Talk:Nizami Ganjavi/Archive 3

message: Mr. Baguirov in his homepage (which shows that he is very nationalist and can not claim to be unbiased specially about Shirin the Armenian) writes:Thus, his Treasure-house of Mysteries was dedicated to Shah Bahram who liked it so much that decided to award Nizami a gift in person of a young slave girl, whose name was Appaq (Afaq). She became Nizami's first and only wife, and the mother of his son Muhammad..  
Again we know at least Nizami had three wives during his life time.  I have saved the above page in both picture and .html, just in case Mr. Baguirov changes it.  Of course these are small mistakes and I am not going to makes insults of Mr. Baguirov's character.  Also see the previous page about a quote from the historian Ravandi which was partly misquoted and I brought the full quote.
Also the M. Shaginyan that Mr. Baguirov quotes about Shireen (and opposing all ancient biographers about Shirin from ancient Christian sources(see above) to modern scholars, if she is the same as the following link http://mia.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/shaginyan/index.html] then one has to really consider the ideological background of her.    Furthermore I have not seen any evidence she knew Persian academically.  Indeed the following biography:  shows that she did  not major in Persian literature or Iranian studies.  Indeed to master Persian literature it takes a life-time at least and to understand Nizami, one must be familiar with other poets specially Sanaii and Ferdowsi very thoroughly.  Persian poetry and poets are very related and they help eludicate each others ideas to a large extent.  Specially when it comes to poetic symbolism.  Also there is much more to write about Nizami's Iranian cultural heritage, for example the article about music and barbad(the Iranian Sassanid court musician) in the book edited by Dr. Talattof and Dr. Clinton.  The details Nizami gives about Iranian music has been extremly useful to scholars, but he doesn't write anything about Turkic music.   
Also the Encyclopedia Britannica is quoted from the above web-site:
-
NIZAMI GANJAVI, NIzAMI also spelled NEZAMI (b. c. 1141, Ganja, Seljuq empire [now Gyandzha, Azerbaijan]--d. 1209, Ganja), greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, who brought a colloquial and realistic style to the Persian epic.
Little is known of Nezami's life. Orphaned at a young age, he spent his entire life in Ganja, leaving only once to meet the ruling prince. Although he enjoyed the patronage of a number of rulers and princes, he was distinguished by his simple life and straightforward character.
Only a handful of his qasidahs ("odes") and ghazals ("lyrics") have survived; his reputation rests on his great Khamseh ("The Quintuplet"), a pentalogy of poems written in masnavi verse form (rhymed couplets) and totaling 30,000 couplets. Drawing inspiration from the Persian epic poets Ferdowsi and Sana`i, he proved himself the first great dramatic poet of Persian literature. The first poem in the pentology is the didactic poem Makhzan al-asrar (The Treasury of Mysteries), the second the romantic epic Khosrow o-Shirin ("Khosrow and Shirin"). The third is his rendition of a well-known story in Islamic folklore, Leyli o-Mejnun (The Story of Leyla and Majnun). The fourth poem, Haft paykar (The Seven Beauties), is considered his masterwork. The final poem in the pentalogy is the Sikandar or Eskandar-nameh ("Book of Alexander the Great"; Eng. trans. of part I, The Sikander Nama), a philosophical portrait of Alexander.
Nizami is admired in Persian-speaking lands for his originality and clarity of style, though his love of language for its own sake and of philosophical and scientific learning makes his work difficult for the average reader.
--
Also Mr. Baguirov mentioned a verse from Lili O Majnoon about Persian and Arab in a certain English to English translation. 
Mr. Baguirov said: I reluctantly want to remind Mr. Doostzadeh’s of this quote from Leyla and Majnun (which Nizami’s wrote per request of Persian or Persianized Arab Shirvanshah Akhsitan I) spoken by Leyla’s father:
“Reproach has now fallen upon me and it has dared to insult me, calling me Persian: that, I disregard, for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear.”
(poetic translation into English by Paul Smith, based on 1945 literal translation of G.H.Darab, London, “Layla and Majnun”, p. 117)  ''
I did a extensive search on the words: Parsi, Farsi, Pars, Fars, Ajam, Ajami and did not find such a verse.  But the following verse is found when Layli's father addresses Noufal and even offering her daughter to the cruel Noufal's tribe and asking her to kill her if he wishes..
کای در عرب از بزرگواری
در خورد سری و تاجداری  
مجروحم و پیر و دل شکسته
دور از تو به روز بد نشسته  
در سرزنش عرب فتاده
خود را عجمی لقب نهاده  
این خون که ز شرح بیش بینم   
در کردن بخت خویش بینم  
خواهم که در این گناهکاری  
سیماب شوم ز شرمساری  
گر دخت مرا بیاوری پیش   
بخشی به کمینه بنده خویش  
راضی شوم و سپاس دارم   
وز حکم تو سر برون نیارم  
The verse in question from Layli's father (who is cruel and bad character unlike Shirvanshah and Alexandar) is:
Dar sarzanesh Arab fetaadeh
Khod raa Ajami laghab nahaadeh
Which translates to:
I came to give belittling advice to Arabs
And have called myself Ajami (non-Arab)
Then next line brought by Mr. Baguirov does not exist:
for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear
Indeed here Layli's father is talking very weak.  Also the word Ajami (non-Arab) does not translate to Persian necessary.  It just means non-Arab for many cases.  Here is a quote from Nizami to prove it:
ماه عربی به رخ نمودن
ترک عجمی به دل ربودن  
Where he talks about an Ajami-Turk after talking about the Arabic Moon.
So not only is translation wrong and Ajami does not necessarily mean Persian, and the verse after Ajami is not there, but  Layli's father is not a positive character in the story.  Whereas the verses composed by Nizami through the mouth of Alexandar and Shirvanshah are from two characters Nizami has very highly praised.
The following verse from the Eskandar Nama again shows that Nizami was familiar with the history books and the languages of Hebrew, Nestorian(Syriac or Armenian) and Pahlavi (middle Persian).  Also Turkish is not mentioned.
سخنها که چون گنج آگنده بود   به هر نسختی در پراکنده بود  
ز هر نسخه برداشتم مایه‌ها   برو بستم از نظم پیرایه‌ها  
زیادت ز تاریخهای نوی   یهودی و نصرانی و پهلوی 
Translation (non-poetic and accurate): 
The words that were like abundant jewls, 
were dispered in many different manuscripts, 
from each manuscript I took the main themes
In form of poetry I decorated them
many(of the manuscripts) from the recent history
Yahudi (Hebrew) and Nasrani (Nestorian probably Syriac or Greek or Armenian) and Pahlavi (Middle Persian)
So we are sure that Nizami was familiar with many languages and assuming that he knew Turkish (which is not proved), it doesn't make him Turkish.  Just like him being familiar with Pahlavi (and Middle Persian dialects were still strong in the area for example the poetry of Baba Taher is in a Middle Persian dialect), it doesn't necessarily make his father a Pahlavi speaker.  
Nizami was at least familiar with other languages beside Persian/Arabic including Hebrew, language used by Nestorians, middle Persian , perhaps Tabari and Bukhari (depending on how one reads that verse and both readings are probable).   So familiarity with Turkish which is not proven by any verse does not make him into a Turk.       
Mr. Baguirov talked about two unrelated matters.  One was the Caliphs using Turkic soldiers against Babak Khorramdin (Buga the Turk) and this has nothing to do with Turkish settlements.  The next one was the Huns.  Mr. Baguirov said:In 576, a large number of Hun Sabirs, a Turkic people, were resettled into Ganja (Sakashena) (Byzantian historians, Moscow edition, pp. 411-412
Unfortunately the quote is not even direct!  I might also add that using sources from 100 years ago like Marquar'ts Iranshahr will not help Mr. Baguirov unless updated by more modern references.  Now about Ganja, the Encyclopedia Iranica has an extensive article  which has none of the information of Mr. Baguirov and no where is the city called the name Mr. Baguirov references, but it is called Arshakashee.  Also considering the fact that the area was under the Sassanid control of King Anoshiravan.  Indeed the area was under Iranian control for long time: Perhaps Medes, Definitely Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids.. and then it went to the Arab Caliphates.    Also the Huns incursions were beaten by Sassanids later on. Incursion does not mean ethnicity just like Khazar, Russian, Roman invasions of Iran or Caucus does not mean such a group was there and settled in large.  As per Balasagaan, I refer to the Encyclopedia Iranica where the Hun theory of one ruler being a Hun is in serious doubt.
As per Huns, the Encyclopedia Iranica has an excellent article and the few Hunnis Sabir military detachments were settled in Byzantium Armenia and the Huns were a mixed group of nomadic people and they were just few military warriors who were assimilated in the larger population and there is no mention of Huns by any Islamic Geographer.
Indeed in Islamic times, Al-Baladhuri has mentioned the Kurds of Balasagaan, but nothing about Turkic people there.  Also again I will reaffirm that the Arab and Muslim geographers of 10th century have clearly mentioned the languages spoken in the area and Oghuz Turkic was not one of them.  If Ganja was taken by the Seljuqs around 1075 A.D. from the Shaddadid Kurds, and if we do not accept the Qom theory (which is a good amount of books at least 400 old and some manuscripts), then Mua'yyad (Nizami's great Grandfagher) came from the time that Ganja was under Kurdish rule.  And these Kurdish rulers fought and defeated Oghuz incursions from Khorasan during the time of Qatran Tabrizi and they were totally alien to the area as proven by the poetry of Qatran Tabrizi (who is by the way the founder of what scholars call "Azarbaijani style of poetry" (Rypka, same article).  
Also a funny quote by Mr. Baguirov: (and considering the politicizing of this issue and violent reaction from Persian chauvinists, it is easy to see why no one in the West, not to mention Iran, would dare to call Nizami as an Azerbaijani Turk.  
Indeed can anyone that claims to be scholarly make such an absurd claim?  There was no Stalin in the West as far as I know!  Iranians have many great poets and talents in Persian and other Iranian languages and they are not the least violent when it comes to this matter.  That is why no Iranian book deletes references to Armenians like Azarbaijani books did!  For example the Gathas of Zoroaster which is in a pure Iranian language, Cyrus the Great, Hafez, Ferdowsi, Sa'adi,Rumi, Sanaii, Attar, Nizami, Khajeh Abdallah Ansari.. (There is a book about 10000+ poets). There is news that the Azerbaijani republic has destroyed some Armenian graves and Katchars and monuments.  You never or very rarely(maybe some crazy ultranationalist whom I do not know) see an Iranian say Fizuli or Nasimi or some Turkish poet, was not a Turk.  Also Iranians today speak and read the language of Nizami Ganjavi (who himself admits that he is alive through his poetry hence the Persian language).
Iranians never claim that the Oghuz tribes were Iranian (although Kashghari mentions that the Oghuz heavily mixed with Iranians).  The fact of the matter is that there is not a figure in the stature of Nizami Ganjavi or Khaghani from the republic of Azerbaijan and both of these do not have anything to do with the current language of the republic of Azerbaijan and its Turkic culture.  Also Mr. Baguirov has no right to tell us not to study them since not only are they universal figures, but they wrote in our language and produced our culture and did not do anything for Turkic culture.  Mr. Baguirov claims Armenians paid Kapustin to write about Nizami!  He claims that the scientists of the Western world are scared!  He claims Nizami was scared of the Shirvanshah  or needed Money and that is why he praised him yet he was angry at him!  As you can see the matter of Nizami's father having any relation with  an Oghuz Turk has become religious for some groups and weired conspiracies abount.  The fact is that for the overwhelming majority of Persian literature and Iranian scientists of the Western World, the primary importance is Nizami and Nizami is great because of the Persian language and style he created and because of his contribution to Persian culture.  If he was half Turkic( Mr. Baguirov believes it 110%), then Western scholars would not be afraid!  Just like Alexanders Macedonian heritage is being debated while Nizami is not yet a major figure in the West like Khayyam, Rumi, Sa'adi to even bring about such consideration.  Also just like Greeks and Armenians can claim current Greek and Armenian scientists of modern Anatolia, Iranians can also do the same, since it is part of their cultural heritage.  Just like for example the Orkhon inscription can be considered part of the culture of modern Azerbaijani Turkic group of the caucus although it is in Mongolia.  But it is the oldest found inscription of Turkic language.  
