Pre-publication of chapter VII of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters VI, VII, VIII, IX and X form Part Three (Turkey and Iran beyond Politics and Geopolitics: Rejection of the Orientalist, Turcologist and Iranologist Fallacies about Achaemenid History) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapters VIII, IX and X have already been pre-published.
Until now, 20 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the present book; this chapter is therefore the 21st (out of 33) to be uploaded. At the end of the text, the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in green color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
———————————
Darius I (named Dara I in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh) receives his imperial crown from his Mother Humai (from 16th c. manuscript); in the mythical language of the epics, there is no spiritual correspondence to material terms. So, in this regard, Darius I’s mother in the epic has nothing to do with the Achaemenid Shah’s physical mother. And this makes the great difference: whereas worthless colonial Western academics spent volumes of ink and incredible quantities of electronic waste to analyze Darius I’s imperial lineage and his rise to the throne, the simple Iranians knew the absolute truth as to how and why he rose to power: his spiritual Mother Humai brought to him the crown. Now, what spiritual epics and symbolic narratives mean and how they are written are entirely different and vast topics that would take very long to explain here. All the same, colonial academics and Western materialistic historians failed to even attempt to duly analyze these crucial matters, although they knew that Shahnameh constituted the undeniable foundation of Iranian History for all Iranians until the beginning of the 20th c. They disregarded these topics entirely, while absurdly and heinously removing Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and many other masterpieces of Iranian-Turanian spiritual epics from the corpus of sources of Iranian History.
The Orientalist, Turcologist and Iranologist fallacies reach a culminating point with the study of the 1st millennium BCE Mesopotamia, Iran, Anatolia and Central Asia. The epicenter of the Orientalist distortion is the History of the Achaemenid dynasty of Iran (550-330 BCE). This dynasty proved to be the central period of World History between the Oriental Antiquity (Sumer, Elam, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia, Hittite Anatolia, Canaan, Egypt, Cush, Punt, the African Atlas, and China) and the Christian – Islamic times. Because of this fact, the multifaceted distortions of Achaemenid History had indeed far reaching consequences and implications.
And truly, the misrepresentation of the world’s greatest civilization and foremost imperial superpower of the middle of the 1st millennium BCE is instrumental in concealing the historical truth, generating overwhelming confusion, fabricating an unprecedented alteration of the Ancient History of the Orient, and producing a totally false and unrepresentative division of the World History, namely Antiquity – Middle Ages – Modern Times.
There are several patterns of historical–linguistic distortion that are always easy for forgers to apply. One of them involves the fabrication of an otherwise nonexistent concept or supposed entity and the preposterous effort to link to it various existent data, known pieces of info, and real elements. Similarly, you fabricate a counterfeit concept, supposedly at the antipodes of the first. In this manner, you effectively manage to produce in reality two nonexistent concepts or entities that you portray as ‘strikingly different from one another’ and you link to each of these two entities many other known pieces of info and various existent data, thus promptly and comfortably generating a division, which in reality does not exist.
This pattern involves therefore postulating, theorizing, and then adding masses of data to the fabricated but non-confirmed, hypothetical schemes. In this regard, by creating a nonexistent Proto-Indo-European and by dogmatically and arbitrarily attaching to it the totality of the vocabulary attested in Old Achaemenid Iranian inscriptions, Western Orientalists attempted to intentionally disburden every Turkic word that can be identified in the Old Achaemenid cuneiform texts. About:
Actually, the colonial Orientalists did not start the falsification of Iranian History with the misrepresentation of the Achaemenid dynasty; they ended up there! They started their forgery with a much later historical period for which they had abundant texts; and they did not start the systematic disfigurement of the historical reality with historical texts and inscriptions but with epics and literature. They misinterpreted Ferdowsi’s references to Iran and to Turan within his enormous – Iranian and Turanian – epic, the Shahnameh.
Darius I the Great (above) & Xerxes I the Great (below) depicted on bas-reliefs-Persepolis What Western Orientalists failed to understand is not just an array of monuments or a number of ancient texts; they failed to realize the phenomenon of life and the genius of an atemporal civilization in which the past, the present and the future are all intermingled thanks to masterfully elaborated oral traditions, which fully encapsulates in mythical (i.e. in the only worthwhile) terms the totality of Human History, thus preserving the real essence of the facts and the true knowledge of History. But this essence cannot be perceived by the absurd, mentally defective, rationalist minds of the Western academics, who stick to the surface of the events, merely projecting their naïve and failed perception of the world onto the minds of the ancient constructors of monuments, authors of imperial texts, and artists. In fact, this entire attempt is as dead as a museum; there is no life to it. Unfortunately, it does not help us understand; it prevents any sort of genuine comprehension instead.
What happens in reality is simple; one day, the emperor dies, the empire falls, the palace is demolished, and the texts are burned and destroyed. The details of the deeds, the sequence of the acts, and the order of the decisions are lost. Their secrets vanish and their plans are no more. But the truth stays. It is not in the remaining ruins, and it cannot be found in unearthed statues and deciphered texts; all this is dead, even after we excavate, restore and make it available to visitors. The truth is the life that these people lived; it encompassed their spirituality, piety, imagination, energy, creativity, commitment to rightful choices, efforts and targets. Nothing of all this died; it consists in an enormous but serene, inalienable and ineradicable context of spiritual vibrations, conscious pulsations, subliminal oscillations, olfactory undulations, sound reverberations, and iridescent fluctuations.
This invariable reality can be accessed by any skilled spiritual master and moral mystic with due respect to the specific location and the unequivocal space of time; he can then reconstitute the living image of those lost days, the quintessence of the facts, and the transparence of the spiritual, sentimental and mental consciousness of the main factors (kings, knights, priests, soldiers, heroes, etc.) by means of mythical verses which, being packed with symbols, represent the never lost life of those days in a most vivacious manner to posterity. However, with the above example, I don’t suggest that the arrival of a mystical poet or a spiritual master able to bring about the perfect reflection of the past is compulsory or necessary. All the (average) people had significant spiritual power in the past; they could therefore preserve the living image of the past days as a poem, legend, series of fables or other forms of oral literature and tradition. There is no difference between societies with strong oral tradition and communities accustomed to keeping written records. It is only part of the racism, the monstrosity, and the bias of the Western World that colonial intellectuals and academics pretend that societies with written records are ‘more civilized’ than the rest.
What does all this mean?
It simply means that, wherever the mythical language was preserved among a traditional, moral and pious society, and the local spiritual epics, the legendary traditions, and the heroic fables of universal character were highly valued and cherished, the traditional narrative and the related depiction in a manuscript miniature are definitely closer to the true historical reality than the ancient reliefs and the texts which have been excavated and deciphered. In brief, the very first picture included in this document, although it dates back to the 16th c., represents the spiritual and material life of Darius I better than the bas relief from Persepolis (second picture in the present document). Despite the fact that the bas relief dates back to the reign of Darius I whereas the manuscript was written and decorated more than 2000 years later, the miniature offers a truer and more vivacious reflection of life around Darius I.
———————————————–
Shahnameh constituted for more than 900 years the true Iranian History that Iranians and Turanians cherished and respected; disreputable Western bogus-scholars started describing this epic as ‘chivalrous’, either because they failed to deeply understand it or due to their materialistic preconceived ideas and anti-heroic misery and savagery.
Writing his majestic (more than 100000 verses in Farsi) epic, which is the world’s largest ever, in the late 10th and the early 11th c., Ferdowsi presented a dynamic interaction between Iran and Turan across ages. The intertwined relationship of Iran and Turan generated all major historical developments and in the process, it literally produced the human civilization; this is the essence of Ferdowsi’s monumental and phenomenal narrative, which is of course rendered in a highly spiritual, mythical and symbolic manner. The imperial families of Iran and Turan were evidently interlinked with mixed marriages across Ferdowsi’s masterpiece, which is the World History’s unsurpassed pivot of spirituality and civilization. In his foremost universal and Universalist epic, Ferdowsi created also an archetypal environment of moral clash between two realms: the world of good, enlightened, orderly and civilized Iran and the threatening periphery of evil, tenebrous, chaotic and barbarian Aniran. In fact, Aniran means “the Non-Iran”. But Aniran has nothing to do with Turan, which is alternating with Iran, being intertwined with it, as I already said.
The above is not my conclusion or my opinion; it is the historical reality. It consists in the most accurate and most pertinent interpretation made available in symbolic (not rationalist) terms within the world’s most illustrious epics. If Iran and Turan were opponent inimical and prejudicial to one another, Iranian culture would never be wholeheartedly shared by Turanians, because it would be viewed as defamatory and loathsome. If Turan and Iran were opposite, inimical and prejudicial to one another, Turanian culture would never be wholeheartedly accepted by major Iranian poets, mystics, spiritual masters, writers, scholars and emperors. But we know that such things did not happen; we know very well that Iranian kings and emperors of the Islamic times spoke in Turkic languages to their soldiers and that Turanian kings and emperors of the Islamic times wrote, memorized and recited verses of the Iranian epic poetry in Farsi.
We know that historically in the minds of all Turanians and Iranians there was no concept of opposition between Iran and Turan, because in reality, and as I already said, the two terms alternate in an everlasting dialectical relationship in order to shape World History. It is herewith worthwhile to mention as example that, prior to the Battle at Chaldiran (1514), Selim I in his letter to Ismail I (which was written in Farsi) described himself, although being an Ottoman, as ‘Fereydun’, namely a fully accredited and highly revered Iranian hero and king of the Pishdadian dynasty, the first family of divine rulers who originated from Keyumars (Adam). Had there been any sense of enmity, animosity, rivalry or strife between Iran and Turan, among Iranians and Turanians, between Iranian culture and Turanian culture, this would not have happened. About:
Parsa (Persepolis), the great Achaemenid capital; few Western Iranologists bothered to examine why this vast, majestic and solemn location is named Takht-e Jamshid in the Iranian folk traditions and popular culture. They certainly know that in various regions of Asia and Africa, Muslims named numerous places after several persons of the Biblical and Quranic traditions; they also know that in all the lands that had been impacted by the Iranian-Turanian civilization, this tendency further encompasses the distinct religious forms of Zoroastrianism before and after the arrival of Islam. However, their expertise ends there and they have a very confused opinion about, and understanding of, the interconnection between the Iranian literary epic tradition (such as Ferdowsi’ Shahnameh) and the Iranian popular religion.
They thus fail to identify pre-Islamic mystical traditions that were kept in various forms of popular culture and, amongst others, impacted great poets and mystics like Ferdowsi, Nezami Ganjavi, Amir Khusraw, and others. But the Iranian popular religion is an entirely independent body of concepts, faiths, values, and narratives out of which emanate countless Iranian folk traditions and the popular culture.
The appellation ‘Takht-e Jamshid’ is not due to Ferdowsi or any other poet’s ‘Shahnameh’ but represents a genuine expression of the Iranian-Turanian nations’ folk traditions. Ferdowsi only helps us fathom the awesome heights to which the popular culture, fully preserving Achaemenid mysticism, catapulted the location of Persepolis: the Throne (Takht-e) of Jamshid, as description of the Achaemenid capital, makes of the place the epicenter of the divine rule (‘throne’) of the third descendant of Adam (Keyumars). This transcendental reality explains why Darius I transferred the capital from Pasargad (Pasargadae) and had the majestic site constructed. Now, when you ask yourself “why Takht-e Jamshid, and not Takht-e Zahhak or Takht-e Fereydun?” (referring to two other legendary figures who were respectively the son and the grandson of Jamshid), you come face to face with all the hitherto unanswered colossal questions of the Iranian spirituality, popular religion, and folk traditions that even Ferdowsi and Nezami Ganjavi failed to properly make. Introductory data (not correct analysis), you can find here:
I don’t want to expand more here, because I am only making a flash-forward while speaking about the Achaemenid times; I therefore want only to indicate the sources from which the evil colonial scholars first got the knowledge and second discredited the sources in order to deprive hundreds of millions of Iranians and Turanians of the historical truth, the cultural integrity, the national identity, and the transcendental wisdom that they had for millennia.
Subsequently, the criminal colonial scholars of England, France, America, Canada, etc. malignantly invented the ahistorical and fake ‘Iran – Turan’ divide, which they later projected onto their deliberately falsified reading of Achaemenid History. I will further discuss this Orientalist distortion in other chapters, but at this point I want to underscore the alternating nature of the two terms; this means that in fact Iran is Turan and Turan is Iran.
People should also bear also in mind that the historical-geographical terms do not apply literally in transcendental epics like Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh! Quite contrarily, everything takes a symbolic connotation and dimension, and you cannot apply terms like “Iran” and “Turan” in the manner many do nowadays, separating Iran from Turkic-speaking Central Asiatic states. All this is meaningless in Ferdowsi.
To give you an example, when the great atemporal hero Fereydun leaves Iran and goes far to find the Sublime Key Qubad and drive him to Iran where he is called to become the King of Kings, Fereydun goes merely to Alborz Mountains! In the simple geographical connotation of the term, these mountains separate Tehran from the Caspian Sea shore in today’s Iran. But as I pointed out, “historical-geographical terms do not apply literally in transcendental epics”. About (I include the links below only indicatively, because most of the contents are erroneous):
At a distance of about 7 km from Takht-e Jamshid – Parsa (Persepolis) stands the Imperial Achaemenid necropolis: the majestic cruciform tombs of Darius I, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I and Darius II are hewn in a rocky mountain. Less spectacular but undeniably very remarkable monuments (bas-reliefs, inscriptions, edifices, etc.) from later periods (notably Sassanid) can also be found in the superb location, which is named Naqsh-e Rustam, i.e. ‘the Image of Rustam’. Being the son of the mythical king Zal and the princess of Kabul Rudaba, Rustam is one of the greatest heroes and most paramount fighters of the Iranian popular religion and epic literature. But he markedly lives at the end of the Pishdadian and the early Kayanian dynasties, so certainly ‘later’ than Fereydun and much later than Jamshid.
For all those who fail to strictly apply spiritual, transcendental and atemporal values and standards to every form of creativity attested within the Iranian folk traditions and popular religion, there is a very simple question:
– Why is the location of the Achaemenid tombs related to another mythical king and hero (Rustam) than the place where the same Achaemenid royals (Darius I, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I, Darius II) reigned (Parsa / Persepolis), which is associated with a much earlier hero (Jamshid)?
Also:
– In what sense is an imperial palace described as a throne (‘takht’) but a tomb is called ‘the image’ (Naqsh) of a hero?
In any case, concerning Naqsh-e Rustam, many leading Iranologists make the terrible mistake to associate the term ‘naqsh’ (image) with the Sassanid bas reliefs. This must have been so blasphemous if said during the Sassanid times! The Sassanid rulers knew the sacrosanct significance of the location; they were honored to be represented there too. But the divine benediction belonged to earlier times.
So, the early Orientalists, who were 18th and 19th c. colonial explorers, antiquarians, adventurers, agents of secret services, and diplomats, transfigured the meaning of Ferdowsi’s text and altered the symbolic terms used in the epics according to their own interests. They therefore first made the equation “Turan equals Aniran”, and they subsequently misinterpreted the majestic Iranian epic, which was believed as the ‘true History of Iran and Aniran’, reducing it to untrustworthy legendary stories that could not be taken into account their forged historiography.
Furthermore, the Western scholars projected this fictional, unsubstantiated and nonexistent polarization onto all parts of ‘Iranian History’ (pre-Islamic and Islamic), presenting Iranian emperors and Iranian culture as diametrically opposed to the Turkic emperors and to Turanian (or Turkic) culture. At the end, they also attempted to reflect their fake divide within the context of the Achaemenid times, a historical period for which the earliest existing documentation was mainly the untrustworthy, partial and external Ancient Greek historical sources.
Not only had the Western colonial scholarship failed to apply serious criticism to the highly biased and evidently racist Ancient Greek sources, but they also proved to be unwilling to duly popularize among Iranians and worldwide the Old Achaemenid sources after they were deciphered. Early excavations were resumed in Iran during the 19th and the early 20th c., only for the overwhelming Orientalist campaign of systematic distortion of ‘Ancient Iran’ to start.
In other words, the absurd, miserable and lowly Western scholars deprived the greatest nation of Asia (Iranians and Turanians) of their true, vivacious, sagacious, and transcendental History and they forced them to learn the Ancient Greek racist lies that the silly Pahlavi dictators and the stupid Islamist politicians proved equally unable to refute in public.
Beyond the fabrication of nonexistent concepts, entities, and schemes, other patterns of distortion revolve around a) polarization between non-opposite elements, b) systematic purification of a historical period, culture or civilization from undesired elements, and c) extrapolation from the forged past to the reconstructed present.
——————————————————–
FORTHCOMING
Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey
2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu
(Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
PART ONE. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: A World held Captive by the Colonial Gangsters: France, England, the US, and the Delusional History Taught in their Deceitful Universities
A. Examples of fake national names
a) Mongolia (or Mughal) and Deccan – Not India!
b) Tataria – Not Russia!
c) Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) – Not Greece!
d) Kemet or Masr – Not Egypt!
e) Khazaria – not Israel!
f) Abyssinia – not Ethiopia!
B. Earlier Exchange of Messages in Turkish
C. The Preamble to My Response
CHAPTER II: Geopolitics does not exist.
CHAPTER III: Politics does not exist.
CHAPTER IV: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: Orientalism, conceptualization, contextualization, concealment
A. Orientalism
B. Conceptualization
C. Contextualization
D. Concealment
PART TWO. EXAMPLE OF ACADEMICALLY CONCEALED, KEY HISTORICAL TEXT
CHAPTER V: Plutarch and the diffusion of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian Religions and Cultures in Ancient Greece
PART THREE. TURKEY AND IRAN BEYOND POLITICS AND GEOPOLITICS: REJECTION OF THE ORIENTALIST, TURKOLOGIST AND IRANOLOGIST FALLACIES ABOUT ACHAEMENID HISTORY
CHAPTER VI: The fallacy that Turkic nations were not present in the wider Mesopotamia – Anatolia region in pre-Islamic times
CHAPTER VII: The fallacious representation of Achaemenid Iran by Western Orientalists
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER IX: Iranian and Turanian nations in Achaemenid Iran
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
PART FOUR. FALLACIES ABOUT THE SO-CALLED HELLENISTIC PERIOD, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE SELEUCID & THE PARTHIAN ARSACID TIMES
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XII: Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty
CHAPTER XIII: Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids
PART FIVE. FALLACIES ABOUT SASSANID HISTORY, HISTORY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE HISTORY OF MIGRATIONS
CHAPTER XIV: Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic – Christian Roman Empire
CHAPTER XV: Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism
CHAPTER XVI: Iran – Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
PART SIX. FALLACIES ABOUT THE EARLY EXPANSION OF ISLAM: THE FAKE ARABIZATION OF ISLAM
CHAPTER XVII: Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE
CHAPTER XVIII: Western Orientalist falsifications of Islamic History: Identification of Islam with only Hejaz at the times of the Prophet
CHAPTER XIX: The fake, Orientalist Arabization of Islam
CHAPTER XX: The systematic dissociation of Islam from the Ancient Oriental History
PART SEVEN. THE FICTIONAL DIVISION OF ISLAM INTO ‘SUNNI’ AND ‘SHIA’
CHAPTER XXI: The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’
PART EIGHT. THE DISTORTED TERM ‘PERSIANATE’
CHAPTER XXII: The fake Persianization of the Abbasid Caliphate
PART NINE. FALLACIES ABOUT THE GOLDEN ERA OF THE ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER XXIII: From Ferdowsi to the Seljuk Turks, Nizam al Mulk, Nizami Ganjavi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Haji Bektash
PART TEN. FALLACIES ABOUT THE TIMES OF TURANIAN (MONGOLIAN) SUPREMACY IN TERMS OF SCIENCES, ARTS, LETTERS, SPIRITUALITY AND IMPERIAL UNIVERSALISM
CHAPTER XXIV: From Genghis Khan, Nasir al-Din al Tusi and Hulagu to Timur
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
CHAPTER XXVI: the Timurid Era as Peak of the Islamic Civilization, Shah Rukh, and Ulugh Beg, the Astronomer Emperor
PART ELEVEN. HOW AND WHY THE OTTOMANS, THE SAFAVIDS AND THE MUGHALS FAILED
CHAPTER XXVII: Ethnically Turanian Safavids & Culturally Iranian Ottomans: two identical empires that mirrored one another
CHAPTER XXVIII: Spirituality, Religion & Theology: the fallacy of the Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’
CHAPTER XXIX: Selim I, Ismail I, and Babur
CHAPTER XXX: The Battle of Chaldiran (1514), and how it predestined the Fall of the Islamic World
CHAPTER XXXI: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals: victims of their sectarianism, tribalism, theology, and wrong evaluation of the colonial West
CHAPTER XXXII: Ottomans, Iranians and Mughals from Nader Shah to Kemal Ataturk
PART TWELVE. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER XXXIII: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: whereto?
