persians verses can be taken as metaphor and there is no reason for me to take side on this issue, since we will never know for 100%. All we know is that even if she was a Turkic slave given by the ruler of Darband, this does not make Nizami’s father a Turk! And furthermore we know that there is no manuscript with Apaq and Nizami uses the term Afaq about 46 as meaning horizon and it would be rare for a poet to suddenly mean a different thing by using this word! And also at the same time, call other rulers, the ruler of Afaq!, which would be lewd! So about Nizami’s first wife which was given to him as a servant/slave by the ruler of darband as a gift, we simply do not have much information to make anything clear Said Nafisi on page 12 in his 1982 version of his book on Nizami Ganjavi has totally shown that “Gomaan oftaad khod ke-afaagh man bood” means that Nizami Ganjavi considered her to be all of his horizon. Which makes much more sense. Now I will make some comments and the they will show more falsification of history and verses by Mr. Baguirov. Falsification 5) Mr. Baguirov makes the absurd claim: It should be noted, that in the text of the Assyrian king Sargon II, the “mighty Midians (Medes)” are mentioned not as Aryan people and thus are separated from Iranians. Again this shows he is cut & pasting some material without thinking and proper reading. Neither are the Persians called Aryans by Assyrian king Sargon II! Indeed the Persians are called Aryans only in their own inscription during the Achaemenid era.

And much much more. The mistake about Afaq being Nizami’s third wife was indeed insignificant. Indeed I meant to say she was one of Nizami’s three wives. In the main article which I did much editing, I have confirmed this fact and never changed it and directly took the information from Dr. Bashiri’s website. That is it. The mistakes of Mr. Baguirov were significant and indeed the article on his own webpage even if it is from 10 years ago and written by someone else (whom?), is a mistake that he put on his webpage. So although both sides can make mistakes (specially I have written about 100 pages in the last two weeks or so), Mr. Baguirovs mistakes were much greater in scope. He for example mistook Keykhusraw for Jamshid, which are two different mythical characters. He claimed the word Turan is someone in Haft Paykar but did not bring the relevant verse.

Now lets get to the new comments of Mr. Baguirov and where to start is a good question. But thank you Mr. Baguirov for not mentioning unrelated issues. As per the Queen Tomyris that Herodotus mentions, let me add that she was a Masssagate and from Central Asia and not Azerbaijan. Mass-Sagate were again Iranian Scythian tries and her name thahmaris has a clear Iranian etymology and it is from the same as Tahmurath in the Shahnameh. This is mentioned by Walter Henning, one of the Iranologist. Also the death of the Cyrus the Great is legendary and three different accounts are available. But lets move on.

0) First as Per Akhundov, I quoted his own auto-biography. He says his father was a Persian from Rasht and he said people mistake him for an Azerbaijani Turk. That is another issue, but the direct quote was from his own auto-biography. Akhunzadeh in his biography says: although some think I am a Turk from Azerbaijan, but my father was actually a Persian from Rasht (Gilan). [2]. Here is his actual words: من اگرچه علي الظاهر ترکم اما نژادم از پارسيانست. جدم حاجي احمد از رشت آمده در آذربايجان توطن اختيار کرده است. پدرم ميرزا محمد تقي و من خودم در آذربايجان تولد و پرورش يافته‏ام Transliteration: Man agarcheh ala' al-zaaher torkam amaa nezhaadam az paarsiyaanast. Jadam Haji Ahmad az Rash Amadeh dar Azarbaijan Tavaton Ekhtiyaar kardeh ast. Pedaram Mirza Mohammad Taghi o Man khodam Azarbaijan tavalod o parvaresh yaafteh-am". This is his own biography and some people are not aware it. I would sent the link above to someone that knows Persian in the republic of Azerbaijan and that might shed new information on his life.

1) As per Shirin being an Armenian I already mentioned some Persian verses from throughout Persian poetry. As per her being a Christian, I would recommend Mr. Baguirov read the materials I have brought from Cambridge History of Iran (Sassanid volumes 3a and 3b). We already mentioned the Encyclopedia Iranica and Cambridge history of Iran all quotes by non-Iranians. So that issue is finished. The case of Shirin being a Christian and Armenian is affirmed by all scholars and there is no serious doubt. Even the Turkish-Joghtai poet Alisher Navai in his Farhad and Shirin mentions her as an Armenian. So Shirin was certainly a Christian. No debate here and I have all the newest available references to prove she was a Christian and Iranica metnions her as Armenian. Indeed the fact is that she is a real historical person and a Christian. Just like Khusraw is a real person.

2) Mr. Baguirov claims Stalin had nothing to do with Nizami’s appropriation by the republic of Azerbaijan. Again I quote Stalin:Stalin referred to Nizami 'as the great poet of our brotherly Azerbaijan people' who must not be surrendered to Iranian literature, despite having written most of his poems in Persian. . Mr. Baguirov is repeating the same thing! [3] It is a well known fact that in the USSR, the criticism of Stalin in such matters was a big mistakes. Millions died in Siberia because of criticizing Stalin or not being along his party line. Indeed what is interesting is that Tajiks after the break up of the USSR now have correctly claimed Nizami Ganjavi as a Tajik (Iranian). Indeed my Tajikistan friend told me , that their literature teacher during the time of USSR would teach them that Nizami Ganjavi was not a Turk, but it was not politically correct to state this opinion at that time. This is an important point to bear in mind. No matter how much duplicity one plays with, this is a fact that when Stalin takes sides on a measure issue, then virtually all scholars were reluctant to criticize them. So USSR era scholarship can not be taken seriously when it comes to Nizami’s ethnic background. In the west at that time, nobody talked about Nizami being Turkic (Rpyka, Wilson, Gelpke, Mattin, Hill, Brown, Darab..) and hosts of other scholars. Indeed today no major Enyclopedia or Western author has claimed any Turkishness for Nizami Ganjavi, but many sources have mentioned him as a “Persian poet”. None of these Western scholars were cowards. Indeed Mr. Baguirov uses the worst character assasiniation on a Russian scholar who said:

The scholar Mr. Baguirov quotes was a leading women communist of the communist era. She did not major in Persian literature (note majoring in Persian literature and being the chair of the Persian literature like some of the scholars I mentioned is different than being able to read Persian). Indeed for advanced training in Persian, some Western scholars had spent a good portion of their time in Iran. So the words of someone like Rypka (whose last article was published in 1968 in the Cambridge of History) has much more weight than someone who is not a specialist in Persian literature and Iranian studies. Indeed one can not understand Nizami without understanding Sanaii, Ferdowsi.. and etc. They are related.

But let me just quote some serious Azerbaijani scholars who mention Stalin and his influence on Nizami studies. Academician Mirza Ibrahimov, who was a member of the Azerbaijan academy of Sciences, writes: The history of the middle east and the east of the USSR must be rewritten from the perspective of Marxism and leninism. Again mr. Ibrahimov continues: The research from all the different aspects of Nizami started when the great leader of the nations, comrade Stalin, the great historian of the people, specially the people of the USSR, and also the great scientist on issues of nation studies, (Geez look all these praises!), in an interview talked about Nizami and recited some of his poetry. Our scholars then started their precise research into the life of Nizami’’. Ibrahimov continues: The preparation of the celebration of Nizami’s 800 year anniversary has to do directly with Stalin. His words were new beginning in the history of the nations of the east and were the main points for the identity of Azerbaijanis, and helped much in the knowledge of middle-eastern history.. ((Nizami Ganjavi, Research and sources of the conference, 1947, Baku, pg 134).

These facts show the great influence of Stalin on the matter of ethnicity. Indeed ethnic manipulation is nothing new and another Person that was claimed to be an ethnic Turk was Babak Khorramdin the leader of Khorramdin who Arab historians have clearly mentioned as an Iranian. Another one was Qatran Tabrizi, which soon we will talk about.

3) Mr. Baguirov again comments about Dr. Talattof quotes about ‘’ideological’’ research in Iran. Here he is twisting and playing with words. This is what Dr. Talattof wrote: ‘’As mentioned in the introduction to this volume, the rise of Islam to state ideology after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 effected culture in Iran, lead to the production of a body of Islamic-oriented literary criticism’’. So the issue is totally Islamic ideology and after the revolution much has been written and exposed on the Islamic nature of Persian poets and their biographies and life and work were examined from an Islamic religious point of view. That’s it. As per Mr. Baguirov’s other comment with bogus quotes coming from marr( see the Encyclopedia Iranica for Marrs many Bizarre theories at the end of his life) [4]. Indeed the Encyclopedia Iranica article written by Prof. Yakubovich continues: ‘’ This collection of selected papers mostly contains Marr's later works of rather dubious scholarly value, but it can be consulted for his complete bibliography up to 1933’’. Indeed Mr. Baguirov consistently quotes dubious materials!

I it must be said that I have in position Persian text books from both the Shah’s era and Islamic revolution era. They all have many excerpts from both Khaghani and Nizami in their original language and they are praised heavily. Also I mentioned at least 6 major works before Marr that deal with the biographies of Nizami and mention him as an excellent poet in the Iranian land. From Bahrestaan to Atashkadeh. Indeed the first complete edition of all of Nizami’s work was done by Dr. Dastgardi and today the most complete edition of all the 5 jewels have been produced in Iran by Dr. Zanjani. Dr. Zanjani has shown some very basic errors that the USSR scholars have made due to their lack of understanding of Persian language. Indeed some of the verses of the USSR scholars does not make any sense (see the Lalyi and Majnoon for example edited by Dr. Zanjani with the most available manuscripts and using all previous manuscripts)

4) Tork-taaz means plunderer. In Persian poetry and not just Nizami, a lover is also a plunderer of the heart. So sometimes when a lover plunders the beloved’s heart, the act is compared to Turks plundering a city. Again the different shades of meaning for the word Turk is too numerous to emphasize in Persian symbolic poetry, but there is a good reference on this manner. Let me just quote some verses that Nizami clearly uses this word to mean plunder. When talking about Eskandar and Russians: سوی روسی آورد یک ترکتاز چو تند اژدهائی دهن کرده باز Towards the Russian he did Turktaaz (attack, plunder) Like a fast dragon opening his mouth

Here is one from Attar: ترکتازی کن بتا بر جان و دل تا ز جان و دل شوم هندوی تو Translation: Do Tork-taazi o idol on the heart and soul So that from the heart and soul I may become your Hindu.

So the concept of plunder is also used symbolically as a plunderer of the heart. Indeed Nizami mentions about the character Turk-taaz (plunderer, attacker) and I quote from Mr. Baguirovs own webpage: ‘’ The Turk-eyed doe of Indian descent opened her little purse of musk.’’

So Mr. Baguirov again by being selective on Nizami’s use of Turkitaz, shows his lack of knowledge. Different Persian poets have compared their state to Hindu, Turk, Roman, Black and etc. Let me quote Attar again: بوسه چو داد ترک من هندوی او شد جان من Translation: Since my Turk gave me a kiss, I became from the bottom of my heart his Hindu.

When poets talk about Turk,India, Rome, Ethiopia one needs to take consideration of symbolic state of the poets feeling. When actual characters are in play, then that is different (for example Khaghan of Turks). For a short introduction to this wide topic, people should the article by Professor Annemarie Schimmel, Turk and Hindu, A literary Symbol. Indeed in Lili o Majnoon, many times Lili is compared to a “Turk” and sometimes characters would be compared to Hindu. Again I will confirm that these Turks were the Cheshm-Tang, Mongolian Turks you see in Central Asia. Not the Azerbaijani/Anatolian Turkic speakers who by modern genetic evidences are strongly predominantly non-Turkic in DNA. The problem is that Mr. Baguirov is confined in a small ethno-centric viewpoint and thus he can not grasp the symbolic meanings in Persian poetry. I have about 10 pages on how the word Turk is used in Persian materials. Specially when it compares to Ethipioa/India. For Iranian poets, Blacks/Indians were considered ugly, dark and Turks were considered light-skin and sun-like and pretty. Indeed had the people in the republic of Azerbaijan considered the fact that Nizami uses symbolic language many times, they would not be making such big mistakes and not view poetry from ethno-centric concept.

Also lets remember that Nizami uses the term Tork-zaad(a term used in classical Persian poetry meaning a son of Iranian who had a Turkic wife) for his son from his wife that was given to him by the ruler of Darband.

The first time such a word is used is by Ferdowsi (which Nizami was an avid reader of) when referring to Hormozd the Sassanid king whose father was the Sassanid king Anoshiravan and whose mother was from the Gok-Turks, sent by the Khaghan of Turks as a present to Anoshiravan.:

Ferdowsi says:

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

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

The translation is:

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

Indeed the difference between Tork-zaad and Tork is key here.

And again Ferdowsi says about Hormozd:

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

Keh in Torkzaadeh sezaavaar nist kasi raa beh shaahi kharidaar nist

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

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

This is a sufficient proof that Nizami was not a Turk. Indeed lets re-examine that section again:

تو کز عبرت بدین افسانه مانی چه پنداری مگر افسانه خوانی درین افسانه شرطست اشک راندن گلابی تلخ بر شیرین فشاندن بحکم آنکه آن کم زندگانی چو گل بر باد شد روز جوانی سبک رو چون بت قبچاق من بود گمان افتاد خود کافاق من بود همایون پیکری نغز و خردمند فرستاده به من دارای در بند پرندش درع و از درع آهنین‌تر قباش از پیرهن تنگ آستین‌تر سران را گوش بر مالش نهاده مرا در همسری بالش نهاده چو ترکان گشته سوی کوچ محتاج به ترکی داده رختم را به تارج اگر شد ترکم از خرگه نهانی خدایا ترک زادم را تو دانی

The last two line after mentioning his wife as an idol of Qifqach (and symbolism can not be ruled out). Nevertheless, Nizami says in the last two lines about the gift given to him from the ruler of Darband (and note he uses the term Daraayeh Darband which means the Darius of Darband again showing Persian and Iranian mythology/history): Cho Torkaan gashteh sooyeh kooch mohtaaj - beh Torki daadeh rakhtam raa beh taraaj - agar shod torkam az khargah nahaani - khwudaayaa tork-zaadam raa to daani" First line: Since the Torkaan (turks) are in need of migration (using the word Kuch which means nomadic migration), Second line: Beh Torki (In Turkis way) daadeh Rakhtam raa beh taaraaj (In Turkish manner has plundered my belongings) Third line: Agar shod torkam az khargah Nahaani (If(Agar) happened(Shod) torkam (my Turk) from (az) khargah (tent) Nahaani (disappeared) = If my torkam disappeared from her tent) Fourth line: O god you know best about my Tork-zaad.

Note Nizami uses the term Torkam for his wife, but Tork-zaad for his son. Tork-zaad is defined as race by Ferdowsi, Dekhoda (quoting Habib al-Sayar) and classical literature and it means a child from an Iranian father and Turkic mother. Indeed that is why there is a distinction between Tork (his wife) and Tork-zaad (his son). Indeed if Nizami was a Turk, he wouldn't need to point out a particular term like Tork-zaad! There is no way of going around this, as we already know Nizami read Ferdowsi thoroughly and knew what this term exactly meant. Also the way Nizami talks about Taraaj, Kooch and etc. makes it definite he was not a Turk. But his direct and explicit used of the term Tork-zaad in such a particular manner is sufficient to show he wasn't Turkic or else assuming 0.00000...1% chance he was, there would be no need to point out the obvious!. (although we already knew he wasn't Turk because his mother was Kurdish and so at most acording to our friends he would be a Kurd-Turk.).

5) When talking about Iranian or Azerbaijani nationality, as Mr. Baguirov said, such nationality did not exist. Indeed during the time of Nizami, what mattered was two nationalities (Mellats). There existed a Muslim state which was called Dar-e-al-Eslam ruled by Muslims and non-Muslim state called Dar-e-Al-Harb. So when we are talking about Nizami being Azerbaijani or Persian or Kurdish or whatever, we are clearly indicating ethnicity. Since the nation states did not exist. Although I might add this that the geographical entity called Iran did exist as Nizami has mentioned it. Also Mr. Baguirov mentions that the Armenian poetess Shaghniyan (who was shown not be have major in Persian literature and did not chair Persian studies), called Nizami an Azerbaijani poet. An Azerbaijani poet could simply mean someone from the republic of Azerbaijan and does not denote oghuz ethnicity. Indeed calling Nizami Azerbaijani from ethnic point of view is wrong since he was at least half Iranic (Kurdish). He was not an Azerbaijani poet either since he didn’t write anything in Azerbaijani Turkish. So he was just a poet from the Atabak controlled state of Ganja. So the term Azerbaijani does not apply in any way. The case of Shahriyar can not be compared to Nizami. Shahriyar has Iranian citizenship and birth certificate. At the time of Nizami, there was no such thing as a country of “Azerbaijan” with a national border identity and birth certificate. So lets not compare apples and oranges. Shahriyar again was an ethnic Azerbaijani with Iranian nationality. But at the time of Nizami, there was no concept of citizenship here and we are speaking purely in ethnic terms. Here lets compare apples to apples. Rudaki one of the first Persian poets was from the modern country of Uzbekistan. But in no way or form he was an Uzbek and he was ethnically an Iranian. Nizami Ganjavi is similar and he was ethnically Iranian and even our fiends agree that he was at least half ethnically Iranian! So since Rudaki can not be considered an Uzbek, Nizami Ganjavi can not be an Azarbaijani Turk. So let us get something straight here. In this discussion , when I use the term Iranian , Kurd, Persian,.. I mean ethnicity. The term Turkic is also used since the current people of the republic of Azerbaijan mainly consider themselves descendants of Oghuz Turks. (Although this is only linguistically true and the Turkmens of Iran are the real Oghuz, nevertheless..). Sometimes it is even difficult to judge for example the case of Akhundov who was of Persian ancestry but his descendants surely are now Turks. As per Iranians and not ethnic Persian claiming Pahlavi and Avesta. Firstly because modern Persian is a continuation of Khorasani dialect of Pahlavi. And although Pahlavi script is hard, many of the actual Pahlavi remnants are not hard to understand for Persian speakers that had no training in the language. I will bring for example a sample and Mr. Baguirov can examine it on a random Persian speaker: Dārom andarz-ē az dānāgān Az guft-ī pēšēnīgān Ō šmāh bē wizārom Pad rāstīh andar gēhān Agar ēn az man padīrēd Bavēd sūd-ī dō gēhān برگردان فارسی: «دارم اندرزی از دانایان از گفته ی پیشینیان به شما بگزارم (= گزارش دهم) به راستی اندر جهان اگر این از من پذیرید بُوَد سود دو جهان».

Indeed Just like a Turk can be proud of say Kashgari, an Iranian can be proud of Avesta. Zoroaster even calls himself Aryan and virtually 90% of Pahlavi words have survivred in modern Persian. So just like a modern Greek is proud of ancient Greek and a modern Armenian is proud of Grabar(old Armenian), an Iranian is proud of its older languages. But Nizami Ganjavi wrote in Persian and modern Persian did not evolve into Azerbaijani Turkish. So I hope the connection is clear. As per Mr. Baguirov's question: By the way, what is your response to Tajikistan, which has less history of independence than Azerbaijan yet shares so many great figures with Iranian (Persian) culture, such as Ferdowsi? The issue is that Tajiks consider themselves Iranic people, so there is no contradiction. If the people of Azerbaijani republic considered themselves Iranic instead of Turkic, then I would have no problem as well. Note if Azarbaijani's of the republic of Azerbaijan did not forget their Iranian, Median and Zoroastrian heritage and did not blindly call themselves Turks (it is like the Irish who speak English calling themselves Anglo-saxon), I would not even have an issue.

5) As far as the name goes, Dr. Julia Scott Maysami does not sound Iranian. I have never heard an Iranian with the name Julie Scott. She was born in California. More importantly Dr. Maysami is a Professor of Oxford University. Dr. Talattof is a Professor of University of Arizona. So the academic credentials are taken into consideration. Indeed Mr. Baguirov can not show one Western Academician of Persian studies that would agree with him. I can say for example Jerome Clinton, Peter Chelkowski, Franklin Lewis and hosts of other Persian experts in the West and none of them have called Nezami Ganjavi Turk and they all use the term “Persian Poet”.

6) Mr. Baguirov plays a double game like all cunning ultranationalists. Let me show you why. First on the term Ajam, just like Mr. Baguirov quoted it also refers to non-Arab and a foreigner from an Arabs point of view. So if Layli’s father is talking about Ajam it means non-Arab or foreign. For example Ajami Turk means foreign Turk which is foreign to Arabian lands. And also let me add that unlike the Shirvanshah or Alexandar, Layli’s father is not a positive character in the story. Mr. Baguirov is in no position to judge about embarrassing quotes when his quotes simply did not exist and he mistook Jamshid for Freydoon. Or one of the false verses I brought: ‘’ My Kipchak idol! My sensual fragile crop (herb, plant)! Died, like Shirin, you too, my Afak’’ Let me say that Dr. Kazem Azary is also a researcher and he takes the interpretation of the terms Bukhari and Tabari as Iranian languages. There is nothing embarrassing or wrong with this intrepretation and it could be valid. Since Soghdian was spoken around Bukhara and Tabari has a rich folk literature like Marzuban Nama. So for Mr. Baguirov to dwell on this point, is indeed a waste of time. So indeed both translations can make sense. Many verses from Nizami and older Persian poets can be interpreted differently and there is nothing embarrassing about it. What is embarrassing is for someone not to know Persian and not be able to read Nizami and then claim that different translations of verses that may contain ambiguity is embarrassing. As per the verses in question, I brought them from Vahid Dastgerdi’s edition and there is no censorship. Also will double check with Zanjanis' edition. Indeed if Mr. Baguirov would like to know, there were some Mullahs that even cursed at Cyrus the great and Zoroaster and there is no ethnic pride in the Mullahs! One of them in the beginning of the revolution wanted to bulldoze all of Persepolis which is one of the greatest prides of all Iranian. If there is a part missing in Persian, bring it forth and lets judge.

The Vahid Dastgerdi edition has the verses I brought: کای در عرب از بزرگواری در خورد سری و تاجداری مجروحم و پیر و دل شکسته دور از تو به روز بد نشسته در سرزنش عرب فتاده خود را عجمی لقب نهاده این خون که ز شرح بیش بینم در کردن بخت خویش بینم خواهم که در این گناهکاری سیماب شوم ز شرمساری گر دخت مرا بیاوری پیش بخشی به کمینه بنده خویش راضی شوم و سپاس دارم وز حکم تو سر برون نیارم The verse in question from Layli's father (who is cruel and bad character unlike Shirvanshah and Alexandar) is: Dar sarzanesh Arab fetaadeh Khod raa Ajami laghab nahaadeh Which translates to: I came to give belittling advice to Arabs And have called myself Ajami (non-Arab) Then next line brought by Mr. Baguirov does not exist: ‘’for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear.’’ So the difference between Layli’s father who is a negative character and Shirvanshah (who Nizami praises in 90 lines) and Alexandar (who Nizami praises) is well known. So I do not even need to defend such a quote since Layli’s father is not a positive character in the story. And to the Arabian world, Ajam’s first definition is still non-Arab. Let me just add that Sunni Kurds of Iran call Azarbaijanis Ajam. Also the Baluchis of Iran call Persians as “Qajars”. But just to show Mr. Baguirov is again not careful, I will quote him here: In fact, the Encyclopedia Iranica that Mr. Doostzadeh holds in high regard says the following in a relevant article of its most recent edition (Ajam, p. 700): “Ajam, the name given in medieval Arabic literature to the non-Arabs of the Islamic empire, but applied especially to the Persians”. Note that Nizami’s poetry was neither “Arabic literature”, nor did he live in an Arab “Islamic empire” (although Turk Seljuks did reside in Baghdad and ruled the caliphate, much like later did the Ottomans). Thus, even Arabs themselves “applied [Ajam] especially to the Persians”.’’

Mr. Baguirov how could you forget that Layli o Majnoon is an Arabic story!? And indeed Nizami is the first person to write about this story in Persian literature. Indeed the story of Layli and Majnun has been part of Arab folklore and literature way before Persian and Turkish. Also see the comment, by Iranica that it applies to non-Arabs. And yes Layli o Majnoon sources that Nizami used was Arabic literature.

7) Now lets examine Mr. Baguiros point IV. Firstly there is no proof Nizami spoke Turkish. And uneducated people can learn other languages. For example Mr. Baguirov himself claimed that Nizami’s mother who was a Kurd did not necessarily speak Kurdish and so Nizami’s mother tongue was not necessarily Turkic! So the hypocrisy of Mr. Baguirov is apparent. An uneducated Kurd speaks Turkish fluently according to him, but an uneducated Turk can not speak any other languages! Of course when it comes to proving a point, Mr. Baguirov does not care to even belittle Turks. Now as per the issue at hand on point IV. As per Nizami boasting about his research in Persian and Arabic manuscript, that is because an uneducated person or a non-researcher does not do research! Also Nizami was a humble fellow and does not boast about knowing languages! (Indeed here were see to the 100% ethno-centric viewpoint of Mr. Baguirov on every single matter related to Nizami, he fails to grasp the simples poinst). He boasts about gathering and researching.. He is just stating that he did research in these manuscripts to gather the story! Nothing about ethnicity of his father or many other weird extrapolations of Mr. Baguirov. For example an uneducated Arab can not boast about researching in Arab or Persian. Also Nizami’s particular stories were in certain books. Like for example Ferdowsi who mentions doing research in the work of other Persian works. This is nothing new. If I mention doing research in Persian books, it doesn’t mean I am not an Iranian! Such absurd logic does not even deserve a response. Indeed what matters is that Nizami never mentions doing research in any Turkish work. Indeed some Turkish work, especially Eastern Turkish work were available at the time of Nizami, but Nizami never mentions them. Indeed for example some of the Eastern Turkish works could have been useful when Nizami deals with the Khaghans, but he doesn’t mention them. Also funny thing is that Mr. Baguirov claimed that dede qorqud is 1300 years old (and this is one of the biggest lies of the Azerbaijani republic) and how come Nizami does not mention it?

Now I will use again Smiths translation with the exception that Dari and not Persian will be used. In the comment about Qatran Tabrizi where Mr. Baguirov made a big mistake, I will show the difference between what is meant by Dari and what is meant by Persian.

(begin) I looked in the records of interesting histories.. For anything to help expand heart’s boundaries From all that the book of king (clear mention of Shahnameh) contains I chose what seemed good in my book combining In the first place I thought a plan, ingenious And then embodied in its number…harmonious When particles remained of this ruby-chipping Of every atom I contrived to make something… From those small fragments, like skilful jewler, I formed and polished a not worthless treasure.. So that great, who knows how to distinguish, To choose from the portraits if it was their wish What the King book had half-said, I said fully What jewels he had half-pieced I pierced wholly. Whatever I perceived to be right and be perfect, Not to disturb, as it stood at first, I did elect I made every effort that in the proper setting, To encase each choice and rare fragmentation. Again, I searched books through the world.. For what had been hidden, almost forgotten Whatever was written in Arabic and Dari Tales preserved by Tabari and Bokhari’s pen (note the reason I take Dr. Kazem Azari’s point of view is that Bokhari did not write any ‘tales’ and Hadeeth were not considered mere stories. Also Bokhari did not write anything about Bahram Gur. Indeed Nizami could have used Hadeeth’s from Bukhari in his work, but these were not tales like the book of Kings. Also Soghdian and Tabari had extensive literature and the are as different from Persian as Avesta is from Persian and in no way are they dialects.) And words through other volumes scattered And each pearl in a subtle fashion arranged. (end)

As you can see the poet talks about the beauty of his work and does not boast about KNOWING this or that particular language. The extraneously absurd extrapolations of Mr. Baguirov and his ethno-centric interpretation of simple manners is indeed astonishing. The reason Nizami uses Persian and Arabic firstly is because these were languages that he knew, and if he knew Turkic, he would mention it also. Since eastern Turkic had good amount of literature and at that time, the Turkic languages were still very close and Nizami could have easily picked up Turkic languages and read their manuscripts, had he knew Turkic. Also if someone today writes a book in Persian and then talks about research Persian, Arabic, German, Kurdish.. materials, it has no bearing on his ethnicity!

As per Mr. Baguirov comments: ‘’ Mr. Doostzadeh did an excellent job on several occasions in emphasizing that the ethnic Turkic rulers and nobility were culturally Persianizing.. thus leaving the common name “Turk” mostly for Oghuz Turks and few others…. Because of this, those Turkic rulers, like Ghaznavis or Atabeks or Seljuks, were not interested in Turkic history per se, they were interested in the “great kings”’’, Actually perhaps Mr. Baguirov should want to know that the Seljuqids were themselves originally a branch of Oghuz Turks and the seljuqids in Anatolia did not consider themselves Turks later on. So were many of the Atabeks. Neither did the Ottoman emperors who also had clear Oghuz roots. Indeed the Seljuqids were a very important branch of Oghuz Turks originally, but that is another story. Of course I will not insult Mr. Baguirov who did not know Seljuqids were Oghuz Turks too. Let me just add that though the nomdaic non-sedentary Turks were not capable of producing literature and people like Nizami Ganjavi at that time. As Mr. Baguirov said: This was all associated with “nomadic” Turkic culture which was deemed inferior to the “great” and “civilized” Iranian or Arab (semi-) sedentary cultures. . So even if Mr. Baguirov wants us to believe that Nizami's other half was Turkic, culturally he was part of the Iranian sedentary culture.

