Were the Qajars the weakest dynasty that ruled Iran?

[MTN1917]

You are another loser like your friend. You have quoted your friend's post and changed his name with mine.
such a loser!

I don't know what is wrong with my computer, I have quoted him and you at the same time, but it mixed them up

Here it is.

Seriously? which part of their land was sold in exchange for money? As far as I remember, it was the opposite, and they, Abbas Mirza, agreed to pay millions to make Russians satisfied to not capture lands beyond Araz river.


The most aweful regime in whole history of that region are the mullah dynasty, aka the islamic republic. Even a person with an IQ of 0 can understand it.

I didn't said that they sold it but I said that they were willing to sell Iran, and Abbas Mirza was the only Qajar whom I respect.

But they have signed many awful deals, took foreign loans and bankrupt Iran for their stupid travels and this is the least of their crime.

And really your comparison of IRI and Qajar doesn't even merit a response
.

It seems you have a IQ of -20 yourself. When was the last time IR lost any inch of territory ? Your beloved Qajar gave something like 50% of Iranian land away, even the Shah gave Bahrain away.

So STFU about something you dnt know. Stick to your aliyevbaijan.

I was sure that rmi would jump on this thread.

Don't mind him, in the past he claimed that he is a descendant of Qajar so he is defending his beloved family!!! As a matter of fact he has a lot in common with them.

 

[Charon 2]

That's a stupid conclusion. what about Safarian or taherian who were just some puppets. or what about khwarazmshahi kings who invited mongols to invade to Iran or what about sasanids like their last kings who lost their whole territory to arabs, ...


Seriously? which part of their land was sold in exchange for money? As far as I remember, it was the opposite, and they, Abbas Mirza, agreed to pay millions to make Russians satisfied to not capture lands beyond Araz river.


The most aweful regime in whole history of that region are the mullah dynasty, aka the islamic republic. Even a person with an IQ of 0 can understand it.

I understand your feelings if you are really related to the Qajars but the objective truth is that Qajars failed in all political and societal levels to progress Iran. The Afsharids under Nader Shah were also Turkic but under their rule Iran experienced its greatest extent after the Sassanids. What did Iran reach under the Qajars? Poverty? Sovereign default? Losing all their former territories to Russians? These were the major things that happened during the Qajar era. The question here is what was positive? Well they composed the first national anthem.

See I also don't like the Iranians here who use the term Mongol to insult Turks but we must see the things more objectively

 

[rmi5]

I understand your feelings if you are really related to the Qajars but the objective truth is that Qajars failed in all political and societal levels to progress Iran. The Afsharids under Nader Shah were also Turkic but under their rule Iran experienced its greatest extent after the Sassanids. What did Iran reach under the Qajars? Poverty? Sovereign default? Losing all their former territories to Russians? These were the major things that happened during the Qajar era. The question here is what was positive? Well they composed the first national anthem.

See I also don't like the Iranians here who use the term Mongol to insult Turks but we must see the things more objectively

OK, let's see the list. Qajars were the first ones who adopted the constitution in Iran. Pahlavi destroyed the constitution and mullahs screwed it to the highest level. Funny that still the number of newspapers in qajar era is higher than the number of newspapers, ... in Pahlavi and mullah dynasties. Freedom of expressing opinions was much higher than today. They were the first ones who abolished the inhumane Jizya law. They were the first ones who sent young people to europe to study and brought modern sciences back to Iran. They were ruling their kingdom in a federal system and each province were studying, and using their own language, and were using their own local leaders to rule their own region. BTW, they also had a war with the ottoman rulers of Baghdad which resulted in a success and finalized as Treaty of Erzurum, which one of its consequence was the qajar empire gaining the east region of Shat Al-arab and the city of Mohammarah(Khoramshahr). They also had a treaty with britains in which as a result they gained Baluchestan region and also parts of Sistan region. The most important point was that they united those lands after a long destroying civil war and ended the civil war and brought peace for a century to that country.
They went to war with Russia 3 times and won the 1796 war and lost in the second and third war. and that's all you have against them. BTW, FYI Russia was a big empire with overwhelmingly more power than Qajars. Its like mullahs engaging a war with USA. what would be the result then?

