A Brief view on Iraqi Turkmans

A great sample of using History for political propaganda.

This article also shows a new emerging sense of nationalism between Iraqi Turkmens, after failing Turkmen front in recent political situation in Iraq , a new sense of nationalism emergs between Iraqi Turkmens that no we are not Anatolian Turks, we are Azeries.....(turkmen front insisted that Anatolian Turkish should replace the current dialect of Turkmens in Iraq), this new feeling is suppported culturally by shiis of Iraq and Republic of Azerbaijan.

I am trying to show that this so called scientific article actually is just a propaganda political pamphlet that tries to present a twisted picture of the history.

1)giving wrong statistical and geographical datas.

2)Try to portray a new image of Azarbaijan as an ethnological entity.

3)trying to show that this new defined Azarbijan was independent country through the ages, and for this make Qaraqutynlu and Aqquynlu and Ilkhanid and specially Safavid as an Azarbaijani state, which was independent land from iran and somehow ruled on some part of Iran.

4)Historical inaccuracies.

5)Tooking any opportunity to advocate the before said doctorine.

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

1)giving wrong statistical and geographical datas.

If this article is a sceintific article and devotes a great part of its article to finding the etymology of the word" Turkmen" I hope it could referred to much more reliable sources about population of Turkmens in Iraq and their distribution.

first of all the link that respected forumer added in last paragraph of its article( which I am very gratefull and I hope it became a habit between other forumers) didn't provide any sources of the main article(which is the only source to give a credit to an article) so I don't know how writer could find these statistical datas.

I belive that both these numbers are wrong,at least there is no proof for each of them.600 thousands in 60s means approximately 10% of population of Iraq same as the number of 2.5 millions at the moment.This is a huge exaggeration.Every neutral sources or estimation (refer to ethnolouge.com, CIA factbook or even recent elections , it gives that maximum 4%-5% of population of Iraq are Turkmens this means it is approximately 1 million Turkemens in Iraq.

I think If this respected professor which I know its only way of research was a map of Iraq, looked at the population density of these regions would correct its claim.population Of Tamim province(kirkuk) is around 1 million persons.I think this shows validity of these claims.Actually It seems that Population of Turkmens in Baghdad and Mosul be even more than Turkmens in Kirkuk.(at least no so much litle)

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

2)Try to portray a new image of Azarbaijan as an ethnological entity.

and....

.................................................

..................

I just want to show that the writer every time wanted to use the word "Azeri", It replaced it with the word " Azerbaijani".

Azarbaijan is a geographical region with defined borders,(look at every geographical sources in the middle ages, Ibn Hoqal, ya'qubi, Moqaddasi,....)its north border was Aras river and western border was Armenia(old Armenia) and southern border was Iraq-e-Ajam and kurdistan...This name has a long history and it dates back to 2000 years ago.This region was always was a part of a land that we call it Iran,

At the moment this region completely locates in Iran and is divided between three province Ardabil , Eastern Azarbaijan and western Azarbaijan.

main language of this region is a dialect of Oghuz Turkish that is called Azeri,(or Azari)but it must be noted that a)not all people of Azarbaijan spoke this language,(in western Azrbaijan kurds are majority), and Talish in Ardabil province are a very significant minority, there are also other islands of Iranic speaking languages that Azeries call them Tats.

Another point is that not all Azeries are living in Azarbaijan , actually Zanjan province is also completely azeri, also they constitute half or more than half of the population of Hamedan province and have a strong presence in Gilan and Qazvin and Tehran and Qom and Markazi provinces and actually they are distributed around all of Iran, Some linguistists even categorize Qashqayies in the Fars province as a branch of Azeries , some not.Actually it is estimated that less than one third of Azeri population in Iran live in Azarbaijan .Not all Azeries are living in Iran too , absolute majarity of Azerbaijan republic(oldern Aran) is Azeri, As the article points out around 1 million Turkmens who are living in Iraq are linguistically Azeri, and In Turkey until the Sivas province (and some claim until Malatye) Azeri is the main Turkish dialect. So These Azeries have been distributed over a wide geographical range, (even much more than Anatolian turkish and any other oghuz dialect), Why they insist that they being called Azarbaijani...

first of all it is important to know that from where the word Azeri came?I think it is invention of soviets that tried to stop the panturkism that prevailed between turkic people in the soviet union and replaced it with a pan Azerism so they could support their old claim over Azarbaijan and grab it from Iran.(which they tried in 1944-1947)

Any way this term is internationally is accepted, and if we look it neutrally Azeries have a distinct language and culture that distinguish them from other Turkic people and there is no reason to be shadowed by its western brother.