8) Mr. Baguirov makes another interesting comment!:’’It would be interesting to hear thoughts about Nizami’s usage of the “Torkan-e galam” term – that is, “writing Turks”, “Turkic authors/writers” – whom are briefly mentioned, as ethnic Turks did not dominate the writing guild at the time nor was there much literature in Turki using Arabic script.’’ The actual verse is this: به ترکان قلم بی نسخ تاراج یکی میمش کمر بخشد یکی تاج

Transliteration: Beh torkaan ghalam bi-naskh taraaj Now how Nizami uses Torkaan (Turks), Ghalam (which means both pen and also means cutting, breaking in half and many other meanings see dekhoda..) and the word Taraaj (plunder, mass) in the same sentence. Indeed the verse about does not necessarily mean writing Turk writes and can be translated variously It all depends how the word Ghalam is used by the word taraaj is very clear in meaning: plunder. 9) About Nasrani, Hebrew, Pahlavi. Interestingly enough, Mr. Paul smith translated Nasrani as Armenian based on G.H. Darab’s translation I am sure. So here Mr. Baguirov shows a kind of hypocrisy and I can easily quote Paul Smith and say G.H. Darab and Mr. Baguirov (who hates Armenians because of the recent war and such hatred between two warring countries is natural although unhealthy), will object. Let me say that firstly the word Nasrani in classical Persian generally means Christian. That is why I wrote various Greek/Syriac/Armenian and etc. But Mr. Baguirov who keeps mentioning Professional translations, now has come to disagee with G.H. Darab’s translation. As per Academic edition, I have the best academic edition, (Dr. Zanjani’s). And the translation of Prof. Beterls is the same pretty much. Because having Pahlavi manuscripts, means that Nizami could read Pahlavi books. Also Pahlavi could also mean Zoroastrian materials next to Christian and Jewish materials. Either way Zoroastrian materials were written in Pahlavi languages and not Dari-Persian. Here is what I wrote: The following verse from the Eskandar Nama again shows that Nizami was familiar with the history books and the languages of Hebrew, Nestorian(Syriac or Armenian) and Pahlavi (middle Persian). Also Turkish is not mentioned. سخنها که چون گنج آگنده بود به هر نسختی در پراکنده بود ز هر نسخه برداشتم مایه‌ها برو بستم از نظم پیرایه‌ها زیادت ز تاریخهای نوی یهودی و نصرانی و پهلوی Translation (non-poetic and accurate): The words that were like abundant jewls, were dispered in many different manuscripts, from each manuscript I took the main themes In form of poetry I decorated them many(of the manuscripts) from the recent history Yahudi (Hebrew) and Nasrani (Nestorian probably Syriac or Greek or Armenian) and Pahlavi (Middle Persian) So we are sure that Nizami was familiar with many languages and assuming that he knew Turkish (which is not proved), it doesn't make him Turkish. Just like him being familiar with Pahlavi (and Middle Persian dialects were still strong in the area for example the poetry of Baba Taher is in a Middle Persian dialect), it doesn't necessarily make his father a Pahlavi speaker.

Now the term Rumi (Roman) was used for Greek language frequently. The term Yahudi also was used for language in Persian. But what is without doubt is the Pahlavi part. Pahlavi is a language and since Nizami mentions the other two religions, Nasrani and Yahudi, but does not mention Zardushti (Zoroastrian), then I have also taken Yahudi to mean language here. Either way the books of Jews are in Hebrew and those of Christians in a language used by Christrians of the area. But the term Pahlavi is unambiguous, and refers to middle Persian and sometimes modern Persian. But since Nizami mentions the other two faith, I assume he had access to Zoroastrian materials which were exclusively in Pahlavi. So we can strongly assume that Nizami Ganjavi was also familiar with Pahlavi, which virtually no Turk would be familiar with.

8) On the point V of Mr. Baguirov and on Ganja and its population. Again I mentioned that I did not say anything about huns or Sabirs settled exactly in Ganja, but I mentioned a material that mentions it in the vicinity of Ganja. (Huns article on Iranica). Furthermore these were incursions by few tribes and did not change the general characteristic of the people and were totally absorbed prior to Islam as Indeed all the Arab geographers who traveled to the area never mentioned Turkic from the beginning of Islam all the way down to the Seljuqid era.

Mr. Baguirov metnions: Thirdly, Arabic sources also mention the multitude of different people and languages that existed in the Caucasus at the time, especially among mountainous residents of Arran and Azerbaijan (Note: 50% of current Republic of Azerbaijan are mountainous).’’. But indeed none of them mention Turkic languages!

Indeed lets just go through some of these quotes and actual Arabic will provided with also references to Iranica. Let me for example quote Masoud again (original Arabic provided from al-waraq.com).

Let’s mention each of the Historians Mr. Baguirov and I mentioned previously and see none of them mention Turkish in the area. (Indeed if Turks were in the area for a long time, then they would have settled much earlier and developed the sedentary culture). According to the famous historian al-Masu'di, who lived in the 10th Century AD, the Persians are: a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenian and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages. (Al Mas'udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8)

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

Prior to that, we quote Ibn-Nadeem: ابن نديم در الفهرست مي‌نويسد: فأما الفهلوية فمنسوب إلى فهله اسم يقع على خمسة بلدان وهي أصفهان والري وهمدان وماه نهاوند وأذربيجان وأما الدرية فلغة مدن المدائن وبها كان يتكلم من بباب الملك وهي منسوبة إلى حاضرة الباب والغالب عليها من لغة أهل خراسان والمشرق و اللغة أهل بلخ وأما الفارسية فتكلم بها الموابدة والعلماء وأشباههم وهي لغة أهل فارس وأما الخوزية فبها كان يتكلم الملوك والأشراف في الخلوة ومواضع اللعب واللذة ومع الحاشية وأما السريانية فكان يتكلم بها أهل السواد والمكاتبة في نوع من اللغة بالسرياني فارسي (= اما فهلوي منسوب است به فهله كه نام نهاده شده است بر پنج شهر: اصفهان و ري و همدان و ماه نهاوند و آذربايجان. و دري لغت شهرهاي مداين است و درباريان پادشاه بدان زبان سخن مي‌گفتند و منسوب است به مردم دربار و لغت اهل خراسان و مشرق و لغت مردم بلخ بر آن زبان غالب است. اما فارسي كلامي است كه موبدان و علما و مانند ايشان بدان سخن گويند و آن زبان مردم اهل فارس باشد. اما خوزي زباني است كه ملوك و اشراف در خلوت و مواضع لعب و لذت با نديمان و حاشيت خود گفت‌وگو كنند. اما سرياني آن است كه مردم سواد بدان سخن رانند). Translation in English: Ibn Nadeem quotes the scholar Ibn Moqaffa (759 A.D.) that the language of Azarbaijan, Esfahan, Rayy , Hamadan and Maah Nahavand is Pahlavi. The language of Mada’iin is Dari and this is also the language of the people of Khorasan and Balkh. (Iranica, Azari, , pg 238). Also Hamza Esfahani, Yaqut, Khawarazmi mention this also. Mr. Baguirov should take a note of difference between Dari and Pahlavi. Dari indeed was the Middle Persian dialect of Khorasan which was also influenced by Parthian, Soghdian and etc. Still though the grammer of Pahlavi and Dari are not different and many Pahlavi writings can be understood with modern Persian without the use of looking up even one word.

Next one is Fotuh Al-Buldan. I alread brought the Arabic quotes mentioning Kurds of Balasaagaan,.. Indeed under the victory in Azerbaijan, Baladhuri mentions:

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

He also uses the word Han (modern Persian Khaneh) which means house still. This is from 869 A.D. Again no Turkic in the area mentioned by Baladhuri. (Else bring the actual Arabic )

Moqaddasi (late 4th/10th century). Original Arabic: وبارمينية يتكلمون بالأرمينية، وبالران بالرانية، وفارسيتهم مفهومة تقارب الخراسانية في حروف

Translation: The language of Arran is Arranian and the language of Armenian is Armenian and their Persian (which again shows the common language of the area due to long term Sassanid, Parthian, Achaemenid, Median control) is similar to the Persian of Khorasan (Dari).

ON Azarbaijan he clearly mentions Iranian language. (Iranica, pg 239). The next one is Ebn Hawqal: the language of people of Azerbaijan and most people of Armenia is Iranian (Al-faresiya) which binds them together, while Arabic is also used among them; amongst those that speak al-faresiya , there are few who do not understand Arabic..’’ (same article) So again Ebn Hawqal does not mention Turkic. There is a couple of others which are already mentioned in the Iranica article. So all the classical authors have mentioned Iranian based languages in the area, Armenian and Arranian. But none of them mentioned Turkic. Either Turkic was not present or it was not wide spread.

Also lest to remind people again, Nizami Ganjavi in Eskandar Namah has clearly mentioned Azarbaijan as an Iranian and Zoroastrian strong-hold. Indeed the Turks have been put beyond the caucus and Central Asia and Western China. This is an important point.

10) Now lets get to the issue of Qatran Tabrizi comes up (and I have done a good amount of research on this poet) and Mr. Baguirov mentions a Turkic book about Qatran which is useless. Firstly let me mention this verse from Qatran: بلبل به سان مطرب بیدل فراز گل گه پارسی نوازد، گاهی زند دری The nightgale like a minstrel on flower, sometimes plays a tune in Persian(Parsi) and sometimes in Dari (Dari). Now here Qatran has mentioned Persian and Dari as two different dialects or languages. Persian (Parsi) is the same as the Fahlavi-Azari that Qatrans region spoke while Dari (the Khorasani Persian) was what Naser-e-Khusraw spoke. Indeed beyond Tabriz, Naser Khusraw wanders to Ekhlat, a city in modern Anatolia and he mentions the languages as Persian, Armenian and Arabic. Yet no mention of Turkic! Also it should be mentioned that Naser Khusraw praises the beauty of Turks and at the same time here dislikes Turks severely. It is the same for Qatran.. About that line of Turk and Ganja it is

اي ترك، به گنجه از كجا افتادي كاندر دل و جان من، فكندي شادي

يك بوسه مرا، به مستي اندر دادي اي ترك، هميشه مست و خرم بادي

Nothing special. The first verse says: "O Turk, from which place did you fall in Ganja". Indeed this shows that Turks were not natives of Ganja in Qatrans time. Although Qatran could just mean that a beautiful girl was in Ganjah that he liked.

Let us bring a general background of the Oghuz tribes in the area. Here we quote ‘’The Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1217), Boseworth, Cambridge History of Iran, pg 32)’’ (Begin )

The Rawwadids (latterly the form Raward is commoner in the sources) were another product of the upsurge of the mountain peoples of northern Iran; their domain was Azarbaijan , and particularly Tabriz. Strictly speaking, the Rawwadid family was of Azdi Arab origin, but by the 4th/10 century they were accounted Kurdish. (my comment: Shows the Iranian nature of the area were former Arabs like Shirvanshah and Rawwadids were Iranianize) At the opening of the Abbasid period Rawwad. B. Muthanna had held fief which included Tabriz. Over the course of the next two centuries his descendant became thoroughly Kurdicized, and the “Rawwadi Kurds” emerged with Iranian names, although the local poet Qatran (d 1072) still praises them for their Arab ancestry. Early in the 4th/10th century the Sajid line of the Arab governors in Azarbaijan collapsed, and the region became politically and socially disturbed. A branch of the Musafirid of Tarum first emerged there, but despite Buyid help the Musafirid Ibrahim b. Mazban was depose in 980-1, probably by the Rawwadid Abul’ Haija Husain b. Muhammad (955-88); certainly it was the Rawwadids who succeeded to all of the Musafirid heritage in Azarbaijan.

The most prominent member of the dynasty in the 5th/11th century was Vahsudan b. Mamlan b. Abi’ Haija. It was in his reign that the Oghuz invaded Azarbaijan. There were some of the first Turkmen to come westwards, being the so-called ‘’Iraqis’’, or followrs of Arsalan Isra’il, expelled from Khurasan by Mahmud of Ghaza. Vahsudan received them favourbly in 419/1028, hoping to use them as auxiliaries against his many enemies, such as the Christian Armenians and Georgians and the rival Muslim dynasty of Shaddadids. He even married the daughter of an Oghuz chief, but it still proved impossible to used the anarchic nomads as a reliable military force. In 429/1037 they plundered Maragheh (my comment: something all poets refer to when it comes to Turks) and massacared large numberf of Hadbani Kurds. Vahsudan allied with his nephew, the chief of the Hadhbanis, Abu’l Hija b. Rahib al-Daula, against the Turkmen; many of them now migrated southwards towards Iraq, and in 432/1040 Vahsudan devised a stratagem by which several of the remaining leaders were killed. The rest of the Oghuz in Azarbaijan then fled to the territory of the Hakkari Kurds south-west of Lake Van. (End of Boseworths quote).

Now I will show how Mr. Baguirov has manipulated Qatran Tabrizi. Mr. Baguirov writes: These Turks arriving from Turkistan Accepted you as their ruler Separated from their relatives and relations Began living under your rule Now they are everywhere Prepared to serve you

Indeed this was the time when Vahsudan wanted to use the migrating Oghuz from Khorasan. But then later on with the uncultured behavior of the Oghuz tribes, Qatran disparages Turks like no poet in Persian poetry has. Let me just quote some of it with all references provided in the original Persian: قطران تبريزی نيزدر بسياری از چکامه هايش ترکان را شايسته سرزنش دانسته و انان را نکوهش افزون کرده است . نمونه هايی از ان ابيات در ذيل می ايد : اگر بگذشت از جيحــون گروه ترکمانـــان را // ملک محمـــــــود کــاو را بود زابل کان در سنجر .... زمانی تازش ايشان به شروان اندرون بودی // زمانـــی حملـــه ايشان بــــه اذربايگــــان انــدر نبود از تازش ايشان کسی بر چيز خود ايمن // نبود از حمله ايشان کسی بر مال خود سرور (شهرياران گمنام ؛ ص۱۶۰) Sometimes the plunders of the turkomens occur in Shirvan, sometimes in Azarbaijan, No one was safe from their plunder and killing, no one had control of any of his material beings due to their plunder.

شده چون خانه زنبور با غم از ترکان // همی خلند به فرمان ما چو زنبورم (همان ؛ ص۱۹۷)

قطران در يکی از سروده هايش به هنگام ستايش يکی از فرمانروايان بومی اذربايجان عامل عدم پيشرفت کار او را حضور ترکان برشمرده است : گر نبودی افت ترکان به گيتی در پديد // بستدی گيتی همه چون خسروان باستان ( همان ؛ ص۱۹۷) Telling one of the princess he praises, Qatran writes: If it wasn’t for the calamity that appeared because of Turks, you would take control of the world like ancient Kings of Iran

قطران در بدگويی و مذمت ترک تباران چنان سخن گفته که حتی انان را موجب ويرانی ايران زمين برشمرده و

اين مفهوم به روشنی از بيت زير که در ستايش اميری از اميران اذربايجان سرايش يافته برمی ايد : اگر چه داد ايران را بلای ترک ويرانی // شود از عدلش ابادان چون يزدانش کند ياری ( همان ؛ ص۱۹۷) Translation: Even though the calamity of the Turks plundered Iran, but if Gods justice wills, Iran will be prosperous again اين شاعر اذربايجانی در يکی ديگر از چکامه هايش که در قالب قصيده سروده است ترکان را خونخوار و جرار و غدار و مکار خوانده است : کمــــر بستند بهــــر کيــن شه ترکان پيکاری // همـــه يکـرو به خونخواری همه يکدل به جراری يکی ترکان مسعودی به قصد خيل مسعودان // نهاده تن به کين کاری و دل داده به خونخواری .... چــه ارزد غـدر با دولت چه ارزد مکـر با دانش // اگـرچـه کــــار ترکان هست غــداری و مکــاری( همان ؛ ص۱۷۲)

All the turks got ready for battle again the Shah, the all united in blood sucking,.. they all inclined to hatred and their heart given into blood sucking (khoon-khwaari). What can treachery and faithlessness do blessing, what can trickery do to someone with knowledge, although the actions of Turks is all treachery and deceit.

"ترا خيل و رهی ای شاه بسيارنـــد و من داغـــم رهی را کی کـــم از قلاش و خيلــــی کمتر از تـــــرکان هميشه عزم ايشان بود بر تاراج و بــر کشــــــتن چو با شعر عـزم شان آنگونه باشد حال شان اين سان کنون تا از سر ايشان تو سايه بــــر گــــرفتـــــــه نگه کن تا چه آورده است گــــردون بــــر سر ايشــان" Translation: All the turks are inclined to do is plunder and killing.

So Mr. Baguirov, due to his lack of study in this matter thinks Qatran was a Turk. Indeed Qatran was at first happy with the alliance of the Oghuz tribes and praises his Rawwadid ruler. But then he sees the plundering and killings of Turks and their nomadic Oghuz behavior and disparages them heavily. Also Qatran heavily praises Sassanid and ancient Persian mythologies. His words for Turks is indeed really harsh.

11) The article by Dr. Bourtounian is solid proof of manipulation by the top echelons of the government of Azerbaijan.[5]. Rock solid. Mr. Baguirov does not know Persian to judge the Dr. Bournoutian's Persian. I can verify that all of Dr. Bourtounians words are correctly translated and so can other Iranian users. As per forgery and Nizami Ganjavi, let me quote a prominent scholar from the republic of Azerbaijan. Indeed a scholar from the republic of Azerbainan of 1980 forged the following verse: Pedar bar pedar mar-maraa tork bood - beh farzaanegi har yeki gorg bood!! The problem with this scholar is that the word Tork and Gorg are never rhymed in any Persian poetry and indeed violate the rules of Persian poetry. Furthermore Gorg(Wolf) is belittled in Nizami Ganjavi's poetry and although Turks had much respect for the wolf, the wolf is seen as heineous creature in the poetry of Nizami Ganjavi! (One can use all sorts of arguments like these!). Here is the translation of the madeup verse by the scholar of the republic of Azerbaijan: My father from generation to generation was a Tork - IN wisdom each one was like a gorg(wolf). Indeed this is the sort of polemical manuals Mr. Baguirov quotes from. This is the ideologically motivated scholarship of the repbulic of Azerbaijan, some of the scholars of the republic of Azerbaijani who delete quotes about Armenians and makeup quotes that do not even rhyme! This false verse which does not even rhyme was published by Arsali Nooshabi (Baku, 1980, Elm publishers) and the book is called “Nizami va Adabiyaat Torki”(Nizami and Turkish literature although Nizami did not write one verse of Turkish!). What can justify such a apparent and clear falsification except ethno-centric scholarship? Indeed can ethno-centric scholarship grasp Persian symbolic poetry? For example when Laili is compared to a Hindu, Turk, or whatever.. Vladimir Minorsky also says in: Pan Turkism, par minorsky dans ensycolpdie de islam, Livraison N. P. 924 Akopov Where ever there exist a problem unsolved, the Turks usually make claims that it belongs to their civilization’’ (retranslated from Persian). Also let me mention that there are people that manipulate in every culture but the republic of Azerbaijan by claiming 1300 year celebration of Dede Qorqod is definitely on the very top of the list. I have much more material from a dude name Fereydoon Aghasi-Oglu.. How about starting with his theory that Khazar and Azar are from the root and Turks being more ancient than Sumerians... I trust Prof. Iqrar Alioff though because of I have read some of his materials and they are sound. I would look at this discussion by one of Mr. Baguirov's friend[6] (although due to wrong propaganda there is a Turkish poem here that is not Nizami's[[7]] and no serious scholar has ever assigned a verse of Turkic to Nizami.)

12)

Conclusion: Nizami Ganjavi was Iranic in ethnicity and culture. He wrote three of his works about Ancient Persia. He tells the son of the Shirvanshah to read Shahnameh. Persian mythology is all over his work (Jamshid, Fereydoon, Zahaak, Afrasiyaab, Keykhusraw, Key Qobaad..). And indeed Mr. Baguirov agrees that the Seljuqs were to a large extent Persianized. I have mentioned these points too many times. Nomadic Oghuz Turks at that time were not able to produce Nizami's. Mu'ayyad (Nizami's great grandfather) lived at a time when the Kurds controlled the area. But let me just add that we do not have anything about Nizami’s fathers ethnicity. Although I strongly believe Nizami was not only half Iranian, but fully Iranian. The term Persian poet has been used by many authors when referring to Nizami and even Encyclopedia Britannica mentions it. Finally folks reread my point 4. Just like Homer or Rudaki are not Turks or Uzbeks, Nezami Ganjavi does not become Azerbaijani. And since the state of Azerbaijan did not exist, then Nezami Ganjavi is known through two things: 1) his works and the language he used 2) the ethnicity of his mother which was Kurdish. Other than that, we have nothing else about his ethnicity and all the deceit about him being half Turkish has not been accepted by Western scholars (by point 4 above we see it is not true) and even Stalin used the term Azerbaijani which is a new term for an ethnic group for the last 100 years. And the term Azerbaijani here is unambigious since if some scholars during USSR times have mistakenly called him Azerbaijani, it just means he was born in the area. Just like Rudaki was born in Uzbekistan, but he is not an Uzbek poet.

--Ali doostzadeh 12:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some scholarly sources on Nizami in Russian that will be cited and added to the page showing Nizami as an Azerbaijani poet

1) Большой Энциклопедический словарь (Great Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia State Publishing House, Russia) НИЗАМИ ГЯНДЖЕВИ Абу Мухаммед Ильяс ибн

НИЗАМИ ГЯНДЖЕВИ Абу Мухаммед Ильяс ибн Юсуф (ок. 1141 - ок. 1209) - азербайджанский поэт и мыслитель. Основное сочинение - "Пятерица" ("Хамсе"), состоит из 5 поэм: "Сокровищница тайн" (между 1173 и 1180), "Хосров и Ширин" (1181), "Лейли и Меджнун" (1188), "Семь красавиц" (1197) и "Искандер-наме" (ок. 1203), в которой создана своего рода социальная утопия и дан образ идеального правителя. Сохранилась также часть лирического дивана. Поэзия Низами Гянджеви оказала влияние на литературы Ближнего и Ср. Востока.

<a href="http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc3p/212626">НИЗАМИ ГЯНДЖЕВИ Абу Мухаммед Ильяс ибн</a>

2) Иллюстрированный энциклопедический словарь (Illustrated encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia State Publishing House, Russia) Низами Гянджеви НИЗАМИ ГЯНДЖЕВИ Абу Мухаммед Ильяс ибн Юсуф (около 1141 — около 1209), азербайджанский поэт и мыслитель. Основные сочинения — ”Пятерица” (“Хамсе”), собрание 5 поэм: философско-дидактических “Сокровищница тайн” (между 1173 и 1180),...

© 2001 «Большая Российская энциклопедия» Все права защищены

http://www.rubricon.com/ies_ann/..%5Cann%5Cies%5C15_n%5C15_n66296.asp

3) Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Moscow, Great Soviet Encyclopedia State Publishing House, USSR)

Низами Гянджеви Низами Гянджеви Абу Мухаммед Ильяс ибн Юсуф (около 1141, г. Гянджа, Азербайджан, - около 1209, там же), азербайджанский поэт и мыслитель. Писал на персидском языке. Принадлежал к средним слоям городского населения. Получил хорошее образование, в молодости писал лирические стихи. Около 1173 женился на тюркской рабыне Афак (Аппак), воспетой им в стихах. Безвыездно жил в родной Гяндже. Будучи тесно связан с Азербайджаном, Н. Г. переносит действие отдельных эпизодов своих поэм на его территорию. Придворным поэтом он никогда не был, довольствуясь небольшими пособиями, которые ему назначали феодальные правители за посвященные им поэмы.

Основные сочинения Н. Г. - "Пятерица" ("Хамсе"), состоит из 5 поэм: "Сокровищница тайн" (написана между 1173 и 1180), "Хосров и Ширин" (1181), "Лейли и Меджнун" (1188), "Семь красавиц" (1197) и "Искандар-наме" (около 1203). Сохранилась также часть лирического дивана: 6 касыд, 116 газелей, 2 кит'а и 30 рубаи. "Пятерица" оказала огромное влияние на развитие многих восточных литератур. Известны десятки назире (поэтических "ответов") и подражаний поэмам Н. Г., создававшихся начиная с 13 в. Среди "ответов" - "Пятерицы" индо-персидского поэта Амира Хосрова Дехлеви, узбекского классика А. Навои, семерица А. Джами и др. Своеобразная композиция поэм Н. Г., построение сюжета, обрисовка характеров, образный язык и особенно благородные гуманистические идеи уже более семи веков побуждают поэтов едва ли не всех народов Ближнего и Среднего Востока к поэтическим состязаниям.

"Сокровищница тайн" относится к дидактико-философскому жанру и имеет лёгкую суфийскую окраску (см. Суфизм). Она надолго определила развитие дидактического жанра в восточных литературах. Автор во введении противопоставляет свою первую поэму пустой и напыщенной придворной поэзии. Впервые в истории поэзии на персидском языке Н. Г. добился в жанре месневи сочетания изощрённой поэтической техники с глубоким содержанием. Гибкая композиция поэмы, связанной в единое целое ассоциативными переходами мысли, также нова и развита на основе восточной проповеди, пересыпанной нравоучительными притчами. Н. Г. призывает правителей к правосудию и заботе о благе подданных, угрожает им карами за угнетение и насилие, осуждает любовь к золоту, воспевает истинную дружбу. Все увещания и поучения Н. Г. окрашены в религиозные тона, но необыкновенно смелы. В целом поэма, - безусловно, светское сочинение, преследующее гуманистические цели. Вторая поэма, романтическая по содержанию, посвящена любви шаха Хосрова к красавице Ширин. Принципиально ново в этом произведении то, что Н. Г. отводит главную роль не шаху, а Ширин, женщине, и наделяет её высокими достоинствами. Бесхарактерный, безнравственный, эгоистичный Хосров лишь перед смертью, облагороженный любовью к Ширин, поднимается до подвига самоотвержения. Необычен в поэме и образ благородного Ферхада, олицетворяющего труд и добродетели труженика. Третья поэма "Лейли и Меджнун" разрабатывает сюжет старинной арабской легенды о несчастной любви юноши Кайса, прозванного "Меджнун" ("Одержимый"), к красавице Лейли. Повествование развёртывается вокруг обстоятельств возникновения страстных лирических стихов истерзанного любовью Кайса. Н. Г. придал арабской легенде законченность, дал характеры героев в развитии, психологически мотивировал их поступки. Общая трагическая концепция поэмы - безграничная любовь, находящая выход лишь в высокой поэзии и ведущая к духовному слиянию любящих, также принадлежит Н. Г. Именно эта концепция объединяет произведение в стройное целое. В основу сюжета четвёртой поэмы - "Семь красавиц" - положена легенда о шахе Бехраме Гуре. Поэму составляют семь рассказов царевен, жён Бехрама, живущих в семи павильонах, каждый из которых, в соответствии с древней мифологией, посвящен какой-либо планете и дню недели и имеет соответствующий цвет. Сюжет каждой новеллы - любовное переживание, причём, в соответствии с переходом от чёрного цвета к белому, грубая чувственность сменяется духовно просветлённой любовью. Вторая тематическая линия поэмы - превращение Бехрама из легкомысленного царевича в справедливого и умного правителя, борющегося с произволом и насилием. Здесь Н. Г., как и в первой поэме, развёртывает картины народных страданий, изобличая коварство и алчность придворных шаха. Пятую поэму - "Искандар-наме" - Н. Г. считал итогом своего творчества. В центре её - образ Искандара (Александра Македонского). С самого начала он выступает в произведении как справедливый политик, решающийся воевать лишь ради защиты обиженных и освобождения угнетённых. В первой части ("Шараф-наме") сохранён хронологический порядок в описании различных подвигов Искандара. Вторая часть ("Икбал-наме") композиционно делится на два больших раздела, которые можно было бы озаглавить "Искандар-мудрец" и "Искандар-пророк"; они содержат серию философских новелл и диспуты с индийскими и греческими мудрецами о происхождении мира. Тайный голос сообщает Искандару, что он избран для возвещения истины всему миру, и приказывает объехать всю землю.

Но истина Искандара - не божественное откровение, а наука. Отправляясь в путь, он берёт "книги мудрости" Аристотеля, Платона и Сократа. Далее следуют описания четырёх путешествий Искандара. Во время четвёртого путешествия (на север) он приходит в страну, где нет ни властей, ни притеснителей, ни богатых, ни бедных, где не знают лжи и несправедливости, - страну с идеальным общественным устройством. Эта социальная утопия Н. Г. - вершина его мысли. Вопросы организации человеческого общества затронуты уже в "Сокровищнице тайн". В "Хосров и Ширин" рассказано, как под влиянием Ширин в характере Хосрова появляются положительные черты, но Хосров преждевременно умирает. "Лейли и Меджнун" стоит в стороне от этой главной темы Н. Г., однако, в поэме "Семь красавиц" она снова возникает. Едва начавшуюся деятельность Бехрама обрывает таинственная гибель. И, наконец, в последней поэме автор даёт развёрнутый образ идеального, по его представлению, правителя. Н. Г. идёт и дальше. Он высказывает необыкновенно смелую для его времени мысль: как бы ни был хорош правитель, возможна ещё более совершенная форма общества - общество равных, не знающее имущественного неравенства, а потому и не нуждающееся ни в каком правителе. Н. Г. понимал, к какому важному обобщению он пришёл, и потому придавал особое значение последней поэме, явившейся как бы завещанием Н. Г.-мыслителя, который был не только носителем передовых идей своего времени, но во многом опережал эпоху. Творчество Н. Г. - большой вклад в сокровищницу культуры Востока и Запада. В 1947 в СССР широко отмечалось 800-летие Н. Г. Над его могилой (близ г. Кировабада) сооружен в 1947 мавзолей.