 

[Targon]

From one point of view, it was good for you that Qajars lost these land, I didn't know that you loved your Turkic minorities that much, 15 million more Turkics in Iran, that would be interesting

 

[Charon 2]

OK, let's see the list. Qajars were the first ones who adopted the constitution in Iran. Pahlavi destroyed the constitution and mullahs screwed it to the highest level. Funny that still the number of newspapers in qajar era is higher than the number of newspapers, ... in Pahlavi and mullah dynasties. Freedom of expressing opinions was much higher than today. They were the first ones who abolished the inhumane Jizya law. They were the first ones who sent young people to europe to study and brought modern sciences back to Iran. They were ruling their kingdom in a federal system and each province were studying, and using their own language, and were using their own local leaders to rule their own region. BTW, they also had a war with the ottoman rulers of Baghdad which resulted in a success and finalized as Treaty of Erzurum, which one of its consequence was the qajar empire gaining the east region of Shat Al-arab and the city of Mohammarah(Khoramshahr). They also had a treaty with britains in which as a result they gained Baluchestan region and also parts of Sistan region. The most important point was that they united those lands after a long destroying civil war and ended the civil war and brought peace for a century to that country.
They went to war with Russia 3 times and won the 1796 war and lost in the second and third war. and that's all you have against them. BTW, FYI Russia was a big empire with overwhelmingly more power than Qajars. Its like mullahs engaging a war with USA. what would be the result then?

Sorry but Iran was nearly bankrupt during the Qajar era and the Iranian constitutional revolution didn't bring any success in the failed economics of Qajars. The Pahlavis weren't better with their racist Persocentric policy but the Qajars were a lost cause at the beginning.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

That's a stupid conclusion. what about Safarian or taherian who were just some puppets. or what about khwarazmshahi kings who invited mongols to invade to Iran or what about sasanids like their last kings who lost their whole territory to arabs, ...

The most aweful regime in whole history of that region are the mullah dynasty, aka the islamic republic. Even a person with an IQ of 0 can understand it.

Islamic republic is following the turkic qajari tradition instead that of the Iranic zand dynasty. Lets see what outsiders (British and american diplomats) wrote about The Iranian Zand dynasty and the Turkic Qajars and how they compared them to each other. They were the witnesses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will not travel through the account of a series of most heroic and
unfortunate attempts made by the king to reestablish his fortunes, but
hasten to relieve my mind from the sorrow and regret which, even after this
length of time p, it feels for the misfortunes of Lutf Aly khan.
. . .
The remaining days of this great prince were few and sad; but Persia,
even now, speaks of his heroic actions with pride; and the inhabitants of the
southern part of the empire retain an affectionate and respectful regard for
his memory and virtues".35

The Ending and Aftermath of Zand Rule in Iran
It was a routine matter that pretenders to the throne, whether in Iran or in
Europe, would be dealt with summarily if caught and often put to the sword,
in those times, and in many place even today. Karim Khan Zand sought to
restore the pluralism, and multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic
character of Iran since ancient times. Thus he would honor his enemies or
pardon them and give clemency, including the Qajar tribe, who being
descended form the Mongols and Tartars, at that time could not speak
Persian. Instead of killing his worst enemy, Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar
(a.k.a. Kajar), chief the Qajar tribe, he treated him as a long-time guest at
his court. Upon the death of Karim Khan, he escaped, collected his Qajar
tribal backers to gain the throne. After sixteen years of such warfare, when a
young Zand prince, Loft Aly Khan, was in power, through treachery he
overcame Loft Aly Khan, blinded him, dismembered then tortured him to
death, had his wife raped and massacred the Zands at court in Shiraz. The
Qajars had been exiled for sixty years to the Syrian desert by the Tartar chief
Tamerlane on account of extreme savagery. To-day, however, descendants
of the Qajars are integrated into the Iranian population, and after over ten
generations of marriage have become culturally as well as morally and in
appearance largely indistinguishable from the rest of the population.
Clements R. Markham, British historian, 1874 : "The Zand dynasty produced
two great and worthy scions . . . The Kajars, raised to power by the hideous
atrocities of that monster Agha Mohammad, have supplanted their rivals.”36

Under the Zands the Islamic clergy had little or no role in government, and
their influence had been reduced by having to work for a living, like the rest
of society. The clergy had come into Iran from Arab countries under the
Safavid dynasty. The Islamic clergy, in mounting the Islamic revolution of
1979, sought to return to their power and privilege under the Qajar (Kajar)
dynasty which followed the Zands. From their point of view their present
rule in Iran is, in large measure, a restoration and continuation of their status
in the Qajar period, when their position and power increased due to once
again being patronized by the state. In what may best be characterized as
an unholy alliance, the Qajars and the Islamic clergy vied together to turn
the country to ruin.

Justice Douglas, on the Aftermath of the Zand Dynasty: "In the eighteenth
century [ca. 1795] disaster struck Persia, a disaster that has been a crippling
force even to this day. At that time an alien Turkish tribe, who could not
speak the language, seized control of the country . . . They established the
Kajar dynasty, which laid a curse on the land. They ruled and exploited the
people; but they did not govern . . . Thus government became a ferocious,
devouring force. It lived on the people. It squeezed every copper from them.
The feudalism that had been the strength of Persia became the means for
bleeding it white . . . Justice was for sale, power was used to exact blackmail.
The army and the police were weakened and corrupted. Decay took hold in the
moral fiber. The religious ideas that had supplied the generating force
behind Persia’s great dynasties were discarded.
Not all of the country was despoiled. The Kajar dynasty reached as far
into the hinterland as it could, but the fastness of the mountains held
treasures it could not reach. These treasures were the main tribes: the
Kurds, the Lursq, the Bakhtiaris, and the Ghashghais. They remained
independent and largely untouched. Their power in fact grew under the
Kajars, for peasants flocked to their dependencies for shelter from the long,
oppressive hand of the central government.

 

[MTN1917]

OK, let's see the list. Qajars were the first ones who adopted the constitution in Iran. Pahlavi destroyed the constitution and mullahs screwed it to the highest level. Funny that still the number of newspapers in qajar era is higher than the number of newspapers, ... in Pahlavi and mullah dynasties. Freedom of expressing opinions was much higher than today. They were the first ones who abolished the inhumane Jizya law. They were the first ones who sent young people to europe to study and brought modern sciences back to Iran. They were ruling their kingdom in a federal system and each province were studying, and using their own language, and were using their own local leaders to rule their own region. BTW, they also had a war with the ottoman rulers of Baghdad which resulted in a success and finalized as Treaty of Erzurum, which one of its consequence was the qajar empire gaining the east region of Shat Al-arab and the city of Mohammarah(Khoramshahr). They also had a treaty with britains in which as a result they gained Baluchestan region and also parts of Sistan region. The most important point was that they united those lands after a long destroying civil war and ended the civil war and brought peace for a century to that country.
They went to war with Russia 3 times and won the 1796 war and lost in the second and third war. and that's all you have against them. BTW, FYI Russia was a big empire with overwhelmingly more power than Qajars. Its like mullahs engaging a war with USA. what would be the result then?

1-Qajars were forced to adopt the constitution after a revolt and Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar used artillery against parliament in an effort to destroy the constitutional order, only because of lack of people support and his incompetence he couldn't do it.

2-If you want to bring religious freedom during Qajar era as a positive , in that time Jews were forced to convert, Zoroastrians fled to Pakistan and Bahais were suppressed and killed(although I do not support Bahais) .

3-The man who sent people to Europe to study was Amir kabir who was later killed on the order of Nasser el din Shah Qajar.

4-Federal system? if you mean the rule of Khans and almost complete disintegration of Iran you are right, back then Bakhtiari khans to as they pleased, Kurds were busy killing Armenians and Arabs were a country to themselves( Sheikh Khazal) and there were many Khans who were busy milking their people of life.

