Top Adil Baguirov Phd Secrets



دوم اينکه خزرها در زمان امويان به ايران و قفقاز و آذربايجان حمله کردند و انها هرگز و هرگز از مردم بومي آذربايجان نبودند. بلکه اگر شماها مي خواهيد آذربايجاني ها را به خزرها ربط بدهيد مسئله خودتان هست ولي آذربايجاني ها نه نياکنشان يهودي بودند و نه زبانشان ترکي خزري است بلکه زبان انها ترکي اوغوزي است. (دکتر هئيت)

). Check out Dekhodas dictionary for other examples. So this verse basically shows Nizami wasn't a Turk, else there would not be any need to use this type of time period..

Simply because even if there is a manuscript older than it, it doesn't instantly one hundred% refute it, given that many manuscripts could have been extant. So that is certainly why we use the term Probably. Even though some scholars dismiss it, some scholars have utilized words and phrases "Most likely", "could have been","maybe." .

Mr. Doostzadeh is once more showcasing his difficulty with comprehension and idea of basic principles when he declares that “That Jalal Khalegh Motlaqi utilized numerous editions and 1 was the Shahnameh of Moscrow, has no bearing on The difficulty of Nizamis ethnicity”. Certainly, this was not claimed – instead, I Obviously delivered Dr. Motlaq’s assertion to show that one) even he considers non-Iranian Students as top-quality to Iran’s have despite the latter’s native language proficiency edge, and, 2) all Iranians relied on supposedly “tainted” Soviet (Russian) edition of Shahnameh – which is in fact pitiful and in many cases preposterous, this type of big nation as Iran, with a few of its Associates obsessed with claiming every thing as Iranian, with numerous Persian chauvinists all-around, a great deal cash, and supposedly loving and cherishing their #1 poet, did not have an ordinary scholarly, tutorial version of that epic until eventually 2004! Unbelievable!!!!

sixteen) At last, what exactly is seemingly “insulting” and “derogatory” to Mr. Doostzadeh and a variety of modern day Persian racists with regard to portrayal of Turks in Nizami’s Khamse is actually a great deal liked by those Turks by themselves – obviously, this is because of different idea of the connotations and meanings that Nizami place into that term. What exactly is “insulting” to some Persian when Nizami writes a couple of “Turkish conquest/invasion/incursion” (“Torktaz” and “Torktazi”), is definitely appreciated and liked by an Azerbaijani, since from the whole context on the poems, as is affirmed by scholars, Nizami inputs exclusively favourable connotation to that term and people seemingly “violent” and therefore “negative” terms.

As is obvious through the textual content, Shirvanshah Particularly asks Nizami to write down in and use motifs of possibly Arabic or Persian, implying that in no way should A further language and motives – during which Evidently Turki and Turkic is singled out – be made use of.

And within the google lookup on masud ibn namdar one book via the title: "Majmu'a qissas wa-rasa'il wa-ash'ar" arrived up which will not sound Turkish.

Also many of the Avesta names have etymologically Iranian roots and Prof. Mayrhofer has painstakingly shown the etymology of each of the four hundred or so names.

For instance Ferdowsi calls the ruler with the Turks as Khaghan Chin) four) since they are covenant-breakers and might not be reliable

As a result, she was very much an Azerbaijani Kurd – rather than Anatolian or Iranian or other Kurds – and cultural, linguistic together with other subtleties connected to Anybody location are important. For this reason, any assaults and farce created by some irresponsible consumers is irrelevant, and Kurdish mom does not translate into Nizami getting Persian or simply Iranian.

But manipulations of those details by some pan-Turkist nationalist just isn't welcomed and is aggression on Iranian heritage. Also these days we don't judge ethnicity by twelfth century standard and Nizami Though most certainly completely Iranian, is not less than fifty percent Kurdish(Iranic) (unanimously agreed by all Students).

10) Mr. Doostzadeh continuously ignores or contradicts crystal clear-Slice proof of Nizami’s Azerbaijani Turkic self-watch, additional reading identification and nationality, his incredibly favorable check out of Turkic persons generally speaking in all his poems as good, just, courageous, and delightful. Mr. Doostadeh’s look at these guys pulls all stops attempting to contradict the uncontradictable relating to this – even supposing none of the significant modern Western Students, like of Iranian origin like prof.

This is often what transpires any time you talk with a pan-turkists (Very well Mr. Baguirov phone calls his opponents numerous names). Their absurd logic is important to deny truth. By the way You can find an write-up about how some Azarbaijani historians deleted some lines in a e book about Karabagh in A different web page. Not which i care, but I tend not to desire to become involved in Armenian-Azarbaijani things. All right? I don’t treatment, I am Iranian and Iranian ethnicity.

That’s since there was no “Azerbaijani bias” in Soviet scholarship – only Armenians and people ideologically inspired Persian chauvinists can look at this now claim this sort of absurd and comical assertion – to deal with up their on bias and favoritism by some Soviet and Western Students or writers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *