‘Turkey’s Syria stance aggravates plight of Iran’s Turks’

[Alienoz_TR]

Azeri, Turkmen, Qizilbash, Qashqai, Afshar, call it what you want, they are Iranian. They have nothing to do with your confused nation. The Safavid Empire defended Iran, not Turkism. If you believe otherwise you clearly know nothing about history. They where all Shahs of Iran, not Shah of Turkistan or Turan.

Never try and spread your Pan-Turkist twisted view of history around those who actually know the truth. You will just end up looking foolish.

Shah had an army of Qyzylbash tribesmen who were heterodox Muslims, precisely partially Shamanist partially Muslim.

In Ottoman society, they were heretic. Therefore they emigrated to Azerbaijan from Ottoman lands. Then they formed the Shahseven society in Iran.

The real transformation of Shiaism happened much later. Early Shia Qizilbash were not true Muslims. Nor Iranians. truth should not be hidden.

 

[ASQ-1918]

You do realize that Esmail Safavi is the one who turned Iran Shia right? Do you know why he done that? It seems like you don't so I will try and educate you. He done it so that he would differentiate Iran from the Ottomans, therefore being able to take the fight to them from a different angle. So the problem between Iran and Ottoman wasn't Sunni Shia, that was just a means to an end. The real problem was very simple, Iranian empire Vs Ottoman one, cant get simplet then that!

I realize that of course, and it's a good reason for why you should never talk about Azerbaijani Safavids as "Persian". Shah Ismail personally ordered massacres of Persian population to convert them to Shia faith. And honest Persians admit this fact, I have seen many Persians who considers Shah Ismail on par with what Mongols did to Persians.

He done that to differentiate Iran from Ottomans? Do you realize that were was no "Iran" to speak of during these times? Shah Ismail had also title of "king of Azerbaijan", shall we call Safavid state as Azerbaijan for that reason? Because I know that you will come with "he was shah of Iran" argument, it was just a geographical definition, and a title. Before Safavids there were states like Agh-Qoyunlu, Qara-Qoyunlu, so you can not speak of any "Iran", and no Safavids neither "reuinited" a non-existent entity called "Iran", they just occupied more and more territorities.

This state's capital was Tabriz, it's court and military language Azerbaijani, it's Shah wrote poems and divans in Azerbaijani language. It's military consisted of Turkic clans. What kind of Iran was that?

 

[mehmeTcc]

You do realize that Esmail Safavi is the one who turned Iran Shia right? Do you know why he done that? It seems like you don't so I will try and educate you. He done it so that he would differentiate Iran from the Ottomans, therefore being able to take the fight to them from a different angle. So the problem between Iran and Ottoman wasn't Sunni Shia, that was just a means to an end. The real problem was very simple, Iranian empire Vs Ottoman one, cant get simplet then that!

Not Iranians vs Ottomans, do you really think Safavids gave a damn about locals in Iran?

I realize that of course, and it's a good reason for why you should never talk about Azerbaijani Safavids as "Persian". Shah Ismail personally ordered massacres of Persian population to convert them to Shia faith. And honest Persians admit this fact, I have seen many Persians who considers Shah Ismail on par with what Mongols did to Persians.

He done that to differentiate Iran from Ottomans? Do you realize that were was no "Iran" to speak of during these times? Shah Ismail had also title of "king of Azerbaijan", shall we call Safavid state as Azerbaijan for that reason? Because I know that you will come with "he was shah of Iran" argument, it was just a geographical definition, and a title. Before Safavids there were states like Agh-Qoyunlu, Qara-Qoyunlu, so you can not speak of any "Iran", and no Safavids neither "reuinited" a non-existent entity called "Iran", they just occupied more and more territorities.

This state's capital was Tabriz, it's court and military language Azerbaijani, it's Shah wrote poems and divans in Azerbaijani language. It's military consisted of Turkic clans. What kind of Iran was that?

Don't waste your time bro, he even said that Turkmens are Persians. Pathetic isn't it?

 

[ASQ-1918]

It's a well known fact that when Shah Ismail took Tabriz from Agh-Qoyunlu, he declared himself as "Shah of Azerbaijan" (and Tabriz as capital of Safavid state). He would get the title of "Shah of Iran" a decade later, after he would conquer Persian territorities. He still had these two titles.

