Talk:Qizilbash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Religious group

Also this article has no specific dates, which are useful for, you know, historical context.

Um, so which religion? Islam? That would be kind of good to know. NickelShoe 22:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've included some information from an article that I have read on these people, which is cited in the text Nygdan 1-18-2005

Hezbollahi 21:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The religion of Shia Islam is stated in the article. The information you provided is inocorrect and has been removed. Please do not include that information again. The Kizilbash are not a crypto-pagan cult, please stop including your text in the article.

Dispute

Hezbollah, there is no evidence presented to refute these studies of the kizilbash in turkey. Please stop removing them from the entry. Nygdan 1-24-2006

Hezbollahi 22:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't done much research on the Kizilbash. The information you include is incorrect (being a kizilbash I would know), and therefore will be removed from my page.

lol! Oh man, you're great. What other pages here are yours? In case you didn't notice, its not my research, its the research results of ethnographers and cultural anthropologists. Besides, you hardly speak for all kizilbashi, infact, you don't speak for any kizilbashi but yourself. Nygdan 1-25-06

Hezbollahi 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was your research, perhaps you have difficulty comprehending english. It doesn't matter where the research is from, the point is that its incorrect - which you'd realize had you actually done any research on the topic instead of just copying and pasting anything you find relevant. I happen to be Kizilbash, and have studied my ancestry to the extent where I would be able determine what is true and false - as is the case with the information you provided. I'm not sure what your trying to get out of constantly including your 'information' but I assure you it will continued to be deleted as long as you do. I suggest you create your own page somewhere else on the this topic if you feel so strongly about the information you have included, because I won't allow you include it here on the page I created.

I really don't care if you think you own this page or not and feel a need to vandalize it to have your way. Please demonstrate that the kizilbash of turkey do not

• • Hold Ali in very high regard
  • Bewail the death of Hasan and Hosein
  • Sing about moses, david, or Isa in their Muharram feastival
  • Have a ritual involving bread and wine
  • "Adore" the setting and rising sun
  • Have a rock altar at manasgerd

What part of Turkey are you from? How do you jive the idea of being of 'kizilbashi' ancestry when the term has been applied to many groups from turkey to iran of different ethnicities? What does any of that matter since Bussell isn't lying and at worst is relating some old practices amoung the kizilbash of cappodocia? Nygdan 1-25-06

69.192.33.222 07:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as noting that they aren't all kizilbash, I've stated in the text that its specifically kizilbash in turkey. I am more than agreeable to havign it, say, in a different section of the article, more clearly noting that these things are practiced amoung the kizilbashis of Cappodocia. Is that agreeable?

If attributing divine aspects to ali is an error, then its an error that the kizilbash in turkey make.

As far as drinking wine is prohibitied, Omar Khayyam would probably disagree, but this is irrelevant, as one of the reason the mainstream muslims call the kizilbashi in turkey 'kizilbash' is because they do drink wine. To say that its 'baseless' because you feel that islamic regulations prohibit it is absurd. As far as the adoration of the sun, it really doesn't matter what your assurances are. This is from an ethnographic-religious report of the customs and practices and theology of the kizilbashi of Cappodocia. The fact that wine drinking, deification, and adoration of the sun aren't part of islam is why these are recognized as cryptically surviving pagan beleifs. Its the fact that these things are so contradictory in islam that allows them to be recognized as such, in addition to them being practiced by pre-islamic pagans of the exact same region. These Cappodocian kizilbash even go so far as to practice hydromancy and their towns have shrines to quasi-godlike ancestors, iow, the old Hero Cult. Nygdan 13:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

69.192.33.222 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is agreeable to state that the practices stated are only among the Kizilbash of Cappodocia. This article is not solely based on the Kizilbash of Turkey, but all Kizilbash in general. That includes Iranian Kizilbash - like myself -, pakistani Kizilbash etc. That is why it is obviously incorrect the state the practices of Kizilbash are cryptically surviving pagan beleifs, as the vast majority - in the past and currently - are devout Shia Muslims and adhere vigorously to their faith. The entire article shouldn't be focusing on Cappodocia Kizilbash and whatever un-Islamic practices they indulged in, because that would be focusing on a very small minority and doesn't make much sense to include unless it is being attributed to all Kizilbash - which would be incorrect. See my point? Of course the issue can be touched on, but it shouldn't take precedence over the entire article as this article is speaking of the Kizilbash in general. Hezbollahi 16:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point. Perhaps we will make an article on the Cappodocian Kizilbash, and include it in the see also section and perhaps make a reference to their unique practices, even how practices amoung the various kizilbashi as they are distributed world wide can be quite variable? Nygdan 21:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

69.192.33.222 03:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC) I would have no problem with that. No hard feelings eh.

Origins of Kizilbash

See Tajik, most of your sources are not avaliable online especially - in the articles you have send me I have not found much reference to Non-turkic tribes. However what we can safely say is that influence was minimal in numbers. For instance, why would Ismail write religious propaganda so very extensively in Turkish. Most of the sources (Iranica, Momen) claim that Turkish tribes were converting en masse to Shiism (parts of Ak Koyunlu) in mid 15. Most of sedentary persian population was Sunni and converted much later in 16century. There are maybe nomadic tribes (like Lurs ) that did convert but...

