Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

A Brief view on Iraqi Turkmans

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: A Brief view on Iraqi Turkmans
    Posted: 13-Apr-2006 at 06:32

Another point -

If Shiism was the only thing binding Iran, then why in the early 20th century, when the state was at its weakest and religion was pretty much marginilised, didn't Iran break up along an ethnic divide like the Sunni Ottoman empire? The fact of the matter is, that in the nationalist constitutional revolution of that period, you had men from all ethnic groups fighting for one cause, and that was for a democratic constitutional monarchy.  Sattar Khan, whose name has been used in the most disgusting and fallacious way by some, was the best example of such men.

Even when the Ottomans occupied NW Iran, the people (mostly Azari Turks) wanted nothing to do with them and it had nothing to do with Shiism, it had to do with history and the feeling of being a part of Iran that the poeple there have. 

You can see in Rep of Azer. where people have been conditioned to think a certain way, first by the soviets, then by ultra-nationalists, they are mostly against Iran, even though they are shia.

Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Apr-2006 at 19:30

zagros, people like him dont want to understand.

i will add on to your post anyway.

after the revolution, the mullahs started executing a large number of the airforce service men, who were still loyal to the shah.

when iraq invaded, these prisoners yelled and shouted from their sells for the mullahs to let them go and fight for their country. eventually, the mullahs let the go and fight, and the ones that survived the war, were executed anyway.

now did the shah supporters defend iran because they were shia, or because they loved their country?

i think you can answer that one for yourself.

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Bashibozuk View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Bashibozuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 13:30

Haji Bektash Veli moved to Goreme (which is in Cappadocia) from Nishabur. He was a Muslim, whose teachings formed a seperate sect (Alevi-Bektashism). Even though his teachings have many Turkic and early Anatolian elements in them, many people from other ethnicities have also believed in his sect. And all these Tukish people from different ethnic backgounds used to celebrate the special dates such as Nevruz, together.

Even when the Ottomans occupied NW Iran, the people (mostly Azari Turks) wanted nothing to do with them

Actually they celebrated Sultan Suleyman Khan's conquest of Tabriz, and that's why the Safavids punished them after they recaptured the city.

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.

1. I am not Pan-Turk.

2. I wonder which day you are talking about but I know that I have never mentioned, or stated any point about Iranian Azeris to choose a side. Don't try to respond my replies before reading them, and quote me if I ever had such a statement. If you can't, just keep in your mind that I don't take you seriously and don't waste your time by responding my replies.

the same picture that you to portray from safavid dynasty or not and if it is not what part of it is not your view?

I don't agree on Anatolian Turks (Kizilbash) themselves alone creating a Safavid state. Safavid state was found by Safaviyah of Ardebil, by the help of Kizilbash (which is a wrong term in fact) of Anatolia. And of course all population couldn't be forced to accept Shia sect when they were mainly Sunnites, it has to have some socio-economical reasons and happen in a long time period just like the Islamicizing procedure of Anatolia. Yes, after Shah Tahmasb, they were mainly assimilated into Persian culture.

Becasue Othman sultans consider themselves as Khalifate of muslims and Iran was the main obstacle that prevent them to have complete rule over all muslim people of World, and becasue official religion of Iran was Shii and they don't accepted religous authority of Othman Sultans, That is why they called Iranian kings as Shah e Rafezi (infidel king)

I don't, actually Anatolian Alevis have a great respect for Shah Ismael and Sheikh Haydar. They were never close to the caliphate either.



Edited by Bashibozuk - 07-Jul-2006 at 04:43
Garibim, namima Kerem diyorlar,
Asli'mi el almis, harem diyorlar.
Hastayim, derdime verem diyorlar,
Marasli Seyhoglu Satilmis'im ben.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 14:28

I am not here to diverge from the topic, but one of you asked whether the Shah's supporters defended Iran due to religion (Shia) or love for country. I do not know the answer. I think love of country is one of the reasons. The question I have is: How much of a forceful influence were the Shah's secret services towards Iranian dissenters?

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 14:38

good question... dissenters in those days primarily comprised of left wingers and also islamists - the leftists were much more brutally suppressed. 

My dad was a member of Fedayeen e Khalq for a time after he was ejected from the army, it was a socialist organisation with members from all elements of Iranian society.  I do not know of any ethnic dissent other than one among kurds which was alleviated when the regime got their support with promises of a degree of autonomy.