Соч.: Куллият-е хамсе-йе хаким Низами Гянджеви..., Техран, 1335 с. г. х. (1956); в рус. пер. - Искандер-наме, М., 1953; Хосров и Шприн, М., 1955; Лейли и Меджнун, М., 1957; Семь красавиц, М., 1959; Сокровищница тайн, М., 1959; Лирика, М., 1960.

? Лит.: Бертельс Е. Э., Низами. Творческий путь поэта, М., 1956; его же, Избр. труды, [т. 2] - Низами и Фузули, М., 1962; Гулизаде М., Низами Гянджеви, Б., 1953; Мустафаев Дж., Философские и этические воззрения Низами, Б., 1962; История персидской и таджикской литературы. [Под ред. Яна Рипка], М., 1970; Aгajeв Э., Низами вэ дуенjа эдэбиjjаты Бакы, 1964; Аббасов Э., Низами Кэнчэвинин"Инкэндэрнамэ" поемасы, Бакы, 1966.

? А. Е. Бертельс.

http://www.oval.ru/enc/47621.html

4) From the book: "Persian-Tajik classic poetry / Ed. M.-N.O.Osmanov; Introduction by M.Dobrysheva, Moscow: Moscow worker, 1979": "Nizami - Great poet of Azerbaijan, who wrote in Farsi."

Ильяс ибн Юсуф Низами - (1141 - 1211) Великий поэт Азербайджана, писавший на персидском языке, автор «Хамсе» («Пятерицы»), состоящей из поэм: 1. «Сокровищница тайн». 2. «Хосров и Ширин». 3. «Лейли и Меджнун». 4. «Семь красавиц». 5. «Искендер-наме». Вслед за ним «хамсе» стали слагать многие другие выдающиеся поэты как на персидском, так и на других языках. Помимо поэм Низами писал также прекрасные газели. Творчество Низами является новой эпохой в поэзин на языке фарси.

М.-Н.О.Османов

Аннотация редакции: В книгу вошли стихотворения и отрывки из поэм персидских и таджикских поэтов классического периода: Рудаки, Фирдоуси, Омара Хайяма, Саади, Хафиза, Джами и других, азербайджанских поэтов Хакани и Низами (писавших на фарси), а также персоязычного поэта Индии Амира Хосрова Дехлеви.

(Родник жемчужин: Персидско-таджикская классическая поэзия / Сост. М.-Н.О.Османов; Предисл. М.Дробышева. - М.: Моск. рабочий, 1979)

http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/N/NIZAMI_Il'yas_ibn_Yusuf/_Nizami_I._ibn_Yu..html

Pope John Paul II recognized Nizami was Azerbaijani poet in 2002

This is an official proclamation by the Vatican, by Pope John Paul II of Nizami Ganjavi as an Azerbaijani poet -- and no one can accuse Vatican or the Pope of bias in regards to an ancient poet and a small Muslim country that has limited significance to the Christian cause. Vatican's research is pretty good, and they made such a correct determination.

This is in addition to the other quote I've provided, with the official recognition by President Putin of Russia that Nizami is the great poet of Azerbaijan - the full statement is available on the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.

Adil Baguirov

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020522_world-culture-azerbaijan_en.html

APOSTOLIC VISIT OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II TO AZERBAIJAN AND BULGARIA

MEETING WITH RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND POLITICAL, CULTURAL AND ARTS REPRESENTATIVES

ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER

Baku, Presidential Palace Wednesday, 22 May 2002

Mr President of the Republic, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

1. I am very pleased to be with you today. I greet each one of you, with special thanks to the President of the Republic who, in your name, has given me such a warm welcome.

One of your great poets wrote: "The word, new and at the same time old . . . The word, which is like the spirit, is the treasurer of the riches of the invisible realm: it knows stories never heard, it reads books never written" (Nizami, The Seven Effigies). This image alludes to something that is dear to the three great religions present in this country: Jewish, Christian and Muslim. According to the teachings of each of them, the One God, shrouded in unapproachable mystery, has chosen to speak to man, inviting him to submit to his will.

2. Despite the differences between us, together we feel called to foster ties of mutual esteem and benevolence. I am aware of all that is being done by religious leaders in Azerbaijan to favour tolerance and mutual understanding. I am looking forward to the meeting tomorrow with the representatives of the three monotheistic religions, so that together we can affirm our conviction that religion must not serve to increase rivalry and hatred, but to promote love and peace.

From this country, which has held and still holds tolerance as a primary value of all wholesome life in society, we wish to proclaim to the world: enough of wars in the name of God! No more profanation of his holy name! I have come to Azerbaijan as an ambassador of peace. As long as I have breath within me I shall cry out: "Peace, in the name of God!" And when word joins word, a chorus is born, a symphony, which will spread to every soul, quench hatred, disarm hearts.

3. Praise to you, followers of Islam in Azerbaijan, for being open to hospitality, a cherished value of your religion and your people, and for having accepted the believers of other religions as brothers and sisters.

Praise to you, Jewish people, who, with courage and constancy, have kept your ancient traditions of good neighbourliness, enriching this land with a contribution of great value and depth.

Praise to you, Christians, who have given so much, especially through the ancient Church of the Albans, in shaping the identity of this land. Praise especially to you, Orthodox Church, witness to God’s friendship with man and a hymn extolling his beauty. When the fury of atheism was unleashed in this region, you welcomed the children of the Catholic Church who had lost their places of worship and their pastors, and put them into contact with Christ through the grace of the holy Sacraments.

Praised be God for this testimony of love, borne by the three great religions! May it grow and become ever stronger, extinguishing with the dew of affection and friendship any remaining source of contrast!

4. Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, in addition to the world of religion, you represent the world of culture, art and politics. What an extraordinary vocation you have received and what high responsibilities you bear! So many people today feel lost and are seeking an identity.

To you, representatives of culture and art, I say: beauty, as you know, is the light of the spirit. The soul, when it is calm and reconciled, when it lives in harmony with God and the universe, emits a light that is already a kind of beauty. Holiness is nothing other than fullness of beauty, as it reflects, according to its ability, the consummate beauty of the Creator. It is your poet Nizami once more who writes: "The intelligent people are those angels who have human names. Intelligence is something marvellous" (The Seven Effigies).

Dear friends, men and women of the world of culture and art, transmit a taste for beauty to all those you meet! As the ancients teach us, beauty, truth and goodness are united by an indissoluble bond.

5. In this land, none of those who have devoted themselves to culture and art can feel useless or unrecognized. This contribution is essential for the future of the Azerbaijani people. If culture is cast aside, if art is neglected and despised, the very survival of a civilization is imperiled, for that would hinder the handing on of the values that constitute the deepest identity of a people.

In the recent past, a materialistic and neo-pagan vision has often characterized the study of national cultures. Yours is the task, distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, of rediscovering the entire heritage of your civilization as the source of ever relevant values. In this way you will be able to prepare suitable study-materials for young people wishing to know the genuine wealth of history of their country, in order to build their lives as citizens on a solid foundation.

6. I turn to you, the men and women of politics! Your specific activity is the service of the common good, the promotion of legality and justice, the guarantee of freedom and prosperity for all. But politics is also an area fraught with dangers. The selfish seeking of personal advantage can easily take over, to the detriment of faithful dedication to the common good. The great Nizami warns: "Do not eat in the presence of those who are starving, or, if you do, invite everyone to table" (The Seven Effigies).

Politics requires honesty and accountability. The people should be able to feel understood and protected. They should be able to see that their leaders are working to build a better future for them. Let it not happen that when people are faced with situations of increasing social inequality, they begin to feel dangerous nostalgia for the past.

Those who accept responsibility for administering public affairs cannot deceive themselves: people do not forget! Just as they remember with gratitude those who have laboured honestly in the service of the common good, so they pass on to their children and grandchildren bitter criticism of those who abused power to enrich themselves.

7. There is one thing in particular that I would like to say to you, men and women of the world of religion, culture, art and politics: look to your young people and spare no effort on their behalf! They are tomorrow’s potential. They must be assured the chance to study and work, according to their aptitudes and capacity. Above all, care must be taken to educate them in the important values which last and give meaning to life and its pursuits.

In this task, you especially who belong to the world of culture, art and politics should see religion as your ally. It stands with you to offer young people serious reasons for applying themselves. What ideal in fact is better able to motivate the quest for truth, beauty and goodness than belief in God, who reveals to the mind the limitless expanse of his supreme perfection?

And you, the men and women of religion, you should become ever more involved in proclaiming with sincerity and frankness the values in which you believe, without recourse to dishonest means that impoverish and betray the ideals you affirm. Take a hard look at the substance of these ideals, and avoid methods of persuasion that do not respect the dignity and freedom of the human person.

8. In one of his prayers to God, Nizami wrote: "If your servant . . . has shown boldness in the formulation of his prayer, his water still belongs for ever to your sea . . . If he spoke a hundred languages, in each tongue he would praise you; if he falls silent like those forsaken, you comprehend the language of him who has no words" (Leila and Majnun).

From this cosmopolitan land, may a hundred different languages raise their prayer to the living God, who listens above all to those who are poor and forgotten.

Upon all of you present here, upon your people, upon your future, may the blessings of Almighty God descend, bringing prosperity and peace to all!

The beauty of the hymn "Ave Maria" invites all of us to a better life and work. Again many thanks to all present here.

Additional article by M.Shaginyan acknowledging Nizami being "great Azerbaijani of XII century"

Anyone can read the 15-page article, published in the Bulletin of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Dept. of languages and linguistics, June-July 1947, Vol. VI, release 4, URL: http://feb-web.ru/feb/izvest/1947/04/474-269.htm

Thus, it makes for the fourth publication by this Armenian expert on Nizami, who acknowledged from the 1940s until her death in 1980s that Nizami was an Azerbaijani poet.

Yet Another big mistake by Mr. Baguirov exposed clearly

0) Mr. Baguirov claimed about Paul Smith's translation: poetic translation into English by Paul Smith, based on 1945 literal translation of G.H.Darab, London, “Layla and Majnun”, p. 117)

The funny thing is that the above source from 1945 does not exist and Mr. Baguirov madeup as he went. Indeed in 1945 G.H. Darab only translated the Makhzan Al-Asrar , Arthur Probstain Pub, 1945. So the addition by Paul Smith is not based on the translation of G.H. Darab as Mr. Baguirov claims since in 1945 G.H. Darab published Makhzan Al-Asrar. Paul Smith, who does not know Persian, can not be referenced here. Indeed I showed that the verse in question is totally translated wrong and Mr. Baguirov can not put such a quote in the main text anymore, since now the source of Paul Smith's English to English translation. And indeed that quote does not exist in the multitude of manuscripts that was checked. So Mr. Baguirov lied here or made a mistake in order to give backing to an unscholarly translation of a Person who does not know Persian and has just translated from English to English!

Here is the actual translation of that part by Dr. Rudolf Gelpke(The story of Layla and Majnun, 1966) (Note Dr. Gelpke also calls Nizami Ganjavi as a "Persian Poet"). Pg 65: Layli's father Great Prince among the arabs,' he began,' look at me, an old man, broken-hearted, beaten down by disaster, and prostrate before you. The Arabs are heaping blame and infamy upon me, as if I were a homeless stranger, and when I think of the streams of blood which have been shed for my sake, I wish I could become a drop of quicksilver and escape from such disgrade

As you can see folks, Mr. Baguirov tried to lie and connect the quote of Paul Smith to G. H. Darab (who never made a translation of Layla and Majnun). Furthermore, the above professional translation shows that there is nothing negative about Persians from the negative character (Layli's father). So these folks will have to start from scratch and try to find something negative about Persians in Nizami's poetry whereas I have found many instances about Turks. 1) Wilson writes in his Haft Paykar: From Arabic and older Persian themes in Tabaristān and Bukhārā’s towns

Then Wilson comments: Darī, “the older Persian,” is the name given to the older pure Persian spoken before the admixture of Arabic, due to the Arab occupation. Firdausī professes to have written in Darī, though his work contains a considerable number of Arabic words. It is said to have received its name from its having been the court language, but this etymology, as well as others given, is doubtful. It is also said to have prevailed chiefly in Bukhārā, Balkh, Badakhshān, and Marv. In (such) cities (as those) of Bukhārā and Tabaristān is one sense of dar savād-ī Bukhāri-y-ū Tabarī. Another sense is “in works (found) in Bukhārā and Tabaristān”. Bukhārā, it may be added, is said to have derived its name from the learned men who inhabited it.

And The rendering, “in the works of Bukhārī and Tabarī,” must, I think, be rejected, first, because Bukhārī was a Traditionist, and the Author does not quote Traditions, and secondly, because both Bukhārī and Tabarī wrote in Arabic, whereas the Author says he consulted both Arabic and also Persian works. Tabarī, it is true, was a historian, and therefore a likely source, but it seems curious that the poet should restrict his mention to that single authority.

As we can see difference of opinion on the interpretation of the verse exits. Mr. Baguirov who does not know Persian and has no choice but to look up translations, does not understand that different interpretations can be given on a wide range of verses. Just like Wilson's comment is very valid. Of course when someone looks at everything from an ethno-centeric point of view like Mr. Baguirov, they will not be able to appreciate Nizami's symbolism.

2) Nizami Ganjavi is a heir to the Persian traditions and Myths. For example in the Haft Paykar he mentions some of the following characters amongst many: Anushiravan, Arash (Who protected Iran from the mythical Turanians later identified as Turks), Ardeshir Babakan (founder of the Sassanid Dynasty), Arjang (the art book of Mani), Bahman ( the son of Isfandiyar from the legendary Kayanid dynasty), Bistun, Daraa (Darius), Dihqaan (Iranian nobility), Div (Shahnameh creatures that are not humans), Pari (fairies), Farhad, Fereydoon (the defeater of Zahak), farr (royal Zoroastrian glory), Firdawsi, Giv (a heroe in the Shahnameh and son in law of Rustam), Iraj ( the son of Fereydoon mentioned in the Shahnameh), Isfandyar (Zoroastrian heroe), Kavus (Kaykavus the legendary king and father of Siyavas), Kayanids (pre-Islamic Iranian mythical dynasty often associated with Achaemenids), KayKhusraw (the son of Syavash and one of the greatest Shahnameh heroes), Khusraw Parviz the Sassanid King, Kisra, Mani, Rustam (the greatest Shahnameh heroe), Shirin (part of Persian folklore), Simurgh (the legendary bird mentioned in Avesta who was the protector of Rustam in the Shahnameh), Siyamak (the son of Kayumarth, Kayumarth is the first Iranian man in the Shahnameh and according to legends of Avesta, the first wise being created by Ahuramazda), Jamshid (Yima of Indo-Iranians), KayQobaad (Founder of the glorious Kayanid dynasty), Siyavash (the son of Kaykavus and father of Kaykhusraw), Zahak (Bivarasp, the legendar demon-king mentioned in Indo-Iranian traditions), Avesta, Zand (Zoroastrian commentary on Avesta). These were just a few amongst many which demonstrates Nizami Ganjavi's clearly Iranian heritage and Iranian roots. Indeed let me bring a quote from a recent published book where the author always consistently mentions Nizami Ganjavi as a Persian poet: (Love, Madness, and Mystical Longing in Nizami's Epic Romance, Prof. Ali Asghar Seyed-Gohrab, pg 276): The relationship between Shirwanshah and his son, Manuchihr is mentioned in Chapter eight. Nizami advises the king's son to read Firdawsi's Shah-nama and to remember the pithy saying of the wise. This again shows the clear Iranian heriage of Nizami and shows clearly he feels Iranians and shares in the Iranian heritage. Indeed the Shahnameh has some harsh comments against Turks, that anyone with Turkish consciousness would not appreciate.

3) I have already shown that the Russian sources are invalid when it comes to discussing Nizami's ethnic background and it was political incorrect at that time to call him anything but an Azerbaijani poet. Also Nizami did not write in Azerbaijani, he wrote in Persian. He is a Persian poet. People may discuss his ethnicity (which is not Turkish and can never be proven to be Turkish), but the term Azerbaijani could simply mean coming from Azarbaijan, which as s state did not exist at that time. Also the region Nizami came from was called Arran generally. Indeed one would have to prove there existed an Azarbaijani nationality at that time, which it did not. Whereas Iranian nationality existed and many writers of the old times, before the Safavids have called themselves Iranian. No scholar has ever called Nizami Ganjavi an Azerbaijani poet prior to the USSR and now the most scholarly sources like Enyclcopedia Iranica and Brittanica and many many English books do not call him an Azerbaijani poet. Also pretty soon, Prof. Paul Smith will delete that quote since it is not in the original manuscript and G.H. Darab never used such translation. This will then make it hard for Mr. Baguirov to repeat a verse that does not exist. The translation is simply faulty and one verse does not exist. Also it is attributed to Layli's father who is a negative character. Let me remind these folks that I can bring the quote by Shirwanshah and Alexandar about Turks.. Also Prof. Kapustin that Mr. Baguirov barrages wrote in the prestigious USSR culture magazine. This is a magazine that has a lot of readership from what I have gathered.

4)Sorry Pope John Paul is not a scholar of Persian studies! What matters is someone like Rypka or Jerome Clinton or De Blois or Meysami who know Persian and were/are chairs of Persian literature in the greatest Univerities. Pope John Paul's opinion on this matter is as good as anyone else's. Also the Pope did not call Nizami Ganjavi an ethnic Turk, not that his opinion matter.. Also I have shown in the above comments about the term Tork-zaad, that Nezami Ganjavi was not a Turk. Also per people's information, Pope John Paul also accepted the Armenian Genocide. So is Mr. Baguirov going to be selective, like his translations?

Nizami Ganjavi is Iranic in heritage and Mr. Baguirov should be very embarrased for not knowing that G.H. Darab published Makhzan Al-Asrar in 1945 and not Layli o Majnoon! Paul Smiths poetic translation has a large number of extrapolations (Armenian for Nasrani) and that verse which did not exist, (and although in the end from Layli's fathers who was a negative person), can not be considered scholarly. But the quotes from the Khaghan of Chin and Shirwanshah are well known and indeed in all the major manuscripts.

--Ali doostzadeh 05:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What Pope John Paul II actually said about Armenians and why his affirmation of Nizami being Azerbaijani poet is correct

Mr. Doostzadeh says: "4)Sorry Pope John Paul is not a scholar of Persian studies! What matters is someone like Rypka or Jerome Clinton or De Blois or Meysami who know Persian and were/are chairs of Persian literature in the greatest Univerities. Pope John Paul's opinion on this matter is as good as anyone else's. Also the Pope did not call Nizami Ganjavi an ethnic Turk, not that his opinion matter.. Also I have shown in the above comments about the term Tork-zaad, that Nezami Ganjavi was not a Turk. Also per people's information, Pope John Paul also accepted the Armenian Genocide. So is Mr. Baguirov going to be selective, like his translations?"

To begin with, Pope and the Vatican do their research, which means they read not only Rypka's and Clinton's (who is a junior co-author with Persian K.Talattof), etc., but everyone. They have a massive library and holdings and have Nizami's manuscripts, are well-versed in languages and are actually equipped to do independent research. Hence, they make a highly educated assessment and determination, free of bias (in this regard, as which nationlity Nizami is means nothing to Vatican's foreign and domestic policy, they are interested only in truth). Secondly, it is fine by me not to call Nizami an ethnic Turk and only as an Azerbaijani poet -- the latter is precise and what I wanted anyways. Plus I've never said he was Turk exclusively -- just his father must have been, and his own self-realization/identification was Turkic. Third, Mr. Doostzadeh didn't show anything with Tork-zaad -- his yet another theory about Nizami insulting his own beloved wife is without any merit. In our debate we reaffirmed that at the very least Nizami's wife and son were Turkic, whilst I personally think that if any parent says about his/her son/daughter as being "Turkic-born" it means he too is probably Turkic.

Finally, 1) Pope John Paul II never accepted the "Armenian genocide" -- this was a falsification and misquotation by Armenian media. Here's a reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1564257.stm

And 2) assuming that what Pope John Paul II and indeed the Vatican, said about the events of 1915 is correct, and Mr. doostzadeh seems to subscribe to its correctness -- does it mean then that what was acknowledged about Nizami is also correct? Because as you say, we can't be selective, like your translations, Mr. Doostzadeh. --AdilBaguirov 07:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Scholars of Persian language have never called Nezami a Turk

NO scholar in 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th century has called Nezami a Turk and they all called him Persian. None of the ancient biographers have called him a Turk. Only in the USSR, when Stalin specifically mentions Nizami must not be surrendered to Iranian literature, some scholars had no choice but to call Nezami, an azerbaijani poet. But an Azarbaijani poet is vague. If it is language, then Nezami did not compose Azerbaijani. So it is most likely he was from the land of Azarbaijan and thats it. But the counter argument is simple: No nationality as Azarbaijani existed during Nezami's time. So only authors that have mentioned speficially that Nezami's father was a Turk must be examined and no serious Western scholar has mentioned this in the West. And during the time close to breakup and after breakup, many Russian, Tajiks and Armenians .. now do not consider Nezami Ganjavi an Azarbaijani.

The Pope calls Nizami from Azerbaijan, but does not say his ethnicity. Not that the Pope does not know Persian even to comment on this issue and there is not a single famous scholar of Persian in Vatican that has written anything scholarly about Persian literature and that has called Nezami a Turk. Yes he was born in what is today called republic of Azerbaijan. But at the time of Nezami, such a country did not exist. Even the Azerbaijani ethnic group did not exist and the inhabitants prior to 1918 were mainly called Tatars by foreigners. But when we are talking about Nizami's ethnicity, we are specifically talking about his ethnicity. Armenian genocide has been recognized by Vatican, but that is another issue. [8]. What is important is that not a single major Western scholar has called Nezami Ganjavi Turk or Azerbaijani. There is no where in the text of the Vatican that talks about Nezami Ganjavi being a Turk. And also me believing in the Armenian genocide has nothing to do with Vatican and it is just based on testimonies by Iranians who travelled to Turkey at that time. Of course Mr. Baguirov does not believe in the Armenian genocide due to again ethno-centeric reasons.

The term Torkzaad means half Turk in Persian poetry as proven by Ferdowi's shahnameh and Dehkhoda. Nizami uses the term Torkam (Turk) for his wife and Torkzaad for his son. Indeed why mention such race in such a particular manner and point to Afaq being a Turk (and also the terms like nomad and plunder Nezami uses in those verses) and his son being half Turk, if Nizami himself was a Tork? That alone is sufficient to show Nezami Ganjavi was not a Tork. The quotes from Ferdowsi are exact. Tork-zaad in the context of Persian poetry of that era specifically meant a person that is half Turkish (Sokhan bas kon az Hormozd-e Torkzaad - keh andar zamaaneh mabaad aan nezhaad). Extremly clear. So Nezami is not a Turk. BTW do you have any comments on why you claimed the quote by Paul Smith was from G.H. Darab translation of Layli o Majnoon (which does not exist!). I have brought a scholarly translation and there is nothing against Persians. Also see the point about Bukhari and Tabari and Wilson's interpretation which shows that different interpretation exists on the meaning of some verses. We can go back and forth, but the fact is that the ethnicity Azerbaijani did not exist during Nizami's time (unless you say Oghuz Turks) and Nezami Ganjavi was not an Oghuz Turk, he was at least half Kurdish and more than likely 100% Iranic. All the propaganda in the world won't make Nezami Ganjavi into a Turk (he was at least half Kurdish and more than likely 100% Kurdish). He was not Azerbaijani by nationality since such a state did not exist at that time. Tommorow I will show some quotes from Western Scholars which have mentioned him as a Persian poet. Persian poet means someone that composed in Persian. The term Azerbaijani poet is wrong since Nezami did not have one verse even in the Azerbaijani Turkic language. --Ali doostzadeh 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No credible source from any century called Nizami as an ethnic Persian - I ask Mr. Doostzadeh to cite otherwise if he disagrees. And "Persian poet" is just a vague and imprecise way of saying "Persian-language poet". With the whole Qom falsification it is clear that Persian chauvinists have early on -- since about 18th century -- tried to wrest Nizami away from Azerbaijan, and nothing has changed, Iran on official level, on the level of its repressive government claims Nizami whilst all modern scholars and researchers either avoid ethnicity or even "Persian poet" terminology altogether, or as even the Pope has done, acknowldge that Nizami is an Azerbaijani poet. Hence, none of the Iranian sources, when discussing ethnicity, can be trusted and relied upon. Also, as I've said many times, Nizami was a not a 100% Turkic, but must have been only through his father (unless his mother also had some Turkic lineage on her maternal side, which was obviously not uncommon either then or now). But all this is not as relevant, because Nizami is an Azerbaijani poet not because he has had partial Turkic heritage, but because he was born, lived, worked, and died in Azerbaijan, a land he made famous in his poems, which he dearly loved, and because all Azerbaijanis since then have loved him back, taking as good care and pride as they could despite difficult times. --AdilBaguirov 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali Doostzadeh's preference of non-scholars, non-specialists: example of M.Kapustin

While I've already extensively commented on this, I didn't want to pass by the opportunity to comment once more on the choice of sources Mr. Doostzadeh resorts to. First, Mr. Doostzadeh brought a poor translation of an excerpt from a propaganda article by some Kapustin, the only Russian writer he could find suitable. Then, Mr. Doostzadeh claimed at the time, that Kapustin was a "scholar" and specialist on "Iranian studies", "Orientalist". After I denied it and asked for proof, Mr. Doostzadeh, realizing that Kapustin is no scholar and certainly not a specialist on Nizami or Oriental studies, now calls Kapustin a "professor" (e.g., "Prof. Kapustin that Mr. Baguirov barrages wrote in the prestigious USSR culture magazine. This is a magazine that has a lot of readership from what I have gathered.")

I hate to dissappoint, but Kapustin was not only not a scholar and Oriental studies specialist, but not even a professor. It's true, Kapustin was a writer, not a professor. And his article in "Soviet culture" newspaper (not magazine, Mr. Doostzadeh, as already said many times) was not even noted by anyone except for a few Armenian sponsors (who also placed an article by some Grachik writer in an Armenian culture newspaper at the same time) and Persian chauvinists. And that newspaper does not have much readership - it doesn't exist for many years.

This is quite a step down for Mr. Doostzadeh to express such fondness of the non-scholar, non-specialist Kapustin whose works he doesn't even know -- it is far better to limit yourself to either biased Iranian scholars or old and outdated (although great at the time) translations like Wilsons. I in the meantime will continue to cite the great scholars and specialists -- proven and accepted by everyone -- as Shaginyan, Bertels, Krymskiy, Krachkovsky, etc.

While I am not done yet with responding and putting forward some additional thoughts and information, it is simply outrageous how Ali Doostzadeh mishandles quotes and engages in blatantly unscholarly behavior. Consider the section INTERVENTION.

I) First, he claims (albeit with a proper disclaimer) that Encyclopedia Britannica calls Nizami Ganjavi a “Persian poet”. To begin with – and this was already noted by user Grandmaster – in the article about Nizami himself there is no such terminology.

Secondly, and I’ve stated this before, “Persian poet”, an unfortunately vague and imprecise term, is not equal to “ethnically Persian poet” or “Persian by birth” or “of Persian heritage/roots/ancestry/parents”. In other words, anyone who wrote in Persian, or actually Farsi-e Dari, was often simply labeled “Persian poet”, just like many ethnically non-Arab historians and geographers and poets are labeled “Arab(ic)”. Case in point – Azerbaijani poet Nizami. Another case in point – ethnically Turkic poet living in India, Amir Khosrov Dekhlevi.

Although, surprisingly, on this Iranian website, the ethnicity or even “Persian poet” epithets, are absent: http://www.iranchamber.com/literature/nezami/nezami.php It is also interesting, that some information on the Wikipedia page was PILFERED from this website, and in addition to such a potential copyright infringement, the biased authors also inserted “Persian poet” and other such incorrect and imprecise references to Nizami’s article.

Also ironic with E. Britannica is when some Persian chauvinists find a 1911 edition of Britannica and try to cite it – forgetting about all the superseding editions – just because it fits their agenda.

II) Mr. Doostzadeh used to fuss a lot about “50 year old books” when I quoted an Armenian expert Dr. Shaginyan, and insisted about the need to use newer sources. Indeed, Wikipedia favors sources after 1920s. Yet Mr. Doostzadeh is constantly bringing old – much older than 50 years – books from Hellmut Ritter, Yan Rypka, C.E. Wilson, et al.

While on Wilson I will comment more later, another irony is with G.H.Darab – whom Mr. Doostzadeh used to bring him a lot, even now he cited him in the context of not acknowledging Nizami’s Turkic heritage -- which reinforces my point once more – how fair is it to ask an ethnic Persian, which is who Dr. Darab was, to do that in light of extreme politicizing of this issue by Iranian ultra-nationalists?

But what’s interesting, when I bring two relevant quotes translated by G.H.Darab (as indicated in Paul Smith’s book, although he used all available books in English), Mr. Doostzadeh goes ballistic and throws every accusation imaginable. Specifically, the quotes were the following:

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

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

Mr. Doostzadeh, perhaps it was not Prof. Darab who incorrectly translated, but you? Also, perhaps it is not Prof. Darab who translated an “absent” (according to Mr. Doostzadeh) line, but the ideologically-motivated Iranian editors and censors cut it out? After all, Mr. Doostzadeh, isn’t Iran a country where official censorship is very much alive and well, and press freedom is nearly zero – the only government who managed to get two (!) of its leaders in the worst enemy of the press, Predators of the Press Freedom list by the Reporters Without Borders: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13618

And unfortunately for the Iranian people, their suffering has been going on for pretty long – before the cruel mullah’s, there was the no less cruel and freedom-stifling Shah – thus affecting all Nizami and other research.