The fact of the matter is Nizami contributed to Persian culture and language.  Virtually all the major characters of his poetry are either Iranian or have Iranian names and none of them has Turkic names except the few Seljuqid Sultans he mentions.   For example the information Nizami gives about the Persian mode of music in Barbads court shows awesome familiarity with Sassanid music and he names 30 pure Persian modes of music.  Three of his works are continuation and expansion of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh (whom he has praised), whereas he didn't praise any Turkic poet or writer.  He didn't write anything Oghuz folklore.  He praised the Sassanid dynasties extensively(two of his works is about the Sassanid Iranian folklore) and developed Iranian and Islamic folklore.  His mother was Iranian and his father was more than likely Iranian judging from the culture he has produced.  It is doubtful that Oghuz Turks at the time who were new immigrants (they took over Ganja in around 1075 A.D.) were capable of producing such culture.  Else there would be a Western Turkic Mahmud Kashghari at the time, which there was none.  Indeed we can safely say that Nizami's great grandfather lived in the time of the Shaddadid Kurds whose capital was Ganjah.  He praises not only Shirvanshah and Alexander and composes some negative poetry about Turks from them, but he praises Ferdowsi and Sanai both who had some harsh poems about Turks (as well poems describing Turks (and these were mongloid Turks) as beauty).  Note Ferdowsi praises several Turkic (although originally Turanian and not related to Turks, but at that time Turks replaced Turanians) characters in the Shahnameh as well like Piran and even sometimes Afrasiyaab (although mainly negative but there is a couple verses).  Indeed any argument Mr. Baguirov makes about Turks can be found in any Iranian poet. (Praise of Turks outer attractiveness, praise of some Seljuqs and Atabeks (S'adi, Hafez), belittlement of Turkis Bi-Vafaii, comparison of Turk/Hindu, Turk/Black, Roman/Black as symbolism,..).
After all this, I was willing to compromise and say Nizami's heritage is shared by Afghanistan,Azerbaijan,Iran,Kurds and Tajikistan (which is true).  But unfortunately for some people, it is a matter of religion and they can not live in a world that Nizami's father might not be a Turk, something no Western scholars nor Nizami has mentioned and there is no evidence to suggest such a theory.  
--Ali doostzadeh 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small mistake by Mr. Baguirov and also a small comment

message: I) It is nice to have Mr. Doostzadeh sweep through the Internet in an urge to find any compromising materials, and allege that I’ve made a mistake about Nizami’s wife. For a matter of clarification, that webpage was created in 1996, as it should clearly say in its footer (and Mr. Doostzadeh can check with his backup graphic and HTML page that he saved just in case), and was written by an anonymous author in a newspaper – unfortunately I haven’t saved the copy of the article after I simply put it online. If I myself author something, I put my name on it -- whilst in this case it does not say that I authored it and thus is a pretty good indication that it’s not my work. Plus, being a translated article, it is easy to notice that the English language used is quite simple [and I left it that way, w/o any changes], and perhaps some words fell out. In any case, I’d like to thank Mr. Doostzadeh for spotting this (possible) negligence of the original author, I will note in square parenthesis that Afak/Appaq was not the only wife, but first out of three, as I have maintained many times, including here at Wiki, 10 years after the page’s creation. Taking this into account, I would like to invite Mr. Doostzadeh to review all other pages of the website as well while he is at it – double-checking and proofreading is always welcomed. 
Also, we should not forget, that unlike the newspaper article’s author who wrote it 10 years ago, Mr. Doostzadeh just recently claimed here that Afak/Appaq was Nizami’s third wife, on the top of all other mistakes and insults he made. I think it is far more worrisome that he himself does such a mistake today than some anonymous author 10 years ago, and I hope to see one day an apology from Mr. Doostzadeh for first making that mistake, and second denying he ever did, and third, alleging that I have “lied” for mentioning about his mistake until I reposted it again to prove his wrong. That would be fair, wouldn’t it?
II) On Marietta Shaginyan it is unclear what Mr. Doostzadeh was trying to achieve in his research on her – if he wants to assassinate her character, like he attempts with anyone who contravenes him, then it obviously didn’t succeed, as everything I’ve stated on/from her is still very much valid and more. I’ve warned that it would not be in the best interests of anyone to try to downgrade this woman (or anyone other solid scholar and researcher I’ve brought on so far for that matter) and her knowledge of Nizami and otherwise scholarly credentials, yet since such attempts persist, I will spare no effort to invalidate them again and again: 
1) M.Shaginyan is the #1 Armenian poetess of the 20th century -- there is no exceptions, exclusions or disclaimers – she was not “one of the top”, but “the top” Armenian poetess. Thus for her knowledge and understanding of poetry she gets a perfect mark (which is 5 in USSR, 4 in USA). She was one of the favorite poetesses of Mikhail Gorbachev, by the way. 
2) Her education was impeccable by the time – in 1912 she graduated from the History-Philosophical Faculty of the Higher Women’s Courses institute in Gerye, before that she studied in a top Gymnasium for women in Moscow. In 1913 she published her famous book, Orientalia, which became one in dozens of books she wrote. In 1946 she got her Doctorate in Philology, since 1950 she was a Corresponding Member of the Armenian Academy of Sciences – which is one step below a full rank of the Academician – the top scientific honor and rank in the Soviet Unioni (this info is from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/SH/SHAGINYAN_Marietta_Sergeevna/_Shaginyan_M._S..html) She spoke Farsi, English, German and French, along with Russian, Armenian and some Azerbaijani (http://www.ronl.ru/ritorika/18608.htm). One of her specialties, aside from writing about Caucasus and Orient, was also German writer Gete – who was a big and one of the earliest Nizami-enthusiasts in the West, and whose opinion on Nizami she cites many times in her book. Thus, for her education she also gets a top mark of 5 (or 4 in USA). Anyhow, she is many heads above the funnyman Kapustin, who indeed had zero credentials in Oriental studies or history and even poetry at all (Kapustin is a writer, not a poet and scholar), whom some people like Mr. Doostzadeh like to resurrect from the ashes in their frantic search for any opposition to the views of the great scholars and researchers. 
3) Due to her publication of a book about Lenin, in which she uncovered his ethnic roots, it created a firestorm and Stalin personally (!) was greatly displeased. In a special (!) Politburo decree of 5 August 1936, she and her book was severely criticized, and the book banned. So what did displease Stalin in her book? That she uncovered – with full support of Lenin’s widow, Mrs. Krupskaya – that Lenin’s grandfather had Kalmyk (Turkic) blood. Anyways, during the “thaw”, in 1956, that 1936 decree was annulled and the book was allowed (see http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/shaginan.html). Thus, aside for showing that Stalin’s bias was never pro-Azerbaijani and always against anything Turkic (after all, having the founder of USSR being some 25% Turkic was deemed as blasphemous by Stalin), it also shows once more that Stalin could not have ordered or otherwise influence Shaginyan to write smth positive about Nizami being an Azerbaijani poet. 
4) Nevertheless, she was not considered a friend of Azerbaijan, and, while fully acknowledging her talents and liking her works, it is doubtful that even one Azerbaijani would consider her unbiased. Which makes her book on Nizami, which she first published in 1955, i.e., two years after Stalin’s death, and rep-published again in 1981, just a year before her own death, so much more precious and important. What is more important, is that he book is fact-based, well researched and cited, with a wealth of bibliography and very coherent. Thus, for her conviction and dedication – she did not change her views on Nizami from at least 1940s until her death despite ample pressure from some Armenian circles – she again gets top marks. Of course, so do the Azerbaijani people, who are discerning readers and can have a fair judgment on any person – even if they consider someone biased and unfair, they still acknowledge their talents and fame, and can still quote her and otherwise refer to her. 
5) She did a marvelous translation of Nizami’s first epic of the “Treasure of Mysteries” into Russian in the 1940s and 1950s. Her first book with selected poems from the Treasure of Mysteries, along with comments and introduction, was in 1942 (http://1945.bookchamber.ru/description161321.htm). I have used her translation of several verses in my article and on Wikipedia, and that translation is still used in Russia and Azerbaijan, along with other ex-USSR republics. For her lasting contribution and good translation, which is now time-tested, she also gets a top mark.
Henceforth, all attacks on her educational and scholarly credentials, not to mention poetic one’s, are without any merit and reveal the character and knowledge of her assailant. 
Let’s not forget that Dr. Meisami, Dr. Talattof along with pretty much everyone else Mr. Doostzadeh cites, are Iranian (Persian), whilst I have hardly cited anyone Azerbaijani – despite the fact that I have plenty of them to cite. Instead, I’ve limited myself to such giants of Oriental studies in the Western and European space, to which Russia and Ukraine clearly belong, and partially does Caucasus, as prof. Bertels, academicians Krachkovskiy, Krimskiy, as well as Dr. Shaginyan, French prof. Charmoy, Czech prof. Rypka et al. In my article, I go on to cite both Talattof (whom Mr. Doostzadeh didn’t seem to know before our encounter) and Meisami, along with other Iranian scholars and publications. 
Thus, as I have proven beyond any doubt in my previous posts – and have done so once more right now – Stalin’s influence or otherwise Communist/Soviet falsifications have not affected Nizami studies in any way and have not tilted scholarship in favor of Azerbaijan (see my previous posts in Archive 1 and Archive 2 for more details). However, what Mr. Doostzadeh tries to avoid is my counter-question about the legitimacy of bringing any Iranian sources – not only are they inherently biased in terms of Nizami’s ethnicity and nationality, but they are all from either undemocratic and indeed totalitarian Shah Pehlevi’s regime (for which Iranian people overthrew him) or, even worse, from the mullah totalitarian regime that has been repressing Iranians since 1979 and, as prof. Talattof’s book I’ve cited says, has been tainting scholarship by “ideologically motivated” editors, which is an academic and diplomatic way of saying they engaged in falsifications. It doesn’t matter if they did it for religious purposes – trying to use Nizami to justify the mullah regime – or for other reasons – bias is still bias, and is still unscholarly. 
Thus, M.Shaginyan’s book MUST be cited in Nizami’s Bibliography subsection of his page on Wikipedia (and I have the whole book in my possession, so scans of any pages or even whole book is not a big problem) and so MUST be the relevant quotes from her book. She is more unbiased and scholarly than most Iranian authors, especially from Iran itself (where they are pressured and can get published only with government permission and approval, with censorship affecting all books unlike in USSR), and at the very least on the par with Meisami, who has also done a poetic translation of Nizami’s epic into a foreign language and whose research on biography of Nizami pales in comparison with the massive research carried out by Shaginyan. 
III) Then Mr. Doostzadeh makes yet another unwarranted and groundless attack on me, which is actually so full of irony – I will show why. Here’s what he writes, also quoting me:
==== BEGIN QUOTE ====
Also Mr. Baguirov mentioned a verse from Lili O Majnoon about Persian and Arab in a certain English to English translation. Mr. Baguirov said: I reluctantly want to remind Mr. Doostzadeh’s of this quote from Leyla and Majnun (which Nizami’s wrote per request of Persian or Persianized Arab Shirvanshah Akhsitan I) spoken by Leyla’s father:
“Reproach has now fallen upon me and it has dared to insult me, calling me Persian: that, I disregard, for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear.” (poetic translation into English by Paul Smith, based on 1945 literal translation of G.H.Darab, London, “Layla and Majnun”, p. 117)
I did a extensive search on the words: Parsi, Farsi, Pars, Fars, Ajam, Ajami and did not find such a verse. But the following verse is found when Layli's father addresses Noufal and even offering her daughter to the cruel Noufal's tribe and asking her to kill her if he wishes..
کای در عرب از بزرگواری در خورد سری و تاجداری مجروحم و پیر و دل شکسته دور از تو به روز بد نشسته در سرزنش عرب فتاده خود را عجمی لقب نهاده این خون که ز شرح بیش بینم در کردن بخت خویش بینم خواهم که در این گناهکاری سیماب شوم ز شرمساری گر دخت مرا بیاوری پیش بخشی به کمینه بنده خویش راضی شوم و سپاس دارم وز حکم تو سر برون نیارم
The verse in question from Layli's father (who is cruel and bad character unlike Shirvanshah and Alexandar) is: Dar sarzanesh Arab fetaadeh Khod raa Ajami laghab nahaadeh
Which translates to: I came to give belittling advice to Arabs And have called myself Ajami (non-Arab)
Then next line brought by Mr. Baguirov does not exist: for I’m still an Arab and scorn this cowardly sneer of bragging fools unused to the shield and spear
Indeed here Layli's father is talking very weak. Also the word Ajami (non-Arab) does not translate to Persian necessary. It just means non-Arab for many cases. Here is a quote from Nizami to prove it:
ماه عربی به رخ نمودن ترک عجمی به دل ربودن
Where he talks about an Ajami-Turk after talking about the Arabic Moon.
So not only is translation wrong and Ajami does not necessarily mean Persian, and the verse after Ajami is not there, but Layli's father is not a positive character in the story. Whereas the verses composed by Nizami through the mouth of Alexandar and Shirvanshah are from two characters Nizami has very highly praised.