5-Studying in their own language?! back then most people were illiterate and there was never anything about studying their own language, there wasn't any standard Persian curriculum yet alone Azeri, the only other language that was thought beside Persian was Arabic.

6-They have lost most of Baluchistan which is now part of Pakistan and Afghanistan, they have also lost Zabol(which is center of Sistan) and we later regained it in a deal during the time of Reza Shah.

Sorry but Iran was nearly bankrupt during the Qajar era and the Iranian constitutional revolution didn't bring any success in the failed economics of Qajars. The Pahlavis weren't better with their racist Persocentric policy but the Qajars were a lost cause at the beginning.

Economy?! During the Qajar time we didn't even had a unified military, later in the era we had several pathetic military forces.

Persian Cossacks in the north whom were under Russian influence, Nezame jadid in the center, Gendarme in Khorasan, Persian rifles(British puppets) in the south.

Iran was so weak back then that the British and Russian had partitioned Iran to three Zone in 1907 treaty.

 

[The SiLent crY]

Islamic republic is following the turkic qajari tradition instead that of the Iranic zand dynasty. Lets see what outsiders (British and american diplomats) wrote about The Iranian Zand dynasty and the Turkic Qajars and how they compared them to each other. They were the witnesses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will not travel through the account of a series of most heroic and
unfortunate attempts made by the king to reestablish his fortunes, but
hasten to relieve my mind from the sorrow and regret which, even after this
length of time p, it feels for the misfortunes of Lutf Aly khan.
. . .
The remaining days of this great prince were few and sad; but Persia,
even now, speaks of his heroic actions with pride; and the inhabitants of the
southern part of the empire retain an affectionate and respectful regard for
his memory and virtues".35

The Ending and Aftermath of Zand Rule in Iran
It was a routine matter that pretenders to the throne, whether in Iran or in
Europe, would be dealt with summarily if caught and often put to the sword,
in those times, and in many place even today. Karim Khan Zand sought to
restore the pluralism, and multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic
character of Iran since ancient times. Thus he would honor his enemies or
pardon them and give clemency, including the Qajar tribe, who being
descended form the Mongols and Tartars, at that time could not speak
Persian. Instead of killing his worst enemy, Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar
(a.k.a. Kajar), chief the Qajar tribe, he treated him as a long-time guest at
his court. Upon the death of Karim Khan, he escaped, collected his Qajar
tribal backers to gain the throne. After sixteen years of such warfare, when a
young Zand prince, Loft Aly Khan, was in power, through treachery he
overcame Loft Aly Khan, blinded him, dismembered then tortured him to
death, had his wife raped and massacred the Zands at court in Shiraz. The
Qajars had been exiled for sixty years to the Syrian desert by the Tartar chief
Tamerlane on account of extreme savagery. To-day, however, descendants
of the Qajars are integrated into the Iranian population, and after over ten
generations of marriage have become culturally as well as morally and in
appearance largely indistinguishable from the rest of the population.
Clements R. Markham, British historian, 1874 : "The Zand dynasty produced
two great and worthy scions . . . The Kajars, raised to power by the hideous
atrocities of that monster Agha Mohammad, have supplanted their rivals.”36

Under the Zands the Islamic clergy had little or no role in government, and
their influence had been reduced by having to work for a living, like the rest
of society. The clergy had come into Iran from Arab countries under the
Safavid dynasty. The Islamic clergy, in mounting the Islamic revolution of
1979, sought to return to their power and privilege under the Qajar (Kajar)
dynasty which followed the Zands. From their point of view their present
rule in Iran is, in large measure, a restoration and continuation of their status
in the Qajar period, when their position and power increased due to once
again being patronized by the state. In what may best be characterized as
an unholy alliance, the Qajars and the Islamic clergy vied together to turn
the country to ruin.