Hence, there is nothing wrong with the translation of those quotes – previously, I’ve provided my own literal translation from academic editions in Russian, and now the same quote (e.g., on the old woman and Sanjar sultan) professionally translated directly from Farsi-e Dari by Prof. Darab – and they pretty much coincide.

III) Then, before, in our first debate rounds, Mr. Doostzadeh seemed to agree in principle with the translation of an important quote from Nizami, namely:

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

In fact, Mr. Doostzadeh didn’t like my Latin-alphabet rendering of the quote in Persian, and suggested his spelling, which I adopted – to show once again my constructivism and objectivity. Yet either because Mr. Doostzadeh realized how terrible this quote – which is in EVERY SINGLE manuscript, by the way, I’ve checked and re-checked, and cross-checked all the translations from all editions – was for his purposes and agenda, especially in light of mentioning of the “dogha”, a traditional Turkic milk-based hodgepodge (in Persian spelling: dooghbaa), now he is objecting (?!) to this translation and proposing a 1924(!!!) translation by CE Wilson – which is completely imprecise and in fact horrible – even if for the fact that Mr. Wilson failed to translate and otherwise comment on the Dogha – a very crucial element, which I discussed in more details before.

IV) Yet what is more troublesome, while advertising C.E. Wilson’s translations, as well as the objectivity of the Encyclopedia IRANICA, Mr. Doostzadeh engages in outright unacademic methods and falsifications! Because, despite talking about Wilson’s translation at length and touting it as superior to his former favorite, ethnic Pesian Prof. Darab, Mr. Doostzadeh SELECTIVELY QUOTES ONLY WHAT FITS HIS AGENDA – just as prof. Talattof warned us in his 2001 book: “Adhering too rigidly to any point of view can be problematic, however, as when the editor Pizhman Bakhtiyar eliminates verses that undermine his interpretation. Similarly, some editors such as Sarvatyan [and I should add that Mr. Doostzadeh can be congratulated with being a worthy pupil of Sarvatyan, whose book he uses] will sift through many manuscripts of a work to come up with a rendition that suits their purposes”. (ibid., pp. 7-8). As I wrote before, Talattof goes on to name seven (7) Iranian editors of Nizami’s works as “ideologically motivated”.

What Mr. Doostzadeh conveniently omitted in his quotation – and what indeed undermined his card-house on sands – is the following revelation from his favorite source, Encyclopedia IRANICA: “There are three complete translations in western European languages. First, the one in very rough English "blank verse" by C. E. Wilson (The Haft paikar, 2 vols., London, 1924, with extensive notes), wherein the post-Victorian translator felt compelled to render a fairly large number of verses in Latin. Second, an Italian prose version by A. Bausani (Le sette principesse, Bari, 1967), based on the critical edition by Ritter/Rypka, with omission of the bracketed verses. And finally an English version by J. S. Meisami (The Haft Paykar, a medieval Persian Romance, Oxford and New York, 1995), in "free verse" (partially rhymed, partially in near-rhymes, partially unrhymed) based on the Ritter/Rypka edition (but retaining the bracketed verses). There are also versions in Russian prose (R. Aliyev, Baku, 1983) and verse (V. Derzhavin, Moscow, 1959 and reprints). Of the various partial translations it might suffice to mention the one by R. Gelpke in very elegant German prose (Die sieben Geschichten der sieben Prinzessinnen, Zurich, 1959), also in English metatranslation by E. Mattin and G. Hill (The Story of the Seven Princesses, Oxford, 1976).”

There you go, an admission that Wilson’s old and outdated translation was “very rough English” – although that’s easily noticeable from the quote that Mr. Doostzadeh provided us with. Hence, my quote is far better and more correct, and indeed, considering the comments I’ve provided, it makes more sense to the reader.

V) Now, on the supposed “insult” of Turks by Alexander the Great in Nizami’s last epic poem. (see Mr. Doostzadeh’s quotes: “Also there is negative quotes about Turks, for example Alexanders address to the Khaghan” and “Alexanders belittlement of Turks” and several times before that in earlier discussions). If one is to be polite, this is another example of a total misunderstanding of Nizami’s words. But if one is to be open and frank, this is an intentional misinterpretation.

After Nizami basically redefined Persian language literature and was the first to be so overwhelmingly in favor of Turkic people, and has said so many great things about Turks, and all Turkic people understanding Nizami’s allegory, symbolism and metaphors extremely favorably, it is safe to say that Mr. Doostzadeh misunderstands those expressions. The quote which he considers insulting/negative is taken out of context (like with Shirvanshah letter/Nizami quote): “…Damning the Turks, [Alexander] opened his mouth: ‘Turk was not born from his mother without distemper”.

Yet, this verse, said by Alexander, is completely taken out of context and that’s clear to anyone who reads the full passage or better, the chapter, or even better, the book. Here’s the synopsis of the story: this verse is preceded with how the Turk khan (ruler and heir of the kingdom of Afrasiyab) of Khotan and China disguising himself as an Ambassador and going to talk to Alexander, so as to feel what kind of a person he is. During the conversation he “opens up”, revealing his true identity – that he is the unconquered ruler against whom Alexander came to wage war and join that land to his empire. Alexander gets so impressed (!) by the intelligence, speaking abilities, diplomacy of the great khan, that he tells him: “Neither the crown, nor the country nor the throne do I demand from you” – only thing Alexander needs is acceptance of nominal dependence by the “ruler of Khotan” to the “shah of Rum [Byzantium]”. And they agree on this deal.

Yet the next morning Alexander is warned by his spies – that not too far from their base, a huge army of the Chinese khagan (Turk khan) has been assembled, battle-ready.

Hence, Alexander, thinking that the Turkic ruler has fooled him with sweet talk and empty promises, starts to curse and damns the Turks.

But everything gets clarified very quickly and Iskandar realizes how wrote he was with his premature conclusion. The Turk army approached Alexander’s base, and the Turk khagan comes down from his elephant, goes to Alexander and reassures him, that he is as well-intentioned as before. He notes, that by bringing his own huge and strong army, he, the “ruler of Turks”, accepted suzerainty of Alexander not because he is weak and afraid (unlike some others), but because: “The Sky is helping you, And I have no argument with the Sky”. Of course, the Sky, or the Eternal Blue Sky, Tengri, is the holly God, if one may, of the ancient Turkic people.

Hence, the Turk ruler showed: 1) great wisdom, 2) great strength; 3) great courage; 4) great honesty, loyalty and respect, and his army, which he allied with Alexander’s, soon showed its dedicated and loyal performance on the battle field.

Thus, aside from once again (!) showing all those great positive features of Turks, Nizami, by his “insulting” verse tried to perhaps make fun and otherwise comment of his non-Turk contemporaries, who were quick to blame the Turks for everything. Indeed, these kind of “insulting” verses (only for real, not like Nizami’s which is actually favorable) were the norm in Persian language literature especially from the ethnically Persian authors – and Nizami wrote it as a social commentary of sort, since these kind of words were expected. And then he masterfully proved his main hero wrong – by showing smth that we should all learn and keep in mind – never jump to conclusions quickly.

VI) Same with the “Shirvanshah quote” – I’ve provided the whole verse, unlike Mr. Doostzadeh’s selective quoting, and shown that the negative words were said by Shirvanshah, not Nizami himself, as Mr. Doostzadeh tried to allege at first. And that Nizami took great offense, described his emotional state as:

“I read this… My face became blood-red, - So, it means I have a slave’s ring in my ear! I don’t have the courage, to write a denial/refusal/rejection, My eyes have become dull, words (reserve/vocabulary) have run dry.” (The first two lines can also be translated as: “I paled, - so it means/looks like fate/fortune/destiny, the ring of shah’s slave has passed through me!”)

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

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

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

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

This passage proves that Nizami knew Turki language; that he could write in it; that he was favorable of Turkic people, and how much opposition there was from writing in Turki among rich clients whether of Persian background (Shirvanshah’s most likely falsified their geneology to become Arab, and in case of Akhsitan I his mother was Georgian as I said already) or Turkic (Atabeks, Seljuk sultans, etc). --AdilBaguirov 07:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Pressure on Turkic poets to write in Persian even 3 centuries after Nizami

Here’s an interesting verse and words from the great Alisher Navoi, a Turkic Uzbek poet, who was born exactly 300 years after Nizami, in 1441. One of his teachers was the Perso-Tajik poet Jami, and of Navoi held Nizami in highest respect, hence these two names he mentiones frequently.

"I am not Khosrov, not wise Nizami, Not the sheik of present-day poets Jami. But so in its humility I shall say: Upon their glorified path I traverse. Let the Nizami victorious wit/mind, has conquered Barda, Ganja and Rum; Let there was such a language given to Khosrov, That he has conquered the whole of Hindustan; Even if on the whole Iran is Jami singing, In Arabia in kettledrums beats Jami, But Turkic people of all tribes, of any country, All Turkic people one I have conquered... Wherever there was a Turk, under the banner of the Turkic words He to stand up willingly is always ready. And this tale mountain and separations, Passions spiritual and high torments, All own adversity notwithstanding, I have stated in Turki language."

[note the cities listed for Nizami -- not a single Iranian city, in fact, no connection to Iran aside from Persian language]

The same thought he has voiced on declivity of his days in prose, in its remarkable disquisition: “Dispute of two languages” (1499): “I seem that I have confirmed the great truth before worthy people of Turkic folk/people, and they, having got to know authentic power their speech and their expressions, beautiful quality of its language and its words, disposed [i.e., can break free] of scornful attacks on their language and speech on the part of those composing poetry in Persian”.

From: Каюмов А. П. Алишер Навои // История всемирной литературы: В 9 томах / АН СССР; Ин-т мировой лит. им. А. М. Горького. — М.: Наука, 1983— ... Т. 3. — 1985. — С. 576—582. http://feb-web.ru/feb/ivl/vl3/vl3-5762.htm

This proves that even 300 years after Nizami, Turkic people were under tremendous pressure to write everything in Persian or at least in Arabic, but not in Turki. And despite such great poets as Azerbaijani poet Nasimi living and writing before Navoi (in 14-15 centuries), as well as other Turkic-language poets, it was not enough to stop the pressure on poets.

It is exactly this pressure that Nizami frets about in his Leili and Majnun, when he is forced by the Azerbaijani Shirvanshah to write in either Farsi or Arabic, but not Turki. --AdilBaguirov 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Again the same lies and forgery from Baguirov

0) The problem with Mr. Adil Baguirov and other people from the republic of Azerbaijan is that they do not understand there was no such thing as a Azerbaijani identity back there and there was no such state as Azerbaijan giving citizenship. So the only justification for calling Nezami Azerbaijani would be if he was half Turkic, which he was not and there is no proof for it. Thats the end of the issue.

1) Nezami's quote about Turks from Alexanders viewpoint is Nezami's own writing. It is harsh and it doesn't need any context. Indeed no Turk would say such a thing about their own race.

2) Once again Mr. Baguirov fails to grasp that Dr. Talattof has said about Nezami and the republic of Azerbaijan:It seems that many of these former soviet republics have been trying to make history and construct cultural background in the process of their attempt for nation building. The official websites of the Republic of Azerbaijan featured Nezami as one their own many years ago. This happened at the time when our own officials did not care much about our cultural heritage. . The misquote again by Mr. Baguirov shows his manipulation and propaganda. On pg. 7 and 8, Mr. Talattof mentions: "The rise of Islam to state ideology after the Islamic revolution 1979 has affected culture production Iran, lending new prominence to religious readings of classical literary texts. This Islamic reading of Persian literature in general and of Mizami's poetry in particular also occured in the period before Islamic Revolution, particularly in the wokrds of Muhammad Mu'in and Sa'id Nafisi. Since the revolution, howerver, a great number of ideologically motivated interpreters such as Muhammad Taqi Ja'fari, Ab al-Husayn Muvahhid, Barat Zanjani, Muhammad Riza Hakimi, Muhammad R. Rashid and especially Bihruz Sarvatiyan have focused on Islamic and Sufic elements in Nizami's stories, subjecting their topological and allegorical levets to reductivist and predictable Islamic exegesis.

Furthemore Dr. Talattof comments:

(begin) Ja'fari for example, states that Nizami does not write to demonstrate his art but to express himself at the moment of prayer. According to Zanjani, Nizami's strength in art lies not in storytelling but in the ability to incorporate moral teachings and advice as a mean of strengthening Islamic principes and faith. Rashid insists that Nizami's work has Sufi tents, as does Sarvatiyan, who states that Nizami thinks of one thing only: the world of brotherhood and religious equality. He writes: The philosopher's treasure {Nizami's book} is a book that ebgins with 'in the name of God the merciful', and the readers have to say 'in the name of God' in order to understand the myserious secrets and to understand its meanings.

These readings seem to be based principally on the works of medieval biographers like Dawlatshah, Samarqand, Awfi, Bigdili, and Jami, who were convinced of Nizami's membership in one or another Sufi school but provided no reliable evidence of this. ...The question of the nature of Nizami's relation to Sufism cannot be resolved easily (end)

As one can Mr. Baguirov when it comes to manipulation facts does not know that the Iranian scholars Dr. Talattof is referring to have taken a more Islamic and Sufic viewpoint of Nezami. He tries to think that some big ideological consipiracy is going on Iran about Nezami's ethnicity after the revolution, whereas before the revolution he was never considered a Turk either! Furthermore Mr. Baguirov makes another conspiracy that Western scholars were scared of Persians violent reaction! As if Taraaj (plunder) (used by Nezami to refer to Turkish action) should scare scholarship and all the Western scholars are in one big giant conspiracy!

As per forgery and Nizami Ganjavi, let me quote a prominent scholar from the republic of Azerbaijan. Indeed a scholar from the republic of Azerbainan of 1980 forged the following verse: Pedar bar pedar mar-maraa tork bood - beh farzaanegi har yeki gorg bood!! The problem with this scholar is that the word Tork and Gorg are never rhymed in any Persian poetry and indeed violate the rules of Persian poetry. Furthermore Gorg(Wolf) is belittled in Nizami Ganjavi's poetry and although Turks had much respect for the wolf, the wolf is seen as heineous creature in the poetry of Nizami Ganjavi! (One can use all sorts of arguments like these!). Here is the translation of the madeup verse by the scholar of the republic of Azerbaijan: My father from generation to generation was a Tork - IN wisdom each one was like a gorg(wolf). Indeed this is the sort of polemical manuals Mr. Baguirov quotes from. This is the ideologically motivated scholarship of the repbulic of Azerbaijan, some of the scholars of the republic of Azerbaijani who delete quotes about Armenians and makeup quotes that do not even rhyme! This false verse which does not even rhyme was published by Arsali Nooshabi (Baku, 1980, Elm publishers) and the book is called “Nizami va Adabiyaat Torki”(Nizami and Turkish literature although Nizami did not write one verse of Turkish!). What can justify such a apparent and clear falsification except ethno-centric scholarship? Indeed can ethno-centric scholarship grasp Persian symbolic poetry? For example when Laili is compared to a Hindu, Turk, or whatever.. Vladimir Minorsky also says in: Pan Turkism, par minorsky dans ensycolpdie de islam, Livraison N. P. 924 Akopov Where ever there exist a problem unsolved, the Turks usually make claims that it belongs to their civilization’’ (retranslated from Persian). Also let me mention that there are people that manipulate in every culture but the republic of Azerbaijan by claiming 1300 year celebration of Dede Qorqod is definitely on the very top of the list. I have much more material from a dude name Fereydoon Aghasi-Oglu.. How about starting with his theory that Khazar and Azar are from the root and Turks being more ancient than Sumerians... I trust Prof. Iqrar Alioff though because of I have read some of his materials and they are sound. I would look at this discussion by one of Mr. Baguirov's friend[9] (although due to wrong propaganda there is a Turkish poem here that is not Nizami's[[10]] and no serious scholar has ever assigned a verse of Turkic to Nizami.)

As Dr. Bourtounian has shown, the republic even deletes and edits ancient texts as it wills: [11]

Also let us not inject politics in the discussion. The current republic of Azerbaijan has been called the most corrupt country on earth many times. Where as for example someone like the Turkic nationalist Javad Heyat in Iran who is well known amongst pan-turkist circles and is no scholar in literature, but is a medical doctor, has called Nezami and Qatran a Turk and his book is published. So one is free to mention such falsehood in Iran.

3) The Encyclopedia Britannica was taken from Mr. Baguirov's own webpage and I WIll quote: (begin) In the 20th century the critical study of imagery in Oriental poetry was taken up by Hellmut Ritter in his booklet Über die Bildersprache Nizamis (1927; "On the Imagery of Nizami"), which gives a most sensitive philosophical interpretation of Nizami's metaphorical language and of the role of imagery in the structure of Nizami's thought. Ritter's criticism is basic to the study of many other Persian poets. Slightly later, the Polish scholar Tadeusz Kowalski tried to interpret the "molecular" structure of Arabic literature--the absence of large units of thought or architectural structure--typical of the greater part of Islamic literatures, which might be described as "carpetlike." This "molecular" structure can be related to the atomist theories and occasionalist world view embodied in Islamic theology, which, unlike Christianity, does not admit of secondary causes and requires only short spans of hope from the faithful. In a number of articles, and in many books, E.G. von Grunebaum has pioneered this interpretation of literary structure. Other important critical works include S.A. Bonebakker's book on the rhetorical importance of tawriyah (ambiguous wording); Manfred Ullmann's excellent study of rajaz-poetry and its place in Arabic literature; and C.H. de Fouchécour's detailed analysis of the descriptions of nature in early Persian poetry. (end)

4) Mr. Baguirov again brings the quote:

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

That is not the correct translation. The two available translation of Haft Paykar by Wilson and Dr. Julia Meisami shows this.

Dr. Meisami: The Ethiiop scorn my Turkish wares, rejects the fine foods I prepare (1995 Translation)

Dr. Wilson: This Ethiopia likes not Turkish wares hence it will have not palatable curds

Indeed the word appreciated is not here, but the word Nakharand (do not buy). As if buying Turkish! in Ethiopia makes literal sense. Turkishness in persian would be Turki-Sefat and Torkiyyam would be my Turkish. Furthermore, Dooghbaa is a Persian word and it is just a soup made of yogurt. Perhaps originally common to nomads (and there were Iranic nomads) or more associated with Oghuz tribes that started to come in Arran at that time, it had gained wide acceptance as it is mentioned by other Persian poets. Furthermore some manuscripts of the above verse has the word Doogh and the word Curd is close and best understood to English readers: A coagulated liquid that resembles milk curd.

Mr. Baguirov who does not know Persian is not in the position to comment on Wilson. Wilson's translation is old, but it is still used by scholars and his interpretation of Bukhara and Tabari, shows that different interpretation of the same verses exist.

Given the context of the line (after 100's of line of moral advice), there is nothing to suggest anything about ethnicity and ethno-centeric intrepretation. Since the opposition of sefid (light tone skin) (Tork) and zangi (Abyssinian)(black) has a figurative meaning, it simply signifies the range of tastes and climes, cultures and complexions, specifically with the Turks representing fair skin and good looking (as mentioned by many Persian poets) (as opposed to the dark-skinned Habashis). For the Turk to be taken literally, we would also need to take the /Habash/ part literally, and unless Nezami made a trip to Ethiopia(which he did not), composed poems in honor of African princes inr somewhere(which he did not), it is hard to see how /Habash/ could have a literal meaning here. Also let me add "Turk" is a very generic term as an ethnic indicator: would it have suggested "Azeri" Turkish in Nezami's day, or was there even yet such a concept (a mixture of Iranian, Caucasians and Oghuz Turks)? Probably not - most likely it would suggest the Seljuq tribesmen, whom I believe were Oghuz, but then it could also refer to Orkhun Turkic, or Uighur, Chaghatay, Turkoman, Mongol, etc.? We have no census data from those days, but we may assume that the various Turkic speakers, to the extent that they held a shared sense of identity, would do so on the basis of language. So choosing an unlikely interpretation (which still does not prove Nizami's father being Turkish since speaking Turkish does not necessarily imply his father was Turkish), does not validate Nizami's father being a Turk and at most it is just an unlikely hypothesis.

The symbolic meaning of the verse above is also clear for anyone with the simplest understanding of classical Persian poetry. Nizami Ganjavi did not live in in Ethiopia and in Persian poetry Turks are known as outer beutifull and Ethiopians (Blacks) as not too so. So Nezami Ganjavi is simply saying that he is in a place that dark and does not appreciate his beauty. Because Turks who had yellow/light skin were seen as compared to Sun and Ethiopians were seen as night. This is in the section where he has given some more hundreds of lines of advice and the quote and context is clear and the poet complains about people not listening to his advice! Thats the context. There is nothing about Nezami Ganjavi speaking Turkish and then people not appreciating it. The section comes after hundreds of lines of Moral advice and has absolutely no ethnic connoation and the constrast between Turk and Ethiopia and Turk and Hindu and etc. are found all over Persian poetry and poets compare their state to different groups like Rumi said: "Sometimes I am a turk, sometimes a Hindu, sometimes a Roman, sometimes a Black".

Indeed I might scan that whole section from both Wilson's and Meysami's translation. The fact of the matter is that the poem above does not prove anything about Nezami's father being Turkish and the intrepretation of Mr. Baguirov is not only ethno-centeric, but does not fit within the context and no expert in Persian poetry has ever interpolated such a bizarre meaning that Mr. Baguirov wants us to believe. So if the above is all Mr. Baguirov has, then it is not sufficient at all to claim Nezami Ganjavi to be half Turkic. Any sort of conjecture needs overwhelming proof and if such overwhelming proof existed, then in all the centuries, Nezami Ganjavi would be called a Turk, while no have ever called him a Turk.

When poets talk about Turk,India, Rome, Ethiopia one needs to take consideration of symbolic state of the poets feeling in the context. When actual characters are in play, then that is different (for example Khaghan of Turks). For a short introduction to this wide topic, people should the article by Professor Annemarie Schimmel, Turk and Hindu, A literary Symbol. Indeed in Lili o Majnoon, many times Lili is compared to a “Turk” and sometimes characters would be compared to Hindu. Also let me add this from

Rumi" Negar man Tork ast gar cheh man Tork nistam - Amaa midanam beh Torki hast aab su"

Translation:

My beautiful is a Turk and although I am not a Turk, I know this much that in Turkish the word for water is “su” (water in Turkish)

So here Rumi is not a Turk.

Rumi:

Gah torkam o gah hendu gah rumi gah zangi Az naqsh to ast ay jaan enkaaram o eghraaram

I am sometimes a turk, sometimes a Hindu, sometimes a Greek, sometimes a Black From your colors o Soul is my existence and non-existence

So here sometimes he is all four.

Rahaan kon harf hendu, bebin torkaan ma’ni raa Man aan torkam keh hendu raa nemidaanam

Leave the words of Hindu behind, Look at the meaning of the Torkaan I am that Turk that does not know Hindu

Here he is a Turk that does not Indian.

So here had we taken the ethno-centric viewpoint on poetry about the symbolism of Turk/Hendu, Turk/Black.. then we would say Rumi is sometimes a Tork, sometimes he is not, sometimes he is a Hindu, sometimes not a Hindu, sometimes a Greek and sometimes a Black…

Khaghani:

Kamtarin Hendooyeh oo Khaghaanist

The lowest of all Hindus is Khaghani

Attar: Key tavanaam goft hendu to-am Hendooyeh khaak sag-e- gooye to am

When can I say that I am your Hindu, I am the Hindu of the dust of your dogs feet

So all these are taken to be symbolic specially the context is important and Nezami talks about 100's of moral advice and has nothing to say about ethnicity. I also checked up that verse and it seems in some manuscripts it does not exist. Also explicity many times in Persian poetry (Sanaii, Nezami, Rumi, Hafez..) all these Turks were the Tang-cheshm(narrow eyes),which are the mongloid Turks people see in Central Asia. Not the Azerbaijani/Anatolian Turkic speakers who by modern genetic evidences are strongly predominantly non-Turkic in DNA. The problem is that Mr. Baguirov is confined in a small ethno-centric viewpoint and thus he can not grasp the symbolic meanings in Persian poetry. I have about 10 pages on how the word Turk is used in Persian materials. Specially when it compares to Ethipioa/India. For Iranian poets, Blacks/Indians were considered ugly, dark and Turks were considered light-skin and sun-like and pretty. Indeed had the people in the republic of Azerbaijan considered the fact that Nizami uses symbolic language many times, they would not be making such big mistakes and not view poetry from ethno-centric concept. So Mr. Baguirovs ethno-centeric and narrow viewpoint on a verse can not be taken seriously by Persian scholars and that is why he won't be able to prove a Turkic father for Nezami.

Also lets remember that Nizami uses the term Tork-zaad(a term used in classical Persian poetry meaning a son of Iranian who had a Turkic wife) for his son from his wife that was given to him by the ruler of Darband.

The first time such a word is used is by Ferdowsi (which Nizami was an avid reader of) when referring to Hormozd the Sassanid king whose father was the Sassanid king Anoshiravan and whose mother was from the Gok-Turks, sent by the Khaghan of Turks as a present to Anoshiravan.:

Ferdowsi says:

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

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

The translation is:

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

Indeed the difference between Tork-zaad and Tork is key here.

And again Ferdowsi says about Hormozd:

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

Keh in Torkzaadeh sezaavaar nist kasi raa beh shaahi kharidaar nist

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

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

This is a sufficient proof that Nizami was not a Turk. Indeed lets re-examine that section again:

تو کز عبرت بدین افسانه مانی چه پنداری مگر افسانه خوانی درین افسانه شرطست اشک راندن گلابی تلخ بر شیرین فشاندن بحکم آنکه آن کم زندگانی چو گل بر باد شد روز جوانی سبک رو چون بت قبچاق من بود گمان افتاد خود کافاق من بود همایون پیکری نغز و خردمند فرستاده به من دارای در بند پرندش درع و از درع آهنین‌تر قباش از پیرهن تنگ آستین‌تر سران را گوش بر مالش نهاده مرا در همسری بالش نهاده چو ترکان گشته سوی کوچ محتاج به ترکی داده رختم را به تارج اگر شد ترکم از خرگه نهانی خدایا ترک زادم را تو دانی

The last two line after mentioning his wife as an idol of Qifqach (and symbolism can not be ruled out). Nevertheless, Nizami says in the last two lines about the gift given to him from the ruler of Darband (and note he uses the term Daraayeh Darband which means the Darius of Darband again showing Persian and Iranian mythology/history): Cho Torkaan gashteh sooyeh kooch mohtaaj - beh Torki daadeh rakhtam raa beh taraaj - agar shod torkam az khargah nahaani - khwudaayaa tork-zaadam raa to daani" First line: Since the Torkaan (turks) are in need of migration (using the word Kuch which means nomadic migration), Second line: Beh Torki (In Turkis way) daadeh Rakhtam raa beh taaraaj (In Turkish manner has plundered my belongings) Third line: Agar shod torkam az khargah Nahaani (If(Agar) happened(Shod) torkam (my Turk) from (az) khargah (tent) Nahaani (disappeared) = If my torkam disappeared from her tent) Fourth line: O god you know best about my Tork-zaad.

First Nizami calls Turks, Nomadic. Secondly note Nizami uses the term Torkam for his wife, but Tork-zaad for his son. Tork-zaad is defined as race by Ferdowsi, Dekhoda (based on the history book Habib al-Sayar mentioning Hormozd) and classical literature and it means a child from an Iranian father and Turkic mother. Indeed that is why there is a distinction between Tork (his wife) and Tork-zaad (his son). The term is actually famous for Hormozd, the Sassanid king whose mother was a Turk and his father was the Iranian king Anushirawan. That is the classical definition in classical Persian poetry. Sokhan bas kon ze Hormozd-e Tork-zaad - Keh andar zamaaneh mabaad aan Nezhaad.

Also look how explicity Nizami mentions the this first wife ( given to him as a Gift by the ruler of Darband). "Agar shod Torkam az khargaah Nahaani" (If my turk disappeared from her tent). If Nezami felt or had anything to do with Turks, there would be no need to call her Torkam and make such a distinction.

Indeed if Nizami was a Turk, he wouldn't need to point out a particular term like Tork-zaad! There is no way of going around this, as we already know Nizami read Ferdowsi thoroughly and knew what this term exactly meant. Also the way Nizami talks about Taraaj, Kooch and etc. makes it definite he was not a Turk. But his direct and explicit used of the term Tork-zaad in such a particular manner is sufficient to show he wasn't Turkic or else assuming 0.00000...1% chance he was, there would be no need to point out the obvious!. (although we already knew he wasn't Turk because his mother was Kurdish and so at most acording to our friends he would be a Kurd-Turk.).

Also another interpretation can be taken on the verse: "Torki sefat-e- vafaayeh maa nist - Torkaaneh sokhan sezaayeh maa nist - An koo ze nasab boland zaayad - oo raa sokhon boland baayad". It is doubtful Shirvanshah even wrote these words, since his government was controlled by Seljuqids. But more importantly Nizami uses the term "maa" (we) instead of "my". So another interpretation can mean both Nizami and Shirvanshah did not consider themselves Torki-Sefat and consider themselves nasab boland (of high descent as opposed to Turkish descent). If Nezami was a Turk, he would never praise Shirwanshah for 90 verses and also Nezami never indicates he was desperate for money and that is why he wrote Lili o Majnoon.. Indeed because of his fame, he would be awashed from money and he was well supported by the many sultans and kingdoms.

