20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει το Δελχί, Βαθύπλουτη Πρωτεύουσα των Γκορκανιάν, Πανίσχυρων Μογγόλων της ‘Ινδίας’

March 20, 1739: The Turkmen Nader Shah of Iran occupies Delhi, the Opulent Capital of the Gorkanian, i.e. the Formidable Mongols of ‘India’

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”

Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 20η Μαρτίου 2019.

Στο κείμενό του αυτό, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης ενσωματώνει τμήματα δύο ομιλιών μου, οι οποίες δόθηκαν τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 στο Πεκίνο σχετικά με την γεωστρατηγική του αφρο-ευρασιατικού χώρου, την πτώση των μεγάλων ιστορικών αυτοκρατοριών, και την δυναμική μιας αυτοκρατορικής-οικουμενιστικής επιστροφής στην Γη.

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

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/20-μαρτίου-1739-ο-τουρκμένος-ναντέρ-σάχης-το/ ====================

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία

Μια φορά όταν είπαν στον Ναντέρ ότι δεν υπάρχει πόλεμος στον Παράδεισο, λέγεται ότι ρώτησε: “Μπορεί να υπάρχει ευχαρίστηση εκεί”;

Πριν από 280 χρόνια, το αδιανόητο έγινε γεγονός! Το (σιιτικό) Ιράν κατέλαβε την (σουνιτική) Ισλαμική Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Μουγάλ), η οποία ήταν ένα πολύ μεγαλύτερο, πολυπληθέστερο και πλουσιώτερο κράτος. Καμμιά χώρα στον κόσμο δεν είχε ποτέ κατακτήσει την Κοιλάδα του Γάγγη. Αλλά για τον Αφσάρ Τουρκμένο γεωργό – πολεμιστή Ναντέρ όλα ήταν δυνατά!

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Οι Αχαιμενιδείς είχαν κατακτήσει όλες τις εκτάσεις από την Μακεδονία μέχρι την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού, από τα βόρεια παράλια της Μαύρης Θάλασσας μέχρι το Σουδάν, κι από την Κεντρική Ασία μέχρι το Ομάν. Αλλά εκεί που τελειώνει η Πενταποταμία (Παντζάμπ: ‘Πέντε Ποτάμια’ στα φαρσί και στα ουρντού) τερματίζονταν και τα ανατολικά όρια του Ιράν.

Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος που άτρομος διεξήγαγε και νικούσε σε μάχες έναντι συντριπτικά υπερτέρων δυνάμεων δεν κατέλαβε ‘πολλές’ χώρες! Αυτό είναι κάτι που πολλοί ξεχνούν στην Ελλάδα. Ουσιαστικά , ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος κατέκτησε μία χώρα: το Ιράν. Απέραντη, τεράστια, με πολυπληθή στρατεύματα, ναι! Αλλά μία. Ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος προχώρησε πέραν της Πενταποταμίας και νίκησε τον Πώρο, βασιλιά ενός βόρειου ινδικού βασιλείου. Και θα προχωούσε περισσότερο αλλά ξεσηκώθηκαν οι στρατιώτες του και τον απέτρεψαν.

Ι. Δεν υπάρχει ‘Ινδία’: είναι ένας ψεύτικος, αποικιοκρατικός, οριενταλιστικός όρος

Υπάρχει στο σημείο αυτό μια σύγχυση που δημιουργήθηκε από αρχαίους Έλληνες και Ρωμαίους συγγραφείς: προερχόμενος από το όνομα του Ινδού ποταμού, ο όρος ‘Ινδία’ (Χεντ και Σιντ) απέκτησε σιγά-σιγά μια τεράστια ασάφεια, ακριβώς επειδή η γνώση για εκτάσεις πέραν του ποταμού ήταν μικρή.

Τα βασίλεια ανατολικά του Ινδού αποτελούσαν βέβαια την Ινδία και ήταν εθνοφυλετικά συγγενή προς τους Πέρσες και τους Άρειους, αλλά πιο πέρα στα ανατολικά και στα νότια εκτείνονταν δραβιδικά βασίλεια που δεν είχαν καμμιά συγγένεια – εθνική, γλωσσική, πολιτισμική – με τους πραγματικούς Ινδούς των βασιλείων αμέσως ανατολικά του Ινδού. Οι Δραβίδες είναι τόσο διαφορετικοί από τους Ινδούς όσο οι Έλληνες από τους Κινέζους.

Στα χρόνια της Ύστερης Αρχαιότητας, ο αρχαιοελληνικός όρος ‘Ινδία’ απέκτησε τόση ασάφεια και γενίκευση όση κι ο όρος ‘Αιθιοπία’, ο οποίος περιέγραφε αρχικά το σημερινό Σουδάν (όχι την Αβησσυνία που σήμερα ψευδώς ονομάζεται Αιθιοπία). Οι δυο όροι τελικά αλληλο-επικαλύφθηκαν και ουσιαστικά κατάντησαν συνώνυμα του ‘Νότου’ κατά τους πρώτους χριστιανικούς αιώνες.

Όλα αυτά μας οδηγούν στο συμπέρασμα ότι σήμερα η χρήση της λέξης ‘Ινδίας’ – είτε για αναφορά στην Αρχαιότητα και στα Ισλαμικά Χρόνια, είτε για περιγραφή του συγχρόνου κράτους – είναι λαθεμένη και βεβαρυμένη με πολιτικές, αποικιοκρατικές κι οριενταλιστικές, σκοπιμότητες. Άλλωστε κι η περσική και ουρντού λέξη ‘Χιντουστάν’ σήμαινε και σημαίνει βασικά την περιοχή του Ινδού ποταμού, της Πενταποταμίας και ομόρων περιοχών.

Σχεδόν οι μισοί κάτοικοι του ψευτοκράτους ‘Ινδία’ είναι δραβιδικοί και δεν μιλούν ινδικά (χίντι). Η σημερινή Ινδία μπορεί να είναι μεγάλη αλλά αποτελεί κατ’ ουσίαν ένα νεο-αποικιακό ψευτοκράτος, όπως η Νιγηρία, η Αλγερία ή η Αίγυπτος, που δεν αποτελεί ‘έθνος’ αλλά απαρτίζεται από πολλά και διαφορετικά μεταξύ τους έθνη.

Κλείνω αυτή την αναφορά προσθέτοντας ότι η παραπάνω εθνοφυλετική και γεωγραφική διαφορά είναι ολότελα άσχετη από την θρησκευτική διαφορά Ισλάμ – ‘Ινδουϊσμού’ (μουσουλμάνων – ‘ινδουϊστών’), δεδομένου ότι μουσουλμάνοι υπάρχουν και ανάμεσα στους Ινδούς (: ‘ινδο-ευρωπαίους’) του Βορρά και ανάμεσα στους Δραβίδες του Ντεκάν, όπως είναι το όνομα του νότιου μισού της λεγόμενης ‘Ινδίας’.

Αν, τέλος, θέτω εντός εισαγωγικών τους όρους ‘Ινδουϊσμός’ και ‘ινδουϊστές’, αυτό οφείλεται στο γεγονός ότι είναι τόσο ψεύτικοι και λαθεμένοι όσο κι ο όρος ‘Ινδία’. Κατ’ ουσίαν δεν υπάρχει ‘ένας’ Ινδουϊσμός αλλά πολλοί (όπως κι η Χριστιανωσύνη δεν είναι μία, το Ισλάμ δεν είναι ένα, ο Βουδισμός δεν είναι ένας, κοκ). Κι επιπλέον υπάρχουν κι άλλες θρησκείες είτε στο Ντεκάν είτε στην βόρεια Ινδία. Γενικώτερα, στην ψευδή, αποικιοκρατική, οριενταλιστική Ιστορία της ‘Ινδίας’ θα επανέλθω με πολλά κείμενα.

Ό,τι ξέρει ο σημερινός κόσμος για την Ινδία είναι μια αγγλογαλλική παραχάραξη της Ιστορίας: για παράδειγμα, υπάρχουν αρχαιοελληνικά κείμενα του 1ου χριστιανικού αιώνα, όπως ο Περίπλους της Ερυθράς Θαλάσσης, που αναφέρουν τα πολλά και διαφορετικά κράτη, τα οποία βρίσκονταν τότε στον χώρο που στρεβλά σήμερα αποκαλούμε ‘Ινδία’, και όμως δεν τα αποκαλούν ‘ινδικά βασίλεια’, επειδή δεν ήταν ινδικά βασίλεια.

ΙΙ. Κοιλάδα του Ινδού, Πενταποταμία και Κοιλάδα του Γάγγη από τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο στους Μεγάλους Μογγόλους Αυτοκράτορες

Μετά τον θάνατο του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου και μέχρι τα χρόνια της μογγολικής κατάκτησης της Κοιλάδας του Ινδού και της Κοιλάδας του Γάγγη, καμμιά ξένη δύναμη δεν κατέκτησε εκτάσεις που σήμερα ανήκουν στην χώρα που συμβατικά ονομάζεται Ινδία. Μόνον οι Ιρανοί Σασανίδες (Σασανιάν: 224-651) έφθασαν τα ανατολικά σύνορά τους τόσο μακριά όσο οι Αχαιμενιδείς κι ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος. Αλλά και εκείνοι σταμάτησαν εκεί.

Όταν οι Επίγονοι Σελευκιδείς και οι Πάρθες Αρσακιδείς (Ασκανιάν: η πιο μακραίωνη ιρανική δυναστεία – 250 π.Χ.-224 μ.Χ.) βρίσκονταν σε αδυναμία, πολλά αυτόνομα βασίλεια σχηματίζονταν από τα έθνη που κατοικούσαν στις ανατολικές επαρχίες τους, δηλαδή τον χώρο όπου σήμερα βρίσκονται το Πακιστάν, το Αφγανιστάν, το Ουζμπεκιστάν, το Τατζικιστάν, η Κιργιζία, οι ανατολικές εσχατιές του Ιράν και τα βορειοδυτικά άκρα της Ινδίας: η Σογδιανή, το ελληνιστικό κράτος της Βακτριανής, το ινδοπαρθικό κράτος, το ινδοσκυθικό κράτος, το κάποτε πανίσχυρο Κουσάν, οι Τόχαροι, και άλλα κεντρασιατικά τουρκόφωνα ή ινδοευρωπαϊκά κράτη.

Το τι αποκαλείται ‘αυτοκρατορία’ στην Αρχαία Ιστορία της ‘Ινδίας’, όπως την έχουν παρασκευάσει Άγγλοι, Γάλλοι, Ολλανδοί κι Αμερικανοί οριενταλιστές ‘Ινδολόγοι’, είναι βασικά μικρά κράτη (για τα μέτρα των Αχαιμενιδών, των Σελευκιδών και των Σασανιδών) που εκτείνονται κυρίως ανάμεσα στην Πενταποταμία και το Δέλτα του Γάγγη: το βασίλειο των Μαουρύα (322–185 π.Χ.) ή το βασίλειο των Γκούπτα (319-543 μ.Χ.). Αυτά ήταν όντως ινδικά – ινδοευρωπαϊκά βασίλεια. Όμως τα περισσότερα άλλα βασίλεια στα νότια δεν μπορούν να ονομασθούν ινδικά γιατί ήταν δραβιδικά. Και ήταν όλα πάντοτε μικρά τοπικά βασίλεια: όλη η Νότια Ασία ήταν κατά κανόνα πάντοτε κατακερματισμένη.

Οι πρώιμοι μουσουλμάνοι κι οι ισλαμικές στρατιές των μέσων του 7ου αιώνα που έφθασαν στο Πεντζάμπ και τα βορειοδυτικά άκρα της σημερινής Ινδίας ουσιαστικά επανέλαβαν την Ιστορία: εκμεταλλεύθηκαν κάτι το οποίο ‘είχαμε’ ξαναδεί! Όπως ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος, καταλύοντας το αχαιμενιδικό Ιράν, βρέθηκε σχεδόν ‘αυτόματα’ κυρίαρχος των ανατολικών σατραπειών κι εκτάσεών του, έτσι κι οι ισλαμικές στρατιές μετά τις μάχες στην Καντισίγια (636), Νεχαβέντ (642) και Μερβ (651) βρέθηκαν κυρίαρχοι των ανατολικών σατραπειών κι εκτάσεων του σασανιδικού Ιράν.

Ανάποδα, η Ιστορία επαναλήφθηκε και πάλι λίγους αιώνες αργότερα: στους χρόνους της αργής παρακμής και βαθμιαίας αποδυνάμωσης του αβασιδικού χαλιφάτου της Βαγδάτης. Ό,τι χαρακτήρισε τους Σελευκιδείς και τους Αρσακιδείς, συνέβη και τότε: πολλά μικρότερα ισλαμικά βασίλεια ξεφύτρωσαν κι αλληλοδιαδέχθηκαν το ένα το άλλο στην περιοχή ανάμεσα το κεντρικό ιρανικό οροπέδιο, την Αράλη στην Κεντρική Ασία και την Πενταποταμία.

Η μογγολική κατάκτηση της σημερινής βόρειας Ινδίας πιστοποιεί διαχρονικά ότι όλος ο χώρος ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και στο Δέλτα του Γάγγη καταλαμβάνεται πιο εύκολα από τον βορρά παρά από τα δυτικά. Και δεν αναφέρομαι σε στρατιωτικές κατακτήσεις μόνον. Από τον 8ο αιώνα, με την διάδοση του Ισλάμ στην Κεντρική Ασία, πολλά τοπικά τουρκόφωνα φύλα αποψιλώνονταν από τους πιο ικανούς πολεμιστές τους, οι οποίοι έβλεπαν ότι, αν αποδέχονταν το Ισλάμ, θα μπορούσαν να έχουν μια πολύ επιτυχημένη σταδιοδρομία ως στρατιωτικοί σε μια τεράστια αυτοκρατορία.

Έτσι, πολλοί ευχαρίστως προσέρχονταν για να προσλήφθούν ως δούλοι-πολεμιστές. Στο αβασιδικό χαλιφάτο υπήρχαν ήδη πολυάιθμοι και για όλους τους εχρησιμοποιείτο η αραβική λέξη ‘ιδιοκτησία’, διότι ως σκλάβοι αποτελούσαν την ιδιοκτησία (‘μαμλούκ’ / πληθυντικός: μαμαλίκ) των κυρίων τους. Αυτοί είναι οι Μαμελούκοι.

Μαμελούκοι υπήρχαν παντού: στην Κεντρική Ασία, στην Πενταποταμία, στις κεντρικές περιοχές του χαλιφάτου, στην Αίγυπτο, και στην βορειοδυτική Αφρική. Η κατά τόπους ιστορία τους είναι απλή: πρώτα ήταν σκλάβοι-πολεμιστές, έπειτα απελεύθεροι, ύστερα παράκλητοι ως εμπειροπόλεμοι, και τελικά κυρίαρχοι ηγεμόνες.

Αλλά δεν υπήρχε πουθενά ένας εθνικού χαρακτήρα συντονισμός. Και δεν μπορούσε να υπάρχει, επειδή οι ‘μαμελούκοι’ ανήκαν σε διαφορετικές τουρκόφωνες φυλές, μιλούσαν σχετικά διαφορετικές γλώσσες, κι ενθυμούνταν τις πάντοτε υπαρκτές ενδοτουρκικές εχθρότητες κι αντιπαλότητες. Όποιοι πετύχαιναν σε ένα κάποιο τόπο κυριαρχούσαν εκεί. Δεν υπήρχε δυναστεία Μαμελούκων μόνον στην Αίγυπτο, όπως είναι περισσότερο γνωστό στην Ελλάδα.

Υπήρχαν πολλές κατά τόπους δυναστείες Μαμελούκων που όλοι τους ήταν τουρκόφωνοι – αν κι αυτό δεν σημαίνει την ίδια γλώσσα, εφόσον άλλα τα Κιπτσάκ, άλλα τα Τσαγατάι, άλλα τα τουρκμενικά, άλλα τα των Ογούζων (ή Ούζων – Ουζμπέκων), κοκ.

Αλλά τα φαρσί ήταν πάντοτε η γλώσσα της λογοτεχνίας και της ιστορίας και τα αραβικά η γλώσσα της επιστήμης και της θρησκείας.

Μετά την πρώιμη ισλαμική επέλαση μέχρι την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού και την Πενταποταμία, η διάδοση του Ισλάμ στην Νότια Ασία (βόρεια Ινδία: ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και στο Δέλτα του Γάγγη / Ντεκάν: το κατοικούμενο από μη Ινδούς, Δραβίδες, νότιο ήμισυ της σημερινής Ινδίας) δεν ήταν ποτέ θέμα του Ισλαμικού Χαλιφάτου της Δαμασκού (661-750) και της Βαγδάτης (750-1258), όπως συχνά σήμερα Ινδουϊστές εθνικιστές εσφαλμένα ισχυρίζονται.

Αντίθετα, ήταν υπόθεση πολέμου ανάμεσα σε ινδικά ινδουϊστικά βασίλεια της Κοιλάδας του Γάγγη και σε μικρότερα ισλαμικά βασίλεια που ξεφύτρωσαν κι αλληλοδιαδέχθηκαν το ένα το άλλο στην περιοχή ανάμεσα το κεντρικό ιρανικό οροπέδιο, την Αράλη στην Κεντρική Ασία και την Πενταποταμία, όπως προανέφερα, εξαιτίας της βαθμιαίας αποδυνάμωσης του αβασιδικού χαλιφάτου της Βαγδάτης.

Αυτά τα ισλαμικά βασίλεια, όπως οι Γαζνεβίδες (977–1186 / το Γαζνί βρίσκεται στο σημερινό Αφγανιστάν), είτε διέθεταν Μαμελούκους είτε είχαν συσταθεί από Μαμελούκους.

Οι πόλεμοι αυτών των βασιλείων με τα ινδικά ινδουϊστικά βασίλεια απέληξαν στην διάδοση του Ισλάμ στον ευρύτερο χώρο της Νότιας Ασίας.

Έτσι, αυτό που αποκαλούμε ‘Σουλτανάτο του Δελχί’, ουσιαστικά αποτελεί μια διαδοχή πέντε διαφορετικών δυναστειών που προέρχονται από Μαμελούκους, δηλαδή διάφορα τουρκόφωνα αλλά και άλλα κεντρασιατικά φύλα.

Αυτές οι πέντε ισλαμικές δυναστείες με βάση το Δελχί (: το Παλαιό Δελχί) διεξήγαγαν πολέμους με τα ινδικά και τα δραβιδικά βασίλεια είτε του χώρου ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και στο Δέλτα του Γάγγη είτε του Ντεκάν.

Οι πέντε δυναστείες καλύπτουν ένα διάστημα άνω των τριών αιώνων: Μαμελούκοι (1206–1290), Χάλτζι (Khalji: 1290–1320), Τούγλακ (Tughlaq: 1320–1414), Σαγίντ (Sayyid: 1414–51), και Λόντι (Lodi: 1451–1526).

Αυτοί μάλιστα ήταν ικανοί να σταθούν με επιτυχία απέναντι στον Χουλάγκου και να αποκρούσουν τις πρώτες μογγολικές επελάσεις (1221-1327), ενώ η Βαγδάτη κατέρρευσε το 1258.

Τότε διαμορφώθηκε μια κοσμοπολίτικη και πολύ ανεκτική κοινωνική κατάσταση που προσέλκυσε Ιρανούς, Κεντρασιάτες, Τουρκόφωνους και Μογγόλους που ελάχιστη σημασία απέδιδαν σε θρησκευτικές διαφορές – σιίτες ή σουνίτες, μουσουλμάνους, χριστιανούς (Νεστοριανούς), μανιχεϊστές, βουδιστές ή ινδουϊστές.

Η εθνοφυλετική σύνθεση των Ινδο-Ευρωπαίων Ινδών του χώρου της σημερινής βόρειας Ινδίας άλλαξε ολότελα και δημιουργήθηκε ένα τουρκο-μογγολο-κεντρασιατο-ιρανο-ινδικό εθνογλωσσικό μείγμα, το οποίο φτάνει μέχρι τις μέρες μας: η επίσημη γλώσσα του Πακιστάν (ουρντού) είναι μια τουρκική λέξη (ordu) που σημαίνει ‘στρατός’.

Αυτή είναι μια μεικτή τουρκική (Turkic), περσική, αραβική κι ινδική γλώσσα, στην οποία το ινδικό λεξιλόγιο (που προέρχεται από αρχαίες ινδικές – ινδο-ευρωπαϊκές γλώσσες όπως τα σανσκριτικά και τα πρακριτικά) είναι σχετικά μικρό.

Η ίδια γλώσσα είναι επίσημη και στην Ινδία, πλην όμως εκεί λέγεται χίντι, γράφεται σε Ντεβαναγκάρι σύστημα (οφειλόμενο σε αρχαία Μπραχμί γραφή) και όχι σε φαρσί (όπως τα ουρντού που έχουν μερικά επιπλέον γράμματα για φθόγγους ανύπαρκτους στα φαρσί), και απλώς δεν έχει τους ισλαμικούς όρους που έχει κάθε γλώσσα μουσουλμάνων. Αλλά κατ’ ουσίαν ουρντού και χίντι είναι μία γλώσσα και με εκτεταμένο τουρκικό (Turkic) λεξιλόγιο.

Αν το Σουλτανάτο του Δελχί γλύτωσε από τον Τσενγκίζ Χαν, δεν απέφυγε τον Ταμερλάνο. Το 1398 ο στρατός του Τιμούρ Λενγκ κατέλαβε το Δελχί κι επακολούθησε μια απερίγραπτη λεηλασία και σφαγή. Η πόλη εκθεμελιώθηκε. Στην συνέχεια αναθεμελιώθηκε και το Σουλτανάτο συνεχίστηκε αν και ιδιαίτερα αποδυναμωμένο.

Το τέλος της τελευταίας δυναστείας του Δελχί δόθηκε από τον Μπαμπούρ (στα περσικά σημαίνει ‘Τίγρης’) απόγονο του Ταμερλάνου, ο οποίος ήταν γιος του κυβερνήτη της Φεργάνα του Τουρκεστάν (σήμερα στο ανατολικό Ουζμπεκιστάν).

Μετά από πολλές πολεμικές κατακτήσεις στην Κεντρική Ασία, στράφηκε στην Ινδία και μετά από τη νίκη στην μάχη του Πανιπάτ θεμελίωσε το 1526 την δυναστεία που αποκαλείται Μουγάλ (Mughal) στην διεθνή βιβλιογραφία.

Ουσιαστικά, ο όρος Μογγόλος σήμαινε στρατιωτική βαθμίδα στα Τσαγατάι τουρκικά, την σήμερα νεκρή πλέον γλώσσα του Ταμερλάνου. Το πραγματικό όνομα, με το οποίο οι ίδιοι οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι αυτοκράτορες (‘σάχηδες’) αποκαλούσαν τους εαυτούς τους και το κράτος τους, ήταν η περσική λέξη Γκουρκανιάν που (στον πληθυντικό) σημαίνει ‘Γαμπροί’.

Ο όρος κατάγεται από πολεμικές – βασιλικές πρακτικές τουρκόφωνων φύλων από τα χρόνια του Τσενγκίζ Χαν (και ίσως και πιο πριν, αλλά τουλάχιστον τότε έγινε γνωστός στους Ιρανούς κι άρχισαν να τον χρησιμοποιούν).

Κατ’ αυτές τις πρακτικές, ένας πολύ γενναίος στρατιώτης – πολεμιστής από μια μάλλον κατώτερη τουρκόφωνη φυλή, αφού επιδείξει ανδρεία σε μια ή περισσότερες μάχες, ζητάει να παντρευτεί την κόρη ενός στρατιωτικού ηγέτη από μια άλλη, ανώτερη τουρκόφωνη φυλή, κι αφού αυτό γίνει, αποκτάει ο ίδιος μεγαλύτερη σημασία και κοινωνική, δηλαδή στρατιωτική, υπόσταση.

Μετά τον Μπαμπούρ (1504 – 1530), οι Γκορκανιάν κυριάρχησαν σε όλες τις εκτάσεις ανάμεσα στο Δέλτα του Ινδού και το Δέλτα του Γάγγη, επέκτάθηκαν τόσο προς Αφγανιστάν και Κεντρική Ασία (από όπου κατάγονταν) όσο και προς τα νότια στο Ντεκάν, κι αναγνωρίστηκαν ως σύμμαχοι από τους Ιρανούς Σαφεβίδες που δεν ήταν Πέρσες αλλά Τουρκμένοι.

Και έτσι δημιουργήθηκε μια εκπληκτική τουρκόφωνη κυριαρχία από την Αλγερία και την Δυτική Μεσόγειο μέχρι την Μυανμάρ, Ταϋλάνδη και την Κίνα, κατά την οποία τρεις τουρκόφωνοι μουσουλμάνοι αυτοκράτορες, ένας Οθωμανός, ένας Σαφεβίδης κι ένα Γκουρκανί, έλεγχαν το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα του τότε γνωστού κόσμου.

Η κοινή καταγωγή και η κοινή θρησκεία δεν εξασφάλισαν ωστόσο καμμία ενότητα.

Οι Σαφεβίδες θεμελίωσαν το πρώτο σιιτικό κράτος στην Παγκόσμια Ιστορία και κατασφάζονταν ασταμάτητα με τους σουνίτες Οθωμανούς από την σημερινή νότια Ρωσσία μέχρι το Ομάν, ενώ οι επίσης σουνίτες Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι Γκουρκανιάν παρέμειναν ως επί το πλείστον ουδέτεροι.

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Σάχης Ταχμάσπ Α’ του Ιράν, στα αριστερά, και Σάχης Χουμαγιούν των Γκορκανιάν (Μεγάλη Μογγολική Αυτοκρατορία της ‘Ινδίας’), στα δεξιά

Μάλιστα μερικές φορές οι Γκουρκανιάν είχαν και καλές σχέσεις με τους Σαφεβίδες, όπως τεκμηριώνει η επίσκεψη (1544) του Χουμαγιούν (γιου του Μπαμπούρ) στο Εσφαχάν του Ιράν και οι απίστευτες ευωχίες και συμπόσια που έλαβαν χώραν εκεί με τον Σάχη Ταχμάσπ Α’ (1524-1576), ο οποίος βοήθησε τον Μεγάλο Μογγόλο να εξαφανίσει την απειλή που ήταν για τον θρόνο του ο Σερ Σάχης Σουρί (Sher Shah Suri), ένας Παστούνος που είχε στήσει μια εξουσία στην Βεγγάλη.

Οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι συσσώρευσαν τεράστιο πλούτο, τον οποίο όμως δεν χρησιμοποίησαν για κάτι το συγκεκριμένο. Μετά τον Αουράνγκζεμπ (1658-1707) άρχισε η παρακμή. Η κατάσταση στο Ιράν ήταν παράλληλη: το 1736 η σαφεβιδική δυναστεία έπαιρνε ένα τέλος.

