Friday, November 03, 2006

Azeri Turks Views: Persia is misunderstood

The name Persia is a misunderstanding by the Western historians. Iran was always called "Iranzamin" or "The Land of Iran" and people in Iran are Iranians and not Persians. Iranian and Persian are the same thing. There are no Persians in Iran. The Greeks called Iran for Persia. But this is a stupid mistake by foreigner when they talk about Persian this and Persian that. But Iranian use only Iran. Persian is only a language. There are no Persian people in Iran. All the people in Iran are "Iranians". Persian and Iranian are the same people. The Azaris are actually Persians who adopted the Turkish language.

Comments by Mr.Kammangir on VNN:
Let me first ask you what are Persians called in Iran? You know they are not called Farsis. You are confirming the stupid mistakes of foreigners when they talk about Persian this and Persian that.

Anything that is Kordish is Kordish (not Persian) and Iranian. Likewise, anything that is Persian is Persian and Iranian

Persian is a synonym for Iranian in the West. Persians are simply Iranians (Persian, Parthians, Scythians and so on) who have discarded their tribal identity and adopted only the Iranian identity. So, strictly, Persians are simply Iranians proper (by that I mean their only identity is Iranian). There are some Iranian groups (Kords, Tajiks, Gilakis, Lors) who are still Iranian but not Iranian proper (or Persian) because they still have a tribal identity. So I don't mean to say that only tribal Persians are true Iranians (I myself am from Tehran and Mashhad so I'm from nowhere near Fars).

The Azaris are actually Persians who adopted the Turkish language. They have mixed a little with Turkish invaders (probably about 10%) unlike the Persians.

Posted by Vijak:
Azari are genetically closer to other Iranians than to Turks or Uzbeks or Turkmens.

Thats why it is virtually impossible to tell an Azari apart from lets say an Iranian from Rasht or Lorestan.

Azeri Views: What is "Iranian Race"?

yes, the word Persian is used by Iranians only to descibe themselves to foreigners, within Iran theres no such thing as a "Persian" ethnicity, noone calls themselves "Farsi" or "Parsi" but rather Irani, which is the standard term for the main people there. Azeris and Kurds and others are the ethnic minorities, which even within them they cannot be deamed a minority because they are identical and fully assimilated with Iran as a whole. So I dont know whose giving you ur facts but the different ethnicities in Iran arent some sort of Iraq-like different sects, or that Azeris only live in their province and Baluchis only live in theirs or so and so forth like u make it out to be, but its rather a melting pot where everyone lives with eachother and you can go ur whole life in any street in Iran without being asked of ur ethnicity or background.

buddy, i've been to every city and town from bushehr to ardebil and from abadan to mashhad, and ethnic groups almost dont exist. u have the so called "persians" which are basically the Iranians and the so called other minorities which are just as Iranian. during the war in fact it was the kurds taht were going out and dying in the highest numbers. and taht map, yes ive seen it before and ive discussed it before, its very distorted and false, mazandarani is not even an ethnicity, its just a province. and who said 70% of Tehran is azeri? perhaps it never dawned on me taht there were so many Azeris if this is true because they and everyone else is soo assimilated, so if the Azeris are taht much woven into the fabric of society, and practically nothing but a slight turkish accent can distinguish them, then why are they even a minority? they're the same people that happen to also speak another language, just as theres people taht speak Arabic in ahvaz and abadan. so no, those people arent ethnic minorities, when i go to Iran what i consider a minority is the large number of Russians i see in Tehran, or the large number of black Africans that the Portuguese broiught over decades ago in the South. other than that, not so much anyone else.

The Question of Ayrans: Azeri Views

The truth is, is that Pure Race Aryans can be found in modern day Iran.

Infact, 51% of of Iranians and pure raced Persians.

The mixed ones, that barely have any Aryan genes left in their body live around the borders.

But the ones in the center, conservatively kept, are the true Persians.