—————————————————
List of the already pre-published chapters of the book
Lines separate chapters that belong to different parts of the book.
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
Pre-publication of chapter IX of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters VI, VII, VIII, IX and X form Part Three (Turkey and Iran beyond Politics and Geopolitics: Rejection of the Orientalist, Turcologist and Iranologist Fallacies about Achaemenid History) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapters VIII and X have already been pre-published.
Until now, 19 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the present book; this chapter is therefore the 20th (out of 33) to be uploaded. At the end of the text, the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in gray color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
———————–
The nations of the Achaemenid Empire as depicted on the façade of the tomb of Darius I the Great in Naqsh-e Rustam, 7 km from Persepolis.
The reality of the multi-national, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-cultural Empire of the Achaemenid dynasty is simple to grasp, if we eliminate colonial Orientalist fallacy: in the immense periphery, many diverse historical nations, like the Scythians of Ukraine, the Ionians and the Lydians of Western Anatolia, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Aramaeans, the Babylonians, and the Indians of the Indus Delta region, constituted vital parts and key elements of the Iranian Empire.
Contrarily, in the central parts of the vast empire, the various nations that settled and lived there were not culturally and historically diverse, but rather homogeneous; due to tribal interconnections and clan affiliations, an extensive multilingualism existed among them, being greatly impacted by sedentarization, semi-nomadism, and labor division processes. These populations, irrespective of their place of origin, once they became sedentary, focused on agriculture, craftsmanship, and local administration; on the other hand, the nomadic and semi-nomadic groups made brave, experienced soldiers, excelled in cattle-keeping and practiced trade.
That is why their original languages developed differently, adapting syntax and usage to the very different needs of the speakers’ lives; the soldiers spoke Turanian dialects and the sedentary populations expressed themselves in Iranian dialects, which were both in their process of formation. In the vast borderless land that stretches from NE Siberia to Central Asia to the Iranian plateau and to Eastern Europe, an interminable interconnection generated the conditions of life that 1500 after the first Achaemenid Shahs Ferdowsi narrated with outstanding clarity: Iran and Turan have always been an indivisible entity whereby
a) the soldier, the semi-nomad, and the mystic speaks Turanian idioms, and
b) the administrative employee, the sedentary, and the priest uses Iranian vernaculars.
The central part of the Achaemenid Empire stretched over the territory of modern states of Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
If we refer to names of Achaemenid satrapies, Iran’s central parts were: Mada (Media and Media Atropatene), Parthava (Parthia), Asagarta (Sagartians), Parsa (Persia), Karmana (Carmania), Maka (Gedrosia), Zranka (Drangiana), Harauvatish (Arachosia), Thatagush (Sattagydia: downstream Indus), Hindush (Punjab: Pentapotamia), Gandara (Paropamisos: North Pakistan), Baxtrish (Bactria), Haraiva (Areia: NW Afghanistan & NE Iran), Suguda (Sogdiana), Margush (Margiane), Varkana (Hyrcania), Daha and Uvarazmish (Chorasmia). These nations are portrayed by colonial Orientalists as all entirely related to Persians. This is a lie that originates from the fallacious colonial equation “Fars equals Iran”. About:
Greater ethno-linguistic affinities with Turanian (Turkic) nations seem to have had the following central Iranian nations: Atropatene, Parthia, Hyrcania, Daha and Chorasmia. In reality, the central parts of the Iranian Empire were inhabited by both Iranian and Turanian nations that had evidently greater cultural affinities among themselves than with other nations of the Iranian periphery and expansion.
Of all these nations, the two most important for the imperial elite were the Ancient Azeris (Atropatene) and the Ancient Persians (Fars / Persia). The latter held the royal power and administration, whereas the former were the vicars of Zoroastrian Orthodoxy. However, the most determinant trait of the Achaemenid royalty was absolute devotion and unquestionable submission to Zoroaster’s monotheistic faith. That is why the Achaemenid court was always adamant against the Mithraic Magi and the Iranian emperors reprimanded in the most resolute manner the polytheistic Mithraists’ efforts to either alter the original meaning of the Zoroastrian monotheism or to usurp the throne and then impose a counterfeit, fake shah who would be the worthless puppet of the villainous Magi.
The nations of the Achaemenid Empire as depicted on the façade of the tomb of Xerxes I the Great in Naqsh-e Rustam, 7 km from Persepolis.
The nations of the Achaemenid Empire as depicted on the façade of the tomb of Artaxerxes I in Persepolis.
As one can understand easily, the de-Turanization of the Achaemenid period of Ancient Iran takes the form of a fallacious, radical, and extremist ‘Persianization’ of the Achaemenid Empire. However, this is refuted in many ways by the existing material record that pertains to the Achaemenid times; the Achaemenid onomastics, if duly studied, can reveal the presence of many Turanian names that are mistakenly now taken as ‘Persian’. The taxation of the Achaemenid satrapies reveals very well how greatly the court at Parsa (Persepolis) appreciated the provinces from where came most of the empire’s special military units, thus demanding lower taxation. And the military organization of the imperial army was originally conceived by typically nomadic fighters, and not by settled populations like the Babylonians or the Egyptians. The gradual decay of the Achaemenid Empire, viewed precisely in the light of the subsequent rise of the Arsacid Parthian kingdom, can also be explained as the consequence of the Turanian populations’ discontent with compromises made by the Achaemenid court with the ruthless Mithraic Magi.
Heavy taxation existed for India, Babylonia, Egypt and Western Anatolia, not for NE Iran and Central Asia, i.e. the lands where the bulk of Turanian populations lived.
Furthermore, the existing material record that pertains to the Iranian – Turanian History of later pre-Islamic and Islamic periods helps us also understand that the basic tenets of the historical evolution and the fundamental trends of daily life remained the same across millennia in Iran and Central Asia – in total rejection of the Orientalist fallacy and of the absurd Persianization of the Achaemenid Empire.
In fact, what happened at the times of the Barmak (Barmakian) noble and prestigious family in Abbasid Baghdad (8th – 9th c. CE), what occurred in the era of the Samanid (819-999) and Buyid (Buwayhi; 934-1062) dynasties, what constituted the splendid universe of Ferdowsi (940-1020), and what was attested in the Seljuk, Ilkhanid, Timurid, Ottoman and Safavid periods, did indeed characterize Achaemenid Iran, as a pre-Islamic Iranian–Turanian Empire.
The satrapies (provinces) of the Achaemenid Empire
The Iranians had an inclination to poetry, epics, literature, lyricism, arts and architecture, whereas the Turanians were known for their tendency to martial arts, military discipline and life, asceticism and spiritual exercises, mysticism and fables. The Turanians found it therefore normal to write in Old Achaemenid Iranian and in Aramaic in the 1st millennium BCE, in Syriac, Pahlavi and Middle Persian (Parsik) during the 1st millennium CE, and in Arabic and Farsi after the arrival of Islam.
The same pattern characterized Iranians and Turanians, Persians and Turkic nations, for millennia: if Babur, the formidable Timurid fighter, adventurous military leader, and founder of the Mughal Empire of South Asia, did not write his celebrated Babur-nameh in Chaghatay (Chagatai) Turkic, not a single linguistic vestige of the mother tongue of Genghis Khan would have been left down to our days. But this would not mean that Chagatai did not exist. About:
And it is this duality of the Iranian-Turanian Empire, this intertwined nature of the Iranian-Turanian people that great poets of the Islamic times repeatedly represented so illustratively in their verses. And who made more fun of the suggestion to write poetry in a Turkic language? None else but Nezami Ganjavi, a most illustrious Azeri, who has been rightfully considered as the national poet of Azerbaijan! About:
This is the way things functioned worldwide, when the post-Renaissance Western European academic-intellectual contamination had not affected the entire world. A well-diversified order existed in Islamic times, as per which Turkic languages were for the army and the military order, Farsi was for literary and artistic purposes, and Arabic (enriched tremendously thanks to Syriac Aramaic) was considered as the language of sciences. There was no division across what we call today national lines or ethnic borders because the notion of the nation was totally different and a widespread multilingualism existed in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.
Due to the multi-national, multi-lingual, multi-religious, and multi-cultural nature of the Achaemenid Empire, the then world’s largest state by far was not even named “Iran”, but Xšāça which means ‘universal order’. Actually, the Achaemenid Emperors of Iran and Turan never felt ‘ethnic Persians’. Following the millennia-long Ancient Akkadian and Assyrian–Babylonian universalism and imperial tradition, according to which the Assyrian Monarch was the ‘Emperor of the Universe’, the Achaemenids were ‘Kings of Kings’, because they viewed their realm, Iran and Turan, as definitely encompassing the entire Earth. No ethnic names mattered in the Iranian / Turanian Universalism. Actually, it may sound bizarre, but only under the Sassanids, so after 224 CE, was the Empire of the Shahanshahs named “Iran”. Never before! About:
Despite this fact, the disreputable Western universities and the Orientalist fallacy intentionally invented false terms to denote the Old Achaemenid language as a Persian language: ‘Old Persian’! This shameless distortion of a critical period of the History of Ancient Orient started with the overwhelming hysteria of ‘persianizing’ everything Iranian and Turanian. However, it soon became one of the pillars of the Western universities’ dogmatic and pseudo-scientific Talibanism.
The correct term for the language of the Achaemenid cuneiform inscriptions is ‘Old Iranian’, due to the fact that it evidently contains vocabulary from Western Iranian, Eastern Iranian, and Turanian languages.
2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu
(Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
PART ONE. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: A World held Captive by the Colonial Gangsters: France, England, the US, and the Delusional History Taught in their Deceitful Universities
A. Examples of fake national names
a) Mongolia (or Mughal) and Deccan – Not India!
b) Tataria – Not Russia!
c) Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) – Not Greece!
d) Kemet or Masr – Not Egypt!
e) Khazaria – not Israel!
f) Abyssinia – not Ethiopia!
B. Earlier Exchange of Messages in Turkish
C. The Preamble to My Response
CHAPTER II: Geopolitics does not exist.
CHAPTER III: Politics does not exist.
CHAPTER IV: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: Orientalism, conceptualization, contextualization, concealment
A. Orientalism
B. Conceptualization
C. Contextualization
D. Concealment
PART TWO. EXAMPLE OF ACADEMICALLY CONCEALED, KEY HISTORICAL TEXT
CHAPTER V: Plutarch and the diffusion of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian Religions and Cultures in Ancient Greece
PART THREE. TURKEY AND IRAN BEYOND POLITICS AND GEOPOLITICS: REJECTION OF THE ORIENTALIST, TURKOLOGIST AND IRANOLOGIST FALLACIES ABOUT ACHAEMENID HISTORY
CHAPTER VI: The fallacy that Turkic nations were not present in the wider Mesopotamia – Anatolia region in pre-Islamic times
CHAPTER VII: The fallacious representation of Achaemenid Iran by Western Orientalists
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER IX: Iranian and Turanian nations in Achaemenid Iran
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
PART FOUR. FALLACIES ABOUT THE SO-CALLED HELLENISTIC PERIOD, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE SELEUCID & THE PARTHIAN ARSACID TIMES
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XII: Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty
CHAPTER XIII: Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids
PART FIVE. FALLACIES ABOUT SASSANID HISTORY, HISTORY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE HISTORY OF MIGRATIONS
CHAPTER XIV: Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic – Christian Roman Empire
CHAPTER XV: Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism
CHAPTER XVI: Iran – Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
PART SIX. FALLACIES ABOUT THE EARLY EXPANSION OF ISLAM: THE FAKE ARABIZATION OF ISLAM
CHAPTER XVII: Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE
CHAPTER XVIII: Western Orientalist falsifications of Islamic History: Identification of Islam with only Hejaz at the times of the Prophet
CHAPTER XIX: The fake, Orientalist Arabization of Islam
CHAPTER XX: The systematic dissociation of Islam from the Ancient Oriental History
PART SEVEN. THE FICTIONAL DIVISION OF ISLAM INTO ‘SUNNI’ AND ‘SHIA’
CHAPTER XXI: The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’
PART EIGHT. THE DISTORTED TERM ‘PERSIANATE’
CHAPTER XXII: The fake Persianization of the Abbasid Caliphate
PART NINE. FALLACIES ABOUT THE GOLDEN ERA OF THE ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER XXIII: From Ferdowsi to the Seljuk Turks, Nizam al Mulk, Nizami Ganjavi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Haji Bektash
PART TEN. FALLACIES ABOUT THE TIMES OF TURANIAN (MONGOLIAN) SUPREMACY IN TERMS OF SCIENCES, ARTS, LETTERS, SPIRITUALITY AND IMPERIAL UNIVERSALISM
CHAPTER XXIV: From Genghis Khan, Nasir al-Din al Tusi and Hulagu to Timur
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
CHAPTER XXVI: the Timurid Era as Peak of the Islamic Civilization, Shah Rukh, and Ulugh Beg, the Astronomer Emperor
PART ELEVEN. HOW AND WHY THE OTTOMANS, THE SAFAVIDS AND THE MUGHALS FAILED
CHAPTER XXVII: Ethnically Turanian Safavids & Culturally Iranian Ottomans: two identical empires that mirrored one another
CHAPTER XXVIII: Spirituality, Religion & Theology: the fallacy of the Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’
CHAPTER XXIX: Selim I, Ismail I, and Babur
CHAPTER XXX: The Battle of Chaldiran (1514), and how it predestined the Fall of the Islamic World
CHAPTER XXXI: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals: victims of their sectarianism, tribalism, theology, and wrong evaluation of the colonial West
CHAPTER XXXII: Ottomans, Iranians and Mughals from Nader Shah to Kemal Ataturk
PART TWELVE. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER XXXIII: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: whereto?
—————————————————
List of the already pre-published chapters of the book
Lines separate chapters that belong to different parts of the book.
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
Pre-publication of chapter VIII of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters VI, VII, VIII, IX and X form Part Three (Turkey and Iran beyond Politics and Geopolitics: Rejection of the Orientalist, Turcologist and Iranologist Fallacies about Achaemenid History) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter X has already been pre-published.
Until now, 18 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the present book; this chapter is therefore the 19th (out of 33) to be uploaded. At the end of the text, the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in gray color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
———————–
Adhur Gushnasp- Praaspa- Takht-e Suleyman
For over 200 years, colonial, Orientalist historiographers undertook a vast project of evidently racist de-Turkification (or rather de-Turanization) of the Achaemenid period of Ancient Iran. This project took its most drastic form in the overwhelming distortion of the Ancient History of Greater Azerbaijan that corresponded to the Achaemenid satrapy of Media’s northern part, which was then named Atropatene (Adhurbadagan). Between Adhurbadagan and the modern name of Azerbaijan stand 2500 years and a minor linguistic change.
Atropatene is Azerbaijan, and its population was the earliest, historically known Turkic nation that was settled in the wider region. But for the Western Orientalist forgers, Atropatene appears to be either an uninhabited, bizarre land or a marginal territory inhabited by Medes (or Medians); in this manner, Modern Azeris and the state of Azerbaijan are criminally stripped of their Ancient History – entirely. For this to happen, the theory of ‘Migration Period’ was drafted and propagated worldwide with always inconsistent variants; this is due to the fact that, as a falsely invented concept, this theory can occasionally be dragged to different directions and adjusted to diverse narratives about distinct lands and regions. Actually, there is no such period in the History of Mankind, because all the periods are ‘migration periods’.
Extra addenda of the aforementioned biased theory are the over-magnification of the fact of the 11th c. Oghuz-Turkmen migrations’ impact on Azerbaijan, which is rather minor, and the assumption that the ‘Old Azeri’ was an Iranian (and not a Turanian) language. While these detrimental absurdities have been promoted as ‘historical science’, an enormous lack of academic research in the fields of History of Religion and History of Mysticisms prevents academics and general readership from duly assessing the spiritual-religious-mystical continuity that characterizes Atropatene / Azerbaijan. All the same, from the earliest form of Tengrism to Zoroastrianism to Islamic Safavid mysticism, there is a continuity of principles, concepts, virtues and practices that makes us understand that we have to deal with the same nation, which retains its core spirituality and monotheistic worldview while being successively impacted by new comers at the linguistic level.
Media Atropatene was the northern part of Media, but it was a totally different ethnic-cultural-religious environment; the illustrious capital of Media was Ekbatana (Hagmatana in Old Achaemenid), i.e. today’s Hamadan. But the central part of Media (where the Medes lived) ended there; and further beyond, from Zagros northern parts to the western confines of Alburz Mountains and to the western shores of the Caspian Sea, stretched Media Atropatene or simply Atropatene, which was the holy land of Ancient (pre-Islamic) Iran.
In that province, was located Adhur Gushnasp, the Holy of Holies of the original Zoroastrian monotheism. The modern name of the majestic archaeological site is Takht-e Suleyman, i.e. ‘the throne of Solomon’. This site is most probably identified with Praaspa of the Ancient Greek and Latin sources, and it was described as the capital of Media Atropatene during the Parthian Arsacid times (250 BCE – 224 CE).
There is an undeniable fact that determines the fundamentals of Achaemenid Iran, and that is why the colonial Orientalists of Europe and America have deliberately and incessantly attempted to undermine it. During the Achaemenid period, the imperial administration of Iran may well have been established in Fars (Persia) around Pasargadae and Parsa (Persepolis), but the center of Iran’s state religion was located in Atropatene (Adhur Gushnasp). This helps us understand that the vicars of the Zoroastrian faith and the high priests of the Eternal Fire lived mainly among not ‘Persians’ but ‘Azeris’. The name itself of Adhur Gushnasp has evident affinities with the national name of the Ancient Azeris: Adhurbadagan.
Ancient Azerbaijan, which included the southern part of the modern state of Azerbaijan and modern Iran’s northwestern corner, was always believed to also be the birthplace of Zoroaster and despite the existence of several other traditions, pretensions and possible interpretations, the most authoritative historical sources, notably Shahrastani, retrace Zoroaster’s family tree in Atropatene – Azerbaijan.