===== END QUOTE =====
What Mr. Doostzadeh is missing again, is that all I did is simply quote from the English-language (!) source! Moreover, that literal translation into English was done by none other than a fellow Persian, whom Mr. Doostzadeh holds in high respect – G.H. Darab – and then rendered into a poetic form by a Western researcher and poet, Paul Smith. I’ve even clearly indicated that, by providing a citation even with a page number! Yet, Mr. Doostzadeh in his blind rage still prefers to slam and insult me, and blame for every trouble that he has – even though I am just the messenger, and have quoted a respected ethnic Persian translator who wrote his book in English.
I want to note again – this is not my translation into English but Dr. Darab’s, who was Persian and unlike Mr. Doostzadeh, was a professional translator and a professor in London. Hence, unless Mr. Doostzadeh now wants to accuse his fellow compatriot G.H.Darab of bias and falsifications and wrong translations, the quote I provided very much stands and is a valid, correct translation by an ethnic Persian scholar, and Mr. Doostzadeh cannot make irrelevant claims about Soviet bias and chase Stalin’s ghost. Thus, it shows that Mr. Doostzadeh’s own books and sources are biased and incorrect, which is partly due to what I said all along – he is not using the academic editions, but selective versions under the editorship of those Iranina writers whom Dr. Talattof calls “ideologically-motivated”.
In other words, unintentionally for his cause, Mr. Doostzadeh showed that censorship is alive and well in Iran, and that all negative and “critical” verses and lines are eliminated by the mullahs. This is very unfortunate that they would go as far as deleting the line the didn’t like. This is the latest example of what Dr. Talattof wrote about – ideologically-motivated Iranian editors of Nizami’s works. And shows how correct academician Marr was in the 1930s when so many prominent Iranians (Persians) gave him the impression of disliking Nizami, and Said Nafisi openly acknowledging it at true for Persian intelligentsia. 
As of “Ajami” – by the 12th century it mostly meant Iranians or Persians, and that’s how it is mostly translated. For example, in Arabic, Ahl-ul-Ajam means Iranian people/nation, and “Ajam” in general meant Iran in Nizami’s poetry. Although Ajami does have sometimes a meaning of “non-Arab”, as some other meanings, it depends on time of the writings and the context, and I let professional translators make the determination. In this case they (G.H.Darab) translated it as Persian. Mr. Doostzadeh is no professional translator – he is completely confused about the 12th century Farsi-e Dari and makes embarrassing mistakes such as about at-Tabari and al-Bukhari as “Tabari” and “Bukhari” accents of the Farsi, or in other instances. 
Mr. Doostzadeh is himself confused and is disproving his own attempts, since “Ajami-Turk” in Nizami’s poetry cannot mean “non-Arab Turk”, as that would be absurd, but means a Turk from Iran. Good to know about this acknowledgement about Turkic people in Iran from before and during Nizami times – why not add it to the quotes in Wiki page?  
By the way, similarly, Nizami uses the terms Tork-e Chin, Tork-e Khotan, Tork-e Hallah, Tork-e Chigil, Turkman, Khirkhiz, etc. 
In fact, the Encyclopedia Iranica that Mr. Doostzadeh holds in high regard says the following in a relevant article of its most recent edition (Ajam, p. 700): “Ajam, the name given in medieval Arabic literature to the non-Arabs of the Islamic empire, but applied especially to the Persians”. Note that Nizami’s poetry was neither “Arabic literature”, nor did he live in an Arab “Islamic empire” (although Turk Seljuks did reside in Baghdad and ruled the caliphate, much like later did the Ottomans). Thus, even Arabs themselves “applied [Ajam] especially to the Persians”. 
This article in Iranica continues: “[a]nd the Persians had achieved a position of power in the Islamic world comparable to their numbers and capabilities, “’Ajam’” became a simple ethnic and geographical designation; hence in geographical literature of the Saljuq period and after we find Mesopotamia referred to as ‘Eraq ‘Arabi, in contrast to the northwest Persia or Jebal, the ancient Media, called ‘Eraq ‘Ajami.” So there you go, Iranica clearly spells out that by the Seljuk period – that is, when Nizami lived – Ajami mostly meant Persian and Ajam mostly meant Iran/Persia. Thus, Mr. Doostzadeh is wrong again in his protests. 
IV) In his another example of bias and unqualified credentials as a translator of 12th century Dari, Mr. Doostzadeh makes the following allegations (his quotes follow):
===== BEGIN QUOTE ====
The following verse from the Eskandar Nama again shows that Nizami was familiar with the history books and the languages of Hebrew, Nestorian(Syriac or Armenian) and Pahlavi (middle Persian). Also Turkish is not mentioned.
سخنها که چون گنج آگنده بود به هر نسختی در پراکنده بود ز هر نسخه برداشتم مایهها برو بستم از نظم پیرایهها زیادت ز تاریخهای نوی یهودی و نصرانی و پهلوی
Translation (non-poetic and accurate): The words that were like abundant jewls, were dispered in many different manuscripts, from each manuscript I took the main themes In form of poetry I decorated them many(of the manuscripts) from the recent history Yahudi (Hebrew) and Nasrani (Nestorian probably Syriac or Greek or Armenian) and Pahlavi (Middle Persian)
So we are sure that Nizami was familiar with many languages and assuming that he knew Turkish (which is not proved), it doesn't make him Turkish. Just like him being familiar with Pahlavi (and Middle Persian dialects were still strong in the area for example the poetry of Baba Taher is in a Middle Persian dialect), it doesn't necessarily make his father a Pahlavi speaker.
Nizami was at least familiar with other languages beside Persian/Arabic including Hebrew, language used by Nestorians, middle Persian , perhaps Tabari and Bukhari (depending on how one reads that verse and both readings are probable). So familiarity with Turkish which is not proven by any verse does not make him into a Turk.
====== END QUOTE =====
Where do we begin? Well, first of all, no one said that since Nizami knew Turki, he was a Turk. Instead, I’ve provided quotes from himself, where he says he is a Turk, along with evidence from scholars who all say that Afak/Appaq, who was Turkic Kipchak, was uneducated and that meant she didn’t speak any other language but her native Turki. Thus, Nizami had to speak with her in some language, didn’t he? Finally, Ganja, along with all other citied of Azerbaijan (both North and South) had huge Turkic population and was ruled by Turkic dynasty of Atabeks, and in general, it was a Turkic Seljuk Empire. Trying to deny that Turki was a common language in the area at the time of Nizami is absurd and contrary to evidence. 
Secondly, my own opinion of the quote I’ve already provided: “In Arabic I read everything and in Dari, The book of Bukhari I read, [as well as] the book of Tabari” (this verse, which was also included in Farsi in the Wiki Archives, is from Haft Paykar/Seven Beauties). Why on Earth would a supposed “Persian” or any Iranian boast about conducting research in his “native” Farsi-e Dari? Why put “native” Persian language on the same line with clearly foreign Arabic (all this despite the fact that Nizami obviously had excellent proficiency in many languages)? It does not make sense – it’s the same as Shakespeare writing that he conducted his research in old French and his own native …. Old English.
Thirdly, as Mr. Doostzadeh has correctly stated and hinted many times, there was very little literature in Turki in Nizami’s times – it certainly paled in comparison to literature in Arabic, Greek, Aramaic, Persian, etc. Hence, it is not surprising that Nizami did not state that he conducted research in Turki – even centuries later another great Azerbaijani poet Fuzuli complained about lack of literature in Turki, etc. Of course, Nizami himself complained in Haft Paykar about not appreciating his Turkishness, and in Leili and Majnun about Shirvanshah specifically asking not to write anything in Turki, but in either Arabic or Farsi. 
Fourthly, Mr. Doostzadeh did an excellent job on several occasions in emphasizing that the ethnic Turkic rulers and nobility were culturally Persianizing (and before that Arabizing), and sometimes were even ashamed or otherwise uncomfortable with calling themselves Turkic. Indeed, sometimes some Turkic people, like Kipchaks, Huns, Pechenegs, Uyghurs, Tatars, etc., tried not to called themselves “Turk” and insisted on their own names/identity, thus leaving the common name “Turk” mostly for Oghuz Turks and few others. 
Because of this, those Turkic rulers, like Ghaznavis or Atabeks or Seljuks, were not interested in Turkic history per se, they were interested in the “great kings” that were before them – which in their limited worldview were only either Arab caliphs or Iranian shahs or some mythical rulers. It was impossible for the likes of Nizami to want to write – and for the likes of Sultan Togrul II or Atabek Jahan Pahlevan or Sultan Mahmoud to request – about Attila, or mythical Queen Tomris or to be compared to Oghuz Kagan. This was all associated with “nomadic” Turkic culture which was deemed inferior to the “great” and “civilized” Iranian or Arab (semi-) sedentary cultures. Those Turkic rulers obviously wanted to be the greatest and wanted to be compared to their great predecessors – ethnicity at the time didn’t even exist per se, there was only tribal, religious and maybe national-state affiliation/allegiance. This is where the advantage of a sedentary culture glowed best – unlike nomadic cultures, they had not only rich oral tradition and history-telling, but writing. And all those Turkic rulers, like many others before them, instantly wanted to live in those great palaces with beautiful manuscripts encrusted with expensive stones and miniatures about their “achievements” and their great life. Poetry of the time is full of unimaginable epithets about some provincial ruler being brighter than sun and glowing at night greater than the moon, being the ruler of the universe, etc., -- who really believed this pathetic stuff? Probably no one, but still, people enjoyed it then – and still enjoy it now. 
This is by the way also important in the context of how Nizami redefined the view of Turks in Persian-language literature – before him, Turks, being feared by Persians, were described by mainly ethnic Persian and Tajik poets as cruel plunderers, but after Nizami it became symbol of beauty, courage and unstoppable or otherwise impossible to resist attack/charge. When “Torktaz” or “Torktazi” terms were used, including for names of his heroes, it was not in the strict military and negative “Turkic plundering” definition of Firdowsi et al, but in context either a sudden, out of the blue incursion, or of love and even sexual, as an “incursion” (e.g., see Turktaz begging Turknaz, or Bishr seeing a beautiful woman in “Seven Beauties”). 
It would be interesting to hear thoughts about Nizami’s usage of the “Torkan-e galam” term – that is, “writing Turks”, “Turkic authors/writers” – whom are briefly mentioned, as ethnic Turks did not dominate the writing guild at the time nor was there much literature in Turki using Arabic script.
Fifth, there was never a “Nestorian language” per se, although sometimes some mistake what was clearly a religious movement for the one common name of the Syriac/Aramaic/Assyrian language(s). Yet more importantly, “Nestorian” surely could not have meant “Armenian” as they lived fairly compactly and had a pretty good following of their own Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) Church since 301/314 AD and in fact, Armenians were devout Monophysites – whilst Nestorianism is all about Duophysite doctrine (like Georgians – thus Georgians have far more possibility of being Nestorians than Armenians). “Nestorians” were generally referred to and understood to be either Greeks or Syrians/Assyrians (like John Nestorius himself, who was probably Greek, but not Assyrian and did not know Syriac language). Of course, it is possible that 1% of Nestorians were even aborigens of Australia or native Americans or Armenians, but this is not a serious preposition. 
In the non-poetic literal translation of prof. Bertels, made from an ACADEMIC edition of Nizami’s epic (unlike whatever Mr. Doostzadeh is using), it was: “Aside from newest histories (I also studied books/manuscripts) Jewish, Christian and Pehlevi, Choosing from each book/manuscript what was the most precious in it. From each shell I extracted/chose its grain. Language/theme after language/theme I collected/assembled treasure, And from all of this built one whole” (in Russian: Кроме новейших историй (я изучал и книги)
Еврейские, христианские и пехлевийские,
Выбирая из каждой книги то, что было в ней драгоценным.
Из каждой скорлупы вынимал ее зернышко.
Язык за языком я собирал сокровище
И из всего этого построил целое.
(Искендернаме, ч. 1, подстр. пер. Е. Бертельса, стр. 71)).
Thus, the translation is somewhat different from Mr. Doostzadeh’s. And since “Nestorian” could not have been understood as a “language” in this verse, but only as “people, culture, books, script”, and Yahudi can be understood even today as either Hebrew (language) or Jewish (culture, nation, people, books, script), Mr. Doostzadeh’s translation is incorrect. Ironically, in fact, Wikipedia’s own page, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yahudi, says: “Yahudi – Jews, Judaism, Hebrews” – it doesn’t even allow for primary understanding of Yahudi as a “langauge”. Similarly, “Pahlavi” must have meant not the language per se, but the script or otherwise Iranian books. Thus, we get a supposedly “native ethnic Persian” boasting for the second time about knowing “his” old script, which was kind of a norm for an educated Persian anyway. Thus, it is an additional proof of Nizami not being and not feeling himself as not only ethnic Persian, but Iranian. 