So many theories and interpretation can be valid and I firmly believe that Nezami's father was Iranian from simply all the Iranian culture Nezami has shown, the Tork-zaad verse, the advice given to Shirwanshah's about Shahnameh, all the elements of Iranian mythology he uses (nothing from Turkish mythology), his understanding of Pahlavi, and even if he was something else(Nizami was half Iranian for 100%), culturally he was Iranian for 100%.

5) Mr. Baguirov should know that I have quoted major Western scholars, not only: Hellmut Ritter, Yan Rypka(last article published in 1968 in Camridge history of Iran right before he passed away), C.E. Wilson but Clinton, Chelkowsi, Gelpke, Gohrab, Meisami, Bashiri and many others of the modern era. None of these authors call Nezami Ganjavi a Turkic poet. Even the term Azerbaijani poet is unambigious it just means he was from the land that is now called the republic of Azerbaijan. Indeed all Mr. Baguirov can do is repeat couple of Russian scholars who before the USSR have clearly stated Nezami Ganjavi was Iranian. Only after the USSR, they had no choice but to say Nezami Ganjavi was from Azerbaijan. Because as Stalin said(referred to Nizami 'as the great poet of our brotherly Azerbaijan people' who must not be surrendered to Iranian literature, despite having written most of his poems in Persian. . Mr. Baguirov is repeating the same thing! )[12]. Note both Beretls and Krymskiy have called Nezami Ganjavi an Iranian poet before the USSR. This is important point.

6) The quote by Alisher Navaoi brings Jami (a Persian poet) and Nizami (a Persian poet of Iranic background) and mentions that there is no poet like that of Jami nor Nezami amongst the Turks and he mentions Jami in Arabia (again not even a Persian speaking land). Also Mr. Baguirov again uses his materials that have been shown to have many wrong quotes. . This should be taken into account when Mr. Baguirov gives false translations like ususal. Like he was caught red handed many times. Indeed AliSher's Navaoi's originalgives us the impression that Nezami was not a Turk and indeed AliSher never mentions Nezami as a Turk. Jami was not a Turk either. I will in due time try to find Alisher's quote. It is sufficient to say Jami praises Nezami greatly in Baharistan and so he was read greatly in that area. Indeed the oldest manuscript of Haft Paykar for example is in Iran. I will bring some interesting quotes from Alisher Navaoi soon.

7) Mr. Baguirov claimed about Paul Smith's translation: poetic translation into English by Paul Smith, based on 1945 literal translation of G.H.Darab, London, “Layla and Majnun”, p. 117)

The funny thing is that the above source from 1945 does not exist and Mr. Baguirov madeup as he went. Indeed in 1945 G.H. Darab only translated the Makhzan Al-Asrar , Arthur Probstain Pub, 1945. So the addition by Paul Smith is not based on the translation of G.H. Darab as Mr. Baguirov claims since in 1945 G.H. Darab published Makhzan Al-Asrar. Paul Smith, who does not know Persian, can not be referenced here. Indeed I showed that the verse in question is totally translated wrong and Mr. Baguirov can not put such a quote in the main text anymore, since now the source of Paul Smith's English to English translation. And indeed that quote does not exist in the multitude of manuscripts that was checked. So Mr. Baguirov lied here or made a mistake in order to give backing to an unscholarly translation of a Person who does not know Persian and has just translated from English to English!

Here is the actual translation of that part by Dr. Rudolf Gelpke(The story of Layla and Majnun, 1966) (Note Dr. Gelpke also calls Nizami Ganjavi as a "Persian Poet"). Pg 65: Layli's father Great Prince among the arabs,' he began,' look at me, an old man, broken-hearted, beaten down by disaster, and prostrate before you. The Arabs are heaping blame and infamy upon me, as if I were a homeless stranger, and when I think of the streams of blood which have been shed for my sake, I wish I could become a drop of quicksilver and escape from such disgrade

As you can see folks, Mr. Baguirov tried to lie. And tried connect the quote of Paul Smith to G. H. Darab (who never made any translation of Layla and Majnun). An English to English translation by a non-scholar can not be used as an academic source. I have also emailed Paul Smith about this issue, and the actual translation by Prof. Gelpke is valid. Indeed Paul Smith does not know Persian and Mr. Baguirov was not able to show the actual source of that translation. G. H. Darab has no published literary translation of Lili o Majnoon. So stop the faslificaiton.

There is nothing against Persians in the 5-Ganj and Nezami praises Iran and Persians many times in the 5-Ganj. Also there is no translation of Lili O Majnoon published in 1945 from G.H. Darab and Mr. Baguirov lied and made up a source!

8) The quote by Alexander is clear. No Turk would ever compose such poetry against their own kind. Here it is again:

He opened his mouth and cursed at Turks 2) and said: "Without discord/disbelief(fitnah) No Turk is born from a mother 3) do not expect anything from chinni except a movement of an eyebrow (In Persian poetry Chin refers to Uighyur western China and parts of Central Asia while Machin refers to mainland China. For example Ferdowsi calls the ruler of the Turks as Khaghan Chin) 4) because they are covenant-breakers and can not be trusted 5) The wise people of the past said it in truth 6) that there is no honor and faithfullness in chinni 7) They all have accepted Tang-Chesmi (meaning narrow eyes) (like in the mongolian race) (meaning also they can't see well..) 8) they have only seen greatness and wideness in the eyes of others 9) Have you not heared that their love is equal to hate 10) the heart of Turk-e-chinni is full of crookedness 11) If the Turk-chinni had any honor 12) then the earth would be clothed under chinn (Part of Eskandar Nama)

No matter what one says, the above quote would never be composed by a Turk.

9) Nezami Ganjavi studies Asadi Tusi, Sanaii and Ferdowsi greatly, both of them having many negative quotes about the Bi-Vafaaii of Turks. I have already explained the Shirwanshah's quote. For Mr. Baguirov's information the introduction to Lili O Majnoon was written after Nezami completed the poem. And Nezami was commisioned by the Shirwanshah to write the poems and it is well known that the Shirwanshah's were a Persianized Arab dynasty who claimed descendant of Sassanid general. Indeed what is more important is that they did not know Turkish for Nezami Ganjavi to write Turkish for them. So Mr. Baguirov's false intepretation while having no basis is to be reject. The actual context becomes clear when references against Persian poetry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets continue. Indeed here is one of the most ridiculous mistakes of Mr. Baguirov coming up. Mr. Baguirov claims: Nizami continues the verse, after the words Mr. Doostzadeh quoted, now speaking for himself: “I read this… My face became blood-red, - So, it means I have a slave’s ring in my ear! I don’t have the courage, to write a denial/refusal/rejection, My eyes have become dull, words (reserve/vocabulary) have run dry.’’

The actual lines are these: چون حلقه ی شاه یافت گوشم از دل به دماغ رفت هوشم نه زهره که سر ز خط بتابم نه دیده که ره به گنج یابم سر گشته شدم در آن خجالت از سستی عمر و ضعف حالت کس محرم نه که راز گویم وین قصه بشرج باز گویم فرزند محمد نظامی آن بردل من چون جان گرامی این نسخه چو دل نهاد بردست در پهلوی من چو سایه بنشست داد از سر مهر پای من بوس کای آنکه بر آسمان زدی کوس خسرو و شیرین چون یاد کردی چندیدن دل خلق شاد کردی لیلی مجنون ببایدت گفت

تا گوهر قیمتی شود جفت این نامه ی نغز گفته بهتر طاوس جوانه جفته بهتر خاصه ملکی چو شاه شروان شروان چه که شهریار ایران...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferdowsi says about Turks:

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

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

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

10) The fact of the matter is that no respected authority in the West has called Nezami Ganjavi's other half a Turk. Note in the Makhzan al-asraar he praises the Wisdom of the Sassanid King Anushiravan. Whereas in the story, the old lady is complaining to Sanjar about the misdeeds occuring in the empire. Ferdowsi also for example praises some Turanians (at the time were considered Turks) like Piran. Nizami Ganjavi is a heir to the Persian traditions and Myths. For example in the Haft Paykar he mentions some of the following characters amongst many: Anushiravan, Arash (Who protected Iran from the mythical Turanians later identified as Turks), Ardeshir Babakan (founder of the Sassanid Dynasty), Arjang (the art book of Mani), Bahman ( the son of Isfandiyar from the legendary Kayanid dynasty), Bistun, Daraa (Darius), Dihqaan (Iranian nobility), Div (Shahnameh creatures that are not humans), Pari (fairies), Farhad, Fereydoon (the defeater of Zahak), farr (royal Zoroastrian glory), Firdawsi, Giv (a heroe in the Shahnameh and son in law of Rustam), Iraj ( the son of Fereydoon mentioned in the Shahnameh), Isfandyar (Zoroastrian heroe), Kavus (Kaykavus the legendary king and father of Siyavas), Kayanids (pre-Islamic Iranian mythical dynasty often associated with Achaemenids), KayKhusraw (the son of Syavash and one of the greatest Shahnameh heroes), Khusraw Parviz the Sassanid King, Kisra, Mani, Rustam (the greatest Shahnameh heroe), Shirin (part of Persian folklore), Simurgh (the legendary bird mentioned in Avesta who was the protector of Rustam in the Shahnameh), Siyamak (the son of Kayumarth, Kayumarth is the first Iranian man in the Shahnameh and according to legends of Avesta, the first wise being created by Ahuramazda), Jamshid (Yima of Indo-Iranians), KayQobaad (Founder of the glorious Kayanid dynasty), Siyavash (the son of Kaykavus and father of Kaykhusraw), Zahak (Bivarasp, the legendar demon-king mentioned in Indo-Iranian traditions), Avesta, Zand (Zoroastrian commentary on Avesta). These were just a few amongst many which demonstrates Nizami Ganjavi's clearly Iranian heritage and Iranian roots. Indeed let me bring a quote from a recent published book where the author always consistently mentions Nizami Ganjavi as a Persian poet: (Love, Madness, and Mystical Longing in Nizami's Epic Romance, Prof. Ali Asghar Seyed-Gohrab, pg 276): The relationship between Shirwanshah and his son, Manuchihr is mentioned in Chapter eight. Nizami advises the king's son to read Firdawsi's Shah-nama and to remember the pithy saying of the wise. This again shows the clear Iranian heriage of Nizami and shows clearly he feels Iranians and shares in the Iranian heritage. Indeed the Shahnameh has some harsh comments against Turks, that anyone with Turkish consciousness would not appreciate. So does Sanai's work. So does Asadi Tusi's work. All these poets were praised and influenced Nezami Ganjavi. Also Mr. Baguirov should tried to appropriate Qatran Tabrizi and turn him into a Turk, but apparantely he didn't know Qatran was not a Turk.

Conclusion:

Since Nezami Ganjavi's other half was Iranian, as the term used Tork-zaad for his son shows (and the context and connotation of this word is clear from classical Persian poetry and dehkhoda), then one can not call him Azerbaijani poet. Culturally he was Iranian as shown from the comments in part 10. Also everyone agrees that he was half Iranic. The theory that his father was a Turk can never be proven from his work or else major scholars would have accepted it. So in the end, Nezami Ganjavi is a Persian poet (since all his work is in the language and a Persian poet does not mean anything about ethnicity. Just like an Azerbaijani poet could simply mean he was from geographical region of Azerbaijan). His mother was a Kurd and his father was Yusuf the son of Zakki the son of Mu'ayyad. That is all that is known about his biography.

I suggest that we say his heritage is shared by Azerbaijan and the Persian speaking World. Other than that, the issue is finished and right now, there is not even one major Western scholar of Persian literature who claims Nezami a Turk.

Just to let the readers know, I have requested intervention. The Armenianness of Shirin will be certain. As will be the half Kurdishness of Nezami. The QOM theory will be a perhaps. There is not a single major scholar even USSR that has called Nezami Ganjavi's father as explicity a Turk. So I hope this issue is resolved soon.

Some scholars

Ghulam Hussein Darab Khan (Oxford University) was not Iranian, but of Indian origin. He has called Nezami Ganjavi a Persian poet several times. Another person is CE WILSON (professor of Persian literature and studies) Another person is Edward Brown. (Professor of Persian literature and studies) Another person is Dr. Ali Asghar Seyed Gohrab (Abu Gohrab) whom I believe is of Indian origin. (PhD 2001) Peter Chelkowsi. (Professor of Persian literature and studies in NYU currently) Julia Scott Maisami (a native of California and not Iranian and Professor of Persian literature and studies) Another Person is Dr. Rudolf Gelpke (Professor of Persian literature and studies). These were not some random people, but Professors in a very definite field: Persian literature and Iranian studies. --Ali doostzadeh 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sher Navaii considers Nizami amongst Persian Poets

The Persian(Actual Uzbek version: Sart which means a Perso-Turk mixture) rulers won independence in some climes and territories, whereupon Persian poets (Actual Uzbek version: Sha'eraan Parsi-goo or Persian speaking poets) appeared: Khaghani and Anwari and Kamal Ismail and Zahir and Salman for Qasidas; Ferdowsi "Master of Knowledge", Nizami, "Incomparable" and Mir Khusraw "Sorcerer of India" for Mathnawis; and Sa'di "Inventor of Time" and Hafiz "Non-pareil of the Century" for Ghazals.(Muhamat Al-Lughatain, translated by Robert Devereux, Leiden, 1966). --Ali doostzadeh 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Nizami and Zoroastrianism fables

Everyone knows Zoroastrianism is an Iranian religion. Here is an interesting quote from G.H. Darab's translation of Makhzan Al-Asrar pg 17:

One night, while Nezami was in deep meditation, he (a close friend of Nizami's) entered and began to reproach and rebuke Nezami severely, saing: Thou art supposed to be the lod of spiritual understanding and king of eloquence and speech. Thou has been deceived by the deceit of the idolators and fire-worshippers. Thou has revived the fables of the Zoroastrians. Sing the song of the Unity of God; Why are thou reviving the customs of the Magians? Although the fire-worshippers consider thy heart alive, yet the true believes consider it dead. The poet was not embittered by these reproaches and began to read a few passages from the love stories of the beautiful Shirin. When his friend heard these ravishing stories, he remained silent, as though he had lost speech. Nezami said: Why art thou silent now, and how is it thou canst not find words for praise?. The friend surrendered himself to Nezami with the utmost humiliation and asked him to complete his story and finish the building, the foundaiton of which he had laid so beautifully. The the poet calls on himself to leave the prison city of Ganjeh, to attack like a lion, to spread his shadow like a phoenix, and to relinquish the country to few owls. He seems to have a few bitter enemies who are jealous of his fame and virtue. He knows that if he leaves the country he will not hear even the names of his enemies after two stages. He compares those enemies with candles which are at the same time moths, taking pleasure in their own scanty lights in their ownhomes (pg 17-18).

Note also Nezami sometimes praises Ganjah but sometimes he called it prison like.

Interesting info from Nezami about himself and his mother

مادر که سپند، یار دادم با درع سپندیار زادم

Maadar keh sepand, yaar daadam baa Dar' sepandayaar zaadam

My mother who lit up spand for me and gave birth to me with the iron-clad body of Sepandiyaar

This quote is from Nezami about his own auto-biography. What is Spand? Spand is made from wild rue and is burned in many Zoroastrian ceremonies, rituals and purification rites in Iranian homes. When burned, the ESpand bits give off a pleasant odor and smoke similar to incense. The person carrying the Spand may walk around the couple and carry the smoke near them to make sure all evil is kept away. To burn Spand, you can place it on hot coals in a metal container called Manghal or brazier. This will burn and set off the desired effect. Spand was kept from Zoroastrianism to Iranian culture.

Now the second part refers to Sepandiyaar/Esfandiyaar of the Shahnameh, who was the rooin-tan (invulernable) except in eyes. This was because Zoroaster blessed Esfandiyar according to Shahnameh and Zoroastrian tradition. Now another interesting fact about Esfandiyaar in the Shahnameh is that he is a major enemy of Turks who are identified as enemies of Iran and Zoroaster and anyone with the simples amount of Turkic consciousness would not praise such a heroe (like Nizami has many times). Indeed Esfandiyaar uses some harsh terms for Turks, which I can bring if requested. The above two lines from Nezami also shows that he had Iranian conscious and comparing himself to Esfandiyaar the great Iranian/Zoroastrian heroe.

relavent Iranica articles:

Spand

Spandiyaar

Note how Nizami uses the Persian form and not the later arabicized for Esfand and Esfandiyar.

--Ali doostzadeh 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Per a request at WP:RfPP, I've protected this article to interupt the current edit war. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once you have all reached consensus and believe protection to no longer be necessary, I will unprotect. Note that my protecting the current version is not an edorsement of that version--I just protected what was up when I got here. I also removed the {{copyedit}} tag, as the article's currently protected and should not be edited. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My Suggestion

It seems there is three/four major disputes and instead of writing long messages, here is my suggestion:

1) The ethnicity of Nizami's father. This is never known for 100% and there is no unanamious consideration. Indeed I certaintly believe by the evidence I brought Nizami was ethnic Iranic and Mr. Baguirov wants to force an interpretation of a certain verse, which is not supported in the old and new English translations and also the symbolism is apparent as I have demonstrated above (see the Rumi, Khaghani, Attar quotes). Since all the major scholars of the West and the latest source have never called Nizami's father a Turk, nothing will be written about the ethnicity of his father. The Kurdish mother is not in dispute. So that is left alone

2) Shirin the Armenian and Christian. This is supported by the most recent and ancient sources. The latest source, Encyclopedia Iranica also calls her Armenian. So does the book of Dr. Talattof. Her Christianity is supported by major references as she was an actual person in Khusraw's court. See the quotes by the Cambridge history of Iran I brought that she is a Christian. So this part is not in dispute from the latest available scholarly sources.

3) .As per the term Persian poet, we have already mentioned a Kurdish mother, so I do not see a problem with it, specially since Persian poet means composer in the Persian language. A large amount of sources have called him a Persian poet. I grant some USSR sources after Stalin said: "Must not be surrendered to Iranian literature" have called him an Azerbaijani poet. But for example Bertels before the USSR era consistently mentioned him as a Persian poet. To resolve this dispute, I can suggest Persian language poet who contributed to Persian literature and culture. The fact is in the end culture and language will determine the ethnicity when someone's background is in dispute and Nizami's heritage is in the Persian language and culture. Neither the modern state of Iran nor Azerbaijan nor even the concept of citizenship existed back then. So calling Nizami Iranian or Azerbaijani from a geographical viewpoint does not make sense. It is like calling Homer or some other figure of ancient Greece as Turk because he was born in what is today known as Turkey. But the concept of Iran as geographical entity and Iranian as an ethnic idea can be proven and existed since the Sassanid times. So the term Azerbaijani is purely ethnic term here and refers to Oghuz Turkic speakers. The term Iranian would also be ethnic term meaning an ethnic Iranic. The term Azerbaijan poet is not correct: a)Nizami did not write in Azerbaijani Turkish b) He was at least half Iranic and I believe 100% Iranian (and this matter won't be settled), so by default of his half Kurdishness, he could not be simply called Turkic or even Azerbaijani.

4) There are harsh quotes about Turks(nomad, low descent,taraajgar, deli por ze kin, bi fitnah turki ze maadar nazaad...) and the quote from Lili O Majnoon does not exist in any reliable Persian to English translation done by Dr. Rudolf Gelpke has it correct. I demonstrate that a certain verse does not exist and Mr. Baguirov could not bring the original Persian either. English to English translations have a lot of extrapolations.. G.H. Darab also never translated Lili o Majnoon in 1945 and this was a forgery madeup. I suggest we get rid of the quote part, specially since people are interested to put ethnic materials where some of them really needs context. Else then one can bring the harsh quotes about Turks and then another user would have to try to explain intrepretations from his viewpoint and we get no where. I have already emailed Paul Smith (who does not know Persian) and he will most likely change that part that has no supporting verse.

I would like to hear hopefully in a polite tone from anyone that opposes these suggestion. Note I am being lenient because I believe Nezami Ganjavi is the 30,000 couplets he left behind as he himself said: He is alive through his poetry. Even one article in Britannica mentions him as a Persian poet, but we can keep the outline of the main Britannica article.

5) Let us start new in tone and discussion, we won't change our views on Nizami's father ethnicity and indeed I have some new materials which I can share more in, but it is not necessary here.

6) The page should be locked from future edits until all disputes are resolved.

--Ali doostzadeh 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also another major dispute: his birthplace. I suggest to mention both versions (Qum, mentioned in the Britannica, and Ganja, mentioned in some other sources) with the explanation that this subject is disputed. As for his ethnicity: Nizami being "a Turk" is one of the most illogical claims ever. There is no known Turkish work of Nizami, although there WERE Turkish poets during his lifetime, for example the Turkish poet Yunus Emre. So, if Nizami were a Turk, he would have written in Turkish ... at least to some extent. But there seems to be a total lack to Turkish poetry, which deffinitly supports the claim of an Iranian, most likely Persian heritage. Tajik 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and I agree with mentioning Qum as well as Ganja. And it is true, there is no Turkish verse from Nizami(and even the Turkish poet Alisher Navai admits it and I will bring the exact quote from Alisher Navai which also suggests Nizami was Iranian from a reliable translation) despite what Stalin claimed. Although I mentioned as well that although Qom is not in some of the older manuscripts, nevertheless many manuscripts and biographers of Islamic time have referred to it. My suggestion is though that we also use the material from encyclopedia Britannica. Nizami was not a Turk since he was at least half Kurdish and the other half I believe was Iranic as well (although some will always disagree and they will never accept it). As per new materials about him being Iranic or Turkic, I think we should discuss it somewhere else. I have put something new about Spand and Spandiyar and Nezami's mother in my latest message above. --Ali doostzadeh 22:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one comment. You can’t refer to older edition of Britannica, as Wiki rules discourage from using older Britannica. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Older editions such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica often have fuller articles than current editions on some subjects, though there is always the danger that the information is outdated. So you can refer only to current edition of Britannica, which says nothing about Qum version. Grandmaster 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say I can't refer to the older one, just because the newer one is more succient. But for now, okay fine so are we going to all the way with the latest edition of Brittanica. The same Britannica in one article considers Nizami amongst Persian poets. Since I strongly believe Nizami was Iranian, but still my belief in his univerality is much stonger, I am open to suggestions myself. I hope all the history talks is over(and some things will never be agreed upon) and so we can come to agreement and I hope everyone starts with new politeness. Here is a quote by Britannica about Azeris: "are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia. This population was Persianized during the period of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran (3rd–7th century AD), but, after the region's conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century, the inhabitants were Turkicized, and further Turkicization of the population occurred in the ensuing centuries. So if Azarbaijanis consider themseves descendants of old Iranic people like Medes/Persians than I have no problem with calling Nizami a poet shared by Iranians and Azerbaijanis. But if Azerbaijani is strictly defined as Oghuz Turks, like the pan-turkists do, then I am very opposed since the cultural heritage of Nizami is Persian and he was no seljuqid/oghuz turk. As per ethnicity it is a Kurdish mother and although the Qom theory can not be ruled, I have not seen anything definite about the ethnicity of his father and there will never be anything definite. So we can mention his names. These compromises are due to the fact that I feel we were the same country 180 years and although the USSR did major damage to the culture of the area, I firmly believe in sharing the common heritage. As per Shirin, there is direct evidence from history books that she was a real person and a Christian. If her Armenianness is a major issue, let me know, but what is important is that scholarly texts have mentioned her as an Armenian and I have not seen one scholarly text from a major scholar of Persian literature to claim otherwise. Lets see what other people think.--Ali doostzadeh 06:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the all differences can be resolved. In fact, Azerbaijani people don’t deny their Iranian and Caucasian heritage, but Oghuz culture is also part of it, but only one of the parts (language), as Britannica mentions. Grandmaster 06:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In any compromise as you know all sides have to know that they can't get something 100%. So let us see what other people think. --Ali doostzadeh 06:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Eventually we should reach a middle ground. Grandmaster 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A few minor edits

The article writes the name Nizami as Nezami the correct one is Nizami, but we should put up which one is more populair. Also the article avoids Nezami his lastname (penname) which is Ganjavi, this should be changed and also be added into the title. And after the born date it should be added were he was born which is Ganja in Arran nowadays Azerbaijan. You guys added a citation to the location of his birth which confirms Ganja but its still written Qum in Persia in the article? [13]. Also the article says about the contribution to Persian literature and culture but it should also add Azeri literature and culture along that. For simple reasons because he was born and lived in Azerbaijan and made a massive influence there and in Azerbaijan people are very proud on Nizami, so it has influenced it in the Azerbaijan regions aswell, I dont know about Iran though but I think Azerbaijani literture and culture should be added along that sentence. Baku87 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Both Nizami and Nezami are correct. For example Afghani Persian would probably say Nizami and Tehrani Persian Nezami. I am not sure if Ganjavi is his pen-name. It is just a title added in later because of the city he lived in. Much like Khaghani-e-Shervaani or Hafez-e-Shirazi or Ferdowsi-e-Tusi... At that time, people usually had one name and not a first name and last name. About Azerbaijani literature that would be someone like Fuzuli who wrote in Azerbaijani Turkish. He are also contributed to Persian literature as well. Nizami solely wrote in Persian and hence Persian literature. Besides the stories of Nizami did not really have to do with Oghuz culture, although Azerbaijani culture as pointed out is a mixture of Iranian and Turkic culture. Probably the cultural aspect is more Iranian but the language is definitely Turkic and so Nizami did not write in Turkic. Also since the literature is part of culture, it is Persian culture as well. We already said we will add his heritage is shared by Iran (or as Encyclopedia Britannica put it Persian speaking lands) and Azerbaijan. I will be back in 12 hours or so. --Ali doostzadeh 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But which name is more populair according to google, Nizami or Nezami? We should make the most populair one as the title. For all I know he is known as Nizami Ganjavi. And what do you think about his birthplace? There are 2 different sources who say the opposite but only 1 is actually used in the article. Another thing is literature doesnt only have to do with language, for example we have loads of people in Azerbaijan who write in Russian and this is still considered to be a contribution to Azerbaijani literature, so why make a exception here? Baku87 22:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Both are correct, just like 'Ali and Ali are both correct. The good thing about Wikipedia is that it will redirect. Since the name is Arabic, and Arabs pronounce it as Nizami, I guess that is fine. That is how it is pronounced in some Persian dialects, Kurdish and Afghani Persian. At the same time, a similar page with Nezami can be redirected. For example some words are pronounced differently in Texan and New Yorkian English. As per people in Azerbaijan contributing to Russian literature, they are contributing to Russian language literature, so it is not Azerbaijani literature. Also the current Azerbaijani ethnicity is a synthesis between Caucasian, Iranian and Oghuz Turks if we take the Britannica definition, which I have not seen any disagreement. Such an interesting ethnicity did not exist during Nizami's time and plus we know he was at least half Kurdish and I am convinced the other half was Iranic although we will leave his fathers ethnicity out, since there is no absolute proof despite everyone thinking their theory is 100%. Also we are talking about literature and the language it is written in. If Iranians contribute to English literature, then I do not consider it a contribution to Persian or Iranian literature. Azerbaijani Turkish is a language and contribution directly to Azerbaijani literature by most definition simply means Nizami wrote in Azerbaijani Turkich, which he did not. So the term Persian literature is strictly a linguistic term and that is what Nizami contributed to. --Ali doostzadeh 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then according to you since he has also Kurdish blood we should add Kurdish literature and culture aswell Baku87 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Actually you are misreading. Blood has nothing to do with the literature Nizami contributed to. For example if I learn German and then write some German poems, then I am not contributing to Iranian literature but I am contributing to German literature. The definition is not according to me, but it is the logical and historical definition. So if you write some Arabic poems, you are contributing to Arab literature. That simple. As per ethnicity we know for sure he was half Kurdish and the other half although I believe is Iranian, it will be blank. Also here is a short poem by a 13th century author and historian Hamdollah Mostowfi: چند شهر است اندر ایران مرتفع تر از همه Some cities of Iran are better than the rest, بهتر و سازنده تر از خوشی آب و هوا these have pleasant and compromising weather, گنجه پر گنج در اران صفاهان در عراق The wealthy Ganjeh of Arran, and Isfahan as well, So I can make justifications for calling him Iranian.. but I won't and I am waiting for replies from the other side, so that a compromise is reached.