But when you undertake an inquiry about the Ancient History of Azerbaijan, you find either publications about independent archaeological excavations that are not historically contextualized or various academic researches about Albania of Caucasus, and all this in addition to the fake, Orientalist narrative of the so-called ‘Iranian occupation of Azerbaijan’ during the Achaemenid, Arsacid and Sassanid dynasties. This is a deliberate colonial distortion that takes the form of projection of modern times political situations onto the pre-Islamic History of the Azeri nation. The Ancient Azeris were an integral part of all the successive Iranian empires, which were at the same time Turanian empires. Turanian Atropatene – Azerbaijan was not therefore ‘occupied’ by the Achaemenid Iranians, but it constituted a most critical province of the Empire: as critical as Fars (Persia).
In his comprehensive History of Azerbaijan (AzMİU NPM, Baku 2017, 352 p. / http://anl.az/el/Kitab/2018/02/cd/i-44365.pdf), Dilgam Yunis Ismailov, a distinguished Azeri historian, demonstrates that he is conscious and knowledgeable enough to avoid the colonial trap in the misinterpretation of the historical role of Ancient Atropatene. However, he still fails to properly assess that, when referring to 1st millennium BCE Atropatene, we do not only refer to a historically Azeri, i.e. Turanian, territory (which is also Iranian territory), but we also talk about the very ancestors of his Turkic compatriots.
As one could expect it, the same occurs across the Internet. In the most popular sites and portals, you find nothing about Ancient History of Azerbaijan, as if the country is totally deprived of Ancient History. Unfortunately, only the Ancient Albania of Caucasus is included in what is presented as Ancient History of Azerbaijan. This is preposterous and it is entirely due to the diffusion/imposition of colonial Orientalist impact across the Internet. Then, first, Atropatene is disconnected from Azerbaijan, and to serve today’s colonial interests, Takht-e Suleyman (Adhur Gushnasp) is linked exclusively to Iran, although historically and culturally the magnificent site belongs to Azerbaijan and the Azeri nation.
Second, the people of Ancient Atropatene – Azerbaijan either ‘disappear’ or are confusingly portrayed as Iranians with no further specification – which is pathetic and ludicrous. About:
One thing is however is absolutely sure: thanks to Assyrian–Babylonian cuneiform texts, starting from the middle of the 9th c., we have a very good documentation about the Medes, the Persians and many other Iranian-Turanian peoples who settled and lived in the eastern confines of Zagros mountains and across the Iranian plateau, which in its western half was Assyrian territory for almost 200 years before the Medes and the Persians first became independent (end of 7th c. BCE) and second formed their early kingdoms. So, we know very well that there was never a Persian in Media or Media Atropatene. And the same continued during the Achaemenid Empire, because there is not a single proof of Persians moving from Fars (Persia) and Kerman (Carmania) northwestwards to Atropatene. About:
2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu
(Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
PART ONE. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: A World held Captive by the Colonial Gangsters: France, England, the US, and the Delusional History Taught in their Deceitful Universities
A. Examples of fake national names
a) Mongolia (or Mughal) and Deccan – Not India!
b) Tataria – Not Russia!
c) Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) – Not Greece!
d) Kemet or Masr – Not Egypt!
e) Khazaria – not Israel!
f) Abyssinia – not Ethiopia!
B. Earlier Exchange of Messages in Turkish
C. The Preamble to My Response
CHAPTER II: Geopolitics does not exist.
CHAPTER III: Politics does not exist.
CHAPTER IV: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: Orientalism, conceptualization, contextualization, concealment
A. Orientalism
B. Conceptualization
C. Contextualization
D. Concealment
PART TWO. EXAMPLE OF ACADEMICALLY CONCEALED, KEY HISTORICAL TEXT
CHAPTER V: Plutarch and the diffusion of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian Religions and Cultures in Ancient Greece
PART THREE. TURKEY AND IRAN BEYOND POLITICS AND GEOPOLITICS: REJECTION OF THE ORIENTALIST, TURKOLOGIST AND IRANOLOGIST FALLACIES ABOUT ACHAEMENID HISTORY
CHAPTER VI: The fallacy that Turkic nations were not present in the wider Mesopotamia – Anatolia region in pre-Islamic times
CHAPTER VII: The fallacious representation of Achaemenid Iran by Western Orientalists
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER IX: Iranian and Turanian nations in Achaemenid Iran
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
PART FOUR. FALLACIES ABOUT THE SO-CALLED HELLENISTIC PERIOD, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE SELEUCID & THE PARTHIAN ARSACID TIMES
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XII: Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty
CHAPTER XIII: Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids
PART FIVE. FALLACIES ABOUT SASSANID HISTORY, HISTORY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE HISTORY OF MIGRATIONS
CHAPTER XIV: Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic – Christian Roman Empire
CHAPTER XV: Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism
CHAPTER XVI: Iran – Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
PART SIX. FALLACIES ABOUT THE EARLY EXPANSION OF ISLAM: THE FAKE ARABIZATION OF ISLAM
CHAPTER XVII: Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE
CHAPTER XVIII: Western Orientalist falsifications of Islamic History: Identification of Islam with only Hejaz at the times of the Prophet
CHAPTER XIX: The fake, Orientalist Arabization of Islam
CHAPTER XX: The systematic dissociation of Islam from the Ancient Oriental History
PART SEVEN. THE FICTIONAL DIVISION OF ISLAM INTO ‘SUNNI’ AND ‘SHIA’
CHAPTER XXI: The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’
PART EIGHT. THE DISTORTED TERM ‘PERSIANATE’
CHAPTER XXII: The fake Persianization of the Abbasid Caliphate
PART NINE. FALLACIES ABOUT THE GOLDEN ERA OF THE ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER XXIII: From Ferdowsi to the Seljuk Turks, Nizam al Mulk, Nizami Ganjavi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Haji Bektash
PART TEN. FALLACIES ABOUT THE TIMES OF TURANIAN (MONGOLIAN) SUPREMACY IN TERMS OF SCIENCES, ARTS, LETTERS, SPIRITUALITY AND IMPERIAL UNIVERSALISM
CHAPTER XXIV: From Genghis Khan, Nasir al-Din al Tusi and Hulagu to Timur
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
CHAPTER XXVI: the Timurid Era as Peak of the Islamic Civilization, Shah Rukh, and Ulugh Beg, the Astronomer Emperor
PART ELEVEN. HOW AND WHY THE OTTOMANS, THE SAFAVIDS AND THE MUGHALS FAILED
CHAPTER XXVII: Ethnically Turanian Safavids & Culturally Iranian Ottomans: two identical empires that mirrored one another
CHAPTER XXVIII: Spirituality, Religion & Theology: the fallacy of the Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’
CHAPTER XXIX: Selim I, Ismail I, and Babur
CHAPTER XXX: The Battle of Chaldiran (1514), and how it predestined the Fall of the Islamic World
CHAPTER XXXI: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals: victims of their sectarianism, tribalism, theology, and wrong evaluation of the colonial West
CHAPTER XXXII: Ottomans, Iranians and Mughals from Nader Shah to Kemal Ataturk
PART TWELVE. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER XXXIII: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: whereto?
—————————————————
List of the already pre-published chapters of the book
Lines separate chapters that belong to different parts of the book.
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
Pre-publication of chapter XXVIII of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XXVII to XXXII form Part Eleven (How and why the Ottomans, the Safavids and the Mughals failed) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter XXVII has already been pre-published.
Until now, 17 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the present book; this chapter is therefore the 18th (out of 33) to be uploaded. At the end of the text, the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in green color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
———————–
Keyumars: the central figure of Islamic mysticism, as he encompasses the souls of all prophets and kings. The miniature presents a vision of the “The Court of Keyumars” and it was painted by the illustrious Safavid court artist Sultan Muhammad around 1522. Who is Keyumars? Mentioned as Gayo Maretan in the Avesta and as Gayomard in Parsi (: late Zoroastrian) texts of Islamic times, he was superbly mythologized by Ferdowsi in his Shahnameh as the First Man, the First King, and the Founder of the Pishdadian dynasty of Righteous Rulers. Keyumars epitomizes life within a mortal world, thus setting in motion the concept of eternal presence and heralding the ultimate victory of the Messiah as the New (or Last) Keyumars.
Currently, the most common encyclopedic definitions of the two terms present these two distinct activities as overlapping or describe spirituality as a part of religion; this is however wrong, if it is considered as valid for all the religions of the world. Many historical religions started as a form of systematization of spirituality and of spiritual rules and they ended up as totally materialistic, rationalistic, and juristic systems of theology. The representatives of these systems have nothing to do with spirituality; they hate the spiritual universe about which they talk too much but only to confuse and besot the rest, and in the Name of God, they commit the world’s cruelest crimes in order to defend their otherwise nonexistent right to survive.
Irrespective of posterior alterations, deteriorations and degenerations, the original fact has always been spirituality; contrarily to religion, spirituality does not need a society to be activated, performed, and experienced. Spirituality is the cornerstone and the epitome of humanity. The human being was created as a unity of soul and body, and if one of the parts of the human identity is disconnected from the other, the being is not human anymore. In the human being, the soul represents the being’s connection to the spiritual world and the body consists in the being’s bond with the material world. What material vivacity is for the body is spiritual life for the soul.
Separation of the soul from the body is called death; disconnection of the soul from the body is also a form of death, and this was hinted at by numerous leading spiritual masters, like for instance Jesus (e.g. “let the dead bury their own dead”; Matthew 8:22). Since God is the Supreme Spiritual Being and the Creator of the spiritual and the material universes, the soul of the man connects, or does not connect, to God. And this is exactly what spirituality is about: spiritual life.
In other words, whereas human society is useless, worthless and unnecessary for the human being to exist and to live, spirituality encompasses all actions, practices, exercises, efforts and techniques pertaining to the interaction between a human being’s soul and body (: heart and mind) and to the activation of a human being’s connection with the spiritual universe – and with the countless spiritual beings and hierarchies that are set in motion and operate therein. Because spirituality, namely spiritual life, is of the foremost importance in the human being’s passage from the material world, many spiritual masters, mystics and spiritually active men departed from their society or lived a secluded life; this was due to the fact that human society can be either unnecessary or even harmful to a person’s spirituality. This common phenomenon is attested in numerous civilizations, and in some of them, it takes the form of asceticism or monasticism.
The early religions in Mesopotamia (Sumer, Elam, Akkad, Assyria, and Babylon), Anatolia (Hatti, Hurrians, Hittites, and Luwians), Egypt, Cush (Sudan), Canaan, and Iran were systems that offered their apprentice priests the possibility to
a) learn and practice all levels of soul-body (spiritual/material) interaction in a human being,
b) comprehend the nature, the norms, and the dimensions of the spiritual and material universes, the stages of their creation, and the phases of their final dissolution (every Cosmogony involves a Cosmology, a Soteriology, and an Eschatology), and
c) learn and perform all types of synergy with spiritual beings and hierarchies as per the needs and the targets set.
To be properly understood, the aforementioned has to be taken into consideration in the light of the following four critical points:
i. the ‘language’ used for the spiritual initiation, formation, education and activation of the apprentice priests by the hierophants and the high priests was the archetypal Oriental Myth, i.e. the inherently created and permanently manifested, within the human being, system of spiritual perception and comprehension, communication and interaction with all other intelligences, spiritual beings, humans, animals, plants and other beings of the material universe. In and by itself, the original Oriental Myth is the complete field of symbolic semiotics that encompasses all forms of Being and Becoming, their opposites, and the correlation between Being and Non-being. In other words, it is part of the Creation, and not a human invention or perception.
ii. the spiritual exercises, practices, advance and completion of the apprentice priests took place irrespective of the spiritual/material duality of Moral Order, i.e. the Good and Evil; this does not mean that this duality is irrelevant. On the contrary, the spiritual duality was reflected on the material universe, and there were entire priesthoods that preached and practiced a counterfeit, evil spirituality at the very antipodes of the moral priesthoods, which followed the Moral Order, i.e. the Law of God.
iii. the aforementioned duality of Moral Order has a lot to do with the Fall of Man or rather the successive stages of the Fall, which are known as the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc. within the Ancient Hebrew (Biblical) religious context, and accordingly in other, earlier or later, civilizations. These stages of gradual moral degradation caused a) the progressive disconnection of the soul from the body in most of the humans,
b) the subsequent dissociation of the human being from the spiritual universe,
c) the subordination of the immoral, counterfeit priesthoods to the fallen spiritual beings,
d) the deterioration of the conditions of material life on Earth,
e) the preservation of the spiritual potency among several sacerdotal circles during the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE, and
f) the abysmal confrontation between the moral and the immoral priesthoods as part of the clash between Good and Evil in both, the spiritual and the material, universes.
One of the repercussions of this confrontation was the compilation of counterfeit religions geared to engulf humans not only to spiritual disconnection, but also to spiritual impotence and black magic; the very concept of an ‘intermediate’ (being, priest, idol, thought or anything) between the human being and God is the epitome of black magic, as it helps transfer spiritual and material (intellectual) power from an impotent, unconscious and spiritually disconnected human being to another person that gets criminally powered at both, the spiritual and the material, levels, therefore resulting in impermissible and lawless exploitation.
Keyumars instructs his officers to combat Ahriman: this is how the preaching of all the prophets in encapsulated in one symbolic representation. Spirituality does not need volumes of otherwise useless treatises to set the norms and convey the truth about Life.
iv. at the very early days of the History of Mankind, spirituality constituted the epicenter of religion, and so it was in every teaching and practice of a great spiritual master. All true founders of religions were basically leading spiritual masters, who did not launch ‘religions’ properly speaking, but taught their disciples and preached at large the authentic spirituality (the interaction between the human being’s soul and body, and the human being’s connection with the spiritual universe) and the inherent (since the Creation) Moral Order that all humans must follow.
In fact, religion came later either in the simple form of systematization of spirituality and of spiritual rules within the context of human society where the Moral Order should prevail or in the perplex form of counterfeit religions with black magic rituals of many types, i.e. ‘cult’.
Now, if one wants to understand what spiritual potency means, one can find plenty of examples in every literature, tradition, culture and civilization. Within the context of Christianity, one can refer to the well–known excerpt from the Gospel of Matthew (17:20) in which Jesus says to his disciples the following:
“Because you have such little faith”, he told them. “I tell you, if you have faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, ‘Go from here to over there’, and it would do it, and nothing would be impossible for you”.
Among numerous other deeds, which are nowadays erroneously (and due to the aforementioned, successive falls of Mankind) considered as ‘miraculous’, spiritual potency of a human involves the following: levitation, walking on water, telekinesis, teleportation across distances, healing, total control of electromagnetic fields, bodily luminescence, control over all natural forces, movement across various points in time, transfiguration, power over fallen (or evil, demonic) spirits and hierarchies, resurrection of the dead, and heavenly travels, like those of
a) the Biblical Enoch (Islamic Idris),
b) the Biblical Elijah (Islamic Ilyas),
c) Jesus (Islamic Isa),
d) Mani, the prophet and founder of Manichaeism,
e) Kartir, the leading theologian and high priest of the Mazdaean religion during the early Sassanid times,
f) the legendary Arda Viraf of the Parsis (as described in the Arda Wiraz namag), and
g) Prophet Muhammad, i.e. the well-known Isra’ and Mi’raj (الإسراء والمعراج) nocturnal travel; about:
As the fall of human societies and the decline of the human condition intensified, spirituality was reduced tremendously and the spiritual potency of most of the priesthoods became nil, with the exception of those whose spiritual power was not theirs anymore, but that of the demons inhabiting the souls of the priests who were acting as mere servants of negative hierarchies.
The fall of Mankind is symbolized within the context of Islamic mysticism by Kay Kavus, the second king of the Kayanian dynasty; in this miniature, Kay Kavus (son of the sublime Kay Kawad (or Kay Qubad), father of the misfortunate Siyavash (or Siyavush), and grandfather of Kay Khusraw, the resolute, selfless soldier and end times’ vanquisher) is being captured by the divs, i.e. the evil spirits that work for Ahriman.
As spiritual power among humans decreased considerably and was limited among few circles of priests and mystics or in isolated cases of ascetics, the condition of human life was restricted to the material level, and then an enormous materialistic, rationalistic, and juristic literature surfaced only to verbally and nominally guide the believers to the ‘correct path’, which was of course not correct and not a path, but a catastrophic swamp and a wrong impasse. Then, the ‘faithful’ were truly left without ‘faith’, because this term originally denoted only the spiritual potency acquired by an individual (as it is clearly shown in the aforementioned example).
In fact, the spiritual connotation of the word ‘faith’ means performance of acts, which in today’s fallen world are considered ‘miraculous’, but in reality they are not. ‘Faith’ does not mean mere acceptance of a narrative; this is a devious, degenerated and corrupt meaning of this word. This materialistic, rationalistic, and juristic literature, which appeared in later periods, among decadent nations, reduced the original Oriental Myth to a meaningless narrative about past times; this contributed to the alteration of the earlier form of religion, rendering some narratives ‘incredible’ or ‘inexplicable’, due to the proliferation of the idiotic rationalism of the fallen humans. Then, the worthless believers accepted the ‘unbelievable’ stories blindly, further worsening their condition of grave faithlessness (without of course realizing the calamitous situation in which they found themselves).
This worthless verbosity of materialistic, rationalistic, and juristic character is called nowadays “theology”. This means simply that what the average Assyrian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Phoenician and Hebrew of the 10th c. BCE knew as ‘Flood’ had nothing in common with the de-mythicized and therefore meaningless idea that the average Babylonian, Egyptian, Aramaean, Jew, Greek and Roman of the 1st c. BCE believed about that critical event. The same concerns the followers of later religions today, but not the disciples and the believers of later mystics and spiritual masters who had managed to attain the lost spirituality.
The term “theology” does not therefore apply properly to the earlier sacred texts of the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE; whatever their contents may have been (mythical, apocalyptic, moral, literary, etc.), the earlier sacred texts of all religions were in fact ‘texts of spiritual awakeness’ – except for sacerdotal texts compiled by immoral, counterfeit and polytheistic priesthoods.
The preservation of socioeconomic power by the theological gangs and all those, who distorted the early systems of spirituality and defiled the spiritual teachings of later mystics and spiritual masters, was their main concern. For these preposterous theologians, morality among believers did not constitute the true promise of an individual’s spiritual rehabilitation and ultimate salvation, but a means to implement their own anti-spiritual, anti-godly, material(istic) takeover of the society.
Theology therefore signifies the death of spirituality, the falsification of religion, and the degeneration of the sacred texts in the minds of the believers; for this purpose, the average believer’s mindset is aptly distorted, the earlier faith is disoriented, and the people are made unable to ever perceive and understand correctly all things spiritual. Consequently, theologically hijacked religions are tantamount to systems of mental, intellectual, educational, academic, cultural, artistic and socio-economic prison and tyranny. They apparently ended up in the putrefaction of the human being.
There is an exception to the aforementioned; it occurs when there is no established religion but conflicting theological systems, and then the various theologians act like profane philosophers trying to pull their followers to this or that theme and belief that they want to highlight and propagate. This confusing situation may trigger eventually fanaticism, but at times, the worst has been averted due to a shrewd theologian, who prevented others from presenting even worse concepts.
This is the situation that Jesus faced opposite the Pharisees and Muhammad encountered, when confronting either the Jews and the idolatrous Arabs of Hejaz or the Constantinopolitan Christian clergymen, who forced Emperor Heraclius not to accept the invitation to Islam that the prophet extended to him. In reality, spirituality was defamed as black magic within Christianity by those who turned Jesus’ teaching into a black magic shamelessly performed in his name.