Ήταν η ώρα για τον Δεύτερο Μεγαλέξανδρο, όπως τον αποκαλούσαν οι σύγχρονοί του Ιρανοί, Κεντρασιάτες, Οθωμανοί κι άλλοι ή τον Ναπολέοντα της Ασίας, όπως τον επονόμαζαν αργότερα Ευρωπαίοι συγγραφείς: τον Ναντέρ Σάχη. Γνωρίζουμε ότι στην εξορία του ο Ναπολέων διάβαζε συγγράμματα Ευρωπαίων που αναφέρονταν στους πολέμους και στις τακτικές του Ναντέρ Σάχη.

ΙΙΙ. Ο Ναντέρ Σάχης (1736-1747) κι η Κατάληψη του Δελχίου (1739)

Ο Ναντέρ Σάχης ήταν μια από τις πάμπολλες περιπτώσεις που πιστοποιούν την υπεροχή των γεωργών προ όλων των άλλων τομέων ανθρώπινης εργασίας και δραστηριότητας.

Μια από τις αναρίθμητες περιπτώσεις που βεβαιώνουν ότι οι άνθρωποι των πόλεων είναι καθοριστικά κι απόλυτα κατώτεροι από τους ανθρώπους που δουλεύουν την γη. Γεννήθηκε σε μια μικρή πόλη του Χορασάν (σήμερα ΒΑ Ιράν) σε μια φτωχή οικογένεια Τουρκμένων αγροτών της φυλής Αφσάρ (افشار / Afshar). Το όνομα αυτό απαντάται σήμερα ακόμη ως επώνυμο σχεδόν σε όλα τα μήκη και πλάτη του μουσουλμανικού κόσμου, ιδιαίτερα βέβαια από την Τουρκία μέχρι την Κίνα.

Αφού πέρασε μια παιδική και νεανική ζωή με πολλές δοκιμασίες (έχασε τον πατέρα του, αιχμαλωτίσθηκε με την μητέρα του, κλπ) κι αφού έγινε Κιζιλμπάσης (‘Ερυθρίνος’), συνέχισε να ζει μια απλή ζωή στρατιώτη μέχρι τα 30 του. Είχε έτσι πάρει ένα πολύ σπάνιο μάθημα από την ζωή, το μόνο απαραίτητο για να γίνει κάποιος άνθρωπος ένας πραγματικά κορυφαίος αυτοκράτορας: περιφρονούσε τα πλούτη, τα αξιώματα, την χλιδή και την πολυτέλεια των ανακτόρων. Ζούσε στα τελευταία σαφεβιδικά χρόνια.

Η αδύναμη εξουσία των τελευταίων σάχηδων του Εσφαχάν ήταν αιτία απόσχισης τοπικών κυβερνητών (στο Αφγανιστάν), ρωσσικών κατακτήσεων στον Καύκασο, οθωμανικής επιθετικότητας και γενικευμένου χάους από την απόπειρα των Αφγανών επαναστατών υπό τον Μαχμούντ Χοτακί να ανατρέψει τον Σουλτάν Χουσεΰν, τελευταίο Σαφεβίδη.

Από το 1722 μέχρι το 1736 (δηλαδή σε ηλικία 34-48 ετών), ο Ναντέρ πολέμησε σε πολλές μάχες για να καταστείλει την αφγανική εξέγερση, να εκδιώξει τους επαναστάτες από την πρωτεύουσα Εσφαχάν και να την αποδώσει στον νόμιμο σάχη Ταχμάσπ Β’, πριν οριστεί διοικητής των ανατολικών επαρχιών και συνενώσει όλες τις ανατολικές επαρχίες της χώρας.

Επίσης πολέμησε ενάντια στους Οθωμανούς, έσπευσε στο Αφγανιστάν για να καταστείλει νέα εξέγερση, υποχρέωσε τον Ταχμάσπ Β’ να παραιτηθεί, όταν ο ανήμπορος σάχης από ζήλεια είχε επιχειρήσει μόνος του μια αποτυχημένη εκστρατεία στον Καύκασο, κι ορίστηκε αντιβασιλέας του γιου του Ταχμάσπ Β’ Αμπάς Γ’.

Μετά από μια σειρά σημαντικών μαχών και νικών κατά των Οθωμανών στον Καύκασο και μετά την εκ μέρους του κατάληψη της Βαγδάτης, υποχρέωσε τους Οθωμανούς να παραχωρήσουν τα ιρανικά εδάφη που είχαν παλαιότερα κατακτήσει στον Καύκασο (Γεωργία και Αρμενία). Και στις 8 Μαρτίου 1736 στέφθηκε σάχης από μια γενική συνέλευση στρατιωτικών, ευγενών και κληρικών που καταλάβαιναν ότι ο μικρός Αμπάς Γ’ ήταν ανίκανος να βασιλεύσει.

Η εκπληκτική ικανότητα του Ναντέρ να ηγείται αριθμητικά μικρότερων στρατευμάτων και να σημειώνει σημαντικές νίκες εναντίον εχθρών – με υπέρτερες δυνάμεις χάρη σε εντυπωσιακούς αιφνιδιασμούς και τεχνικές, απατηλές κινήσεις και πλευροκοπήματα – χαρακτήρισε την περίοδο των έντεκα ετών κατά την οποία βασίλευσε. Σε μια εποχή χωρίς τανκς και μηχανοκίνητες μονάδες, στρατεύματα μετακινούνταν με εκπληκτικές ταχύτητες μέσα από πολύ δύσβατες και δυσπρόσιτες περιοχές, από τον Καύκασο στον Ινδό, από την Κεντρική Ασία στη Μεσοποταμία, κι από το Αφγανιστάν στον Περσικό Κόλπο.

Ο Ναντέρ Σάχης γεννήθηκε σε μια σιιτική οικογένεια αλλά σε μεγαλύτερη ηλικία έδειξε συμπάθεια προς το σουνιτικό Ισλάμ και προσπάθησε να οργανώσει μια σύνθεση και συνένωση των δύο θεολογιών.

Ως άτομο ήταν ίσως ο πιο ανεξίθρησκος ηγεμόνας του Ιράν και η φιλία του προς χριστιανικούς πληθυσμούς ήταν τέτοια που συμπεριέλαβε συχνά Γεωργιανούς κι Αρμένιους στο στράτευμά του.

Θα μπορούσε κανείς εύκολα να τον περιγράψει και ως ένα Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ πριν τον Κεμάλ Ατατούρκ, επειδή καμμιά στρατιωτική του επιχείρηση δεν είχε θρησκευτικά κίνητρα ή σκοπιμότητες.

Όπου έκρινε κι αποφάσιζε ο Ναντέρ Σάχης, η θρησκεία δεν είχε θέση κι όλοι οι άνθρωποι ήταν ίσοι και κρίνονταν με βάση τις ικανότητές τους.

Οι σιίτες μολάδες κι αγιατολάδες κι ο σεϊχουλισλάμης της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας είχαν βρει τον μπελά τους μαζί του.

Η κατάκτηση του Δελχί κι η εκτεταμένη λαφυραγώγηση του πλουσιώτατου γείτονα του Ιράν δεν έγιναν ούτε με σκοπό το κέρδος ούτε για να προσπορισθεί ο Ναντέρ Σάχης φήμη και δόξα.

Απλώς του χρειάζονταν έσοδα για τους πολέμους κατά των Οθωμανών που προετοίμαζε στο μυαλό του.

Ο ετήσιος προϋπολογισμός του κράτους του Αουράνγκζεμπ μόλις 25 χρόνια πριν καταλάβει το Δελχί ο Ναντέρ Σάχης ήταν δεκαπλάσιος εκείνου της Γαλλίας του Λουδοβίκου ΙΔ’ (‘βασιλιά ήλιου’)!

Η στρατιωτική τεχνική του Ναντέρ Σάχη στην μάχη του Καρνάλ (13 Φλεβάρη 1739) ήταν εκπληκτική.

Και η λαφυραγώγηση των ανακτόρων των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων στο Δελχί ξεπερνάει κάθε ιστορική αναφορά και κάθε τρελή φαντασία.

——————————————–

Οι Ατελείωτες Μάχες του Ναντέρ Σάχη

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Πρώτη εκστρατεία στο Αφγανιστάν – 1729

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Η Μάχη στο Μαλαγιέρ, στην οροσειρά του Κεντρικού Ζάγρου, κατά των Οθωμανών – 1730

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Η Μάχη στο Μπαγκαβάρντ του Καυκάσου κατά των Οθωμανών – 1735

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Μάχη στα Στενά Χάυμπερ, στα βουνά μεταξύ των σημερινών Πακιστάν κι Αφγανιστάν, στην πορεία για κατάληψη του Δελχί – 1738. Πολέμησαν 10000 Ιρανοί υπό τον Ναντέρ Σάχη και νίκησαν 70000 στρατιώτες της Μογγολικής Αυτοκρατορίας των Γκορκανιάν της ‘Ινδίας’.

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Η μάχη του Καρνάλ όπου ο Ναντέρ Σάχης πολέμησε εναντίον εξαπλασίων στρατευμάτων (55000 κατά 300000) και νικώντας τα εβάδισε εναντίον του Δελχί – 1739. Οι αντίπαλοι υποστηρίζονταν από 2000 εκπαιδευμένους για πόλεμο ελέφαντες και 3000 κανόνια.

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Η μάχη του Καρς: 80000 Ιρανοί κατά 140000 Οθωμανών – 1745. Ιρανική νίκη με νεκρούς και τραυματισμένους 8000 Ιρανούς και Οθωμανούς 12000 νεκρούς, 18000 τραυματισμένους και 5000 αιχμαλώτους

———————————————

Κι όμως ο συνεχώς μάχιμος αυτός γεωργός – στρατιώτης – σάχης δεν θεώρησε αυτή την ιστορική νίκη γεγονός άξιο για να πανηγυρίσει κι αμέσως στράφηκε σε άλλους πολέμους.

Επιστρέφοντας όμως από το Δελχί πήρε τους στρατηγούς του (που ήταν όλοι τους Ιρανοί ευγενείς) και τους οδήγησε στο μικρό χωριό του Χορασάν όπου είχε γεννηθεί. Εκεί τους είπε:

– Βλέπετε σε τι ύψη εξυψώνει ο Μεγαλοδύναμος αυτούς που επιλέγει; Γι’ αυτό, ποτέ μην περιφρονείτε ένα άνθρωπο με ταπεινή καταγωγή και με ελάχιστη περιουσία!

Μετά από άλλα οκτώ χρόνια γεμάτα πολέμους κατά της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας στην αραβική χερσόνησο, την Μεσοποταμία και τον Καύκασο, μετά από εκστρατείες στην Κεντρική Ασία και στα παράλια του Ομάν, ο Ναντέρ Σάχης είχε το τέλος που οι ήρωες αντιμετωπίζουν στα χέρια δειλών συνωμοτών (εκτός κι αν συνωμοσίες δεν υπάρχουν!).

Δολοφονήθηκε όταν κοιμόταν από δέκα πέντε συνωμότες την 20 η Ιουνίου 1747.

Στην συνέχεια θα βρείτε μια σειρά από διαφωτιστικές δημοσιεύσεις σχετικά με την ζωή, το έργο, τις στρατιωτικές κατακτήσεις και την κοσμοαντίληψη του πιο τρομερού Ιρανού της δεύτερης χιλιετίας.

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Ο Σάχης Ναντέρ κάθεται στον Θρόνο του Παγωνιού, τον μυθικής αξίας χρυσοποίκιλτο κι εμβληματικό θρόνο των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων Αυτοκρατόρων Γκορκανιάν του Δελχί τον οποίο λαφυραγώγησε μαζί πολλά άλλα αμύθητα πλούτη και πετράδια.

Αποσπάσματα από Ιστορικά Κείμενα-Quotes

Afterwards Nadir Shah himself, with the Emperor of Hindustan, entered the fort of Delhi. It is said that he appointed a place on one side in the fort for the residence of Muhammad Shah and his dependents, and on the other side he chose the Diwan-i Khas, or, as some say, the Garden of Hayat Bakhsh, for his own accommodation. He sent to the Emperor of Hindustan, as to a prisoner, some food and wine from his own table.

One Friday his own name was read in the khutba, but on the next he ordered Muhammad Shah’s name to be read. It is related that one day a rumour spread in the city that Nadir Shah had been slain in the fort. This produced a general confusion, and the people of the city destroyed five thousand men of his camp. On hearing of this, Nadir Shah came of the fort, sat in the golden masjid which was built by Rashanu-d daula, and gave orders for a general massacre.

For nine hours an indiscriminate slaughter of all and of every degree was committed. It is said that the number of those who were slain amounted to one hundred thousand. The losses and calamities of the people of Delhi were exceedingly great….

After this violence and cruelty, Nadir Shah collected immense riches, which he began to send to his country laden on elephants and camels.

Tarikh-i Hindi

by Rustam ‘Ali

In: The History of India as Told by its own Historians

The Posthumous Papers of the Late Sir H. M. Elliot

John Dowson, ed. 1st ed. 1867. 2nd ed., Calcutta: Susil Gupta, 1956, vol. 22, pp. 37-67

When the Shah departed towards the close of the day, a false rumour was spread through the town that he had been severely wounded by a shot from a matchlock, and thus were sown the seeds from which murder and rapine were to spring. The bad characters within the town collected in great bodies, and, without distinction, commenced the work of plunder and destruction….

On the morning of the 11th an order went forth from the Persian Emperor for the slaughter of the inhabitants. The result may be imagined; one moment seemed to have sufficed for universal destruction. The Chandni chauk, the fruit market, the Daribah bazaar, and the buildings around the Masjid-i Jama’ were set fire to and reduced to ashes.

The inhabitants, one and all, were slaughtered. Here and there some opposition was offered, but in most places people were butchered unresistingly. The Persians laid violent hands on everything and everybody; cloth, jewels, dishes of gold and silver, were acceptable spoil….

But to return to the miserable inhabitants. The massacre lasted half the day, when the Persian Emperor ordered Haji Fulad Khan, the kotwal, to proceed through the streets accompanied by a body of Persian nasakchis, and proclaim an order for the soldiers to resist from carnage. By degrees the violence of the flames subsided, but the bloodshed, the devastation, and the ruin of families were irreparable. For a long time the streets remained strewn with corpses, as the walks of a garden with dead flowers and leaves.

The town was reduced to ashes, and had the appearance of a plain consumed with fire. All the regal jewels and property and the contents of the treasury were seized by the Persian conqueror in the citadel. He thus became possessed of treasure to the amount of sixty lacs of rupees and several thousand ashraf is… plate of gold to the value of one kror of rupees, and the jewels, many of which were unrivalled in beauty by any in the world, were valued at about fifty krors.

The peacock throne alone, constructed at great pains in the reign of Shah Jahan, had cost one kror of rupees. Elephants, horses, and precious stuffs, whatever pleased .the conqueror’s eye, more indeed than can be enumerated, became his spoil. In short, the accumulated wealth of 348 years changed masters in a moment.

About Shah’s sack of Delhi

Tazrikha by Anand Ram Mukhlis

A history of Nâdir Shah’s invasion of India

In The History of India as Told by its own Historians

The Posthumous Papers of the Late Sir H. M. Elliot.

John Dowson, ed. 1st ed. 1867. 2nd ed., Calcutta: Susil Gupta, 1956, vol. 22, pp. 74-98.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nader_Shah

20 Μαρτίου 1739: Ο Τουρκμένος Ναντέρ Σάχης του Ιράν καταλαμβάνει

Ανδριάντας του Ναντέρ Σάχη σήμερα στο Ιράν

Nāder Shah

Nāder Shah, ruler of Iran, 1736-47. He rose from obscurity to control an empire that briefly stretched across Iran, northern India, and parts of Central Asia. He developed a reputation as a skilled military commander and succeeded in battle against numerous opponents, including the Ottomans and the Mughals.

During Nāder’s campaign in India, and several years after he had replaced the last Safavid ruler on the Persian throne, the elimination of much of the Safavid family effectively ended any real possibility of a Safavid restoration. The decade of Nāder’s own tumultuous reign was marked by conflict, chaos, and oppressive rule. Nāder’s troops assassinated him in 1747, after he had come to be regarded as a cruel and capricious tyrant. His empire quickly collapsed, and the resulting fragmentation of Iran into several separate domains lasted until the rise of the Qajars decades later.

Born in November 1688 into a humble pastoral family, then at its winter camp in Darra Gaz in the mountains north of Mashad, Nāder belonged to a group of the Qirqlu branch of the Afšār Turkmen. Beginning in the 16th century, the Safavids had settled groups of Afšārs in northern Khorasan to defend Mashad against Uzbek incursions.

The first major international political event that directly affected Nāder’s career was the Afghan invasion of Iran in the summer of 1719 that resulted in the capture of Isfahan and deposition of Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn, the last Safavid monarch, by the autumn of 1722. After the fall of Isfahan, Safavid pretenders emerged all over Iran. One was Solṭān Ḥosayn’s son Ṭahmāsb, who escaped to Qazvin, where he was proclaimed Shah Ṭahmāsb II.

He led a resistance movement against the Afghans during the 1720s. The Russians and Ottomans saw the Afghan conquest as their own opportunity to acquire territory in Iran, so both invaded and occupied some land in 1723. The following year they signed a treaty in which they recognized each other’s territorial gains and agreed to support the restoration of Safavid rule.

Around this time, Nāder began his career in Abivard, an Afšār-controlled town just north of Mashad. He made himself so useful to the local ruler Bābā ʿAli Beg that he gave Nāder two of his daughters in marriage. Due to internal tribal rivalries, Nāder was not able to become Bābā ʿAli’s successor, so he vied for power with various upstart military chiefs in northeastern Iran who had emerged in the wake of the Afghan invasion.

In the mid 1720s, Nāder played an important role in defeating Malek Maḥmud Sistāni, one of that area’s main warlords, who had set himself up as the scion of the 9th-10th century Saffarid dynasty. Nāder was his ally for a while but soon turned against him. His role in suppressing this usurper brought him to Ṭahmāsb’s attention. Ṭahmāsb chose him as his principal military commander to replace Fatḥ ʿAli Khan Qajar (d. 1726), whose descendants (the founders of the Qajar dynasty) blamed Nāder for the murder of their ancestor.

With this promotion, Nāder assumed the title Ṭahmāsb-qoli (servant of Ṭahmāsb). His prestige steadily increased as he led Ṭahmāsb’s armies to numerous victories. He first defeated the Abdāli (later known as Dorrāni) Afghans near Herat in May 1729, then achieved victory over the Ḡilzi Afghans led by Ašraf at Mehmāndust on 29 September 1729.

After this battle, when Ašraf fled from Isfahan to Qandahar, Ṭahmāsb became finally established in Isfahan (with Nāder in actual control of affairs) by December 1729, marking the real end of Afghan rule in Iran. In the wake of Ašraf’s defeat, many Afghan soldiers joined Nāder’s army and proved helpful in many subsequent battles.

Three months before the Mehmāndust victory, Nāder had sent letters to the Ottoman Sultan Aḥmad III (r. 1703-30) to ask for help, since Ṭahmāsb “was made the legitimate successor of his esteemed father [Solṭān Ḥosayn]” (Nāṣeri, p. 210). Receiving no response, Nāder attacked the Ottomans as soon as Ašraf was defeated and Isfahan reoccupied. He waged a successful campaign during the spring and summer of 1730 and recaptured much territory that the Ottomans had taken in the previous decade.

But, just as the momentum of his offensive was building, news came from Mashad that the Abdāli Afghans had attacked Nāder’s brother Ebrāhim there and pinned him down inside the city’s walls. Nāder rushed to relieve him. (This distraction came at just the right time for the Ottomans, since in Istanbul the Patrona Halil rebellion, which led to the deposition of Aḥmad III, broke out in September 1730). Nāder arrived in Mashad in time to attend the wedding of his son Reżā-qoli to Ṭahmāsb’s sister Fāṭema Solṭān Begum.

Nāder spent the next fourteen months subduing Abdāli forces led by Allāh-Yār Khan. To commemorate his victory over them, he endowed in Mashad a waqf (pious foundation) at the shrine of Imam ʿAli al-Reżā (d. ca. 818). Nāder’s personal seal, preserved on the waqf deed of June 1732, showed his unremarkable Shiʿite loyalty at that time: Lā fatā illā ʿAli lā sayf illā Ḏu’l-Faqār / Nāder-e ʿaṣr-am ze loṭf-e Ḥaqq ḡolām-e hašt o čār (There is no youth more chivalrous than ʿAli, no sword except Ḏu’l-Faqār / I am the rarity of the age, and by the grace of God, the servant of the Eight and Four [i.e., the Twelve Imams].” (Šaʿbāni, p. 375; cf. Rabino, p. 53).

Ṭahmāsb took Nāder’s absence in Khorasan as his own chance to attack the Ottomans and pursued a disastrous campaign (January 1731–January 1732), in which the Ottomans actually reoccupied much of the territory recently lost to Nāder. Sultan Maḥmud I (r. 1730-54) negotiated with Ṭahmāsb a peace agreement that allowed the Ottomans to retain these lands, while returning Tabriz to avoid angering Nāder.

Three weeks later, Russia and Persia signed the Treaty of Rašt, in which Russia, trying to curry favor with Persia against the Ottomans, agreed to withdraw from most of the Iranian territory it had annexed in the 1720s.

When Nāder learned that Ṭahmāsb had relinquished substantial territory to the Ottomans, he quickly returned to Isfahan. He used the peace treaty as an excuse to remove Ṭahmāsb from the throne in August 1732 and replace him with Ṭahmāsb’s eight-month-old son, who was given the regnal name ʿAbbās III. Now regent, Nāder resumed hostilities against the Ottomans.

After a decisive round of victories, interspersed with short excursions to quell uprisings in Fārs and Baluchistan, he signed a new treaty in December 1733 with Aḥmad Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Baghdad. It marked an attempt to reinstate the provisions of the 1049/1639 Ottoman-Safavid Treaty of Qaṣr-e Širin (Ḏohāb), since it called for the restoration of the borders stipulated at that time, a prisoner exchange, and Ottoman protection for all Persian ḥajj pilgrims. The Ottoman sultan would not ratify it, because disputes persisted over control of parts of the Caucasus, and so intermittent hostilities continued.

In March 1734, Šāhroḵ was born to Reżā-qoli and Fāṭema Begum. Šāhroḵ thus formed a direct link between the lineages of Nāder and the Safavids—an important basis for Šāhroḵ’s eventual right to rule. The choice to name his grandson after Šāhroḵ b. Timur (r. 1409-47) revealed Nāder’s growing interest in emulating the conqueror Timur (r. 1369-1405).

There followed another series of Ottoman-Persian battles in the Caucasus, and Nāder’s capture of Ganja, during the siege of which Russian engineers provided assistance. Russia and Persia then signed a defensive alliance in March 1735 at Ganja. In the treaty, the Russians agreed to return most of the territory conquered in the 1720s.

This agreement shifted the regional diplomatic focus to a looming Ottoman-Russian confrontation over control of the Black Sea region and provided for Nāder a military respite on his western border.

By the end of 1735, Nāder felt that he had gained enough prestige through a series of victories and had secured the immediate military situation well enough to assume the throne himself. In Feburary 1736, he gathered the nomadic and sedentary leaders of the Safavid realm at a vast encampment on the Moḡān steppe.

He asked the assembly to choose either him or one of the Safavids to rule the country. When Nāder heard that the molla-bāši (chief cleric) Mirzā Abu’l-Ḥasan had remarked that “everyone is for the Safavid dynasty,” he was said to have had that cleric arrested and strangled the next day (Lockhart, p. 99). After several days of meetings, the assembly proclaimed Nāder as the legitimate monarch.

The newly appointed shah gave a speech to acknowledge the approval of those in attendance. He announced that, upon his accession to the throne, his subjects would abandon certain religious practices that had been introduced by Shah Esmāʿil I (r. 1501-24) and had plunged Iran into disorder, such as sabb (ritual cursing of the first three caliphs Abu Bakr, ʿOmar, and ʿOṯmān, termed “rightly guided” by the Sunnites) and rafż (denial of their right to rule the Muslim community).

Nāder decreed that Twelver Shiʿism would become known as the Jaʿfari madòhab (legal school) in honor of the sixth Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq (d. 765), who would be recognized as its central authority.

Nāder asked that this madòhab be treated exactly like the four traditionally recognized legal schools of Sunnite Islam. All those present at Moḡān were required to sign a document indicating their agreement with Nāder’s ideas.

Just before his actual coronation ceremony on 8 March 1736, Nāder specified five conditions for peace with the Ottoman empire (Astarābādi, p. 286), most of which he continued to seek over the next ten years.

They were:

(1) recognition of the Jaʿfari maḏhab as the fifth orthodox legal school of Sunnite Islam;

(2) designation of an official place (rokn) for a Jaʿfari imam in the courtyard of the Kaʿba [Perry, 1993, p. 854 and “Kaʿba,” in EI2 IV, p. 318 vs. Lockhart, p. 101] analogous to those of the Sunnite legal schools;

(3) appointment of a Persian pilgrimage leader (amir al-ḥajj);

(4) exchange of permanent ambassadors between Nāder and the Ottoman sultan; and

(5) exchange of prisoners of war and prohibition of their sale or purchase. In return, the new shah promised to prohibit Shiʿite practices objectionable to the Ottoman Sunnites.

Nāder tried to redefine religious and political legitimacy in Persia at symbolic and substantive levels.

One of his first acts as shah was to introduce a four-peaked hat (implicitly honoring the first four “rightly-guided” Sunni caliphs), which became known as the kolāh-e Nāderi, to replace the Qezelbāš turban cap, which was pieced with twelve gores (evocative of the twelve Shiʿite Imams).

Soon after his coronation, he sent an embassy to the Ottomans (Maḥmud I, r. 1730-54) carrying letters in which he explained his concept of the “Jaʿfari maḏhab” and recalled the common Turkmen origins of himself and the Ottomans as a basis for developing closer ties.

During this negotiation and subsequent ones, the Ottomans rejected all proposals related to Nāder’s Jaʿfari maḏhab concept but ultimately agreed to Nāder’s demands concerning recognition of a Persian amir al-ḥajj, exchange of ambassadors, and that of prisoners of war.

These demands paralleled the provisions of a long series of Ottoman-Safavid agreements, especially an accord, drawn up in 1727 but never signed, between the Ottoman sultan and Ašraf, the Ḡilzay Afghan ruler of Persia (r. 1725-29).

At the end of the 1148/1736 negotiations, both sides approved a document that mentioned only the issues of the ḥajj pilgrimage caravan, ambassadors, and prisoners because of disagreement over the Jaʿfari maḏhab concept.

Although no actual peace treaty was signed at that time, mutual acceptance of these other points became the basis for a working truce that lasted several years.

Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations.