No, most do not have blonde hair, blue eyes, but that's not necessarily Aryan, as they still have white, or olive coloured skin, and are not brown.

The Brown Iranians you see are NOT Persian, and are probobly immigrants from other countries, or have other decents.

IF you see a Persian than is darker than another, it just means that the country's climate has effected his bloodline more than another's.

And let me tell you the guy in the picture and 10 percent of Iranian Dark population like him are a minority in Iran and we ourselves do not consider them whites as Italians not considering people from Naples whites lol. So what you show me an ugly Iranian to prove that Iran is not a white Aryan nation? lol. Then USA is out of the map because you have to deal with millions of Negroes and Yellows lol. In Iran we do not have that at least we only have to deal with 10 percent that are not even Negroes but they are browns lol

I never said that Fanatics did not exist in Iran. They exist anywhere in the world. The government in Iran is a Fanatic Government. Read my notes carefully and study about the Movement of Iranian Aryans against the regime. It is not new to anyone ears but you. Those that you see Islamic Iran showing on TV are bunch of Rental Arabs, Bosnian Muslims and brainwashed Iranian Muslims that may only be 2 percent of Iranian population. 2 percent of 75 million would be 1.5 million and let me tell you, Islamic Iran has more popularity abroad than inside. That is why they bring Arab Muslims to oppress any Opposition In Iran.
If Iranian Women are not different, they have been under Islamic rule about 28 years but no one could push them to become house wives or not let them drive like Arabic states. Look how gorgeous and fashionable they are and how educated and free they are under such a dictatorship. I feel sympathy with our women who are fighting every day of their lives to uncover their hair and show more body. Iranian women are not like any other Muslim countries. They are hot and sexy and like to show skin and become Miss world. Did know that Miss Europe and Canada were Iranian girls. Did you know Miss Norway was Iranian but because of playing a porno Movie she was disqualified? Did you know the runner up of Miss World 2004 was an Iranian ? Our women and students fight everyday and you will be shocked soon to see what changes will take place in Iran.
Please do not tell me that you do not know these as anyone in the world knows if there is an uprising against ayatollahs, 60 million Iranians will die to change their government and 20 million Muslims will come from abroad to save their Islamic Mecca. This has happened anytime Iran had an uprising in recent years.
And believe it or not, We exist.

Just hang in there. I have asked couple of our supporters to cut into some of those ancient graves of Persian Soldiers and bring their Mummies to us . If you wait I bring them. By the way, I will be so sorry to see you disappointed because Mail USA may paint their faces to black to match the Iranians as in the Movie of Alexander Great. Black Iranian lol . That is funny Anyways, The faces in black is to distinct the face from body . That is an old ancient style to emphasize more on face. But I remember my ancestor had a Kodak Digital Camera 1900 BC . I will E-mail you his family's pictures so you can see their blue eyes and blond hair By the way I am sorry I am not white because I only have light brown hair, pale white skin and light brown ( Greenish ) eyes. Poor me but I am sure my Grandpa's picture from 100 BC will prove that I used to be a white by your standards. By the way your Grandma's green eyes is nothing but an accident

Anyways, I don't know why you are trying to make yourself believe Iranians are less white than anyone. With the ever increasing number of immigrants in Europe and North America, Iran looks the whitest country to me. If Iranian girls go out with Negroes, they are banned and abandoned from the whole family ( If even a black exist in Iran- I haven't seen one yet).
Therefore let us teach you how we have closed our borders to others. You may then be able to keep your country as white as us. Otherwise, you will be forced to escape from Chinese North America to your real fatherland the Aryan- Iran.

With regards with Shirin Ebadi, She has light brown hair and eyes. The last Mongol with that feature it is not remembered. She is not the whitest but she has white features but I do not consider her pure white. She is an average Iranian woman.

Regards. INSP

On Shirin Ebadi: Is she Aryan?