All spiritual mystics had to either permanently hide themselves or to develop and diffuse various forms of lesser theological distortion, which were then labeled as ‘heresies’ by the theological gangsters. The situation turned worse when mystics and theologians developed and launched systems of Christian spirituality limited only to the initiated members of secret religious orders (which was another form of hiding). For the average people, this meant that only as a monk or the member of a secret religious order, they could perhaps reconstitute the bond between their soul and their body in themselves.
Kay Khosrow inspects his army before the eschatological battle with Afrasiab; from a manuscript of Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh painted in Shiraz in 1561-1562.
Exactly the same occurred within the context of Islam, which was preached as the utmost spirituality by Muhammad and preserved as such by Ali, Hasan, Husayn and their descendants, before several mystics and transcendental masters maintained the Islamic spiritual tradition in several mystical orders. In fact, many Islamic spiritual societies attempted to reconstruct the continuity of Mankind’s historical spirituality by duly interpreting ancient sacred texts and properly decoding mystical traditions kept in various forms of popular culture across the lands occupied by the Islamic Caliphate. This explains to great extent why many aspects and elements of earlier religions and systems of spirituality have emphatically survived within the Islamic world, notably Zervanism, Mazdakism, Mazdeism, Gayomardism, Gnosticisms, etc.
The characteristic difference that separates Christianity from Islam in terms of spirituality and the incomparably higher number of mystical orders that flourished within the Islamic world can be explained by the determinant fact that Islam as religious system is almost totally devoid of ‘cult’. This absence of the historically known and typically religious cult from Islam, as Prophet Muhammad entrusted his faith to his disciples and followers, impregnated an irrevocable mark that stood as major obstacle to all efforts of degrading this system of spirituality to a profanity.
Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, epic eschatology, Islamic mysticism, traditional painting, and popular spirituality: the departure of the mother and the grandmother of Kay Khosrow for Iran (by Hossein Qollar-Aqasi): the most adverse moment in Kay Khosrow’s transcendental life.
Of course, the earliest form of theological distortion of Islam was undertaken by immoral and evil theologians who were hired by the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphs in order to justify their criminal acts and anti-Islamic practices. In Chapter XXI (The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’), I offer many examples in this regard. However, in the process of theological systematization of Islam (known as madhhab), there appeared systems of theological jurisprudence, which looked quite normal in the beginning, but later turned Islam into a system of rationalistic verbalism, juristic nominalism, and materialistic dogmatism. In their verbosity, the original spirituality was lost forever.
At a later stage, pathetic, ignorant and evil theologians considered every Muslim’s connection with the spiritual universe and God (which is Islam’s sole purpose) as their own personal interest and business, and they consequently reduced Prophet Muhammad’s preaching to a silly list of dos and don’ts (as if spirituality and religion are a schoolboy’s lesson). To best express their monstrous identity, they hijacked the madhhab (theological schools of jurisprudence) in order to instrumentalize them as tools of pseudo-religious oppression; first, they undertook vast campaigns against the Islamic sciences in order to plunge the believers into ignorance, and then, they fanaticized their idiotic, uneducated and illiterate followers at a time of conflict (notably the Crusades), turning them against various Islamic mystical orders or independent mystics.
These evil theologians, on whom today’s fake Islam is based, caused an incredible bloodshed throughout the Islamic world; however, it is essential to distinguish between
a) the early bloodshed that took place in the 7th and 8th c. due to orders of caliphs, who cared about how to secure their illegal grab of power from the early Islamic mystics and descendants of Prophet Muhammad (notably Ja’far al-Sadiq, sixth imam of all Muslims; 702-765), and
b) the later, longer and more atrocious bloodshed that covered the period between the 9th and the 15th c. and which was caused by evil theologians, who wanted to control the Muslims by plunging them into ignorance, barbarism, ignominy, and fallacious interpretation of the sacred texts on the basis of their own pseudo-Islamic theological system.
What these theologians, and more particularly the disreputable Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the cursed Ahmad ibn Taimiyyah, did was a literal Christianization of Islam; they viciously interpolated their juristic doctrines between the Man (in this case, the Muslim) and God (Allah). These theological doctrines consist in an impermissible intermediate that breaks the connection of man with the spiritual universe and God. And to do this, these Satanic theologians butchered numerous mystics whom they failed to understand in the first place. Great examples in this regard are Mansour Hallaj (858-922; lashed terribly and then decapitated) and Imadaddin Nasimi (1369-1417), who was accused as Hurufi, without however being so, and skinned alive.
Drawing therefore on earlier experience, the Safavid Order decided to take the correct measures so as to prevent the massacre of their members at the hands of ignorant pseudo-Muslims fanaticized by Satanic theologians (who may have been indiscriminately ‘qadis’, ‘sheikhs’ and ‘imams’) and shamelessly bribed or favored by Ottoman sultans. Having been launched by, and named after, Safi-ad-Din Ardabili (1252–1334) at the end of the 13th c., the Safavid Order was a band of mystics, an assembly of enlightened Muslims, and a confederation of the true faithful, who performed the royal art, carrying out acts of devotion and spiritual salvation, while engaging in diverse techniques of spirituality. They were the friends of Christians, Parsis, Yazidis, Jews, Ahl-e Haq, Tengrists, Hindus, and Buddhists.
After having operated for two centuries, at the times of the Order’s Grandmaster Shaykh Haydar (1459-1488), the Safavid Order launched another secret society, namely the Qizilbash (Kızılbaş /(قزلباش, i.e. the “red headed” (because of their red headgear); the Qizilbash functioned as the army of the Safavid Order and they duly prevented all pseudo-Muslim theologians and their cursed followers from asserting their evil power across lands that the Qizilbash controlled, thus fully defending the members of the (hereditary) Safavid Order.
Safi ad-din Ardabili surrounded by his disciples, as illustrated in a 16th-century Safavid manuscript of the Safvat as-safa
Soon after their early successes, at the end of the 15th c., the mystical order and their army branch, knowing very well that the degenerate Islamic theologians would destroy the entire Islamic world, decided to set up their own state, which would be an empire ruled by the Safavid Order and predestined to save the Islamic world from total decay, slavery and decomposition. This type of state would not be and actually was not a religious or theological state; quite contrarily, it was a secular empire ruled by the mystical order. Automatically, every pseudo-Muslim theologian and every pseudo-Islamic state, which was nominally ruled by a sultan, emir, khan or king, but essentially it was governed by the bogus-religious authorities and the evil theologians, was found at the very antipodes of Safavid Iran.
It is crucial at this point to state that when the theologians put the monarch under control in a pseudo-Muslim state, this consists in the repetition of a phenomenon known only too well within the Christian world: Papo-Caesarism. No Christian and no Muslim state can adopt the Papo-Caesarist model. Spirituality imposes imperial rule, and this means Caesaropapism. This was solemnly introduced by Justinian I throughout the Roman Empire; it is for this reason that immediately after the death of prophet Muhammad, the followers of Ali asserted that only the prophet’s cousin and son-in law could possibly be the ruler of the Caliphate. Despite Ali’s astounding spiritual qualifications, his rule would follow the Caesaropapist pattern.
As a matter of fact, there cannot be religious evaluation of spiritual matters; this reality, which was never accepted by religious authorities and theologians alike (because it would herald their deserved dissolution and ultimate disappearance), is viciously concealed behind the Western confusion between spirituality (spiritalitas or numen / maneviyat/ معنویت/ الروحانية/靈性/ духовность) and religion (religio/din/ دین/宗教/ религия). Suffice it to check the most common definitions of spirituality and religion that are available online; there one gets a clear idea of the materialistic distortion of both terms’ meaning.
Miniature created by Mo’en Mosavver: Shah Ismail I holds an audience and welcomes the Qizilbash after they defeated the Shirvanshah Farrukh Yasar; album leaf from a copy of Bijan’s Tarikh-i Jahangusha-yi Khaqan Sahibqiran (A History of Shah Ismail I), produced in Isfahan, end of the 1680s
Drawing of a typical Qizilbash soldier
Then, what is fallaciously termed as “Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam” describes in reality the mere rise of the Safavid Order in large parts of Western Asia and the effort to eliminate the monstrous, pseudo-Muslim theologians who want to rule on the basis of their false Sharia, and of their pernicious interpretations of the sacred texts. Not one Safavid Emperor called himself a “Shia” and not one Ottoman Sultan used this term for the Safavid rulers, with whom the Ottomans fought so many times, although they were all Turanians. About:
2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu
(Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
PART ONE. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: A World held Captive by the Colonial Gangsters: France, England, the US, and the Delusional History Taught in their Deceitful Universities
A. Examples of fake national names
a) Mongolia (or Mughal) and Deccan – Not India!
b) Tataria – Not Russia!
c) Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) – Not Greece!
d) Kemet or Masr – Not Egypt!
e) Khazaria – not Israel!
f) Abyssinia – not Ethiopia!
B. Earlier Exchange of Messages in Turkish
C. The Preamble to My Response
CHAPTER II: Geopolitics does not exist.
CHAPTER III: Politics does not exist.
CHAPTER IV: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: Orientalism, conceptualization, contextualization, concealment
A. Orientalism
B. Conceptualization
C. Contextualization
D. Concealment
PART TWO. EXAMPLE OF ACADEMICALLY CONCEALED, KEY HISTORICAL TEXT
CHAPTER V: Plutarch and the diffusion of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian Religions and Cultures in Ancient Greece
PART THREE. TURKEY AND IRAN BEYOND POLITICS AND GEOPOLITICS: REJECTION OF THE ORIENTALIST, TURKOLOGIST AND IRANOLOGIST FALLACIES ABOUT ACHAEMENID HISTORY
CHAPTER VI: The fallacy that Turkic nations were not present in the wider Mesopotamia – Anatolia region in pre-Islamic times
CHAPTER VII: The fallacious representation of Achaemenid Iran by Western Orientalists
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER IX: Iranian and Turanian nations in Achaemenid Iran
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
PART FOUR. FALLACIES ABOUT THE SO-CALLED HELLENISTIC PERIOD, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE SELEUCID & THE PARTHIAN ARSACID TIMES
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XII: Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty
CHAPTER XIII: Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids
PART FIVE. FALLACIES ABOUT SASSANID HISTORY, HISTORY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE HISTORY OF MIGRATIONS
CHAPTER XIV: Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic – Christian Roman Empire
CHAPTER XV: Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism
CHAPTER XVI: Iran – Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
PART SIX. FALLACIES ABOUT THE EARLY EXPANSION OF ISLAM: THE FAKE ARABIZATION OF ISLAM
CHAPTER XVII: Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE
CHAPTER XVIII: Western Orientalist falsifications of Islamic History: Identification of Islam with only Hejaz at the times of the Prophet
CHAPTER XIX: The fake, Orientalist Arabization of Islam
CHAPTER XX: The systematic dissociation of Islam from the Ancient Oriental History
PART SEVEN. THE FICTIONAL DIVISION OF ISLAM INTO ‘SUNNI’ AND ‘SHIA’
CHAPTER XXI: The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’
PART EIGHT. THE DISTORTED TERM ‘PERSIANATE’
CHAPTER XXII: The fake Persianization of the Abbasid Caliphate
PART NINE. FALLACIES ABOUT THE GOLDEN ERA OF THE ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER XXIII: From Ferdowsi to the Seljuk Turks, Nizam al Mulk, Nizami Ganjavi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Haji Bektash
PART TEN. FALLACIES ABOUT THE TIMES OF TURANIAN (MONGOLIAN) SUPREMACY IN TERMS OF SCIENCES, ARTS, LETTERS, SPIRITUALITY AND IMPERIAL UNIVERSALISM
CHAPTER XXIV: From Genghis Khan, Nasir al-Din al Tusi and Hulagu to Timur
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
CHAPTER XXVI: the Timurid Era as Peak of the Islamic Civilization, Shah Rukh, and Ulugh Beg, the Astronomer Emperor
PART ELEVEN. HOW AND WHY THE OTTOMANS, THE SAFAVIDS AND THE MUGHALS FAILED
CHAPTER XXVII: Ethnically Turanian Safavids & Culturally Iranian Ottomans: two identical empires that mirrored one another
CHAPTER XXVIII: Spirituality, Religion & Theology: the fallacy of the Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’
CHAPTER XXIX: Selim I, Ismail I, and Babur
CHAPTER XXX: The Battle of Chaldiran (1514), and how it predestined the Fall of the Islamic World
CHAPTER XXXI: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals: victims of their sectarianism, tribalism, theology, and wrong evaluation of the colonial West
CHAPTER XXXII: Ottomans, Iranians and Mughals from Nader Shah to Kemal Ataturk
PART TWELVE. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER XXXIII: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: whereto?
—————————————————
List of the already pre-published chapters of the book
Lines separate chapters that belong to different parts of the book.
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
Pre-publication of chapter XXVII of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI and XXXII form Part Eleven (How and why the Ottomans, the Safavids and the Mughals failed) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters.
Until now, 16 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the book; the present chapter is therefore the 17th (out of 33). At the end of the present pre-publication, the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in gray color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
———————–
Topkapı Palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Ali Qapu Palace, Safavid Isfahan
Western historiography enters a stage of exorbitant falsification when attempting to reconstitute the History of the Safavid dynasty of Iran (1501-1736). What stands at the forefront of the Western forgery and distortion of the History of Iran during the said period is the theory that the Safavid dynasty was ‘Shia’, and also that they ‘converted’ the Turanian population of 16th c. Iran to ‘Shia Islam’. Of course, such fictional conversion never took place, and the Safavid rulers would reject the fake division of Islam into two denominations, since they always proclaimed their Islamic authenticity and integrity, fully refuting the concept of a ‘divided Islam’.
However, this fake division is instrumental for the colonial distortion of History, because on this fallacy hinges the entire Western involvement in the Orient and the conflicts that the criminal and evil states of England, France and America generated across Afro-Eurasia. In order to fully and irreversibly embed the vicious divisive scheme of a supposedly bi-polar Islamic world revolving around two rival empires, namely the ‘Sunni’ Ottomans and the ‘Shia’ Safavids, the Western Orientalists, agents, explorers, diplomats, and statesmen invented the fallacy of the so-called “Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam”.
Of course, at the time (: early 16th c.), the Western colonial powers did not have the chance to impose their false version of History on the Ottomans and the Safavids; they even had not developed Oriental studies properly speaking in their already established pernicious universities. At the time, History was in the making. The only thing that the colonial empires could do, and which they viciously did, was to frame the divisive plot and to pull their diplomatic strings in order to trigger as many Ottoman – Safavid wars as they could. The distortive interpretation and the evil misrepresentation of these facts would come later – in due course of time.
And the malignant fallacy ‘happened’ truly when it ‘should’ have; when the collapsing Ottoman and Iranian empires were eroded through colonial infiltration and evil subversion, then the colonial gangsters and the 19th c. Orientalists started carrying out the projection of the already preconceived forgery onto the Western powers’ local stooges, who by means of shameful bribery and high treason (termed as ‘scholarships for studies in Western Europe’) started diffusing pathetic nonsense and bogus-academic lies in their respective countries only to fit the needs of their masters, namely the colonial powers. At the last stage, the monstrous and murderous forgery of France and England was presented as “History” worldwide only because their colonial empires subjugated almost the entire world and imposed the racist Anglo-French intellectual-academic contamination.
So, the historical forgery that the Western academic murderers have been teaching for over two centuries in their bogus-universities as “Oriental History” is merely the coverage of their inhuman deeds, which plunged Afro-Eurasia into ceaseless local and regional wars, countless rebellions, and two world wars. But the original concept behind the inhuman diplomacy of England and France was already there at the beginning of the 16th c., when they started fallaciously calling Iran, namely a totally Turanian country, “Persia”; this was preposterous. Soon afterwards, they started also naming the Ottoman Empire “Turkey”, which is another expression of their evilness and forgery, because the Ottoman Empire was in reality the most anti-Turkic state in World History.
No less than eight (8) times the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Iran came to war during the period of 235 years of Safavid rule over Iran. Actually, the wars started in 1514 and ended 1736 with the fall of the Safavids; of course, the historical fact of 8 wars does not mean in this case only 8 years consumed in wars! Most of these wars lasted many years. And actually, the Ottoman-Iranian wars did not end with the demise of the Safavid dynasty. Wars were resumed at the times of the Turanian Afsharid dynasty of Iran (1736-1796) and also during the period of the Turanian Qajar dynasty of Iran (1789-1925). So, from 1514 until 1823, in only 309 years, the Ottoman Empire and the Iranian Empire made eleven (11) wars one upon the other. In total, during 309 years, the two empires were engaged in wars against one another for no less than 81 years. About:
If one takes also into consideration the fact that both empires made many other wars with numerous neighboring empires (such as the Mughal Empire, the lately risen Russian Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) and several colonial kingdoms (Spain, Portugal, France, England, etc.), one concludes easily why the two empires gradually collapsed. Furthermore, taking into account first, the diplomatically instigated and deliberately machinated twelve (12) wars between the Ottomans and the Russian Empire, which took place during a period of 350 years (1568-1918) and lasted for no less than 57 years, and second, the five (5) wars between the Iranians and the Russians, which occurred over the span of 177 years (1651-1828) and kept going for 19 years, one can plainly assess the evilness of the divisive intrigues that the Western European colonial diplomats instigated across Afro-Eurasia, and the unprecedented bloodshed that they caused.
Gate of Felicity (Bâbüssaâde), Topkapı Palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Chehel Sotoun Palace, Safavid Isfahan
Imperial Hall with the throne of the sultan, Topkapı Palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Central Hall, Chehel Sotoun Palace, Safavid Isfahan
Open recess (iwan) of the Yerevan Kiosk, Topkapı Palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Chehel Sotoun Palace, Safavid Isfahan
Scene from the Surname-ı Vehbi, located in the Topkapı palace, Ottoman Constantinople
Battle of Chaldiran (1514); Grand painting at the Chehel SotounPalace (despite the fact that the battle ended with Ottoman victory), Safavid Isfahan
The Third Courtyard of the Topkapı Palace in the Ottoman Constantinople, as depicted in a miniature of the Hünername, 1584
Paintings in the main hall of the Chehel Sotoun Palace,Safavid Isfahan
All the wars, which were machinated and instigated by the colonial English and French diplomacies, needed a sophisticated coverage, e.g. some fake reasons, which would ‘explain’ or ‘justify’ to anyone why these wars happened (or ‘had’ to happen). To be convincingly fake, these reasons were based on a total distortion of the identity of both empires, the Ottoman and the Safavid; these distorted identities, which ‘explained’ the Ottoman – Safavid wars to the average public opinion in Europe at the time, became later the vertebral column of the fallacious Western Orientalism and its entirely fake branches, namely Turkology and Iranology.
To describe the extent and the depth of the Western Orientalist fallacy, suffice it that I herewith state the following: a major topic for Turkologists to study should become the Safavid Empire of Iran as a Turanian state, because it was ethnically a Turanian Empire whereby the outright majority of the population used to speak diverse Turkic languages as their native tongues.
Similarly, a major topic for Iranologists to study should become the Ottoman Empire, because an overwhelmingly Iranian culture permeated the state to such extent that, when Mehmet II entered Constantinople on 29th May 1453 and proceeded to the Palace of the Eastern Roman Emperors, the first words that he uttered were neither in Ottoman Turkish nor in Medieval Greek nor in Arabic, but in the classical, literary language of all Turanians, i.e. in Farsi.
The spider is curtain-bearer in the palace of Chosroes;
the owl sounds the relief in the castle of Afrasiyab.