These guys use argument of "Shah of Iran" to call Safavid state as Iran. LOL.

It was just a geographical term.

 

[explorer9]

I realize that of course, and it's a good reason for why you should never talk about Azerbaijani Safavids as "Persian". Shah Ismail personally ordered massacres of Persian population to convert them to Shia faith. And honest Persians admit this fact, I have seen many Persians who considers Shah Ismail on par with what Mongols did to Persians.

He done that to differentiate Iran from Ottomans? Do you realize that were was no "Iran" to speak of during these times? Shah Ismail had also title of "king of Azerbaijan", shall we call Safavid state as Azerbaijan for that reason? Because I know that you will come with "he was shah of Iran" argument, it was just a geographical definition, and a title. Before Safavids there were states like Agh-Qoyunlu, Qara-Qoyunlu, so you can not speak of any "Iran", and no Safavids neither "reuinited" a non-existent entity called "Iran", they just occupied more and more territorities.

This state's capital was Tabriz, it's court and military language Azerbaijani, it's Shah wrote poems and divans in Azerbaijani language. It's military consisted of Turkic clans. What kind of Iran was that?

What is the primary identity of today's Iranian Azeri Turkish people. Iranain, Shia,Turkish or islamic? can you please share your view on that & also if you tell me something about republic of Azerbaijan too

 

[Ir.Tab.]

In 1514, Safavid army manned by Turkmen tribesmen were defending their "Turkish" foothold in Eastern Anatolia. Opposite side was Ottoman Army trying to crush Turkish resistance.

After 500 years, Turkmens became Defenders of "Persia". And Ottomans became defenders of Turks. What an irony...

After reading so much about history, i find it laughable. And sometimes difficult to understand.

Please do not translate Iran as Persia. Persia was an empire in history. Iran is a current country with 75,000,000+ people from different races living in PEACE in it, which never have had security problem with current Turkey. That historic Turk-Turk conflict was a rivalry between two men dreaming the leadership of all world of era. I never feel hostility about their stupid actions regards to my Sunni brothers.
I never back racist attitudes not from Persian nor from Turk race. I think in real world both nation has a lot in common and some shared serious direct enemies. I thought we are mature enough to talk about Azeri race rights in Iran without harming each-other. Please do not insult Persian race. One can not cure a wound with another wrong action. I really find myself as a damper between my Muslim! racist! brothers instead of following a race rights as a part of Iranian nation.

 

[Shahin Vatani]

So, how can you tell us why they were talking Turki(c)sh? And you know the truth too, Azeris, Turkmens (really, I don't want to explain why Turkmens are Turkic, what the hell are you smoking)Qizilbashs are Turkic people.
But the irony is, we came to lands of where today's Iran located, conquer it, and now, the local people in lands we conquered is saying their conquerors were locals. You know, as a bunch of crazy people who invaded almost all of the continents, Turkic people effected by various cultures, but it doesn't mean they are not Turks.

Once again you let your Pan-Turkist mindset get the better of you. Of course they speak Turkic languages, who tries denying that? What is to be denied is that they where ruling Iran as some kind of Turk empire, with all allegiances towards Turkic people. That is not true, their allegiance was towards Iran. And as for them being recent arrivals in Iran, that too is not true. Esmail Safavi's family had been living in Iran for atleast 300 years before he became king (probably much longer but there are no more records of his lineage). His ancestor was directly from Safi-ad-din Ardabili Safavi, a 13th century Kurdo-Persian Sufi.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Please do not translate Iran as Persia. Persia was an empire in history. Iran is a current country with 75,000,000+ people from different races living in PEACE in it, which never have had security problem with current Turkey. That historic Turk-Turk conflict was a rivalry between two men dreaming the leadership of all world of era. I never feel hostility about their stupid actions regards to my Sunni brothers.
I never backs racist attitude not from Persian nor from Turk race. I think in real world both nation has a lot in common and some shared serious direct enemies. I think we are mature enough to talk about Azeri race rights in Iran without harming each-other. Please do not insult Persian race. One can not cure a wound with another wrong action. I really find myself as a damper between my Muslim! racist! brothers instead of following a race rights as a part of Iranian nation.