In Northern Europe that would not be seen as light brown hair, but rather dark brown hair. But I don't base my assumptions of mongoloid admixture on her skin or hair color but on her face, it looks too flat and she seems a little too slant-eyed to be pure Caucasoid. Maybe it's because she is a little fat and makes that grin on the photo, but I don't think many native Europeans would mistake her for being European, and that's pretty much my definition of White. If you look as a native European, regardless of if you stem from Iran, India, Algeria or somewhere else, then you are White.

INSP on Azeri Turk Shirin Ebadi

Yes with her honestly, I think it's because she is fat. And she has died her hair a bit darker because she has white hair otherwise her hair is light brown. Come on we have blondes in my country too lol. I know the difference between Dark and light brown. Anyways, I think the same way. If you are white, You are white but in order to be WN Religion should not be the base of your thinking. Even though, I haven't seen a white East Indian yet but He or she is my brother if this happens to exist.

The Ideology of an Azeri Turk "Aryan"

I have copied this from another forum where an Azeri Turk discusses his ideology:

Posted by Azeri Turk:
Here i have alot of questions and you must answer to all of them

please answer carefully:

1 - What is ethnic cleanse?
2 - How can i cleanse my blood?
1 - Why i must cleanse my blood?
2 - Is brown eyes and hairs a non-white influence that mixed with my blood?
3 - It is true that pure Aryan must have blue eyes and blond hairs?
If yes then, what i must to do for having taller grandchildren with blue eyes
and blond hairs?
please read and answer carefully. these questions is very important for me. they annoyanced my mind for about 10 years

my father was 170cc and my mother is 157cc. but i'm 184 and my bro is 190 (he is 3 years younger than me! but he is taller than me. i think because he is goal keeper) this shows we have genetical potential to having BIG Aryan sons.

my momma said that she is short cause malnutrition in adolescence.
but hopefully malnutrition can't change genes. and we are taller than those ****ing semi caucasians in Iran who call themselves Persian

1- who said i have semite mixture? i just asked that dark eyes and hairs is a non-white talent and you said NO!!! so i haven't semite talent.

who said i want marry with that German girl? i only asked a question about her. i haven,t a chat with her yet. if she become online i would ask her net2net (looooool-about Christ's Sake). i haven't good financial situation for immigration to germany or overhand. so i must marry an Iranian case.

i founded a good Iranian Nordic case with dark blonde hair and aqua eyes. but she is a fool. she is from a rich family. she would never marry with me until i found a good job with a high income.

But if you want children like that, marry a blonde woman, and pray to... a higher force, your children will be like her.

ok. i will go to Iranic plains for hunting a Nordic Nomad girl with that characteristic (I'm sure her bros will beat me for greeting )
because all Nordic types in Tehran occupied by rich mullah's sons

Azeri Views on Land of Aryan

Iran means land of the aryans. And Aryans means noble, its like patriotism. Kurds and persians are one. seperated by history. Medes and persians where ones one people. Pretty much like English is german but another accent. Today there are kurds and persians. And English and German. But for 1000 years ago england spoke german. Du Hast(german), Thou Hast (old english). Has is hast today. Fish is fish in both languages still today. English is not a latin language but germanic. Its like that relations between kurds and persians. Dividing iranians between kurds azeri and persians are stupid. Not all kurds are kurds, not al persians are persian. Im for example parthian. Persians are Fars, people from Fars province a tiny bit of Iran. Im from Khorassan Parthia diffrent bloodline, but still persian in ethnicithy maps. Diri if you are born in Iran or have parenths from there then you are as much Iranian as any persian. Its only pathetic and poor to divide. look at rich and succesfull nations they only have their nations. In broken countries like Iran or African you have diffrent tribes and kurds and persians.

What makes you Iranian is your people having a mother language that is an Iranian language as well as Iranian culture and traditions.

Okey... So Azeris are not Iranian? Culture/tradition is relative...

Azeris have persian DNA, they are turks cause of influence, they celebrate newrhoos, all iranian people does.