-Ali doostzadeh 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, this is not a blood issue, do we have any records of him having written in Turkic? Is there any record that he had any ethnic encestry? Both of those are all that matters. Also I didn't knew that Shirin being Armenian was also debated. BTW, great job in documenting, but many of the things you brought here weren't really necessary. Regards. Fad (ix) 01:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur, I was quite impressed with Ali doostzadeh's hard work and dedication.--Eupator 01:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your comments. There is no Turkish work from the region during Nizami's time despite some invalid claims made throughout the discussion. There is not a verse of Turkish from Nizami and unfortunately Stalin claimed that Nizami had some Turkish work and such misconception started. Azerbaijani Turkish literature started developing during the Ilkhanid era(several poems and small works which are less than 10) and then during the Safavids it picks up. As per ethnic ancestery, his mother is a Kurd. As per his father, there is nothing definite and although nothing could be ruled out for, I firmly believe he was Iranian by my arguments and the other sides believes he was Turk by their argument. Either way the fact that he was 50% Iranian by ancestry is 100%. Some scholars also have mentioned Qom as the origin of his father since it is in some manuscripts and biographies, but this is not accept by all scholars. So the only thing we know about his father is what Nezami tells us: Yusuf the son of Zakki the son of Muhammad. The Christianity of Shirin is supported by all evidences and ancient sources, and she was an actual person. Her Armenianness is well known in Persian poetry and many Persian poets and even some Turkish (Alisher Navaii) have mentioned it. So the compromise I am trying to reach is that: "Nezami Ganjavi..born in Ganja..Kurdish mother. His fathers name was.... His heritage is shared by Iran and Azerbaijan..Made outstanding contributions to Persian literature and cutlre.". That should end this dispute, but I am waiting for other people and I am not sure what the silence is for. The page will be locked until there is a mutual agreement. I know I wrote a lot, but that was to be expected and I will compile and summarize what I wrote somewhere else since I am not here to push my view when Wikipedia has NOR. --Ali doostzadeh 01:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For Baku87, on spelling here is what Britannica says: Nezami also spelled Nizami greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, who brought a colloquial and realistic style to the Persian epic. . --Ali doostzadeh 06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand your point Ali but Azeris started speaking Turkic language after the 12th century (well according to some sources and me) then untill the 12th century there was no contribution to Azeri literture? By the way I think we should add this photo of Nizami statue, I think its a real nice statue and represents him very well. Baku87 07:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Thanks for the nice photo. IS it from Ganjah? It would be nice and accurate to have a photo of his tomb from Ganjah as well. As per Azerbaijani literatur, Qadi Burhan al-din of the 14th century and a certain Nusayr Bakui from the Ilkhanid era were the first to compose in this language from the area. I believe these were suppored by the Ilkhanid courts, who spoke both Persian and Turkish in their courts. Probably though the earliest sample is Hassan Asfarayani, from Asfarayn Khurasan from the 13th century. The Seljuqids either mixed in with lots of royal Iranian families(like the Nezam Almolk family and also the rulers of Tabarestaan and even Alisher Navaoi calls them Sart) and also they did not have any sort of nationalistic consciousness and considered themselves more Iranian than Turks.--Ali doostzadeh 13:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

new suggestions

Okay guys I am trying to accomadate the article so that everyone feels they can share in Nizami's heritage.

here is a start:

Nizami Ganjavi (نظامی گنجوی in Persian, Nizami Gəncəvi in Azerbaijani)‎ (1141 – 1209), whose full name was Nizām ad-Dīn Abū Muhammad Ilyās ibn-Yusūf ibn-Zakī ibn-Mu'ayyid is considered the greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, who brought a colloquial and realistic style to the Persian epic. His heritage is shared by Iran, Azerbaijan and Persian speaking lands. His mother, named Ra'isa, was of a Kurdish background and his fathers, named Yusuf is mentioned once by Nizami. Nizami was orphaned early and lived with his uncle. Nizami spent his lifetime in Ganja, the capital of Arran in what is now Azerbaijan, then part of Seljuq empire, where he also remained until his death and where currently his tomb is located.

Note I left controversial topics 1) like qom, 2) his father ethnic background (which we will never agree upon perhaps, although I am convinced it is 100% Iranian) out of the picture. Also one line quotes without context to display some nationalism will be left out. The article should try to display the humanity and universality of Nizami. I am still waiting for other users suggestion, specially those that I disagreed with in the past, mainly the following Wikipedia users: Grandmaster,AdilBaguirov, Baku87... Thanks. --Ali doostzadeh 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• support - sounds good to me. Tājik 18:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• I agree as well. —Khoikhoi 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• support - Although instead of Seljuk empire it should say Sultanate of Rûm.--Eupator 14:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

comment - The Sultanate of Rum never extended to Arran. At that time, it was a main domain of the Ildenizid atabekdom of Azerbaijan.--Kober 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• support - Grandmaster 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the prolonged absense, but it's good to see the emotions cool down and many people agreeing on things. My comments: the intro suggested by Ali is better than the present one. But 1) in the list, "shared by Iran, Azerbaijan and Persian speaking lands", Azerbaijan should go first, both due to alphabetic order, the birth place, and the fact that Azerbaijan is not a (predominantly) Persian speaking land - which it implies by having it sandwiched inbetween Iran and Persian speaking lands. Secondly, "Aran" is just a geographic area in between Kura and Araxes, which sometimes doubled as a substitute name for Caucasian Albania in Arabic and Iranian authors, i.e., also had a political connotation. But mainly, and in case of modern usage only, used as geographic entity, like Mughan or Shirvan. Meanwhile, Nizami was born, lived and died in one country, and the country's name was very precise, and well defined by by even Enc. Iranica [14] as the Atabek State of Azerbaijan (Atabakan-e Azerbaijan), which was also part of the Seljuk Empire (although the Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan were the main rulers of the Seljuk empire). Nizami is also mentioned in the article. Same with another article about Ganja, Nizami is mentioned again: “It thus came under Saljuq control and, in the later 6th/12th century under that of the Atabeg line of Ildegizids (see ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚZòARBAÚYJAÚN)….. The new town became the focus of a great period of efflorescence, seen in the laudatory verses quoted by Mostawf^ (Nozhat al-qolu@b, pp. 91-92) and its nurturing of the great poet Nezáa@m^ Ganjav^.” [15] Additionally, most scholars even in the West, call him "Nizami Ganjavi", and not just "Nezami". In Azerbaijani his name actually becomes Nizami Ganjali, and that's how they call him in his native Ganja. But most scholars, even Meisami, call him Nizami Ganjavi. This is regarding the less contentious portions.

Regarding Qom - I am not against mentioning this theory, but in light of evidence and quotes presented, it would require to write more (in terms of lines) to show that it was a latter addition, is not credible and is false. Likewise, since Qom issue is important only from the standpoint of the view about ethnic composition of the city, it would require to put information that Turkic population was quite sizeable at the time in Iran as well (and I think Cambridge History of Iran has relevant sources in English about that). Plus the fact that there is a Qom village in the mountains of north Azerbaijan, probably about 150 km from Ganja.

Shirin - she was not Armenian, but Arranian princess and later queen. Ali gave citations of other poets (i.e., not Nizami), such as Turkic poet from India Amir Khosrow Dehlevi, calling her queen of Armenia. That obviously doesn't translate into being Armenian. Moreover, Tigranes II Great, as well as all Orontides, Arsacids and Artaxias are called mistakenly by many as "Armenian" kings/dynasties, while being Persian and Parthian. Many Arabic language authors are routinely called Arab. But in any case, what others thought of Shirin is not very relevant - what matters, is who she was for Nizami. And she was, together with her aunt, 1) descendant of Afrasiyab, the mythical king of Turan/Turkestan; 2) drunk milk as her main food and 3) had almond or gazelle-like eyes. Nizami clearly based the character of Shirin on his wife Afak/Appaq. None other than most prominent ethnic Armenian poetess and expert on Nizami, prof. Marietta Shaginyan, dismissed Shirin's being Armenian, and corrects it to Arranian. Here are the relevant quotes from her book: “Arran princess Shirin” (M.Shaginyan, “Studies/sketches about Nizami”, 1955/1981, p. 23), and “Hammer is mistakenly calling Aghvans [Albans, Arranians – ed.] (inhabitants of Arran) as Armenians”, M.Shaginyan (ibid., p. 63), in critique of the European Orientalist’s 1818 book on Persian literature. That's probably one of the reasons for mistakes, when any Christian from South Caucasus was mistakenly called Armenian very often. Meanwhile, even "Armenian princess", like "Persian poet", does not denote ethnicity.

Despite having Armenia in the text -- which is common to have such an ancient and exotic name to be featured in texts of regional authors -- Shirin just travelled (i.e, not lived!) there, as Armenia was a geographic concept to begin with as there was no independent country either in Nizami's time or in Khosrov time for that matter. And Armenia is mentioned along with bunch of other geographic zones. Here are some relevant verses (from “Shapur’s story about Shirin”) (quick translation into English mine, the first verses are about Mihin-Banu, Shirin’s aunt):

“There, beyond the chain of mountains, where the entire expanse is beautiful, where joyful Derbent, and sea, and gulf, There is a woman. She has the shine of a royal high office/cloth/dignity. Boiling of her army reached Isfahan. Till Armenia the mighty land/country of Arran belongs (is obedient) to her. My ruler, know this: many regions send her tributes like a lamb/cap in hand. In the world there are probably no happier creatures (people). Countless castles she has in the mountains. How large is her treasury – only Allah knows. <…> For any month … she has countless havens. In the days of rose Madam will travel to Mughan [south-eastern region of Azerbaijan]… to enjoy the tribute of the springtime. In the mountains of Armenia she roams/roves in the summer [!!! That’s it!] …. And when autumn will come – and there, she does a raid on the game in Abkhazia [that’s northern Georgia!] In the winter she is in Barda [that’s back to North Azerbaijan, Arran]. Defiant (scorning) times of year, she lives, forgetting, what is foul weather. There [in Barda] she breathes happier, where it is easier to breath for heart/chest … And there, in her castle, it its beautiful captivity, Her niece lives. You would have considered her a diva. <…> She is more beautiful than roses, She was called/named Sweetie, She is – Shirin…. She is said/reputed to be the heir to Mihin-Banu … And after all, Mihin-Banu, who governs/rules/possesses the whole country, has not one/multiple such treasuries”.

When describing Khosrov’s travel after Shirin, Nizami also has the following lines:

“Then – in Mughan [eastern region in Azerbaijan/Arran] he is; then his graceful figure showing wayfarer, he arrived to Baharzan. <….> Mihin-Banu stands up. Kissing the earth, She said: “Shah!” He replied: “I’m listening”. “My capital [!!!], my guest, decorate with your attendance/visit; Barda is so joyful in the winter! You should pack up there. In winter times you won’t get any warmer weather than there, There grass is juicy, there water is in excess”. Khosrov agreed. He said: “You go. I will follow you to that incredible territory/region”. <…> [What a] fine country! The sparkling wreath and ruler’s throne have been brought [to it]”.

From the chapter “Flight of Khosrov from Behram Chubine” in “Khosrov and Shirin”:

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

Here’s about both Mihin-Banu and Shirin being descendants of Afrasiyab, in the chapter “Lecture/admonition of Mihin-Banu to Shirin”, where Mihin-Banu speaks to Shirin:

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

Here’s an interesting passage from the poem, from the chapter “Khosrov leaves/abandons Shirin and goes to Rum [Byzantum]. Wedding of Khosrov with Maryam [the Christian daughter of the Christian king of Byzantum]”:

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

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

Also, note that Nizami always spells all the names in the Muslim manner appropriate for poetry of his time – i.e., Maryam instead of Maria, Isa instead of Jesus, Ibrahim instead of Abraham, Iskender instead of Alexander, Afrasiyab instead of other variations, etc.

Anyways, I think if we just read the relevant passages (Ali also included I think two verses about Armenia) we can see that she could not have been Christian, much less Armenian, and that her capital was in Barda, perhaps the second most favorite city of Nizami after Ganja - he had it as capital of Nushaba in Iskender-nameh too. --AdilBaguirov 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. Looks like ensha' allah we are near an agreement. I even propose that after an agreement is reached, we take out the harsh words and long comments from the talk page, if time permits. I archived all previous talks, so that page is within a friendly atmosphere.

I agree with mentioning the Atabak state of Azerbaijan and the relavent Iranica link can be given.

As per heriated shared by Azerbaijan and Iran, we can say Nizami Ganjavi's heritage is shared by: Azerbaijan and Persian speaking lands Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. This effectively takes care of the confusion. It doesn't bother me if Azerbaijan is mentioned first either since we are saying the heritage is shared. Of course if I was going to be very picky I would say shared equally, but I think that is fine.

Looks like though there is two things Adil disagrees with, and here is my proposal:

1) For the Qom theory actually Nezami mentions "Tafresh" and "Taa" and these are two well known areas of Qom in modern Iran in central Iran near Qom.

cho dorr gar cheh dar bahr-e ganjeh gomam valee az ghohestan-e shahr-e ghomam beh tafresh dehee hast taa naam-e oo Nezamee az aanjaa shodeh naam-joo

But as I said, we don't need to mention that since some scholars agree and some don't. So we don't to have a dispute over this and we'll just mention the fathers names. On Nezami Ganjavi, the Ganjavi part is common and I think even Jami mentions it and Brtiannica does. So we'll leave it as Ganjavi as it is common in the West already.

2) On Shirin which is the more important dispute than it first looked like

For example the Afrasiyaab verse is about Khaykhusraw and not Jamshid and I already discussed it, and she doesn't consider herself a descendant of afrasiyaab, she justs said if he is like KeykhUsraw(son of afarsiyaab) then we are like Afrasiyaab (the father of Khusraw in the Shahnameh)... Jamshid would not make sense in this context from a mythology point of view. Or Armenia is mentioned 12+ times in the story and Barda' being a summer capital does not negate her armenianess. Almond means simply eyes in Persian literature..

Despite this no where does Nizami directly refer to Shirin's ethnicity, her being considered an Armenian by most scholars has to do with the fact that many other poets have mentioned it (even Alisher Navaoi). The fact of the matter is that if we are going to by Nizami, then many of the characters have become very mythical, geographical areas have become blurred (Nizami was not a geography major). That is why one looks at all of Persian poetry. Then there is Christian part, although see the Cambridge history of Iran and other sources where Shirin is actually mentined as a real character and a Christian in Khusraw's court.

But here is my proposal, since I don't think it is necessary to go back and forth on this issue and opinions were given multiple times without any results.

I hope Adil and others that disagree can be satisfied by the following proposal:

We each reference just one source about this matter. Adil can reference the source that she is mentioned as an Arranian(Caucasian Albanian) and I will mention a source the she is mentioned as Armenian (mainly the Encyclopedia Iranica article) and then we will leave it at that. We can leave the Christian and religious part out for scholars as well, although both Caucasian Albanian or Armenian at that time (end of Sassanid era) were Christians and some were Zoroastrians.

I think this would be sufficient to solve this matter. --Ali doostzadeh 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, this is indeed very constructive and academic approach. And I agree about cleaning up the archives of emotional word usage. We should have a toast to that Ali! :-) All the best, --AdilBaguirov 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent

All right guys, thanks to everyone specially Adil for the debates and discussions. Although I don't drink but heck it is good to get this long discussion over with and a toast of OJ is good. :) I have requested unlock for this article and I will put in the minor details we agreed upon as soon as it is unlocked. In due time, I will also clean some of the hard tones from the archives and it is excellent that we all can be proud about Nezami Ganjavi and share in his lofty heritage. --Ali doostzadeh 02:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Ali, I would like to thank you and Adil for the constructive approach, which allowed us to resolve this lengthy dispute. Grandmaster 04:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis of epics -- either too brief or too wordy

Guys, right now I think our priority should be reconicle the info about each of the 5 epics -- as well as mention the Divan of Nizami a little more prominently. The problem I see is that there is an overkill of info about Khosrov and Shirin (too much for an encyclopedia), a lot about Haft Paykar, and almost nothing about other epics, not to mention the Divan (which is mentioned only as "he left a small corpus of lyric poetry", not mentioning the title for such works, Divan, and that they are up to 2,000 beyts from their original size of 20,000). Then, why is there original Persian for one epic but not for the others? Also, why use clearly outdated Wilson's translations when there is Meisami's, and otherwise more modern or poetic translations for others? We are supposed to give a sneak peak of those stories, not try to pack the whole story into a one page. :-) We should not give more than 4-8 lines I think for each epic. Also, we mention Gholam H. Darab as a translator separately for the first epic, but no one for the others - why? Finally, we should mention whom was each epic dedicated to -- that's very important as well. Also, we do not mention anything about his knowledge of languages and in general education. To avoid any problems, we can simply quote those two relevant passages about Pahlavi, Jewish, Arabic, Tabari, Bukhari, etc. It would be good to otherwise include more non-contentious info into the article, such as tezkire's and imitations by other poets, such as Amir Khosrov Dehlevi and Alisher Navoi. Perhaps even some cool quotes about Nizami by famous poets and scholars, attesting to his grandeur. --AdilBaguirov 12:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are good suggestion.. I have shortened the story of Khusraw and Shirin.. since it is best for users to read it. Soon, I will start a brief but comprehensive section on Nizami's influence on Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Urdu literature. Probably one or two line on each. Also I have put the rulers mentioned. It would be too long to put verses from each poem and so I chose the two best works Khusraw o Shirin and Haft Paykar. See this for example: [16]. Also some praises for Nezami from other classical poets like Jami and Alisher Navai and others will be available soon. I have put the available English translations as well. --Ali doostzadeh 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Nizami poems each deserve a separate article, and here we just need to give a brief description of them with links to more detailed articles. Just a thought for future. Grandmaster 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point, although writing a long article on each of Nezami's 5 jewls is not easy and might actually do injustice in my opinion. One really has to go through the various stories to appreciate it and a few boring lines will kill the story. I had added some of the most recent translations to the article and hopefully after reading the article, the readers will buy some of the translations from the amazon links.. --Ali doostzadeh 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think that writting seperate articles foe each of his works is a good idea. These articles should also have a short summary of Nezami. 69.196.164.190

Thanks for carrying out most of the edits Ali, it looks better. But still too wordy I think -- there is too much of verses for some poems, and yet very little about Nizami himself, his abilities, education, etc. For example, there is nothing about Nizami's uncle (from father's side) haji Omar Hasan, who must have played an important role in the upbringing of the young orphan Ilyas. Also, the fact that mother was from the Shaddadi's. while there is no direct evidence, Nizami must have known Afzaladdin Khagani Shirvani and Mehseti Ganjavi. Indeed, when his grave was opened, along with his skeleton, the remains of a woman were found. Academician Hamid Arasly, one of earliest Soviet-Azerbaijani literary experts, dismissed the possibility of those remains being one of his wives, and gave more credibility to the possibility of it being Mehseti Ganjavi (he did this citing folk stories of Ganja's elders). Although it of course could have been Afak/Appaq.

Also, we might want to explain that "Nizami" was a tahallus of the poet and what it meant, in what language, why. It would be become very relevant once we reach the section about his legacy, since the current wording "Nezami was influenced greatly by Ferdowsi, Sanai, Asad Gorgani Asadi Tusi and other great poets before him" (it doesn't mention Rudaki) leaves an ambiguous feeling about him (and I realize that it is hard to succinctly express this point). What I mean is that Nizami knew, respected, perhaps adored all these poets, but clearly viewed himself as the best, with even direct parallels (some of which I've cited in our archives discussion, such as "What the Kings Book had half-said, I said fully: what jewel he had half-pierced I pierced wholly.") about his pearl (a poetic reference) being better than theirs. Hence, he was not "influenced" as in "being in their shaddow", but rather was, just like Aristotle, as great as his teacher Plato. Also, he clearly understood that the time of massive epics Shahname-style about the constant wars of kings and rulers is over, and it is time to come up with new style. It should be noted that in Russian-language scholarship he is considered as a Sufi poet and bringining Rennaissance to the poetry, centuries before European poets such as Thomas Mora or Campanella.

This is why such great German poets as Goethe considered Nizami as one of the 7 greatest poets ever, in the whole world [17] and Henry Heine said "Germany has its own great poets...But who are they in comparison to Nizami" [18]. There is a good quote from Vahid Dastgirdi that "...the poem of Fahraddin Gurgani is weaker and resembles a candle put in front of the Sun" (he compares Vis and Ramin to Khosrov and Shirin). There are some very good quotes from Hafiz, Rumi and Saadi. One of the best is by Amir Khosrow Dehlevi himself: "The ruler of the kindom of words, famed hero, Scholar and poet, his goblet [glass] toasts. In it - pure wine, it's drunkingly sweet, Yet in goblet [glass] beside us - only muddy setting."

BTW, there is nothing about who ordered the Iskandar-nameh in the text. And M.Shaginyan writes that there are more tezkire from Turkic poets to Nizami than from ethnic Persian poets. --AdilBaguirov 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Adil. About Iskandarnameh, it is not known who it is dedicated to, although there are some guesses, but most scholars are not sure. About references and biographies to nizami, I would guess there is much more Persian books since from classical period there is much more Persian works than Turkish from the classical period. There are dozens of Tazzakura's that refer to Nizami greatly in Persian. Also Sai'd Nafisi lists about 75 classical period Persian poets who tried to imitate Nizami's style. That he was influenced by Sanai and Ferdowsi is well known of course. This does not make him less than any of these poets and indeed Sa'id Nafisi considers Ferdowsi, Nizami, Naser Khusraw, Hafez, Sa'adi, Ommar Khayyar and Attar as the greatest and it is hard to compare different poets due to their different styles. Actually in that verse about Ferdowsi, Nizami mentions that Ferdowsi did not develop the full story of Haft Paykar. Had ferdowsi spent a long time on each story, then his shahnameh would never have been completed. The reason is that Shahnameh basically contains about 50 stories and Nizami developed three of the famous ones: eskandarnamah, haft paykar and Khusraw o shirin. I would say Ferdowsi was Nizami's greatest (of course others have said that) influence and the reason is that he even advises the son of Shirvanshah and his son to read shahnameh plus Nizami references him more than any author and three themes of his stories are from the Shahnameh although with more details. For example Hafez was influenced greatly by Sa'adi, Nizami, Ferdowsi. Virtually none of the classical poets developed on their own and they were influenced greatly by previous poets. Simply said, without Rudaki there would be no Ferdowsi and without Ferdowsi Nizami would not be the same either and without Nizami there would be no Dehlavi or Jami. About Goethe, if you have any quotes in English let me know. Besides Nizami, Goethe himself is a major figure and considered Hafez to be the greatest poet of any language and he knew Eastern literature and the Qur'an well. So that would definitely be great. Nizami does make a reference to Khaghani in his work and how he passed away. I am not sure if this detail is necessary. I have added the quote from Amir Khosrow Dehlavi. About his mother being Shaddadi, I do not see any reference to that in Nizam's work or any classical authors. About his uncle and education, that is a good point and I added a section for education. Nizami makes an interesting comment that he is nothing but his works that is why inserting about his work, is actually describing Nizami himself. I also added Khwajah Umar as his uncle name , which he directly refers to as Khawajah Umar and did not find Haji Umar Hassan in any verse. He mentions Khwajah Umar after mentioning his Father and then his Mother in Layla o Majnoon. If you see Haji Umar Hassan somewhere else, let me know. About the grave I have heared that story. Many graves related to great figures are sometimes attributed as well. --Ali doostzadeh 02:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I am not denying any influences as I made clear -- and realize that Firdowsi had been the biggest such influence. However, the term "influence" might be misunderstood and otherwise could potentially detract from Nizami's greatness. As you noted, their style is very different. I listed both names for the uncle just in case, since I've seen them both before, but Omar/Umar is correct, I don't know where did those sources get the Hasan from. Meanwhile, Haji and Khwajah is the same title, just Hoja is used in Turkic and Arabic languages, whilst Khwajah in Persian. Both should be used to avoid confusion and facilitate search. Unfortunately, I do not have the relevant Goethe book, thus have to go with my own Russian translation. In any case it is orignally written in German. We can mention that Goethe was a big fan of Nizami and knew well of his works, that is easy to research in english. Perhaps at some later date any of us will be able to add relevant quotes. On his mother being Shaddadi, it is written in some Russian-language books (I recall perhaps only 2) and in Paul Smith. The latter also lists the name of Nizami's second wife, which surprized me as I didn't think the names of his two later wives were preserved. Where did Nizami mention Khagani, I do not recall it? I wonder howcome there was no reverse - i.e, Khagani mentioning Nizami? In all books I've read they do maintain they knew of each other, etc., but I've never seen any direct quote from any of the two great poets about each other. --AdilBaguirov 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually Khwajah and Haji are two different roots. Khwajah is Persian word meaning master, master of the house.. and is a respectful title. It has entered ottoman Turkish as Hoja but in in Iranian Azerbaijani, Hoja probably does not exist since the Kh sound exists. The reason anatolian Turkish does not have kh unlike many other Turkic dialects is due to Greek influence. The same holds true with the Arabic Qaf (almost like Q) where the Greek language did not have it and so they produce it as k. Also Haji as you well know is someone that makes the pilgrimage and is not related to Hoja. About Paul Smith, I only see that he translated from English to English so I do not see any support for Shaddadid. I do not think he is a Nizami scholar or has even a doctorate in that field. Virtually I haven't seen any serious scholar of Nezami mention this Shaddadid origin and did not find support for it in the actual works of Nezami nore in any of the old biographers. Same with the name of the 2nd wife which has never been found. Even on the name of his first wife, some scholars just think Afagh (horizon) was an adjective, but it was left there since a good amount of scholars believe so. On Khaghani and Nezami knowing each other there is a very famous verse from Nezami about Khaghani's death: همی گفتم که خاقانی دریغاگوی من باشد دریغا من شدم آخر دریغا گوی خاقانی

my translation: I always said that may Khaghani appear at my funeral mourning What a mourning and pity it has become for me now that I am mourner at Khaghani's funeral.

I think I can find the Goethe quote from Said Nafisi , or other source and will check tommorow. I think it is important to have the Goethe quote and it is a great suggestion. About greatly influenced let me know any suggestions. I think the case definitely holds for Ferdowsi mainly since Nezami mentions Ferdowsi and his book directly at least 5 times off the top of my head and is mentioned in three of Nezami's book as well Nezami advising his son and Shirvanshah's son to read the Shahnameh. Three of the five jewels are themes picked out from Ferdowsi. There is even couplets that are from the Shahnameh, with a only one or two words that are different or couplets that convey the exact thoughts using pretty much the same words. But for example it does not hold as much for someone like Rudaki and it is just influence there. --Ali doostzadeh 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

okay one of the Goethe quotes was inserted. --Ali doostzadeh 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Please add his poam همه عالم تن است و ایران دل نیست گوینده زین قیاس خجل "Iran is The Heart and all the universe The Body, Of this claim, the poet feels no regret or humility."

Lifetime - rv. to compromised version

We've reached a compromise on the Nizami article last summer, and a part of that was the Life section. Today, it looks like this: "Little is known of Nezami's life, except that he spent it in what is now Azerbaijan.[2]"

Under the earliest compromise version of Ali it was: "Nizami was orphaned early and lived with his uncle. Nizami spent his lifetime in Ganja, the capital of Arran in what is now Azerbaijan, then part of Seljuq empire, where he also remained until his death and where currently his tomb is located."

Another version done about the same time by me had: "Nezami was born in Ganja, the capital of Arran in Azerbaijan, then Atabek State of Azerbaijan , part of the Seljuq Empire, where he remained until his death."

I prefer a middle version of the last two, which would be best at describing the geographic and political situation on the ground in Nizami's time: "Nizami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities of the Atabek (Atabeg) State of Azerbaijan, part of the Seljuk Empire, where he remained his whole life. Nizami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar (Hoja Omar), who afforded him an excellent education."

I will look at other parts of the page, as it seems there are more differences from the previous versions.

Also, most Western scholars now spell Nezami with an "i" instead of "e". While I am not requesting we switch the name, and realize we have redirecs in place, but perhaps we could add that spelling, "Nizami", in parenthesis, right next to "Nezami". I would also welcome comments on the idea that we add "Ganjavi" to the title too, since there were many poets who went under the name of Nizami, including Aruzi who became fairly famous. --AdilBaguirov 01:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good with just a minor edit. Afghan Persian actually says Nizami. نظامی. I think suggesting alternative spelling is good idea since Arabic is also Nizami. Your version sounds good, I just want to modify it since both Persian and Azerbaijani Turkish have kh sound and hoja is actually the Ottoman Turkish version of Persian Khaajeh/Khwajeh ( Khwajeh is archaic). The official language of Turkey due to Greek influence or other reasons does not have the Q and Kh (x) sound fundamental to all other Turkic languages/dialects. Also of course Nezami wrote خواجه khaajeh/khwajeh. Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities of the Atabek (Atabeg) State of Azerbaijan, part of the Seljuk Empire, where he remained his whole life. Nizami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar who afforded him an excellent education. --alidoostzadeh 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ali. Should we offer the alternative spelling for khwaja, though? Or just create a special separate page? The thing is, I think "hoja" has become more popular in English, in no minor part due to Molla Nasreddin, who is also Hoja Nasreddin. Sometimes could be also spelled as Khoja -- this and "hoja" are typical of Russian transliteration, too, and hence adds them greater popularity than khwaja. Of course, this is not to be confused with Haji (Khaji), the person who made a hajj pilgrimage. Also, let's think of how else to expand this biography -- the man was obviously extremely educated and was not just a poet, but much more. I had even a book by an astronomer, who was impressed by Nizami's knowledge of astronomy. There is a lot of research on his poems about the music of the time. And of course much much more. His knowledge of many languages should also be noted. --AdilBaguirov 07:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I've inserted the version you wrote out above -- why did you revert it back to the old version that we never agreed to last year? --AdilBaguirov 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't say "Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities of the Atabek (Atabeg) State of Azerbaijan" when there was no country named Azerbaijan back then and the Atabek region was not called Azerbaijan. Stick with what the oxford source says, "in what is now Azerbaijan". --Mardavich 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a country named Azerbaijan, that's the whole thing, and aside from much scholarship about this in Russian language, the article by Luther in Enc. Iranica confirms that. Read lengthy discussions in this talk page for more, and stick to facts. --AdilBaguirov 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You and I both know there was no country named Azerbaijan in 1141. Such revisionist history belongs on zerbaijan.com, not here. --Mardavich 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think so, then you are obviously wrong, since too many scholars and encyclopedia's think so (in addition to the already cited Encyclopedia Iranica):

1) 1137–75 Shams al-Din Eldiguz, the atabeg of the Seljuk sultan of Baghdad, established an independent dynastic state in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran that lasted until 1225. http://www.bartleby.com/67/302.html

2) "Eldegüzid Dynasty, also spelled Ildigüzid, Ildegüzid, Ildegizid , or Ildenizid, (1137–1225), Iranian atabeg dynasty of Turkish origin that ruled in Azerbaijan (now divided between Iran and Azerbaijan)." "Eldegüzid Dynasty." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 31 Jan. 2007 <http://secure.britannica.com/eb/article-9032246>.