V) On Ganja and Turkic population in Azerbaijan (North and South), a lot of sources and information was provided, and I am glad that Mr. Doostzadeh has found out about the massive settlement of Turkic Hun Sabirs in Byzantin Armenia – thus himself disproving his own latest attempts at arguing that even if there were Turkic people in the region long before Nizami, they were simply “warriors” and were only doing “incursions”, not actually living, making families, mixing with other people.  
Otherwise, the Iranica article omits to cite the massive amount of Russian-language scholarship on Huns, Sabirs, and other Turkic settlements in the Caucasus and Iran long before Nizami – which is strange, after all, the only nation with access to archeological and other artifacts crucial for scholarly study of those tribes, peoples, and that part of history, were Russians, Soviets, and in general people who were part of Soviet Union. No Western or Iranian researcher (the latter had hard time researching their own country, much less try to venture out beyond their borders) could have conducted this research – hence it is strange, to say the least, to see such notable omission from E. Iranica. I repeat, no serious scholar can avoid massive amount of world-class Russian-language scholarship on this and other regional matters – that is, if they are serious academics. But if they are biased and want everything to fit their prejudiced view, the of course it is understandable. 
VI) However, I am glad that Mr. Doostzadeh trusts E. Irannica, because in the very page he cites, about Ganja, it clearly states and shows that the state in which Nizami was born, lived and died, was the Atabek of Azerbaijan state: “It thus came under Saljuq control and, in the later 6th/12th century under that of the Atabeg line of Ildegizids (see ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚZòARBAÚYJAÚN)….. The new town became the focus of a great period of efflorescence, seen in the laudatory verses quoted by Mostawf^ (Nozhat al-qolu@b, pp. 91-92) and its nurturing of the great poet Nezáa@m^ Ganjav^.” 
Just as Iranica refers us, we go to page 890 for the “Atabakan-e Adarbayjan” article: “Atabakan-e Adarbayjan, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arran and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Atabaks” (atabakan-e a’zam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), the effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181, in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arran and Azerbaijan…” This is what I have been writing all along and in line with every Soviet and Russian-language source I’ve cited. Hence, since there are no objections now, I will edit Nizami’s page to reflect this important fact, that not only was he born and lived and died in a Seljuk Empire, but as part of that empire, his country was called the Atabek’s of Azerbaijan State – which was not just some principality, but actually ruled the entire Seljuk Empire (and they did so longer than E.Iranica admits – e.g., the Great Atabek Jahan Pahlivan Ildeniz died in 1186, not arbitrary-chosen date of 1181, whilst actually INCREASING his domain and being FULLY in control of the Seljuk Sultan, Togrul III by the time of his death). 
VII) I don’t know why Bosworth says that Ganja was taken by Seljuks only in 1075 – Sultan Togrul I took Tebriz in 1050s I think, and in 1054 went to Ganja, where its ruler, Shavir, agreed to become his vassal. It’s true that Shaddid ruler Fadlun III periodically tried to be independent, but Sultan Malik Shah put an end to this by sending Turk general Bugay and capturing Fadlun. It should be noted that Shaddids ruled for about 100 years – thus, one should not present it as if Ganja was always theirs and they were ruling it from times immemorial. They were just another dynasty and the last of Iranian origin – from there on, Ganja was firmly ruled by successive Turkic dynasties. From there on Ganja was firmly ruled by Turks – in fact, Sultan Malik Shah put his own son Giyas ad-Din Tapar in charge of Ganja, which long remained one of the seats of the Seljuk. The very same Giyas ad-Din Tapar became a Seljuk Sultan after his father and ruled from 1105 to 1117. That’s the time of Nizami’s parents being born. 
VIII) On Qatran Tabrizi, who was a Ganja poet originally from Tebriz, and who also lived in Naxcivan, whom Mr. Doostzadeh mentioned – here’s what H.B.Paksoy, top Western scholar on Turkic epos’, among which is his study of Dede Korkut, translated into English (one relevant verse from Qatran): “Speaking of these Oghuz, the great poet of the eleventh century, Getran Tebrizi Emir Shamsaddin [1012-1088]d wrote:e 
These Turks arriving from Turkistan 
Accepted you as their ruler 
Separated from their relatives and relations
Began living under your rule 
Now they are everywhere 
Prepared to serve you”
(from: Getran Tebrizi, Divan (Tabriz, 1333 [1916/1917]) p. 5 [in Perso-Arabic script], as printed in: H. B. Paksoy, Ed. CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery  of History (New York/London: M. E. Sharpe, 1994) 201 Pp. + Index.  (Hardcover);  (pbk.) LC CIP DK857.C45 1993 958-dc20], http://aton.ttu.edu/Introduction_to_DEDE_KORKUT.asp)
I have at least two more verses where Qatran writes about Turkic beauty, including one specifically about a Turkic beauty in Ganja.
So here once more Mr. Doostzadeh seems to be confused – he brings up the name of this great Azerbaijani poet in Persian language literature (and indeed, perhaps Getran was of Iranian origin), who clearly is well aware of Turkic presence in Azerbaijan (both North and South), and in fact writes about Turks “everywhere” in 11th century Ganja – Naxcivan – Tebriz. And of course he means the Oghuz Turks – not Turkic people in general.
Interesting, that aside from poetry, Qatran also wrote a dictionary, “Loghat-e Gatran”, which later became to be known as “Tafasir fi lughatil-furs”. Yet here’s what one source wrote of him: “Nasir-i-Khosrov, a well-known Persian poet, and contemporary of Qatran Tabrizi write about him in his Safar-nameh: "In Tabriz I met a poet named Qatran. He wrote good poetry, but did not know Persian well. He came to me bringing the Divans of Manjik and Daqiqi (Persian medieval poets), which he read with me questioning me about every passage in which he found difficulty. Then I explained and he write down the explanation. He also recited to me some of his own poems".” (http://literature.aznet.org/literature/qtabrizi/qtabrizi_en.htm)
IX) There are many references and instances about plagiarism, falsifications and other bias in Iranian scholarship, as already cited e.g., from Prof. Talattof, hence Mr. Doostzadeh should not try to engage into a mud slinging contest. Similarly, there are many instances of far more credible Armenian destructions of Azerbajani memorials in Karabakh and other Azerbaijani lands and falsifications of history, which became even a famous joke/anecdote in USSR. It sounds as crocodile tears of Armenian government propaganda – one should ask instead, where are all the Azerbaijani mosques in Yerevan? Many have been destroyed (!) whilst others have changed names into “Turkmen” mosques just in time for Turkmenbashi’s visit there. Meanwhile, Armenian churches in various parts of Azerbaijan, including one in downtown Baku, are preserved and protected from vandalism. 
In fact, Armenian government propaganda and their lobbyists are sometimes manufacturing stories about “bad Azerbaijanis” themselves for propaganda purposes and here’s some interesting facts, from an Armenian (!) newspaper, in English, with all the photos, showing how Armenians themselves have been destroying their own (!) historical heritage, with no one to blame: http://hetq.am/eng/society/0604-tapan.html I repeat -- this is from an authoritative and independent Armenian source – Hetq Online, from Armenia itself, story filed April 10, 2006, by Edik Baghdasaryan!
For relevant articles from unbiased sources like famous Russian-Soviet Academician B.B. Piotrovsky, the top expert on the history of Urartu, about highly primitive and outrageous Armenian scholars’ falsifications on Urartu supposedly being a proto-Armenian state and even some Dr. Suren Ayvazyan reading an Atabek coin, which was inscribed in Arabic, not from right to left, but in Armenian (!?) from left to right – that even generated a letter of outrage from academician Piotrovsky (whose wife was Armenian, by the way), printed in the Armenian Academy of Sciences journal in 1971 (full citation in Russian: Б.Б.Пиотровский «Письмо в редакцию» Историко-филологический журнал 1971 № 3 с.302-303). I have the relevant text in my possession in case needed.
Also, late in 19th century, the greatest – at the time – Georgian poet, publicist and writer, count Ilya Chavchavadze wrote an excellent book (which in 1902 was translated into Russian and published again in Tiflis), which he entitled: “Armenian scholars/scientists and shouting stones”. The book was about wholesale falsifications of Armenian scholars about Georgian history, pilfering from their churches, misinformation to foreign travelers and visitors, etc. The “shouting stones” in the title of the book denoted the stones from Georgian churches and cemeteries that were stolen by Armenians and after some modifications presented as Armenian. I have that book also in my possession, in original old Russian script. Similarly, a Russian ethnographer of the Caucasus, V.L.Velichko, writing on behalf of Russian czar in 1897-1903, cited both Chavchavadze and brought in additional facts of falsifications and unscholarly actions. I have this book in my possession as well, also in original old Russian script. Or just recently, in 1997-98, another Armenian researcher, P.M.Geruni, went further: he claimed that 200 km from Yerevan near the Sisian mountains there is an “ancient Armenian observatory”, which he dated at – prepare yourselves – 5,000 BC – yes, that’s right, five thousand BC! Here’s the full citation in Russian to this wonder of scholarship, in case you want to laugh: П.М.Геруни «Карахундж или Караниш - древнейшая обсерватория в Армении» // IV съезд астрономического общества 19-29 ноября 1997 г. М.1998. с.350-363.
Thus, I have shown a long string of unscholarly actions, falsifications and bias among a variety of Armenian historians throughout the entire 20th century and starting out at least in 19th century. Can anyone accuse of Azerbaijanis the same? Nope, even G.Bournoutian, whom I mentioned before, himself admits that, in his opinion, all Azerbaijani books until 1960s or so were OK and truthful, and then just turned “bad” due to his object of interest, who is just one person. 
Although, Bournoutian makes many mistakes in his article, from misidentifying his primary target to mistranslating from Persian into English. Moreover, Azerbaijanis never falsified that book – they gave academic comments in the book and justified what they did, so it was not some stealthy actions. And it is based on plenty of Russian and Armenian scholars works in early 20th century, as well as 19th century, showing that Karabakh was never inhabited by an Armenian majority. Additionally, the Azerbaijani authors of the Karabakh-nameh, 
Bournoutian also attacks a very reputable American scholar and top specialist on the history of Azerbaijan in USA, prof. Altstadt, thus showing that he just dislikes everyone and anyone who doesn’t say what he likes. Pair that with the fact that all his such articles were published only by Armenian journals, which are not read by anyone, are not peer-reviewed and have nearly zero scholarly credibility, and all his books are published by Armenian-co-owned Mazda Publishing in California – i.e., never by a credible, academic, university publication – and we have a good profile of who Bournoutian is and what kind of a historian he is. 
Hence, it’s better if different fences are chosen as targets by the likes of Mr. Doostzadeh – anything related to Azerbaijan and its history represents quite an interest to me and I am ready to talk about it at length – and over the years have amassed an impressive library.
X) On the population of Azerbaijan (especially North (Arran), as well as a bit about South (Azerbaijan)) during and after the Arab conquest from Arabic-language chroniclers of the time. (The huge Turkic population just before the time of Nizami was shown in details before). 
First, Arab sources noted that among the city residents, in Arran people spoke “Arrani” (!) and in Azerbaijan – “Azeri” (From: Al-Istakhri, “Kitab masalik al-mamalik”, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Leiden: Brill, 1870 (BGA, I, p. 192); al-Moqaddasi, “Akhsan at-takasim fima’rifat al-akalim, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1876, II, p.  378; Yakut, “Mu’jam al-buldan”, Beirut, 1950, Vol. I-IV, I, p. 173. 
Secondly, Al-Moqaddasi said that the Farsi speech/pronunciation of the inhabitants of these areas resembled that of Khorasan residents, whilst in Arabic only traders and feudal chiefs could speak well (al-Moqaddasi, “Akhsan at-takasim fima’rifat al-akalim, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1876, II, p.  378). 
Thirdly, Arabic sources also mention the multitude of different people and languages that existed in the Caucasus at the time, especially among mountainous residents of Arran and Azerbaijan (Note: 50% of current Republic of Azerbaijan are mountainous). Specifically: “mountains of Abu Musa [Karabakh], which belonged to Arran, are inhabited by tribes/peoples among the nations/peoples of Arran” (al-Masudi, “Muruj udh-Dhahab wa Maadin ul-Jawahir ("Meadows of Gold Mines and Precious Stones"), ed. By Barbier de Meynard, French tr., 9 vol., Paris, 1861-77, from Vol. II, p. 75.