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 14:43
Thanks for the info Zagros. One of my Iranian friends told me about difficulty he felt leaving the country. He did so to evade any penalties from the Shah's regime. After years of then fearing the mullahs, he went back last year. Quite an emotional experience for him.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 14:57

Yes Seko, I know the feeling, i went back for the first time in 18 years in 2003. it is overwhelming. My dad now has parkinson's and is stil to scared to go back after what happened to one of his old comrades a few years ago...  He received a business invitation to rep of Azarbaijan (he was in IT, this was about 12 years ago) - it was an IRI sting, they kidnapped him took him to Evin, tortured and jailed him, he was freeed a couple of years ago, a broken man, physically and mentally - he is not allowed to leave the country.

Actually they celebrated Sultan Suleyman Khan's conquest of Tabriz, and that's why the Safavids punished them after they recaptured the city.

I am referring to the occupation in the final years of the Ottomans, during WW1.

Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 15:00

The same for my father. He hasn't been in Iran for more than 25 years now. After spending 2 years in prison there, he hasn't deared to return. I hope I can go in like 2 years or so.

They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2006 at 15:30

if religion is what is keeping together, then why did the ottoman empire fall? they were all sunni muslims, why didnt their religion keep them together?

and what about the iran iraq war, when the war was pushed into iraq. why didnt the shia iraqi's join irans army and free themselves from iraq?

was it because of islam that they stood by iraq and defended their land or because they loved their country?

you guys are right, its all because of islam.

anyway, we just got a new iranian forumer here who has azari blood in him. he will answer all of your questions.

@ cent and zagros: i feel for you guys, my family has also had those experiences, its really sad! damn the fu**ing mullahs.



Edited by Iranian41ife
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Hushyar View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
  Quote Hushyar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2006 at 02:11

Originally posted by Bashibozuk

I don't, actually Anatolian Alevis have a great respect for Shah Ismael and Sheikh Haydar. They were never close to the caliphate either.

I said the origin of this thought.But you still believed that Iran is just a shii country, didn't you?and that mean that you are living in a region that influenced by this thought.(and this is very prevelant, not specific to you, and the reason was that in Turkey and Arabic countries Iran was never a very important issue to think or study about it , except becasue of political issues)

 

I am not a Pan-Turkist

I didn't say that and not every body that has that belief is a panturk.

I don't agree on Anatolian Turks (Kizilbash) themselves alone creating a Safavid state. Safavid state was found by Safaviyah of Ardebil, by the help of Kizilbash (which is a wrong term in fact) of Anatolia. And of course all population couldn't be forced to accept Shia sect when they were mainly Sunnites, it has to have some socio-economical reasons and happen in a long time period just like the Islamicizing procedure of Anatolia.

well lets now elaborte this picture and describing the mythes:

1)Iranian people were manily sunni until emergence of safavids.

Thats wrong, shiism has a long history in Iran,and actually It dates back to early days of Islam, literally shiism derived from Alaviun that believed khalifate belongs to Ali and his sons not ummayids and Abbasides .There have been many many sects of Shiis that were active in Iran, Zeydieh, Ismaeliyeh and Imamieh(twelver shii) were the most famous of these sects, Shiism was always was an under ground religion and was very popular between lower classes, and sometimes higher classes, for example Ibn Sina probabaly was an Ismaeli.

Shiies in ghaznavid and Saljuqid times were persecuted, but after Mongol invasion , Shiism became so widespread that actually majority of uprsings of Iranian people agaisnt rulers were performed under doctorine of one of the shii sects.

Horufiun against Teymurids, mosha'sha'ian in Khuzestan, Sadat Kia in Mazandaran,.....and most notably sarbedaran of Khorasan and Kerman.

What Safavid did actually was that they for the first time officialized Shiism in all of Iran and introduced an official version from it for the first time in Iran.

2)Safavieh was at first an Alavi sect.

Safavieh origianally were not alavi, they were not Shii too, Actually founders of this order Sheykh Zahed Gilani and Sheykh Saffieddin Ardabili in 1300 were Shafe'i Sunni.Sheykh Zahed was from Gilan and Sheykh Safieddin was maybe a Talish or Tat.Safavieh order was a peaceful order and avoid entering the politic games of that time. So What happened to this peaceful sufistic suni order that 150 years later in time of Sheykh Jonaid it became Shiized, militarized and Turkicized? I couldn't find any convincing source which clearly describe this process, the reason is that after Sheykh Sadreddin (son of Sheykh Safieddin ) There is little knowledge about internal structure of Safavieh order(except their political and religous influence) until the time of Sheykh Jonaid.

The most probable Scenario was that They were first became Shii, and then because of threat of Sunni rulers became militrized and then by growing the power of Turkic Elements in this order (who were the main military defenders of this order) They became Turkified.