What is not acceptable is that azeri nationalist and seperatist try to misuse a geographical name and redefine it as an ethnological name and then say that everywhere Azeri people are living it is Azerbaijan , That was becasue of this theory that Aran was renamed Azerbaijan.

Musavatchies in 1918 wanted to unite Aran with Real Azarbaijan and then unite it with Turkey to form their Dream land Turan,so they named their land as Azarbaijan. This naming create many protests from Azarbaijanies like Sheikh mohammad khiyabani and others and created a penal debate in both side of Aras river and in the last Khiabani renamed Azarbaijan As Azadistan.

After collapse of Musavat goverment, Soviet keep the new name simply because she could use it as a tool for having territorial claim in Iran.

After collapse of Soviet, Azeri nationalist in both side of Aras, defined a new concept of Azarbaijan,(which they write Azerbaijan) as if it is a land that has been divided between two countries and its northern part is independent and its southern part is "occupied" by persian "chuvenists" and it must be freed, and most important is that its real border is much larger than chuvenists claim that but also it even reach around Tehran.This Azerbaijan also extends until middle of Anatolia in Turkey and also inclued northern Iraq.

They claimed that Azeri was the origianl language of this land and is brother of Sumerian and Elamite languages. Kurds , persians and Armenians, Talishes , Lurs, are all new commers and occupied Azerbaijan land. They also claim that people of central Asia are actually migrated from Azarbaijan.They belived that Kurds and Armenians are located by Imperialists to divide the Turkic people and must accept the rule of Turks or simply leave these regions and returning back to their own homeland.(they still do not specify the original home lands of Armenians and Kurds, Although in my guess they think kurds belong to Syria or western iran but certainly not to West Azerbaijan not eastern turkey and not to northern Iraq , about Armenians their fate is still not specified, I think they can extinguish themselves,....)

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

3)trying to show that this new defined Azarbijan was independent, and for this make Qaraqutynlu and Aqquynlu and Ilkhanid and specially Safavid as an Azarbaijani state, which was independent land from iran and somehow ruled on some part of Iran.

That means that Ilkhanid mongols were an Azerbaijani state, while their rulers were mongols, their army were Qipchaq, Their ministers were Iranians, and ruled all over Iran and Iraq and Armenia, and Kilikia and Saljuq of Rum were their vassals.

As it can be seen the writer names the cities that aligns with his theory, actually jahanshah Qaraquyunlu ruled all over Iran, except khorasan, Khuzestan, and Mazandaran and gilan.

And this is masterpiece of writer that try to portray a new image of Safavid Empire. look how he try to A)show that safavid empire is just azerbaijan goverment. b) and northern Iraq (actually baghdad) was historically part of Azerbaijan.

from now on the writer every time encounters with the name of Iran or safavid empire replace it with azerbaijan.

So the othmans are Turkey but Iran is Azerbaijan.

now the afsharids also became Azerbaijanies.by this defenition Iran from the time of saljuqs , Iran wwas called Azerbaijan and just in 20th century it changed.

Never ever any body in Iran dared to name a King as Khan except for insulting. (like Aga mommad khan e Qajar).Title of Safavid and Afsharid and Qajar kings were always Shahanshah.

I just want to point to one thing, looking at every original history of safavid kings wether Shah Ismael or Shah Tahmasp or Shah Abbas or later kings,....They were named as Morshed e Kamil ( a sufistic rank) they had also another titile " Shahan shah e Iran" not Azerbaijan.

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

4)Historical inaccuracies.

or better say that saying some things and not saying some things that are not appropriate.

one of the main objective in this article is that to show that the independent turkish goverment of Azerbaijan existed before that of 1991.

its first candidate is Atabakan Ildagez which are also known as Atabakan e Azarbaijan.

Qizil Arsalan was not the uncle of Tughrol III Sultan of Saljuqs.He was head of his army and leading man of his court.In the next quote it became clarified.

1)first of all the real name is shamsaddin Ildagez.

2)Ildagz was a Qipchaq slave (gholam ) of Mas'ud king of Hamedan Saljuq(western Iran Saljuqs) that showed himself and improved his position until became ruler of Azarbaijan (and maybe Aran).

he had two sons, Muhammad Jahan pahlevan and Qizil Arsalan.

Muhammad became the key person in the western Saljuq dynasty and together with his brother were the most powerful persons in the court of Saljuqs.Qizil Arsalan instead of his brother ruled Azarbaijan and Aran.