According to Ibn-Hawqal, in the mountains of Caucasus they spoke in 360 languages (Abu’l Kásim Ibn Haukal, “Kitab al-Masalik wa-al-Mamalik (The Book of the Routes of the Kingdoms)”, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1873 (Bibliotheca geographorum Arabicorum [=BGA], II, p. 248). On the next page, 249, he notes that he had doubts about this until verified it himself and saw that indeed, there are many different languages. 
Al-Moqaddasi notes that in Ardabil’s mountainous villages alone there were 60 languages (ibid., p. 375).
Finally, as already mentioned and confirmed by Enc. Iranica, IX century author al-Balazuri (“Kitab futuh al-buldan”. Leiden, 1866, p. 203) and X century Al-Istakhri (ibid., pp. 191-192, footnote “k”) and al-Masudi (ibid., p. 75) – and confirmed by Minorsky (V.F.Minorsky. “History of Shirvan and Derbent in X-XI centuries”, Moscow, 1963, p. 214, footnote 115) citing Byzantium chronicler Constantine Bagryanorodniy – Turkic people White Sabarts (Sabarta Asfala), after war with another Turkic people, the Pechenegs, settled and lived on a large territory from Ganja to Tiflis. 
Hence, we see that 1) the ethnic and linguistic makeup of Azerbaijan (both North and South) was far from simple, with many languages, including those not understood by Arabic and Persian speakers, 2) more evidence about Turkic population in and near Ganja well before Nizami or his grandparents, and 3) that “Azeri” and “Arrani” were different languages, and certainly different from Farsi or Arabic. 
XI) Now, once again, what makes Nizami an Azerbaijani poet – I’ve said many times, and will just re-quote my summary to the user IranianPatriot:
I clearly show and state that Nizami indeed: 1) was one of greatest Persian language poets, and 2) belongs to Iranian culture and Iranian/Persian cultural tradition, heritage and space. But at the same time: 1) Nizami was not ethnic Persian; 2) Nizami was not exclusively an Iranian poet or Persian poet. Indeed, because he was born, lived and died in Azerbaijan Atabek state of the Seljuk Empire -- and Iran did not exist as one country at the time, indeed, Iran did not exist at all from the Arab caliphate invasion in the 7-8 centuries until 1501-1502 -- Nizami was more Azerbaijani, than Iranian. There are countless examples of poets of one origin living in yet different place and writing in yet another language. I gave an example of famous Jewish writer Kafka who lived in Czech capital Prague but is considered a German -- and not Israeli -- writer. There is also William Saroyan -- an ethnic Armenian who is considered to be an American writer. Similarly, why is Ottoman sultan Selim, along with other Turkic people, who wrote only in Farsi, still recognized as Turkish, Turkoman, Turkmen or Azerbaijani rulers, poets, etc., but not Nizami?
<…> And of course Azerbaijanis are an ancient people (but a modern nation) with very rich history -- and have many examples in history when either partially, or fully, the historic lands of Azerbaijani people were unified. One such example is the Nizami-era Azerbaijani Atabek state of the Ildezid dynasty. By the way, what is your response to Tajikistan, which has less history of independence than Azerbaijan yet shares so many great figures with Iranian (Persian) culture, such as Ferdowsi?
Thus, despite Nizami being a great Persian language poet, belonging to the Iranian culture, he does in no less way to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani culture -- which despite closeness, similarities, is nevertheless a stand-alone, separate culture and nation. That was true from the times of Medes and Atropatene, which was always either fully independent or semi-independent from the rest of Iran. --AdilBaguirov 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Ali Doostzadeh's mistakes, small and not so 

message: The following verse from the Eskandar Nama again shows that Nizami was familiar with the history books and the languages of Hebrew, Nestorian(Syriac or Armenian) and Pahlavi (middle Persian). Also Turkish is not mentioned.
سخنها که چون گنج آگنده بود به هر نسختی در پراکنده بود ز هر نسخه برداشتم مایهها برو بستم از نظم پیرایهها زیادت ز تاریخهای نوی یهودی و نصرانی و پهلوی
Translation (non-poetic and accurate): The words that were like abundant jewls, were dispered in many different manuscripts, from each manuscript I took the main themes In form of poetry I decorated them many(of the manuscripts) from the recent history Yahudi (Hebrew) and Nasrani (Nestorian probably Syriac or Greek or Armenian) and Pahlavi (Middle Persian)
So we are sure that Nizami was familiar with many languages and assuming that he knew Turkish (which is not proved), it doesn't make him Turkish. Just like him being familiar with Pahlavi (and Middle Persian dialects were still strong in the area for example the poetry of Baba Taher is in a Middle Persian dialect), it doesn't necessarily make his father a Pahlavi speaker.
Nizami was at least familiar with other languages beside Persian/Arabic including Hebrew, language used by Nestorians, middle Persian , perhaps Tabari and Bukhari (depending on how one reads that verse and both readings are probable). So familiarity with Turkish which is not proven by any verse does not make him into a Turk.
====== END QUOTE =====
Where do we begin? Well, first of all, no one said that since Nizami knew Turki, he was a Turk. Instead, I’ve provided quotes from himself, where he says he is a Turk, along with evidence from scholars who all say that Afak/Appaq, who was Turkic Kipchak, was uneducated and that meant she didn’t speak any other language but her native Turki. Thus, Nizami had to speak with her in some language, didn’t he? Finally, Ganja, along with all other citied of Azerbaijan (both North and South) had huge Turkic population and was ruled by Turkic dynasty of Atabeks, and in general, it was a Turkic Seljuk Empire. Trying to deny that Turki was a common language in the area at the time of Nizami is absurd and contrary to evidence. 
Secondly, my own opinion of the quote I’ve already provided: “In Arabic I read everything and in Dari, The book of Bukhari I read, [as well as] the book of Tabari” (this verse, which was also included in Farsi in the Wiki Archives, is from Haft Paykar/Seven Beauties). Why on Earth would a supposed “Persian” or any Iranian boast about conducting research in his “native” Farsi-e Dari? Why put “native” Persian language on the same line with clearly foreign Arabic (all this despite the fact that Nizami obviously had excellent proficiency in many languages)? It does not make sense – it’s the same as Shakespeare writing that he conducted his research in old French and his own native …. Old English.
Thirdly, as Mr. Doostzadeh has correctly stated and hinted many times, there was very little literature in Turki in Nizami’s times – it certainly paled in comparison to literature in Arabic, Greek, Aramaic, Persian, etc. Hence, it is not surprising that Nizami did not state that he conducted research in Turki – even centuries later another great Azerbaijani poet Fuzuli complained about lack of literature in Turki, etc. Of course, Nizami himself complained in Haft Paykar about not appreciating his Turkishness, and in Leili and Majnun about Shirvanshah specifically asking not to write anything in Turki, but in either Arabic or Farsi. 
Fourthly, Mr. Doostzadeh did an excellent job on several occasions in emphasizing that the ethnic Turkic rulers and nobility were culturally Persianizing (and before that Arabizing), and sometimes were even ashamed or otherwise uncomfortable with calling themselves Turkic. Indeed, sometimes some Turkic people, like Kipchaks, Huns, Pechenegs, Uyghurs, Tatars, etc., tried not to called themselves “Turk” and insisted on their own names/identity, thus leaving the common name “Turk” mostly for Oghuz Turks and few others. 
Because of this, those Turkic rulers, like Ghaznavis or Atabeks or Seljuks, were not interested in Turkic history per se, they were interested in the “great kings” that were before them – which in their limited worldview were only either Arab caliphs or Iranian shahs or some mythical rulers. It was impossible for the likes of Nizami to want to write – and for the likes of Sultan Togrul II or Atabek Jahan Pahlevan or Sultan Mahmoud to request – about Attila, or mythical Queen Tomris or to be compared to Oghuz Kagan. This was all associated with “nomadic” Turkic culture which was deemed inferior to the “great” and “civilized” Iranian or Arab (semi-) sedentary cultures. Those Turkic rulers obviously wanted to be the greatest and wanted to be compared to their great predecessors – ethnicity at the time didn’t even exist per se, there was only tribal, religious and maybe national-state affiliation/allegiance. This is where the advantage of a sedentary culture glowed best – unlike nomadic cultures, they had not only rich oral tradition and history-telling, but writing. And all those Turkic rulers, like many others before them, instantly wanted to live in those great palaces with beautiful manuscripts encrusted with expensive stones and miniatures about their “achievements” and their great life. Poetry of the time is full of unimaginable epithets about some provincial ruler being brighter than sun and glowing at night greater than the moon, being the ruler of the universe, etc., -- who really believed this pathetic stuff? Probably no one, but still, people enjoyed it then – and still enjoy it now. 
This is by the way also important in the context of how Nizami redefined the view of Turks in Persian-language literature – before him, Turks, being feared by Persians, were described by mainly ethnic Persian and Tajik poets as cruel plunderers, but after Nizami it became symbol of beauty, courage and unstoppable or otherwise impossible to resist attack/charge. When “Torktaz” or “Torktazi” terms were used, including for names of his heroes, it was not in the strict military and negative “Turkic plundering” definition of Firdowsi et al, but in context either a sudden, out of the blue incursion, or of love and even sexual, as an “incursion” (e.g., see Turktaz begging Turknaz, or Bishr seeing a beautiful woman in “Seven Beauties”). 
It would be interesting to hear thoughts about Nizami’s usage of the “Torkan-e galam” term – that is, “writing Turks”, “Turkic authors/writers” – whom are briefly mentioned, as ethnic Turks did not dominate the writing guild at the time nor was there much literature in Turki using Arabic script.
Fifth, there was never a “Nestorian language” per se, although sometimes some mistake what was clearly a religious movement for the one common name of the Syriac/Aramaic/Assyrian language(s). Yet more importantly, “Nestorian” surely could not have meant “Armenian” as they lived fairly compactly and had a pretty good following of their own Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) Church since 301/314 AD and in fact, Armenians were devout Monophysites – whilst Nestorianism is all about Duophysite doctrine (like Georgians – thus Georgians have far more possibility of being Nestorians than Armenians). “Nestorians” were generally referred to and understood to be either Greeks or Syrians/Assyrians (like John Nestorius himself, who was probably Greek, but not Assyrian and did not know Syriac language). Of course, it is possible that 1% of Nestorians were even aborigens of Australia or native Americans or Armenians, but this is not a serious preposition. 
In the non-poetic literal translation of prof. Bertels, made from an ACADEMIC edition of Nizami’s epic (unlike whatever Mr. Doostzadeh is using), it was: “Aside from newest histories (I also studied books/manuscripts) Jewish, Christian and Pehlevi, Choosing from each book/manuscript what was the most precious in it. From each shell I extracted/chose its grain. Language/theme after language/theme I collected/assembled treasure, And from all of this built one whole” (in Russian: Кроме новейших историй (я изучал и книги)
Еврейские, христианские и пехлевийские,
Выбирая из каждой книги то, что было в ней драгоценным.
Из каждой скорлупы вынимал ее зернышко.
Язык за языком я собирал сокровище
И из всего этого построил целое.
(Искендернаме, ч. 1, подстр. пер. Е. Бертельса, стр. 71)).
Thus, the translation is somewhat different from Mr. Doostzadeh’s. And since “Nestorian” could not have been understood as a “language” in this verse, but only as “people, culture, books, script”, and Yahudi can be understood even today as either Hebrew (language) or Jewish (culture, nation, people, books, script), Mr. Doostzadeh’s translation is incorrect. Ironically, in fact, Wikipedia’s own page, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yahudi, says: “Yahudi – Jews, Judaism, Hebrews” – it doesn’t even allow for primary understanding of Yahudi as a “langauge”. Similarly, “Pahlavi” must have meant not the language per se, but the script or otherwise Iranian books. Thus, we get a supposedly “native ethnic Persian” boasting for the second time about knowing “his” old script, which was kind of a norm for an educated Persian anyway. Thus, it is an additional proof of Nizami not being and not feeling himself as not only ethnic Persian, but Iranian. 
V) On Ganja and Turkic population in Azerbaijan (North and South), a lot of sources and information was provided, and I am glad that Mr. Doostzadeh has found out about the massive settlement of Turkic Hun Sabirs in Byzantin Armenia – thus himself disproving his own latest attempts at arguing that even if there were Turkic people in the region long before Nizami, they were simply “warriors” and were only doing “incursions”, not actually living, making families, mixing with other people.  
Otherwise, the Iranica article omits to cite the massive amount of Russian-language scholarship on Huns, Sabirs, and other Turkic settlements in the Caucasus and Iran long before Nizami – which is strange, after all, the only nation with access to archeological and other artifacts crucial for scholarly study of those tribes, peoples, and that part of history, were Russians, Soviets, and in general people who were part of Soviet Union. No Western or Iranian researcher (the latter had hard time researching their own country, much less try to venture out beyond their borders) could have conducted this research – hence it is strange, to say the least, to see such notable omission from E. Iranica. I repeat, no serious scholar can avoid massive amount of world-class Russian-language scholarship on this and other regional matters – that is, if they are serious academics. But if they are biased and want everything to fit their prejudiced view, the of course it is understandable. 