Safavid legitimacy depended on the dynasty’s close connection to Twelver Shiʿism as an autonomous, self-contained tradition of Islamic jurisprudence as well as the Safavids’ alleged descent from the seventh Imam Musā al-Kāżem (died between 779 and 804). Nāder’s view of Twelver Shiʿism as a mere school of law within the greater Muslim community (umma)glossed over the entire complex structure of Shiʿite legal institutions, because his main goal was to limit the potential of Sunnite-Shiʿite conflict to interfere with his empire-building dreams.

The Jaʿfari maḏhab proposal also seems intended as tool to smooth relations between the Sunni and Shiʿite components of his own army. In addition, the proposal had economic implications, since control of a ḥajj caravan would have provided the shah with access to the revenue of the lucrative pilgrimage trade.

Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals.

When describing Nāder’s coronation, Astarābādi called the assembly on the Moḡān steppe a quriltāy, evoking the practice of Mughal and Timurid conclaves that periodically met to select new khans. In various official documents, Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage.

This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a “Turkmen” ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word “Turkmen” to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well.

Nāder’s novel concepts regarding the Jaʿfari maḏhab and common “Turkmen” descent were directed primarily at the Ottomans and Mughals. He may have perceived a need to unite disparate components of the omma against the expanding power of Europe at that time, however different his view of Muslim unity was from later concepts of it. But both ideas had less domestic importance.

On coins and seals, and in documents issued to his subjects, Nāder was more conservative in his claim to legitimacy. For example, the distich on one of his official seals focused only on the restoration of stability: Besmellāh – nagin-e dawlat-e din rafta bud čun az jā / be-nām-e Nāder Irān qarār dād Ḵodā (In the name of God – when the seal of state and religion had disappeared from Iran / God established there order in the name of Nāder; Rabino, p. 52).

In a proclamation sent to the ulamaof Isfahan soon after the coronation, the Jaʿfari maḏhab was depicted as nothing more than an attempt to keep peace between Sunnites and Shiʿites.

The document explained that ʿAli would continue to be venerated as one especially beloved by God, although henceforth the Shiʿite formula ʿAli wali Allāh (ʿAli is the deputy of God) would be prohibited.

In contrast to the shah’s letters to foreign rulers, this proclamation did not even mention the Safavids (Qoddusi, p. 540).

Nāder’s domestic policies introduced major economic, military, and social changes. He ordered a cadastral survey in order to produce the land registers known as raqabat-e Nāderi. Because of the establishment of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, the Safavid framework of pious foundations was suspended (Lambton, p. 131), although their revenues were the main source of financial support for important ulama.

Only in the last year of his reign did Nāder decree the resumption of pious foundations.

After his accession to the throne, Nāder claimed the ruler’s privilege to issue coinage in his name. His monetary policy linked the Persian currency system to the Mughal system, since he discontinued the Safavid silver ʿAbbāsi and minted a silver Nāderi whose weight standard corresponded with the Mughal rupee (Rabino, p. 52).

Nāder also attempted to promote fixed salaries for his soldiers and officials instead of revenues derived from land tenure. Continuing a shift that had begun in the late Safavid era, he increased substantially the number of soldiers directly under his command, while units under the command of provincial and tribal leaders became less important.

Finally, he continued and expanded the Safavid policy of a forced resettlement of tribal groups (Perry, 1975, pp. 208-10).

All these reforms can be viewed as attempts to address weaknesses that had emerged in the late Safavid era, but none solved the problems that were tied to larger trends in the world economy. Iran had suffered from a swift rise in the popularity of Indian silk in Europe during the last few decades of Safavid rule, a shift that dramatically reduced Iran’s foreign income and indirectly contributed to the draining of bullion away from Persian state treasuries (Matthee, pp. 13, 67-68, 203-06, 212-218).

This crisis, in turn, put more pressure on the provinces to produce tax revenue, which led provincial governors to take oppressive measures and fueled the Afghan revolt that had resulted in the Safavid collapse in the first place.

After his ascension to the throne Nāder’s main military task was the ultimate defeat of the remaining Afghan forces that had ended Safavid rule. After laying siege to Qandahar for almost a year, Nāder destroyed it in 1738—the last redoubt of the Ḡilzi, who were led by Shah Ḥosayn Solṭān, the brother of Shah Maḥmud, who had been the first Ḡilzay to rule Persia (1722-1725). On the site of his camp Nāder built a new city, Nāderābād, to which he transferred Qandahar’s population and Abdāli Afghans.

The destruction of Qandahar completed the reconquest of territory lost since the reign of Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn. Nāder’s career now entered a new phase: the invasion of foreign territory to pursue dreams of a world empire that could resemble the domains of Chinghis Khan (d. 1227) and Timur. After the fall of Qandahar, many Afghans joined his army.

His pursuit of Afghans who had fled across the Mughal frontier grew into an invasion of India when Nāder accused the Mughals of providing them with shelter and aid. Nāder had appointed Reżā-qoli as his deputy in Iran. While his father was away, Reżā-qoli feared a pro-Safavid revolt and had Moḥammad Ḥasan (the leader of the Qajars between 1726 and 1759) execute Ṭahmāsb and his sons.

After a successful offensive that culminated in the final defeat of the Mughal forces at the battle of Karnāl near Delhi in February 1739, Nāder made the Mughal emperor Moḥammad Šāh (r. 1719-48) his vassal and divested him of a large part of his fabulous riches, including the Peacock Throne and the Koh-i-Noor diamond. When the rumor spread that Nāder had been assassinated, the Indians attacked and killed his troops. In retaliation, Nāder gave his soldiers permission to plunder Delhi and massacre its inhabitants.

The peace treaty restored control of India to Moḥammad Šāh under Nāder’s distant suzerainty; it proclaimed Moḥammad Šāh’s legitimacy, citing the Turkmen lineage that he shared with Nāder (Astarābādi, p. 327). Nāder arranged a ceremony in which he placed the crown back on Moḥammad Shah’s head. To further emphasize Moḥammad Šāh’s subordinate status, he assumed the title šāhānšāh.

To further strengthen his ties to the Mughals, Nāder married his son Naṣr-Allāh to a great granddaughter of the Mughal emperor Awrangzēb (r. 1658-1707). His chroniclers represent his victory over Moḥammad Šāh as another sign of his similarity to Timur. The shah himself was so obsessed with emulating Timur that he moved, for a time, to Mashad (Lockhart, pp. 188-89, note 4).

While Nāder was invading India, Reżā-qoli was securing more territory for Nāder north of Balḵ and south of the Oxus river. His campaign aroused the ire of Ilbars, the khan of Khwarazm, and of Abu’l-Fayż (r. 1711-47), the Toqay-Timurid khan of Bukhara. When they threatened counterattacks, Nāder engaged in a swift campaign against them on his way back from India. He executed Ilbars and replaced him with a more compliant ruler, but this new vassal would soon be overthrown. Abu’l–Fayż, like the Mughal emperor, accepted his status as Nāder’s subordinate and married his daughter to Nāder’s nephew.

After the campaigns in India and Turkestan, particularly with acquisition of the Mughal treasury, Nāder found himself suddenly wealthy. He issued a decree canceling all taxes in Iran for three years and decided to press forward on several projects, such as creation of a new navy.

Nāder had sent his naval commanders at various times on expeditions in the Persian Gulf, particularly to Oman, but these missions were unsuccessful, in part because it was difficult to secure naval vessels of good quality and in adequate numbers. In the summer of 1741, Nāder began to build ships in Bušehr, arranging for lumber to be carried there from Māzāndarān at great trouble and expense. The project was not completed, but by 1745 he had amassed a fleet of about thirty ships purchased in India (Lockhart, p. 221, n. 3).

However, Nāder experienced several major setbacks after his return to Iran. In 1741-43 he launched a series of quixotic attacks in the Caucasus against the Dāḡestānis in retaliation for his brother’s death. In 1741, an attempt was made on Nāder’s life near Darband. When the would-be assassin claimed that he had been recruited by Reżā-qoli, the shah had his son blinded in retaliation, an act for which he later felt great remorse.

Marvi reported that Nāder began to manifest signs of physical deterioration and mental instability. Finally, the shah was forced to reinstate taxes due to insufficient funds, and the heavy levies sparked numerous rebellions.

In spite of mounting problems, in 1741 Nāder sent an embassy to the Ottomans to resubmit his 1736 proposal for a peace treaty. But Maḥmud I had just won wars against Russia and Austria and was not receptive.

The sultan rejected the shah’s claim to Iraq (a claim based on Timur’s earlier control of the province).

Then the Ottoman legal authority, the šayḵ al-Eslām, issued a fatwā (legal opinion) formally declaring the Jaʿfari maḏhab heretical.

In response, Nāder besieged several cities in Iraq in 1743, with no results, and in December of that year he signed a ceasefire with Aḥmad Pāšā, the Ottoman governor of Baghdad (d. 1747). Subsequently, Nāder convened a meeting of ulama from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia in Najaf at the shrine of ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb (d. 661), the fourth of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the first Imam.

After several days of lively debate on the question of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, the participants signed a document which recognized the Jaʿfari maḏhab as a legitimate legal school of Sunnite Islam.

The Ottoman sultan, however, remained unimpressed by this outcome.

Nāder soon had to leave Iraq to suppress several domestic rebellions.

The most serious of these began near Shiraz in January 1744 and was led by Moḥammad Taqi Khan Širāzi, the commander of Fārs province and one of Nāder’s favorites.

In June 1744, Nāder sacked Shiraz, and by winter he had crushed these revolts.

He resumed his war against the Ottomans and defeated them in August 1745 at Baḡāvard near Yerevan.

Although Nāder’s victory led to new negotiations, his bargaining position was not strong because of new, large-scale domestic uprisings.

The shah dropped his demands for territory and for recognition of the Jaʿfari maḏhab, and the final agreement was based only on the long mutually acceptable positions regarding frontiers, protection of pilgrims, treatment of prisoners, and exchange of ambassadors (Lockhart, p. 255).

The agreement recognized the shared Turkmen lineage and ostensibly proclaimed the conversion of Iran to Sunnism.

Yet the necessity to guarantee the safety of pilgrims to the Shiʿite shrines (ʿatabāt-e ʿāliya) in Iraq reveals the formal character of this concession.

The treaty was signed in September 1746 in Kordān, northwest of Tehran.

It made possible the official Ottoman recognition of Nāder’s rule, and the sultan dispatched an embassy with a huge assortment of gifts in the spring of 1747, although the shah did not live to receive it.

Nāder had spent the winter and spring of 1746 in Mashad, where he formulated a strategy to suppress the plethora of internal revolts. He also oversaw the construction of a treasure house for his Indian booty at nearby Kalāt-e Nāderi.

The building complex that Nāder constructed within this natural mountain fortress, near his birthplace in northern Khorasan, became his designated retreat, and he created there a secure showplace for his accomplishments.

Nāder followed the nomadic custom of not staying long in any permanent capital city, and Kalāt and Mashad (in, as he saw it. a complementary relationship) served as his main official sites in ways that resembled capital cities of other nomadic empires.

Under Nāder’s patronage, Mashad flourished at the midpoint of a trading route between India and Russia and grew in importance as a major pilgrimage center with its Emam Reẓā shrine complex.

In June 1747, a cabal of Afšār and Qajar officers succeeded in killing Nāder.

The succession struggle embroiled Persia in civil war for the next five years.

Two months before the assassination, Nāder’s nephew ʿAli-qoli, son of his brother Ebrāhim (d. 1738), had risen in revolt, and in July he followed his uncle on the throne as ʿĀdel Shah (r. 1747-48).

Nāder’s grandson Šāhroḵ, although blinded after an earlier coup attempt, finally secured the throne in Khorasan in 1748 as a vassal of the Afghan Aḥmad Shah Dorrāni (r. 1747-73).

This former deputy of Nāder founded the Dorrāni dynasty and is credited with being the first ruler of an independent Afghan state.

Šāhroḵ ruled for almost fifty years until 1795, when Āqā Moḥammad Khan Qajar (r. 1779-97) deposed him, marking the end of the rule of the Afsharids in Iran.

Text and bibliography in detail:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/nader-shah

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

Koh-i-Noor and Nadir Shah’s Delhi loot

The legendary treasure trove of Hindustan has changed hands en masse on two occasions, once in 1739, when it was taken by Nadir Shah, and then again in 1857, by the prize agents of the East India Company. Apart from these two conquests, a great many priceless gems and jewels were acquired by the early European traders in India and sold in Europe. Today, many of the world’s famous diamonds have been attributed conclusively to the 1739 sack of Delhi. The most well-known jewels and artifacts among them are listed below—the little compressed and crystallized charcoal that have wended their way through a labyrinth of mankind’s violent history.

During Nadir Shah’s homeward march from Delhi to Persia, he ordered all the acquired jewels to be decorated on a tent. The tent is described in great details by an eyewitness Abdul Kurreem, who accompanied Nadir Shah on his return journey, in his memoir:

“The outside was covered with fine scarlet broadcloth, the lining was of violet coloured satin, upon which were representations of all the birds and beasts in the creation, with trees and flowers, the whole made of pearls, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, amethysts, and other precious stones: and the tent poles were decorated in like manner.

On both sides of the Peacock Throne was a screen, upon which were the figures of two angels in precious stones. The roof of the tent consisted of seven pieces, and when it was transported to any place, two of these pieces packed in cotton, were put into a wooden chest, two of which were a sufficient load for an elephant; and the screen filled another chest.

The walls of the tent, the tent poles and the tent pins, which latter were of massy gold, loaded five more elephants; so that for the carriage of the whole required seven elephants. This magnificent tent was displayed on all festivals in the Dewan Khaneh at Heart, during the remainder of Nadir Shah’s reign. After his death, his nephew Adil Shah, and his grandson Shahrokh, whose territories were very limited, and expenses enormous, had the tent taken to pieces, and dissipated the produce.”

In the well-known book ‘The History of Nadir Shah’ published in the 18th century from London, James Fraser estimates that 70 crores of wealth was carried away by Nadir Shah from Delhi:

Jewels from emperors and amirs: 25 crores

Utensils and handles of weapons set with jewels, with the Peacock Throne, etc.: 9 crores

Money coined in gold and silver coins: 25 crores

Gold and silver plates which he melted into coins: 5 crores

Fine clothes and rich stuff, etc.: 2 crores

Household furniture and other commodities: 3 crores

Weapons, etc.: 1 crore

Peacock Throne

Ten years after Nadir Shah returned from India with unimaginable treasure in 1739, he was assassinated by his own guards. Immediately, the famed Peacock Throne was dismantled, and its gems and stones were cut out and dispersed in the world market, though the entire lot can never be accounted for.

The Peacock Throne or the Mayurasan has been described by many, including historians Abdul Hamid Lahori, Inayat Khan, and French travellers Bernier and Tavernier, but Tavernier’s account can be considered the most authentic as he was officially allowed to inspect it in the Mughal court by Aurangzeb.

Tavernier was a French gem merchant who travelled between Persia and India six times between 1630 and 1668. According to him, the throne was of almost the size of a bed, being 6 ft x 4 ft in dimension. There were four horizontal bars connecting its four legs, upon which 12 columns stand to hold a canopy. At the centre of each of the 12 columns, a cross design was made of a ruby surrounded by four emeralds.

There were 108 large rubies (100-200 carats), 116 large emeralds (30-60 carats), innumerable diamonds and gemstones studded in the throne made of solid gold. Its paraphernalia included cushions, swords, a mace, a round shield, and umbrellas—all studded with gemstones and pearls. The underside of the canopy was covered with pearls and diamonds. Besides, Abdul Lahori describes the throne and its well-known stones, including Koh-i-Noor, the Akbar Shah diamond, the Shah diamond, the Timur Ruby, and the Shah Jahan diamond.

Koh-i-Noor

This diamond—known as ‘Babur’s Diamond’ before 1739—was acquired from the Kakatiya dynasty by Allauddin Khilji. When Ibrahim Lodi was defeated by Babur, it was apparently handed over to Humayun by the mother of Ibrahim Lodi to guarantee the family’s safety. However, other sources say that it was gifted to Humayun by the Gwalior Royal Family.

Thereafter, it was presented by Humayun to the Persian Shah Tamasp (to garner his support to regain Hindustan), who then gave it to the Deccan Kingdom as a gift. It came back to the Mughals during Shah Jahan’s reign, via a Persian diamond dealer Mir Jumla, and remained with the Mughal emperors until 1739.

It is rumoured that Nadir Shah was tipped off that the emperor Muhammad Shah was hiding the diamond in his turban. Nadir Shah then invited the emperor to a customary turban-exchange ceremony to foster eternal supportive ties between the two empires. He could not believe his eyes when he found the diamond concealed within the layers of the turban, and exclaimed, ‘Koh-i-Noor!’ (‘Mountain of Light!’). Since then, it has been known by that name.

After Nadir Shah was assassinated, the diamond fell into the hands of Ahmad Shah Abdali of Kabul. After Abdali, it was ceded by the Afghans to Sikh King Ranjit Singh of Punjab. On his death-bed in 1839, Ranjit Singh willed the Koh-i-Noor to the Jagannath Temple at Puri. The British East India Company acquired it from his son (Duleep Singh) in 1843.

It is said that the diamond was kept by John Lawrence, who had absent-mindedly put the box in his coat pocket. When Governor General Dalhousie asked for it to be sent from Lahore to Mumbai, Lawrence asked his servant to find it; while rummaging through his wardrobe, the servant replied, “there is nothing here, Sahib, but a bit of glass!”

The Koh-i-Noor was transported to England aboard HMS Madea, with Dalhousie carrying it personally. It was cut and put in a crown by the crown jewellers Garrard & Co.; Queen Mary wore this crown to the Delhi Coronation Durbar in 1911.

The Orloff

Prior to 1739, this unusual half-egg shaped diamond was known as the Great Mogul. After Nadir Shah’s murder, one of his soldiers sold it to an Armenian merchant, and it was acquired subsequently by the Russian nobleman Grigorievich Orlov. The nobleman presented it to his lover, the Grand Duchess Catherine, who mounted it in the Imperial Sceptre during her reign between 1762 and 1796.

Another version of the diamond’s history states that it was one of the eyes in a temple in South India, which was stolen by a French army deserter who had converted to Hinduism solely to gain access to the sanctum sanctorum of the temple to steal the diamond.

The Shah Diamond

This diamond remained in Iran for nearly a century until 1829, when the Russian diplomat and writer, Alexandr Griboyedov, was murdered in Tehran. Fearing a backlash from Russia, the grandson of Shah visited Moscow and presented the diamond as a gift to Russian Tsar Nicholas I.

The Great Table Diamond

Jean Baptiste Tavernier, a French traveller to India, mentioned a huge diamond of more than 400 carats that was set in the Peacock Throne, and called it the Diamanta Grande Table.

After Nadir Shah’s murder, the diamond was cut many times and distributed throughout the world. Researchers are still trying to locate all the pieces of this diamond, but only three have been confirmed to date—Darya-i-Noor (Sea of Light), Noor-ul-Amin (Light of the Eye), and Shah Jahan Table Cut.

The former two are among the Iranian Crown Jewels, as confirmed by a Canadian team from the Royal Ontario Museum that conducted a study on Iranian Crown Jewels in 1965.

The Darya-i-Noor is the most celebrated diamond among the Iranian Crown Jewels, and has a status similar to that of the Koh-i-Noor in the British Crown Jewels. The Shah Jahan Table Cut appeared mysteriously at a Christie’s auction in 1985, and was acquired by H.H.Sheikh Naseer Al-Sabah of Kuwait. It is assumed that it was not sold thereafter and remains in his family.

Timur Ruby

After Nadir Shah, Ahmed Shah Abdali of Kabul acquired a huge ruby along with the Koh-i-noor diamond, and later the Afghans ceded it to the Sikh King Ranjit Singh.

The British later acquired this mammoth 361 carat ruby from Maharaja Duleep Singh of Punjab. The names and dates of its six original owners are inscribed on the stone, as follows—Timur, Akbar (1612), Jahangir (1628), Aurangzeb (1659), Farrukhsiyar (1713), and Ahmad Shah Durrani (1754).

The ruby may be the one that was mentioned in Jauhar-i-Samsam while describing its acquisition by Nadir Shah from Muhammad Shah as “his majesty bestowed on Nadir Shah, with his own munificent hand, as a parting present, the peacock throne, in which was set a ruby upwards of a girih (three fingers’ breadth) in width, and nearly two in length, which was commonly called khiraj-i-alam or the tribute of the world”.

Below is a list of those few translucent rocks that are sprinkled around the world, of whose heritage we know about, thanks to the researchers and historians.

Till date, these are the only jewels that could have been conclusively traced back to Nadir Shah’s sack of Delhi in 1739. An unknown vast majority of the precious stones that Nadir Shah took with him is simply untraceable and most are probably lost in the passage of time.

Few may be lying in private collections, and then also, it is doubtful if their historicity is known even to their owners.

In this context, it does not really matter in which museum, or which city of the world these are located and preserved.

The important thing is that they are well conserved by experts to be passed down to future generations to cherish and appreciate these priceless items.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/destinations/koh-i-noor-and-nadir-shahs-delhi-loot/as49934879.cms

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

Afsharid Dynasty (Nader Shah)

Nader Shah or King Nader (1688-1747), the founder of Afsharid Dynasty, an enigmatic figure in Iranian history ruled from 1736 – 1747 A.D.

Nader Shah, or Nader Qoli Beg was born in Kobhan, Iran, on October 22, 1688, into one of the Turkish tribes loyal to the Safavid shahs of Iran. He was the son of a poor peasant, who lived in Khorasan and died while Nader was still a child. Nader and his mother were carried off as slaves by the Ozbegs, but after death of his mother in captivity Nader managed to escape and became a soldier. Soon he attracted the attention of a chieftain of the Afshar in whose service Nader rapidly advanced. Eventually, the ambitious Nader fell out of favour. He became a rebel and gathered a substantial army.

In 1719 the Afghans had invaded Persia. They deposed the reigning Shah of the Safavid dynasty in 1722. Their ruler, Mahmoud Ghilzai (±1699-1725), murdered a large number of Safavid Princes, hacking many of them to death by his own hand. After he had invited the leading citizens of Esfahan to a feast and massacred them there, his own supporters assassinated Mahmoud in 1725. His cousin, Ashraf (±1700-1730), took over and married a Safavid princess.

At first, Nader fought with the Afghans against the Ozbegs until they withheld him further payment. In 1727 Nader offered his services to Tamasp II (±1704-1740), heir to the Safavid dynasty. Nader started the reconquest of Persia and drove the Afghans out of Khorasan. The Afghans suffered heavy losses, but before they fled Ashraf massacred an additional 3000 citizens of Esfahan. Most of the fleeing Afghans were soon overtaken and killed by Nader’s men, while others died in the desert. Ashraf himself was hunted down and murdered.

By 1729 Nader had freed Persia from the Afghans. Tamasp II was crowned Shah, although he was little more than a figurehead. While Nader was putting down a revolt in Khorasan, Tamasp moved against the Turks, losing Georgia and Armenia. Enraged, Nader deposed Tamasp in 1732 and installed Tamasp’s infant son, Abbas III (1732-1740), on the throne, naming himself regent. Within two years Nader recaptured the lost territory and extended the Empire at the expense of the Turks and the Russians.

In 1736 Nader evidently felt that his own position had been established so firmly that he no longer needed to hide behind a nominal Safavid Shah and ascended the throne himself. In 1738 he invaded Kandahar, captured Kabul and marched on to India. He seized and sacked Delhi and, after some disturbances, he killed 30000 of its citizens.

He plundered the Indian treasures of the Moghal Emperors, taking with him the famous jewel-encrusted Peacock Throne and the Koh-i Noor diamond. In 1740 Nader had Tamasp II and his two infant sons put to death. Then he invaded Transoxania. He resumed war with Turkey in 1743. In addition, he built a navy and conquered Oman.

Gradually Nader’s greedy and intolerant nature became more pronounced. The financial burden of his standing armies was more than the Persians could bear and Nader imposed the death penalty on those who failed to pay his taxes. He stored most of his loot for his own use and showed little if any concern for the general welfare of the country. Nader concentrated all power in his own hands.

He was a brilliant soldier and the founder of the Persian navy, but he was entirely lacking any interest in art and literature. Once, when Nader was told that there was no war in paradise, he was reported to have asked: “How can there be any delights there?”.

He moved the capital to Mashhad in Khorasan, close to his favourite mountain fortress. He tried to reconcile Sunnism with Shi’itism, because he needed people of both faiths in his army, but the reconciliation failed.

In his later years, revolts began to break out against his oppressive rule. Nader became increasingly harsh and exhibited signs of mental derangement following an assassination attempt.

He suspected his own son, Reza Qoli Mirza (1719-1747), of plotting against him and had him blinded. Soon he started executing the nobles who had witnessed his son’s blinding.

Towards the end, even his own tribesmen felt that he was too dangerous a man to be near. In 1747 a group of Afshar and Qajar chiefs decided “to breakfast off him where he should sup off them”. His own commanders surprised him in his sleep, but Nader managed to kill two of them before the assassins finished him off.

Nader was Persia’s most gifted military genius and is known as “The Second Alexander” and “The Napoleon of Persia”.

Although he restored national independence and effectively protected Iran’s territorial integrity at a dark moment of the country’s history, his obsessive suspicions and jealousies plunged Iran into political turmoil.

Little is known about Nader’s personal life. His grandiosity, his insatiable desire for more conquests and his egocentric behaviour suggest a narcissistic personality disorder and in his last years he seems to have developed some paranoid tendencies.

Nader was married four times and had 5 sons and 15 grandsons.

Afsharid Kings:

Nader Shah 1737 – 1747

Ali Gholi 1747 – 1748

Ebrahim 1748 – 1749

Shahrokh 1748 – 1749

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/afsharids/afsharids.php

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

Nader Shah in Iranian Historiography

Warlord or National Hero?

By Rudolph Matthee · Published 2018

Western—European and North American—historiography generally portrays the years between the death of Louis XIV in 1715 and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 as having given birth to the modern world—a republican world founded on rational discourse and popular sovereignty, an empirically grounded, industrializing world built on progress and productivity, an aggressive, market-driven world espousing expansion as agenda and organizing principle.

In the traditional interpretation of Islamic Middle Eastern history, the “eighteenth century” projects an entirely different image. Rather than evoking energy and innovation, it conjures up stasis, decline and defeat. It speaks of exhausted, mismanaged empires that either succumbed to regional competitors or proved too weak to resist the juggernaut of European imperialism. Examples abound.

The state that had ruled Iran since the early sixteenth century, the Safavids, in 1722 collapsed under the onslaught of Afghan insurgents from the tribal periphery. The Ottomans, having failed to take Vienna in 1683, subsequently retreated against the Austrians and the Russians in the Balkans and later lost Egypt, first to the French and then to the Albanian warlord, Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha. In the Indian Subcontinent, meanwhile, the once mighty Mughal Empire disintegrated and was brought into the British orbit.

Iran was doubly disadvantaged in this process of “regression.” The Ottomans suffered defeat and lost territory yet maintained military, diplomatic and commercial contact with the nations of Western Europe, the source of most of what was new at the time. The so-called Tulip Period of the early eighteenth-century reflects a fascination with things European among the ruling classes of Istanbul.