So solution proposed by Grandmaster - "of which by far the largest group constituted Turkic-speaking tribes" (rather than "diverse background). We should not deny that there were Persian-speaking Kizilbash, but their influence was minimal.abdulnr 19:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For some unknown reason Tajik persistently removes any mention that Kizilbash people were predominantly Turkic, despite this fact being attested by authoritative sources, which are easily verifiable. See below.

Britannica:

Turkish Kizilbas (“Red Head”), any member of the seven Turkmen tribes who wore red caps to signify their support of the founders of the Safavid dynasty (1501–1736) in Iran. The name was given to them by Sunnite Turks and was applied later to the followers of a Shi'ite sect in eastern Asia Minor. It also was given in Afghanistan to the Persian-speaking Turkmens, who settled in Kabul and other cities from about… [1]

Iranica:

In 906/1500 Esmail mobilized at Arzenjan a force of 7,000 Turkman tribesmen from the qezelbash tribes of Ostajjlu, Rumlu, Takkalu, D¨u'l-Qadar, Afshar, Qajar, and Varsaq (MS London, British Library, Or. 3248, fol. 53b; Hasan Rumlu, ed. Nava@÷^, II, p. 61). These men were long time Sufi disciples and believers (mor^da@n o mo¿taqeda@n-e s®u@f^ya-ye qad^m; K¨oræa@h, fol. 446b). [2] Grandmaster 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No question, the Turcoman Kizilbash were by far the most important (most of all, because they were experienced fighters, once fighting for Uzun Hassan). But the DEFINITION you are giving here is wrong and does not need to be mentioned in the intro. The problem with you is that you reject authoritive and credible sources when they do not support your views, but you change your mind and quote that same source whenever it supports your claims. Noone denies the importance of the Turcoman "uymaqs" ... but this information is given in the text, while the intro should only give a brief discription of the word itself, and that is: a militant religious group of different ethnic backgrounds who were loyal to the Safawid Sufi-Grandmasters. The Turcomans were only one part of this militant group.

As for Britannica, this is what it says about Safavids:

"Safavid dynasty - Persian dynasty. It was founded by Isma'il I, who, by converting his people from Sunnite to Shi'ite Islam and adopting the trappings of Persian monarchy, planted the seeds of a unique national and religious identity. He captured Tabriz from the Ak Koyunlu and became shah of Azerbaijan (1501) and Persia (1502). 'Abbas I (r. 1588–1629) brought the dynasty to its peak; his capital, Esfahan, was the centre of Safavid architectural achievement. The dynasty declined in the century following his reign, pressed by the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal dynasty, and fell when a weak shah, Tahmasp II, was deposed by his general, Nadir Shah." [3]

Why don't you accept THIS statement of the Encyclopaedia Britannica?

BTW: this is the definition given by the "Encyclopaedia of the Orient":

• "... Kizilbash - People originating from different tribes, who played a central part in the establishment of the Safavid Dynasty of Iran. The Kizilbash have their name from Azeri language, meaning "Red Heads" due to their red headgear known in Persian as Tāje-e Haydari, "Haydar's crown." Kizilbash have kept their identity, and live in central Iran, eastern Turkey and other countries outside the Middle East/North Africa. Kizilbash in Turkey are identified with certain groups of Alevis. ..." [4]

Here is an interesting article about Kurdish "Kizilbash": [5]

Don't miss the following info:

• "... According to Hasluck, the term 'Kizilbash has been associated from the beginning with both Persian nationality and Persian Shi'a religion, but has no ethnic significance whatsoever' (Hasluck, 1973: 140); Moosa explains, however, that Hasluck is here referring to Persian Safavid Shi'ism. Moosa notes how other peoples, including Turkmen tribes and 'many Kurdish tribes especially in the region of Dersim (Tunceli) Š became followers of the Safawi [Safavi or Safavid] order and were also known as Kizilbash.' The 'beliefs, rituals and traditions' of the 'Kurdish' Kizilbash and the Turkmen Bektashi (Bekta§i) orders were identical, with the only difference being a political one of leadership (Moosa, 1987: 7). ..."

Please stop changing the intro! Tajik 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept that statement of Britannica. It means that they were the dynasty of rulers of Persia. And different tribes does not mean ethnically different. There are many authoritative sources to attest that they were predominantly Turkic. Other ethnic elements were minor. Grandmaster 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that you deny the existance of a Persian people, just because this statement of the Britannica does not support your Turkish-nationalistic ideas. What if Britannica had written "Turkish" instead of "Persian". Would that means that Safavids were "rulers of Turkey"?! And "different tribes" means "different tribes": Kurds, Lurs, Turcomans, Persians, etc. It says nothing about "Turcoman tribes" or "ethnic Turkish tribes". Neither does the Britannica article say ANYTHING about Safavids being Turks, Turkic, Turkish-speaking, or Turcoman. It says PERSIAN DYNASTY. The authoritive Encyclopaedia of Islam says: DYNASTY OF PERSIAN ORIGIN. You are twisting words and you interpret every source they way it suits your own agenda! Tajik 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misreading Grandmaster, he is not saying that Safavid is not Persian dynasty. No one can deny the Persian Shia kingdom of Safavids. What we are saying is that most of Safavid supporters were Turkoman tribes, but with splattering of everyother tribe. When you omit that statement, that creates a wrong impression that Kizilbash were not majority Turkoman.

About complicated nature of dersim Alevis, Zazas, Turks and Kurds and god knows who see this: http://members.tripod.com/~zaza_kirmanc/research/paul.htm abdulnr 20:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not misreading Grandmaster, and his political and nationalistic motivated edits are well known. I've already written in the article that the Turcomans were the most important group among the Kitilbash, and that they were the largest group:

"... Among the Kizilbash, Turcoman tribes from Eastern Anatolia and Azerbaijan who had helped Shah Ismail I. defeat the Akkoyunlu were by far the most important - in number and influence. ..."

There is no need to mention that in the intro, because the number of the Kizilbash and the different tribes is not important. Even the Encyclopaedia of Islam leaves that out of its intro and simply says that "Kizilbash was the name given to various Shia sects supporting the Safavids".

Grandmaster is trying to "Turcify" every single article in Wikipedia. Now he is even denying the existance of a Persian people, probably claiming that "all Persians are ethnic Turks". If "Persian dynasty" (or "dynasty of Persian origin", as the authoritive Encyclopaedia of Islam puts it) means "dynasty that ruled Persia", then what does "Turkish dynasty" mean?! "Dynasty that ruled Turkey"?! Britannica calls the Ghaznavids a "Turkish dynasty" [6] Does that means that they ruled "Turkey", as Grandmaster proposes?! All this Panturkist POV is really getting annoying! Could you please tell this POV-writer to stop messing up the article?! Tajik 20:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I check some your contributions and they often are about erasing any mention of Turkic role in the history of Persia. If you agree that Turkic tribes were the most important, why are you erasing that from the intro and adding a line about "diverse background"? The word “predominantly” does not exclude diversity, does it? And also you’ve been warned about unacceptability of personal attacks. This is your last warning. Grandmaster 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I told Tombseye about our situation and possible compromise can be sought. Btw - where did you see a mention that "all Persians are ethnic Turks" or "Turkish dynasty" specifically. I never saw anything in this regard. abdulnr 21:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to erase Turkic influence from Persian history. Why should I?! Turks and their contributions have their special place in Persian history. However, I am getting tired of Turkish nationalists and Turcophiles trying to Turkify EVERYTHING. Noone in here has ever disputed the Turkish background of the Seljuqs. Why should we?! No one in here denies the Turkish backgroung, culture, and identity of the Ak Koyunlu, Qarakhanids, Afshars, Qajars, etc ... why should we?! It is well known that they were Turkic. However, this is not the case when it comes to the Safavids and - to a much lesser degree - to Ghaznavids. The Safavids were not "Turkic". As stated in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Haydar married a Turcoman wife, and from Djunayd to Tahmasp I (including Ismail I.). the Safavid Shahs had Turcoman or half-Turcoman mothers. After Tahmasp's death, none of the Safavid Shahs had a Turcoman mother. Some had Persian mothers and some even Georgian an d Armenian. The Safavids were not "ethnic Turks", but a mix of different ethnic groups who played a major role in the Safavid Dynasty. They were not "Turkic-speaking", but totally bilingual (or trilingual). Ismail wrote peotry in Turkish and Persian, his son Tahmasp painted pictures while his other son, Sam Mirza, wrote history documents in Persian and Arabic (see Encyclopaedia of Islam). These ethnic lables had no importance 500 years ago. If the Safavids were Turks, they would have had imposed their language on the population, they way the Ottomans "Turkified" the Caucasus and Anatolia. But this is NOT the case ... the Safavids were wanted to impose Turkish language on the people in Iran, because language did not matter ... they were native Turkish-speakers AND native Persian-speakers. When Shah Ismail conquered Herat, he ordered the local poets to write Persian poems about him. He even identified himself with the old Shahs of Iran as mentioned in the Shahnama (see Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Literature in the Safawid dyasty"). You are trying to "Turkify" a dynasty that never considered itself "Turkic" (or "Persian" or "Kurdish" or "Chinese"). The Safavids considered themselvs "Shia Muslims" and THAT was their ethnic lable.

There is absolutely no need to mention in the intro that "Turcomans were predominant". The very special and important role of the Turcomans (may I remind you that my family belongs to those "Turcoman Kizilbash tribes" ...!?) is mentioned in the text. The INTRO should only explain the meaning of the word "Kizilbash" and that is was applied to various people in Iran and Anatolia who supported the house of Safi al-Din Ardabeli!