Justice Douglas, on the Aftermath of the Zand Dynasty: "In the eighteenth
century [ca. 1795] disaster struck Persia, a disaster that has been a crippling
force even to this day. At that time an alien Turkish tribe, who could not
speak the language, seized control of the country . . . They established the
Kajar dynasty, which laid a curse on the land. They ruled and exploited the
people; but they did not govern . . . Thus government became a ferocious,
devouring force. It lived on the people. It squeezed every copper from them.
The feudalism that had been the strength of Persia became the means for
bleeding it white . . . Justice was for sale, power was used to exact blackmail.
The army and the police were weakened and corrupted. Decay took hold in the
moral fiber. The religious ideas that had supplied the generating force
behind Persia’s great dynasties were discarded.
Not all of the country was despoiled. The Kajar dynasty reached as far
into the hinterland as it could, but the fastness of the mountains held
treasures it could not reach. These treasures were the main tribes: the
Kurds, the Lursq, the Bakhtiaris, and the Ghashghais. They remained
independent and largely untouched. Their power in fact grew under the
Kajars, for peasants flocked to their dependencies for shelter from the long,
oppressive hand of the central government.

Good to see you here again .

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Good to see you here again .

Thanks bro

 

[Charon 2]

Islamic republic is following the turkic qajari tradition instead that of the Iranic zand dynasty. Lets see what outsiders (British and american diplomats) wrote about The Iranian Zand dynasty and the Turkic Qajars and how they compared them to each other. They were the witnesses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will not travel through the account of a series of most heroic and
unfortunate attempts made by the king to reestablish his fortunes, but
hasten to relieve my mind from the sorrow and regret which, even after this
length of time p, it feels for the misfortunes of Lutf Aly khan.
. . .
The remaining days of this great prince were few and sad; but Persia,
even now, speaks of his heroic actions with pride; and the inhabitants of the
southern part of the empire retain an affectionate and respectful regard for
his memory and virtues".35

The Ending and Aftermath of Zand Rule in Iran
It was a routine matter that pretenders to the throne, whether in Iran or in
Europe, would be dealt with summarily if caught and often put to the sword,
in those times, and in many place even today. Karim Khan Zand sought to
restore the pluralism, and multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic
character of Iran since ancient times. Thus he would honor his enemies or
pardon them and give clemency, including the Qajar tribe, who being
descended form the Mongols and Tartars, at that time could not speak
Persian. Instead of killing his worst enemy, Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar
(a.k.a. Kajar), chief the Qajar tribe, he treated him as a long-time guest at
his court. Upon the death of Karim Khan, he escaped, collected his Qajar
tribal backers to gain the throne. After sixteen years of such warfare, when a
young Zand prince, Loft Aly Khan, was in power, through treachery he
overcame Loft Aly Khan, blinded him, dismembered then tortured him to
death, had his wife raped and massacred the Zands at court in Shiraz. The
Qajars had been exiled for sixty years to the Syrian desert by the Tartar chief
Tamerlane on account of extreme savagery. To-day, however, descendants
of the Qajars are integrated into the Iranian population, and after over ten
generations of marriage have become culturally as well as morally and in
appearance largely indistinguishable from the rest of the population.
Clements R. Markham, British historian, 1874 : "The Zand dynasty produced
two great and worthy scions . . . The Kajars, raised to power by the hideous
atrocities of that monster Agha Mohammad, have supplanted their rivals.”36

Under the Zands the Islamic clergy had little or no role in government, and
their influence had been reduced by having to work for a living, like the rest
of society. The clergy had come into Iran from Arab countries under the
Safavid dynasty. The Islamic clergy, in mounting the Islamic revolution of
1979, sought to return to their power and privilege under the Qajar (Kajar)
dynasty which followed the Zands. From their point of view their present
rule in Iran is, in large measure, a restoration and continuation of their status
in the Qajar period, when their position and power increased due to once
again being patronized by the state. In what may best be characterized as
an unholy alliance, the Qajars and the Islamic clergy vied together to turn
the country to ruin.