The Mughal state became tributary to the English East India Company and then was absorbed into the expanding British Empire. Yet that same process caused its elite gradually to become familiar with the ways and means of the new colonizers, creating models and generating ideas that helped the country keep in touch with developments in the wider world.

Iran, by contrast, in this period not just fell precipitously from stability to chaos, but in the process it became disconnected from the world in ways not experienced by the other “gunpowder empires.” Until the late seventeenth century the Safavids had been roughly on par with the Ottomans and the Mughals in their projection of wealth, power and cultural prestige.

Sophisticated Europeans knew Iran as the legendary land of the Sophy, a term personified by the most dynamic ruler of the dynasty, Shah ‘Abbas I (r. 1587–1629). Shah ‘Abbas had connected his country to the world in unprecedented ways. After proclaiming Isfahan his capital and endowing it with a newly designed awe-inspiring center, he had turned this centrally located city into a nexus of trade links between Europe, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and India—and a favored destination for European traders and travelers, who saw in it a latter-day reflection of the Persian Empire as they imagined it from reading Herodotus, Strabo, and Pliny.

All this energy and efflorescence had come crashing down with the fall of Isfahan in 1722. The Afghan tribesmen who brought down the Safavid state failed to build their own on its ruins and were soon swept aside. What followed was seventy-five years of chaos and anarchy during which the Iranian plateau became remote and forbidding territory, run by warlords and mostly shunned by Westerners.

As the world was radically reconfigured in this period, Iranians continued to live in a rather self-congratulatory, inward-looking mode, secure in the knowledge that their country was, if no longer the center of the world, a place of consequence. In reality, Iran in this period rapidly “retreated” from the global scene as its ties with the outside world diminished in frequency and intensity. Iran’s short “eighteenth century,” the roughly seventy-five years that separate the fall of the Safavids from the rise of the Qajars, thus runs contrary to the perceived “global eighteenth century” and its presumed new level of (elite) connectivity.

This relative insularity was shattered in the early nineteenth century as the newly acceded Qajar regime (r. 1796–1925) with its largely tribally organized and poorly disciplined army suffered several terrible defeats against the well-equipped Russians, people the Iranians had always thought of and dismissed as bibulous, thick-skulled barbarians. As the Russians occupied large swaths of Iranian territory in the north—much of the southern Caucasus, comprising the modern countries of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan—the British intruded from the other side, the Persian Gulf.

Historians of late have turned away from this type of narrative with its focus on a golden age followed by decline and on great rulers and their deeds as organizing principles, to call for contingency, indeterminacy and attention to the common man. Yet, modern nationalism demands linearity and purposefulness, and shows little patience for revisionist complication.

Faced with the flux and reflux of history, nationalism likes to tell a story of loss and regeneration through resilience, of foreign-inflicted defeat followed by phoenix-like resurgence. It is therefore hardly surprising that modern Iranian historiography—and certainly the Iranian popular imagination—tends to portray the Safavids and the Qajars in starkly contrasting terms—the first symbolizing pride and glory, the second representing fecklessness and submissiveness.

Iranians have come to look back at the Safavid period nostalgically, as the last time their country was proud, independent, and the envy of the world. The Qajars, by contrast, the dynasty that would bring the country to the threshold of the modern age, count as spineless, corrupt rulers who blithely led the country into defeat and humiliation at the hand of foreigners, and who facilitated the country’s creeping incorporation into a Western-dominated imperialist network, preventing it from regaining its “natural” greatness.

The period in between is not so easily classified, for it seems neither a glorious moment in national history nor a century of potential splendor snatched away by foreign powers. Dark, seemingly directionless, and relatively short on written sources, the eighteenth century in Iranian history remains an awkward interlude.

Modern Iranian historians have nevertheless sought to weave this period into a continuous national narrative by adopting a Carlylean “great man” view of history, highlighting the stature of the two rulers who created identifiable albeit short-lived states and thus present a semblance of coherence and direction to Iranian history in an otherwise tumultuous period: Nader Shah (r. 1736–47) and Karim Khan Zand (r. 1763–69).

Both stand out, not just as the only two rulers who defied the period’s centrifugal forces, but as national heroes who revived Iran’s genius. The first, a brilliant warrior, redeemed the nation by restoring the honor it had lost with the fall of Isfahan to foreign tribesmen. The second represents the quintessentially Iranian search for justice.

The first also stirred the Western imagination in ways the second never did—especially after he marched into India in 1739, ransacked Delhi and returned home with fabulous treasures. Indeed, the reception of Nader Shah in eighteenth-century Europe was as swift and dramatic as it was complex. The image it created, half brutal warlord, half national liberator, would significantly contribute to the image modern Iranians would construct of him.

Nader Shah: Scourge of God or National Hero?

The portrayal of Nader in the eighteenth-century West was the combined outcome of eyewitness accounts, Persian-language sources, and Enlightenment anxieties. Europeans, still puzzled by the sudden fall of the Safavids, learned of him even before he took power in 1736 as the warrior who reconquered Isfahan from the Afghans in 1729.

The Mercure de France of November 1731 contained an “eyewitness report” that portrayed Tahmasp Quli Khan, as Nader Shah was still called at the time, as a savior, a man of valor and fidelity, brave and full of esprit. His stature as the dynamic warlord who might rescue his nation by liberating it from the barbarians who had invaded this old, sophisticated land—the Afghans, the Ottomans, and the Russians—only grew with time.

In 1738 a huge tome appeared in Germany depicting Nader as the divinely inspired savior of a collapsed nation. The notion of Nader the savior resonated with the political philosophy of the Enlightenment as articulated by Montesquieu, Diderot and Holbach, who distinguished between the legitimate right to defend and recover one’s home country, and illegitimate wars of conquest.

A rather different Nader burst onto the European scene soon thereafter, with his defeat of the Mughal Emperor Mohammad Shah at Karnal in 1739 and his subsequent sack of Delhi. News of these exploits spread quickly, carried by missionaries and agents of the European maritime companies, and soon gave rise to numerous pamphlets and books.

The earliest narrative about Nader’s Indian exploits seems to have been a report written in 1739 by Dutch East India Company agents in Bengal. Published in Holland in 1740, this report may have been the source of the anonymous two-volume work that came out in Amsterdam a year later as Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan Sophi de Perse, a text that subsequently was translated into English, Italian, and Spanish.

In the next few years the Asian warlord was the subject of a number of articles in the British press, some of which have plausibly been attributed to Samuel Johnson. Two years later the Anglo-Saxon world became thoroughly acquainted with Nader through James Fraser’s History of Nader Shah, which was mostly based on reports by William Cockell, an agent of the English India Company who had served in Iran while Nader was in power.

In the same year, 1742, James Spilman, a Russia Company merchant, published an account of a journey he had undertaken to Iran in 1739 and to which was appended a brief account of the rise of Nader Shah. In 1743 André de Claustre published Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan, roi de Perse. A generation later the French reading public was reminded of Nader through the translation the famous Orientalist William Jones made of a Persian chronicle written in Nader Shah’s orbit, Mirza Mohammad Mahdi Astarabadi’s Tarikh-e Naderi.

A fictionalized Nader quickly followed. The first novel—in which a young Swiss man sets out on an Asian adventure that includes his participation in Nader’s Indian campaign—appeared in 1754. A second, presented as the memoirs of Shah Tahmasp II, Nader’s protégé until he deposed him, followed in 1758.

Both reflect the spirit of a relatively pacific European age in search of a heroic cause in their portrayal of young, poor, and intelligent men who in Europe find no outlet for their martial inclinations. They also reflect the prevailing notion that the East, unfettered by feudal stratification, was open to talent. The same theme appears in the contemporaneous theatrical representation of Nader Shah in Holland, France, and Italy.

The way Nader was in Europe represented varied by context. In the Dutch setting, he became an emblem of republicanism, a “protagonist of lowly origins whose right to the throne sprang from his desire to serve his subjects.” Yet a more common theme in the earliest European references to him was the image of the disciplined warrior, the type Europe lacked until the appearance of Frederick the Great on the European scene in 1740.

As in the case of Alexander the Great, to whom he was sometimes likened, the more negative aspects of Nader’s career over time received ample attention as well. Several authors highlighted his rapaciousness and linked the vast treasure he bought back from India to the typical Oriental despot who plunders and hoards rather than builds.

Nader’s cruelty and growing madness, as the ultimate symbol of the descent into violence and cruelty of a land previously known for its humanism, tolerance and sophistication, did not go unnoticed either; the English merchant-traveler Jonas Hanway, for instance, who in 1743 had visited Nader’s army camp, at once presented the ruler’s appearance as punishment for Iranian sloth and dissolution and painted a lurid portrait of a usurper driven by greed and brutality.

Contemporary Iranian sources evince a similar ambivalence. The chroniclers writing in Nader Shah’s immediate orbit naturally hedge their bets and defuse the ruler’s obvious ruthlessness and gathering madness by turning a blind eye to these uncomfortable facts or by blaming the victims. They generally portray Nader as a ruler of military virtue and sound lineage, hail him as a strongman who had restored order, and defend him against the indictment of having usurped power. The afore-mentioned Astarabadi set the tone for an enduring narrative by lauding Nader for expelling all foreign occupiers from Iranian soil. At pains to rationalize the ruler’s growing craziness and cruelty, he claimed that Nader changed only after his expedition to the Caucasus, eventually bringing ruin to his country.

As a new dynasty of questionable roots and legitimacy, the Qajars had to expunge the legacy of those who came before them—other than the Safavids, to whom they paid allegiance on account of the Shi‘i credentials they themselves so sorely lacked. Nader Shah was one of those.

Agha Mohammad Khan, the founder of the Qajar dynasty and a ruthless warlord himself, chose to distance himself from Nader for having deviated from the Shi‘i foundations laid by the Safavids and invoked by Agha Mohammad Shah to buttress his own legitimacy.

Yet the first Qajar ruler must have been impressed by his forebear as well, for he had two figures added to the two huge battle scenes adorning the walls of the Chehel Sotun palace in Isfahan, one of which represents Nader’s defeat of the Mughal Emperor Mohammad Khan at Karnal in 1739. Nader also figured in the one of the main halls of the Golestan palace that was built in the newly chosen capital Tehran and renovated in 1806—in a pose of returning the crown of India to the Mughal king.

A More Complex Nader Shah

The early nineteenth century saw two developments that helped shape a new or at least a more complex image of Nader Shah. The first was the string of humiliating military defeats the Qajars suffered against their most formidable enemies, the Russians. The second was the meteoric rise of Napoleon followed by a career that affected the world from the East Coast of the United States to the shores of the Indian Ocean.

The military weakness of the Qajars against the Russians and the tremendous loss of land their defeats entailed quickly detracted from the new dynasty’s aura and made the Iranian public long for a success story. A direct relationship can be discerned between these defeats and the continuing, indeed growing popularity of Nader Shah among Iranians, as exemplified in the more than fourteen editions that appeared of Astarabadi’s popular account of Nader’s life and exploits, the Jahan-gosha-ye Naderi.

The relationship between the reputation of Napoleon and that of Nader Shah in Iran—and Europe—seems something like a dialogic engagement: Napoleon saw himself as a latter-day Nader. Iranians, in turn, came to admire Napoleon as the strongman they themselves so sorely missed in the nineteenth century. Nader in due time and in good Orientalist fashion became known, first in Europe, then in Iran, as the Asian or Persian Napoleon; and, completing the cycle in an anti-Orientalist manner, Napoleon is now often called the European Nader Shah.

All indications are that Napoleon was greatly impressed with Nader Shah. It is almost certain that, as a young man, Napoleon read about Nader’s exploits, and it is likely that he identified with the story of a lad of humble origins who had risen to great heights through sheer will power and energy.

His Asian dreams—his own search for a heroic cause—are neatly summed up in his famous exclamation before a group of bickering German princes in 1804 to the effect that Europe had no longer anything to offer ambitious men, that only in the Orient great prestige and wealth could be acquired.

That Napoleon greatly admired Nader emerges from the record of Amédée Jaubert, the French Orientalist who in 1807 visited Iran to conclude a Franco-Iranian alliance. Jaubert carried a letter from Napoleon with him in which the French emperor, somewhat injudiciously in front of the rather sedentary Fath ‘Ali Shah, praised Nader Shah as a “great warrior, who was “able to conquer a great power,” who “struck the insurgents with terror and was fearsome to his neighbors, while he “triumphed over his enemies and reigned gloriously.”

It is also surely no coincidence that ‘Askar Khan Afshar, Fath ‘Ali Shah’s envoy to Paris in 1808, presented a copy of the Jahangosha-ye Naderi to the Imperial Library in Paris when he came to Paris the following year. L’Histoire de Thamas Kouli-Kan, finally, was one of the books available to Napoleon during in years in exile on Saint Helena between 1815 and 1821.

Napoleon, in turn, made quite an impression in Iran—and a lasting one at that. He became and long remained a familiar figure in part because the country was part of his strategic vision, making him deal directly with its rulers by way of diplomacy. But the main reason for his enduring fame and popularity may have been the same as what made eighteenth-century Europeans look up to Nader Shah—because his strong character spoke to the imagination of the Iranians and projected something that they found missing in their own rulers. Mir ‘Abd al-Latif Khan Shushtari, an Iranian who seems to have imbibed some anti-French sentiments during his long stay in British India, nevertheless called Napoleon a leader who stood out for his organizational skills, his wisdom and his sophistication.

In Iran, meanwhile, the admiration for the French strongman was no less strong. John Malcolm, Britain’s first ambassador to Iran and the author of the first modern history of the country, relates how in 1810, Napoleon’s “name was familiar to numbers in Persia, and some few understood the character of his power.” An “old friend” of his, a poet and a philosopher, told Malcolm that, in his opinion, “this Buonaparte…is a wonderful man; he wields empires as if they were clubs.” Speculating that, after coming to terms with the Ottomans, this Western Chengiz Khan might take on Iran and Russia and then, “make use of both to overthrow your [British] power in India.”

Other Iranian officials were great admirers of Napoleon as well. ‘Abbas Mirza (1789–1833), crown prince, governor of Azerbaijan and Iran’s first modern reformer, was one. His newly constructed royal summer palace at Ujan near Soltaniya was decorated with four paintings, two of which represented the Russian Tsar, Alexander I, and Napoleon respectively.

Another one was Hajji Baba, a “prince” in Hamadan who, when Robert Cotton Money met him in 1824, “asked all about Napoleon,” and collected “all the anecdotes he could of him” because he seemed to adore his character. The third Qajar shah, Mohammad Shah (r. 1834-48) had his palace in Tehran “hung round with various prints of Napoleon, Prince Albert and Queen Victoria.”

Mohammad Shah is said to have been interested in acquiring a copy of the Life of Napoleon, with engravings of the emperor’s battles, and he ordered Mirza Reza Mohandes, who earlier had translated biographies of Peter I, Alexander the Great, and Charles XII into Persian, to produce a translation of a history of the French general, from an English rendering of an originally French work. Richard Khan, too, in 1869 translated A Brief History of Napoleon into Persian.

In the early twentieth century ‘Abbas Mirza Salar Lashkar, a.k.a. Nayeb al-Saltana, picked up a book titled Napoleon Ier et la Perse and decided to translate it into Persian.

As noted, the revised image of Nader, from usurper and brutal tyrant to savior of the nation, was greatly facilitated by widespread Iranian disappointment with the feeble Qajars, and further built, in a dialectical way, on the analogy with Napoleon. James Morier, British envoy and the author of the picaresque novel, Hajji Baba of Isfahan, in 1808 said about the Iranians that, “of Bonaparte, from the likeness of that of their own Nadir Shah, they have a very high idea.”

But the way in which the warlord was fashioned in the twentieth century was in some way a calque on the way Western authors and especially John Malcolm portrayed him. To Malcolm, Nader Shah was a force of nature, a brute who acted to purify the overripe, decadent civilization from which he himself sprang.

Where the Polish Jesuit Thadeusz Krusinski, an eyewitness to the fall of Isfahan in 1722, had seen the Afghans as barbarians who might be civilized by becoming acquainted with Persia’s superior culture, Malcolm saw in Nader Shah a volcanic force that had rejuvenated that same culture precisely by ridding it of Afghan primitivism. Malcolm saw Nader the way Edward Gibbon had seen Attila the Hun: as a great warrior and disciplinarian who had cleansed the land by liberating his people from the yoke of barbarians.

Full of admiration for Nader’s military prowess, Malcolm in a rather self-serving manner painted a redeeming portrait of the eighteenth-century empire builder, based on his anticipation of the unfolding of his own empire, that of the British. It is telling in this context that Malcolm did not dwell on the savagery that accompanied Nader’s subjugation of northern India and his sack of Delhi, thinking it greatly exaggerated. The bloodletting of the last few years of the warrior’s life he ascribed to creeping insanity.

Malcolm’s assessment would essentially offer the template for the later nationalist Iranian portrayal of Nader Shah. Of course, for this to have an impact on Iranian image making, Malcolm’s landmark book, A History of Persia (1815) first had to be translated into Persian.

This might have happened as early as the 1840s were it not for Naser al-Din Shah’s grand vizier and chief counselor Mirza Taqi Khan, better known as Amir Kabir who, wary of Malcolm’s less than flattering verdict on the Qajar dynasty, is said to have cautioned his master that “for Persians reading such a book is fatally poisonous.”

That does not seem to have deterred the monarch himself, for the shah apparently had A History of Persia read to him before going to sleep. At any rate, the acquaintance among the wider Iranian public with Malcolm’s take on Nader and Iranian history at large would have to wait until the 1870s, when a Persian translation of his book was undertaken.

Yet the work that resulted did not come out in Iran but in British-controlled Bombay and in the context of the new type of print culture that had developed in India under British auspices. Over time, this translation would become exceedingly popular.

Nader Shah in Modern Iranian Historiography

The fall of the Qajars in the 1920s and the rise of Reza Khan, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, inaugurated a new phase in the dialectical process of historiography with regard to Nader Shah. British foreign secretary Victor Mallet in 1925 insisted that Nader Shah was Reza Khan’s “great hero,” adding that he would not be surprised if the new ruler would model his career on that of Nader. The Iranian press at the time depicted the new ruler accordingly, as a national savior ready to rebuild the country and drive out the foreign intruders.

Just as the early Qajar historians had exorcised the previous regimes, including that of Nader, so the historians who came of age in the 1920s and 1930s followed the line of the new regime by decrying the stagnation and especially the loss of land their country had suffered because of the military weakness of the Qajars, which inevitably entailed a reevaluation of the last ruler who had stood for a strong and independent Iran—Nader Shah.

In the 1930s, as Reza Shah consolidated his power, military history and the single strong leader came to the fore to help create a usable past for a state increasingly built on authoritarian foundations. For historians writing in the reign of Reza Shah and his centralizing tendencies, Nader’s military career acquired a heightened significance for having reunified the nation—just like Iran’s current ruler.

In modern times, Nader has remained controversial in Iran. To some, he was just an uncultured tribal chieftain who delivered the coup de grace to the magnificent Safavid state. In modern Iran, where the great man, the one who keeps order and who can bring salvation by effecting the kind of change that no one else is willing to take responsibility for, continues to loom large, Nader Shah remains a hero.

“For many Iranians today, Nader’s military successes are justification in themselves and more than outweigh any brutalities that accompanied him.” Yet Nader remains an awkward fit for those who adhere to the dominant paradigm in modern Iranian history writing with its tendency to espouse a primordial nationalism that preaches an unbroken civilizational link between the Achaemenids and the Islamic Republic.

For some he remains the warrior who restored Iran’s pride by driving out the foreigners who had occupied the country, the Afghans, the Ottomans, and the Russians. Yet the deeply ingrained notion that Iranian civilization is one of “givers” is hard to reconcile with the sheer brutality and the outright imperialism culminating in Nader’s Indian campaign, which consequently, à la Malcolm, has to be presented as an aberration in an otherwise brilliant career.

Nader thus becomes the figure whose genius could have halted and even reversed the decline that had set in with the Afghan onslaught and the fall of the Safavids. In this scenario, after uniting Iran Nader could have done a lot to rebuild a great nation if he only he had cared about the welfare of the Iranian people. Instead, he lost his mind when he decided to invade India, and even the dividend of that campaign, a huge amount of treasure, was wasted.

A related yet slightly different interpretation connects Nader to the feeble awareness eighteenth-century Iranians evinced about the global changes and the sinister designs of foreigners on their country at the time. Nader, in this scenario, was too busy making war and thus did not take advantage of Western scientific and technological achievements and skills other than to seek European assistance in building a Persian-Gulf fleet—something the Safavids had never done.

For all his military brilliance, he also had no eye for the imperialist schemes of the Europeans. Indeed, to some, he even facilitated their imperialist project by offering the English East India Company reduced customs rates and seeking their assistance in building naval capacity. Even his Indian expedition benefited the British. By bringing home fabulous wealth from his Delhi campaign he acted as Trojan horse, increasing their business opportunities, and by opening up and weakening India he enabled the English to expand their long-term influence and domination in the subcontinent.

https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2018/matthee-nader-shah

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

Further reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaigns_of_Nader_Shah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah%27s_invasion_of_the_Mughal_Empire

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

Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:

https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/20-1739

https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/nader_shah_of_iran_invades_delhi.docx

https://vk.com/doc429864789_621397394

https://www.docdroid.net/p9hXcQI/o-toyrkmenos-nanter-sakhis-toy-iran-katalamvanei-to-delkhi-docx

More Posts from S-afshar and Others

1 month ago

Image of the Milky Way over the Temple of Karnak in Egypt.

Image Of The Milky Way Over The Temple Of Karnak In Egypt.
2 years ago
~ Clay Bulla With Impression Of A Stamp Seal Depicting The Persian King Spearing A Greek Hoplite.

~ Clay bulla with impression of a stamp seal depicting the Persian king spearing a Greek hoplite.

Place of origin: Near Eastern, Iranian

Culture: Persian

Period: Achaemenid

Date: 550–331 B.C.

Medium: Clay

2 years ago
Carmen De Los Mártires In Granada, Spain ⋅ Ph. Iharvera 

carmen de los mártires in granada, spain ⋅ ph. iharvera 

3 years ago

Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου κι οι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού, των Μπαχαρικών και των Λιβανωτών

Hunza Valley, Baltistan, Islam, Buddhism, Alexander the Great's soldiers, and the Silk-, Spice-, and Incense Roads

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”

Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 8η Μαΐου 2019.

Ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης ανασυνθέτει υλικό από πρότερες δημοσιεύσεις μου για τους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού και στοιχεία από ομιλία μου σχετικά με τους Δρόμους των Λιβανωτών και των Μπαχαρικών ανάμεσα στο Κέρας της Αφρικής και την Κεντρική Ασία, την οποία έδωσα στο Καζακστάν τον Ιανουάριο του 2018.

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

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/08/χούνζα-μπαλτί-ισλάμ-βουδισμός-οι-στρ/ ==================

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία

Κοντά στα σύνορα με την Κίνα, στο βόρειο άκρο του Πακιστάν και τριγύρω από το Γκιλγκίτ, πολλές μικρές κοιλάδες κατοικούνται από διαφορετικά μικρά έθνη με μεγάλη Ιστορία και μεγαλύτερο ηρωϊσμό.

Οι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού, των Μπαχαρικών και των Λιβανωτών δεν περνούσαν πάντοτε από εδώ. Στην εντελώς αρχική τους μορφή, οι εμπορικοί δρόμοι ξεκινούσαν από την Μεσοποταμία και κατέληγαν στην Κίνα και στην Ινδία: επρόκειτο για διαφορετικούς δρόμους.

Και η Μεσοποταμία, αν και μακρύτερα, ήταν πολύ πιο νωρίς συνδεδεμένη με την Κίνα, επειδή πολιτισμός στην Ινδία (ακόμη κι ο πρώιμος, μη ινδοευρωπαϊκός ‘πολιτισμός της Κοιλάδας του Ινδού’) είναι μία πολύ καθυστερημένη περίπτωση, αν πάρουμε ως μέτρα και σταθμά την Σουμέρ, το Ελάμ, την Ακκάδ, την Ασσυρία και την Βαβυλώνα.

Επίσης, στην αρχική μορφή των εμπορικών δρόμων, το Μετάξι δεν ήταν ένα από τα προϊόντα. Αλλά πολύτιμοι λίθοι, σπάνια ορυκτά, μπαχαρικά και λιβανωτά ήταν πάντοτε στο επίκεντρο του εμπορικού ενδιαφέροντος.

Η πραγματική ‘επανάσταση’ στους εμπορικούς δρόμους ανάμεσα στην Μεσοποταμία, την Κίνα και την Ινδία έγινε στα αχαιμενιδικά χρόνια (550-330 π.Χ.) και κυρίως χάρη στην τεράστια σημασία που έδωσαν οι πρώτοι σάχηδες του Ιράν να εγκαθιδρύσουν ένα πολύ σύνθετο σύστημα αυτοκρατορικών οδών, πολύ καλά οργανωμένων, επιμελημένων και προστατευμένων, διά ξηράς, ερήμου και θαλάσσης.

Το μεγάλο αυτό συγκοινωνιακό και εμπορικό δίκτυο προσέφερε πολλές εναλλακτικές δυνατότητες: αντί να στείλουν προϊόντα, αποστολές, στρατό, κοκ από την Αίγυπτο (ιρανική αχαιμενιδική σατραπεία) διά ξηράς στο Φαρς (κεντρική επαρχία του Ιράν), δηλαδή μέσω Παλαιστίνης, Συρίας, Μεσοποταμίας και Ελυμαΐδας (: Νότιας Υπερτιγριανής), μπορούσαν να τα στείλουν από τα αιγυπτιακά λιμάνια της Ερυθράς Θαλάσσης στον Περσικό Κόλπο.

Ο Δαρείος Α’, προνοητικός, άνοιξε εκ νέου την από αιώνες κλεισμένη, αρχαία διώρυγα του Σουέζ, η οποία ήταν ολότελα διαφορετικής κατεύθυνσης από την σύγχρονη (δηλαδή από τα δυτικά προς τα ανατολικά) και συνέδεε τον Νείλο (από την περιοχή περίπου του σημερινού Καΐρου) με την Ερυθρά Θάλασσα.

Κάτι ακόμη πιο σημαντικό που επιτεύχθηκε από την αχαιμενιδική ιρανική εμπορική και συγκοινωνιακή κοσμογονία ήταν το γεγονός ότι διαφορετικοί εμπορικοί δρόμοι αλληλεξαρτήθηκαν για πρώτη φορά, έτσι καθιστώντας γνωστά σε πολύ μακρινά σημεία πολλά προϊόντα μέχρι τότε άγνωστα.