The ancestors of Kurdish people make up what is the history of Iran, even though Iranians through history are referred to with different terms.

So - Iran is Kurdish?
Why refere to Iran with different names if it is Kurdish?

Kurd, persian, parthian... It dosent exist. We have mongol blood, turk blood etc. Kurds are iranian, persians are farsis and live in a tiny bit of Iran, kurds lived in northen iran, but some way time and history have changed things, now 80% of al persians are diffrent non persian tribes speaking farsi and have persian cultures. Kurds live in my familys bloodline city bojnourd, whole northen khorsassan, north eastern iran is full of kurds. between kurdestan and that part is also kurds speaking persian and today is persian. Persians in kurdestan is now kurds. Its all an illusion, we are moslems but its not our native religion, its all of history. Forget about being kurd or persian, the time of ethnicitys belongs to the past and ignorant. Be proud but dont create a kurdestan from Iran. The next king of Iran can be kurd, the president and goverment can be all kurd but there will be no kurdish state fom Iranian land. Just drop it, be realistic its not the medieval times anymore.

Not persian or kurdish, Iranian, and yes kurds do come from northen Iran. The worlds ethnicities isnt language an culture. Arabs live in the "arabian". Iraqis and egyptians are not at all arabs but speak arabic and therfore are arabs. Kurds and persian speak diffrent languages but it dosent mean anything!

This is a bad map dosent show khorassan, but still the kurds are green, the kurds in Turkmenistan was there before the kurds in iran or Turkey. They immigrated west. to todays kurdestan. I never said all iranians have the same bloodline, but they are the same. Kurds eat persian food, persians eat kurdish food. evereyone in the world thinks they where first and best. The "persian empire" was of 4 languages and capitols. All to unite. But there where so much more but only 4 was enough. Parsi are folk from Pars province, there are thousands of tribes that are called persians today like Yazdi and Espehani. They are not persians but still they are.

Yes Azeris are Aryan! They speak a Turkic language, but they are Iranians historically. Persian speak Farsi which is full of ARabic, IMO up to 50% Arabic. Yet are we 50% Arabs??? No.

It doesn't matter if Kurdish Language is different, and Kurdish dance is different. India is has far more language diversity than Iran, more ethnic/cultural/tradition differences. Yet all consider themselves Indian.

Azeri Turks claim Aryans

This has been posted by Mr. Azeriturk on another forum. Mr. AzeriTurk is discussing how "Aryan" looking European Azeris are. An American posts a picture of Azeri Volunteers and asks MR. AzeriTurk to explain why Azeris do not look very "Aryan" in the picture.

Azeri Volunteers Iran-Iraq War

Originally Posted by Azeri Turk

Don't worry. Those guys are most probably all dead. It's funny how you only post fanatic nutcase Iranians not middle or upper class ones. You're assisting the propaganda that only represents Iranians as savage and a threat to the West. Israel wants this because they can trot out Alicia Silverstone et al. and say 'we are your "Judeo-Christian" brothers, let's unite against this horde'. Unfortunately, many believe it.

Why not post this?

Or these soldiers even?

By the way, there is no way you can be sure they have "black" eyes at that distance (nobody has black eyes anyway). God forbid any Greeks or Italians have swarthy skin and black hair though!

Oslonor Comments

The first picture is Azeri volunteers who actually defended the Azeri regime in Tehran in the war against Iraq. It is not clear how being a "fanatic nutcase" changes the appearance to a non-aryan appearance. The third picture shows Azeri soldiers who are mostly stationed within Iran. These are Iranian/Azeri "Swedes" according to Mr. AzeriTurk. They are much whiter than those other Azeri volunteers!!!!! They probably all have blond hair and blue eyes. But you can not see it from distance according to AzeriTurk!!!!

Mr. AzeriTurk is very glad that the volunteers are dead!!!! Because he does not have defend their pictures anymore!!!!!! This shows Mr. AzeriTurk "Aryan" culture. The Best one is the picture of Azeris girls dancing and laughing at the Azeri volunteers who went to War fronts against Iraq..!!!!! This was Azeri culture from Caucasus.