VI) However, I am glad that Mr. Doostzadeh trusts E. Irannica, because in the very page he cites, about Ganja, it clearly states and shows that the state in which Nizami was born, lived and died, was the Atabek of Azerbaijan state: “It thus came under Saljuq control and, in the later 6th/12th century under that of the Atabeg line of Ildegizids (see ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚZòARBAÚYJAÚN)….. The new town became the focus of a great period of efflorescence, seen in the laudatory verses quoted by Mostawf^ (Nozhat al-qolu@b, pp. 91-92) and its nurturing of the great poet Nezáa@m^ Ganjav^.” 
Just as Iranica refers us, we go to page 890 for the “Atabakan-e Adarbayjan” article: “Atabakan-e Adarbayjan, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arran and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Atabaks” (atabakan-e a’zam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), the effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181, in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arran and Azerbaijan…” This is what I have been writing all along and in line with every Soviet and Russian-language source I’ve cited. Hence, since there are no objections now, I will edit Nizami’s page to reflect this important fact, that not only was he born and lived and died in a Seljuk Empire, but as part of that empire, his country was called the Atabek’s of Azerbaijan State – which was not just some principality, but actually ruled the entire Seljuk Empire (and they did so longer than E.Iranica admits – e.g., the Great Atabek Jahan Pahlivan Ildeniz died in 1186, not arbitrary-chosen date of 1181, whilst actually INCREASING his domain and being FULLY in control of the Seljuk Sultan, Togrul III by the time of his death). 
VII) I don’t know why Bosworth says that Ganja was taken by Seljuks only in 1075 – Sultan Togrul I took Tebriz in 1050s I think, and in 1054 went to Ganja, where its ruler, Shavir, agreed to become his vassal. It’s true that Shaddid ruler Fadlun III periodically tried to be independent, but Sultan Malik Shah put an end to this by sending Turk general Bugay and capturing Fadlun. It should be noted that Shaddids ruled for about 100 years – thus, one should not present it as if Ganja was always theirs and they were ruling it from times immemorial. They were just another dynasty and the last of Iranian origin – from there on, Ganja was firmly ruled by successive Turkic dynasties. From there on Ganja was firmly ruled by Turks – in fact, Sultan Malik Shah put his own son Giyas ad-Din Tapar in charge of Ganja, which long remained one of the seats of the Seljuk. The very same Giyas ad-Din Tapar became a Seljuk Sultan after his father and ruled from 1105 to 1117. That’s the time of Nizami’s parents being born. 
VIII) On Qatran Tabrizi, who was a Ganja poet originally from Tebriz, and who also lived in Naxcivan, whom Mr. Doostzadeh mentioned – here’s what H.B.Paksoy, top Western scholar on Turkic epos’, among which is his study of Dede Korkut, translated into English (one relevant verse from Qatran): “Speaking of these Oghuz, the great poet of the eleventh century, Getran Tebrizi Emir Shamsaddin [1012-1088]d wrote:e 
These Turks arriving from Turkistan 
Accepted you as their ruler 
Separated from their relatives and relations
Began living under your rule 
Now they are everywhere 
Prepared to serve you”
(from: Getran Tebrizi, Divan (Tabriz, 1333 [1916/1917]) p. 5 [in Perso-Arabic script], as printed in: H. B. Paksoy, Ed. CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery  of History (New York/London: M. E. Sharpe, 1994) 201 Pp. + Index.  (Hardcover);  (pbk.) LC CIP DK857.C45 1993 958-dc20], http://aton.ttu.edu/Introduction_to_DEDE_KORKUT.asp)
I have at least two more verses where Qatran writes about Turkic beauty, including one specifically about a Turkic beauty in Ganja.
So here once more Mr. Doostzadeh seems to be confused – he brings up the name of this great Azerbaijani poet in Persian language literature (and indeed, perhaps Getran was of Iranian origin), who clearly is well aware of Turkic presence in Azerbaijan (both North and South), and in fact writes about Turks “everywhere” in 11th century Ganja – Naxcivan – Tebriz. And of course he means the Oghuz Turks – not Turkic people in general.
Interesting, that aside from poetry, Qatran also wrote a dictionary, “Loghat-e Gatran”, which later became to be known as “Tafasir fi lughatil-furs”. Yet here’s what one source wrote of him: “Nasir-i-Khosrov, a well-known Persian poet, and contemporary of Qatran Tabrizi write about him in his Safar-nameh: "In Tabriz I met a poet named Qatran. He wrote good poetry, but did not know Persian well. He came to me bringing the Divans of Manjik and Daqiqi (Persian medieval poets), which he read with me questioning me about every passage in which he found difficulty. Then I explained and he write down the explanation. He also recited to me some of his own poems".” (http://literature.aznet.org/literature/qtabrizi/qtabrizi_en.htm)
IX) There are many references and instances about plagiarism, falsifications and other bias in Iranian scholarship, as already cited e.g., from Prof. Talattof, hence Mr. Doostzadeh should not try to engage into a mud slinging contest. Similarly, there are many instances of far more credible Armenian destructions of Azerbajani memorials in Karabakh and other Azerbaijani lands and falsifications of history, which became even a famous joke/anecdote in USSR. It sounds as crocodile tears of Armenian government propaganda – one should ask instead, where are all the Azerbaijani mosques in Yerevan? Many have been destroyed (!) whilst others have changed names into “Turkmen” mosques just in time for Turkmenbashi’s visit there. Meanwhile, Armenian churches in various parts of Azerbaijan, including one in downtown Baku, are preserved and protected from vandalism. 
In fact, Armenian government propaganda and their lobbyists are sometimes manufacturing stories about “bad Azerbaijanis” themselves for propaganda purposes and here’s some interesting facts, from an Armenian (!) newspaper, in English, with all the photos, showing how Armenians themselves have been destroying their own (!) historical heritage, with no one to blame: http://hetq.am/eng/society/0604-tapan.html I repeat -- this is from an authoritative and independent Armenian source – Hetq Online, from Armenia itself, story filed April 10, 2006, by Edik Baghdasaryan!
For relevant articles from unbiased sources like famous Russian-Soviet Academician B.B. Piotrovsky, the top expert on the history of Urartu, about highly primitive and outrageous Armenian scholars’ falsifications on Urartu supposedly being a proto-Armenian state and even some Dr. Suren Ayvazyan reading an Atabek coin, which was inscribed in Arabic, not from right to left, but in Armenian (!?) from left to right – that even generated a letter of outrage from academician Piotrovsky (whose wife was Armenian, by the way), printed in the Armenian Academy of Sciences journal in 1971 (full citation in Russian: Б.Б.Пиотровский «Письмо в редакцию» Историко-филологический журнал 1971 № 3 с.302-303). I have the relevant text in my possession in case needed.
Also, late in 19th century, the greatest – at the time – Georgian poet, publicist and writer, count Ilya Chavchavadze wrote an excellent book (which in 1902 was translated into Russian and published again in Tiflis), which he entitled: “Armenian scholars/scientists and shouting stones”. The book was about wholesale falsifications of Armenian scholars about Georgian history, pilfering from their churches, misinformation to foreign travelers and visitors, etc. The “shouting stones” in the title of the book denoted the stones from Georgian churches and cemeteries that were stolen by Armenians and after some modifications presented as Armenian. I have that book also in my possession, in original old Russian script. Similarly, a Russian ethnographer of the Caucasus, V.L.Velichko, writing on behalf of Russian czar in 1897-1903, cited both Chavchavadze and brought in additional facts of falsifications and unscholarly actions. I have this book in my possession as well, also in original old Russian script. Or just recently, in 1997-98, another Armenian researcher, P.M.Geruni, went further: he claimed that 200 km from Yerevan near the Sisian mountains there is an “ancient Armenian observatory”, which he dated at – prepare yourselves – 5,000 BC – yes, that’s right, five thousand BC! Here’s the full citation in Russian to this wonder of scholarship, in case you want to laugh: П.М.Геруни «Карахундж или Караниш - древнейшая обсерватория в Армении» // IV съезд астрономического общества 19-29 ноября 1997 г. М.1998. с.350-363.
Thus, I have shown a long string of unscholarly actions, falsifications and bias among a variety of Armenian historians throughout the entire 20th century and starting out at least in 19th century. Can anyone accuse of Azerbaijanis the same? Nope, even G.Bournoutian, whom I mentioned before, himself admits that, in his opinion, all Azerbaijani books until 1960s or so were OK and truthful, and then just turned “bad” due to his object of interest, who is just one person. 
Although, Bournoutian makes many mistakes in his article, from misidentifying his primary target to mistranslating from Persian into English. Moreover, Azerbaijanis never falsified that book – they gave academic comments in the book and justified what they did, so it was not some stealthy actions. And it is based on plenty of Russian and Armenian scholars works in early 20th century, as well as 19th century, showing that Karabakh was never inhabited by an Armenian majority. Additionally, the Azerbaijani authors of the Karabakh-nameh, 
Bournoutian also attacks a very reputable American scholar and top specialist on the history of Azerbaijan in USA, prof. Altstadt, thus showing that he just dislikes everyone and anyone who doesn’t say what he likes. Pair that with the fact that all his such articles were published only by Armenian journals, which are not read by anyone, are not peer-reviewed and have nearly zero scholarly credibility, and all his books are published by Armenian-co-owned Mazda Publishing in California – i.e., never by a credible, academic, university publication – and we have a good profile of who Bournoutian is and what kind of a historian he is. 
Hence, it’s better if different fences are chosen as targets by the likes of Mr. Doostzadeh – anything related to Azerbaijan and its history represents quite an interest to me and I am ready to talk about it at length – and over the years have amassed an impressive library.
X) On the population of Azerbaijan (especially North (Arran), as well as a bit about South (Azerbaijan)) during and after the Arab conquest from Arabic-language chroniclers of the time. (The huge Turkic population just before the time of Nizami was shown in details before). 
First, Arab sources noted that among the city residents, in Arran people spoke “Arrani” (!) and in Azerbaijan – “Azeri” (From: Al-Istakhri, “Kitab masalik al-mamalik”, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Leiden: Brill, 1870 (BGA, I, p. 192); al-Moqaddasi, “Akhsan at-takasim fima’rifat al-akalim, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1876, II, p.  378; Yakut, “Mu’jam al-buldan”, Beirut, 1950, Vol. I-IV, I, p. 173. 
Secondly, Al-Moqaddasi said that the Farsi speech/pronunciation of the inhabitants of these areas resembled that of Khorasan residents, whilst in Arabic only traders and feudal chiefs could speak well (al-Moqaddasi, “Akhsan at-takasim fima’rifat al-akalim, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1876, II, p.  378). 
Thirdly, Arabic sources also mention the multitude of different people and languages that existed in the Caucasus at the time, especially among mountainous residents of Arran and Azerbaijan (Note: 50% of current Republic of Azerbaijan are mountainous). Specifically: “mountains of Abu Musa [Karabakh], which belonged to Arran, are inhabited by tribes/peoples among the nations/peoples of Arran” (al-Masudi, “Muruj udh-Dhahab wa Maadin ul-Jawahir ("Meadows of Gold Mines and Precious Stones"), ed. By Barbier de Meynard, French tr., 9 vol., Paris, 1861-77, from Vol. II, p. 75.
According to Ibn-Hawqal, in the mountains of Caucasus they spoke in 360 languages (Abu’l Kásim Ibn Haukal, “Kitab al-Masalik wa-al-Mamalik (The Book of the Routes of the Kingdoms)”, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1873 (Bibliotheca geographorum Arabicorum [=BGA], II, p. 248). On the next page, 249, he notes that he had doubts about this until verified it himself and saw that indeed, there are many different languages. 
Al-Moqaddasi notes that in Ardabil’s mountainous villages alone there were 60 languages (ibid., p. 375).
Finally, as already mentioned and confirmed by Enc. Iranica, IX century author al-Balazuri (“Kitab futuh al-buldan”. Leiden, 1866, p. 203) and X century Al-Istakhri (ibid., pp. 191-192, footnote “k”) and al-Masudi (ibid., p. 75) – and confirmed by Minorsky (V.F.Minorsky. “History of Shirvan and Derbent in X-XI centuries”, Moscow, 1963, p. 214, footnote 115) citing Byzantium chronicler Constantine Bagryanorodniy – Turkic people White Sabarts (Sabarta Asfala), after war with another Turkic people, the Pechenegs, settled and lived on a large territory from Ganja to Tiflis. 