3) The Atabegs Atabeg was a Turkish title used by the Seljuks for members of the court ministers and leaders. Some of the Atabegs managed to take control of the state leading to the emergence of the petty states in the 12th century A.D. in Iran and Syria. They ruled for a long period of time, most remarkable among them were the Atabegs of Azerbaijan and Iran. ‏الأتابكة : أتابك : لقب تركي أطلقه السلاجقة على بعض رجال البلاط والوزراء والقادة، تمكن بعض الأتابكة من السيطرة على الحكم فنشأت في القرن 12 م دويلات متعددة في بلاد فارس وبلاد الشام وطال حكمها. أشهرها أتابكة أذربيجان وفارس.‏ http://dictionary.al-islam.com/Eng/Dicts/SelDict.asp?Lang=Eng&DI=66&Theme=18

4) Peter Stearns, William Leonard Langer (ed.). The Encyclopedia of World History: ancient, medieval, and modern. Sixth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001, p. 119

5) "At first, [Jalal al-Din] Hasan allied himself to the Kwarazmshah ruler, but then he allied himself with caliph al-Nasir. Hasan materially helped the atabeg of Azerbaijan in the wars in ‘Iraq ‘Ajami, once in a joint military campaign, and once by sending an assassin." Qamar-ul Huda. "Striving for Divine Union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis." RoutledgeCurzon, 2003, p. 35.

Do not revert and edit what has already been agreed to previously by several active editors. --AdilBaguirov 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I support that opinion. I had the same experience with some other pages - the edit which was agreed upon previously should be first discussed before making changes--Dacy69 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From: Aram Vardanian. "Coinage of Armenia in the Twelfth - Early Thirteenth Centuries". State History Museum of Armenia & The Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography. http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/features/numisarticles.php?id=155

The Ildegizid State was a feudal principality situated on what is now the territory of Azerbaijan. It included a certain part of Transcaucasia. The capital of the State was Ganja. At first the Ildegizid State was the vassal of the Iraqi sultanate, however, soon the dynasty's founder Shams al-din Ildegiz (531-571AH/1136-1175AD) was assigned by the sultan Masud (529-547AH/1134-1152AD) as an atabeg of the future sultan of Iraqi and Western Iran Arslan bin Tughril (556-571AH/1161-1176AD). Then, the Ildegizid State had begun to get stronger, and since the beginning of the sultan Arslan (556AH/1161AD) ruling the State has been quite independent, which spent its own internal and external policy. During the power of Ildegiz and Muhammad Jahan Pahlavan (571-582AH/1175-1186AD) the vassalitet conception became nominal. At the time of the next atabeg Muzaffar al-din Qizil Arslan (582-587AH/1187-1191AD), the Ildegizid State achieved the highest power and prosperity. The Iraqi sultans turned into the puppet sovereigns allotted by the small power. In 587AH/1191AD the last Iraqi sultan Tughril III (571-590AH/1176-1194AD) was overthrowed. Qizil Arslan became the sultan. At his successor Nusrat al-din Abu Bakr (587-607AH/1191-1210AD), the Iraqi sultanate has completely lost its independence and finally dissappeared from the historical arena. The last powerful ruler was Uzbek bin Muhammad (607-622AH/1210-1225AD). According to the J.Kolbas's paper, the Ildegizid State disappeared at all in the 70s of the thirteenth century.

The Ildegizids left rich copper emission, which during 70 years played a significant role in the coinage of Pre-Mongol Transcaucasia. Their coins appear in a great number within region as by finds and hoards.40 In view of the "Silver Crisis" the Ildegizid coins were made of copper.41 In 1957 ?.?.Pakhomov noted, that the Ildegizids issued two types of coins: of regular and irregular striking.42 In both cases the weight and size of issued coins were not permanent.43 Coins were struck at different mints, predominantly concentrated on the territory of Azerbaijan and Iran. Though the mint place was seldom meant on the coins, it is known, that they were issued in Ganja, Shamkhor, Tabriz, Ardabil, Nakhichevan, Berda, Urmiya, Baylakan etc.44 In the numismatic literature there is a judgement, that the atabegs had a mint in Dvin too.45 Despite of huge quantity of Ildegizid coins revealed in Dvin, the issue still remains questionable and requires separate consideration.

The coin emission was started by the first Ildegizid Shams al-din Ildegiz about 547AH/ 1152AD.46 Huge quantity of his coins is fixed in Armenia. Those are the hoards from Aygestan, Yeghvard, Pteghni, Dvin, Garni, Ashtarak etc, as well as the coins from the excavations of Dvin, ?nberd and Garni. More than ten types of Ildegiz's coins are known.47 Though the issue of his coins began during the governance of the sultan Ghiyath al-din Masud (529-547AH/1134-1152AD), they become intensively to come in to Armenia not earlier than 1160AD.48 Dvin material shows, that only two types of Ildegiz coins had got widespread occurrence in the north-eastern Armenia. --AdilBaguirov 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• These are all good sources about the Ildenizid state but they are just that, about the Ildenizid state. The sources say that they were in the territory of what is now Azerbaijan. That's it.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all those sources say that the state's official name was Azerbaijan. --AdilBaguirov 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil, is there a classic source that they called their state Azerbaijan? When did they make such a proclamation? Also please see the discussion below. It seems that the dynasty ruled different portions of Iran , Arran, Azerbaijan..etc. and sometimes did not rule some major cities of Azerbaijan like Maragheh. Anyways I do not think the details of Atabek state are relavent to when Nezami was born after doing secondary research. It seems when Nezami was born in Ganja, the area was in full control of Seljuqids. Later on the Atabekan assert almost complete control, but by the time of Nizami's death, their state was in deacy. Thus technically speaking, the time Nezami was born, the atabekan were not a state, but just provincial rulers on behalf of Seljuqs. --alidoostzadeh 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are enough sources that show the name of the state as Azerbaijan. I think the fact that so many sources, including compilative sources like Iranica, name it Azerbaijan, despite being well aware of the fact that "Azerbaijan" generally denotes mostly lands south of Araxes, and that proves a lot. Nizami was indeed born in Ganja, but Ganja still belonged to Azerbaijan Atabek State, which was always, sometimes only technically, part of Seljuk Empire (which is noted in ours wording). Just like all people of USSR from 1920 to 1991 (1940-1989 for Baltics), were born in their respective union republics, which in turn were part of USSR. Just like people born in Paris still say and write they are French, not EUians. Likewise, people born today in Kazan, in their passports say they were born in Tatarstan Republic, Russian Federation. Examples of such arrangements and statuses abound. --AdilBaguirov 04:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think actually since there was so many Atabeks, a way for historians to designate them was the major area they controlled by the region they controlled (Fars, Azarbaijan, Yazd, Lorestan..). I'll try to find more about this issue, but I guess an official historical source from that era would satisfy my curiosity. --alidoostzadeh 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There were only one Great Atabeks, who towered above others -- the Atabeks of Azerbaijan. Just like there was only one true Khan dynasty -- that of Chingiz and his grandson. All others are not anywhere near. --AdilBaguirov 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation by Mardavich

WP:AN/3RR

1. (cur) (last) 16:44, January 31, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (see WP:NPA, I KNOW what I am talking about)
2. (cur) (last) 16:38, January 31, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (→Education)
3. (cur) (last) 16:29, January 31, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (rv, there was no Azerbaijan back then)
4. (cur) (last) 18:05, January 30, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (rv, Nezami is the common name)

Please don't engage in revert wars, especially without discussing anything on the Talk pages and not participating in the debates that have been held here for months. --AdilBaguirov 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

guys I went to edit that Nezami and Nizami are both correct transliterations.. by mistake I think I removed the image , then r.v. to mardavich to get the image back and etc. I hope there was no misunderstandings as I didn't check wikipedia for 10 hours! (and wow lots of stuff can happen in 10 hours as mentioned by the discussion above!). I think since the new version caused some discomfort, we can say part of the seljuq empire under control of the Atabeks of Azerbaijan or going by this one [19] Eldigüzid or Ildegizid ruler in Arran, most of Azerbaijan, and then Jebal. Although me and Adil agreed, it looks like some users objected to the word state since Atabeks officially considered themselves part of Seljuq empire. Iledigizd is a good term also. Since the terms [20] Atabakan-e Fars; Atabakan-e Lorestan; Atabakan-e Maraga; Atabakan-e Yazd, [21] does not really denote a modern state concept and the borders of these states contained parts of various areas and they were under the control of Seljuqids (sometimes nominally and sometimes more). For example Maragheh is cnsidered as Azerbaijan by almost all sources but it was not controlled by Illdegizid. But here is my suggested version which I think will satisfy Mardavich as well and it is accurate.

According to the Iranica article, when Nizami was born (1141), the Atabeks were a firm part of the seljuqid empire. an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arra@n and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Ata@baks” (ata@baka@n-e a¿záam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arra@n and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Ôala@l-al-d^n K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 622/1225. Thus actually the dynasty when Nezami was born starts from rulers of Persian Iraq..

Thus when are talking about when Nezami was born, according to Iranica, they were under firm control of Seljuqs.

a) Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities under the Iledigizd rulers of Arran, most of Azerbaijan and Jebal, part of the the Seljuqid empire[22]. Nizami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar who afforded him an excellent education. I think the word state due to its modern conception might have caused mardavich to re-edit and thus I changed Iledigizd to rulers, since state denotes total independence and these rulers did not control part of Azerbaijan yet controlled parts of Arran and Jabal as well and thus to equate them with Azerbaijani state is really incorrect.

b) Perhaps to make it short and let the users decide about the nature of the rulers and their control, Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities under the Iledigizd rulers[23](also known as Atabakan(chiefs) of Azerbaijan), who were part of the greater Seljuqid empire [24]. Nezami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar who afforded him an excellent education

c) simples form: Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities in the Seljuqid empire. Nezami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar who afforded him an excellent education

Also other friends (Eupator, Mardavich, Tajik) if you don't agree on a thing, then please get involved in the discussions also so everyone is accomodated. Just like everyone was marvelously accomodated with the line: His heritage is widely appreciated and shared by Azerbaijan, Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Nezami is also pronounced as Nizami in western literature.. And what we are trying to do here is to show that Nezami is for everyone, Afghan, Azeri, Kurd, Tajik, Persian..etc (people who are really have the same history).

By the way the main cause of all this was firefox which did not display the image. Thus I thought it was removed and changed back and forth.. I need to improve my wiki technical skills. Let me add that I thought we agreed to put Nizami is also used as a transliteration besides Nezami, but not change the image portion. Not that it matters(we should probably put that also the image is modern portrait since some people might think there was a sketch drawings of Nezami's face). Either way much like the sentence:His heritage is widely appreciated and shared by Azerbaijan, Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Nezami is also pronounced as Nizami in western literature., this article can move forward and become a source of bringing people that share in Nezami's heritage closer. --alidoostzadeh 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording we agreed to back in June/July '06 and again a few days ago is correct. There is no mistake. The extent of power of the state of Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan is not at question in this article, as the article is not about Atabeks in general, or about the Atabek state of Azerbaijan (there is a separate article for that). It is about Nizami Ganjavi. And Nizami was born, lived, and died in the Azerbaijan Atabek state of Idezids (Ildegoz). In this case Ildegoz (Ildezid) is the name of the dynasty -- just like Safavid, Qajar, Afshar, Pehlevi. So unless we change all pages on Wikipedia to denote the correct name of Iran/Persia through centuries -- such as dowlat-e Qajar or dowlat-e Safavi, we can't expect same from the Azerbaijan Atabek State of Ildegoz. It was Azerbaijan. Also, the exact level of their autonomy or independence to/from Seljuk Empire is not at stake here -- the Atabek Azerbaijan State existed, at first as a dependent, then gradually independent, then #1 in all of empire (i.e., essentially the empire's center) and then again slowly declining into semi-independence before losing all autonomy and ceasing to exist. But the fact remains, that Nizami was born, lived, and died in the Azerbaijan Atabek State of Ildezids. There are more than enough references to support that too. Hence, I see no problem with the wording we agreed to, as it completely corresponds to facts. Yet I see a big problem both in the fact that our agreement was violated by someone over the past months (and no one objected, interestingly), and now when restored, some (all are newcomers who had nothing to do with lengthy discussions) are trying to object on various grounds -- having an axe to grind. I can't accept that, especially from people who don't know much either about Nizami or about Atabeks. --AdilBaguirov 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, this line that Ali has highlighted in bold is indeed important and should be read in full and understood: "also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arra@n and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Ata@baks” (ata@baka@n-e a¿záam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arra@n and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Ôala@l-al-d^n K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 622/1225." This article, about Nizami, does not concern itself with the fact that the Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED THE SULTANAT from 1160 t0 1181 (the beginning of Nizami's greatness). What we care about is that the Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan "ruled parts of Arran and Azerbaijan from about 1135-36 to 1125", which means that all the time that Nizami was born, lived and died, he lived in only ONE STATE -- the Azerbaijani state. And its status vis-a-vis Seljuk Empire is not relevant -- both were Turkic dynasties, there was no fundamental difference between them on the basis of religion, ethnicity or race. Hence, once more, the wording we carefully chose months ago has withstood the test of time. --AdilBaguirov 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil thanks for the comments. Let me look at the history for the wording we agreed upon. About the Seljuqids, they were fundamentally persianized in culture and their ethnicity or race was diluted by interrmarriage with many local Iranian dynasties.. But anyways let me look at the history and see exactly what we wrote and just revert back to that exact wording. Since I consider that agreement to be binding with that regard. --alidoostzadeh 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I think this is what agreed upon: When in the twelfth century the Seljuks extended their control into the region, their provincial governors, virtually autonomous local princes called Atabek, encouraged Persian letters. Ganja was a major city of the Ildegezid Atabek rulers of Azerbaijan.. 30th of June.. I am not going to judge other users knowledge of Nezami or Atabeks, but if they have disagreement with new wordings, they are still bound to follow the old agreements made by different users previously (as I consider myself bound by it). Thus I'll revert back to that exact wording of that article. Note I have been away from wikipedia sometimes for weeks, thus if you find something contradicting the original agreements made, let me know. I think the above is also good enough with regards to this article and interested readers can get more information from the Iranica article (Atabekan Azerbaijan).. I think we should concentrate on what you suggested: nezami's knowledge of many fields, languages and etc. Note according to some sources Ildegizids did not control Maragheh (a major city in Azerbaijan) but yet they controlled Ray (Tehran) and Esfahan for periods.. Outside of this, I would be interested to see any document from that period they ruled for the Atabekan Azerbaijan calling their state Azerbaijan. Since they controlled areas like Jebal, Arran, Esfahan, Ray...etc, I am thinking the term Atabekan-region is a way for scholars to analyze the different atabek dynasties and since their main power-center was parts of Azerbaijan, they became later known as Atabekan Azerbaijan. The article also mentions ruled Arran and Azerbaijan, and if they just called their state Azerbaijan, I do not think the article would mention Arran. --alidoostzadeh 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the word state causes too much confusion and injects unnecessary politics since state could also mean country, region, province and etc. Since parts of Azerbaijan was not controlled by these rulers and parts of Esfahan was, calling it the state of Azerbaijan is really not scientific. In Iranica article it is mentioned Arran, Jebal and Azerbaijan. (Iranica article). I think the June 2006 wording is fine. 'When in the twelfth century the Seljuks extended their control into the region, their provincial governors, virtually autonomous local princes called Atabek, encouraged Persian letters. Ganja was a major city of the Ildegezid Atabek rulers of Azerbaijan.. But I think for clarification:Little is known of Nezami's life, except that he spent it in what is now Azerbaijan, we can changed it to:Little is known of Nezami's life, except that he spent it in what is now Ganja in the republic of Azerbaijan. Hope that satisfies everyone?--alidoostzadeh 05:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ali. I think the line we just recently agreed to and used is better, simply because "virtually autonomous local princes" is definitely not a good description, as they were not princes, but essentially kings -- they minted their own money, and had vassals (who could not mint their money and had to accept Azerbaijani money, as the Armenian author's cited article makes very clear), smth which princes can't and don't have. Neither were they local -- nor were they just "virtually autonomous". They were sometimes fully independent (not just autonomous, but independent), and sometimes ruled the whole Seljuk Empire, in fact for 21 years according to Iranica (same or longer than Parthian or Persian Tigran the Great's Greater Armenian empire). That's why they were the Great Atabeks, atabak-i azam (although later it started to mean Prime Minister). Also, for one reason or another, most Western sources spell them as "atabeg". Of course, in reality, it is "atabey"/"atabay". We should choose whether to use atabek or atabeg, as the most popular choices.

Also, just because a few towns were not at some point controlled, doesn't take away from a state. Russia didn't and doesn't control Chechnya, Georgia doesn't control Abkhazia and S.Ossetia, Azerbaijan -- NK, China -- Taiwan and until recently Hong Kong, Iran some islands in the Persian Gulf, Lebanon bunch of its territories, Argentina the Folklends, etc. The Atabek state of Azerbaijan was a state. State with its own ruler, money, laws, army, recognition, etc. Of course at times there were not fully independent, and at times they were -- but they were still a state. But we are making it very clear -- it was a part of Seljuk empire all that time, and we don't make exceptions for that, there is no politicizing. I don't think any reader would misunderstand, as it makes it abundantly clear that no matter how independent, it was still a part of Seljuk empire. Just like Tatarstan Republic, despite having its own Constitution, President, Parliament, foreign trade representations, etc., are still very much a constituent part of the Russian Federation, or bunch of US or UK dependent territories (perhaps all not an exact equivalent, but shows that the concept of state is flexible enough to allow such arrangements). Of course, as I noted, the Azerbaijani Atabeks were the original and the Great Atabeks -- they were actually the "father - bey's" to the infant sultans, so they had effective control and say over the whole empire.

I can't promise right now, but I will try to get any additional references and if possible, documents or chronicles, about Atabeks of Azerbaijan. But I would need at least a month for that. Obviously, much of documents have either not survived, or have barely been catalogized. In Azerbaijan -- like in Iran, etc., -- many archival documents have still not been properly cataloged. This will of course change with time -- provided the documents will survive years of neglect -- but that's unfortunately beyond our control, as neither of us are archival workers, and I am pretty sure neither government of Iran or Azerbaijan spends enough of (oil) money on its archives (incl. preservation) and research (and publication). Best, --AdilBaguirov 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You and Ali can not just make agreements as there are other users. If Ali is correct that the state encompassed from Isfahan, Tehran, Arran and Azerbaijan, then it was larger than Azerbaijan. So lets keep politics out. --Mardavich 06:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, I'll ask your opinion next time, but I think you should participate directly. Same with Eupator, GM and etc, so no one is dissatified. Adil I think the word state has different meanings. Chechnya is a state of Russia (recognized as such), but Esfahan or Tehran are not really state of Azerbaijan and never have been. As per documents, actually a great one exists. That is Nezami Ganjavi (although in poetic praise) in Khusraw o Shirin. شکارستان او ابخاز و دربند شبیخونش به خوارزم و سمرقند ز گنجه فتح خوزستان که کرده است؟ ز عمان تا به اصفاهان که خورده است؟

Note he mentions from Ganja to capturing Khuzestan and from Oman to Esfahan as as well Abkhazia and Darband as the domain of the Atabek. Even mentions his influence in Khwarazm and Samarqand or uses the Persian word Shabikhun (suprise attack by night).. Forgetting about Darband, Ganja..Abkhazia, Esfahan , Khuzestan were not really part of any Azerbaijan and thus with sucha wide territory, his state would not be limited to what is considered an Azerbaijani state (what is known as Azerbaijan and also the republic of azerbaijan). Note Chechnya is considered part of Russia even if it is controlled by them or not. That is the reason why the word state is problematic since an Azerbaijani state could either mean two things: 1) they controlled only Azerbaijan. 2) They were ethnically Azerbaijanis although according to Iranica they were Kipchaks. (Much like Parthians are not Persians). But I have never heared of say Esfahan being considered part of Azerbaijan or part of the state of Azerbaijan. Just like Azerbaijanis would object for example to consider Azerbaijan a state of say Tehran. Thus the territory of the Atabek was much larger than Azerbaijan (though it didn't compromise all parts of Azerbaijan) and it expanded and contracted. I think since users eupator(an Armenian) and mardavich(an Azerbaijani himself) object to the word 'state' and since the Iranica article does not mention state, I think my suggestion above is fine. The concept of state of azerbaijan is something that exists in the modern era and I would even say so is the state of Iran. Since the Qajars and Safavids were really an Iranian empire. Official documents from their own time that Atabekan Azerbaijan considered their state to be called Azerbaijan probably does not exist since they were obviously interested in Esfahan, Ray, Abkhazia, Arran..etc and did not probably consider these as Azerbaijan. Indeed they were thinking big, since they were interested by the empire. Thus I think we need to word it again and the last thing we need is one involving Armenians and Azerbaijanis or Azerbaijani Iranian and Republic of Azerbaijan Azerbaijanis disputing the word state since those details are not relavent to a Nezami article Thus the word Atabek/Atabak state of Azerbaijan should be changed to Little is known of Nezami's life, except that he spent it in Ganja, which was the domain of the Ildegezid Atabekan-i-Azerbaijan (or pronounced like Iranica Atabakan) (Iranica link) part of the Seljuqid empire. . Also actually the word bag is probably more ancient. Some sources say the Slavic Bogu and Old Persian Baga entered Turkish via Soghdian. Others consider the Turkish word to have formed independtly. Either way I think pronounciations should be kept as how the chronicles use these terms. (atabekan) اتابکان (alef-teh-alef-beh-kaaf-alef-noon) (Atabekan, Atabakan). --alidoostzadeh 07:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, many states expand by occupying territories not part of them -- Russia is one such example, not to mention UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, and, well, Iran -- Caucasus, and specifically such regions as Shirvan, Arran, Kakhetia, etc., are distinct, yet neither you, nor me, nor others have a problem calling them part of Iran when they indeed were so. Yet, none of those regions are traditional Iran, which is restricted to south of Araxes. Hence, you are very correct about Esfahan and other cities and regions, as they are not part of traditional Azerbaijan, but I doubt this would confuse and otherwise have relevance in an Nizami article. People can go on and read more history if they are interested in either Seljuk Empire or the Atabek State of Azerbaijan, or atabeks in general and atabekdoms in other regions, like Luristan. Of all other synonymous terms for "state", none are better suited: "big brother, body politic, commonwealth, community, country, federation, kingdom, land, nation, republic, sovereignty, territory, union". Also, what made the Great Atabeks special is that they were only nominally part of Seljuk Empire, in fact, sometimes it is unclear, who was part of whom. --AdilBaguirov 02:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil it is true that the Atabekan had their power based in Azerbaijan and/or Arran (just using these names based on the Iranica article). But whereas Iran has been called Iran by the state itself (Sassanid, Safavid..) and contained regions and provinces, I have not seen any proof that the Atabekan called their state Azerbaijan. Either Azerbaijan was a province and then Esfahan , Tehran, Arran becomes other provinces or Azerbaijan was a state and then Esfahan, Tehran, Arran become provinces of Azerbaijan. I do not think the Atabekan called their whole land as Azerbaijan. Iran is actually not a particular region, but the whole that encompasses the provinces. For example Azerbaijan is part of the Iranian state during say the Sassanids. But to say Esfahan region of Iran was part of the state of Azerbaijan simply needs sources from the era of the Atabeks. The relationship between say Tehran the capital and province, and Azerbaijan during the Qajar is the relationship between two states. The Qajars did not consider their state to be called Tehran. Atabekan also had several provincess and their capitcal was Arran and Azerbaijan. Note the defintion of a state[25] which is too many to count. That is why words like region or Atabekan-e-Azarbaijan rulers are better. By the way since you talked about astronomy and etc. let me mention an old manuscript recently discovered from Tabriz about 100 years after the time of Nezami. [26]. Note the sciences mentioned in the manuscript which is mind-boggling. According to some scholars this manuscript is one of the 10 most important Persian manuscripts of all time. From what I have read, there is information about Qatran and I would not be suprised if there are also some information on other poets like Nezami. --alidoostzadeh 03:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to quote Nezami again since he is a source from that era and since the article is about him, we can get an idea of what he considered the domain of the kings he has praised. In praise of Atabek Shams ad-din Abu Ja'far Muhammad in Khusraw o Shirin: در آن بخشش که رحمت عام کردند دو صاحب را محمد نام کردند یکی ختم نبوت گشته ذاتش یکی ختم ممالک بر حیاتش یکی برج عرب را تا ابد ماه یکی ملک عجم را جادوان شاه

He explicity says Shams ad-din is the Shah of Mulk-e-Ajam (land of Ajam or in another words Persia).

In his praise of Ala' ad-din Korpe Arsalan, dedicated to this ruler of Maragheh, Nezami says: همه عالم تن است و ایران دل نیست گوینده زین قیاس خجل چونکه ایران دل زمین باشد دل ز تن به بود یقین باشد زان ولایت که مهرتران دارند بهترین جای بهتران دارند.

Thus this one directly references Iran (all the world is body, Iran is its heart).

In his praise of Shervanshah, Nezami says: خاصه ملکی چو شاه شروان شروان چه، که شهریار ایران (khaaseh (specially) a king like the Shah of Shervan. What's Shervan! (Sehrvan Cheh!) He is the Shahriyaar of Iran.

Thus I do not see Nezami referring to any of the kings as the king of the state of Azerbaijan. Thus we are better really to concentrate on concepts like astronomy, astrology, music and Nezami's vast knowledge. --alidoostzadeh 19:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, again, thanks for your contribution, I actually greatly appreciate it. But I am surprized you don't see the peculiarity of the situation, which you have greatly underscored. So from history we know that the Azerbaijani Great Atabeks's powerbase and main land was what is known as Azerbaijan, which included Arran region (by then it referred only to the land between Kura and Araxes). And we also know that they ruled vast territories, in fact, being more powerful than the Sultan himself, they sometimes essentially ruled all of Seljuk Empire, including pretty much all of Iran. Yet no scholar, no historian, and certainly on Azerbaijani, would call them "shah's of Iran".