3) After death of Muhammad , Qizil Arsalan took his brother place, and then tried to overthrow Western Saljuq Kingdom, But Tughrol III king of Saljuqs found the conspiracy and launched an army against Qizil Arsalan, Abbasid Khaliphate support Qizil Arsalan and he defeated Tughrol III and prisoned him, then started to proclaim himself as the king and overthrow saljuq kingdom, but Ismaelies (assassins killed him). After his death Toghrol escaped the prison but a year later the khwarazmshahids defeated him and ended Hamedan and iraq Saljuqs.(they were also called Iraq and Kurdistan Saljuqs)

Later Atabakan Ildagez ruled as vassals of Khwarazmshahids in areas arounf Maragheh but they soon died out.

The second candidate Ilkhandi mongols

it needs no Comment.

but the most important candidate were qaraquyunlus, Aqquynlus, safavidsand afsharids that I discussed it before.

one the important thing that writer forgot to mention is Qajars, BTW If Afsharids were Azarbaijan, so Qajars must be , and also Qajars fought with othman in 1823. So why he forgot them.There is a vey delicate point here:

In Republic of Azerbaijan it is said that Azerbaijan was composed of some independent Khanate in the start of 19th century and then Qajars rulers of Iran and Russia fought with eachother and then Iran took the southern and russian took the northern.

In the reality Iran possessed both Azarbaijan and Aran, but in war against russian, they lost the Aran.Azeries don't want to accept that their land once upon a time ruled from Tehran.

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

And now the final quote and please look at this sensual passage:

I will be glad if anybody tell me which part of this long article deals with Folklora.

Yes

I have read it, the problem was with turkishweekly.net which omitted the sources,not you as I said that you copied it completely.

read another time my response, be sure I have no problem with you, you just provide a source, but the writer has many tiny problems and about the Turkishweekly.net it is not the first time that this site just dispaly an Article without attaching its charts, sources, links , or graphs.I believe that you have no zeliousness over them.

What about elections, what about number of Turkmen representatives in other parties and if they are wrong, so what sources provide this data?

remember please if all of tamim province was Turkmen their population became around 1 million, still one and half million turkmen remains, where are they? majority of those names are in Tamim province. Check an Iraq map please.

This number is artificial , If you don't trust any source, please find the Iraq statistics of 1957 , the last year that an election which was based by ethnicity in Iraq took Placed.

A very common epidemy in this region.

I told land not country.and Iran is an old name as like Kerman, Anatolia and Azarbaijan.Do you know what is written on Ardeshir Papakan coins ?(founder of sassanaid dynasty)

Khazars ruled in Aran not Azarbaijan, and In Aran they ruled only for 20 years. and khazars took Aran from Omayyids when they were in civil war.

And after that they lost it.

Azarbaijan was and is part of Iran , wether their rulers were Iranic or not , were humans or orcs or elfs, Azarbaijan was and Is a part of Iran and Iran is geographical name no matter who ruled it or who live in it.

Iranian identity has nothing to do with the new liguistic term IRANIC. Shahnameh has been written in the times of Ghaznavids when Iran was ruled by many different rulers.

Iranian culture and identity is not a thing that be invented in the late 19th century. It has nothing to do with linguistics. It deals with a people who had common culture and lived in this land for thousands years .I don't blame you, because you can not undrestand it. Actually your concept of Turkic identity is so strange that you can not undrestand Iranian identity, (or indian identity or anatolian identity,...........), by your standards persians are more near to British than Azeries, we in Iran don't accept that, but I think this kind of thinking has many advocators in other countries.

And Afshar and safavid kings were called Shahanshah of Iran.letters of Safavid kings to othman kings are preserved in Istanbul, you can go and check it, in the end of letter usually is place of signature and learning Arabic script is not so hard.

no objection , I have just heard it from some Azeries who traveled in Turkey and also an article by Kurtolush Oztopchu which was written in Azerbaijan international journal ( year first number 3) , I have no idea about turkey , if you say so , let it be.

Azeries are not living only in Azarbaijan.

there is no Saljuq of mosul.If you mean Atabaks of Mosul (zangi and his son Nureddin) they were not saljuqs. Saljuqs belonged to royal Saljuq blood family. there was only five Saljuq state. 1)Great Saljuq 2) Saljuq of Rum 3) Saljuq of kerman 4) Saljuq of Sham 5)Saljuq of Iraq, (Hamedan) or (Iraq and Kurdistan)

About Saljuqs of Iraq (the more common name), After death of Sultan Mohammad king of Great Saljuq in 1118, Empire of Saljuq was divided in two part

1) khorasan Saljuqs or great Saljuqs which was ruled by Senjer brother of Sultan Mohammad.