These verses written c. 180 years before the conquest of Constantinople (1453) by the great Iranian poet Saadi (known as Saadi Shirazi, 1210-1291) reveal
– the absolutely identical nature of the Turanians and the Iranians,
– the common cultural background of all Iranian and Turanian nations,
– key elements of the Iranian-Turanian apocalyptic and soteriological eschatology,
– the last moments of the ailing Iranian rule (Chosroes: the last major Sassanid emperor Khusraw Parvez; 570-628), and
Mehmed II, by uttering these verses, clearly indicated that he viewed his victory in terms of Iranian-Turanian culture and eschatology, before all the other eventual or hypothetical parameters involved in the topic (Palaeologi-Ottoman imperial family rivalry; Christian-Muslim religious conflict; Eastern Roman-Turkic ethnic quarrel; economic interests).
In fact, there should have never existed Turkology and Iranology within the context of Western Orientalism, if this unit of academic disciplines were to serve the true purpose of exploration and search for the historical truth. The reason is simple: Turan and Iran have always been an indivisible historical – cultural entity.
However, the false portrait of the Ottoman and the Safavid empires, which had been systematically produced by the 16th c. colonial powers, involved two dimensions of distortion of the reality, namely religious and ethnic. Then, 19th and 20th c. French and English academics and explorers misinterpreted the 16th c. Ottoman – Safavid wars that their countries’ duplicitous diplomats had instigated as of both, religious and ethnic, reasons; and in both cases, these scholars lied, pretty much like today’s Orientalists lie when presenting, teaching and propagating the following forgery: “Sunni Turkish Ottomans vs. Shia Persian Safavids”.
In fact, at the beginning of the 16th c., with the exception of Eastern Iranians (namely the Tajik / Dari speaking populations), there was not one Persian ethnic alive; Iran had already been almost entirely Turanized at the ethnic-linguistic level. Farsi was a highly respected and widely used language of Literature, History, Spirituality, Art, Architecture and Culture that all the educated people felt obliged to learn in young age at the various madrasas of the cities, the towns and the villages of Iran. But in reality, Farsi was at the time a dead language like Latin in 16th c. Germany.
Only later and mainly during the 20th c., following the aggressive and extensive English involvement and the shameful colonial rule of Iran, which was carried out by local puppets, a ‘new’, systematized ‘modern education’ was imposed on all Iranians, the true, traditional Iranian History (based on Ferdowsi, Nezami Ganjavi and many other illustrious epic poets) was forcefully and calamitously replaced by the fake, materialistic, atheistic and evil Iranian ‘History’ of the Orientalists, and Farsi became obligatorily the meaningless ‘national’ language. These tasks have been completed by the pathetically ignorant, uneducated and charlatanesque soldiers, who were later called “Pahlavi dynasty shahs”.
The Universal Empire of Iran disappeared, and a fake, nationalistic, ‘Persian’ pseudo-kingdom was established only to implement the ensuing culturally anti-Iranian and ethnically anti-Turanian, nationalist tyranny. It was a villainous Freemasonic plot and eschatological conspiracy against Iran, involving many ulcerous English, French, American and other enemies of Imperial Iran, who postured as ‘friends’ of ‘Persia’ or ‘admirers’ of the ‘Persian civilization’. They only wanted to fool the Iranians and to insult Iran diachronically, after the absurd and abominable example given by ancient rascals like Herodotus and Aeschylus.
While the rocambolesque and even wacky Pahlavi pseudo-dynasty was in power, the criminal English colonials prepared their substitute, namely several pseudo-theologians, who composed pathetic theoretical systems, triggered absurd religious fanaticism, and engulfed the entire Iranian nation in colonial dilemmas and utmost confusion of political nature. Farsi, as the language of the systematized Western education, was indeed revivified particularly among the incessantly increasing urban populations, who started forgetting their native tongues, notably Azeri, Turkmen and other.
During the time of the Pahlavi bogus-Iranian ‘shahs’ (1925-1979), a ‘white’, nationalist terror was imposed on the misfortunate nation; the use of other languages was strictly prohibited. However, this linguistic revival is a fake, and it looks like an awakening of the mummy. The people, who speak Farsi as a native language in today’s Iran, are of Turanian ethnic origin in their outright majority; even worse, their culture is entirely Turanian–Iranian, and their most celebrated rulers and beloved emperors are all Turanians, like Shah Isma’il I, the founder of the Safavid dynasty.
This does not mean that there are not several genuine Iranian languages spoken today in Iran by native speakers; of course, there are many: they speak Baluch, Lori, Bakhtiari, Gorani, Faili, Kalhori, Gilani, Laki, Talysh, etc. But these ethno-linguistic groups represent rather small minorities in Iran. These populations are certainly of Iranian ethnic origin, but they share the common Iranian-Turanian culture with all the populations of Turanian ethnic origin in Iran and in many other countries.
The present situation in Iran looks strange and absurd to all the local victims of the diffusion of Western propaganda of educational-academic-intellectual character; in fact, the systematic propagation of the erroneous Western notion of ‘nation’ or ‘ethnic group’ triggered only troubles and conflicts. This noxious development relates to the inhuman intellectual perversion that is called ‘Enlightenment’ in the Western world. This consists in intellectual darkness and educational paranoia that caused numerous wars over the past 250 years.
For millennia, various ethnic groups -Iranian and Turanian- speaking different languages, shared always their common culture and tradition without feeling or caring about the unsubstantiated and otherwise nonexistent, fake borders and the evil division lines that the 18th c. Western European concept of ‘nation’ produced worldwide. This historical reality of Turanian-Iranian indivisibility was irrevocable within the universal Iranian Empire, which was the supreme blessing of God and the best present that the divine world had bestowed upon Mankind.
Whatever fallacy the Western Orientalists may eventually invent and include in their often nonsensical bibliography falls apart in the light of all historical sources and texts. If the modern Western academia and intellectuals cannot understand the true reality, this is due to their degenerate minds, the advanced rottenness of their decomposed educational and social structures, and the nauseating putrefaction of their moral core.
Then, the fabrication of the fake divide “Turks vs. Persians” helped the criminal colonial powers spread divisions among the Turanians of Western, Central, Southern and Northern Asia, and the Caucasus region. The parallel creation of the fake divide “Sunni Muslims vs. Shia Muslims” was instrumental in plunging the entire Islamic world in permanent strife. Then, the combined fallacy “Sunni Turkish Ottomans vs. Shia Persian Safavids” is an explosive mixture geared to prolong and perpetuate the catastrophic division of all the populations living between the Bosporus and the Indus River Delta.
However, if they destroy the evil deeds of the local puppets of the Anglo-Saxon colonial governments, these populations could triumphantly unite in a secular super-state of ca. 450 million people and thus become the new superpower and Western Asia’s real locomotive of nations. Alternatively, if the existing colonial divisions are allowed to further exist, they can trigger new fratricidal wars among the Turks, who are culturally Iranian, and the Iranians, who are ethnically Turks.
For all the aforementioned national divisions and historical distortions to be duly presented and propagated worldwide by the Western historical forgers in a complete manner, a key point had to be invented: the supposed Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’. This Orientalist fallacy hinges of the misrepresentation of the mystical Safavid Order, which founded an entire empire for themselves: the Turanian Empire of Safavid Iran.
However, the falsification of the identity and the deeds of the Safavid Order would never be successfully undertaken worldwide, if the entire Western world was not already totally confused about two totally different issues, which were systematically presented to the average people of all the Western countries as supposedly ‘one’ by their religious, academic and intellectual authorities alike: spirituality and religion.
Nevertheless, spirituality and religion are totally distinct activities of the spiritual and the material hypostases of the human being.
Sultanahmet Square in Ottoman Constantinople: the Eastern Roman hippodrome and Obelisk of Theodosius, which was transported from Luxor
Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Safavid Isfahan
Procession of the guilds in the hippodrome as per a miniature of the Surname-i Vehbi (1582)
Naqsh-e Jahan, the imperial square in Safavid Isfahan
—————- BLUE MOSQUE, OTTOMAN CONSTANTINOPLE —————-
Blue mosque (Sultan Ahmet Camii): built between 1609 and 1617
Blue mosque, part of the interior decoration
Blue mosque, the mihrab (center) and the minbar (right)
—————– SHAH MOSQUE, SAFAVID ISFAHAN —————————-
Shah Mosque (Masjid-e Shah): built between 1611 and 1629
The winter hypostyle
The dome
——————————————————–
FORTHCOMING
Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey
2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu
(Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
PART ONE. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: A World held Captive by the Colonial Gangsters: France, England, the US, and the Delusional History Taught in their Deceitful Universities
A. Examples of fake national names
a) Mongolia (or Mughal) and Deccan – Not India!
b) Tataria – Not Russia!
c) Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) – Not Greece!
d) Kemet or Masr – Not Egypt!
e) Khazaria – not Israel!
f) Abyssinia – not Ethiopia!
B. Earlier Exchange of Messages in Turkish
C. The Preamble to My Response
CHAPTER II: Geopolitics does not exist.
CHAPTER III: Politics does not exist.
CHAPTER IV: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: Orientalism, conceptualization, contextualization, concealment
A. Orientalism
B. Conceptualization
C. Contextualization
D. Concealment
PART TWO. EXAMPLE OF ACADEMICALLY CONCEALED, KEY HISTORICAL TEXT
CHAPTER V: Plutarch and the diffusion of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian Religions and Cultures in Ancient Greece
PART THREE. TURKEY AND IRAN BEYOND POLITICS AND GEOPOLITICS: REJECTION OF THE ORIENTALIST, TURKOLOGIST AND IRANOLOGIST FALLACIES ABOUT ACHAEMENID HISTORY
CHAPTER VI: The fallacy that Turkic nations were not present in the wider Mesopotamia – Anatolia region in pre-Islamic times
CHAPTER VII: The fallacious representation of Achaemenid Iran by Western Orientalists
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER IX: Iranian and Turanian nations in Achaemenid Iran
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
PART FOUR. FALLACIES ABOUT THE SO-CALLED HELLENISTIC PERIOD, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE SELEUCID & THE PARTHIAN ARSACID TIMES
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XII: Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty
CHAPTER XIII: Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids
PART FIVE. FALLACIES ABOUT SASSANID HISTORY, HISTORY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE HISTORY OF MIGRATIONS
CHAPTER XIV: Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic – Christian Roman Empire
CHAPTER XV: Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism
CHAPTER XVI: Iran – Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
PART SIX. FALLACIES ABOUT THE EARLY EXPANSION OF ISLAM: THE FAKE ARABIZATION OF ISLAM
CHAPTER XVII: Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE
CHAPTER XVIII: Western Orientalist falsifications of Islamic History: Identification of Islam with only Hejaz at the times of the Prophet
CHAPTER XIX: The fake, Orientalist Arabization of Islam
CHAPTER XX: The systematic dissociation of Islam from the Ancient Oriental History
PART SEVEN. THE FICTIONAL DIVISION OF ISLAM INTO ‘SUNNI’ AND ‘SHIA’
CHAPTER XXI: The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’
PART EIGHT. THE DISTORTED TERM ‘PERSIANATE’
CHAPTER XXII: The fake Persianization of the Abbasid Caliphate
PART NINE. FALLACIES ABOUT THE GOLDEN ERA OF THE ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER XXIII: From Ferdowsi to the Seljuk Turks, Nizam al Mulk, Nizami Ganjavi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Haji Bektash
PART TEN. FALLACIES ABOUT THE TIMES OF TURANIAN (MONGOLIAN) SUPREMACY IN TERMS OF SCIENCES, ARTS, LETTERS, SPIRITUALITY AND IMPERIAL UNIVERSALISM
CHAPTER XXIV: From Genghis Khan, Nasir al-Din al Tusi and Hulagu to Timur
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
CHAPTER XXVI: the Timurid Era as Peak of the Islamic Civilization, Shah Rukh, and Ulugh Beg, the Astronomer Emperor
PART ELEVEN. HOW AND WHY THE OTTOMANS, THE SAFAVIDS AND THE MUGHALS FAILED
CHAPTER XXVII: Ethnically Turanian Safavids & Culturally Iranian Ottomans: two identical empires that mirrored one another
CHAPTER XXVIII: Spirituality, Religion & Theology: the fallacy of the Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’
CHAPTER XXIX: Selim I, Ismail I, and Babur
CHAPTER XXX: The Battle of Chaldiran (1514), and how it predestined the Fall of the Islamic World
CHAPTER XXXI: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals: victims of their sectarianism, tribalism, theology, and wrong evaluation of the colonial West
CHAPTER XXXII: Ottomans, Iranians and Mughals from Nader Shah to Kemal Ataturk
PART TWELVE. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER XXXIII: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: whereto?
—————————————————
List of the already pre-published chapters of the book
Lines separate chapters that belong to different parts of the book.
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
Pre-publication of chapter XIX of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XVII, XVIII, XIX and XX form Part Six (Fallacies about the Early Expansion of Islam: the Fake Arabization of Islam) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter XVII and XX have already been pre-published.
Until now, 15 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the book; the present chapter is therefore the 16th (out of 33). At the end of the present pre-publication, the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in gray color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
———————————————————
Bosra (South Syria), Bahira Monastery
This process is associated with the fabrication of numerous fake terms, such as ‘Muhammedanism’, ‘Arab invasions’, ‘Arab conquests’, ‘Arab civilization’, etc. also involving the denigration of Islam as ‘religion of the Arabs’. The ‘Arabization’ of Islam is a paranoid Western Orientalist effort to reduce Islam to the level of a religion of just one nation, which – in addition – was the realm of repugnant barbarians; that’s why Orientalists and Islamologists always tried to portray the early Islamic invasions as ‘Arab’. About the reasons for which the initial Arab – Yemenite invasions (633-638) were successful, I already spoke in the previous chapter XVII (Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE; see sections VI to X).
But there is certainly more to it. First, among the Islamic armies’ soldiers, who advanced after 640 either in the direction of the Iranian plateau and Caucasus or toward Egypt, the Arabs constituted already the minority. Most of the soldiers of the Islamic armies after 640 were Yemenite, Aramaean, and Axumite converts and, speaking about the Islamic armies two decades later (after 661), one has to add also new Turanian and Egyptian converts.
Major centers of Aramaean Syriac Jacobite (Monophysitic/Miaphysitic) Christianity in 7th c. CE Syria and Mesopotamia
In the Umayyad Caliphate, Medieval Greek and Syriac Aramaic were the two official languages, while Arabic was only the religious language for the Muslim minority. And the Arab warriors, who settled in Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, and elsewhere, were so few that they were racially-ethnically assimilated with the local populations. The gradual, linguistic Arabization of the local populations in Yemen and in the formerly Eastern Roman provinces of the Orient was due to the fact that Arabic was the religious language.
In the lands where Islam was spread and became the official religion, there was no Arab culture diffused, because as I already said (chapter XVII, section I), to accept Islam the Arabs of Hejaz were de-Arabized and compactly Aramaized in the first place. This means that the ethnically Arab Muslim soldiers, who fought at Yarmuk and Qadissiyyah, were not culturally Arab anymore. They were indeed culturally Aramaized Arabs, thanks to their acceptance of Islam. There is no such thing as Arab culture in Islam.
Apparently, Arab culture existed before Islam in Hejaz and the desert, involving polytheistic cults, barbarian traditions, lawlessness and total absence of rudimentary civilization. To all the surrounding, civilized nations {namely the Yemenites, the Aramaeans, the diverse nations of Iran, the Eastern Romans, the Egyptians, the Sudanese Meroites (: Cushitic Ethiopians), the Axumite Abyssinians, and the Somalis of Other Berberia and Azania}, the pre-Islamic Arabs were known as the only barbarians of the wider region, and this was valid for many long centuries.
Homs/Emessa, Syria: Saint Mary Church; seat of the Syriac archbishopric and also known as Church of the Holy Girdle, it is a historical Syriac monument built over an underground church that dates back to 50 CE. Homs is famous for its black stones and rocks of which this church and many early mosques were built.
It is enough for anyone to read the text of the Periplus of the Red (‘Erythraean’) Sea (an Ancient Greek text written by an Alexandrian Egyptian merchant and navigator of the 2nd half of the 1st c. CE), so that he gets a very clear picture. Paragraph 20 of the said text, particularly if compared with earlier or later parts of the text, is quite revelatory of the rightfully deprecatory view of the Arabs that all the other ancient nations had.
“Directly below this place is the adjoining country of Arabia, in its length bordering a great distance on the Erythraean Sea. Different tribes inhabit the country, differing in their speech, some partially, and some altogether. The land next the sea is similarly dotted here and there with caves of the Fish-Eaters, but the country inland is peopled by rascally men speaking two languages, who live in villages and nomadic camps, by whom those sailing off the middle course are plundered, and those surviving shipwrecks are taken for slaves. And so they too are continually taken prisoners by the chiefs and kings of Arabia; and they are called Carnaites. Navigation is dangerous along this whole coast of Arabia, which is without harbors, with bad anchorages, foul, inaccessible because of breakers and rocks, and terrible in every way. Therefore we hold our course down the middle of the gulf and pass on as fast as possible by the country of Arabia until we come to the Burnt Island; directly below which there are regions of peaceful people, nomadic, pasturers of cattle, sheep and camels“.
The text is to be found online here (translation by Wilfred H. Schoff):
This barbarism took an end with the preaching of Prophet Muhammad, who transferred Aramaean culture, education, intellectuality and spirituality among the Arabs. All the themes and topics discussed by Prophet Muhammad, either in his revelations (Quran) or in his explanations (Hadith), were Aramaean. Of course, and with reference to developments taking place during the middle of the 7th c., there was an evident differentiation between a) Christian Aramaeans and b) Muslim Aramaeans and Muslim Arabs; but the differentiation was only religious, and not cultural. Culturally, the groups a) and b) were identical; and religiously they differed only partly and not fundamentally. But the perfidious colonial Orientalists have always been intentionally oblivious of this fact.
Founded by Mor Mattai the Hermit in 363 CE, Mor Mattai Monastery is situated 20 km north of Mosul and consists in a major center of Aramaean Syriac Jacobite culture and faith.
Deyrulzafaran (or Derzafaran; ‘the Saffron Monastery) is mainly known as Mor Hananyo Monastery, being located 5 km from Mardin (SE Turkey) in the famous Tur Abdin region, major center of Aramaean culture, faith and letters. In the Antiquity, there was a temple dedicated to the Assyrian-Babylonian and later Aramaean divinity Shamash; it was then converted to fortress by the Romans. The Syriac monk Mor Shlemon turned it into a monastery in 493 CE. Finally in 793, the bishop of Mardin and Kfartuta, Mor Hananyo, renovated it.
Surely there are ancient Oriental parallels to what happened to the Arabs in the early 7th c.
The Aramaeans and the Phoenicians, the Egyptians and the Anatolians, the Greeks and the Romans – all those who accepted the preaching of Jesus and belonged to the early Christian communities (except for the Jewish converts) – were culturally Hebraized (in the first two centuries of our era).
There is no such thing as Aramaean or Phoenician or Egyptian or Greek or Roman culture in Early Christianity. Aramaean culture revolved around Astarte or the ‘Syrian Goddess’, Baal, and many other Aramaean deities, myths and concepts; Phoenician culture was developed around Baal and other local divinities and myths; Egyptian culture was related to Isis, Osiris, Horus and the Heliopolitan religion or the Theban dogma of Amun or the Memphitic cult of Ptah or the Hermupolitan Ogdoad. Greek culture (which had earlier involved a highly politicized theater, Olympic games, philosophy, calamitous indifference for religion, and quasi-total ignorance of spirituality) and Roman culture were already heavily impacted by numerous Oriental religious, esoteric, spiritual and cultural-behavioral systems. Then, the diffusion of Early Christianity among them (up to the middle of the 2nd c. CE) consisted in cultural Hebraization.