Second, Nizami calls him "shah". Aside from poetics, and taking into account that unlike with Shirvanshah and Korpa Aslan, it was actually well deserved, a shah is not just a ruler, he is the supreme ruler or at least a very powerful or mostly independent ruler. And such rulers preside over many people and territories, and have their country called something, they do have a state structure. Moreover, as we know, he minted his own money, and that money was used by his vassal rulers too. Thus, calling him just a ruler, and a ruler of Azerbaijan, does not do justice or solve the problem. He was a ruler of VAST territories, but his powerbase and his state was still just Azerbaijan (even though it clearly included both north and south of Araxes). Much smaller, more vassalic, and less relevant rulers and states are easily labeled as a "state", hence this case should not create opposition. the Great Atabeks were not just some dudes from the street, but were supreme rulers with vassal rulers, their own internationally-recognized money, and even khutba read everyday in Baghdad by the khaliph. This would not happen for just some strongman, some ambiguous "ruler". --AdilBaguirov 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil I do not see it any differently. Qajars ruled from Tehran, which is one of their provinces and their base, but they called their territory Iran. Here I see Nezami calling the territory Molk-e-Ajam. Also the atabek state did not include all of Azerbaijan(Maraghe) nor does it include Shervan. Nezami actually calls him king of Molk-e-Ajam where Molk-e-Ajam is usually another name for Iran in Arabic sources. I do not see Nezami in any of his introductions refer to an state by the name Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan as a name of a state is new concept (with the republic of Azerbaijan) and of course there is Median atrapatekan but that was a kingdom itself, not a state. Kingdom and empires are different from state concepts. At the time of Nezami the medes were long forgotten. As I said if you have any documents from that era of the reign of Atabeks where they said they are "the ruler of the country of Azerbaijan" then it is valid and the country of Azerbaijan includes Esfahan, Tehran.. fine. Else there is difference of opinion which is really more to do with the nature of Atabekan state of Azerbaijan. It is not related to Nezami Ganjavi and also I do not see any support that Iranica uses the term either and they even mention Azerbaijan, Jebal and Arran where Azerbaijan was the base. Similar to Qajars who had Tehran as their base but ruled Azerbaijan. --alidoostzadeh 03:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, the base of Qajar's was Azerbaijan too, in fact, unlike the Afshars and Safavids, Qajar's had a traditionally very strong presence in Ganja and Karabakh. Also, Shirvan at times accepted the nominal suzeiranty of the Atabeks, and I am pretty sure even more so was true of Maragha at times. Qajar's too did not control all of Iranian homeland at times, not to mention other lands, such as Caucasus, so permanent control over all territories cannot be considered as an objective requirement. --AdilBaguirov 05:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil, If the base of Qajars was Azerbaijan, they still called their country Iran (during contraction and expansion) and not Azerbaijan. But the base of Qajars was actually Astar-abaad (Gorgan in Mazandaran province) and not Azerbaijan and they did not call their country as Astarabad or Mazandaran either. Qajars were strong in Azerbaijan , but they were strong in Arak and Tehran and Khorasan and etc. as well. Tabriz though was their second most important city after the capital Tehran. On a side note, Afsharids (Nader Shah) as also from Khorasan[27]. Amongst the Safavids, Afshars and Qajars, only Safavid had their base in Ardabil/Gilan, but all of them called the country Iran. The point is the base of the power is not necessarily the name of the country. Adil, we are going back and forth on this issue. All that is required is for Nezami to mention the name of the country as Azerbaijan (like Shapur does with Iranshahr) and then say Esfahan and Jebbal and Arran..were provinces. Nezami but considers Jahan Pahlavan as the Shah-e- Molk-e- Ajam, King of the land of Ajam. The correct thing would be then that Nezami lived in the semi-independent Kingdom of Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan. Note the current version: Ganja was a major city of the Ildegezid Atabek rulers of Azerbaijan. But if had to be specific, Atabeks also ruled Arran, Jebal and etc. Thus I myself am not currently satisfied with the wording, but since the wikipedians like Tajik, GM, you , me, Eupator and others made an agreement, then I accept the current wording. Thus I suggest we move on astronomy and other topics. By the way are the scholars in the republic of Azerbaijan aware of Safina-e-Tabrizi? It has many of the sciences of the era and probably gives a good glimpse of the state of astronomy and other similar sciences at that time. I would assume if they knew about such a work, they would be really proud of it. --alidoostzadeh 05:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Astronomy and other sciences

Friends (Adil, Eupator, Mardavich,..), I found a quote from Jerome Clinton in the book The poetry of Nizami Ganjavi, knowledge love and rethoric (pg 3): He displays in his poetry an impressive familiarity with all branches of learning of his day -- philosophy, poetry, geometry, astronomy, geography,history, music, architecture, jurisprudence and logic. Prof. Clinton recently passed away but he was part of the Iranian studies of Princeton University and has translated lots of Persian poetry. I personally am impressed by Nezami's knowledge of music (See Chapter 8 of the same book) which I did some research on in Khusraw o Shirin myself. Classical middle-eastern music (the Azeri form being Mugham) and the Persian form (Radif) all have the same root actually and many have hypothesized that it started with barbad although it is hard to prove. Anyways it would be good to have a detail article say on Nezami and astronomy linked to the article. --alidoostzadeh 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps this quote you have should already be inserted or otherwise have a link to prof. Clinton. I will try to bring some more quotes from other sources too, but the book on astronomy, written in Soviet times, won't be in my possession for a few months. There an actual astronomer reviews Nizami's knowledge and is very impressed. --AdilBaguirov 12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll insert that in along with some stuff about music. About Atabekan, I put Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan so everyone is happy. --alidoostzadeh 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

on Azerbaijan national academic of sciences

Although the Azerbaijan national academic of sciences and Nezami Museum are 20th century phenomenons not related to Nezami who physically left this world in 1209, I had a problem with the link here:[28]. Investigation of history and theoretical problems of Medieval Azerbaijan Literature, monographs dedicated to the classics of Azerbaijan Literature (Nizami, Nasimi, Fizuli, Vagif, etc.). My concern is not about Nizami's ethnic background just like Russians do not care about Pushkins background, but Nizami did not write in Azerbaijani language to be considered part of Azerbaijani literature (by standard definition that the language of the literature becomes name of the literature). Fizuli who is from Iraq wrote in Persian, Arabic and Azerbaijani and thus he contributed to Persian, Arabic and Azerbaijani literature. Note the standard definition of Azerbaijani literature given by Iranica as well(Gerhad Doefer): The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma'il Safawi "Khata'i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. (Encyclopedia Iranica, article on Azeri Turkish by G. Doerfer, pp. 255-258). Thus I think we should keep the article the way it is. Many Persians have contributed to Arabic/Arab literature only. ( I was going to say Hallaj but he has couple of Persian poems according to some sources). Note I have done a lot to accomadate everyone here and I think the current article is balanced. I will also e-mail Surena as well so that he does not put his insertions. In the end this was a compromised article and I think adding any new materials should be discussed..... The last thing we need is an embarrasing article (like Safavids). . --alidoostzadeh 02:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have sent a separate e-mail to user Surena also about this entry as well. I request all users to discuss in the talk page before editing. --alidoostzadeh 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, first off, Azerbaijani literature is what Azerbaijani people themselves state, not what Iranica, or you and me, say. Secondly, readers certainly have the right to know if any major monument, street, city, island, institution, etc., are named after the "hero" of our article. As such, both those institutions qualify. Also, the Academy of Science is a creation of the 20th century, but not science and not scientific research that has been carried out, including in the region, for centuries. Likewise, Fuzuli is an Azerbiajani poet, who also greatly contributed to all Turkic literature, as well as Persian and Arabic. Meanwhile, Nizami is an Azerbaijani poet not because of his writing in any given language, but because he was from Azerbaijan, and he is cherished as such as by all Azerbaijanis, is prominently featured in all curricullum and publications. There are many Azerbaijanis who wrote in Arabic only too, and many who wrote in Russian or even only in German too -- so Nizami (or Khaqani, Gatran, etc) are certainly not alone. All relevant articles, such as this one, clearly denotes the LANGUAGE in which the poet wrote and that he has made an outstanding contribution to the Persian literary tradition and language. So it's not clear why would any institute named after Nizami be problematic to you -- what's next, you don't like some staffer or janitor working in the institute, and thus try to remove references to it? But the institute still exists, still carries out its research, still publishes and functions, organizes conferences (just recently one in Europe), etc. So those NPOV simple URLs should stay. --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil I did not remove a reference from what we agreed upon back 5-6 months ago. So this is a recent matter which I believe should be discussed before insertion. What a segment of Azerbaijani people or for that matter Iranian people say is not necessarily the academic criterion and basis in the Western World . Literature of a language is the literature of that language. What a Turkologist like Doefer says for example has more weight even if for example 99% of Iranians or Azerbaijanis say something else. Similarly as you mentioned what me and you say is not relavent either. Thus I am going by academic criterion of what constitutes Azerbaijani literature (simply what is written in Azerbaijani language). Being from Azerbaijan or Arran is a geographical location and there have been many Kurds, Persians, Armenians, Albanians and etc. from that area as well of course Turkic speakers. One of the writers you named before was for example Masud ibn Namdar which I have done some research on recently and Minorsky gives his ethncity as Kurdish. Now I am not saying Minorsky is right or wrong. But by any definition, Namdar's work would constitute Arabic literature not Azerbaijani or Iranian (since Azerbaijan was part of Iran many times and at least Nezami refers to three different kings as kings of Iran) or Kurdish literature. Just like Nezami is considered in Azerbaijan as part of Azerbaijan's literature in Iran it is considered as part of Iran's literature. Perhaps in Tajikistan they say something else. Who knows maybe in Kurdistan they will say something else since he was raised by his maternal uncle. In the end he is academically considered part of Persian literature because that is the language he wrote in irregardless of his ethnic backround and at that time there was no concept of Azerbaijani or Iranian nationality but simply there was a Muslim Ummah where many kings wanted to control and expand their influence. Thus modern politics has no bearing on the time of Nezami. There was an Iran geographically and Azerbaijan geographically which was considered part of Iran geographically by many authors of that time, both names being left over from Sassanid era, but there was no nationality or modern state concepts. Thus any link to the websites of republic of Azerbaijan or Iran with this regard compromises the neutral point of view reached. Let me ask you a question, is Armenian manuscript from Azerbaijan (say from an armenian poet 400 years ago or writer from NK or Baku or..) considered Armenian literature or Azerbaijani literature? (hypothetical question). Fizuli was from Baghdad and yet the author of that link does not consider geography as the necessary criterion. Thus my feeling is that the author is not talking about geographical location but is simply trying to say Nezami did not write in Persian but wrote in Azerbaijani. That is my viewpoint of the link. For example here is a link from CAIS [http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Litrature/persian_india.htm] run by affiliated to scholars of SOAS. I am sure some users will object to the link since it calls Nezami Ganjavi an Iranian poet. I personally think the article is balanced as it is. The opinion of the population of Iran or republic of Azerbaijan is POV and popular opinion can not define scientific terms. For example the popular opinion in some Arab countries is that Salladin was an Arab. Thus popular opinion by itself can not define historical facts. That goes for Iranian, Arab, Azerbaijani popular opinions.. We also have dozens of Nezami streets in Iran. I am sure some exists in Afghanistan as well. I believe the current version reflects that people of Azerbaijan (note I put it first as somebody requested :) ), Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and etc. all share in nezami's heritage. (Kurds should have been mentioned as well). We did not say he belonged to which country's linterature (all these countries were created after Nezami) and everyone is happy as it is. But I am convinced if we add too many links from Iran or Azerbaijan republic of Tajikistan..that have nothing really to do with Nezami's thoughts. I think we should concentrate on adding more information on Nezami Ganjavi himself instead of peripheral information. For example on music, astronomy, romantic poetry and etc. Even with this regard I would put it in the talk page first for discussion so that everyone is satisfied . That is the correct thing to do by everyone. --alidoostzadeh 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Khoikhoi has added a wiki link for Nezami museum. Thus that deserves its own article anyways since it is not related to the biography and life and works of Nezami. I think the current text is fine (if any edits are made everyone should be happy). Any further information on the museum or Azerbaijani academy of science should be put in that relavent wiki article. --alidoostzadeh 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I think I understand what you mean and what your concerns are, but respectfully disagree on some points. To begin with, I know you keep your word, and as I said before I am not blaming you for any changes that have occured despite our agreement. Likewise, I keep my word too, and consider anything unlike this as unworthy and unmanly. Then, to answer your hypothetical question, the Armenian poet in Azerbaijan would unequivocally belong to Armenians if he wrote in Armenian, since Armenians are a well-defined and identified nationality and have their nation-state. However, had that ethnic Armenian, who would have been born, lived, and died, in Azerbaijan (let's say Ganja) and wrote in any of the prevalent languages of Azerbaijan at the time, he should be shared equally by both Armenia and Azerbaijan. (indeed, we have some ashugs like that, who are probably better known to Azerbaijanis than to Armenians). Just like Armenians are proud and list William Saroyan as an (ethnic) Armenian or "Armenian-American" writer, despite him never living in or visiting Armenia, and writing all in English. I am not sure who would be a good example for Iranians, although again, let's take ethnic Azerbaijani poet Shahriyar from Tabriz. He is of course Iranian, but he is equally Azerbaijani -- and even though he was not born, nor educated, nor lived in Azerbaijan (Republic), that Republic has full right to consider him as its own, too, and include him in its lists, and curricullums (of course, as long as its done fairly, i.e., not denying the other side its share). Similarly, both Nabokov and Sikorsky became very prominent in America, yet that does not deny the right of Russian people, and Russia, to be proud of their compatriots, and include them in whatever lists of famous writers and engineers they want.

Back to Azerbaijan example -- you and other Iranians keep telling me and other Azerbaijanis that we are Iranian somehow too, we were simply Turkified later, and that our ancient language, "Azari", was Iranian and perhaps close to Persian. If this is so, and apparently overwhelming majority of Iranians believes in this theory, then clearly it brings Nizami fully into the domain of Azerbaijan by removing the only major "obstacle", which is language. I mean, we can't have it both ways -- you can't seriously believe and claim that Azari language was Iranian, that all or nearly all Azerbaijanis are originally Iranian, and yet then deny Nizami on a technicality such as not writing (or rather, not preserving) in Turki (which he clearly knew, and must have dedicated some short poems to his uneducated former slave wife -- and it's not reflected in the article right now).

Moreover, just like the concept of "Iranians", the concept of "Azerbaijanis" has become self-sustaining and inclusive since the 20th century. Which means that Talysh, Tats, Kurds from among the Iranic population, the Jews and Arabs from among the Semitic population, and Lezgi, Tsakhur, etc., are all Azerbaijani equally with any Turkic people of Oghuz or Kipchak stock, as long as they live in Azerbaijan, and personally do not oppose this on individual level. Hence, Minorsky could have been right about Namdar being Kurd (where did he say that, btw?) but Namdar didn't contribute much to Kurdish culture, history, etc. He is not even mentioned by them anywhere. Unlike Azerbaijanis, who mention him in books and even in encyclopedia. (which is true of many other Kurds, who made outstanding contributions to Azerbaijan, including formation and defense of ADR). Clearly, Nizami did more to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis, than he did for Tajiks and Tajikistan, or Afghans and Afghanistan, or Persians and Persia (Fars region).

Thus, I disagree that any one foreign scholar can override what native scholars and entire nation thinks. Indeed, it's actually funny and ironic, because Wikipedia then becomes "virtual" in the sense of not being real. But we know that its objecive is to reflect all facts, including those on the ground. And the facts stand that Nizami is a pretty important man to everyone, from babies to white-bearded men in Azerbaijan, and he is clearly more important and cherished to us than to anyone one else. At the same time, no one denies all what is written in our article -- as I told you before months ago, his Kurdish mother, his Persian language writing, his contribution to Persian literature was/is never concealed and indeed was publicised by all scholars. Thus, the Iranian side, is not and should not get offended -- no one changes any facts that his Khamse is in Dari, and not Turki.

On Fuzuli, him being recognized as Azerbaijani is not only because he wrote in distinct Azerbaijani Turki, and that he considered Turki his native, and like Navoi, was proud to be writing in it and polishing it, but his father was from Bayat tribe from Azerbaijan, roughly from the area of Karabakh. Also, even Turks recognize him as Azerbaijani (e.g., I have a book published in Turkey, with President Demirel recognizing it), despite some tendencies to simply declare such poets as Turkic or in his case Turcoman (whose language is identical with Azerbaijani, and not Turkish, probably because they are descendants of Qizilbash).

Anyhow, creating a special page for the Nizami Museum is not a good idea, I think. Likewise, same with Nizami Institute. Two simple links are better than having two special pages filled with essentially the same info AND obviously featuring a link (URL) to that same museum and institute. Why create special pages for something which has a fairly comprehensive website of its own and which by definition is simply hard to replicate in a foreign encyclopedia as there are simply not enough additional published materials that can be cited? Right now, I view that this concern should be viewed separate from the issue of literature per se, to which I promise to return, because limiting Azerbaijani literature only to Turkic-language writers and poets is unfair and not very logical, not to mention that disagrees with both native tradition and scholarship, and what has been written and printed in other countries. --AdilBaguirov 06:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil I thank you also for keeping your word. That is why I welcomed any discussion before insertion and note I hold myself also to discussion before insertion. First on the on the museums actually wikipedia has many small links. I believe it deserves a link given other wikipedia entries. Many museums currently have a Wikipedia entry. Some extremely short (about two sentences) [29] [30]. Surely one can write more than two sentences about the Nezami museum. (Just mentioning the history and location). Thus I think providing the wikipedia link is the best way and I think Khoikhoi figured that out. Also thanks for answering my question. I think the comparison with Shahriyar is not a good one as you mentioned. Since Iranian nationality existed during the era of Shahryar and of course so did a clear concept of Azerbaijani ethnicity. Of course by the same token that Shahryar wrote in Azerbaijani, Nezami would also be considered part of Iranian literature by writing in Persian. I was not able to satisfactorily understand your answer to my hypothetical question. Armenian of course is prevalent or sizeable language in the caucus, but it is not an Islamic language. If Armenians calls someone an Armenian-American writer is fine because American nationality and citizenship is defined at the time of that Armenian writer. Similarly with any Iranian or Azerbaijani or Tajik American writer. You said: ‘’ Clearly, Nizami did more to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis, than he did for Tajiks and Tajikistan, or Afghans and Afghanistan, or Persians and Persia (Fars region).’’. I disagree with this, but my point was not that. The concept of Tajik, Afghan, Iranian, Azerbaijani nationalities did not exist back then and thus Nezam or Ferdowsi or Sa’adi can be considered Persian literature. Some of these ethnicities or supra-ethnicities might have existed, but nationality based on statehood did not.

Now as to what Nezami Ganjavi did more for. We are injecting of course our personal views and you will not agree with me and I will not agree with you on this. That is why we said he belongs to the heritage of four countries and this was a huge step in the article which I believe Nezami himself would have wanted. Personally from my viewpoint though, Nezami Ganjavi has 30,000+ verses in Persian language and a Tajik person in Dushanbeh can understand him but an Azerbaijani or Lezgi or Russian from the republic of Azerbaijan does not know his language. 10,000 years from now there might not be a Persian or Turkic speaker and everyone could be speaking Chinese or English (perhaps 200 years from now). Thus Nezami’s currently living language could die and simply a person at that time has to learn Persian (if technology permits) to understand him. A poet’s most important legacy is simply the literature he left and it really finds relevance when a person can understand the poet’s language since I can assure anyone that unlike Khayyam, Nezami’s very colorful poetry can not be translated as his play with words is just too entangled with the language. His stories as a whole can be translated but the intricacies of each verse can not. I respect Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan’s statehood as well as of course Iran’s statehood, but we can not call Nezami Tajik or Azeri or Afghan or Iranian literature if we are referring to a state. Right now there is a battle between Rumi as well and Afghans call him Afghan poet because he was born in Afghanistan, Iranians call him Iranian and Turkey claims him as one of their own. In the end the work he has left us puts him in the category of Persian literature. Thus he like Nezami simply contributed to Persian literature. َAccording to Nezami; «یادگاری کز آدمی‌زاد است

سخن است آن‌، دگر همه باد است»

Yadegari kaz Adamizaadast Sokhan ast An, degar hameh baadast (what is left from maknind is words of wisdom, the rest is wind). Thus ethnic background or geographical location (all were the same connected lands and kingdoms) is not as important in my opinion as the language that the poet is organically tied to.

Now you are saying Persian literature from the classical period in what is now the republic of Azerbaijan is a subset of Azerbaijani literature. Although this might be a popular definition in Azerbaijan, it would not be too popular definition in Iran or in circles of academia. It is true that wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia with regards to everyone being able to edit, but when it comes to definition of terms, usually scholarly consensus on what constitutes a literature of a language is the norm. Given the fact that there are more Azerbaijans in Iran than the republic of Azerbaijan, by similar logic one can say that Bakhtiar Vahabazadeh (I was going to say Fizuli but he wrote in three) and every single azeri poet is Iranian literature. But that is not true with say Bakhtiar Vahabzdeh even though similar cliams can be made that Azerbaijani republic is part of Iran , more Azerbaijanis live in Iran then Azerbaijan and etc.. These are places that definitions become overlapping or convoluted. Thus one of the primary reason to define a literature with the language and not a geographical region (which in this case I would argue that we should take Iran when it was to its largest extent). Thus popular definition by common folks is not the correct definition. My suggestion for such authors is simply to use: Persian literature from Azerbaijan. This way Persian literature is not confused with the more widely accepted term Azerbaijani (which they mean a Turkic language) literature. Or Armenian literature from Azerbaijan or Arabic literature from Iran.

As per Azerbaijanis I said they are mainly Turkified Iranian-speakers based on both genetic and linguistic evidence (lack of vowel harmony for example), but unfortunately as long as I see the republic of Azerbaijan identity itself solely with Turkic world and hear comments like those of Elchibey’s (or what you said is romantic pan-turkism), then there is really a major obstacle to for example say Zarathustra or Babak Khorramdin or Rostam Farrokhzad were Azerbaijanis. Since the definition most associated with Azerbaijani in the West and the republic of Azerbaijan is Azerbaijani Turkish speakers and not conglomerates of Iranic, Turkic, Albanian elements. Once the later definition becomes clear then there won’t be any dispute on many of these issues. But when I see some Azeri paper refer to Shahnameh as a foreign story (despite three of Nezami’s stories being directly from the Shahname and he menioning Kawa several times) and embrace KorOghlu fully, then I am dismayed. I have also seen some examples where Azerbaijani republic users also do not respect Iranian nationality and even compare it to soviet identity and say Safavids did not create an Iranian identity whereas a state by definition creates a national identity (American identity despite thousands of ethnic groups) and thus an Iranian national identity at least existed from Safavid era.

On the issue of Nezami and Qipchaqi or Azeri poetry. I do no believe Nezami wrote any poetry in Qipchaqi for his Qipchaq wife and most likely his Qipchaq wife learned the language of Nezami’s poetry given Nezami’s strong emphasis on education. Neither did he write any Kurdish poetry in front of Khwajah Umar. I do not think Nezami wrote a single verse in Kurdish or Qipchaq. My indication of this is the fact Nezami sends his son to the Shirvanshah’s court and advises them (Shirvanshah’s son as well) to read the Shahnameh and has advised him in Persian. He could have easily advised him in any language, and usually the son learns the language of their mother. Also he probably would have sent him to the court of one of the Turkic princes although these princes themselves were highly Persianized in manner and speech. Also simply one can be illiterate and learn another language well enough to communicate like many of the Turkic rulers. In Iran the literacy rate now is around 80% (lower for Women) but 95%+ of the population understands Persian. Also women that were given as gifts by rulers might have been educated in different arts besides their natural beauty. On the other hand there was no need at that time for women to be communicate with perfect grammar and syntax. Simply until there is such a Turkic or Kurdish specimen, we would never know and despite there being Qipchaqs including the ruler Atabek Shams ad-din Jahan Pahlavan, so far there has not been a single line of any authentically confirmed Turkic or Kurdish poetry from that period not just by Nezami but any poet from his era and location. We do not know the ethnic background of his two other wives either (and if we go by hypothesis one can say one of them might have been say Georgian convert to Islam and etc..) but again there is no indication Nezami wrote in their language. Indeed the Seljuq Sultans or Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan would certainly have supported any sort of Turkic poetry in Azerbaijan had such a poetic tradition existed at that time much like the Teymurids and Safavids for example who supported Turkish alongside Persian. Similarly with the Shaddadid Kurds which there is a not a single verse of Kurdish from their era. For stating any historical fact as certain fact, direct proof (like a authentic sample) would be necessary. Indict proof from medieval recital of poets life although not necessarily sufficient, but in this case we do not have one shred of evidence to discuss it. For example Alishehr Navai mentions Turkish poets and Persian poets (and we can Turkish writing and Persian writing) and Nezami is group with Persian writing (like Hafez, Ferdowsi..). Interestingly enough he mentions Nezami’s Ghazals and thus one can perhaps surmise that these Ghazal’s were largely intact at that time and not scattered. Even indirect proof like another poet living in the same era producing in Kurdish or Qipchaqi or Azeri would provide at least some sort of evidence (although not conclusive) for the existence of such a literarily tradition. To go from a hypothesis to proof (and I am actually Mathematician) simply needs a direct proof else one cay say perhaps, maybe, likely.,possibly.

About Namdar. How do we know Kurds in Iraq do not study him? Also by mentioning him in school books does it really make him part of Azerbaijan literature. What about Kurdish literature or Iranian literature (if we determine this term as ethnically or geographically when Iran was larger like the Safavid era) or etc. These becomes the topic of nationalists debates which in the end is not suitable for wikipedia. By clear definition, t Namdar wrote in Arabic, he is considered part of Arabic literature unequivocally. Perhaps Arabic literature from the geographical region of Azerbaijan (very clear term). For all practical purposes he enriched Arabic language and culture. BTW the information from Minorsky is found in his book: Studies in Caucasian history. It is in the index section where he has a paragraph about Nezami’s Kurdish mother, Masud ibn Namdar direct claim on being Kurd and Kurds of Arran and Ganjah as well 24 tribes of Kurds in the caucus based on the Sharafnameh. It probably contains the most detailed article on the Shaddadid's produced so far. It is always good to see how another person might view these issues and that is when there is conflicting views, we all decided to put Nezami's shared heritage although I should have mentioned Kurds also. Back to the issue at hand, given the fact that there are dozens of links for museums that have only one or two lines, it would be good introduce this museum in its own separate link. Just writing about its history and location easily makes it longer than some of the other Wikipedia entries. Thus I support’s Khoikhoi’s suggestion with this regard. About the languages Nezami spoke, Arabic and Persian are certain. Pahlavi mentioned by Nezami is a maybe. The reason is that Pahlavi has never been used as a religion but a language. Also Vis o Ramin which was a pre-Islamic era story was written in Pahlavi and thus the three pre-Islamic stories of Nezami might have had manuscripts. Thus that is a perhaps. Hebrew and Greek or some other Christian language is a possibility. Kurdish (his mother or uncle who raised him) or Qipchaqi (his first wife) are hypothetical since we do not posses any actual specimen and thus fall in the category of maybe. Without getting into details, the article mentions his full acquaintance with: oral and written popular and local tradition which actually covers a lot without getting into detail guesswork (i.e. Nasrani being Syriac or Armani or Greek or just translation of Christian texts into Arabic/Persian or Tabari being Tabari dialect or historian?).. --alidoostzadeh 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Persian name

There is no reason to have his name written in Azari language. He was not Azarbaijani. All of Nezami's work was Persian. He did not even have any literature in Azari. Nizami is a Persian poet so I will remove the irrelevent information.74.108.210.134 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We have made a compromise on all issues. Nezami as we mentioned is shared by 4 countries and thus three of those countries speak Persian and one speaks mainly Azeri. Thus we should have both names. So I have r.v.'ed you. --alidoostzadeh 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

category of poets

The page had the Iranian poets category already, and recently someone added Persian poets as well. I added then Azerbaijani poets category as well. --adil 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Persian poet was long there. This has to do with composing Persian poetry not ethnicity. Note here: [[31]]. List of poets who have written in Persian language. Persian poet is an accurate description. Iranian, Azerbaijani poet denotes nationality and I'll remove it. Also edits should be discussed in the talk page so everyone agrees with them and then modified. That is the approach that works in articles like Safavid and here as discussed in prior. --alidoostzadeh 13:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

anon

Reverted unexplained POV edits by anon.Hajji Piruz 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that was me. We achieved some consensus on this issue a while back..so I just check some articles including this. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, I just thought it was some anon coming to just put his interpretation on things. Thanks for logging on and clearing things up.Hajji Piruz 22:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

botany

I merged a start entry with this article. It had an interesting reference to botany and I added it under the sciences. --alidoostzadeh 16:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

stamp

I removed the stamp which has really nothing to do with Nizami and his time and poetry and history. The Nizami article was stabilized through the efforts of me and Adil and other users a a while back after long debates (in the archives) and I don't want to revist the issue. The article has been thankfully stable since then. The current version shows Nizami's heritage is widely shared and I even put Azerbaijan first in the countries. Given the fact that there is a dispute about Nizami's father side (although he was orphaned early and lived with his maternal uncle who was Kurdish) and also the majority of the sources refer to him as a Persian poet (and the ethnonym Azerbaijani is relatively new and did not occur during Nizami's time, so I am not sure if it is suggesting Nizami's father was a Oghuz Turk (which is unlikely given that he has mentioned three generations back which goes back to Shaddadid control of Ganja) and all his works are in Persians and culturally he wrote about ancient Persia and followed upon Ferdowsi), and also there are scholars who have shown the political nature of the issue:[32](Diakonoff:And it was planned an anniversary of the great poet Nizami celebration in Azerbaijan. There were slight problems with Nizami - first of all he was not Azeri but Persian (Iranian) poet, and though he lived in presently Azerbaijani city of Ganja, which, like many cities in the region, had Iranian population in Middle Ages. Second, according to the ritual, it was required to place a portrait of the poet on a prominent place, and whole building in one of the central areas of Baku was allocated for a museum of the paintings illustrating Nizami poems.) [33],,Therefore, Soviet nationalism was less harmonizing than was widely believed; it accepted inner-Soviet nationalist contradictions and dissent on territories, divergent interpretations of the cultural heritage (such as: Was al-Farabi a Kazakh: Was Ibn Sina (Avicenna) a Tajik or an Uzbek? To whom does al-Biruni belong?). It was up to the central power to solve these kinds of contradiction by arbitrary decisions. This makes clear that Soviet nationalism was embedded into the political structure of what used to be called 'Democratic Centralism'. The territorial principle was extended to all aspects of national histories, not only in space but also in time: 'Urartu was the oldest manifestation of a state not only on Armenian soil but throughout the whole Union (and, therefore, implicitly the earliest forerunner of the Soviet state)', ' 'Nezami from Ganja is an Azerbaijani Poet', and so on. The Georgian linguist Nikolai Marr's bizarre, not to say extre¬mist, theoretical rejection of any migrations in world history was, after some years of disastrous consequences, officially rejected itself, during Stalin's lifetime. In practice, this concept never vanished from the national discourses in the Soviet Union, albeit on a scholarly or on a popular and even folkloristic level.(Bert G. Fragner, ‘Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia, in: Willem van Schendel/Erik J. Zürcher (eds.), Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World. Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century, London 2001, pp. 20-21)(A striking example of Soviet attempts to snap the cultural ties between Azerbaijan and Persia was their treatment of Nizami, one of the most outstanding Persian poet. Since Nizami was born in a place that now falls within Soviet Azerbaijan, their propagandists claimed that Nizami belonged to Soviet Azerbaijan. The Soviet regime went to the extent of proclaiming that Nizami's works were in accordance with Soviet ideology. Their leading journal Bolshevik stressed that Nizami's ‘great merit’ consisted in having undermined Islam [107]. Stalin referred to Nizami 'as the great poet of our brotherly Azerbaijan people' who must not be surrendered to Iranian literature, despite having written most of his poems in Persian. Stalin even quoted passages from Nizami showing that he was forced to write in Persian language because he was not allowed to talk to his people in their native language [108]. He emphasised the view that Nizami was a victim of Persian oppression of Azerbaijanis and he opposed Persian oppression of minorities.)(Kolarz Walter, Russia and Her Colonies) and [34]. Of course Stalin lied since neither Nizami was forced to write in Persian (Shirvanshah who commisioned the work did not know Turkish and the verse has been discussed in the archive and neither does Nizami have any work other than Persian). The current approach was designed to ensure the sharing of Nizami's heritage is shared by all the countries within the sphere [35] and leaves the political debates and stuff for outside of Wikipedia. That is why I removed the stamp since the USSR's histography with this regard (which is sourced) is not worth mentioning either in this article. The article should focus on Nizami and his time way before the modern era and not dwell on nationalistic bickering and modern day nation building. Nezami is accessed through his work and that is his thoughts/philosophy not through USSR stamps (irrelevant to the article and a possible of source of conflict). --alidoostzadeh 00:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)