2) Iraq Saljuq which included Iraq-e-Ajam and Iraq-e-Arab and Kurdistan and Aran and Azarbaijan and Isfahan and Fars which was ruled by Sultan Mahmud son of Sultan Mohammad. The last king of this dynasty was Sultan Toghrol III who has been defeated by Alaeddin Takesh king of Khwarazmshahid in 1194 and this dynasty ended.

Saljuq of Kurdistan and Iraq , This name at the moment is very common, In old books this kingdom is not named by this name. (it was named Hamdan or Iraq Saljuqs or simply Saljuqs).If you have problem with the name of Kurdistan , I must say that this has been discussed in this forum elaborately before and it was shown that from Sultan Senjer time this name was used to a part of Jabal province.(I don't want to enter to this discussion here , if you like it to continue , I can find that old discussion or simply you can open a new discussion for it).

What does it change if they called themselves shahenshahs? Shah Ismail wrote his letters in simple Turkish which I can understand today, better than most of the Ottoman diplomatic language. His poems as he wrote with the name Khatai are totally similar with Anatolian poems, more similar with Karacaoglan or Dede Korkut than Shahname.

As I said, that is one of their names. The most common is Atabeghlik of Mosul or as you say Atabek of Mosul. These are the common, original names not the others.

I know. 

Fuzuli had a divan in Turkish, he also had a Persian divan. But his language was so heavy, like other Ottoman classical Divan poets. Turkish literature may be seperated into two categories, Divan poetry and Folk Literature. Altough Divan poetry was always closer to the palace, naturally to Istanbul, to the elites, people educated in medreses, people who were fluent in Turkish, Arabic and Persian. That's why Divan poetry shouldn't be described as that age's Anatolian Turkish, but a seperate category. Folk literature was always pure and the traditional way of literature for mainly Anatolian, even Rumelian or Iraqi Turks. So that's why I compared Shah Ismael's poems with Anatolian poems, not with Divan poets like Fuzuli, N�bi or Nef�.

Yes, and that's the point I'm trying to show. Shah Ismael's Turkish poems weren't like Sultan I. Selim's Persian poems. They are like folk poems.

Yes. That's why rebellions like Shahkulu of Antalya which had religious concerns were hardly handled by Sultan Selim. Actually before those dates when Shayh Haydar in Ardebil rised to power in Azerbaijan, and Bektashis were still an effective and ruling community within Ottoman society, Iranian population was mainly Sunnite, unlike Anatolian Turks who had both Sunnites and Alevis.

I don't identify all Iranian people as a single nation. The point of the society's unity and common value is religion in Iran as you know, unlike nation based states like Turkey. So Shia'tul Ali, the Shia Islam is the nation of Iran.

my family is not religious at all, and half of my family are azari or half azari, and they always talk about iran, how they are iranian, the great persian empire, etc. et....

you pan turks can believe whatever you want, but when the day comes, when iranian azari's have to choose between turkey and iran, they will choose iran.

iranian azari's are all over the place both in iran and out side of iran. WE HAVE IRANIAN AZARI FRIENDS HERE, AND WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS?

so what if these people were turkified, they are still iranian.

and for your information, it was iranic languages and iranian culture that dominated central asia, the caucasus, and the ottoman empire.

central asia and the cacasus were russified in a way, and were made divided from iran by imperialist ambitions (of european countries).

and the ottoman empires culture language was persian all the way up to WWI!

even today, uzbekistan, kazakstan, etc..etc... still have their traces of iranian culture, like the names of the countries, which have the iranic word stan.

and azerbaijan, guess what, its an iranic name meaning land of fire!

history is on our side man, calm down, stop reading all of this pan turk crap, and come back down to earth. reading pan turk articles and stuff is not a way to get a good education.

and guess what else pan turks claim:

sumerians, etruscans, the origional anatolians, the elamites, etc.... WHAT MORONS! and these pan turks that write this stuff call themselves historians. they are shaming the name historian!

we can discuss this as much as you want to, infact, i havent had much fun on this forum since the last debate, and I'm ready to go.

A very beautiful poem indeed Land of Aryan.Would you mind translating it for those of us who can't understand the language it has been composed in.

I must confess my knowledge of Iranian history is very limited.This statement sounds true if we consider Iranian history of past few decades.Iran under King and Iran under Clergymen [right now].

I'm sorry if I interrupted the discussion.Please carry on.