Justice Douglas, on the Aftermath of the Zand Dynasty: "In the eighteenth
century [ca. 1795] disaster struck Persia, a disaster that has been a crippling
force even to this day. At that time an alien Turkish tribe, who could not
speak the language, seized control of the country . . . They established the
Kajar dynasty, which laid a curse on the land. They ruled and exploited the
people; but they did not govern . . . Thus government became a ferocious,
devouring force. It lived on the people. It squeezed every copper from them.
The feudalism that had been the strength of Persia became the means for
bleeding it white . . . Justice was for sale, power was used to exact blackmail.
The army and the police were weakened and corrupted. Decay took hold in the
moral fiber. The religious ideas that had supplied the generating force
behind Persia’s great dynasties were discarded.
Not all of the country was despoiled. The Kajar dynasty reached as far
into the hinterland as it could, but the fastness of the mountains held
treasures it could not reach. These treasures were the main tribes: the
Kurds, the Lursq, the Bakhtiaris, and the Ghashghais. They remained
independent and largely untouched. Their power in fact grew under the
Kajars, for peasants flocked to their dependencies for shelter from the long,
oppressive hand of the central government.

Sorry but no. The Islamic republic is following the traditions of the Persian Samanids and Safavids. All Turkic states are secular while Iranian states like Iran and Afghanistan are ruled by backward Islamists. Tajikistan is the only modern blink in the Iranic world.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Sorry but no. The Islamic republic is following the traditions of the Persian Samanids and Safavids. All Turkic states are secular while Iranian states like Iran and Afghanistan are ruled by backward Islamists. Tajikistan is the only modern blink in the Iranic world.

There is to much distance in time between the sunni samanids and the shia islamic republic and with both following a different kind of islam there is no link between them.

Sunni islam as today we see is the violent and backward version of Islam, but at the same time the more pure version of islam (especially the salafist-jihadi branch which ISIS follows). If we talk about sunni dynasties we can also read about the religious zealotry of sunni seljuqs and ghaznavids. So that's another topic.

But yes, between non-persian safavids (who had a large turkic army and backing), Turkic qajars and anti-Iranian Islamic republic, we can see a clear link. It was during their reign in the last 300 years that these shia mullahs became powerfull and dominant and other religions were severely oppressed.

For Iranian dystasties who were of shia islam you should read about the Buyid dynasty. They clearly differed from safavid and qajari shiism.

 

[Charon 2]

There is to much distance in time between the sunni samanids and the shia islamic republic and with both following a different kind of islam there is no link between them.

Sunni islam as today we see is the violent and backward version of Islam, but at the same time the more pure version of islam (especially the salafist-jihadi branch which ISIS follows). If we talk about sunni dynasties we can also read about the religious zealotry of sunni seljuqs and ghaznavids. So that's another topic.

But yes, between non-persian safavids (who had a large turkic army and backing), Turkic qajars and anti-Iranian Islamic republic, we can see a clear link. It was during their reign that these shia mullahs became powerfull and dominant and other religions were severely oppressed.

For Iranian dystasties who were of shia islam you should read about the Buyid dynasty. They clearly differed from safavid and qajari shiism.

Persian Samanids and Saffarids were also zealotry Muslim dynasties. The Samanid ruler Ismail ibn Ahmad captured the capital of Karluk Turks in Talas, enslaved the Karluk Turks and converted the local Nestorian church into a mosque. This was the first mass conversion of Turks to Islam

The Saffarid ruler Yaqub ibn al Saffar also defeated the local Buddhist tribal chiefs in Afghanistan and the Islamization of Afghanistan begann. Kabul, Herat and other major cities of Afghanistan mass converted to Islam during his reign.

Ghaznavids are mixed Turco-Persians for me. I don't consider them purely Turkic unlike Kara Khanids or Seljuks


Anti-Iranian Islamic republic? That was a good joke. The whole Islamic revolution itself was startend by the Persian Mullah Khomenei

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Persian Samanids and Saffarids were also zealotry Muslim dynasties. The Samanid ruler Ismail ibn Ahmad captured the capital of Karluk Turks in Talas, enslaved the Karluk Turks and converted the local Nestorian church into a mosque. This was the first mass conversion of Turks to Islam

The Saffarid ruler Yaqub ibn al Saffar also defeated the local Buddhist tribal chiefs in Afghanistan and the Islamization of Afghanistan begann. Kabul, Herat and other major cities of Afghanistan mass converted to Islam during his reign.