17 October 2001
25 Mehr 1380
The Truth About The Aryan Race - by Xerxes Aryana

Iranians living abroad are faced with many trivial issues that we ourselves here in Iran do not have to confront. Unfortunately, we must deal with issues that are far more serious and which constantly threaten our daily lives. Being outside of Iran, they do not have much reality on those problems until they observe them up close whenever they visit. Only then do they realize how bad the situation really has become and that the need for change becomes ever more urgent.

It is certainly of vital importance that we concentrate on eliminating these problems, be they economic or social, and we must be willing to work within the framework of the Islamic Republic. Many of you may be appalled by this statement, but the fact of the matter is that the people are suffering right now and we must do whatever we can to help them through these difficult times. If we do not, the situation will only worsen and the suffering of our people will increase.

These problems in Iran today essentially stem from a lack of unity, which further stems from a lack of true identity. During the revolution, the people thought that Islam would solve the social problems of the day and that an Islamic identity would unite the nation. Obviously, that didn't work out as well as they thought. And so the youth of Iran today are in search of their identity, but they don't know where to look. Their questions have gone unanswered for too long. It is time now to dissect this issue and discover who we really are.

If we were to believe in everything American and European scholars say, then we would be led to believe that our race is no longer homogenous, but has been subjected to heavy intermingling with Arabs and Mongols. Of course, their uneducated opinions do not mean anything to us, but unfortunately there are quite a few Iranians who have bought into this garbage. Hopefully this document will help in eradicating such lies when you are confronted by them. Here are a number of reasons why Aryan Iranians are not of mixed ancestry and are in fact a homogenous Race:

1) Two or more races cannot co-exist in harmony. One race will ultimately assimilate the others. This is a natural law. Egypt is a perfect example of this law in action. The ancient Egyptians, who were White, had their own distinct language and culture until they were conquered by the Arabs. Today, Egypt is an Arab country without it's own language or culture. Modern Egyptians are a dark mix of Arab and Nubian and their language is Arabic. Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon were not originally Arab countries, but today they are. None of these nations and peoples has their own distinct culture or language. Their ancient civilizations have long been dead. What this proves is that if a nation has it's own distinct language, culture, and history that have all survived since the founding of that civilization, then the people of that nation are indeed homogenous, and not a mixed, mongrel race.

2) Proponents of the "Arab-Iranian ancestry" theory love to point to the fact that Iran is predominantly Muslim. Their line of reasoning is that since Iran is a Muslim country, then the Iranian people must have mixed with the Arab invaders who "forced" Islam onto Iran. The fact of the matter is that the Iranian people were not forcibly converted to Islam, but did so on their own volition. Because people had become sick of the tyrannical rule of the Sassanid Dynasty and the ruling Zoroastrian clergy, they did not put up much of a fight against the Arab invaders. The Arabs did not go around raping our women and slaughtering everyone who did not convert as is commonly thought. The majority of Iranians had become sick of Zoroastrianism and wanted something new, and Islam was definitely something new. Those few who did not want to convert left Iran and settled in India (the modern-day Parsi's, who were condemned to intermarriage with the barbaric Dravidian natives - thus Parsi's are no longer Aryan). Because the people had not shown too much resistance, there was not much bloodshed and the Arabs handed much control over to Aryan Muslim converts. Iranians used this as an opportunity to drive the Arabs out of Iran and were successful in doing so. Contrary to popular thought, Arab domination did not last long in Iran and was a relatively short period in Iran's long and ancient history. The version of Islam practiced in Iran (Shi'ism) today is not the same as that practiced by the Arabs (Sunnism) and are radically different from each other. This is one of the reasons why Arabs despise Iran and have continually attempted to invade over and over again (most recently observed in the eight year long Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's), but failing every time. These major differences once again prove that Iranians have not mixed with Arabs just because our nation is Muslim. As Iranians, we have guarded ourselves effectively against any type of mixing with Semites, be it racial or cultural.