@abdulnr: Grandmaster says that there is no Persian ethnic group and that "Persian dynasty" (as mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Britannica) only means "from Persia". So I conclude that there is also no "Turkish ethnic identity" and that "Turkish dynasty" simply means "Dynasty from Turkey", which could also mean that the Ottomans were not Turks but Kurds, or Zaza, or Greeks, or ... If one accepts the identity of a "Turkic/Turkish people" and if one accepts the fact that "Turkish dynasty" does NOT mean "dynasty from Turkey", then one also has to accept that "Persian dynasty" does NOT mean "dynasty from Persian" (as Grandmaster tries to make us believe) but that a certain dynasty was of Persian origin. Tajik 21:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's dicuss wider issues of Persian vs Turk elsewhere otherwise we will not get out of it. I think Grandmaster, is quite a judicious editor. - So essentially the conflict is about whether to include or not include the mention of majority Turkoman in the article, so lets concetrate on that. We agree on most other points. Actually you are wrong about Ottoman Turkey's Turkishness, as you approach this from modern point of view. Ottomans were essentially Sunni Muslim state, quite ambivalent of Support of Turkic tribes of Inner Anatolia, whose alliance was frequently with Shia Islam or other heresies (may I remind youw that Persian was widely spoken in court and poetry was composed, and miniatures were drawn, just like in Iran. A form of the Ottoman Turkish language developed,which was exceptionally Persianized. Reforms of Ataturk changed all this abdulnr 21:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This Tajik guy is one hell of an extremist, every post he writes on has something along these line's.

Either there Mongols or Persians but can never be Turks.

Kizilbash were most definately Turks, every reliable source proves this.

In addition the Alevi Kizilbash in Turkey preserve Shamanistic traditions from the old religion of the Turks, they have the Tribe's Talismans, tie fabric's to Tree's in important areas, some will pray with the rise of the sun, they hold Silver important for purification, have different luck charms and warding off evil charms, they always call things of religous importance with Turkish names and always use Turkish names very rarely do they use Arabic or Persian................ so much much more.

Infact these cultural attributes have been promoted alot in Turkey and have influenced mainstream culture. In this current era, they are being promoted as the protectors of Turkish culture and they say they have resisted Persian and Arabic influece. Today its become trendy to study and use the culture of the Alevi as its considered "original Turkish".

The funny thing is, the Kizilbas who "Tajik" wants so badly to be Persian and non-Turkish were more aware and proud of their Turkishness and proclaimed this more than the Ottomans did.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Johnstevens, you are already reported to admins because of your ill-tempered, obviously very racist anti-Persian thinking, and your pan-Turkist agenda in Wikipedia. I - myself - am descendant of Bayat-Turcoman Kizilbash who were once brought to Afghanistan by Nadir Shah Afshar and Ahmad Shah Abdali.

The reason why I wrote and extended this article was because the article is very important to me. I used authoritative sources, most of the all the Encyclopaedia of Islam, for this article, and as you can see, this article is very well referenced.

The "Kizilbash" were not an ethnic-nationalistic movement, you you Kemalists want everyone to believe. The "Kizilbash" were a religious group of many different backgrounds. In fact, it was a TURKISH scholar who first connected them to the Persian Khurrami sect.

You are so much into your racist and pan-Turkist propaganda that you even delete well-referenced texts. Feel free to check the given notes and references, and you will see that all of this article is written according to the information available in authoritative encyclopaedias, most of all the EI and Encyclopaedia Iranica (which is NOT a "students project", as you claim, but the work of more than 200 experts, including respected scholars such as Richard Frye or Mary Boyce).

If you do not stop your racist propaganda, you will be banned from Wikipedia permanently!

And for your information: User:Abdulnr who has written large parts of this article is an Azerbaijani Turk himself!

Tajik 16:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nadir Shah

I have a few comments on this article (which despite the usual ill-tempered Turkish/Persian disputes on the Talk page presents a reasoned, balanced and well-referenced face to the outside world). Firstly, could this sentence be expanded on a little:

"an act, that later lead to the removal of the Turcomans by Shah Abbas". Removal from what? And when you say removal, does this mean exile, execution, something else?

Also, I'm pretty sure that Nadir Shah had some connection with the Afghan Kizilbash, and I will look into this further.

Finally a quotation to keep everyone happy and confused (it can't go on the main page as it constitutes original research). In 1833 the British officer Alexander Burnes was travelling through Central Asia: on his way back from Bukhara to Afghanistan he met someone he describes as an 'excitable Turcoman', and wrote that:

“From a Toorkee couplet, which he quoted with excitement, we gather the feelings of his race.

The kuzzilbashes have ten towers,

In each tower there is only a Georgian slave,

Let us attack them”.