Ghaznavids are mixed Turco-Persians for me. I don't consider them purely Turkic unlike Kara Khanids or Seljuks

Anti-Iranian Islamic republic? That was a good joke. The whole Islamic revolution itself was startend by the Persian Mullah Khomenei

I dont know why you want to go back in time and compare Iranian and Turkic sunni dynasties to todays Shia Islamic republic. The turks started to fight against persians, not other way around. As i said I agree with you sunnism is a violent religion (starting from rashidun caliphates, followed by umayads and abbasids) and we witness it in different movements and different countries, like a virus it affected Iranics and Turkics in the 1000 years ago. Borders and nations don't discriminate when it comes to actions of sunni muslims. And it's positive that that ISIS wants to revive sunnism instead. It's like watching a theatre/show of history of sunnism.

However when talking about the recent history of Iran (past 300-400 years) and how they influenced todays ruling system of Iran, we see clearly that the safavids and qajars played a big role in empowerment of shia clerics, while the zand dynasty reduced them to ordinary citizens. In this every historian agrees, so who are you to disagree with this? And this is the topic here, about qajars weakening Iran, so don't go off-topic.

How is islamic republic pro-Iranian if we see that turks like Khalkhali wanted to destroy persepolis and executed thousands of prisoners and that turks like khamenei oppress Iranian people. Even khomeini was a recent imported mullah from india, just like how safavids and qajar imported mullahs to Iran to empower shia religion. His family name was khomeini hendizadeh.

Islamic republic clearly has a anti-Iranian ideology rooted in communism and MB ikhwan islamism. They also have no problems with pan-turkism and baathism as long as it doesnt affect the position of islamic republic. But harmless attacks on Iranian history and culture by these elements are tolerated by islamic republic.

The recent anti-Persian-sentiment by pan-Turkish are organized smoothly in Tractor FC–owned and managed by Revolutionary Guards– games. Mr. Nasser Pourpirar has openly questioned Iranian Identity, but his website is not filtered in Iran and even he publishes/sales his books in Tehran (Daneshga Tehran).

Basically most of these people (anti-Iranian identity) have common background–all of them have tendency to ultra-Islamic mixed with Marxism. People like Pourpirar Dr. Chamran and Zehtabi after successful dissolving of Iranian-Azerbaijan-Rep in 1946, and years later left Iran to Iraq, Libya, Syria and Egypt (1958-1970), there under Baathist regimes, they learned Arabic and Pan-Arabic ideology. After 1979 revolution because they were just cable of “translating Qhoran” only they easily infiltrated into new-Iranian-government and basically they shaped/influence heavily Iranian Foreign policy– as ultimate anti American, anti-Israeli & anti western in the region.

Read more here:
The Extreme Religious Right and the Muslim Brotherhood | Kaveh Farrokh
Opportunistic Elements with the Iranian Establishment | Kaveh Farrokh
The Iranian Left and Tudeh Communist Party | Kaveh Farrokh

 

[Hack-Hook]

Seriously? which part of their land was sold in exchange for money? As far as I remember, it was the opposite, and they, Abbas Mirza, agreed to pay millions to make Russians satisfied to not capture lands beyond Araz river.

We lost to Russia and lost Azerbaijan to them because of the Fath-Ali-Shah lust for gold and jewels , he didn't send the money and provision for the army . to the extent that the women of the officials of Azerbaiejan (Even Abbas-Mirza wife) sold their jewel to raise money for the army and when that also finished we lost north west of Iran to Russia.

 

[Jaggu]

Maybe Qajars were just ruling during the wrong era. The 1800s saw the globe being dominated by European powers. In Iran and Turkey's case, they lost large territories to an expanding and unstoppable Russian superpower. In other parts of Asia things were even worse, Whole of India was taken over by the British.