Hence, we see that 1) the ethnic and linguistic makeup of Azerbaijan (both North and South) was far from simple, with many languages, including those not understood by Arabic and Persian speakers, 2) more evidence about Turkic population in and near Ganja well before Nizami or his grandparents, and 3) that “Azeri” and “Arrani” were different languages, and certainly different from Farsi or Arabic. 
XI) Now, once again, what makes Nizami an Azerbaijani poet – I’ve said many times, and will just re-quote my summary to the user IranianPatriot:
I clearly show and state that Nizami indeed: 1) was one of greatest Persian language poets, and 2) belongs to Iranian culture and Iranian/Persian cultural tradition, heritage and space. But at the same time: 1) Nizami was not ethnic Persian; 2) Nizami was not exclusively an Iranian poet or Persian poet. Indeed, because he was born, lived and died in Azerbaijan Atabek state of the Seljuk Empire -- and Iran did not exist as one country at the time, indeed, Iran did not exist at all from the Arab caliphate invasion in the 7-8 centuries until 1501-1502 -- Nizami was more Azerbaijani, than Iranian. There are countless examples of poets of one origin living in yet different place and writing in yet another language. I gave an example of famous Jewish writer Kafka who lived in Czech capital Prague but is considered a German -- and not Israeli -- writer. There is also William Saroyan -- an ethnic Armenian who is considered to be an American writer. Similarly, why is Ottoman sultan Selim, along with other Turkic people, who wrote only in Farsi, still recognized as Turkish, Turkoman, Turkmen or Azerbaijani rulers, poets, etc., but not Nizami?
<…> And of course Azerbaijanis are an ancient people (but a modern nation) with very rich history -- and have many examples in history when either partially, or fully, the historic lands of Azerbaijani people were unified. One such example is the Nizami-era Azerbaijani Atabek state of the Ildezid dynasty. By the way, what is your response to Tajikistan, which has less history of independence than Azerbaijan yet shares so many great figures with Iranian (Persian) culture, such as Ferdowsi?
Thus, despite Nizami being a great Persian language poet, belonging to the Iranian culture, he does in no less way to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani culture -- which despite closeness, similarities, is nevertheless a stand-alone, separate culture and nation. That was true from the times of Medes and Atropatene, which was always either fully independent or semi-independent from the rest of Iran. --AdilBaguirov 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: = BEGIN QUOTE 

message: Where do we begin? Well, first of all, no one said that since Nizami knew Turki, he was a Turk. Instead, I’ve provided quotes from himself, where he says he is a Turk, along with evidence from scholars who all say that Afak/Appaq, who was Turkic Kipchak, was uneducated and that meant she didn’t speak any other language but her native Turki. Thus, Nizami had to speak with her in some language, didn’t he? Finally, Ganja, along with all other citied of Azerbaijan (both North and South) had huge Turkic population and was ruled by Turkic dynasty of Atabeks, and in general, it was a Turkic Seljuk Empire. Trying to deny that Turki was a common language in the area at the time of Nizami is absurd and contrary to evidence. 
Secondly, my own opinion of the quote I’ve already provided: “In Arabic I read everything and in Dari, The book of Bukhari I read, [as well as] the book of Tabari” (this verse, which was also included in Farsi in the Wiki Archives, is from Haft Paykar/Seven Beauties). Why on Earth would a supposed “Persian” or any Iranian boast about conducting research in his “native” Farsi-e Dari? Why put “native” Persian language on the same line with clearly foreign Arabic (all this despite the fact that Nizami obviously had excellent proficiency in many languages)? It does not make sense – it’s the same as Shakespeare writing that he conducted his research in old French and his own native …. Old English.
Thirdly, as Mr. Doostzadeh has correctly stated and hinted many times, there was very little literature in Turki in Nizami’s times – it certainly paled in comparison to literature in Arabic, Greek, Aramaic, Persian, etc. Hence, it is not surprising that Nizami did not state that he conducted research in Turki – even centuries later another great Azerbaijani poet Fuzuli complained about lack of literature in Turki, etc. Of course, Nizami himself complained in Haft Paykar about not appreciating his Turkishness, and in Leili and Majnun about Shirvanshah specifically asking not to write anything in Turki, but in either Arabic or Farsi. 
Fourthly, Mr. Doostzadeh did an excellent job on several occasions in emphasizing that the ethnic Turkic rulers and nobility were culturally Persianizing (and before that Arabizing), and sometimes were even ashamed or otherwise uncomfortable with calling themselves Turkic. Indeed, sometimes some Turkic people, like Kipchaks, Huns, Pechenegs, Uyghurs, Tatars, etc., tried not to called themselves “Turk” and insisted on their own names/identity, thus leaving the common name “Turk” mostly for Oghuz Turks and few others. 
Because of this, those Turkic rulers, like Ghaznavis or Atabeks or Seljuks, were not interested in Turkic history per se, they were interested in the “great kings” that were before them – which in their limited worldview were only either Arab caliphs or Iranian shahs or some mythical rulers. It was impossible for the likes of Nizami to want to write – and for the likes of Sultan Togrul II or Atabek Jahan Pahlevan or Sultan Mahmoud to request – about Attila, or mythical Queen Tomris or to be compared to Oghuz Kagan. This was all associated with “nomadic” Turkic culture which was deemed inferior to the “great” and “civilized” Iranian or Arab (semi-) sedentary cultures. Those Turkic rulers obviously wanted to be the greatest and wanted to be compared to their great predecessors – ethnicity at the time didn’t even exist per se, there was only tribal, religious and maybe national-state affiliation/allegiance. This is where the advantage of a sedentary culture glowed best – unlike nomadic cultures, they had not only rich oral tradition and history-telling, but writing. And all those Turkic rulers, like many others before them, instantly wanted to live in those great palaces with beautiful manuscripts encrusted with expensive stones and miniatures about their “achievements” and their great life. Poetry of the time is full of unimaginable epithets about some provincial ruler being brighter than sun and glowing at night greater than the moon, being the ruler of the universe, etc., -- who really believed this pathetic stuff? Probably no one, but still, people enjoyed it then – and still enjoy it now. 
This is by the way also important in the context of how Nizami redefined the view of Turks in Persian-language literature – before him, Turks, being feared by Persians, were described by mainly ethnic Persian and Tajik poets as cruel plunderers, but after Nizami it became symbol of beauty, courage and unstoppable or otherwise impossible to resist attack/charge. When “Torktaz” or “Torktazi” terms were used, including for names of his heroes, it was not in the strict military and negative “Turkic plundering” definition of Firdowsi et al, but in context either a sudden, out of the blue incursion, or of love and even sexual, as an “incursion” (e.g., see Turktaz begging Turknaz, or Bishr seeing a beautiful woman in “Seven Beauties”). 
It would be interesting to hear thoughts about Nizami’s usage of the “Torkan-e galam” term – that is, “writing Turks”, “Turkic authors/writers” – whom are briefly mentioned, as ethnic Turks did not dominate the writing guild at the time nor was there much literature in Turki using Arabic script.
Fifth, there was never a “Nestorian language” per se, although sometimes some mistake what was clearly a religious movement for the one common name of the Syriac/Aramaic/Assyrian language(s). Yet more importantly, “Nestorian” surely could not have meant “Armenian” as they lived fairly compactly and had a pretty good following of their own Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) Church since 301/314 AD and in fact, Armenians were devout Monophysites – whilst Nestorianism is all about Duophysite doctrine (like Georgians – thus Georgians have far more possibility of being Nestorians than Armenians). “Nestorians” were generally referred to and understood to be either Greeks or Syrians/Assyrians (like John Nestorius himself, who was probably Greek, but not Assyrian and did not know Syriac language). Of course, it is possible that 1% of Nestorians were even aborigens of Australia or native Americans or Armenians, but this is not a serious preposition. 
In the non-poetic literal translation of prof. Bertels, made from an ACADEMIC edition of Nizami’s epic (unlike whatever Mr. Doostzadeh is using), it was: “Aside from newest histories (I also studied books/manuscripts) Jewish, Christian and Pehlevi, Choosing from each book/manuscript what was the most precious in it. From each shell I extracted/chose its grain. Language/theme after language/theme I collected/assembled treasure, And from all of this built one whole” (in Russian: Кроме новейших историй (я изучал и книги)
Еврейские, христианские и пехлевийские,
Выбирая из каждой книги то, что было в ней драгоценным.
Из каждой скорлупы вынимал ее зернышко.
Язык за языком я собирал сокровище
И из всего этого построил целое.
(Искендернаме, ч. 1, подстр. пер. Е. Бертельса, стр. 71)).
Thus, the translation is somewhat different from Mr. Doostzadeh’s. And since “Nestorian” could not have been understood as a “language” in this verse, but only as “people, culture, books, script”, and Yahudi can be understood even today as either Hebrew (language) or Jewish (culture, nation, people, books, script), Mr. Doostzadeh’s translation is incorrect. Ironically, in fact, Wikipedia’s own page, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yahudi, says: “Yahudi – Jews, Judaism, Hebrews” – it doesn’t even allow for primary understanding of Yahudi as a “langauge”. Similarly, “Pahlavi” must have meant not the language per se, but the script or otherwise Iranian books. Thus, we get a supposedly “native ethnic Persian” boasting for the second time about knowing “his” old script, which was kind of a norm for an educated Persian anyway. Thus, it is an additional proof of Nizami not being and not feeling himself as not only ethnic Persian, but Iranian. 
V) On Ganja and Turkic population in Azerbaijan (North and South), a lot of sources and information was provided, and I am glad that Mr. Doostzadeh has found out about the massive settlement of Turkic Hun Sabirs in Byzantin Armenia – thus himself disproving his own latest attempts at arguing that even if there were Turkic people in the region long before Nizami, they were simply “warriors” and were only doing “incursions”, not actually living, making families, mixing with other people.  
Otherwise, the Iranica article omits to cite the massive amount of Russian-language scholarship on Huns, Sabirs, and other Turkic settlements in the Caucasus and Iran long before Nizami – which is strange, after all, the only nation with access to archeological and other artifacts crucial for scholarly study of those tribes, peoples, and that part of history, were Russians, Soviets, and in general people who were part of Soviet Union. No Western or Iranian researcher (the latter had hard time researching their own country, much less try to venture out beyond their borders) could have conducted this research – hence it is strange, to say the least, to see such notable omission from E. Iranica. I repeat, no serious scholar can avoid massive amount of world-class Russian-language scholarship on this and other regional matters – that is, if they are serious academics. But if they are biased and want everything to fit their prejudiced view, the of course it is understandable. 
VI) However, I am glad that Mr. Doostzadeh trusts E. Irannica, because in the very page he cites, about Ganja, it clearly states and shows that the state in which Nizami was born, lived and died, was the Atabek of Azerbaijan state: “It thus came under Saljuq control and, in the later 6th/12th century under that of the Atabeg line of Ildegizids (see ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚZòARBAÚYJAÚN)….. The new town became the focus of a great period of efflorescence, seen in the laudatory verses quoted by Mostawf^ (Nozhat al-qolu@b, pp. 91-92) and its nurturing of the great poet Nezáa@m^ Ganjav^.” 
Just as Iranica refers us, we go to page 890 for the “Atabakan-e Adarbayjan” article: “Atabakan-e Adarbayjan, an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arran and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Atabaks” (atabakan-e a’zam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), the effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181, in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arran and Azerbaijan…” This is what I have been writing all along and in line with every Soviet and Russian-language source I’ve cited. Hence, since there are no objections now, I will edit Nizami’s page to reflect this important fact, that not only was he born and lived and died in a Seljuk Empire, but as part of that empire, his country was called the Atabek’s of Azerbaijan State – which was not just some principality, but actually ruled the entire Seljuk Empire (and they did so longer than E.Iranica admits – e.g., the Great Atabek Jahan Pahlivan Ildeniz died in 1186, not arbitrary-chosen date of 1181, whilst actually INCREASING his domain and being FULLY in control of the Seljuk Sultan, Togrul III by the time of his death). 
VII) I don’t know why Bosworth says that Ganja was taken by Seljuks only in 1075 – Sultan Togrul I took Tebriz in 1050s I think, and in 1054 went to Ganja, where its ruler, Shavir, agreed to become his vassal. It’s true that Shaddid ruler Fadlun III periodically tried to be independent, but Sultan Malik Shah put an end to this by sending Turk general Bugay and capturing Fadlun. It should be noted that Shaddids ruled for about 100 years – thus, one should not present it as if Ganja was always theirs and they were ruling it from times immemorial. They were just another dynasty and the last of Iranian origin – from there on, Ganja was firmly ruled by successive Turkic dynasties. From there on Ganja was firmly ruled by Turks – in fact, Sultan Malik Shah put his own son Giyas ad-Din Tapar in charge of Ganja, which long remained one of the seats of the Seljuk. The very same Giyas ad-Din Tapar became a Seljuk Sultan after his father and ruled from 1105 to 1117. That’s the time of Nizami’s parents being born. 