As a sidenote, Westerners sometimes point to the style of dress worn by the Islamic clergy of Iran, saying that it was imported into Iran by Muslim invaders. The truth of the matter is that this exact style of clerical dress is distinctly Iranian in origin and has been worn by Iranian clergy, regardless of religion, for well over two thousand years. The Arab style of clerical dress is quite different and resembles the north African style.

What it all really comes down to is that no matter how hard Westerners try to denigrate Iran's Aryan culture by lumping our nation in with the Arab states based on religion, the fact remains that Iran is a distinct and unique entity in the East and is the only country in that part of the world to have retained it's national, cultural, and racial identity over the course of six thousand years.

3) Skin color is sometimes used as an excuse by Americans and Europeans to prove that Iranians are mixed. But it is commonly agreed by scientists worldwide that skin color does not denote race and is instead determined by environmental factors. Northern Iranians have light complexions due to the cool climate while southern Iranians have tanned or bronze complexions due to the extreme heat and harsh sun. The myth that Aryan Iranians have dark complexions is false. The only people in Iran that could be said to have "dark" complexions are the Semitic minorities, who altogether do not constitute a significant Iranian minority. What scientists do agree on, however, is that what denotes race is not skin color, but physical characteristics. The physical characteristics of Aryan Iranians are far different from that of Arabs and obviously any other non-White Race. Worldwide racial studies have proven that Aryan Iranians are just as Caucasian as any European, if not more so.

4) There is an ancient tradition in Iran that is still in practice today and is in fact covertly enforced by law. This is the law against intermarriage between members of different racial groups. What this means is that Aryan Iranians are prohibited by both their families and the law from marrying non-Aryans. This tradition has been in effect since prehistoric times. The Persian Empire was a vast collection of many nations and in order to maintain social equality between different peoples and races and to ensure the preservation and survival of each race, this tradition was constantly enforced. Call it "subtle segregation". No other society on earth (except perhaps for the Japanese) has had a similar tradition. Thus, Aryan Iranians are far more pure than Europeans or so-called White Americans (many of whom are known to have traces of Mongoloid or Negroid blood from intermingling with the American Indian and Black populations over the years and which doesn't always reveal itself through their appearances, though they dislike to admit such things).

5) Our culture, traditions and languages have survived for over six thousand years. Up until the revolution, the imperial monarchy had lasted for over 3500 years of uninterrupted history. Greece and Rome died long ago. Other lesser European civilizations are only less than a thousand years old and are not based upon the older legacies. Despite numerous invasions and attempts to destroy our Nation, Iran is one of the few countries in the world to have preserved it's national identity and culture throughout it's entire history. No modern-day European nation can attest to such a feat.

6) Despite common misconceptions, Europeans are not Aryan and never were. The only European people who ever came to Iran were the Elamites, who were a primitive Alpine Race. They were far outnumbered by the Aryans and were assimilated and did not leave an impact upon our civilization. Aryans are to Iran as Nordics are to Scandinavia and Slavs to Eastern Europe.

7) In all of Europe's history, there have never been any European civilizations or peoples who have ever referred to themselves as Aryans. The only people who have ever referred to themselves as Aryans since prehistoric and ancient times have been White Iranians. The word "Aryan" itself only began to be used by Europeans in the 19th century as a symnonym for "Indo-European", which was an inaccurate and false use of the word "Aryan". In that same era, Comte de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain began developing and promoting the idea that the Nordic (Germanic) peoples were the purest Aryans and were responsible for all civilization throughout the world. This idea later became popular amongst Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP through efforts by the German-based Thule Society and NSDAP members Alfred Rosenberg and Heinrich Himmler. This idea however has been repudiated by scholars and anthropoligists and is an unfortunate product of the European search for identity.