What happened culturally to Arabs with their acceptance of Prophet Muhammad’s preaching had occurred already to the Aramaeans, the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Anatolians, the Greeks and the Romans, who accepted Early Christianity in the 1st – 2nd c.
Similarly, the Ancient Hebrews were not exempt of overwhelming foreign cultural impact. When in Egypt, they were heavily impacted by Atenism (also known as Amarna monotheism), which was the official, aniconic and monotheistic religion of Pharaoh Akhenaten in the middle of the 14th c. BCE. Excerpts from the Hymns to Aten, which were composed in Ancient Egyptian and written in hieroglyphic writing by the pious monotheist and great reformer Pharaoh, were later reproduced, word by word, in the Psalms of the otherwise ‘Hebrew’ Bible.
At this point I have to also add that Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (1353–1336), after his fourth year of reign, changed his theophoric name to Akhenaten, so that it does not contain the first component, which – as name of the polytheistic Theban religion’s main god Amun – was considered as an abomination by the Egyptian monotheists, after the solemn proclamation of Atenism.
And who were the Ancient Hebrews after all? Who was Abraham? An early 2nd millennium BCE Babylonian (from Ur, Southern Mesopotamia), who abandoned his land in order to preserve his monotheistic faith and openly reject the polytheistic religion that was imposed there at the time. The Assyrian-Babylonian impact on what is called Ancient Hebrew religion or Judaism is absolute, compact, and irreversible. The Old Testament is an Assyrian-Babylonian cultural, religious, intellectual, and spiritual byproduct.
Discussion near the mosque of a village (from the 43rd maqamah of the Maqamat al-Ḥariri); by the Iraqi painter and calligrapher Yahya ibn Mahmud al-Wasiti (13th c.); the illustrations of the famous Muslim painter show that rural life continued following exactly the same Aramaean patterns before and after the diffusion of Islam.
The aforementioned approach is extremely embarrassing to colonial Orientalist forgers and to Western pseudo-Christian Evangelical, Taliban-fashion theologians, who should rather be considered as the real instigators and the original perpetrators of Islamic terrorism, which they have studiously and scrupulously produced because of their vicious anti-Islamic hatred that they have ceaselessly diffused. That is why it is vitally important for them to stick the label ‘Arab’ onto the entire phenomenon of ‘Islamic Civilization’, ‘Islamic History’, ‘Islamic religion’, and ‘Islamic armies’.
However, there is even more to it, if one examines the fundamentals of the divine revelation as spelled out in Islam’s holy text and the associated explanations. The historical reality is that Muhammad, either one accepts him as prophet or not, never pretended that he was preaching a ‘new’ religion; according to his revelation (the Quran) and explanations (the Hadith), Islam (lit. ‘submission to God’) was the only true faith (‘religion’) of Adam. In fact, according to the prophet Muhammad’s world conceptualization, there has been only one religion in the History of Mankind; it was preached by various prophets, either they were/are known to humans as such or not. All prophets were sent by God to correct deviations, because beyond the only and true religion (which involves total devotion to God), there have been across the ages numerous deformations, distortions, deliberate alterations, and pernicious modifications of the true religion, and of the preaching / revelation of the various earlier prophets.
The birth of prophet Muhammad in presence of humans and angels; miniature illustration on vellum from Rashid al-Din Hamadani’s famous masterpiece Jami’ al-Tawarikh (lit. ‘Compendium of Chronicles’), which is also known as ‘Universal History’ (Tabriz-Iran, 1307)
Prophet Muhammad on his death bed (Jami’ al-Tawarikh)
Prophet Muhammad reveals to Ali (both protected by halos of golden flames) secrets he unveiled during Mir’aj (transcendental travel to the spiritual universe); from the Ottoman Turkish ‘Tarjuma-i Thawaqib-i manaqib’ (translation of stars of the legend), which was ordered by Sultan Murad III (1574–1595) to be done (in 1590) from the Farsi abridgement (14th c.) of Aflaki; found in Baghdad and purchased by Pierpont Morgan in 1911 (MS M.466, fol. 96r). According to this tradition, ten thousand of the hundred thousand secrets were revealed to Ali as the rightful successor to prophet Muhammad. Ali had difficulty keeping them, and that is why he shouted them into a well; however, a young man made a flute from the tree, which grew from the reed in the well. People came from all over to hear the young man play, and then prophet Muhammad requested to hear the youth perform, declaring that his notes “were the interpretation of the celestial mysteries that he had confided to Ali”. The flute was used ever since as part of the Mevlevi ritual dance (samaa). Jalal ad-Din Rumi has apparently borrowed the story of the barber, who shouted the secret of the Phrygian King Midas’ donkey ears into a hole over which reeds grew, and subsequently the winds whispered the secret to all. The early spirituality of the true Islam was greatly appreciated by Muslims of the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization, but there is nothing Arabic in it.
It is the aforementioned, outspoken universality of Islam that has deeply upset and dramatically embarrassed Western Orientalist forgers, colonial radicals, Catholic-Jesuit schemers, and materialist-atheist extremists. And this explains why they tried to imitate some Eastern Roman historians of the 8th c., who collectively called all the Muslims ‘Saracens’, a deprecatory term that is historically false enough to reveal either the ignorance or the evilness of the users.
However, to Eastern Roman Christian Orthodox theologians, like John Damascene (or John of Damascus), Islam was merely the latest Christological heresy. This is what Vatican, the pseudo-Christian Evangelicals, and the anti-Jewish Zionists do their ingenious best to conceal; because the Eastern Roman Christian Orthodox truth destroys their absurd lies and diabolical conspiracies.
The multiply controversial gold coins of the Umayyad caliph Abd al Malik ibn Marwan (reign: 685-705); during his reign, there was an apparent effort to impose Arabic as the official language of the divided Caliphate and to replace Christian signs (notably the Cross) with the declaration of Islamic faith. However, the caliph ruled only on a small part of the territory that most people usually see as enormous on the mostly false maps of the Umayyad Empire, and this was due to the fact that he was facing a multiple revolt. Even worse, following a defeat, he had to be tribute to the Eastern Roman Empire. But to his greatest surprise, when he tried to pay with these new coins, the Roman Emperor Justinian II (reign: 685-695 and 705-711) refused to accept them because they were of an unknown type and of evidently unacceptable character. This attitude triggered a new war; the offense was not only the absence of Christian symbols, but also the Arabic inscription with the Islamic declaration of faith (‘bismallah, la illah illa-allah muhammad rasul allah’, i.e. ‘in the name of God, there is no god but God alone; Muhammad is His messenger’) on the reverse and the presence of three standing figures on the obverse.
As there no names written on the coins, every discussion is basically a matter of assumption, but there are specialists, who suggest that the three figures are none else than prophet Muhammad (center), Abu Bakr, and his paranoid daughter Aisha, who was the last wife of the prophet. Abu Bakr was indeed one of the early followers of Islam (the very first being Ali ibn Abi Taleb, who was the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law). Abu Bakr, was selected by a small group of vicious Meccan renegades at the time prophet Muhammad was dying – in straightforwardly anti-Islamic rejection of the solemn investiture of Ali by the prophet at Ghadir Khumm on the 16th March 632 (18 Dhu al-Hijjah), i.e. only three months before prophet Muhammad’s death (8 June 632), in the 11th year of the Islamic calendar (Anno Hegirae). The heinous, anti-Islamic nature and practices of the Umayyad dynasty, which existed only after the massacre of the rightful heir of Ali and against the will of the quasi-totality of the Muslims, is the reason for which this interpretation can be considered as possibly correct.
The much loathed and decried, lawless and illegitimate caliph sought to ‘prove’ that he was the rightful ruler and that he represented a line of succession approved by prophet Muhammad. Of course, this was preposterous because at the very end of the prophet’s life, Abu Bakr acted openly and deliberately against Muhammad’s will, whereas the rancorous and hysterical Aisha supported the killers of Fatima and later of Ali. An extra reason for which we can accept this effort of interpretation is the fact that this shameless and absolutely anti-Islamic depiction caused an unprecedented outcry (because it was taken as a clear sign of overwhelming rejection of Islam by the court at Damascus) up to the point that these blasphemous coins were all ordered to be destroyed shortly after they were minted. As his wretched empire experienced divisions, civil wars, and real trichotomy, the shy and coward Abd al Malik ibn Marwan decided not to further risk his otherwise useless throne.
The supposedly powerful (according to Western colonial liars and forgers) Umayyad Empire was a multi-divided terrain of which Abd al-Malik Marwan controlled only a small portion (highlighted in red); the lands controlled by his opponents al-Mukhtar and al-Zubayr are colored in green and blue; and the territory under Kharijite power is shown in yellow. This chaotic period (680-692) is typically called ‘Second Fitna’, i.e. conflict, sedition, or civil strife; the word has many connotations, but the most accurate description of the historical fact would be ‘civil war’.
————————————————–
FORTHCOMING
Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey
2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu
(Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
PART ONE. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: A World held Captive by the Colonial Gangsters: France, England, the US, and the Delusional History Taught in their Deceitful Universities
A. Examples of fake national names
a) Mongolia (or Mughal) and Deccan – Not India!
b) Tataria – Not Russia!
c) Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) – Not Greece!
d) Kemet or Masr – Not Egypt!
e) Khazaria – not Israel!
f) Abyssinia – not Ethiopia!
B. Earlier Exchange of Messages in Turkish
C. The Preamble to My Response
CHAPTER II: Geopolitics does not exist.
CHAPTER III: Politics does not exist.
CHAPTER IV: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: Orientalism, conceptualization, contextualization, concealment
A. Orientalism
B. Conceptualization
C. Contextualization
D. Concealment
PART TWO. EXAMPLE OF ACADEMICALLY CONCEALED, KEY HISTORICAL TEXT
CHAPTER V: Plutarch and the diffusion of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian Religions and Cultures in Ancient Greece
PART THREE. TURKEY AND IRAN BEYOND POLITICS AND GEOPOLITICS: REJECTION OF THE ORIENTALIST, TURKOLOGIST AND IRANOLOGIST FALLACIES ABOUT ACHAEMENID HISTORY
CHAPTER VI: The fallacy that Turkic nations were not present in the wider Mesopotamia – Anatolia region in pre-Islamic times
CHAPTER VII: The fallacious representation of Achaemenid Iran by Western Orientalists
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER IX: Iranian and Turanian nations in Achaemenid Iran
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
PART FOUR. FALLACIES ABOUT THE SO-CALLED HELLENISTIC PERIOD, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE SELEUCID & THE PARTHIAN ARSACID TIMES
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XII: Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty
CHAPTER XIII: Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids
PART FIVE. FALLACIES ABOUT SASSANID HISTORY, HISTORY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE HISTORY OF MIGRATIONS
CHAPTER XIV: Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic – Christian Roman Empire
CHAPTER XV: Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism
CHAPTER XVI: Iran – Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
PART SIX. FALLACIES ABOUT THE EARLY EXPANSION OF ISLAM: THE FAKE ARABIZATION OF ISLAM
CHAPTER XVII: Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE
CHAPTER XVIII: Western Orientalist falsifications of Islamic History: Identification of Islam with only Hejaz at the times of the Prophet
CHAPTER XIX: The fake, Orientalist Arabization of Islam
CHAPTER XX: The systematic dissociation of Islam from the Ancient Oriental History
PART SEVEN. THE FICTIONAL DIVISION OF ISLAM INTO ‘SUNNI’ AND ‘SHIA’
CHAPTER XXI: The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’
PART EIGHT. THE DISTORTED TERM ‘PERSIANATE’
CHAPTER XXII: The fake Persianization of the Abbasid Caliphate
PART NINE. FALLACIES ABOUT THE GOLDEN ERA OF THE ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER XXIII: From Ferdowsi to the Seljuk Turks, Nizam al Mulk, Nizami Ganjavi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Haji Bektash
PART TEN. FALLACIES ABOUT THE TIMES OF TURANIAN (MONGOLIAN) SUPREMACY IN TERMS OF SCIENCES, ARTS, LETTERS, SPIRITUALITY AND IMPERIAL UNIVERSALISM
CHAPTER XXIV: From Genghis Khan, Nasir al-Din al Tusi and Hulagu to Timur
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
CHAPTER XXVI: the Timurid Era as Peak of the Islamic Civilization, Shah Rukh, and Ulugh Beg, the Astronomer Emperor
PART ELEVEN. HOW AND WHY THE OTTOMANS, THE SAFAVIDS AND THE MUGHALS FAILED
CHAPTER XXVII: Ethnically Turanian Safavids & Culturally Iranian Ottomans: two identical empires that mirrored one another
CHAPTER XXVIII: Spirituality, Religion & Theology: the fallacy of the Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’
CHAPTER XXIX: Selim I, Ismail I, and Babur
CHAPTER XXX: The Battle of Chaldiran (1514), and how it predestined the Fall of the Islamic World
CHAPTER XXXI: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals: victims of their sectarianism, tribalism, theology, and wrong evaluation of the colonial West
CHAPTER XXXII: Ottomans, Iranians and Mughals from Nader Shah to Kemal Ataturk
PART TWELVE. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER XXXIII: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: whereto?
————————————————————-
List of the already pre-published chapters of the book
Lines separate chapters that belong to different parts of the book.
Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
Pre-publication of chapter X of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian–Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters VI, VII, VIII, IX and X form Part Three (Turkey and Iran beyond Politics and Geopolitics: Rejection of the Orientalist, Turcologist and Iranologist Fallacies about Achaemenid History) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters.
Until now, 14 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the book; the present chapter is therefore the 15th (out of 33). At the end of the present pre-publication, the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in gray color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
———————————————————
Ahura Mazda, as preached by Zoroaster and as worshipped by the monotheistic Achaemenid dynasty, was heavily impacted by Assur (Ashur), the Sargonid Empire of Assyria, and the Assyrian monotheism, which is at the origin of every Biblical and Islamic concept of monotheism.
History of Religions is a field that was never duly explored by Western Iranologists in their effort to write the History of Ancient Iran and to represent spirituality, cult, mysticism, imperial epiphany, morality and transcendental faith in Pre-Islamic Iran. And for a very good reason! As it had happened in Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and Canaan for millennia before the rise of the Achaemenid dynasty, Iran was also the terrain in which numerous religious conflicts took place.
These spiritual and material clashes lasted long and were at times far more ferocious than a) the Catholic Frankish Crusades undertaken by the Western European rulers, b) the 4th–5th c. Christian massacres of hundreds of thousands of followers of the Ancient Egyptian, Berber, Roman, Greek and other religions, and c) the 4th–17th c. Christian killings of thousands of adepts of any theological-Christological system that happened to be considered as ‘heretical’ by the Roman Church, i.e. the Arians, the Monophysites (Miaphysites), the Nestorians, the Iconoclasts, the Paulicians, the Bogomiles, the Knights Templar, etc.
Although Western Iranologists several times managed to successfully identify the existence of opposite beliefs, concepts, cults and faiths in texts and monuments, they basically ended up with a very confusing and misleading representation of the History of Ancient Iranian religions. More specifically, they failed to systematize the presentation of all these opposite beliefs, faiths and religious systems, which were developed in Ancient Iran, and to denote them by means of independent specific names, which could eventually be merely conventional.
Yet, the existing historical sources reveal to us that without a systematized historical-religious study of the material record, the History of the Achaemenids, the Arsacids and the Sassanids will definitely remain largely incomprehensible. However, fully plunged into their catastrophic materialism, ideological militantism, and obdurate sectarianism, the racist academics of the Anglo-Saxon colonial countries have shown only little interest to accurately assess numerous historical facts on the basis of the existing textual/epigraphic evidence and to identify their reason as due to spiritual polarization, moral conflict, and religious clash.
They insidiously distorted the History of Ancient Iran by attributing socioeconomic causes and imperial motives to all the historical facts and developments that took place, thus projecting their wretched mindsets and perverse opinions onto the historical past that they purportedly wanted to ‘interpret’.
In this regard, we can find a very good example in the well-known case of turmoil that took place at the end of the reign of Kabujiya / Cambyses: the end of the great emperor, who invaded Egypt, Libya and the Sudan (i.e. Cush / Ancient Ethiopia), the pernicious attempt of the Magi to obtain imperial and spiritual power by helping the preposterous impostor Gaumata to usurp the throne, the ensuing chaotic situation, and the final prevalence of Darius I the Great testify to a formidable religious clash between two diametrically opposed and antagonistic priesthoods.
Behistun Inscription and relief, near Hamadan (Ecbatana, NW Iran): Darius I the Great steps on the body of the impostor Gaumata; the conspiracy against the Achaemenid court and the ensuing clash were entirely spiritual and religious of character. The Mithraic Magi never accepted the monotheistic preaching of Zoroaster which was sacrosanct for the Achaemenid court. That’s why in later periods the Mithraic Magi traveled to Rome and imposed their evil polytheism there.
This terrible confrontation reveals an enormous opposition between the irrevocably monotheistic Zoroastrian Achaemenid dynasty, imperial court, administration and the Zoroastrian priests (from one side) and (from the other side) the polytheistic Mithraic Magi, who repeatedly attempted to subvert Iran, control the imperial court, and then corrupt Zoroastrianism. The earliest cosmological myths and mysteries of Mithra (or Mehr), which seem to originate from the wider Khorasan region (today’s Northeastern Iran, Southeastern Uzbekistan, Northwestern Afghanistan, and Tajikistan), recount his exploit to slay the ‘celestial bovines’; much later, following the diffusion of Mithraism across Central and Western Europe, this trait gave birth to the evil religious, spiritual, and cosmological concept of tauroctony.
For the Achaemenid court and the vicars of Zoroastrian monotheism, Mithraism was an abomination. Different mythologization of the same divinity denotes always the existence of very divergent priesthoods, and it therefore testifies to a very dissimilar religion. One should never confuse between a) Mithra (Mehr) as a Zoroastrian divinity subordinated to Ahura Mazda and b) Mithra as the central divinity of Mithraism to which a totally contrasting array of counterfeit mythical themes were ascribed. About:
Parthian relief from Zahhak Castle in East Azerbaijan province, Iran: a bird (possibly eagle) stands on the back of a ball. This may be the very original mythical narrative and form of Mithraic tauroctony.
A negative consequence of Cyrus the Great’s conquest of Babylonia is the fact that the contact with the millennia-long, spiritually powerful, polytheistic Babylonian priesthood of Marduk strengthened the Mithraic Magi enormously and enriched the Mithraic theology considerably. It was then that numerous polytheistic Babylonian concepts, traits, elements, themes and trends were transferred into the early Iranian Mithraism, notably the motif of the dying and resurrected Tammuz, the concept of ‘ab ovo’ Creation, the narrative of the powerful hero and hunter (with the traits of Gilgamesh / Nimrud being passed onto the Iranian Verethragna), and the theme of the mystical banquet. About:
Above: Terracotta plaque of the Amorite Period (2000-1600 BCE) of Babylonia, depicting the earliest representation of Tammuz (Dumuzid in Sumerian) dead in his coffin, before his resurrection; below: Marduk depicted on a Kudurru stele of the Kassite Babylonian king Meli-Shipak II (1186-1172 BCE), one of the last kings of the Kassite dynasty.
Zoroastrianism stands in firm opposition to the ‘ab ovo creation’ concept (which is the earliest form of the evil and pathetic ‘Big Bang’ theory):
The strong Zoroastrian faith of the Achaemenid rulers, their steadfastness, and their prevalence throughout the empire (xšāça) prevented the evil Magi from controlling spiritually and fanaticizing the masses with the aforementioned mythological topics in the central Iranian provinces, namely the Iranian plateau. However, Mithra and his evil Magi traveled southeastwards to the Indus Delta region and westwards to Anatolia, Caucasus and Scythia (Russia–Ukraine).