Το εμπόριο μεταξύ Μεσοποταμίας και Κίνας, ή Μεσοποταμίας και Ινδίας (: Κοιλάδας του Ινδού) ανάγεται εύκολα στην 3η προχριστιανική χιλιετία στα τέλη της οποίας βλέπουμε ένα πλήθος διαδοχικών αρχαιολογικών χώρων να χαράσσουν μια γραμμή που μέσω Κεντρικής Ασίας συνέδεε την κοιλάδα των Διδύμων Ποταμών (Τίγρη κι Ευφράτη) με την κοιλάδα του Κίτρινου Ποταμού. Αλλά η Αίγυπτος ελάχιστα επωφελήθηκε των ασσυροβαβυλωνιακών εμπορικών δρόμων κι ανταλλαγών.

Από την άλλη, η Αίγυπτος είχε ήδη από τα τέλη της 3ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας διαμορφώσει ένα μεγάλο εμπορικό δίκτυο διά του Αρχαίου Βασιλείου του Κους (: Αιθιοπίας, δηλαδή του σημερινού Σουδάν) με την Σαχάρα, διά της Λιβύης με τον Άτλαντα, και διά της Ερυθράς Θαλάσσης με το ανεξάρτητο σομαλικό βασίλειο του Πουντ στην ανατολική ακτή της Αφρικής πέρα από το Κέρας της Αφρικής. Αλλά η Ασσυρία κι η Βαβυλώνα ελάχιστα επωφελήθηκαν των αιγυπτιακών εμπορικών δρόμων κι ανταλλαγών.

Όμως στα αχαιμενιδικά χρόνια, όλα αυτά τα εμπορικά δίκτυα αναμείχθηκαν και αλληλοσυνδέθηκαν σε ένα μείζον εμπορικό και συγκοινωνιακό δίκτυο από τον Αφρικανικό Άτλαντα μέχρι τα ανατολικά παράλια της Ασίας.

Η πρώτη παγκοσμιοποίηση ήταν γεγονός.

Ήταν απλώς θέμα χρόνου πάνω στους εμπορικούς δρόμους αυτούς να μην μετακινούνται μόνον προϊόντα αλλά επίσης γραφές, γλώσσες, θρησκείες, λατρείες, πίστεις, κοσμογονίες, θεουργίες, μυστήρια και μυστικά κυκλώματα.

Μια πρώιμη μετακίνηση ήταν αυτή του εκδιωκόμενου από την Βόρεια Ινδία Βουδισμού προς τις ανατολικές επαρχίες του αχαιμενιδικού Ιράν ήδη τον 6ο – 5ο προχριστιανικό αιώνα.

Σ’ αυτό βοήθησε πολύ η θρησκευτική ανοχή που επικρατούσε στην αχανή αυτοκρατορία που ξεκινούσε από τα σύνορα της Ινδίας με το Πακιστάν κι έφθανε στο Αιγαίο, ενώ είχε συνενώσει όλες τις εκτάσεις από το Ουζμπεκιστάν και την νότια Ουκρανία μέχρι το Σουδάν και το Ομάν.

Από το ανατολικό αχαιμενιδικό Ιράν (δηλαδή τις εκτάσεις των σημερινών Πακιστάν, Αφγανιστάν κι Ουζμπεκιστάν), ο Βουδισμός διαδόθηκε αργότερα προς την Κεντρική Ασία κι έγινε μια από τις πολλές θρησκείες που πολλά τουρανικά έθνη αποδέχθηκαν. Από εκτάσεις της Κεντρικής Ασίας (του σημερινού Καζακστάν και Ανατολικού Τουρκεστάν, δηλαδή της βορειοδυτικής επαρχίας Σινκιάν της Κίνας) διαδόθηκε αργότερα ο βουδισμός στην καθαυτό Κίνα.

Το ίδιο εμπορικό δίκτυο συνέχισε να λειτουργεί μετά την εκ μέρους του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου κατάληψη της αχαιμενιδικής αυτοκρατορίας και ανάληψη καθηκόντων σάχη και συνεπώς εγγυητή και συνεχιστή της αυτοκρατορικής παράδοσης.

Το ίδιο συνέβηκε και στα χρόνια των Επιγόνων παρά τους διάφορους πολέμους που οι ίδιοι δεν έπαυσαν να κάνουν.

Με τους Αραμαίους να ελέγχουν το διά ξηράς και δι’ ερήμου εμπόριο και με τους Υεμενίτες (οργανωμένους στα ανεξάρτητα και πολύ εύπορα βασίλεια Καταμπάν, Χιμυάρ, Σαβά και Χαντραμάουντ) να ασκούν μια σχεδόν αποκλειστική θαλασσοκρατορία στην Ερυθρά Θάλασσα και στον Ινδικό Ωκεανό (μέχρι την Ινδοκίνα και την Ινδονησία), η αλληλεξάρτηση των συμβαλλομένων μερών εντάθηκε.

Η σύσταση από Χαλδαίους Αραμαίους εμπόρους της Γέρρας, της πόλης με τα αλάτινα τείχη, στα δυτικά παράλια των συγχρόνων Εμιράτων, δυτικά του Αμπού Δάμπι, ήταν ένα κοσμοϊστορικό γεγονός.

Οι Χαλδαίοι έμποροι που ίδρυσαν την μεγαλύτερη εμπορική πόλη του κόσμου ανατολικά της Αλεξάνδρειας ήξεραν πάρα πολύ καλά τι έκαναν: εκμεταλλευόμενοι την σχετική αδυναμία του παρθικού αρσακιδικού κράτους του Ιράν βρήκαν ένα κομβικό σημείο από όπου περνούσε ένα μεγάλο τμήμα του εμπορίου μεταξύ Δύσης κι Ανατολής και θεμελίωσαν εκεί μια πόλη-εμπορείο που μπορούσε να θησαυρίσει και από το εμπόριο μεταξύ Νότου και Βορρά.

Η Γέρρα – στην οποία αναφέρονται ο Πτολεμαίος Γεωγράφος, ο Στράβων κι ο Πλίνιος – προσέφερε στην Κίνα ανατολικό αφρικανικό εμπόρευμα το οποίο, αντί να περιπλέει την Ινδία και την Νότια Ασία, διοχετευόταν από την Υεμένη στα νότια παράλια του Περσικού Κόλπου κι από κει προς την Κεντρική Ασία, εκτός των συνόρων του Ιράν έτσι αποφεύγοντας δασμούς.

Με τον τρόπο αυτό όμως ενισχύθηκαν φυγόκεντρες τάσεις στο Ιράν και συστάθηκαν ανατολικά ιρανικά και τουρανικά κράτη, όπως το ινδοπαρθικό κράτος με πρωτεύουσα την Μινναγάρ και επίνειο το Βαρβαρικόν (κοντά στο σημερινό Καράτσι) και το Κουσάν με πρωτεύουσα την Καπίτσα (κοντά στην Καμπούλ) που ήταν τρόπον τινά μια συνέχεια του βασιλείου της Βακτριανής.

Τότε ανοίχθηκε για πρώτη φορά (κατά τον πρώτο προχριστιανικό αιώνα) ο εμπορικός δρόμος που συνέδεε την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού με την Γιαρκάντ και το Χοτάν στα νότια άκρα του Ανατολικού Τουρκεστάν.

Φυσικό ήταν να ακολουθήσει ένα νέο στάδιο διάδοσης του Βουδισμού από τις ανατολικές ιρανικές επαρχίες (ή αυτονομημένα βασίλεια) προς την Κεντρική Ασία και αυτό να ακολουθήσει τον νέο αυτό δρόμο. Λίγο αργότερα, από κει (όπως και από αλλού) θα περνούσαν ο Μανιχεϊσμός και το Ισλάμ.

Ανάμεσα στους Χούνζα σήμερα έχει επικρατήσει το Ισλάμ αλλά ανάμεσα στους Μπουρούσο του Μπαλτιστάν υπάρχουν ακόμη βουδιστές.

Ο εξισλαμισμός των Μπαλτί ήταν υπόθεση 15ου – 16ου αιώνα. Όμως οι Χούνζα αποδέχθηκαν το Ισλάμ νωρίτερα. Αλλά το αίμα των απογόνων των στρατιωτών του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου έβραζε στις φλέβες τους μέχρι πρόσφατα.

Αν και ελάχιστοι τον αριθμό, πριν από 400 χρόνια οι Μιρ (ισλαμικός περσικός τίτλος κατ’ αποκοπήν από το αραβικό εμίρ/εμίρης) των Χούνζα αναγνώριζαν το μικροσκοπικό κράτος τους και την Κίνα ως τα ισχυρώτερα κράτη στον κόσμο!

Η διασπορά των απογόνων των Επιγόνων ήταν μεγάλη αλλά μετά από αρκετές γενεές, είτε είχαν αποδεχθεί τον Βουδισμό, είτε πίστευαν σε διάφορες μορφές ανατολικών Μιθραϊσμών, είτε είχαν ασπασθεί τον αρσακιδικό ζενδισμό (που ήταν μια ηθική ερμηνεία της ζωροαστρικής μεταφυσικής), όλοι τους αποτελούσαν τμήμα των ανατολικών πολιτισμών, παιδείας και παραδόσεων.

Η φυλετική αναγωγή τους στους στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου δεν είχε κανένα ρατσιστικό ή εθνικιστικό χαρακτήρα επειδή δεν υπήρχε κάτι τέτοιο στην Αρχαιότητα.

Ήταν θέμα ηθικής, πολιτισμικής κι εσχατολογικής διάστασης γι’ αυτούς και οι στρατιωτικές επιτυχίες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου ήταν ένα ολότελα ασήμαντο σημείο αναφοράς μπροστά στο ψυχικό έργο του και στον μυθικό, μεσσιανικό κι αποκαλυπτικό συμβολισμό του έργου του.

Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου

Ήταν συνεπώς φυσιολογικό για τους τελευταίους ελληνόφωνους απογόνους των Επιγόνων να αναμειχθούν με διαφορετικά κατά τόπους έθνη, επειδή η φυλετική – εθνική υπόστασή τους ήταν για τους ίδιους ολότελα ασήμαντη μπροστά στην ένταξή τους σε ένα Θείο Έργο ψυχικών διαστάσεων και κοσμοϊστορικής σημασίας που είχαν ήδη επιτελέσει οι πρόγονοί τους μαζί με τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο – ένα έργο-προτύπωση του Έργου του Μεγάλου Βασιλέα (Αποκάλυψη ΙΔ’ 14) στο Πλήρωμα του Χρόνου.

Αυτό το Έργο πρώτος κατέγραψε σε ελληνικά στον Βίο Αλεξάνδρου ο ανώνυμος συγγραφέας που αποκαλείται Ψευδο-Καλλισθένης επειδή δεν σχετίζεται με τον γνωστό ιστορικό.

Για τους τελευταίους ελληνόφωνους απογόνους των Επιγόνων η Μόνη Αλήθεια κι Αξία στα ανθρώπινα πράγματα ήταν ο Μύθος – κι όχι ο σατανικός κι απάνθρωπος ‘Λόγος’.

Κι έτσι στον Μύθο αποτυπώθηκε όλη η ουσία του κορυφαίου έργου του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου που μόνον σημερινοί κρετίνοι ψάχνουν να βρουν σε ‘στρατιωτικές κατακτήσεις’ και σε ψέμματα περί ‘εκπολιτισμού άλλων εθνών’.

Μυούμενος ο Αλέξανδρος σε ανατολικά μυστήρια, στην Αίγυπτο, στην Περσία, και στην Βαβυλώνα, εκπολιτίσθηκε ο ίδιος κι έγινε Μεγάλος.

Και γι αυτό σήμερα βρίσκουμε την αναφορά στους στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου σε πολλά και διαφορετικά έθνη που μιλάνε ολότελα διαφορετικές γλώσσες και πιστεύουν ολοσχερώς αντίθετες θρησκείες, και όμως θεωρούν εαυτούς απογόνους των στρατιωτών του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου. Οι Καλάς και οι Χούνζα του βόρειου Πακιστάν είναι μόνον ένα μικρό παράδειγμα. Θα χρειαζόταν μια ολόκληρη εγκυκλοπαίδεια για να καταγραφούν μικρές και μεταξύ τους διαφορετικές πληθυσμιακές ενότητες που ανάγουν την καταγωγή τους στους στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου.

Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου
Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου
Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου

Σημεία της ορεινής γης των Χούνζα και των Μπαλτί

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Форт Балтит в долине Хунзы: маленький Тибет на севере Пакистана

https://ok.ru/video/1362004609645

Baltit Fort in Hunza Valley: a Small Tibet in Northern Pakistan

https://vk.com/video434648441_456240158

Κάστρο Μπαλτίτ στην Κοιλάδα Χούνζα: ένα Μικρό Θιβέτ στο Βόρειο Πακιστάν

Περισσότερα:

Baltit Fort is situated in Karimabad, once was capital of the state of Hunza, now Tehsil Headquarter of District Gilgit. It is approached by Karakuram Highway from Gilgit, the capital of Northern Areas, Pakistan. The Baltit Fort stands on a artificially flattened spur below the Ulter Glacier. Strategically located with a commanding view of the Hunza Valley and its tributaries, its inhabitants controlled the seasonal trans-Karakuram trade between south and Central Asia. The Baltit Fort is rectangular in plan with three floors and stands on a high stone plinth Fig-I. Whilts the ground floor consist mainly of storage chambers, the first floor is oriented around as open hall.

A staircase leads to the second floor which was mainly used during the winter months and contains an audience hall, guest room, dining hall, kitchen and servants quarters. A further staircases leads up to the third floor, which is partly open to the elements and contains the summer dining room, audience chamber, bedroom and reception hall. Inhabited by the Mir, or ruler of Hunza until 1945.

The conservation work carried out in the 1990 indicated that the core of the structures, a single defensive timber and stone tower, had been built in the eight century A.D. This tower was augmented by additional towers and linked by a single story construction consisting of small rooms and sub-surface storage chambers. The complex was then later expanded by the addition of a second, and then a third floor. The structure’s stone walls, built in an area of frequent seismic movements, were provided with a traditional internal framework of timber for greater stabilisation. https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1882/

Also: Baltit Fort (Urdu: قلعہ بلتت) is a fort in the Hunza valley, near the town of Karimabad, in the Gilgit-Baltistan region of northern Pakistan. Founded in the 8th CE, it has been on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative list since 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltit_Fort and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cultural_heritage_sites_in_Gilgit-Baltistan

————————————————————–

Σχετικά με τους Χούνζα και τους Μπαλτί:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunza_Valley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_of_Hunza

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunza_(princely_state)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burushaski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burusho_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltistan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balti_people

Σχετικά με την διάδοση του Βουδισμού στο Πακιστάν, Ιράν, Κεντρική Ασία και Κίνα:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Pakistan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargah_Buddha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondrani

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Central_Asia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaguptaka

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4%81ran_Buddhist_texts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvastivada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulasarvastivada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_transmission_of_Buddhism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_transmission_of_Buddhism#Central_Asian_missionaries

https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/about-buddhism/the-world-of-buddhism/spread-of-buddhism-in-asia

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/artl/buddhism.shtml

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/buddhism.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Iran

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/buddhism-i

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137022943_2

——————————————-

According to a Buddhist legend preserved in Pali (an ancient Prakrit language, derived from Sanskrit, which is the scriptural and liturgical language of Theravada Buddhism), the first instance of Buddhism entering Iran seems to have been during the life of the historical Buddha, Sakyamuni (roughly 5/6th century BCE.

The legend speaks of two Merchant brothers from Bactria (modern day Afghanistan) who visited the Buddha in his eighth week of enlightenment, became his disciples and then returned to Balkh (major city of Bactria) to build temples dedicated to him.

Whatever the historical validity of this story, there is strong evidence to show that Balkh did become a major Buddhist region and remained so up until the Arab Muslim invasion of the 7th century.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/non-iranian/buddhism_iran.htm

Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου
Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου
Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου
Χούνζα, Μπαλτί, Ισλάμ, Βουδισμός, οι Στρατιώτες του Μεγάλου

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

Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:

https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250645898

https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/hunza_balti_islam_buddhism_alexander_the_great

https://vk.com/doc429864789_620740190

https://www.docdroid.net/9CAJCUX/xounza-mpalti-islam-boydismos-oi-stratiwtes-toy-meghaloy-aleksandroy-ki-oi-dromoi-toy-metaksiou-docx


Tags
1 month ago
The Goddess Selket (with A Scorpion Upon Her Head) And Queen Nefertari In The Distance, Depicted Within

The goddess Selket (with a scorpion upon her head) and queen Nefertari in the distance, depicted within the Tomb of Nefertari, Valley of the Queens.

1 year ago

World Politics as Black & White: Iran and Israel or how people fall victims of delusions intentionally projected on them   

Мировая политика как черное и белое: Иран и Израиль, или как люди становятся жертвами намеренно проецируемых на них заблуждений

To a previous text of mine about Iran, an apparently pro-Iranian and pro-Palestinian reader reacted expressing his fervent support for Iran; however, when it comes to modern states, governments, non-governmental organizations, companies and conglomerates, as well as international bodies, any blind support is totally wrong, misleading and destructive. It actually prevents people from accurately assessing the situation in each and every point. Even worse, when the absurd consideration and the erroneous evaluation of a state is laced with an equally false demonization of the opponent, then people enter into the vast realm of the unreal, the fictional, and the delusional.

World Politics As Black & White: Iran And Israel Or How People Fall Victims Of Delusions Intentionally

World Politics As Black & White: Iran And Israel Or How People Fall Victims Of Delusions Intentionally

World Politics As Black & White: Iran And Israel Or How People Fall Victims Of Delusions Intentionally

World Politics As Black & White: Iran And Israel Or How People Fall Victims Of Delusions Intentionally

Darius I the Great (522-486 BCE) of the Achaemenid dynasty, Khosrow (Chosroes) I (531-579 CE) of the Sassanid dynasty, Adud al-Dawla (949–983) of the Buyid dynasty, and Tahmasp I (1524-1576) of the Safavid dynasty in the dates of their reigns; neither the ayatollahs nor the leader of the self-styled National Council of Iran Reza 'Pahlavi' can represent the colossal historical and cultural heritage of 3000 years of Iranian History. All the same, all the Iranians together and their military commanders in charge of the administration can certainly afford the task.

Содержание

Введение

I. Каждый сектантский подход и каждая сектантская мысль являются порочной ошибкой и нетерпимым поступком

II. Политическая ситуация и международные отношения не определяют природу режимов, правительств и государств

III. Когда дело касается мировых дел, не существует шахматной доски с «черными» и «белыми» клетками

IV. Все СМИ сообщают одну и ту же ложь, меняя только «шахматные наборы»

V. Достоинство иранцев и палестинцев является наиболее спорным вопросом

VI. Вера в обещания, данные врагами, замаскированными под друзей, может оказаться смертельной

VII. Военные и фермеры против королевской семьи и аятолл

VIII. Нет никакой разницы между Ираном и Египтом, когда дело доходит до раболепия по отношению к крупным колониальным схемам

Contents

Introduction

I. Every sectarian approach and every sectarian thought are a vicious mistake and an intolerable act.

II. Political situations and international relations do not define the nature of regimes, governments, and states.

III. When it comes to world affairs, there is no such thing as a chessboard with "black" and "white" squares.

IV. All mass media report the same lies, changing only the «chess sets».

V. The dignity of the Iranians and the Palestinians is a most controversial subject.

VI. Believing promises given by enemies disguised as friends may be lethal.

VII. Military and farmers against the royals and the ayatollahs

VIII. There is no difference between Iran and Egypt when it comes to servility toward major colonial schemes.

Introduction

When it comes to humans, human societies, and states, there is nothing as mistaken as a "black & white" contrast; the people, who intentionally adopt and propagate such an erroneous approach, stance and attitude, become inevitably integral part of the problem they intend to discuss, because they thoughtlessly victimize themselves. Quite unfortunately, all regimes, establishments and states have gone astray and all will be duly, terribly and inescapably punished; in this case, as usual, the exceptions confirm the rule. What follows is my response to the reader's comment that I republish first.  

Mauro Meneghin

Your comment against Ayatollah Khomeini appears unclear and not justified. I'm not an expert on the history by any means, but I now see that Ayatollah Khomeini is standing up with honour to defend the sovereignty and dignity of Iran and of the Palestinians. Ayatollah Khomeini is a wise man who uses reason and moderation in his decisions, and his religious approach serves well to provide moral guidance.

If you dislike him, I wonder if maybe it's due to envy because Egypt is a puppet of the US, but instead, Iran is still a sovereign country with honour.

My response

Thank you for your comment that gives me the opportunity to clarify several issues, which trouble and confuse billions of people today. I am sure that you misread and misunderstood my brief text, but this is the least.

I realize that your approach to events is essentially a Manichaean aberration, which divides everything into "good" and "evil" or "black and white"; quite unfortunately, this categorization does not exist. It is an inconsistent and absurd falsehood that has been systematically spread and dexterously imposed worldwide by all ruling elites, secret societies, governments, states, regimes, establishments, and international bodies. They all need you and me (and all the rest) to be stupid enough to believe that some "good guys" combat "the evil ones". This never happens. And anyone who adopts this false and disastrous approach is genuinely incapacitated to ever understand what happens.

An even worse version of this fallacy is the story of "peoples" fighting against "cruel elites" or "poor people" standing up against the "world Mafia of money"; for the purpose of confusing, deceiving and deluding all the people across the Earth, several subliminally strong terms are created, but they are all nonsensical, fallacious and harmful for the average people. It is essential for everyone not to be caught in the malicious process, because its end will be the destruction of the Mankind.

As a matter of fact, few people escape from this mental, intellectual, educational and academic delusion, which is certainly worse than any pandemic. This is so because by means of a technically Manichaean conceptualization, people are fooled, fail to understand what happens around them, and are therefore easily, complementarily and comprehensively controlled by all the forces, which -while fighting against one another- need exactly to spiritually, mentally and intellectually enslave and utilize the masses by reducing them to "followers", "admirers", "supporters", "adepts" or even "party members" and by canceling the enormous potentialities that the non-deceived and non-deluded people have.   

You say that Ayatollah Khomeini "is standing" and that he "is wise"! Odd! Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989! I am afraid that you confusingly thought that I referred to Ayatollah Khamenei, who is currently the imam of Iran. You did not realize that the reference that I made in my text is about the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and not the current imam.

In addition, you speak about "defending the sovereignty" of a country, but this is totally unrelated to the theological concept that Ayatollah Khomeini developed and which I denounced, stating that the notion of "Wilayat al faqih" (conventionally translated as "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist", in other words, the regime of the ayatollahs) is historically rejected as nonexistent throughout the History of Iran, and the History of Islamic states.

All the same, beyond this rather minor issue, in your comment, I find a most misleading approach that turns every person to a victim of one of this world's major forces and backstage societies. These historical orders have nothing to do with states and do not care at all about countries; they only use governments and international bodies, by incessantly placing their stooges in positions that enable them to duly implement the agendas of their superiors.

So, the main part of my response will revolve around the following points:

I. Every sectarian approach and every sectarian thought are a vicious mistake and an intolerable act.

When it comes to faithful people, it is even worse; any sectarian approach is a grave sin. It greatly damages the person (or government or state) that happens to be foolish enough to believe that their choice is perfect and that the opposite is evil. All people who think that what they like is "good" and what they reject is "bad" are so idiotic that they -in and by themselves- justify the agendas of secret organizations that intend to eliminate the major part of Mankind.

To make things clear, I herewith define sectarianism as an egoistic, partial, narrow-minded, deliberately subjective, and therefore always wrong adherence to a specific idea, thought, opinion, concept, notion, ideology, political ideology, conviction, philosophy, theology, cult, belief, religion or system of values; sectarianism is a very immoral attitude, behavior and model of life anytime anywhere and under any circumstances whatsoever. This is so because it always constitutes a abhorrent sin and a calamitous transgression not to consider another person's, group's, society's, people's or nation's rights, values and standpoints.

Detrimental to anyone against whom it is expressed, a sectarian predisposition automatically prompts support, at least partly, for the concept or idea that is rejected by a sectarian person. Sectarianism is disastrous to everyone who happens to be too weak and too erroneous to avoid succumbing to its attraction; this abhorrent stance discredits every sectarian thinker or activist, religious leader or statesman, rendering him untrustworthy, intransigent and fanatic.

The only possible remedy to sectarianism (within the mind of every sectarian) is a reconsideration and a systematic, forcefully implemented at the personal level, effort to evaluate the other's (any other person's, group's, society's, people's or nation's as per occasion) measures, standards, rights, needs, and values objectively, impartially and neutrally.

At the level of international relations, an abhorrent example of sectarianism (noticed during the past few days) is the attitude of Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other states in the region toward the Bedouin citizens of Israel. For reasons particular to them, this ethnic group decided to accept the existence of the Zionist state. All the same, many of them have been mistreated by the Israeli authorities on many occasions. Few days ago, around 50 Bedouin families in Israel were left without homes, because the respective authorities demolished their illegally built edifices.

Yet, building structures wherever they find it opportune has been very common to nomads since time immemorial all over the Earth. However, none of the supposedly "good" states, which care for "justice" and fight for the "rights" of the Palestinians, did not champion the rightful cause of the Bedouins, because they are not their "political tool". About:

Authorities level 47 illegal homes in Bedouin village, leaving hundreds homeless

Authorities level 47 illegal homes in Bedouin village, leaving hundreds homeless
timesofisrael.com
Government yet to start construction on alternative housing, and residents object to moving to new neighborhood due to threats from rival fa

This fact fully demonstrates that Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other states in the region are as criminal, heinous, vicious and unacceptable structures as Israel. Any person and any state that is characterized by sectarianism are totally untrustworthy and genuinely dangerous for the society or the international community (if we ever accept that such notion exists!).

II. Political situations and international relations do not define the nature of regimes, governments, and states.

There is no doubt that the Palestinian nation has been a long time victim of the cruel colonial plans, deeds and practices of England, before being targeted with genocide by the anti-Jewish, Zionist state. But by supporting the Palestinians, Iran (or any other state) does not get the nature of its regime approved; these issues are very different from, and totally unrelated to, one another.

The nature of the Islamic regime of Iran is entirely fraudulent; it is viciously anti-Iranian and even worse, it contradicts all historical standards of Islamic states that existed throughout Iran since the 7th–9th c. CE. Khomeini's absurdity of Wilayat al faqih is a preposterous, colonial novelty masterminded by the English colonials, who invited the young Ruhollah Khomeini to Iraq in the 1930s for studies and managed to aptly guide him as to how to invent a counterfeit concept that is tantamount to Sunnitization of Iran.

As a matter of fact, this deceitful theory consists in a form of political islam, which is a colonial fallacy invented by 19th c. colonial Orientalists as a tool first against the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Iran. Political islam is the worst enemy of the Islamic world, because Islam has nothing to do with the filthy world of politics, and there had never been 'politics' in any Islamic state.  