8) The Persian Empire, unlike Greece and Rome, never practiced slavery. People who were of a different race were not permitted to reside within the Aryan territories of the Empire, and thus when areas were conquered where there were slaves of a different race, those slaves were immediately freed and allowed to return to their homelands. The most widely cited case is that of the Jews who were slaves in Babylon and freed by Cyrus and allowed to return to Jerusalem. Cyrus did not free the Jews from their bondage out of love or compassion, for Aryans have always despised Semites, but out of concern for the welfare and safety of the Empire. Assimilation and racial integration were intensely frowned upon by Aryan rulers, seen as a product of degenerate Greek and Roman civilizations, which were all multiracial.

9) When we look at Europe's history, we find a land that has been filled with decadence and depravity of the worst kinds since time immemorial. Homosexuality, for example, was extremely widespread and a social norm in both ancient Greece and Rome and later continued in widespread practice throughout southern Europe, where it has also infected northern and eastern Europe in more modern times. Needless to say, homosexuality is a practice quite common to primitive coloured peoples and barbaric Semitic tribes, whom the ancient Greeks and Romans seemed to be quite fond of. It is well known that the Etruscans, who were Semites, were in Italy before the Romans and later had a great deal of influence upon Roman culture. Romans from time to time carried out bizarre acts of human sacrifice and the ancient Kelts before them performed human sacrifice regularly. Europeans, like the Semites, practiced slavery and allowed slaves to reside amongst them, resulting in plenty of mixed-race unions. Europe is the birthplace of communism, liberalism, and democracy, which later spawned the civil rights movements and the global economy. One could continue in this vein for a great deal longer and indeed, it says plenty about Europe's racial quality. Iran, being of pure and untainted racial character, has not throughout her entire history, suffered from these Western afflictions.

There are many more facts to invalidate the garbage spewed forth by Western scholars regarding our great Nation & Race, but I think that the point has been made. But what these facts indeed prove is that our Race, the Aryan Race, is far superior culturally and socially to the whole European Race combined and will remain so as long as we assert our identity and protect ourselves from extinction.

It is important to understand though, that the pure European cultures, which are most notably embodied in the pure Hellenic, Latin, and Germanic civilizations, only descended into madness and degeneration after the entry of the Semites into their lands. It is from the Semites that they learned of slavery, sexual depravities, violent sports, misogynistic practices, and fraticide. When we look closely enough, we see that the Semitic influence has largely been responsible for Europe's continual demise into mediocrity and pestilence, from the time of ancient Greece to the United States of today. Europe is a dream that has largely been lost today, due to their lack of true identity and understanding of history. Let us not allow ourselves to fall victim to the same plague that has overcome them.

I leave you with this passage from The Heritage of Persia by the great pro-Iranian scholar, Richard N. Frye:

"Persia, of course, is a designation we obtained from the Greeks, who knew perfectly well that Persia meant the province of the Achaemenian empire where the Persians lived in the land of the Aryans. Aryan, with an approximate derived meaning 'noble, lord', seems to have been the general designation of those people, speaking eastern Indo-European tongues or dialects, who migrated into the lands between the Ganges and Euphrates rivers at the end of the second and the beginning of the first millennium BC. Ancient authors knew that the Persians and Medes were Aryans, and the sources do use the term 'Aryan' for both. With the expansion of the Parthians it would seem that the term Arya, or Ariane in Greek sources, expanded as well so that it finally becomes 'greater Arya', the equivalent to 'realm of the Aryans', which is the term the Sassanians used for the extended homeland of their empire, Iranshahr. The use of the word Iran for the modern country is thus a continuation of the ancient term."

Iran and Azerbaijani Language


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

Iran and Azerbaijani Language

Azerbaijani language & Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Turkish Language in Iran

By Ahmad Kasravi

I: Introduction1 -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III: Are They Turks or Are They Turkified?5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV: Which Turkish?10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links

Turkish Language in Iran edition of Wikipedia

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