VIII) On Qatran Tabrizi, who was a Ganja poet originally from Tebriz, and who also lived in Naxcivan, whom Mr. Doostzadeh mentioned – here’s what H.B.Paksoy, top Western scholar on Turkic epos’, among which is his study of Dede Korkut, translated into English (one relevant verse from Qatran): “Speaking of these Oghuz, the great poet of the eleventh century, Getran Tebrizi Emir Shamsaddin [1012-1088]d wrote:e 
These Turks arriving from Turkistan 
Accepted you as their ruler 
Separated from their relatives and relations
Began living under your rule 
Now they are everywhere 
Prepared to serve you”
(from: Getran Tebrizi, Divan (Tabriz, 1333 [1916/1917]) p. 5 [in Perso-Arabic script], as printed in: H. B. Paksoy, Ed. CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery  of History (New York/London: M. E. Sharpe, 1994) 201 Pp. + Index.  (Hardcover);  (pbk.) LC CIP DK857.C45 1993 958-dc20], http://aton.ttu.edu/Introduction_to_DEDE_KORKUT.asp)
I have at least two more verses where Qatran writes about Turkic beauty, including one specifically about a Turkic beauty in Ganja.
So here once more Mr. Doostzadeh seems to be confused – he brings up the name of this great Azerbaijani poet in Persian language literature (and indeed, perhaps Getran was of Iranian origin), who clearly is well aware of Turkic presence in Azerbaijan (both North and South), and in fact writes about Turks “everywhere” in 11th century Ganja – Naxcivan – Tebriz. And of course he means the Oghuz Turks – not Turkic people in general.
Interesting, that aside from poetry, Qatran also wrote a dictionary, “Loghat-e Gatran”, which later became to be known as “Tafasir fi lughatil-furs”. Yet here’s what one source wrote of him: “Nasir-i-Khosrov, a well-known Persian poet, and contemporary of Qatran Tabrizi write about him in his Safar-nameh: "In Tabriz I met a poet named Qatran. He wrote good poetry, but did not know Persian well. He came to me bringing the Divans of Manjik and Daqiqi (Persian medieval poets), which he read with me questioning me about every passage in which he found difficulty. Then I explained and he write down the explanation. He also recited to me some of his own poems".” (http://literature.aznet.org/literature/qtabrizi/qtabrizi_en.htm)
IX) There are many references and instances about plagiarism, falsifications and other bias in Iranian scholarship, as already cited e.g., from Prof. Talattof, hence Mr. Doostzadeh should not try to engage into a mud slinging contest. Similarly, there are many instances of far more credible Armenian destructions of Azerbajani memorials in Karabakh and other Azerbaijani lands and falsifications of history, which became even a famous joke/anecdote in USSR. It sounds as crocodile tears of Armenian government propaganda – one should ask instead, where are all the Azerbaijani mosques in Yerevan? Many have been destroyed (!) whilst others have changed names into “Turkmen” mosques just in time for Turkmenbashi’s visit there. Meanwhile, Armenian churches in various parts of Azerbaijan, including one in downtown Baku, are preserved and protected from vandalism. 
In fact, Armenian government propaganda and their lobbyists are sometimes manufacturing stories about “bad Azerbaijanis” themselves for propaganda purposes and here’s some interesting facts, from an Armenian (!) newspaper, in English, with all the photos, showing how Armenians themselves have been destroying their own (!) historical heritage, with no one to blame: http://hetq.am/eng/society/0604-tapan.html I repeat -- this is from an authoritative and independent Armenian source – Hetq Online, from Armenia itself, story filed April 10, 2006, by Edik Baghdasaryan!
For relevant articles from unbiased sources like famous Russian-Soviet Academician B.B. Piotrovsky, the top expert on the history of Urartu, about highly primitive and outrageous Armenian scholars’ falsifications on Urartu supposedly being a proto-Armenian state and even some Dr. Suren Ayvazyan reading an Atabek coin, which was inscribed in Arabic, not from right to left, but in Armenian (!?) from left to right – that even generated a letter of outrage from academician Piotrovsky (whose wife was Armenian, by the way), printed in the Armenian Academy of Sciences journal in 1971 (full citation in Russian: Б.Б.Пиотровский «Письмо в редакцию» Историко-филологический журнал 1971 № 3 с.302-303). I have the relevant text in my possession in case needed.
Also, late in 19th century, the greatest – at the time – Georgian poet, publicist and writer, count Ilya Chavchavadze wrote an excellent book (which in 1902 was translated into Russian and published again in Tiflis), which he entitled: “Armenian scholars/scientists and shouting stones”. The book was about wholesale falsifications of Armenian scholars about Georgian history, pilfering from their churches, misinformation to foreign travelers and visitors, etc. The “shouting stones” in the title of the book denoted the stones from Georgian churches and cemeteries that were stolen by Armenians and after some modifications presented as Armenian. I have that book also in my possession, in original old Russian script. Similarly, a Russian ethnographer of the Caucasus, V.L.Velichko, writing on behalf of Russian czar in 1897-1903, cited both Chavchavadze and brought in additional facts of falsifications and unscholarly actions. I have this book in my possession as well, also in original old Russian script. Or just recently, in 1997-98, another Armenian researcher, P.M.Geruni, went further: he claimed that 200 km from Yerevan near the Sisian mountains there is an “ancient Armenian observatory”, which he dated at – prepare yourselves – 5,000 BC – yes, that’s right, five thousand BC! Here’s the full citation in Russian to this wonder of scholarship, in case you want to laugh: П.М.Геруни «Карахундж или Караниш - древнейшая обсерватория в Армении» // IV съезд астрономического общества 19-29 ноября 1997 г. М.1998. с.350-363.
Thus, I have shown a long string of unscholarly actions, falsifications and bias among a variety of Armenian historians throughout the entire 20th century and starting out at least in 19th century. Can anyone accuse of Azerbaijanis the same? Nope, even G.Bournoutian, whom I mentioned before, himself admits that, in his opinion, all Azerbaijani books until 1960s or so were OK and truthful, and then just turned “bad” due to his object of interest, who is just one person. 
Although, Bournoutian makes many mistakes in his article, from misidentifying his primary target to mistranslating from Persian into English. Moreover, Azerbaijanis never falsified that book – they gave academic comments in the book and justified what they did, so it was not some stealthy actions. And it is based on plenty of Russian and Armenian scholars works in early 20th century, as well as 19th century, showing that Karabakh was never inhabited by an Armenian majority. Additionally, the Azerbaijani authors of the Karabakh-nameh, 
Bournoutian also attacks a very reputable American scholar and top specialist on the history of Azerbaijan in USA, prof. Altstadt, thus showing that he just dislikes everyone and anyone who doesn’t say what he likes. Pair that with the fact that all his such articles were published only by Armenian journals, which are not read by anyone, are not peer-reviewed and have nearly zero scholarly credibility, and all his books are published by Armenian-co-owned Mazda Publishing in California – i.e., never by a credible, academic, university publication – and we have a good profile of who Bournoutian is and what kind of a historian he is. 
Hence, it’s better if different fences are chosen as targets by the likes of Mr. Doostzadeh – anything related to Azerbaijan and its history represents quite an interest to me and I am ready to talk about it at length – and over the years have amassed an impressive library.
X) On the population of Azerbaijan (especially North (Arran), as well as a bit about South (Azerbaijan)) during and after the Arab conquest from Arabic-language chroniclers of the time. (The huge Turkic population just before the time of Nizami was shown in details before). 
First, Arab sources noted that among the city residents, in Arran people spoke “Arrani” (!) and in Azerbaijan – “Azeri” (From: Al-Istakhri, “Kitab masalik al-mamalik”, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Leiden: Brill, 1870 (BGA, I, p. 192); al-Moqaddasi, “Akhsan at-takasim fima’rifat al-akalim, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1876, II, p.  378; Yakut, “Mu’jam al-buldan”, Beirut, 1950, Vol. I-IV, I, p. 173. 
Secondly, Al-Moqaddasi said that the Farsi speech/pronunciation of the inhabitants of these areas resembled that of Khorasan residents, whilst in Arabic only traders and feudal chiefs could speak well (al-Moqaddasi, “Akhsan at-takasim fima’rifat al-akalim, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1876, II, p.  378). 
Thirdly, Arabic sources also mention the multitude of different people and languages that existed in the Caucasus at the time, especially among mountainous residents of Arran and Azerbaijan (Note: 50% of current Republic of Azerbaijan are mountainous). Specifically: “mountains of Abu Musa [Karabakh], which belonged to Arran, are inhabited by tribes/peoples among the nations/peoples of Arran” (al-Masudi, “Muruj udh-Dhahab wa Maadin ul-Jawahir ("Meadows of Gold Mines and Precious Stones"), ed. By Barbier de Meynard, French tr., 9 vol., Paris, 1861-77, from Vol. II, p. 75.
According to Ibn-Hawqal, in the mountains of Caucasus they spoke in 360 languages (Abu’l Kásim Ibn Haukal, “Kitab al-Masalik wa-al-Mamalik (The Book of the Routes of the Kingdoms)”, ed. by M.J. de Goeje Leiden: Brill, 1873 (Bibliotheca geographorum Arabicorum [=BGA], II, p. 248). On the next page, 249, he notes that he had doubts about this until verified it himself and saw that indeed, there are many different languages. 
Al-Moqaddasi notes that in Ardabil’s mountainous villages alone there were 60 languages (ibid., p. 375).
Finally, as already mentioned and confirmed by Enc. Iranica, IX century author al-Balazuri (“Kitab futuh al-buldan”. Leiden, 1866, p. 203) and X century Al-Istakhri (ibid., pp. 191-192, footnote “k”) and al-Masudi (ibid., p. 75) – and confirmed by Minorsky (V.F.Minorsky. “History of Shirvan and Derbent in X-XI centuries”, Moscow, 1963, p. 214, footnote 115) citing Byzantium chronicler Constantine Bagryanorodniy – Turkic people White Sabarts (Sabarta Asfala), after war with another Turkic people, the Pechenegs, settled and lived on a large territory from Ganja to Tiflis. 
Hence, we see that 1) the ethnic and linguistic makeup of Azerbaijan (both North and South) was far from simple, with many languages, including those not understood by Arabic and Persian speakers, 2) more evidence about Turkic population in and near Ganja well before Nizami or his grandparents, and 3) that “Azeri” and “Arrani” were different languages, and certainly different from Farsi or Arabic. 
XI) Now, once again, what makes Nizami an Azerbaijani poet – I’ve said many times, and will just re-quote my summary to the user IranianPatriot:
I clearly show and state that Nizami indeed: 1) was one of greatest Persian language poets, and 2) belongs to Iranian culture and Iranian/Persian cultural tradition, heritage and space. But at the same time: 1) Nizami was not ethnic Persian; 2) Nizami was not exclusively an Iranian poet or Persian poet. Indeed, because he was born, lived and died in Azerbaijan Atabek state of the Seljuk Empire -- and Iran did not exist as one country at the time, indeed, Iran did not exist at all from the Arab caliphate invasion in the 7-8 centuries until 1501-1502 -- Nizami was more Azerbaijani, than Iranian. There are countless examples of poets of one origin living in yet different place and writing in yet another language. I gave an example of famous Jewish writer Kafka who lived in Czech capital Prague but is considered a German -- and not Israeli -- writer. There is also William Saroyan -- an ethnic Armenian who is considered to be an American writer. Similarly, why is Ottoman sultan Selim, along with other Turkic people, who wrote only in Farsi, still recognized as Turkish, Turkoman, Turkmen or Azerbaijani rulers, poets, etc., but not Nizami?
<…> And of course Azerbaijanis are an ancient people (but a modern nation) with very rich history -- and have many examples in history when either partially, or fully, the historic lands of Azerbaijani people were unified. One such example is the Nizami-era Azerbaijani Atabek state of the Ildezid dynasty. By the way, what is your response to Tajikistan, which has less history of independence than Azerbaijan yet shares so many great figures with Iranian (Persian) culture, such as Ferdowsi?
Thus, despite Nizami being a great Persian language poet, belonging to the Iranian culture, he does in no less way to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani culture -- which despite closeness, similarities, is nevertheless a stand-alone, separate culture and nation. That was true from the times of Medes and Atropatene, which was always either fully independent or semi-independent from the rest of Iran. --AdilBaguirov 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: = END QUOTE