This comes from Burnes's Journal, which he sent back to Calcutta in instalments and is to be found copied out into the Government of India Foreign Department Proceedings for that year (National Archives of India/Foreign Dept/Secret Consultations/6th June 1833 Nos.1-10 p2553). Naturally this evidence is very late indeed, but it suggests that questions of 'Turcoman' identity are complicated in this period, and that the Central Asian Turcoman had come to identify the Persian state with the Kizilbash. Alternatively it shows that the Turcoman were prepared to attack anybody if there was a reasonable chance of loot! Sikandarji 13:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the text. Any improvement is good for the article. As for the sentence about the "removed Turcomans", it means that Shah Abbas demoted the Turcomans and power shifted to the Persian nobles and Georgian administrators. Roger Savory explains in his work "The significans of the political murder of Mirza Salman" that the murder of this important Persian wakil by the insulted Kizilbash destroyed the trust the Safavid Shahs once had in their Turkoman "murids". The murder of Persian wakils (only because of jealousy and false pride) was partly intrpreted as treason to the Shah's order and position. The removal of the Turcoman fighters (the only elite warriors who had won the respect of the Ottoman "Yanissars") greatly damaged the stability and military strength of the kingdom. That's why Shah Abbas needed the support of European specialists to train his - now Persianized - army (who, btw, kept the name "Kizilbash"). At the end, the fall of the Turcoman Kizilbash was one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Safavid Empire. Tajik 14:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

One point I've forgot: "Afghan Kizilbashs" were predominantly the families and descendants of the later "Persianized Kizilbash" as well as large numbers of Afsharid and other Turcoman families from Khurasan (until today, there is a Shia disctrict in Kabul named "Afshar"), including my own family, the Bayats of Kabul and Balkh (who had intermarried with Persian, Afghan, and Mughal nobles). This is what the "Library of Congress" says about the Afghan Kizilbash:

• "... The Qizilbash of Mediterranean sub-stock speak Dari, are Imami Shi'a, and scattered throughout Afghanistan, primarily in urban centers. There are perhaps 50,000 Qizilbash living in Afghanistan although it is difficult to say for some claim to be Sunni Tajik since Shia Islam permits the practice of taqiya or dissimulation to avoid religious discrimination. The Qizilbash form one of the more literate groups in Afghanistan; they hold important administrative and professional positions. The Qizilbash are traditionally considered to be the descendants of Persian Shia mercenaries and administrators left behind by the Safavid Emperor Nadir Shah Afshar (1736-47) to govern the Afghan provinces. Under Ahmad Shah Durrani, who served in Nadir Shah's bodyguard, and his successors, the Qizilbash acquired power and influence at court out of proportion to their numbers. This created resentment among the dominant Pushtun which hardened over the years, especially after the Qizilbash openly allied themselves with the British during the First Anglo-Afghan War (1838-1842). Amir Abdur Rahman accused the Qizilbash of being partisan to the enemy during his campaigns against the Shi'a Hazara in 1891-1893, declared them enemies of the state, confiscated their property and persecuted them...." [7]

Tajik 14:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're clearly much better-qualified than I am to write about this. I hope you can expand on the removal of the Turcomans using the material you've quoted above. The stuff about the Afghan Kizilbash is fascinating - doesn't that deserve a place in the article? One thing about the Library of Congress quotation though - surely Nadir Shah can't be described as a 'Safavid'? He was the usurper who brought down the dynasty! The 'Persianisation' of the Kizilbash explains clearly enough why by the early 19th c. a Turcoman could view them as his principal enemies (that couplet quoted by Burnes had been puzzling me). Sikandarji 15:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Nadir Shah, but the Pashtuns of Qandahar ended the Safavid dynasty. Nadir Shah (who named himself "Nadir Quli Beg", "Nadir, the slave of the ruler") was infact a general of the Safavids who later - after the fall of the Afghans - usurped himself to the throne. But of course your criticism is correct. Tajik 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are these Kizilbash recognized as a separate ethnic group in Afg. or they are fall under Tajik category.?abdulnr 18:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of complicated. Actually, the "Kizilbash" are a group within the Tajiks. However, since "Tajik" is usually a name given to Persin-speaking Sunnis, the Kizilbash are sometimes regarded as a seperate ethnic group. But many scholars usually do not differenciate between "Tajiks" (Sunni Persin-speakers), "Fasriwans" (Non-Hazara Shia Persian-speakers), and "Kizilbash" (Non-Hazara Shia Persian-speakers, but not "native inhabitants of Afghanistan"). It's really complicated. Tajik 19:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW: I've added some information about the Kizilbash in Afghanistan. We also need information about the Kizilbash in Iran, in Pakistan, and in India. The "History"-part is really short ... it neeeds urgend improvement, for example additional information about the Battle of Chaldiran or about the "Persianization of the Kizilbash" during Shah Abbas' reign. Tajik 19:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

---

Archive

I'll "save" the History on the dicussion board, so I can write a more detailed text in the article.