I tried to get out of official history books which are taught in Turkey and Iran.

The real story is more complicated. Even i have difficulties understanding it.

Enough for it, for that i know what i say is strange to the newcomers in this issue.

No offence meant.

 

[Shahin Vatani]

Wonderful summary, can you please shred the light on who was behind the Haider & Ismael fro this conversion derive. Why Ottomans realized the intention and conversion process by Safavid so late?

Sorry bro I would love to help, but I don't know the exact details of the conversion. But my guess as to why the Ottomans failed to react would be that at the time they where busy conquering Egypt. So their concerns where towards the west of their empire, not what was happening east (Iran).

 

[ASQ-1918]

Once again you let your Pan-Turkist mindset get the better of you. Of course they speak Turkic languages, who tries denying that? What is to be denied is that they where ruling Iran as some kind of Turk empire, with all allegiances towards Turkic people. That is not true, their allegiance was towards Iran. And as for them being recent arrivals in Iran, that too is not true. Esmail Safavi's family had been living in Iran for atleast 300 years before he became king (probably much longer but there are no more records of his lineage). His ancestor was directly from Safi-ad-din Ardabili Safavi, a 13th century Kurdo-Persian Sufi.

That Safiaddin Ardabili was a "Kurdo-Persian" is a recent myth, that supposedly a Kurd had moved to Ardabil, yeah right... The only referance we have about his ethnicity points towards a Turkic origin, as hes been referred to as "Turkic saint" in some historical sources. Or "Ey Tork-e Pir".

Shah Ismail was a descendet of Uzun Hasan, the leader of Agh-Qoyunlu. His mother was daughter of Uzun Hasan.

Shah Ismail was also a great poet of Azerbaijani literature. His works in Azerbaijani Turkic was written under the pen name of "Khatai", that's why we know him as Shah Ismail Khatai, I suppose something Persians don't.

And whatever the argument, does not change the fact that Safavids was a Turkic dynasty with Turkic background.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

That Safiaddin Ardabili was a "Kurdo-Persian" is a recent myth, that supposedly a Kurd had moved to Ardabil, yeah rigt... The only referance we have about his ethnicity points towards a Turkic origin, as hes been referred to as "Turkic saint" in some historical sources. Or "Ey Tork-e Pir".

Shah Ismail was a descendet of Uzun Hasan, the leader of Agh-Qoyunlu. His mother was daughter of Uzun Hasan.

We are giving history lesson about Iran to Iranians.

Challenge is what i like.

 

[explorer9]

Sorry bro I would love to help, but I don't know the exact details of the conversion. But my guess as to why the Ottomans failed to react would be that at the time they where busy conquering Egypt. So their concerns where towards the west of their empire, not what was happening east (Iran).

Yes i think you pointed rightly they were targeting towards Europe and was not concerned to the eastern border and when they woke it was too late. In my Safavid advent and conversion of their subjects in to Shiasm was biggest event in the medieval middle east and that changed the whole character of the region.

 

[ASQ-1918]

The biggest reason why Ottomans declared war on Safavids was flock of Anatolian non-Sunni Turkoman tribes to Azerbaijan, which threatened Ottoman authority in Anatolia. Think that other tribes in Anatolia choose to recognize Shah Ismail's authority, and not that of Ottoman Sultan. This issue was there before the wars between Shah Ismail and Sultan Selim Yavuz, at time of Sultan Beyazid.

Of course Shah Ismail also had his eyes on Anatolia, and this persecution of Alavi-Shia Turkoman tribes was a good justification for his cause.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Sorry bro I would love to help, but I don't know the exact details of the conversion. But my guess as to why the Ottomans failed to react would be that at the time they where busy conquering Egypt. So their concerns where towards the west of their empire, not what was happening east (Iran).

Actually Bayezid former Padshah was indifferent towards Shiaism.

Selim I threw his father in 1512 and declared war towards Shias. Between 1512 and 1514 there were letter traffic between Padishah and Shah.

Egypt war was over in 1510's. There were truce. After Selim defeated Safavid in 1514, he turned his attention towards Egypt. He finished what his father started.

 

[drink_milk]

i would like to contribute with this map, because it is important to explain the most important point ,which is the language that explaing all without giving many lectures to persians.

Regards.