By acting as per the needs of the apostate Freemasonic lodge of England, which attempts to destroy the (also fake) state of Israel (by means of an alliance with the Jesuits, the Anti-Christian pope Francis I, and a degenerate Zionist synagogue), Iran became the tool of the most ferociously anti-Islamic forces. In any case, since Day 1, the detrimentally anti-Iranian regime of the Ayatollahs has proved to be a useful plaything for the most perverse forces of financial globalism. It must therefore be replaced as soon as possible.  

III. When it comes to world affairs, there is no such thing as a chessboard with "black" and "white" squares.

The world is not divided into "good" ones and "bad" ones; Zbigniew Brzezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard' is a fraud. It consists in a historical falsification, a political aberration, and a technically Manichaean delusion. Most of the naïve people who read it did not understand that its purpose was mainly to fool eventually all the readers by projecting onto their minds deliberately invented fallacies. No assertion made in the book is correct. The proof of what I am saying at this point has been available online for many years ever since the notorious and very much publicized meeting between the fraudulent author and the Russian intellectual Alexander Dugin took place in 2005.

"The meeting had been set with a photo-prop of a chessboard placed between Brzezinski and Dugin (to promote Brzezinski’s book). This arrangement with a chessboard prompted Dugin to ask whether Brzezinski considered Chess to be a game meant for two: “No, Zbig shot back: It is a game for one. Once a chess piece is moved; you turn the board around, and you move the other side’s chess pieces. There is ‘no other’ in this game”, Brzezinski insisted".

Strategic cultural fond, https://dzen.ru/a/YkLt_-d9BHIRxNMi

This story tells us something simple; the chessboard exists only if you are naïve enough to accept that it does. In other words, it is a nonexistent reality or, if you prefer, a delusion structured in lines that lead to destruction those who admit that they exist.

IV. All mass media report the same lies, changing only the «chess sets».

In Gaza and elsewhere, the mass media systematic falsehood makes everyone believe that "innocent people" are murdered by "cruel rulers"; this is a central part of the confusion spread in order to drive Mankind to extinction. In fact, there are cruel acts perpetrated by all, but there are no "innocent" or "good" or "enlightened" rulers in today's world. Consequently, this evaluation is extended to governments, states, and international bodies.

The same is valid for peoples, ethno religious groups, and nations indeed. Within the colonial and postcolonial context of the last five centuries, no people and no nation managed to preserve their cultural integrity and national identity; only very few subjugated nations, which are located in remote regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America that are lacking technological infrastructure, make an exception.

Before the colonization process started (in different times from continent to continent and from land to land), all different nations were in variant forms of decay; and during the colonization period, all the peoples and ethnic groups underwent a severe process of Westernization. Because of these facts, one should not exempt peoples from being held to account for their contribution to the onerous and troublesome situation in which they find themselves nowadays.

For this reason, all the news, the reports, the editorials and the fact files published here and there are practically speaking identical; what the Iranian mass media report as news on Israel is equivalent to what the Israeli mass media propagate about Iran and Hamas.

V. The dignity of the Iranians and the Palestinians is a most controversial subject.

In fact, the dignity of every nation hinges on the morality, the dexterity and the ability of their elites and rulers. Many nations have been dishonored, subsequently destroyed, and ultimately vanished because of their immoral and incompetent elites. At the very beginning of every case of decay, there is always immorality – evaluated as per the local standards and values.

When the ignorance of the elites and the rulers, their inability to cope with rivals, and their naivety turns them to mere tools in the hands of the enemies of their enemies, then you can expect the worst! This is so because only strong nations attack enemies directly; on the contrary, weak, vile and perfidious nations that cannot attack directly their enemies search always for fools able to do the job for them. In fact, the nations, which are governed by idiots believing that "the enemy of my enemy can be my friend", risk being disintegrated.

Unfortunately, Iran became -gradually and secretively- the ally of England against Israel; UK-based Muslims are in their majority fake, because they fall into the traps of the English secret services, namely the fallacy of multiculturalism, the fraud of political islam, and the false promises that the colonial statesmen, diplomats and academics often make to their forthcoming victims.

And this is exactly what happened to the Islamic Republic of Iran because the ill-fated state has become the tool of the anti-Israeli, Zionist-Jesuit establishment of the UK and the US. In fact, Iran and Israel have nothing to divide and do not need to be enemies; the silly, anti-Israeli stance of the unrepresentative, religious Iranian authorities caused only harm to their country and people. This becomes evident, if one takes into account the fact that, if tomorrow Israel collapses, Iran will gain practically speaking nothing.

The true forces that clash in the Middle East and in other parts of the world are:

a) the anti-Israeli, globalist, Zionist-Jesuit establishment represented by Vatican, the 'deep state' in the US, President Biden, many EU figureheads that are in striking contrast with earlier European statesmen, former UK premier Boris Johnson, the so-called Neo-cons, the Israeli Left, and -last but not the least- the majority of the top IT companies in the US;

and

b) the pro-Israeli, Freemasonic-Zionist establishment represented by major Oil companies worldwide, former US President Trump, the US Pentagon, few EU figureheads after the end of the tenures of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, notably Victor Orban and Marine Le Pen, Xi Jinping's China, Naredra Modi's India, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli non-religious Right, Elon Musk, and -last but not the least- Putin's Russia.  

There are also other major forces and influential societies that I don't mention at this point, but they either side with one of two establishments or stay neutral or inactive to some extent.

Opposite such forces, the Islamic Republic of Iran is an infinitesimal quantity. What naïve people fail to grasp is that, if Iran proved to be able to survive, this is due to the fact that the anti-Israeli, globalist, Zionist-Jesuit establishment made it known to the countries that dealt, cooperated and allied with Iran that they do not mind if they do so to some extent. Iran is a useful instrument to them. Therefore, there is no 'bravery' involved, and the Iranian rulers are typically immoral, cynical and hypocritical - just like their 'enemies'.

In addition, it would be definitely foolish and totally misleading for anyone to eventually imagine (let alone conclude) that sizeable organizations and international bodies can possibly be impenetrable and therefore utilized exclusively by one of the aforementioned two establishments; it is totally inconsiderate to believe that for instance BRICS+, as a group of states, acts as a tool for the interests of only the pro-Israeli, Freemasonic-Zionist establishment. As a matter of fact, the original concept of BRIC is known to have been credited to a major globalist thinker, Jim O'Neill who back in 2001 was chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.

The bottom line is that, under current circumstances, the dignity of the Iranians and the Palestinians is none, because both nations have been fooled by their corrupt elites and leaders. It is very sad, but it is like this, and the same is valid for most of the peoples and the nations across the Earth.

VI. Believing promises given by enemies disguised as friends may be lethal.

Hamas and Gazan Palestinians are in exactly in the same position as the foolish Ukrainians who believed the mendacious discourses of Boris Johnson and every other English governmental and diplomatic filth, only to ruin their own country. Stupid Poles, silly Czechs, and the worthless Baltic elites are about to commit the same lethal error.

As a matter of fact, Iran is not a sovereign state, but a tool of UK's Foreign Office. Iran's dignity has therefore been ridiculed due to impermissible policies that Iran pursued at the international level only for the sake of the English globalist agenda. Crypto-Jesuits, like the former Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the notorious Mohammad Javad Zarif, also known as "Boris Johnson's Filipina", infiltrated the Iranian state, killing gallant but unfortunate military and paramilitary officers, who were honest enough not to grasp the filth of Iranian politics.

Only idiots may believe that Sardar (General) Qasem Soleimani (1957-2020) was assassinated by the Americans (3 January 2020) without consent from the ruling ayatollahs whose vengeance against the abhorrent assassination was evidently too pale, too insipid, and too timid. The pathetic theologians, who are genuinely unable to run a government, may have been frightened due to false data 'leaked' to them, as per which Soleimani had been about to undertake a regime change, supplanting the worthless religious dogmatists with military pragmatists. This shows the extent of incapacity that typifies the Islamic Republic, which is a shame for Iran's three millennia long History.

Similar disaster befell on the Palestinians of Gaza. Having known that Hamas was openly and repeatedly supported by Benjamin Netanyahu, Gazans are now being punished for not reacting against the shame of their leadership. Every Palestinian knew very well that Hamas took control of Gaza only with the help of Netanyahu; it would therefore be foolish for any Palestinian to imagine that this deeply immoral act would not lead to an unsurpassed disaster. This is what truly happens now.

While two million people in Gaza lost their properties and currently live in tents, facing starvation, death, and exile, the disreputable Hamas leaders rejoice the lavish environment of their fabulous villas in Qatar. Nice resistance indeed! One should be mentally degenerate and morally dead in order not to understand that it is all an entire theater played at the detriment of all the populations of Palestine irrespective of state, religion, ethnic origin, and ancestry.

VII. Military and farmers against the royals and the ayatollahs

There is certainly a medication to the very preoccupying, current situation in Iran, but by definition it cannot be the son of the last shah of Iran. It is known to all that the family of Mohammad Reza lived in France and America, i.e. in states that were historical enemies of the Iranian Empire. By so doing, they discredited themselves to the eyes of the average Iranians.

Even worse, the infamous claimant to the throne Reza 'Pahlavi' irreparably stigmatized himself as an Iranian and Muslim renegade by shamelessly making known the following: "Just as I defend the rights of every Iranian, I am proud to stand up for the rights of the Iranian LGBTQ community". https://twitter.com/PahlaviReza/status/1723830025374351830

In fact, pretty much like the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a Western colonial forgery that tarnishes indeed 14 centuries of Islamic faith, culture and civilization in Iran, the ill-fated Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979) was a colonial trick that besmirched 2500 years of Iranian History. The pseudo-kingdom utilized the country's pre-Islamic past in order to fool the masses and to introduce Western concepts and behaviors, instead of aptly modernizing the country and duly empowering its infrastructure while preserving the traditional culture and revivifying the historical heritage after the example of Kemal Ataturk in Turkey.

Even worse, the pseudo-religious regime put in place an alien system, the pseudo-Shia "Islamic republic", which functioned as the ultimate colonial instrument geared for the replacement of the Islamic Iranian culture with a Sunni-styled political activism.  

Because of the aforementioned situations, Iran's survival will be guaranteed only by a transient military regime that will reflect in the governance of Iran the values, the traditional culture, the historical heritage, the social order of the rural areas, and the provincial particularities or localisms. In its practices, Iran's forthcoming military establishment should combine tolerance for the Westernized Iranian Diaspora, vision for Iran's role in the world, and absence of religious ideology. After extensive consultations, numerous conferences, public debates, and active participation of people from all the walks of life, a series of referenda will help bring forth a totally new form of governance fully supported by all the people of Iran.

Meanwhile, the transient military regime of Iran will have to make it clear to every Iranian that there cannot be national sovereignty without a deeply decolonized and de-Westernized national education which must be based on truthful evaluation and accurate representation of the nation's historical past and heritage. It is degenerate, despicable and ridiculous for the anti-Iranian and pseudo-Islamic regime of the ignorant and illiterate ayatollahs to pretend that they defend the rights of the Palestinians without first protecting the majestic past of Iran from all the Western academic distortions, Orientalist denigrations, colonial historiographical clichés, constant references to fallacious sources (such as Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, etc.), and the bogus-scholarly interpretational schemes, divides, and cases of foremost anti-Iranian and anti-Oriental racism due to inferior 'Ancient Greek' authors, the likes of Aeschylus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and others.

Instead of mobilizing the entire world against the colonial forgeries of Hellenism, Classicism, Greco-Roman civilization, Judeo-Christian heritage, as per which the world is divided into two parts, namely "the Civilized West" and the "Barbarian Orient", the silly ayatollahs played the game of the English and the French colonials.

Without rejecting the present world order, which is based on the so-called Western European Renaissance and the ensued fallacies, the useless Islamic Republic played exactly the role ascribed to them by the Western colonizers; they became part of the problems that the Anglo-Saxon racists created in the Middle East.   

VIII. There is no difference between Iran and Egypt when it comes to servility toward major colonial schemes.

I don't understand why you mention Egypt in the last sentence of your comment. All countries in the region are subservient to their Western colonial masters; there is no difference. Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. are all controlled by the colonial countries, England, France, America and their satellites. All these so-called regional powerhouses have no proper national education, no decolonized and de-Westernized universities, no true national identity, and no cultural integrity. It is therefore totally absurd to supposedly fight for independence without a strong feeling of historicity that permeates the education and the entire society.

The same is also valid for the Palestinians, who never undertook a nation building process, simply because this was not the priority of their treacherous leaders who wanted to make money with their bogus-resistance against Israel. Otherwise, all Palestinians would be proud to know that their presence in Palestine antedates that of the Ancient Hebrews and that their ancestors came from Crete, Western Anatolia, and the South Balkans during the Sea Peoples Invasions. In fact, because of the ineptitude of their leaders, Palestinians remain a populace without true national consciousness.

Iran and Egypt are exactly at the same level in this regard. Just like Tehran, Cairo has always been, under khedivial, royal, military and republican administration, a docile and servile capital filled with empty words, useless threats, angry jargons, and unrealistic purposes. Irrevocably fooled with the nothingness of Pan-Arabism and the worthlessness of political islam, the Egyptian academic, intellectual, religious, military, economic and political elites never imagined that their foremost task would be to denounce at the international level and to eliminate at the local level the colonial forgeries of Hellenism, Classicism, Greco-Roman civilization, Judeo-Christian heritage, as per which the world is divided into two parts, namely "the Civilized West" and the "Barbarian Orient",

Actually, such things would be too difficult for theologically indoctrinated morons like Khomeini and uneducated fools like Gamal Abdel Nasser to comprehend.  

As you see, you don't need to be Egyptian in order to reject the fallacious notions advanced by Ayatollah Khomeini. You need to be Iranian. 

After all, why should a historian side with one or another state, when both fail to defend their historical heritage, national dignity, and cultural integrity?

To conclude I would say that a honest historian cannot possibly allow himself to be caught up in the fight among the Jesuits, the Freemasons, and the Zionists; even more so in the under-covered conflict between the UK and Israel, and in the clashes of their respective instruments, i.e. the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hamas.

=========

Download the article in PDF:

World Politics as Black & White: Iran and Israel or how people fall victims of delusions intentionally projected on them   
megalommatiscomments
Мировая политика как черное и белое: Иран и Израиль, или как люди становятся жертвами намеренно проецируемых на них заблуждений To a previou
World Politics as Black & White: Iran and Israel or how people fall victims of delusions intentionally projected on them
academia.edu
Мировая политика как черное и белое: Иран и Израиль, или как люди становятся жертвами намеренно проецируемых на них заблуждений Содержание В
World Politics as Black & White: Iran and Israel or how people fall victims of delusions intentionally projected on them
calameo.com
Мировая политика как черное и белое: Иран и Израиль, или как люди становятся жертвами намеренно проецируемых на них заблуждений Содержание В
World Politics as Black & White Iran and Israel or how people fall victims of delusions intentionally projected on them
SlideShare
World Politics as Black & White Iran and Israel or how people fall victims of delusions intentionally projected on them - Download as a PDF
World Politics as Black & White: Iran and Israel or how people fall victims of delusions intentionally projected on them
figshare
ContentsIntroductionI. Every sectarian approach and every sectarian thought are a vicious mistake and an intolerable act.II. Political situa

Tags
1 month ago

So, I saw this image on Facebook, and it was supposedly showing what Queen Nefertiti would have looked like in real life:

So, I Saw This Image On Facebook, And It Was Supposedly Showing What Queen Nefertiti Would Have Looked

Now, I thought this AI generated garbage was just truly terrible on a number of levels; first off, she looks wayyyyyy too modern - her makeup is very “Hollywood glamour”, she looks airbrushed and de-aged, and as far as I’m aware, Ancient Egyptians didn’t have mascara, glitter-based eyeshadows and lip gloss. Secondly, her features are exceptionally whitewashed in every sense - this is pretty standard for AI as racial bias is prevalent in feeding AI algorithms, but I genuinely thought a depiction of such a known individual would not exhibit such euro-centric features. Thirdly, the outfit was massively desaturated and didn’t take pigment loss into consideration, and while I *do* like the look of the neck attire, it's not at all accurate (plus, again, AI confusion on the detailing is evident).

So, this inspired me to alter the image on the left to be more accurate based off the sculpture’s features. I looked into Ancient Egyptian makeup and looked at references for kohl eyeliner and clay-based facial pigment (rouge was used on cheeks, charcoal-based powder/paste was used to darken and elongate eyebrows), and I looked at pre-existing images of Nefertiti (namely other reconstructions). While doing this, I found photos of a 3D scanned sculpture made by scientists at the University of Bristol and chose to collage the neck jewellery over the painting (and edited the lighting and shadows as best as I could).

So, I Saw This Image On Facebook, And It Was Supposedly Showing What Queen Nefertiti Would Have Looked

Something I see a lot of in facial recreations of mummies is maintaining the elongated and skinny facial features as seen on preserved bodies - however, fat, muscle and cartilage shrink/disappear post mortem, regardless of preservation quality; Queen Nefertiti had art created of her in life, and these pieces are invaluable to developing an accurate portrayal of her, whether stylistic or realistic in nature.

So, I Saw This Image On Facebook, And It Was Supposedly Showing What Queen Nefertiti Would Have Looked

And hey, while I don't think my adjustments are perfect (especially the neck area), I *do* believe it is a huge improvement to the original image I chose to work on top of.

I really liked working on this project for the last few days, and I think I may continue to work on it further to perfect it. But, until then, I hope you enjoy!

Remember, likes don't help artists but reblogs do!

1 month ago

A satirical papyrus showing a lady mouse being served wine by a cat while another cat dresses her hair, a third cares for her baby, and a fourth fans her. The mice have hilarious huge, round ears.

Where: Egyptian Museum Cairo

When: New Kingdom

2 years ago

Best Wishes Eid al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

Счастливого Курбан-Байрам!

Kurban Bayramı kutlu olsun!

Ciidul-Adxa Wanaagsan!

Құрбан айт мерекесі құтты болсын!

!   قۇربان ھېيت مۇبارەك بولسۇن

курбон хайит муборак !

Gurban baýramyňyz gutly bolsun!

!   عید قربان مبارک

Корбан бәйрәме белән!

!  عید الاضحی مبارک ہو

Иди Курбон муборак!

!   عيد الأضحى السعيد

Die besten Glückwünsche zu Eid al-Adha!

Joyeux Aïd el-Adha!

Орозо айт майрамыңыздар менен!

Gëzuar Kurban Bajramin!

Best wishes for a happy Eid al Adha!

Shamsaddin

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

==================================== 

Long before ….

Nezami Ganjavi (1141-1209)

long before ….

Muhi el-din ibn Arabi (1165-1240)

long before ….

Jalal al-din Rumi (1207-1273),

Haji Bektash Veli (1209-1271),

Safi-ad-din Ardabili (1252-1334),

Amir Khusraw (1253-1325),

and

Kemal Khujandi (1321-1400)

…….................... there was Ahmed Yasavi.

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

Ahmed Yasavi (1093-1166); one of the greatest mystics of the Turanian world at the crossroads between Tengrism and Islam

Divan-i Ḥikmet (the Book of Wisdom, Chagatai Turkic with Kipchak elements: ديوان حكمت); acknowledged as the Turkic Quran – pretty much like the illustrious Shahnameh of Ferdowsi, which is known as the Iranian Quran.

Ahmed Yasavi Mausoleum in Turkistan, Kazakhstan; built like the Arystan Bab Mausoleum (in honor of another 12th c mystic) by Timur (Tamerlane), the Islamic World Greatest Conqueror and Emperor in the late 13th c.

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

The Incredible Story of Divan-i Ḥikmet

"Divan-i Ḥikmet" is not only a monument of the religious Sufi literature; it is one of the most ancient monuments written in the Turkic language. Many researchers of the Turkic culture consider that it may be referred to the Karakhanid literature tradition. The sources of these poems are found also in the shaman songs of the Turkic nomads. The language of the monument contains the Kipchak elements. The famous "Divan-i Ḥikmet" is the common heritage of the Turkic people; the poems were handed down by word of mouth, from generation to generation, called upon people to honesty, justice, friendliness and patience.

The historic papers testify to the fact that "Ḥikmet" have been re-written many a time, edited, revised. The manuscripts of "Divan-i Ḥikmet" are kept mainly in the libraries of Tashkent, St. Petersburg, and Istanbul. In the depository of the St. Petersburg department of the Institute for Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences there are 23 lists of "Divan-i Ḥikmet" that are referred to the XVIII-XIX centuries. The Tashkent lists are kept in the collection of manuscripts belonging to the Institute for Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, in the Institute of Manuscripts (56 copies). These copies are mainly referred to the XIX century.

In addition to the manuscripts in Kazan city the poems of Hojja Ahmed Yasavi were published in the Arab graphic. The most complete edition contains 149 "Ḥikmets" of 1896, 1905. Currently "Ḥikmets" are survived in many lists. At different periods the scientists investigated life and creative work of Hojja Ahmed Yasavi, devoted articles to the genial poet and philosopher. During recent decades "Divan-i Ḥikmet" were re-edited several times both in our country and abroad.

This work summarizes the main provisions of the Yasavi Tarika (mystical school). Ḥikmets preached Islam and contributed to further dissemination of Islam among people. Turkic speaking nations named "Divan-i Ḥikmet" as "Korani Turki" as notably they grasped Koran through "Ḥikmets" of Hojja Ahmed Yasavi, so Turks began to name Hojja Ahmed as "Hazret Sultan" - "Holy Sultan", and Turkistan as the second Mecca.

Ḥikmets of Hojja Ahmed Yasavi both preached Islam and called upon Turkic nations to a spiritual unity, sovereignty, stipulated for all necessary conditions to achieve these aims.

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

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

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

Hojja Ahmed Yasavi (died 1166) was a philosopher, Sufi mystic, and the earliest known poet to write in a Turkic dialect. He was born in the city of Isfijab (present-day Sayram, in Kazakhstan) but lived most of his life in Turkestan (also in southern Kazakhstan). He was a student of Arslan Baba, a well-known preacher of Islam. At a time when Farsi dominated literature and public life, Hojja Ahmed Yasavi wrote in his native Old Turkic (Chagatai) language. Yasavi's Divan-i Ḥikmet (Book of wisdom) is not just a religious relic of Sufi literature; it is also one of the oldest written works in the Turkic language. Yasavi begins with many elements of the shamanistic songs of Turkic nomads, then endows his poems, like all Sufi poetry, with many-layered meanings from the simple to the esoteric and infuses them with the spirit of Islam. Experts have suggested that the Divan has links to both the Chinese-influenced Karakhanid literary tradition and to the literature of the Kipchak of the Eurasian steppe. Divan-i Ḥikmet was long handed down by word of mouth. The printed edition presented here was published in 1904 by the Lithographic Printing House of the Kazan Imperial University. Kazan University was founded by Tsar Alexander I in 1804 and became the premier center for oriental studies in the Russian Empire.

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

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

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

Selected Verses from Divan-i Ḥikmet in English Translation

For Muslims, my sagacity will be a teacher;

Whoever one may be, he must worship God.

My sagacious words speak only to those who understand.

Praising with prayers, immerse yourself in the Mercy of Allah.

Saying "Bismillahi ...", I will begin to say sagacious words,

distributing utterances like jewels and diamonds to students;

With tension in the soul, with grief in the heart, and with blood in my breath,

I open the pages of the legends "the Notebook of the Sledge".

I bless you all, who are thirsty for truth, unity,

and sincere conversations with kindred spirits.

May I be blessed (to meet) with the unfortunate and the destitute!

May I avoid those who are satiated with life or satisfied with themselves!

Wherever you see downcast leprous people, be gentle!

If such an unfortunate person is ignorant, share the secret knowledge with him,

in order to be closer to the Almighty on the Day of Judgment!

I ran away from the arrogant, the self-assured, and the proud people.

The Prophet knew the destitute, the unfortunate, and the orphaned people.

That night, he went out in the Miʿraj (Celestial Journey) to see (the Truth).

Ask, and sympathize with, the disadvantaged!

And I, too, decided to travel in the footsteps of the unfortunate.

If you are intelligent and wise, take care of the poor!

Like Mustafa (: prophet Muhammad), gather and take care of orphans everywhere!

From the greedy and mean, stay away!

Save yourself and become like a full-flowing river!

Turned into a callous, evil-tongued, and insidious being,

the false scholar, even when reading the Quran, does not do any good deed.

I have no fortune to allow to be wasted;

Fearing the wrath of God (lit. 'the wrath of Truth'), I am burning (although) without fire.

Pleasing the defenseless, the destitute and the orphans,

give (them what they need), respect them, and lighten their souls!

You will earn bread with hard work; with pure soul (true) humans come;

having heard these words from the Almighty, I convey them to you.

If one man does follow the tradition and does not believe, he will perish;

from callous and evil-tongued people Allah turns away;

in the Name of Allah, the Hell is prepared for them.

Having heard these words from the Blood of Allah (: Imam Hussein), I convey them to you.

Having adopted the rules of the tradition, I became a true believer;

having descended under the Earth alone, I received an insight;

I saw a lot of worshipers of the Lord and I understood;

I cut off sinful joys and pleasures - with a dagger.

Sinful feelings led people astray and destroyed them;

they forced people to put on airs in front of the common people, and then humiliated them.

They (: sinful feelings) did not allow people to read prayers and spells; people with sinful feelings made friends with the demons.

I forced myself to move away, piercing my flesh with the tip of a dagger (metaphorically said about the author's effort to move away from sinful feelings).

Those who are thirsty for radiant glory are mediocre slaves;

(contrarily,) the innocent people force themselves to behave humbly;

tombs of saints, verses of the Quran, hadiths are nonsense for those thirsty for glory.

Therefore, I drown myself in inescapable heavy grief (for the ignorant people).

In the spacious gardens of love for the Most High,

I want to be the nightingale that sings its sad songs at dawn;

In those hours, I want to see the radiant appearance

of my Allah, with the eyes of my heart.

Let the heart feed on love!

The body will be covered with clothes of happiness (: those suitable for prayers).

With the strength of love, I want to levitate,

and like a bird to descend on the branch of consciousness.

Until you taste the nectar of love,

until you put on the clothes of lovers (: those suitable for prayers),

until you gather faith and worship into one,

you will not be able to see the Divine Face of the Creator.

Help all people! Work like a slave!

Do good to unfortunate people!

If (Islamic times') scholars come, greet them with reverence while standing!

From mean people, there is no help.

The prophet always helped the poor and the crippled.

When you see the unfortunate, tears of sympathy (have to) flow.

It always hurts to see destitute and disabled people.

The handicapped persons' gratitude (for those who help them) is the highest recognition.

If you are a true believer, follow the path of the prophet to Allah!

If you hear their names, worship and praise them!

Try the fate of the destitute and unfortunate! Learn from them!

Become a support for the unfortunate and disabled! Understand them!

Oh, my Merciful Creator! Put me on the right path!

Enlighten me with your Mercy and Love!

Guide your erring servants on the right path!

This path is not possible without You.

To preach the Divine, a teacher is needed.

To this teacher, a reliable student is needed.

Working hard, they should earn the highest gratitude.