• On the territory of the Ottomans, Shi'ite communities were persecuted on the account to their beliefs and adherence to ascending Safavid order whose leader Shaykh Haydar they venerated. The order posed also a significant threat to the Ak Koyunlu state after the breakdown of their alliance with them and therefore the state sought to exterminate its leaders. Under the leadership of young Ismail I, Kizilbash forces - mostly from the local Turkoman population - were unified and increased by conversion to Shiism. Shah Ismail was able to capture Tabriz from the Ak Koyunlu ruler Alwand Mirzā. Once Tabriz was taken, the Safavid dynasty was established and the Kizilbash assumed highest position in the state hierarchy, serving in positions of wakils (in charge of provincial administration in the dynasty). The Kizilbash were able to produce a well-equipped mobile army which was loyal to the dynasty. They fought many campaigns, mostly against the Sunni Ottomans, in which they were able to push the Ottomans from Safavid territory, however suffered significant losses at the hands of Ottomans at the Battle of Chaldyran in 1514. Initially, the Safavids had only indirect control over the provinces, however throughout the sixteenth century the Kizilbash solidified their dominion over the provinces and vied with the Shah for power, which led to constant strife and civil disorder. The Turkomen Kizilbash tribes of Azarbaijan were essential to the military of Iran and during the reign of the weak Shahs. The greatest of the Safavid monarchs, Shah Abbas I (1587-1629), was able to break the dependence on the Kizilbash for military might and centralize control under Persian beuroacracy. Power was shifting to a new class of merchants, many of them ethnic Armenians, Georgians, and Indians with no connection to the Kizilbash; a new class of so-called "ghulams" ("slaves") was formed.

Tajik 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

---

I guess you don;t mind me editing, Tajik do you? abdulnr 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

lol Tajik

"Spahbod" Article name requires correction!

Editors, please do not revert inconsiderately and unreflectedly! Sepahbod and Sepahsalar are the correct phonetic transcription for the Persian words! In Iran you will hear a distinct "e" , pronounced as in the English word "error"! Turkish native speakers may be inclined to pronounce the words typically: "Sipehbod" and "Sipehseler", in adherence to Turkish pronunciation. To Iranians of pre-revolutionary generations, SEPAHBOD is often affiliated with Sepahbod Zahedi (General Fazlollah Zahedi), after whom numerous streets had been named, in commemoration of his coup against Mossadeq's government in 1953. Sepahbod implies "Major General" in modern Persian language usage! One must note in general that a Persian speaker will not pronounce two consonants following each other, in the Arabic script applied, without an applicable vowel in between. Here it is an "e" as described above. Hence, the Article requires renaming!--Pantherarosa 10:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sipahsālār" is not Turkish. It is the correct Dari pronounciation of the word, and is used in the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam. However, your version of the word (with an "e" instead of an "i") is used in the article "Abbas the Great" in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. So, your version is not wrong either. Tājik 11:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense pronouncing it DARI style , while the original and most relevant IRANIAN style is pronunciation with short "e" as in "error". The person who wrote it with "i" in the source you mention is obviously not qualified, with c. 80 Million Iranians pronouncing it "e"! Let's be reasonable here and not allow POV or personal fancy to cloud our judgement. Please do help introducing the native IRANIAN/Persian style, which obviously should be the benchmark for a word ("Sepah") it gave birth to, in the first place.--Pantherarosa 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. Any educated Persian-speaker as well as experts on Persian language know that Dari is the standard written language, and that it is the base of all Persian dialects. "Iranian Persian" (which in fact is "Tehrani dialect" and not "Iranian") is a wrong version, and merly a dialect that - in some cases - extremly differs from standard Persian. The best example is the change of the vowls "a" and "o". While Tehranis write an "ā", they pronounce it like an "o" or a "u": "Irān" --> "Irūn", "Jān" --> "Jūn", "Īshān" --> "Īshūn", etc. Dari, on the other hand, was the language of the kings and poets, the language of scholars and of the educated elite.

Have a nice day. Tājik 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Heydar/Haydar

I presumed that the name cited in the first paragraph, Haydar referred to this person: Qutb ad-Dīn Haydar, so I corrected the wiki link. Could someone please verify? Thanks. Alcarillo 14:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sheikh Heydar Safavi was not the same person as Qutb ud-Din Heydar. Tājik 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I noticed that Haydar (Safavids) hasn't been created yet. Would you be interesting in at least starting a stub page? Or maybe an article on Sheikh Heydar Safavi would be more accurate. Alcarillo 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to Qizilbash

Qizilbash is the most common spelling of this word in English texts. It's also closer to the original pronounciation. Jahangard 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the use of the word extremist?

It has come to my attention that the main editors of this article are purposely using disputed and derogatory terms to define the Kazilbash, primarily using the literal meaning of the Arabic word "ghulat" to describe this group. This is a completley in accurate move and I would dispute this if this practice continues. The article on [Ghulat] is itself tainted for it calls the majority Sunni Muslims as the "mainstream". That term in itself should NOT be referenced to as a descriptor for the Kazilbash tribes, and if it has to be so, it should be carefully noted that this "extremist Shiite militant" reference does not have any historical accuracy, except for the fact that they belonged to the minority side of the Islamic tribal paradigm.

If you feel the "extremist militant" term should be continued, please put your reference forth where they committed "extremist militant" acts.