Sheykh jonaid was a Twelver Shii, (according to Fazlollah Ruzbahan) but again Ruzbahan clearly pointed that Those followers of this Sheykh jonaid that came from Rum(anatolia) were heretics and not Muslim. " The Rum stupids by imitating the christians founded a Trinity and made Jonaid the God and his son Heydar as son of God".Ofcourse there is exaggeration in this quote, And Ruzbahan was a zelious sunni,but it clearly shows that Anatolian followers of Jonaid were not orthodox Shiis unlike Azarbaijani followers of Safavieh order.

At first Safavi leaders supported them, for many reasons first becasue at that time any shii movement attracted every shii with any belief systam, second because that they were one of their best branch of Army and third because they were very powerfull in Anatolia and had great influence in Aqquynlu state and then in othman state.

But when Shah Ismael officialized Twelver shii in Iran , and after that it became clear that Othmans were winner of Anatolia, Safavid kings from Shah Ismael to later kings greatly persecuted them.

 

3)Qizilbashes were Anatolian people.

As you pointed out the center of Safavieh was basically Azarbaijan and southern part of Aran, but later they gained a huge influence specially in Anatolia,Marino Sanuto Venitian ambassador (1514) stated that from every five person in Anatolia , four was shii.

In 1447 after death of Shah Ibrahim , The rivalary between Jonaid son of Shah Ibrahim and Ja'far his uncle grows.JahahnShah of Qaraquyunlu supported Sheykh J'afar and so Jonaid fleed from Ardabil and went to Anatolia and Near Uzun Hasan Enemy of JahanShah.

Jonaid In Anatolia gained military support of many Turkmen tribes and with the help of Them attacked Tabozan empire. When with the help of Uzun Hasan Jonaid came back to Ardabil and Took place of Sheykh Ja'far, many of these Anatolian nomads followed him and came to Iran.

They were one of the main supporters of Safavids, After Jonaid in times of his son Sheykh Heydar and also Shah Ismael these migrations continued (specially when Othmans defeated the Qizilbashes in Anatolia and started a great massacare of them in time of Salim).

The role of these Anatolian immigrants were very important and many of them later played a leading role in Safavid State .Names like Istajlu, Shamlu, Rumlu ,....Are very well known names in Iranian history.

But....

Again this is exaggeration to take just a pieace of a painting and try to judge of the painting just by looking at that piece.

Even when jonaid came back to Ardabil, still majority of his supporters were local people.Iranian Turkic tribes like Qajars, Zolqadrs, Bayats, Kermanlu, Takehlu,....and specially local Trurkic tribes of Qara Dagh who were the oldest and most zelious supporters of Safavi orders, and also Talish people (an Iranic people) had very important roles in early days of Safivieh.

When sheykh Heydar ordered his followers to wear famous red Hats instead of traditional skin Turkman Hat to distinguish its followers from others , they were called Qizilbashes, and later this name was applied to all of the Safavi supporters, and specilly in Anatolia , Alavies (I think even up to 50 years ago) were called Qizilbashes.That is why it created this dillusion that Qizilbashes were Anatolian people.

 

Actually they celebrated Sultan Suleyman Khan's conquest of Tabriz, and that's why the Safavids punished them after they recaptured the city.

What Zagros referred to was in early of 20th century when Othmans occupied northwestern Iran, and drove away russians from Tabriz, At first there was a great joy that at last russian authority which was very brutal was ended, and othmans were looked as savours but when othmans pulished newspapares or articles that preached about union of Islamic people or Turkic people, this greatly annoyed local people, there were many protests and some of its leaders becamed prisoned,(better than russian methods that preferred hanging poles).When Othmans again were defeated by russians and lost Tabriz this story ended.

 

About celebration of Tabriz people I think you are referring to Sultan Salim time.Tabriz in 500 years ago was not an Azeri speaking city, religion of its people was mainly sunni and Shah Ismael after taking that city greatly persecuted sunni people,(he killed his mother because she ramarried with a sunni person).When Shah Ismael has been defeated in chaldran and Othmans entered the city sunni peoples welcomed him, and when Sultan Salim returned, and Shah Ismael came back this time Shiis punished Sunnies and from that time Tabriz became of the centers of Shiism in Iran.

There was another uprising in Tabriz in 1571-1573 in the time of Sultan Salim II son of Soleyman, and it has nothing to do with othmans,It was just a local uprising.

If there is another incident may you show source and time of this incident.?

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.059 seconds.