Such loving and devoted people will be marked by the Almighty.

People, who are in love with the Creator, have achieved their dreams.

Look! Do not disgrace yourself pretending to be in love!

Across the bridge named Sira ('life paradigm' of prophet Muhammad), which is thinner

and sharper than a sword's blade, liars will not pass into the Hereafter.

If you're in love (with God), love like this!

With the strength of your love, let the perfume reach people!

As soon as he hears the Name of Allah, he is ready for anything;

such a lover does not need earthly things.

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet

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

Download the text as Word doc.:

Best Wishes Eid al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet
academia.edu
Long before …. Nezami Ganjavi (1141-1209) long before …. Muhi el-din ibn Arabi (1165-1240) long before …. Jalal al-din Rumi (1207-1273), Haj

Best Wishes Eid Al Adha 2022 & Ahmed Yasavi's Diwan-i Hikmet
3 years ago

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς που χωρίζει Ιράκ και Ιράν

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς που χωρίζει Ιράκ και Ιράν

Life in Luristan, and the Luris of Middle Zagros, the Mountains that separate Iraq and Iran

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”

Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 26 Αυγούστου 2019.

Αναπαράγοντας στοιχεία από ομιλία μου στο Καζακστάν τον Ιανουάριο του 2019, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης αποδεικνύει με το εκλαϊκευτικό κείμενό του αυτό ότι, αρκεί να παρουσιάσει αντικειμενικά και συστηματικά κάποιος τους κατά τόπους λαούς και έθνη του Ζάγρου, του Αντιταύρου, της βόρειας Μεσοποταμίας και της ανατολικής Ανατολίας (Doğu Anadolu), για να αποδείξει αυτόματα ότι δεν υπάρχουν "Κούρδοι" αλλά πολλά και μεταξύ τους πολύ διαφορετικά έθνη, τα οποία παρουσιάζονται διεθνώς ως δήθεν ένα - μόνον από τους άθλιους πολιτικούς και ακαδημαϊκούς γκάνγκστερς των αποικιοκρατικών χωρών (Γαλλία, Αγγλία, ΗΠΑ, Καναδάς, Αυστραλία, Ολλανδία, Ισραήλ) και τα κατά τόπους όργανά τους, με σκοπό την δημιουργία ενός ψευδοκράτους μέσα στο οποίο τα διαφορετικά μεταξύ τους αυτά έθνη θα σφάζονται εσαεί και μάλιστα χειρότερα από οπουδήποτε αλλού.

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

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/08/26/η-ζωή-στο-λορεστάν-και-οι-λορί-του-μέσου/ ============

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία

Μια περιοχή που αξίζει να περιηγηθείτε από χωριό σε χωριό για ένα μήνα τουλάχιστον και να γνωρίσετε από κοντά τα ήθη και τα έθιμα, τις παραδόσεις και τις δοξασίες των γηγενών Λορί είναι το Λορεστάν, μια ορεινή επαρχία του δυτικού Ιράν σχεδόν πάνω στα σύνορα με το Ιράκ.

Στα λαγκάδια θα είστε στα 700-1200 μ και οι βουνοκορφές τριγύρω θα ξεπερνούν τα 2500-3500 μ.

Οι Λορί είναι ένα αρχαίο ιρανικό φύλο που διατήρησε πάντοτε την ιδιαιτερότητά του και την ταυτότητά του μέσα στο Ιράν, ζώντας κοντά στους Λακί και στους Μπαχτιαρί (ακόμη πιο νοτιοανατολικά στον Ζάγρο), στους Πέρσες (στα νότια τμήματα του ιρανικού οροπεδίου), στους Φαΐλι και στους Γκοράνι (πιο βόρεια στον Ζάγρο), στους Αζέρους (στα βόρεια-βορειοδυτικά τμήματα του ιρανικού οροπεδίου), στους Τουρκμένους και στα άλλα έθνη του Ιράν.

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς

Κατοίκηση στα σημεία αυτά πάει πολύ παλιά λόγω της σχετικής εγγύτητας με την Μεσοποταμία, όπου ξεκίνησε ο ανθρώπινος πολιτισμός.

Με το που κατεβεί κάποιος από τα βουνά προς την πεδιάδα στα δυτικά βρίσκεται στην Κεντρική Μεσοποταμία. Τα χάλκινα αγάλματα του Λορεστάν (πρώτο μισό της πρώτης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας) αποτελούν κεντρικό κεφάλαιο της Προϊστορίας της ευρύτερης περιοχής.

Οι Λορί (ή και Λουρί) είναι στην πλειοψηφία τους σιίτες μουσουλμάνοι αλλά στο Λορεστάν (ή και Λουριστάν) υπάρχουν και πιστοί άλλων θρησκειών, όπως οι Γιαρσανί (επίσης γνωστοί και ως Αχλ-ε Χακ), μια από τις πολλές θρησκείες του ευρύτερου χώρου ανάμεσα στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο και την Κεντρική Ασία που είναι άγνωστες στον περισσότερο κόσμο.

Οι Λορί έχουν τρομερή προσήλωση στις παραδόσεις τους και ακόμη και ανάμεσα στους σιίτες Λορί κυριαρχούν προϊσλαμικές δοξασίες που δημιουργούν συχνά-πυκνά πρόβλημα στις άτεγκτες κι αλύγιστες ηγεσίες των θρησκευτικών ηγετών του Ιράν.

Δεν κάνω λόγο για την Ισλαμική Δημοκρατία που εγκαινιάστηκε το 1979 με την αποχώρηση του ψευτο-σάχη και την επιστροφή του Χομεϊνί.

Ήδη στις αρχές του 19ου αιώνα, στα χρόνια δηλαδή της τουρκμενικής δυναστείας Κατζάρ του Ιράν, οι Λορί είχαν τόσο απομακρυνθεί από την σιιτική ισλαμική ορθοδοξία που οι ιρανικές αρχές ζήτησαν από τους Οθωμανούς να στείλουν από την Κερμπαλά της Νότιας Μεσοποταμίας (καίριο σιιτικό ιερό) ένα θεολόγο για να …. κηρύξει το (σιιτικό) Ισλάμ στους Λορί!!!

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς

Χορός ντασμάλ-μπαζί στο Μαμασανί

Η ζωή των Λορί είναι ταυτισμένη με τον ετήσιο κύκλο και συνυφασμένη με την εναλλαγή των εποχών: οι γεωργικές και κτηνοτροφικές απασχολήσεις τηρούνται κατά τον πατροπαράδοτο τρόπο και κανένας νεωτερισμός δεν μπαίνει στα χωριά των Λορί όπου ο παγερός χειμώνας σημαίνει ζωή γύρω από την εστία, αφηγήσεις παραμυθιών για τα παιδιά, και για τους μεγαλύτερους διάβασμα του Κορανίου (ή διάβασμα του Καλάμ-ε Σαραν-ντζάν / کلام سرانجام για τους Γιαρσανί).

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς

Οι Λορί δεν έχουν καμμιά διάθεση για να αποσχισθούν ή να σχηματίσουν ένα ανεξάρτητο κράτος παρά τις επίμονες προσπάθειες της ΣΙΑ, της Μοσάντ του Ισραήλ και άλλων μυστικών υπηρεσιών να τους πείσουν ότι είναι ‘Κούρδοι’ και ότι πρέπει να έχουν ‘το δικό τους κράτος’.

Ούτε οι Λορί, ούτε οι Λακί, ούτε οι Γιαρσανί, ούτε οι Γκοράνι δέχονται το ψεύτικο παραμύθι των ‘Κούρδων’, ενός ψευτο-έθνους παρασκευασμένου από μυστικές υπηρεσίες χωρών που μισούν την ευρύτερη περιοχή και θέλουν να την βουλιάξουν σε ατελείωτους πολέμους.

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς

Πως οι Λορί καταλαβαίνουν ότι δεν πρέπει να πιστέψουν τα λόγια των άθλιων τεράτων του Ισραήλ, των ΗΠΑ, της Αγγλίας και της Γαλλίας;

Πως οι Λορί θυμούνται ότι στα αραβικά η λέξη Ακράντ στον πληθυντικό (: ‘Κούρδοι’) δεν σημαίνει ένα συγκεκριμένο έθνος αλλά πολλά και διαφορετικά έθνη που κατοικούν στα βουνά (‘Τζεμπάλ’);

Γιατί οι Σοράνι της Σουλεϋμανίγιε (στο Ιράκ) και οι Κουρμάντζι του Ντιγιάρμπακιρ (στην Τουρκία) ξέχασαν τις αλήθειες που ξέρουν, κατανοούν και τηρούν ακόμη οι Λορί, κι έτσι οι ηγεσίες τους ξεπουλήθηκαν στους εγκληματίες σατανιστές της Δύσης;

Η απάντηση σε όλα αυτά τα ερωτήματα είναι μία και απλή. Δεν έχει να κάνει με την πολιτική, γιατί πολιτική δεν υπάρχει: είναι ένα ψέμμα που οι προπαγανδιστές του εμφανίζουν ως τάχα πραγματικό, ενώ στην πραγματικότητα αυτό που αποκαλείται ‘πολιτική’ είναι η υλοποίηση μιας πρότερον ανύπαρκτης διαστροφής που την υλοποιούν μόνον τα θύματά της, δηλαδή οι ανεγκέφαλοι που αποδέχονται το ψέμμα.

Στο Λορεστάν δεν υπάρχει καμμιά πολιτική κι οι Λορί δεν θέλουν καμμιά πολιτική.

Ποια είναι η απάντηση;

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς

Η ζωή στο χωριό και κοντά στην φύση, χωρίς τον σύγχρονο ανθρωποκτονικό ‘τεχνολογικό πολιτισμό’ είναι υγεία για το σώμα και το μυαλό.

Οπότε, οι χωρικοί κι οι αγρότες του Λορεστάν, επειδή είναι υγιείς, αντιλαμβάνονται τι είναι αλήθεια και τι είναι ψέμμα πολύ πιο εύκολα από ένα άρρωστο, σάπιο κάτοικο μεγαλουπόλεων.

Το πιθανώτερο να σας συμβεί, αν ζείτε σε μια μεγαλούπολη, είναι να πιστέψετε τα ψέμματα που σας λένε και να δείτε τον κόσμο και την ζωή πολύ στραβά, την Ιστορία ανάποδα και με ρατσιστικούς φακούς, και την καθημερινότητα ως την ‘ζωή εν τάφω’ που ζείτε εκεί.

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς

Τα δηλητήρια που τρώτε και πίνετε στις μεγαλουπόλεις, ο μολυσμένος αέρας που αναπνέετε, κι η αποκοπή σας από την φύση αποτελούν πιστοποιητικό αποβλάκωσης και προσαρμογής στα ψέμματα που σας λένε όλοι εκεί.

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς

Αν θα πηγαίνατε να ζήσετε στο Λορεστάν, θα ήταν ο πιο άφθαστος Παράδεισος για σας.

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Лурестан, Луры и их традиционная музыка – Luristan, Luris and their Traditional Music

https://www.ok.ru/video/1488355527277

Лурестан, Луры, их музыка и повседневная жизнь

https://vk.com/video434648441_456240280

Luristan, Luris and their Traditional Music – Λορεστάν, οι Λορί και η Παραδοσιακή Μουσική τους

——————————————

Αρχαιότητες του πρώτου μισού της πρώτης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας από το Λορεστάν

Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς
Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς
Η Ζωή στο Λορεστάν και οι Λορί του Μέσου Ζάγρου, της Οροσειράς

Οι χρυσές προσωπίδες του Σπηλαίου Καλμακαρέχ, όχι μακριά από την πόλη Πολ-ε Ντοχτάρ, στο Λορεστάν

————————————————-

Διαβάστε:

Luristan

v. Religion, Rituals, and Popular Beliefs

The official religion

Since the accession of the first Safavid shah (1502), the official religion in Iran has been the Eṯnā-ʿašariya (Twelver) Shiʿism, one of the two main branches of Islam. A noteworthy point in this context is that the Lur society has been living within the framework of Islam, but under conditions and circumstances that encouraged rather than restricted a free display of popular traditions, such as the cult of local shrines, emāmzādas (descendants of the Shiʿite imams), and other sects, especially the Ahl-e Ḥaqq, as well as many aspects of supernaturalism.

In areas where people did not speak or understand Arabic, or were mostly illiterate, as among the nomads of Luristan, the declaration of faith and especially performance of different prayers, were bound to take on a much more ritualistic value. Here, the need for oral interpretation and explanation of the orthodox faith was necessary if a completely unrestricted and free display of the popular beliefs and customs were to be avoided.

Thus, at the beginning of the 19th century during the governorship of Prince Moḥammad-ʿAli Mirzā, the Lurs had gone so far astray from the orthodox path that a preacher of the higher religious classes, a mojtahed, was brought in from Karbala in order to “convert” the tribes back to Islam (cf. Rabino, p. 24; Minorsky, 1978, p. 823).

It is uncertain to what degree this attempt was successful, but it is known that there was not normally any direct, authoritative, and powerful institution which could secure and defend the official and orthodox faith and conceptions in Luristan.

Almost all the writers who have dealt with this theme, except Cecil John Edmonds (1922, p. 341), are unanimous in the view that the Lurs, although outwardly professing Islam, have had only a faint idea of the orthodox religion and to a large degree have been indifferent to the Islamic doctrines, while at the same time they have indulged in superstitious rites and have deep veneration for local pirs (spiritual masters) and prophets.

Consequently, it is difficult to describe the impact of religion on the nomadic society of Luristan, where religious notions had become an integral part of life to such an extent that life itself, especially the modus vivendi of the nomads, was one big, yearly, revolving ritual, spaced by recurring seasons, migrations, births, festivals, and deaths.

What a spectator might want to call the “religious” aspects had simply ceased to be perceived as anything separate or to hold any aspect of apartness for the nomads, a circumstance, which also means that any specific questions about “religion” are poorly understood, because religion in Luristan was an unconsciously integrated part of the cycle of life (Demant Mortensen, 2010, p. 12 ff.).

Ahl-e Ḥaqq

Although most Lurs officially adhere to Twelver Shiʿism, with a sprinkling of Sunni Muslims, some adherents of the Ahl-e Ḥaqq (People of the [absolute] Truth) sect are found among the Lur and the Kurdish populations. Ahl-e Ḥaqq are often referred to in the literature as ʿAli-Elāhi or ʿAli-Allāhi (Minorsky, 1964, p. 306) and as having their roots in the heartland of Luristan.

There has been no central, uniform organization and no canonical scripture among the Ahl-e Ḥaqq, which has been traced within numerous tribal, ethnic, religious, and social groups. The cradle of the sect is definitely the area occupied by the Gurānis, which is now divided between the Iraqi and the Iranian Kurdistan, and also including some tribes of northern Luristan, for instance, the Delfān (Minorsky, 1964, p. 314; Halm, p. 635).

Some authors refer to the Selsela and Delfān groups as originally being ʿAli-Elāhis, but also to the Sagvand and Pāpi tribes as being followers of this “secret religion” (Field, I, pp. 173-84; Minorsky, 1978, p. 823). In this context it is interesting that one of the subtribes of the Delfān confederation, the Chuwari, mentioned by Rawlinson (p. 107) as spending the winters in Holaylān and Kuhdašt and the summers in the plain of Ḵāva, is described by Freya Stark as “heretics”: “…these are Ali-Ilahis” (Stark, 1947, p. 34).

The religious literature of the sect is mainly written in Gurāni, and two important shrines of the sect, the tombs of Bābā Yādgār in Zohab and of Solṭān Esḥāq (Sahhāk, Ṣohāk) in Perdivar, are both located in Gurān territory. The central dogma of the Ahl-e Ḥaqq is the belief in seven successive manifestations or incarnations of the divinity.

These incarnations are compared to garments put on by the godhead (cf. the table in Minorsky, 1964, p. 307). The legends about Shah Ḵošin (or Bābā Ḵošin), one of the seven incarnations of the divinity (haftvāna), take place in Luristan and seem to represent an early phase in the development of the doctrine. Each manifestation is accompanied by a retinue of four helper angels. The name of one of those is Bābā Bozorg.

Another of the angels of Bābā Ḵošin is the local saint and Sufi poet of Hamadan, Bābā Ṭāher. Apart from the “Four Angels,” several other groups of saints are worshipped by Ahl-e Ḥaqq (Minorsky, 1964, pp. 306-16; Edmonds, 1969, pp. 89-101; Gabriel, pp. 125-28; Halm, pp. 635-37; see Ṣafizāda, pp. 17-18, 65-68, 74-78, 85-86, 101-15, 127-32).

The sect of the Ahl-e Ḥaqq was originally referred to by the European travelers of the 19th century and first of all by John Kinneir (p. 141). He reports with alacrity the information he has received about nocturnal festivals in the course of which “the garments of the fair sex” at a certain point are thrown into a heap and jumbled together.

This done, the lights are put out and the clothes distributed among the men present. The candles are then re-lighted. He explains that it is a rule of the society “that the lady must patiently submit to the embrace of the person who has become possessed of her dress, whether father, son, husband, or brother.”

When the lights have been put out once again, “the whole of the licentious tribe pass the remainder of the night in the indulgence of the most promiscuous lust.” Obviously, a scandalous and exiting account like this was bound to create some interest at the time. Henry Rawlinson was the first to pass on somewhat more reliable information (Rawlinson, pp. 52-95, 110), and as the regiment he commanded on the march from Zohab was in fact Gurāni, most of his men in all probability were adherents of Ahl-e Ḥaqq.

An especially noteworthy ceremony or institution is an initiation rite called sar-sepordan (the entrustment of the head; total commitment), in which the neophyte links himself to a spiritual master (pir). As a sign of this, a nutmeg is broken as a substitute for the head (Ṣafizāda, pp. 19-20).

Other sacrifices, raw and cooked, bloody and bloodless, derived from dervish practices also occur, and during these sessions burning coals are sometimes handled and stepped upon. Rites of the Ahl-e Ḥaqq also include assemblies (jam) with women participation, in which music is played and could easily account for the extraordinary interpretation brought forward by Kinneir (quoted above), and also for the nickname of “extinguishers of light” (čerāḡ söndüren) given by outsiders to the adherents of the sect (Minorsky, 1964, pp. 308-9).

The religion of the shrine

In an article concerned with the function of religion in (contemporary) Iranian society, Brian Spooner has made a useful distinction between what he calls “the religion of the mosque” and “the religion of the shrine” (Spooner, 1963, pp. 83-95). “The religion of the mosque” roughly corresponds to the official, literate religion, whereas “the religion of the shrine” is characterized by a hierarchy from the ordinary person through holy men, the imāms, and prophets, to God.

In rural districts like Luristan, where “the religion of the shrine” was practiced, a mollā (cleric) or a ṭalaba (theological student) might pay a visit during the months of special religious significance. If there was no resident mollā, there might be a dervish, a doʿānevis or Qorʾānḵˇān. There is often something mysterious about a dervish that seems to attract the attention of ordinary men, but a dervish has no specific religious function in the society.

The doʿānevis writes doʿās (invocation to God), which are a very popular commodity in rural Persia; and the Qorʾānḵvān, although often illiterate, is able to chant passages from the Qur’an at funerals; he also sometimes washes the dead (Spooner, 1963, p. 85).

Among the nomads and in the villages there are often quasi-religious persons or individuals attributed with certain religious qualities; they are either the descendants of the Prophet (sayyed) or people with the epithet Ḥāji, Karbalāʾi, or Mašhadi, signifying persons who have completed the pilgrimage to Mecca, Karbala, or Mashhad.

The presence of such persons among the tribes of Luristan is attested by the inscriptions at tombstones from cemeteries in northern Luristan (Demant Mortensen, 2010, pp. 93 ff.). The descendants of the Prophet have no special religious function, but their sheer presence is a reminder of Moḥammad, to whom they are considered to be nearer and dearer than ordinary people, and thus they are also a memento of Islam in general.

Moreover, they are believed to possess at least a minimum of baraka (blessing, divine grace), and they may be preferred by ordinary people for ceremonies intended to ward off the evil eye in which there is a widespread belief in most of the Near East (Donaldson, pp. 117 ff.; Kriss and Kriss-Heinrich, II, passim; Spooner, 1976, pp. 76-84).

It goes almost without saying that Moḥammad and his descendants are believed to be especially endowed with baraka, and they may in their turn communicate some of it to ordinary people. A special feature is that baraka does not cease to exist or to be active at the death of a person. On the contrary, to deceased persons is attributed a very powerful baraka. This may help to explain the great significance placed by the Shiʿites on the pilgrimage to tombs and emamzādas and the extraordinary measures taken to be buried near a holy tomb (Demant Mortensen, 1993, pp. 121, 125).

Shrines and emāmzādas

Until recently there were no mosques in Luristan outside the few towns (cf. the distribution map in Kleiss, opp. p. 66). On the other hand, the tombs of local pirs and saints, the emāmzādas, are frequently seen in the landscape. They are the focus of a lot of attention and also of pilgrimage. The word emāmzāda may signify an individual as well as the shrine dedicated to him, in the same way as pir or piri (elder or holy) may be used about a person or his tomb.

The actual structure of a shrine, whether of an emāmzāda or otherwise, may range in size from anything comparable to a tiny house to a larger mosque. It is often square, whitewashed, with a domed roof and with or without a courtyard and a cemetery around it. In the center of the building is the tomb or cenotaph, as the case may be, which is the focal point of attention. It represents the deceased person and is considered full of his baraka.

A number of shrines and emāmzādas are mentioned in the literature, but often just in passing (e.g., by Rawlinson; Stein; Edmonds, 1969; Minorsky, 1978; Haerinck and Overlaet; Demant Mortensen, 2010). The better known include Emāmzāda Šāhzāda Aḥmad, Emāmzāda Šāhzāda Moḥammed (or Solṭān Maḥmud), and Emāmzāda Solṭān Ebrāhim (or Bābā Bozorg), all alleged to be brothers of the eighth Imam (cf. Demant Mortensen, 2010, p. 21, n. 29; personal information from Khan ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Pur Abuḵadora, Hulian, 1974).

According to Rawlinson, they are all included among the Haft-tan “Seven [dervishes]” by the Ahl-e Ḥaqq, and that is why they are of great sanctity (Rawlinson, p. 95; Edmonds, 1969, p. 89; Ṣafizāda, pp. 144-45, 147-48, 203-4).

Emāmzāda Šāhzāda Aḥmad is situated in Bālā Gariva, about 60 km south of Khorramabad, midway between Khorramabad and Dezful. Referring to this shrine, Edmonds recalls that one day he had a visit by four men wearing red turbans.

A red turban is unique in Persia, at least in the western and central provinces, and is worn only by the guardians of Šāhzāda Aḥmad, the holiest shrine in Bālā Gariva (Demant Mottensen, 1993, Pl. 6.58; Izadpanāh, pp. 16-18). The red-turbaned guardians are known as the pāpi, but do not seem to be connected with the tribe of the same name (Edmonds, 1969, p. 354); however, Carl Feilberg, who has made a special study of this particular tribe, has several interesting and curious details to add (Feilberg, pp. 144-53).

For instance, he states that there are no adherents of the Ahl-e Ḥaqq among the Pāpi, “who find them very bad mannered” (Feilberg, pp. 152-53). Minorsky, on the contrary, states that the Sagvand and Pāpi tribes are the followers of this “secret religion” (Minorsky, 1978, p. 823). Feilberg also mentions the red turbans of the guardians and supplies the information that a visit to the Emāmzāda Šāhzāda Aḥmad is known to be particularly helpful to infertile women.

Not far from Emāmzāda Šāhzāda Aḥmad was another shrine, the Emāmzāda Pir Mār (Saint Snake) also of great sanctity. The saint was supposed to have been able to cure the bite of all venomous snakes, a power his descendants apparently had inherited (Rawlinson, p. 96).

The Emāmzāda Šāhzāda Moḥammad in the Holaylān valley is mentioned by Edmonds (1922, p. 451) as being a “pretentious building” with a great reputation for sanctity in the district and having a colony of sayyeds living in tents and huts around it. Various notables have contributed various parts, such as the bath and a golden ball over the dome.

Aurel Stein (p. 242) refers to it as “the conspicuous new shrine marking the supposed resting place of Imamzadeh Shah-zadeh Muhammad, a much frequented place for pilgrimage for Lurs, with a clusted of Saiyid’s dwellings” (cf. also Edelberg, p. 379; Demant Mortensen, 1993, pp. 128-29, Pls. 6.59-61).

The shrine of Solṭān Ebrāhim, worshipped throughout Luristan under the name of Bābā Bozorg, is mentioned by Rawlinson (p. 100), who says that the tomb is situated on the northeastern face of the plain of Ḵāwa. He adds that this is “the most holy spot in Luristan; for the common Lurs have no idea of religion farther than the worship of this their national saint.” Stein (p. 302) confirms the position and calls it a “much frequented place for pilgrimage” (see also Izadpanāh, pp. 310-11 and Pls. 28-29 on pp. 344-45).

The person said to be buried in an emāmzāda is often of a rather nebulous origin or descent, and quite often the same person is said to be buried, and is worshipped, in several different places.

One example of this is in Luristan near Širvān, where the tomb of ʿAbbās b. ʿAli, the half brother of the Shiʿite Imams Ḥasan and Ḥosayn, is considered to be of great sanctity and receives much attention. People from all over Luristan go here on pilgrimage, although ʿAbbās b. ʿAli also is supposed to be buried at Karbala in Iraq (Rawlinson, p. 56).

The most important point is, however, that it is advisable to visit these graves, because honoring an emāmzāda almost amounts to honoring the Imam himself, which by implication ultimately means honoring God, and this will hopefully lead to His intercession on the Day of Judgement.

In many cases the purpose of a visit to a shrine or an emāmzāda is to ask the granting of certain wishes or requests. The means of obtaining this goal are various and ingenious. Like the Kaʿba in Mecca, the tomb will often be covered by a cloth or surrounded by a latticework, which will be kissed. This is considered as a way of mollifying the emāmzāda and is not just a pious gesture.

It is important to get in contact with the baraka of the person resting there. This may be achieved by touching something in the place, by rubbing oneself with the oil that has been deposited as a gift by previous pilgrims and has now accumulated some of the baraka, or by leaving behind one’s rosary (tasbiḥ) to be charged with baraka and collected at a later time.

When visiting an emāmzāda, it is not unusual to bring along presents, for example, candles, oil, foodstuffs, or even live animals to be sacrificed on the spot. What was originally intended as a votive offering—to the holy personage supposedly interred there—at the present time more often ends up as a present for the warden of the place. In any case, it has now become more customary not to bring anything until the wish has been fulfilled.

This rather pragmatic change from “I offer Thee this, and please may I have” to “If You grant me this, I will give You that” attitude, secures a minimum of waste and disappointment on both sides (Demant Mortensen, 2010, p. 21).