--H2d2 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of the article is based on the academic and schlarly article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. In that article - written by R.M. Savory and countless references to scholars such as A. Gölpinarli (still the undisputed expert on Turkish Sufi movements) - the Kizilbash are discribed as a "militant movement" (the word "tribe" is certainly wrong, because the Kizilbash were a religious and political movement and not an ethnic group) and as "ghulat". Here is an extract from the EI [8]. Since the Encyclopaedia of Islam is a primary academic source, I suggest you revert your last edit and restore the previous version. Tājik 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The knowledge and level of understanding of the topic from a book written almost 100 years ago comes out right in the title, where it refers to Muslims as "Muhammadan Peoples". I remain on my point that the "militant extremist" is a derogatory and highly incorrect label to describe the Kizilbash people. Even the Encyclopædia Britannica [9] refers to a Kizilbash as "any member of the seven Turkmen tribes who wore red caps to signify their support of the founders of the Safavid dynasty". And I would take EB's word over another book which probably hasn't update it's article on these particular people since the first edition. Yes they revolted at times and toppled empires at others, but that doesn't mean they were "extremist" or "militant", because if that were they case then I would be personally editing the article on Sparta and make them a "extremist and militant city state". The following are some other links that discuss or define 'Kizilbash':

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/kizilbash.htm

http://www.askasia.org/teachers/essays/essay.php?no=135

http://www.religioscope.com/info/notes/2002_023_alevis.htm

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1999/issue4/zeidan.pdf

--H2d2 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)--H2d2 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"100 years ago"?! The Encyclopaedia of Islam is the most important reference work of oriental studies. It is a monumental online publication, and it is written by more than 400 experts from all over the world. The version you call "100 years old" was published in 2005! Britannica is not an academic source, and it does not cite its references. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, however, always cites its authors (all of them being professors in leading universities all over the world) and its references. The article Kizilbash is written by Prof. Roger M. Savory, the undisputed leading expert on Safavid history. Noone has published more works on Safavid history. This discussion is absolutely pointless, because you compare tomatos with cars. The academic quality of the EI is superior to any other source. There are only a very very few other academic sources that may be able to compete with the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Britannica's version is only focused on the Qizilbash military. The Wikipedia article, onm the other hand, gives a detailed insight into the Turkoman-Persian conflicts and the dual character of the movement - Britannica does not mention anything about this. Tājik 00:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

---

203.59.15.253 (talk · contribs) has created a non copyvio virsion of the article. It has been moved to a temporary subpage at Qizilbash/Temp. — Kjammer ⌂ 21:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Temp page has replaced the main article. RedWolf 03:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Thios article already exists under Kizilbash. Therfore, this one is useless and should be deleated.

Tāj-e Heydar?

Dear wiki writers Qizilbash is pure azeri word and means qizil-read (as a color, but also another meaning is gold) and bash- head. There is nothing to do with Tāj-e Heydar, which in persian (also in kurdish) means Heydar's crown. Gulmammad (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have restored the original intro of the article which is based on the scholarly article of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, written by Prof. R.M. Savory. In that article, the Qizilbash are described as a "wide variety of militant Shi'ite groups" and as "extremist" (ghulat). Savory quotes the Turkish scholar A. Gölpinarli, an renowned expert on Alevite and Qizilbash history.

The section about the Turkoman tribes was a double-entry, because they were already mentioned (in detail) in the section "Turk & Tajik".

Tājik (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To Parishan about the spelling in Azeri

Dear Parishan, Qezelbash in Azeri is spelled exactly how it was. I am aware of the modern spelling with hamza, but remember that this is a historic word and this article refers to the Qazelbash as a historic entity. At that time the spelling was without Hamza. hamza was introduced in the 20th century Iran. Before that era it was without hamza. For the same reason I think the Turkishkurdisha alike latin Alphabet that you use in the republic of Azerbaijan is irrelevant. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This debate is misleading and quite unimportant.Ottoman, Persian, and Azeri all used the same alphabet (Persian alphabet) and as such, the spelling of Qizilbash in those languages is/was identical: قزلباش . Among all of these languages, only 2 are important: Ottoman Turkish, the origin of the word, and Persian, the official language of the Safavid kingdom. There is no need to mention the modern Azeri spelling (which is only relevant for the Azeri Wikipedia) or the Kurdish spelling (which is only relevant for the Kurdish Wikipedia). Besides that, Kurds were not considered "Qizilbash". In the early years, "Qizilbash" was almost exclusively used for Turcoman nomads, in contrast to the "Tajik", the Persians. In the Ottoman Empire, "Qizilbash" became a pejorative name for all Shias, regardless of their ethnic origins (many were in fact Kurds).

I suggest to remove the Kurdish and Azeri spellings and only keep the Ottoman/Persian spelling, because there are plenty of Persian and Ottoman historical sources that mention that word. Tājik (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And by the same reasoning, shouldn't the article should be renamed "Kizilbash" because this is the English-language Wikipedia and Kizilbash is the spelling used in most English-language sources. Meowy 15:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Encyclopaedia Iranica use the spelling "Qizilbash". In case of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the "Q" is replaced by a "K" with a dot benith (like this one --> Ḍ), and thus becomes identical to a "Q". Tājik (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I say the same thing actually. The word is has a historic usage in Ottoman Turkish and Persian so the original spellings in these languages should be used. The modern spellings are irrelevant. A minor thing is that I do not agree with Tajik that all Qizilbash were Turcomans, but agree that all were Shias. Indeed most of them were Turkic-speaking but there were also talysh among them. Some claim that there were also other tribes among them, but there is more research needed for that.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know. But the Turkic Qizilbash were by far the most important. As R. Savory and V. Minorsky say: in number and influence. They were not merely "Azeris" in the modern sense, but members of the original Turkic tribes of the Caucasus and Anatolia. Their names bear witness to this. The most powerful Qizilbash were members of these Turcoman tribes. Of course, in later times, the word "Qizilbash" became a general name for all Shias, that's why Shias in Turkey are either known as Alevis or as Baktashi-Qizilbash. In Afghanistan, every Shia who is not a Hazara (i.e. who does not have Mongoloid features), is categorized as "Qizilbash". And in India and Pakistan, every Shia who can trace his origin to Afghanistan or Iran is generally known as "Qizilbash". Only very few of the "Qizilbash" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or India are actually Turcoman Qizilbash. Most of them are descendants of Persian-speaking merchants, bureaucrats, or artists. This article needs to clarify this clutter. Tājik (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW: I have also replaced the "Alevi" template with the "Shia Islam" template which is more general and also includes the Alevis. Tājik (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

yes but not only Persian merchants--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Azeri spelling less important than Persian and Ottoman Turkish, if the word Qizilbash was mainly associated with Turkic-speaking Shias — a characteristic possessed by Azeris more so than by Turks or Persians? Parishan (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that Azeri is less relevant. It was Tajik's statement. What I said was that the Latin and any other versions of modern spelling/ alphabet of Azeri was irrelevant.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the current version is the most neutral one. It simply explains the Nastaliq spelling of the word and the fact, that it was a pejorative Ottoman expression for pro-Safavid Shias. Tājik (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree somehow. Nastaliq is not an alphabet. It is only a calligraphic style of Perso-Arabic alphabet. We can put Perso-Arabic orthography instead. Moreover Qilizbash is not only an Ottoman word but it is also an Azerbaijani and Turkmen word. I propose therefore to write Qezelbash in Perso-Arabic alphabet and just mention that this word was in use in different languages in iran and Anatolia, such as Persian, Azerbaijani, and Ottoman Turkish. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nastaliq was the standard writing system of the Safavid and Ottoman empires. There is really no need to mention each ethnic or linguistic group. That is totally irrelevant for the article. What matters is the spelling of the word in historical sources (which is explained by "nastaliq") and the meaning of it (which is explained by the reference to Ottoman Turkish). All the rest is being explained in the article. I do not think that it is necessairy to mention the Persian, Azeri, Turkmen, Pashto, Hindustani, and other languages that had - in varying degrees - something to do with the Qizilbash. Tājik (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hindustani, Other Indic languages, Arabic and Pashto are irrelevant. What I meant was that nastaliq is not a writing system but a style of calligraphy. Or may be I do not know. Was nastaliq used as aname officially by Iranians and Ottoman Turks as the official name of perso-Arabic Alphabet.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no such thing as "official alphabet". Nastaliq was at that time simply the most widely used script. It was the "standard writing script" of the Persianate world. Tājik (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sahkulu Uprising or Shahkulu Uprising

On 1 December 2008, editor Cplakidas changed "Sahkulu Uprising" to "Shahkulu Uprising" indicating a spelling error. Google books provides a source for each usage: Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923 at page 101 for "Sahkulu Uprising"; and Contrasts and Solutions in the Middle East at page 441 for "Shahkulu Uprising". As is common in names from the Middle East and South Asia, whether a particular "s" should be an "sh" is a common question, usually answered both ways. Which of these two, verified in English language formal publication, is more likely to reflect the general English usage? I note that in the Turkish Wikipedia there are three related articles Şah Kulu, Şahkulu and Şahkulu İsyanı that all use the "Ş" with the cedilla indicating that at least in transliterating from Turkish the "sh" variety should be used. --Bejnar (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually have Finkel's Osman's Dream, and it is written Şahkulu, not Sahkulu, following the modern Turkish spelling (Google Books does have a tendency to simplify exotic spellings). Since "Ş" represents "Sh", and since the meaning of the term is "slave of the Shah", "Shahkulu" is doubtless the correct transliteration. Regards, Constantine ✍ 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted misleading edits by an IP. Tājik (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RV

I have reverted the edit by an IP. Although it was not factually wrong (partially), the modern Alevi community developed out of the early Shia movement of Iran, but it is not identical with it. Tajik (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and since Alevi are generally considered Shi'a by the ulema and Western scholars, it is redundant to state. --Afghana ^[talk] 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)