In Luristan people also seek out the shrines and emāmzādas for a number of other reasons, including oath-taking in legal cases, seeking cures for ailments, both physical and mental (Fazel, p. 234), pilgrimage, and the festivities at the end of Ramazan, the ʿid al-feṭr, and the processions and performances of the passion play (taʿzia) during the first ten days of Moḥarram in commemoration of the martyrdom of Imam Ḥosayn and his family at Karbala in 680 CE (cf. Chelkowsky; Demant Mortensen, 1991).

Moḥarram processions and the taʿzia

In Iran, Moḥarram processions and recitations existed side by side for about 250 years, and both became more and more complex and refined, until the middle of the 18th century, by which time they were fused (Chelkowski, pp. 4 ff.). The result was a new dramatic form called taʿzia-ḵvāni or just taʿzia, in which the siege of Karbala was still the core, but as time went by, separate plays around individual heroes were also developed.

The taʿzia thus is a compromise between the moving procession and the stationary recitation, and as such it was first staged at open squares or street intersections but soon moved into the courtyards of bazaars, caravansaries, emāmzādas, or even private houses.

Each of the first ten days of Moḥarram featured its own special event commemorating the suffering of Imam Ḥosayn and his party, culminating with the big processions of the 10th of Moḥarram, the Āšurāʾ, as a conclusion (see, e.g., Massé, pp. 122 ff., tr. pp. 117 ff.).

An Āšurāʾ procession might consist of several groups following hard on the heels of each other and all acting some part of the tragedy at Karbala. For example, riderless, saddled horses illustrate in the funeral procession the horses of the martyrs who are now dead.

In the case of only one riderless horse in the procession, it signifies Imam Ḥosayn’s horse (Ḏu’l-janāḥ). Often there will be fastened to the saddle some objects emblematical of Imam Ḥosayn (e.g., see Kippenberg, figs. 1-4). When the riderless horses are brought forward in the funeral procession, it is a sign that the illustrious owners are now dead, and a great moan from the crowd watching goes up in the air.

There may be flags carried along, with the names of Ḥosayn and other martyrs embroidered on them, and banners (ʿalam) representing in the towns different quarters or guilds, and in the country different emāmzādas. There may also be long sticks or poles (kotol) hung with pieces of cloth and surmounted by a metal hand (panja).

The open hand (which is identified by the Sunnites as the hand of Fāṭema and is used as an amulet to ward off the evil eye) bears a quite different meaning for the Shiʿites. In the Moḥarram processions, it commemorates the fact that at Karbala Ḥosayn and his companions were prevented from drawing water, and when ʿAbbās, Ḥosayn’s half brother, tried to fetch some water from the river, his hands were cut off by the enemy. ʿAbbās then tried to hold the gourd between his teeth, but it was immediately pierced by an arrow.

Everybody gets the message instantly when the water-sellers at the Moḥarram processions carry a gourd and cry: “Drink to the memory of the martyr of Karbala!” Many other incidents were commemorated in this way, and groups representing the martyrs with, for example, limbs amputated, an axe sunk into the body, arrows sticking out everywhere, all combine to create the most perfect illusion of reality.

Usually there would be a man or a boy disguised as a lion, covering the supposed body of Imam Ḥosayn in the procession or at the taʿzia, and representing the miraculous lion that is reported to have kept watch on Imam Ḥosayn’s body and protected it from further profanation after the massacre at Karbala (see below).

Around 1930 the taʿzia was banned by the government for socio-political reasons, but, a renewed interest in it was raised during the post-World War II period (Chelkowsky, pp.. 262 ff.). It lived on in distant villages and isolated areas such as Luristan, but due to the lack of written sources it is not possible to know with any certainty to what extent the Moḥarram rites were celebrated in Luristan over the last 200 years.

However, a few people who have been in Luristan for longer periods of time have left descriptions that might suggest that the tradition was kept alive all along. For instance, Arnold Wilson relates how the evenings during a stay with a local khan were spent, listening to a blind storyteller, who was an inexhaustible source of local politics and history, Lur songs, and extracts from the Šāh-nāma of Ferdowsi, holding the listeners around the fire spellbound for hours by the dramatic modulations of his voice (Wilson, pp. 63-65).

He was succeeded by a sayyed, who first conducted the assembly in prayer and then followed with “a prose narrative of the sad fate of the patron saint of Persia, the martyred Husain, which reduced many of the audience to genuine tears, though it is not yet the month (Muharram) in which his death is called to mind” (Wilson, p. 64).

Carl Feilberg (pp. 144-46) remarks that there is a queer, agitated feeling in the air during Moḥarram, which is more noticeable or conspicuous since there are not many signs of religious fanaticism, but rather a certain degree of tolerance. On the occasion of the “Ḥosayn festival, mollās bring forth banners (ʿalam) from an emāmzāda.

The people circle around the banners, the poles of which are covered in red cloth, while they sing and beat their breast three times, and take their heads in their hands repeatedly. Someone reads the story of Ḥosayn from one end to the other, if possible every hour of the day. A man with a sword is excited to the point of cutting his head. Pieces of cloth are hanging down from banners. Every time someone pays a few coins to the mollā, he receives a shred of the cloth.”

Another observation was made inside the Emāmzāda Šāhzāda Moḥammad in the Holaylān Valley in 1963 (Demant Mortensen, 2010, p. 29). People had come from far away and assembled in the courtyard of the emāmzāda, where on the 8th day of Moḥarram a taʿzia was being performed for hours on end, continuing into the night of the Āšurāʾ. Earlier a procession of flagellants went across the valley floor, from tent camp to tent camp, which at that time of the year (June) was spread over the plain.

These few examples will suffice to show how important aspects of the religion were being taught by illustration and performance among the nomadic population of Luristan. The mental images evoked at a Moḥarram procession, at a rawża-ḵvāni (mourning ritual commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Ḥosayn) or a taʿzia performance are so strong and potent that this kind of “illiterate religion,” as it might conveniently be termed, adds another dimension to the metaphor phrased by Umberto Eco that “images are the literature of the lay-men” (Eco, p. 41).

Nomadic cemeteries with pictorial stelae and tombstones

The nomadic cemeteries of Luristan are nearly all placed near shrines or along old migratory routes. Their inscribed and decorated tombstones and stelae turn them into an important source for the mapping of tribal migrations during the 19th and early 20th century and for our understanding of certain aspects of the religious beliefs and ritual actions of the nomads.

Allusions to the tombstones of Luristan and the motifs they represent include incidental observations by travelers passing through the country in the 19th and early 20th century (e.g., Rawlinson, pp. 53, 57-58; Herzfeld, p. 59; Stark, 1932, p. 504). The topic has later been dealt with by Feilberg (pp. 137-41, figs. 128-31), Wilhelm Eilers, Jørgen Meldgaard, Clare Goff, Leon Vanden Berghe (pp. 19-20 and Pl. VII, figs. 1-2), and Houchang Pourkarim (pp. 54-57, photograph on p. 25). Starting during 1974-77, an extensive, systematic study of nomadic cemeteries in northern Luristan was carried out by a member of the Danish Archaeological Expedition (Demant Mortensen, 1983, 1991, 1996, and 2010).

It seems that most of the nomadic cemeteries in northern Luristan, along with the tribes that they represent, can be traced back to the late 18th or early 19th century.

The earliest known nomadic tombstone, dated 1209/1794, is in the cemetery of Kazābād in the Holaylān valley (Demant Mortensen 2010, p. 167). In a historical context, the emergence of the tombstones coincide with the withdrawal of the viceroy governor (wāli) and his retinue from Khorramabad into Pošt-e Kuh in 1796, a move that was occasioned by the attempt of the first Qajar shah to reduce and weaken his power and authority.

By the end of the 1920s and the early 1930s, there is a dramatic decline in the number of nomadic cemeteries, a picture clearly reflecting the drastic changes forced upon the nomads of Luristan by the policy of Reżā Shah (r. 1924-41). Starting early in the 1920s, Reżā Shah and his army attempted forcibly to “civilize” (taḵta-qāpu), that is, to disarm and settle, the nomadic tribes throughout the country.

By the mid-1930s this policy had resulted in an economic, social, and cultural breakdown of the old tribal structures of Luristan and in a partial cessation of nomadic migrations and of memorial stelae and obelisks at the cemeteries. The latest known pictorial stele, dated 1354/1935, has been registered at the cemetery of Pela Kabud in the Holaylān valley (Demant Mortensen, 2010, pp. 73, 148, fig. 98).

At the cemeteries the graves were usually marked by a horizontal tombstone lying within the frame of stones marking the outline of the grave. In addition, an obelisk or a stele depicting in lively scenes animals and human beings was sometimes erected at the head of the grave (e.g., see Demant Mortensen, 1993, pp. 134, 138, Pls. 6.64, 6.66).

These extraordinary pictorial stones, unique in an Islamic context, were carved and used by the nomads. Like the horizontal tombstones, they were erected for men as well as for women, although more frequently for the men.

The flat-lying gravestones bear an inscription stating the name of the deceased, the name of his or her father, and the name of the tribe to which he or she belonged. The time of death is always mentioned by year, according to the Islamic lunar calendar, and occasionally also by month.

The rank or title of the deceased may also be recorded. In rare cases, a few lines from a poem may be incised along the edge of the tombstone, but apparently never a quotation from the Qurʾan. This would be inappropriate, since people might step on the stones, and sheep and goats and other animals crossing a cemetery might soil the tombstones.

At the base of the stone there is nearly always a field with pictorial symbols that are characteristic of men and women respectively. With unfailing certainty they will indicate whether the deceased was a woman or a man. In the case of women, the symbols will include a comb, a mirror, and a pair of scissors, a symbol designating a carpet, and in a few cases a kohl-pin.

On a man’s tombstone is most often depicted a prayer stone, a string of prayer beads, a washing-set consisting of a ewer and a bowl, and a man’s comb, characterized by its half-circular shape. It appears that the symbols characterizing a woman on the gravestone to all intents and purposes reflect her profane, daily life.

In contrast to this a man is characterized on the gravestones with symbols full of religious connotations meant to turn the thought towards his pious purity: a washing-set, a rosary, and a prayer stone. This emphasis upon the religious aspects of life depicted on the men’s tombstones in a subtle and subconscious way perhaps reflected the Lur’s conception of the role and status in real life, where the men were the external providers and protectors, while the women lived in the private sphere.

Obviously, there is a great difference but it does not follow automatically that there was an evaluation in terms of status attached to the different roles within the tribal community. Wilson (p. 156), who lived a long time among the Lurs, wrote a eulogy of the Lur women, who bear the burden of the day in most senses of the phrase, in the following words. “without a wife a man is as helpless and useless as half a pair of anything else— and [he] knows it.”

In some cases a panel with an enigmatic geometric figure may be found on the gravestones, interspaced usually between the fourth and the fifth line of the inscription. It shows a cross on a square background with a kind of step design on both sides, opening up into tiny “channels” leading out from or into the center. The simplest interpretation of this motif is that it is a purely decorative element.

There is, however, one other possibility: the central motifs are almost identical to the central motifs in the great Persian garden carpets from the 17th and 18th centuries, and to similar motifs seen in many Caucasian carpets and tribal rugs. It is a characteristic feature of these carpet designs that the design is geometrical and that there are channels leading out of, or into, the central motif, precisely as in the medial panels of the gravestones.

In the carpets these channels and pools symbolize the water channels in a garden, or by extension the Garden of Paradise (bāḡ-e behešt). The connection between real, geometrical garden plans, their reproduction in carpets, and the religious conceptions about the Garden of Paradise has often been demonstrated.

Against this background and in a religious context, at nomadic cemeteries, it has been suggested that the geometric motifs of the middle panels on the tombstones, like the central figures of the garden carpets, not only fulfill a decorative purpose, but also contain symbolic connotations, which among the nomads of Luristan would direct the mind towards the Garden of Paradise (Demant Mortensen, 1996, pp. 176-78).

The stelae, which sometimes were erected at the head of the grave, usually have pictures on both sides, showing distinctly different themes. One side, facing the grave, shows scenes from the life of the deceased. A typical motif at a woman’s stele would be a vertical loom with a half-finished carpet, surrounded by two or three women each with a weft-beater in her hand.

The men’s stelae would show a mounted horseman with a small shield over his shoulder, with a lance or gun in his hand and his sword attached to the characteristic high wooden saddle. The rider is often engaged in a hunt, accompanied by two or three tribesmen, each carrying a gun with a fixed bayonet.

The other side of the stelae shows a similar picture, but with marked differences in content. Here the representation is a reflection of rituals associated with death and burial. The horse is rider-less, and it is clearly tethered with a mallet at the head and at the hind leg. The weapons of the deceased, a gun, a sword, and a shield, are tied to the high wooden saddle. Below this scene three women are shown, their arms resting on each other’s shoulders.

The women are probably shown as participants in the funeral procession or doing čupi dance. Singing, wailing, and dancing were practiced by mourning women as part of the burial rites in Luristan throughout the 19th and most of the 20th century. An emotional incident reflecting these rituals is reported by Freya Stark, who in 1931 spent some time in the plains of Ḵāva and Delfān.

She relates how Yusof Khan, a young leader of the Nur-ʿAlis “beloved by all the northern Lurs was taken and executed in Hamadan; his followers, including my guide, lifted his body from the cemetery and brought it to Kermanshah, and then carried it with high wailing dirges four days’ journey to its burial-place at Hulailan” (Stark, 1947, pp. 27-32).

The picture of a riderless horse seems to reflect an old Iranian tradition where the horse of the deceased was brought along in the funerary procession to the cemetery, with the deceased’s turban, his sword, bow and arrows, lance, and in general anything that might serve to identify his standing and strength.

To lead a horse after the hearse or bier at a funeral seems to have been, if not a universal habit, at least a widespread custom also known from Luristan, a reflection, perhaps, of a belief in an afterlife in which the deceased will need the horse and the weapons that he used to have in his life on earth (cf., e.g., Tavernier, p. 722; Quenstedt, pp. 254-56; Demant Mortensen, 2010, pp. 84 ff.).

There is, however, another possible explanation for the riderless horse as it appears on the Luristani stelae. An underlying meaning of the motif might be that the representation of a riderless, equipped horse on the tombstone in the same way as Imam Ḥosayn’s horse is represented in the ʿĀšurāʾ processions during Moḥarram reminds the passer-by of Imam Ḥosayn’s martyrdom, and thus his attentions would automatically be focused on the Day of Judgement and on pious hopes for the afterlife (Demant Mortensen, 1991, pp. 85-86).

As a derivation of this, the intended message could also have been that the person interred in the tomb had been of a pious observation. This seems to be quite a probable explanation and association with the nomadic setting in Luristan in the 19th and early 20th century, as it is indirectly testified by the elegies sung by the wives of the Wāli Ḥosaynqoli Khan on the occasion of his death, ca. 1900 (cf. Mann, pp. 145-52).

Supernatural powers

Apart from the more or less orthodox religious notions, there seems to be a widespread belief in supernatural beings in Iran (cf. e.g., Donaldson, passim; Massé, pp. 351-68). There are, however, considerable regional variations in their occurrence, form, and attributes, and a supernatural being reported in one area may be unknown in another. As far as Luristan is concerned, the most extensive information on this topic has been provided by Amanolahi-Baharvand (pp. 142-78).

According to this source, the Baharvand, and probably a major part of the nomadic tribes of Luristan, have had a dualistic concept of the soul and body. Without the soul the body was nothing, and the soul could leave the body at will, in the form of a flying insect, like a mosquito, with the nose as a passage. It was believed that, when a person is asleep, his soul is out, and when it returns to the body, the person awakes.

It was also believed that everybody has an identical spiritual being in the sky. When someone dies, the soul enters this being or spirit, which descends from heaven into the grave. When the spirit has entered the grave, it will, together with the soul, find the way to the eternal world. On the way, there is a bridge, narrower than a hair, which has to be crossed. When the spirits reach the bridge, they will be met by the sheep that were sacrificed in this world, and these will be ready to carry them across the bridge.

The good ones will have no trouble getting across the bridge, but the bad ones will have serious problems. On the other side of the bridge is the gate to the eternal world, and after Judgement the righteous will go to Paradise, while the wicked are sent to Hell. It was, moreover, believed that the coming of the Mahdi would mean an end to both of these worlds, because it would mean the creation of a completely new universe with freedom and justice for everyone (Amanolahi-Baharvand, p. 148).

This somewhat diverging version of the official eschatology existed alongside a belief in several kinds of personified supernatural beings to which human emotions and feelings were attributed. Above all there is God (Ḵodā), followed by various religious personalities such as ʿAli, Moḥammad, the Imams and emāmzādas, and the local saints and prophets in Luristan. ʿAli is the strongest of all, almost comparable to God, and certainly greater than Moḥammad (Amanolahi-Baharvand, p. 150).

The belief in predestination stems from the concept that God determines the destiny of every human being and all other creatures of the universe, so everything that happens is the will of God. He is the absolute ruler and owner of the universe. He can make people sick, poor, rich, crippled, and blind. He is omniscient and omnipresent, and He has it in His power to destroy everything in an instant if He so wishes.

Although supernatural power or ability is attributed to God and all prophets and Islamic saints, they are in a different category from the other supernatural beings. God is held responsible for death and disease as well as for everything else.

But there is nevertheless, at the same time, a distinction made between natural and supernatural causes of such misfortunes. This seemingly contradictory, and totally irreconcilable, assertion will just have to be accepted, in the same way as those diseases and misfortunes that cannot immediately be understood are attributed to supernatural forces (cf. Amanolahi-Baharvand, pp. 150 ff.).

Dangerous supernatural beings include malakat, which is a local derivation from Arabic, meaning angels (e.g., malak al-mawt, the Angel of Death, often used in the Qurʾanic vocabulary). The Luri concept is somewhat different. It was believed that malakats have all the characteristics of human beings, except that they are invisible and also have the power to change form.

This means that they can and will turn themselves into, for example, a human being, a cat, or a piece of wood. They never die, and they may be found in many places, such as ruins, mountains, and dark corners. They were feared because it was believed that they had the power to make people ill or insane. Sometimes they fell in love with a woman and caused her to behave abnormally.

The malakat might take a person and replace him with an identical malakat. The same might happen with a corpse, so if a body remained unburied overnight, it had to be guarded every minute. If someone is behaving crazily, it is believed that she or he might be possessed by a malakat, and a mollā (cleric) may try to capture it by torturing the afflicted person and thus drive it away (Amanolahi-Baharvand, p. 154).

Other groups of dangerous supernatural beings include the ḡuls and the divs (demons). In folktales the div is described as looking more or less like a human being, only larger and with the capacity of changing its form; it sleeps most of the time, and is often found at the bottom of wells.

Among the Baharvand in Luristan, it is believed that the div no longer exists, but that it has been replaced by another type of demon, which is extremely dangerous. This is a human-like creature, which may inflict injuries and illnesses resulting in death upon a person. In these cases it is beyond the powers of a sayyed or a mollā to help.

The Tofangči (rifleman) is the name given to an invisible hunter with male characteristics. If sudden unexpected deaths take place, it is believed to have been caused by the Tofangči, and if any of the herds were struck, the nomads would immediately migrate to another campsite.

Yāl, otherwise referred to as āl (cf. Donaldson, pp. 28-31; Massé, pp. 44, 356, tr., p. 348), is a supernatural being with the attributes of a female, a kind of witch, often described as four-footed, and with a tail. She is very dangerous for women in labor and is wont to snatch away babies. In Luristan she is known to have only two legs and no tail, but she is very tall and has large teeth. If a woman is attacked by yāl, a yāl-catcher will beat her with a stick in order to tell where the yāl is, and a sheep will be killed and its liver and heart taken to her.

To counterbalance the feared influence of all the malevolent, supernatural demons there is also a belief in a few benevolent creatures. For instance every person is believed to have a baḵt (lit. fate), which is the supernatural guardian of every individual (Donaldson, pp. 175-76).

The baḵt is supposed to be identical with its owner, and it protects his land and property. If someone’s baḵt is active, everything is prosperous for the whole family, the herds increase, and so on; but a baḵt may fall asleep, in which case it takes the form of an animal. If that should happen, all sorts of misery starts, and it is almost impossible to find and wake up the baḵt. If a man is unlucky and, for instance, is losing herds or even children, he may say that his baḵt has fallen asleep.

Another well-known group is the fairies (pari), who are the most beautiful of all supernatural beings and look just like humans. They may marry among themselves and have a social organization and even a king of their own, Šāh-pario, but they may also marry human beings. If this happens, it must be kept a secret; otherwise, the pari will escape.

Many people claim to have seen the paris dancing and singing, and it is possible to capture them when they are bathing in a river, but one must be very quick, jump into the river, and insert a needle into the hair of the pari before she becomes invisible. When the needle is inserted in the hair, the pari becomes the wife of the captor and will always be near him, but at the same time invisible to others. It is possible for such couples to have children, but they are also invisible, except for the father (Amanolahi-Baharvand, pp. 158-60).

It is in the same somewhat shady and ill-defined border area between religion, superstition, and folklore that one may find some impersonal, supernatural forces at work. They might for the sake of clarity be divided into “powers” and “matters” of supernatural character. The supernatural “powers” reckoned with in Luristan include baraka, bahra, rišarr and časm-e bad (Amanolahi-Baharvand, pp. 160 ff.).

Baraka, or blessing, has already been described above, and bahra has something of the same inherited quality. A person could have the bahra, that is the property or capacity of hunting or capturing certain personified, supernatural beings, or curing disorders caused by these. In that case he will nearly always be successful in these matters. Like baraka, it is a good quality, which cannot be used against other people.

The words riḵayr and rišarr are combinations of Luri and Arabic, and they signify a good or benevolent face and an evil face, respectively. Thus it is believed that some people have a “good face” (riḵayr) and they will cause prosperity wherever they appear; on the other hand, if someone on a journey sees an “evil face” (rišarr), he will worry that the journey will be fruitless or even dangerous (Demant Mortensen, 2010, pp. 20-21, 36).

This idea seems to be closely related to the notion of the bad or evil eye, in which there is a widespread belief in most of the Near East. Three main types of evil eyes are recognized in Luristan: čašm-e šur (“envious eye,” lit: “salty eye,” normally permanent), čašme-e nāpāk (“dirty eye,” normally temporary), and čašme-e bad (“bad eye,” normally momentary).

It is a problem that a person with an evil eye may unintentionally cause danger and disaster. The number of causes and cures enumerated, and the amount of time spent in anxiety, fear, and inconvenience caused by this belief is quite striking. Supernatural power may also be obtained through certain acts either of piety or of ceremonial sacrifice of animals.

Certain sayyeds were believed to have obtained supernatural power, partly through their descent from the Prophet, and partly through their own acts. Those who had obtained this status were regarded as next to holy, and with a supernatural power to cure both physical and mental illnesses. People would make an oath by the turban of such a person, or by his copy of the Qurʾan, which was believed to be much more powerful than an ordinary copy (Demant Mortensen, 2010, pp. 36-37).

This is leading to the other category of supernatural forces, that of “matter” or “substance.”

The Qur’an itself is believed to possess enormous supernatural forces, which would keep at bay the many malevolent supernatural beings, and also illnesses.

Objects related to emāmzādas, especially pieces of cloth from banners (ʿalam), protected the bearer from snake bites, harmful supernatural beings, and other dangerous creatures, and every year during Moḥarram the guardians literally took their ʿalams to pieces and distributed them among the people, who would sew them on to their clothing.

Also some trees were regarded as sacred and invested with supernatural power, possibly a concept of pre-Islamic origin.

Often, but not always, they are found close to a shrine, such as the Emāmzāda Šāhzāda Moḥammad in the Holaylān valley (Stein, p. 242).

Hundreds and hundreds of pieces of cloth may be seen hanging on such trees “in greater profusion than leaves” as de Bode puts it (I, p. 283), each representing a vow or wish uttered.

While others might silently wish upon a falling star, these rags of cloth each denote a “visible wish” as it were (Demant Mortensen, 1993, pp. 122-23, Pls. 6.56-57).

In order to remain on friendly terms with the personified supernatural beings surrounding them, and at the same time to protect themselves from all the malevolent powers lurking everywhere, the Lurs employ a complex set of ancient local ceremonies and adapted Islamic rituals, which are almost impossible to disentangle.

Most of the nomads in Luristan would have only a superficial knowledge of Islam, and many religious acts are mixed with older traditions, the origin of which remains obscure.

Sacrifices are normally made either to Imam ʿAli or to the local shrine or emāmzāda, but not directly to God.

Sacrifices are made for different purposes; for instance, at the birth of a first child (son), or people make a vow that they will make a sacrifice if a wish be realized, or if they recover from an illness.

A special kind of animal sacrifice is performed when a person dies (ʿaqiqa). The animal has to be a sheep and more than six months old.

An Arabic formula is whispered in its ear before it is killed. Then it has to be boiled, and the bones buried unbroken. None of the immediate family of the deceased can take part in this meal, as it is believed that the deceased in the next world will be carried across the bridge by the sheep to the gates of the eternal world. In Luristan a special offering (alafa) is also made to the dead annually a few days before the New Year (Nowruz).

The offering consists of sweetmeat (ḥalwā) and bread, and during the preparation of these foodstuffs the names of those deceased in whose memory the meals are being prepared must be mentioned, and they will then receive the sacrifice (Amonolahi-Baharvand, pp. 170-76; Demant Mortensen, 2010, pp. 36-37).

Epilogue

Fredrik Barth (p. 146), following his description of some ceremonies, rituals, games, and beliefs among the Bāṣeri tribe in Fars, reaches the following conclusion about religion: “In general, I feel that the above attempt at an exhaustive description of the ceremonies and explicit practices of the Basseri reveals a ritual life of unusual poverty.”

The same verdict has been passed by almost everybody who has expressed an opinion on this matter as far as the Lurs are concerned. It is hoped, however, that the observations in the preceding pages might help to build a case for the opposite opinion. There was no ritual or religious poverty among the Lurs; on the contrary, the atmosphere was positively crowded with images of supernatural and other beings. The belief in them reflects truly religious notions, although these do not always conform to official doctrines.

Όλες τις βιβλιογραφικές παραπομπές μπορείτε να βρείτε εδώ:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/luristan-05-religion-beliefs

Περισσότερα:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/luristan-04-origin-nomadism

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bronzes-of-luristan

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/luristan-bronzes-i-the-field-research-

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/luristan-bronzes-ii-chronology

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Лурестан

http://etnolog.ru/people.php?id=LURY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luristan_bronze

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorestan_Province

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luri_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luri_music

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

Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:

https://vk.com/doc429864789_619584124

https://www.docdroid.net/ZOuHf4E/h-zoi-sto-lorestan-kai-oi-lori-toy-mesoy-zaghroy-tis-oroseiras-poy-khorizei-irak-kai-iran-docx

https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250586176

https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/life_in_lorestan.docx


Tags
Loading...
End of content
No more pages to load
s-afshar - Afshar's itineraries
Afshar's itineraries

241 posts

Explore Tumblr Blog
Search Through Tumblr Tags