Actually, what had happened with the Iranian conquest of Babylonia was that the millennia-long Assyrian monotheistic–Babylonian polytheistic controversy, which had caused a myriad of wars in Mesopotamia and throughout the Orient before the rise of Cyrus the Great, found other means of expression, being reproduced among other nations. In fact, the Mesopotamian spiritual-religious confrontation was simply transplanted within Achaemenid Iran. It was not a matter of mere coincidence that the Achaemenids appeared as the spiritual, intellectual and cultural offspring of Sargonid Nineveh; it was a normal consequence of the fact that Zoroaster had lived in monotheistic Nineveh, was educated there, was initiated into the Assyrian imperial universalism, and later tried to transfer the doctrine among Iranians.
The first film (movie) in the History of Mankind; the monotheistic Assyrian Emperor Tukulti Ninurta I (1244-1207 BCE) is portrayed twice, standing and then kneeling, in front of the aniconic representation of God as baetylus (betyl, i.e. a meteorite). From the Temple of Ishtar at Assur (Assyria), Iraq; nowadays in Pergamon Museum, Berlin, Germany
In terms of History of Religion, Cyrus the Great’s conquest of Babylonia (539 BCE) reversed, revenged and canceled the earlier downfall of Assyria and Nineveh (614-612 BCE) to the Babylonian armies of Nabopolassar I. In terms of Imperial History, Cyrus the Great postured as the God-blessed savior and the genuine restorer of the Sumerian – Akkadian – Assyrian-Babylonian universal(ist) monarchy, denouncing (and overthrowing) the Nabonid dynasty of Babylonia (625-539 BCE) in the same manner the Sargonids of Assyria (722-609 BCE) had decried Babylonian polytheism and Elamite insanity for millennia. About:
Epiphany of the only God Ashur (Assur) above the Tree of Life, next to it the Assyrian emperor Ashurnasirpal II (883-858 BCE), represented twice, officiates as emperor and as high priest, under the blessing of Assur. From the throne room of Kalhu (modern Nimrud in North Iraq), capital of Ashurnasirpal II
Of course, despite the evident Assyrian spiritual, intellectual, cultural and artistic impact, Zoroastrian monotheism is an original religious phenomenon and all the therein incorporated Assyrian monotheistic concepts were stated in purely Iranian terms and codes, symbols, connotations and forms. But this fact triggers two very simple questions:
– What did the original Iranian religion before Zoroaster look like?
– Was the original Iranian religion before Zoroaster a religious system that looked closer to Zoroaster’s preaching or to an early form of Mithraism?
Due to the lack of textual evidence antedating the establishment of the Iranian monarchy by Cyrus the Great, it is difficult to respond straightforwardly to these questions. Old Achaemenid cuneiform seems to have been invented by Assyrian imperial scribes only few decades prior to the establishment of the Iranian monarchy; the Iranian imperial scribes were indeed well-educated in Sargonid Nineveh at the time of Assurbanipal (669-625 BCE); that’s why they were also perfectly acquainted with, and very well versed into, Assyrian-Babylonian, Elamite, and (to some extent) Sumerian languages and cuneiform writings (Sumerian was already a dead language for 1500 years before the early Achaemenids; so to them it was like Latin to Western Europeans today).
Assur in Assyria (above) & Ahura Mazda in Iran (below)
Ashurnasirpal II is hunting under the auspices of Ashur
Darius defeated his enemies under the auspices of Ahura Mazda
However, we have several indications that, among the Iranian-Turanian nations, there was a long past of grave religious conflicts that ended with the prevalence of Zoroastrianism under Cyrus the Great.
First, all posterior sources narrate the ‘mythical’ and ‘heroic’ stages of Iranian Pre-history and Proto-history as reflecting a dual environment of permanent conflict between the Good and the Evil. Negative thought, word, action or deed among humans is indeed of spiritual origin and impact (Ahriman).
Second, the basics of Zoroastrian cosmogony and cosmology, the context of Zoroastrian moral world vision, and the quintessence of Zoroastrian soteriology show a certain number of potential parallels with Tengrism, i.e. the earlier form of Turanian religion. And this is exactly what has been missing until now in every historical-religious research about the Achaemenid Empire: the strong link between the pre-Zoroastrian Iranian–Turanian religious monotheistic system and Tengrism. There are many linguistic affinities in this regard; furthermore, basic Zoroastrian religious terms reflect pre-Zoroastrian monotheistic fundamentals that had evidently Turkic origin. The topic is very vast, but at this point, I will try to place it in a brief diagram:
Zoroastrianism is the religion based on Zoroaster’s preaching, which consists in the systematization of earlier Turanian Tengrism, after a deep spiritual study of Assyrian monotheism, cosmogony, cosmology, mythical worldview, imperial universalism, eschatology and soteriology; it seems that what Zoroaster, the Turanian prophet from Atropatene / Azerbaijan truly did was to contextualize elements of the early Tengrism and Tengri-related concepts within the Mesopotamian spiritual-cultural order, while preserving the Turanian–Iranian terms; he therefore created a new dogma and doctrine.
Supreme symbols of Tengrism: the sacred circle in the interior of the Mongolian yurt
Since the Mithraic Magi of the Achaemenid times were so evidently subversive against the universal empire of Cyrus the Great and Cambyses, we can deduce that the early Iranian Magi, who opposed Zoroaster and his system, defended an earlier, polytheistic system of faith that was in straight clash with the pre-Zoroastrian form of Tengrism, which was the original faith of the Turanians and the Iranians before the establishment of the Achaemenid dynasty. A series of systematic linguistic studies and historical-religious researches about the said topics would lead to impressive results. About:
2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists
By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu
(Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CONTENTS
PART ONE. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: A World held Captive by the Colonial Gangsters: France, England, the US, and the Delusional History Taught in their Deceitful Universities
A. Examples of fake national names
a) Mongolia (or Mughal) and Deccan – Not India!
b) Tataria – Not Russia!
c) Romania (with the accent on the penultimate syllable) – Not Greece!
d) Kemet or Masr – Not Egypt!
e) Khazaria – not Israel!
f) Abyssinia – not Ethiopia!
B. Earlier Exchange of Messages in Turkish
C. The Preamble to My Response
CHAPTER II: Geopolitics does not exist.
CHAPTER III: Politics does not exist.
CHAPTER IV: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: Orientalism, conceptualization, contextualization, concealment
A. Orientalism
B. Conceptualization
C. Contextualization
D. Concealment
PART TWO. EXAMPLE OF ACADEMICALLY CONCEALED, KEY HISTORICAL TEXT
CHAPTER V: Plutarch and the diffusion of Ancient Egyptian and Iranian Religions and Cultures in Ancient Greece
PART THREE. TURKEY AND IRAN BEYOND POLITICS AND GEOPOLITICS: REJECTION OF THE ORIENTALIST, TURKOLOGIST AND IRANOLOGIST FALLACIES ABOUT ACHAEMENID HISTORY
CHAPTER VI: The fallacy that Turkic nations were not present in the wider Mesopotamia – Anatolia region in pre-Islamic times
CHAPTER VII: The fallacious representation of Achaemenid Iran by Western Orientalists
CHAPTER VIII: The premeditated disconnection of Atropatene / Adhurbadagan from the History of Azerbaijan
CHAPTER IX: Iranian and Turanian nations in Achaemenid Iran
CHAPTER X: Iranian and Turanian Religions in Pre-Islamic Iran
PART FOUR. FALLACIES ABOUT THE SO-CALLED HELLENISTIC PERIOD, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, AND THE SELEUCID & THE PARTHIAN ARSACID TIMES
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XII: Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty
CHAPTER XIII: Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids
PART FIVE. FALLACIES ABOUT SASSANID HISTORY, HISTORY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE HISTORY OF MIGRATIONS
CHAPTER XIV: Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic – Christian Roman Empire
CHAPTER XV: Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism
CHAPTER XVI: Iran – Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates
PART SIX. FALLACIES ABOUT THE EARLY EXPANSION OF ISLAM: THE FAKE ARABIZATION OF ISLAM
CHAPTER XVII: Iran – Turan and the Western, Orientalist distortions about the successful, early expansion of Islam during the 7th – 8th c. CE
CHAPTER XVIII: Western Orientalist falsifications of Islamic History: Identification of Islam with only Hejaz at the times of the Prophet
CHAPTER XIX: The fake, Orientalist Arabization of Islam
CHAPTER XX: The systematic dissociation of Islam from the Ancient Oriental History
PART SEVEN. THE FICTIONAL DIVISION OF ISLAM INTO ‘SUNNI’ AND ‘SHIA’
CHAPTER XXI: The fabrication of the fake divide ‘Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam’
PART EIGHT. THE DISTORTED TERM ‘PERSIANATE’
CHAPTER XXII: The fake Persianization of the Abbasid Caliphate
PART NINE. FALLACIES ABOUT THE GOLDEN ERA OF THE ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION
CHAPTER XXIII: From Ferdowsi to the Seljuk Turks, Nizam al Mulk, Nizami Ganjavi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Haji Bektash
PART TEN. FALLACIES ABOUT THE TIMES OF TURANIAN (MONGOLIAN) SUPREMACY IN TERMS OF SCIENCES, ARTS, LETTERS, SPIRITUALITY AND IMPERIAL UNIVERSALISM
CHAPTER XXIV: From Genghis Khan, Nasir al-Din al Tusi and Hulagu to Timur
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
CHAPTER XXVI: the Timurid Era as Peak of the Islamic Civilization, Shah Rukh, and Ulugh Beg, the Astronomer Emperor
PART ELEVEN. HOW AND WHY THE OTTOMANS, THE SAFAVIDS AND THE MUGHALS FAILED
CHAPTER XXVII: Ethnically Turanian Safavids & Culturally Iranian Ottomans: two identical empires that mirrored one another
CHAPTER XXVIII: Spirituality, Religion & Theology: the fallacy of the Safavid conversion of Iran to ‘Shia Islam’
CHAPTER XXIX: Selim I, Ismail I, and Babur
CHAPTER XXX: The Battle of Chaldiran (1514), and how it predestined the Fall of the Islamic World
CHAPTER XXXI: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals: victims of their sectarianism, tribalism, theology, and wrong evaluation of the colonial West
CHAPTER XXXII: Ottomans, Iranians and Mughals from Nader Shah to Kemal Ataturk
PART TWELVE. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER XXXIII: Turkey and Iran beyond politics and geopolitics: whereto?
————————————————————-
List of the already pre-published chapters of the book
Lines separate chapters that belong to different parts of the book.
CHAPTER XI: Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period
CHAPTER XXV: Timur (Tamerlane) as a Turanian Muslim descendant of the Great Hero Manuchehr, his exploits and triumphs, and the slow rise of the Turanian Safavid Order
Pre-publication of chapter XX of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XVII, XVIII, XIX and XX form Part Six (Fallacies about the Early Expansion of Islam: the Fake Arabization of Islam) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter XVII has already been pre-published.
Until now, 13 chapters have been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the book; the present chapter is therefore the 14th (out of 33). At the end of the present pre-publication the entire Table of Contents is made available. Pre-published chapters are marked in blue color, and the present chapter is highlighted in green color.
In addition, a list of all the already pre-published chapters (with the related links) is made available at the very end, after the Table of Contents.
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
————————————————
Istakhri’s map: miniature from the Book of Roads and Kingdoms; Islamic Geography and Cartography are the continuation of the respective sciences of the Ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Aramaeans and Iranians
In addition to the aforementioned, an enormous effort of historical discrediting of Islam was undertaken by all sections and disciplines of Western colonial Orientalism; the systematic dissociation of Islam, of the Islamic Civilization, and of the Islamic History from the Ancient Oriental History, civilizations and religionshas been an enormous, coordinated effort to historically distort and disfigure the Islamic world in its entirety and to deceitfully present Islam as a marginal and rootless story.
Western forgers did their ingenious best to
a) dissociate Islam as religion from earlier forms of monotheistic spirituality, doctrine, faith, religion, cosmogony, cosmology, and apocalyptic eschatology;
b) disconnect the Islamic civilization from the great Ancient Oriental civilizations (Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hittite, Egyptian, Cushitic, Phoenician, Aramaean, Hebrew, Iranian and Yemenite); and
c) portray the Islamic sciences, arts, architecture, literature, moral wisdom, intellectual life, mythology, theology and philosophy as independent from and unrelated to the similar Ancient Oriental endeavors, exploits and accomplishments.
Yet, Islam as religion, spirituality, world conceptualization, intellectuality, culture, civilization and way of life is a comprehensive continuation, an investigative exploration, an overwhelming overhaul, and a consummate reassessment of the Ancient Oriental civilizations, and of their hitherto unequaled contributions to the History of the Mankind.
This historical reality was very well known indeed to all the major historians of Islamic times like Abu Ja’far Muhammad al-Tabari (839-923), Abu’l-Qasim ibn Khordadbeh (9th c.), Ahmad al-Ya’qubi (9th c.), Abu Muhammad al-Hasan al-Hamdani (893-945), Al-Mas’udi (896-956), Shamsaddin al-Maqdisi (945-991), Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (973-1050), Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Nadim (10th c.), Ibn Hawqal al-Nasibi (10th c.), Abu Ishaq al-Istakhri (10th c.), Sa’id al-Andalusi (1029-1070), Al-Shahrastani (1086-1153), Ali ibn al-Athir (1160-1233) and Shamsaddin adh-Dhahabi (1274-1348) to name but a few.
Map of Fars: miniature from the Book of Roads and Kingdoms of Istakhri
Map of the Persian Gulf: miniature from the Book of Roads and Kingdoms of Istakhri
Ibn Hawqal’s world map translated in English: a diagram
They all knew the truth, and they ostensibly presented Islamic History as the uninterrupted continuation of all Ancient Oriental nations and civilizations. This is only normal after all; when in the year 750 the Umayyad dynasty was superseded the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad, Islam was the religion of the majority of all the people inhabiting the vast lands between the Atlantic Ocean in the West and India & China in the East.
Who were all these people? The Berbers of today’s Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and the Sahara, the Copts of Egypt, the Cushites (‘Ethiopians’) of today’s Sudan, the Yemenites and the Omanis, the Somalis of the Horn of Africa, the Phoenicians, the Palestinians, the Aramaeans of Syria and Mesopotamia (into whom the Ancient Babylonians had been assimilated already during the Parthian times), and all the nations of Eastern Anatolia, Caucasus, the Iranian plateau, the Indus River Valley and Delta, and Central Asia. But these peoples were indeed the descendants of the ancient Oriental nations that constituted the cradle of human civilization and had already impacted all the rest, and more particularly, the backward, uncouth and uncivilized tribes that inhabited the peripheral lands of Europe in pre-Christian times.
Why the aforementioned distortion, namely the dissociation of the Islamic World from the Ancient Oriental History, was necessary for the Western Orientalist forgers and deceitful historiographers is easy to grasp. By making the Islamic Civilization, the Muslim nations, and their History look like marginal heretics or barbarians, who come from nowhere and had no past, they portrayed them as an alien element in the World History, and instead of Islam, they viciously positioned the Anti-Christian ‘Christianity’ of Rome, Western Europe, and North America, as well as the perverse, degenerate, and putrefied modern Western world, as supposedly originating from the ancient Oriental nations and as representing the mainstream of historical evolution.
To promote racial discrimination, educational-academic contamination, cultural racism, intellectual terrorism, as well as abhorrent socio-economic exploitation, the villainous pseudo-professors of Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and of other similar, criminal institutions have entertained deceptive and ludicrous discussions about the hypothetical ‘influence’ of the Ancient Greek philosophers on Islamic philosophy, whereas they certainly know that there has not been such ‘influence’.
The Ancient Greek term ‘philosophy’, in and by itself, is of lowly connotation when compared to the Ancient Oriental transcendental wisdom and spiritual science. The Ancient Greek thinkers and explorers, who coined the term, had visited and studied for many years in the temples of Egypt, Babylonia and Iran. They had deployed a genuine effort to reach the Oriental wisdom, but they knew that they had failed to attain the level of their Babylonian, Egyptian, Anatolian and Iranian sacerdotal instructors. That is why they declared themselves as ‘friends of the wisdom’, and this is the real meaning of the word ‘philosophy’.
Neither the Ancient Greek temples, which were mostly dedicated to the cult, nor the various philosophical ‘schools’ that were established by the former students of the Oriental temples could possibly reconstitute a tiny portion of the transcendental wisdom and the spiritual sciences that were developed and maintained in the great Ancient Oriental temples, which were the true universities and research centers of those days.
Because the overwhelming supremacy of Oriental spirituality, mythical symbolism, wisdom, knowledge, science, mysticism and intellect was totally absent among the inhabitants of the peripheral lands of Western Anatolia and South Balkans, various Ionian. Aeolian, Attic, Dorian and other thinkers, the likes of Solon, Pythagoras, and Plato, traveled to Mesopotamia, Iran and Egypt to become there to duly educate themselves, We can therefore conclude that their thought systematization, world conceptualization, and philosophical verbalism (or at times verbosity) did not have any originality; they never advanced up to the level of Oriental spirituality, active spiritual performance, and theurgy. They were unfortunately limited in ceaseless talking, and only few among them made the exception, and they were able to perform what simple people called miracles.
Islamic spirituality, intellectuality, wisdom, knowledge and sciences constitute the continuation of the Ancient Oriental spiritual exercises, religious endeavors, and scientific-intellectual explorations. As far as the 8th – 15th c. Muslim historians, grammarians, astronomers, erudite scholars, scientists, authors, transcendental epic poets, and wise explorers are concerned, one has to point out that they resourcefully studied ancient languages, texts, sciences, religions, and arts; they certainly practiced numerous techniques of ancient spirituality, and they performed what was called ‘mysteries’. Consequently, it is normal to assume that they also studied, translated and commented on selected texts of Ancient Greek authors and philosophers. But this fact demonstrates only the existence of one extra channel of Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian Babylonian, Aramaean, Phoenician, Yemenite and Iranian impact on the Islamic civilization; it does not constitute any ‘influence’.
There were also some Islamic philosophers, who found various statements made by some Ancient Greek philosophers as quite useful elements for their argumentation and their opposition to other, slightly earlier or contemporaneous philosophers (example: the philosophical feud between Ibn Rushd and Al-Ghazali). This situation does not reflect any ‘influence’ either; it consists merely in a reference to different sources. Influence is defined as ‘the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, or the effect itself’.
In the case of the Islamic wise scholars and so-called philosophers, this would entail a substantive adoption (either conscious or not) of earlier preached, taught, diffused and adopted concepts, perceptions, ideals, faiths, notions, rituals, doctrines, ideas, theoretical approaches, interpretations, spiritual exercises, cultic practices or behavioral systems. However, this never occurred.
To offer an example, I would state that there is an undeniable and multifaceted influence of Mani and Manichaeism on many Islamic and Christian mystics, esoteric groups, philosophers, scholars, theologians, spiritual masters, founders of orders, etc. But there is no Platonic, Neo-Platonic or Neo-Pythagorean influence on Islam; and in few cases that may look like cases of evident influence, this is not an Ancient Greek, but an Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Iranian, Gnostic or other influence on Islam, because there was no originality in Ancient Greek philosophy.
In fact, what happened -as continuation of the Pre-Islamic Oriental erudition, spirituality, faith and knowledge, through Late Antiquity Gnosticisms, Manichaeism and other religions, down to Islamic times- is exactly the opposite of what the colonial academics of Western Europe and North America have meticulously tried for long to totally conceal:
a) with the appearance of Islam and the emergence of the Islamic civilization, Christianity was drastically ejected out of the mainstream human civilization. For many centuries, Orthodox and Catholic Christianity represented merely a wrinkle on the surface of the Earth (just the space between France, Central Europe, Central Italy, the Balkans and Anatolia) when compared to the Islamic world.
Even more so, because despite one strong imperial administration (the Eastern Roman Empire) and a powerful religious institution (Rome), Orthodox and Catholic Christianity together stretched over an area narrower even than that inhabited by Nestorian Christians in Asia, i.e. between Mesopotamia, India, Central Asia, Siberia, Mongolia and China. Despite the enormous spread of Islam between 700 and 1100 CE, Christianity in Asia (i.e. Nestorianism) stretched over lands that were far larger lands than the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire and the lands inhabited by Christians in Western Europe.
and
b) with the overwhelming proclamation of the Satanic perversion of Renaissance, after the demise of the Eastern Roman Empire (1453) and with the long prepared, systematic dispatch of criminal gangsters and colonial murderers across the world to shamelessly commit atrocious hecatombs and tyrannically impose the Renaissance deception (under the guise of ‘Christianity’), a counterfeit religion rose to prominence across the Earth (under the name of Christianity), disfiguring the historical past in order to justify its evil purpose.
In fact, if the Eastern Roman Empire had survived and had existed longer, it would have been the only institution to authoritatively denounce the Anti-Christian crimes and genocides which were perpetrated by the conquistadores and to reject the evilness of Renaissance as totally Anti-Christian.
Pre-publication of chapter XIII of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XI, XII, and XIII constitute the Part Four (Fallacies about the so-called Hellenistic Period, Alexander the Great, and the Seleucid & the Parthian Arsacid Times) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter XI ‘Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period’ and Chapter XII ‘Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty’ have already been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the book; they are currently available online here: https://www.academia.edu/105386978/Alexander_the_Great_as_Iranian_King_of_Kings_the_fallacy_of_Hellenism_and_the_nonexistent_Hellenistic_Period
The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.
—————————-
The very long shadow of the Turanian Parthian Arsacids who ruled Iran (250 BCE – 224 CE) longer than the Achaemenids (550-330 BCE) and the Sassanids (224-651 CE); this silver gilt dish was found in Padishkhwargar, an Arsacid province that corresponds to Tabaristan (of Islamic times) or to Mazandaran and Gilan (of Modern times), i.e. the long and narrow region between the Alborz Mountains and the southern coast of the Caspian Sea. The dish dates back to the last decades of Sassanid rule or the very early Islamic period; it apparently follows the Sassanid artistic traditions, but the main person next to whom there is a brief Pahlavi inscription makes with his left hand a particular sign of mystical recognition among initiates. This sign reminds the typical hand gesture of Gray Wolves (a fist with the little finger and index finger raised).
Colonial historiographers and Orientalists expand much about the philhellenism of the Parthian monarchs at least for the first 250 years of the dynasty, down to the very beginning of the 1st c. CE; this is a fact. However, few questioned how functional this Parthian philhellenism was and what important purposes it actually served. It is true that after Alexander the Great’s death (323 BCE) a chaotic situation prevailed across Iran and many battles were fought by his Epigones; the Seleucid Empire, which incorporated the central Iranian satrapies, was constituted only 11 years after Alexander’s death (312 BCE).
At that moment and for a longer period afterwards, the worst hit province of the Achaemenid Empire was still Fars (Persia); Alexander the Great’s invasions did not involve any other destruction of Achaemenid city or site comparable to that of Parsa (Persepolis). Reflecting pre-existing rivalries, several populations of other Iranian – Turanian provinces may have enjoyed both, Alexander’s attitude against Fars and the destruction of Persepolis. Furthermore, the inevitable transfer of the imperial capital to Babylon must have pleased them too; it offered them space to gradually control as long as the Persian Iranians were in disarray.
Parthia was already a province of the short-lived Median Empire
Parthia as an Achaemenid Iranian satrapy
The early period of Arsacid Parthia: 250-200 BCE
The Arsacid Parthian Empire in 94 BCE at its greatest extent, during the reign of Mithridates II (124–91 BCE)
The Arsacid Parthian Empire at the beginning of the first c. CE
Parthia (P-rw-t-i-wꜣ) written in Egyptian hieroglyphic characters: it was one of the 24 subject nations of the Achaemenid Empire (from the Egyptian Statue of Darius I the Great)
Parthian soldier depicted on the façade of Xerxes’ I tomb in Naqsh-e Rustam, ca. 470 BCE
The subsequent transfer of the Seleucid capital to Seleucia in Mesopotamia was a grave mistake of the newly established dynasty, which failed to comprehend the very smart effort of Alexander to favor, befriend and utilize the Babylonians as the principal means to hold his vast empire united. Finally, the Parthians seceded from the Seleucid Empire 60-65 years after its inception. The rise of the Arsacid dynasty meant that, for the first time in History, the central Iranian–Turanian provinces were ruled under a scepter and a throne that were not located in Fars.
It is therefore normal that the Parthians -in their opposition to the Persians (of Fars)- promoted a systematic court philhellenism and contributed to Alexander the Great’s Iranian legitimation and unquestionable incorporation into the imperial identity and history, and to his posterior fame among Iranian–Turanian nations. This stance fully corresponded to their best interests, namely to secure stability across Iran’s central provinces, while facing threats from rivals among the neighboring empires and kingdoms. It is clear that the Turanian attempt was rejected by the Persian Iranians, and of this polarization we attest late echoes that date back to the Islamic times. Accepting Alexander as an Iranian was benediction to the Turanian Parthians and malediction to the Iranian Persians. But the empire (Xšāça) established by Cyrus the Great was indiscriminately Iranian-Turanian.
Despite the Arsacid–Seleucid wars, one must rather conclude that, with their marked philhellenism, the Turanian rulers of Parthia had good relations with the various Greek and Macedonian colonies, which had been established throughout their territory and in several adjacent lands, notably Bactria.
This fact helps also explain why, despite Alexander the Great’s rather negative portrait in Sassanid and Middle Persian sources of the Islamic times’ Parsis, the conqueror of the Achaemenid Empire enjoyed splendid narratives and majestic descriptions by Ferdowsi, Nizami, and many other Islamic Iranian–Turanian poets, mystics, philosophers and historians.
Although followers of Parsism (the form of Zoroastrianism that survived down to our days) in Iran and India have a very negative perception of Alexander the Great, Iranian and Turanian Muslims very much venerate him. About:
One must have no doubt that the term ‘Hellene’ (Greek) is ‘Ionian’ for the Oriental languages. Throughout all the ancient Oriental sources, i.e. Assyrian-Babylonian, Old Achaemenid Iranian, Aramaic, Phoenician and Hebrew, there is not one mention of ‘Greeks’ or ‘Hellenes’; the only term used is ‘Ionian’. This means that in any ancient Oriental language, for the word ‘Philhellene” the corresponding term is “friendly to Ionians”.
It is essential at this point to define the ethnic and cultural links that the Arsacid Parthians felt that they connected them with the ‘Ionians’ with whom they entered in contact. The Parthians accepted the imperial concept because they were integral part of Achaemenid Iran; around 200 years later, the Macedonians, the Ionians and the Aeolians became acquainted with this spiritual notion thanks to Alexander the Great and the practices of Orientalization that he introduced for his soldiers.
However, prior to the acceptance of the imperial ideal, both the Parthians and the ‘Ionians’ had their apparently common concept of governorship that was above the fundamental level of Kurultai, which corresponds to the ‘Ionian’ Amphictyony for settled tribes. This was a military type of rule with man exercising absolute power upon condition of general approval. The traditional Turanian ruler was named in Ancient Ionian (‘Greek’) ‘tyrannos’, and it was pronounced as ‘tu-ran-nos’ with the accent on the first syllable. The term designated the typically Turanian ruler and it serves as an indication of the Turanian origin of the Ionians and the Aeolians. It was actually first used among the Lydians of the Mermnadae dynasty, whose members had apparently names of Turanian origin, notably the founder of the dynasty Gyges whose name was written in Assyrian Annals as Gu(g)gu. About:
In fact, the Parthian Arsacid philhellenism sheds more light on the inculcation of Turanian populations across Western Anatolia and South Balkans during the first millennium BCE, which is a topic that colonial historians tried systematically to conceal. However, Parthian philhellenism is certainly a form of anti-Persianism, which shows that the Achaemenid times were not a period of peace and concord, as many attempted to depict.
——————— THE GALLERY OF ARSACID RULERS & SOLDIERS —————————
Silver drachma of Arsaces I (247 – 211 BCE) with inscription
Arsaces II (211–191 BCE); coin from the Ray mint
Friyapat/Priapatius (191-176 BCE); coin from the Qumis (Hekatompylos; today’s Saddarvazeh) mint
Coin of Frahat I / Phraates I (176-171 BCE)
Coin of Mehrdat I / Mithridates I (171–138 or 132 BCE), who was the first Arsacid Parthian ruler to be attributed the title ‘King of Kings’, according to Babylonian cuneiform records; the reverse shows Verethragna / Heracles, and the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ “Great King Arsaces, friend of Greeks”.
Parthian relief of Mithridates I of Parthia from Xong-e Ashdar (also known as Hung-i Nauruzi), near the city of Izeh, in Khuzestan, Iran; compared to the Achaemenid reliefs, which were the results of an official imperial art, the Parthian reliefs are relevant of provincial artists and craftsmanship; most of the Parthian reliefs are found in the southern range of Zagros Mountains. Parthian reliefs are rather secular and not religious; and not religious; they depict scenes of resting, drinking, and hunting, also including several animal figures.
Mithradat-kert (literally the city of Mithridates I of Parthia) in today’s Nisa (or Nissa or Nusay) in Eastern Turkmenistan; the entrance to the city and the walls, which had to be covered up to prevent further damage from erosion
Mithradat-kert(Ancient Greek: Νῖσος, Νίσα, Νίσαιον; Turkmen: Nusaý or Parthaunisa)
Mithradat-kert
Mithradat-kert
Frahat II / Phraates II (132–127 BCE); coin from the Seleucia mint (in Mesopotamia)
Ardawan I / Artabanus I (127–124 BCE); coin from the Seleucia mint
Coin of Ardawan II / Artabanus II (126–122 BCE)
Coin (drachma) of Mihrdāt II / Mithridates II of Parthia (124–91 BCE); the clothing is Parthian, while the style is Seleucid (sitting on an omphalos). The Greek inscription reads “King Arsaces, the Philhellene”.
Godarz I / Gotarzes I (95-90 BCE); coin from the Ecbatana mint
Coin of Mihrdat III / Mithridates III (87-80 BCE) from the Ray mint
Tetradrachm of the Parthian monarch Urud I / Orodes I (90-80 BCE) from the Seleucia mint
Coin of Sanatruq I / Sinatruces I (77-70 BCE) from the Ray mint
Frahat III / Phraates III (70–57 BCE); coin from the Ecbatana mint
Coin of Mihrdat IV / Mithridates IV (57-54 BCE)
Coin of Urud II / Orodes II (57-38 BCE) from the Mithradat-kert (Nisa) mint
Frahat IV / Phraates IV (38-2 BCE); coin from the Mithradat-kert mint
During the reign of Frahat IV / Phraates IV, there seems to have been a pacification agreement between Parthia and Rome (after the proclamation of Octavian as Emperor in early 27 BCE). According to Roman sources, the Parthians returned to Romans the standards lost in the Battle of Carrhae (53 BCE); this fact was commemorated and presented by Octavian as a victory: this coin (denarius) was struck in 19 BCE. It depicts the Roman goddess Feronia on the obverse, and on the reverse a Parthian soldier who kneels in submission while returning the Roman military standards. It is apparently a matter of utmost symbolism and not the representation of a historical event.
The decentralized administrative and royal power of the Arsacid Parthians allowed for many small, peripheral and vassals kingdoms to surface (Characene, Adiabene, Osrhoene, etc.); there are many possible interpretations of the phenomenon, which was erroneously viewed as result of military weakness in the past. Elymais (in today’s Khuzestan, SW Iran) was one of those vassal states. Coin of Kamnaskires III, king of Elymais, and his wife Queen Anzaze, 1st century BCE
Coin of Tiridat II / Tiridates II (29-27 BCE)
Coin of Frahat V / Phraates V (2 BCE-4 CE)
Vonun I / Vonones I (8-12 CE); coin from the Seleucia mint
Coin of Ardawan II / Artabanus II (10-38 CE) from the Seleucia mint
Vardan I / Vardanes I (40-47 CE); coin from the Seleucia mint
Tetradrachm of Godarz II / Gotarzes II (40-51 CE) minted in 49 CE
Tetradrachm of the Parthian king Vologases I (50-79 CE), struck at Seleucia; on the obverse, there is a portrait of the king who appears to wear a trouser-suit, bear a diadem, and have beard. The reverse depicts an investiture scene, where the king receives the scepter and the divine authority by Ahura Mazda.
The so-called Indo-Parthian Kingdom (19-226 CE) was another small, vassal and peripheral kingdom that was located east of the Parthian Arsacid Empire; it was founded by king Gondophares (Γονδοφαρης/Υνδοφερρης; 19-46 CE) whose name (Windafarm in Parthian and Gundapar in Middle Persian) means ‘May he find glory’ (Vindafarna in Old Achaemenid Iranian). Gondophares originated from the illustrious House of Suren, one of the most prestigious families in Arsacid Iran. He built his own royal city Gundopharron and this name was gradually altered to Kandahar (which is located in today’s Afghanistan). Gondophares’ coin was found in India and bears witness to a clearly Parthian style.
Roman sestertius issued by the Roman Senate in 116 CE to commemorate Trajan’s Parthian campaign
Drawing representing a Parthian archer as depicted on Trajan’s Column in Rome (113 CE)
Relief of the Roman-Parthian wars at the Arch of Septimius Severus in Rome (203 CE)
Parthian (right) wearing a Phrygian cap, depicted as a prisoner of war, in chains, held by a Roman (left); Arch of Septimius Severus, Rome, 203 CE
Parthian king making an offering to god Verethragna; from Masjed Soleyman, SW Iran. 2nd–3rd century CE (today in the Louvre Museum)
Silver drachma of the Parthian king Walagash VI / Vologases VI (208-228 CE), penultimate ruler of the Arsacid dynasty. Obverse: King wearing a tiara decorated with deers and ribboned diadem. Reverse: Arsakes I, founder or the Arsacid Parthian dynasty, seating on a throne and holding a bow. From the Ecbatana mint (today’s Hamadan).
Parthian horseman, currently at the Palazzo Madama, Turin
Parthian cataphract fighting a lion, currently at the British Museum
Stucco relief of an infantry soldier, dating back to the Arsacid times (250 BCE – 224 CE); from the Zahhak castle, in Hashtrud, Eastern Azerbaijan, Iran; currently in the Azerbaijan Museum, Tabriz (Iran)
————————————————————————–
Another fact that Western Orientalists tried always to obscure is that the religion of the Arsacids was somewhat divergent from that of the Achaemenids. I don’t mean that the Parthians had a diametrically different or a counterfeit religion; not at all! Simply, in terms of Zoroastrian cosmogony, cosmology, universalism, imperial doctrine, and apocalyptic eschatology, the Arsacids sensibly differed from the Achaemenid Zoroastrian orthodoxy. We have to also bear in mind at this point that the scarcity of the historical sources still prevents us from properly assessing the true dimensions of the religious differentiation.
However, the marked differentiation of the Arsacid monarch from his Achaemenid predecessors suggests another type of royalty, sacrality, spirituality, and morality. As an example for the average readership, I point out here that there has not been even one Old Achaemenid or Imperial Aramaic text -saved down to our days-, which explicitly mentions Zoroaster by name. All the earliest mentions of the name of the founder of the Achaemenid imperial religion are in Middle Persian and in Avestan writings – except for external but largely untrustworthy sources (Ancient Greek and Latin).
All the same, the religious differentiation between the Achaemenid and the Arsacid times did not bring about a drastic religious change, but rather another perception of the divine world; the Parthians continued worshipping Ahura Mazda and keeping themselves far from Ahriman’s attraction. But it appears that, during the Arsacid times, Zoroaster’s preaching was rather perceived as a sacred moral world order; subsequently, the metaphysical terms of the then orally preserved Avesta took a moral dimension and connotation. The spiritual interest seems to have shifted from an imperial order of worldwide salvation to a personal order of moral integrity.
Consequently, examining the nature of this historical-religious change, we may be able to discern that the Achaemenid Zoroastrian orthodoxy, once deprived of its overwhelmingly imperial character, looks rather associated to the moral concepts and the spiritual tenets of Tengrism. For this reason, it is proper not to use the term ‘Zoroastrianism’ for all the historical periods after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, because religiosity differed substantially; it would then be preferable to use the term ‘Zendism’ for the Iranian religion of the Arsacid times, which is in reality a later form of Zoroastrianism in which theological exegesis (Zend Avesta meaning interpretation of Avesta) prevailed over the original faith, and the Avestan text took mainly a moral connotation and value within the socio-religious environment of those days.
The Zend commentaries of the Avestan texts, which definitely originate from the spiritual-religious background of the Arsacid Parthian (and not Sassanid) times, do reflect theological concepts and world views closer associated with Tengrism. About:
Zendism was definitely opposite to Mithraism, although perhaps not in the very strict form for which the Achaemenid emperors became famous. But it was mainly in Arsacid times that Mithraism expanded enormously both, southeastwards (India) and westwards (Caucasus, Anatolia, Syria, Greece, Europe, Rome and the Roman Empire). This does not mean that there were no Mithraic Magi left in Iran; their existence proved to be the main reason for palatial turmoil, sacerdotal plots, social unrest, and internal strives. Undoubtedly, the Magi were the absolute embodiment of Ahriman (: the evil) for the Arsacid rulers, pretty much like they had been an abomination for the Achaemenid monarchs.
In this regard, it is essential to point out that ‘Mithra’ (or ‘Mehr’) in Zoroastrianism and ‘Mithra’ (or ‘Mehr’) in Mithraism are two absolutely different divinities – pretty much like Jesus in Manichaeism, Mandaean religion, Gnostic Christianity, Roman & Eastern Roman Christianity, Nestorian Christianity, and Islam is not one being but many divergent entities or forms of divinity, each with dissimilar attributes. It goes without saying that for any concept or aspect of Tengrism, which is also a markedly monotheistic system, Mithra is a religious disgrace.
More specifically, I have to point out that within the context of Zoroastrianism, ‘Mithra’ (or ‘Mehr’) is a subordinate form of divinity that constitutes merely an expression of the unfathomable benevolence and omnipotence of Ahura Mazda, and as such it bears solar attributes. Contrarily, within the context of Mithraism, this divinity gets emancipated, becomes independent, and turns out to be the central recipient of cult, while a series of abominable and sacrilegious acts are attributed to him, notably the blasphemy of tauroctony which is part of the Mithraic eschatology. Due to the polytheistic nature of Mithraism, Mithra is intrinsically and extensively mythologized; this is so because there cannot be true polytheism without numerous narratives which attract the adoration of the faithful, and in the process, they prevent believers from focusing on the spiritual exercises, the moral principles, and the basic narratives of Cosmogony, Cosmology and Eschatology. In Mithraism, Ahura Mazda still exists as an inactive divinity of the old time, like the Roman dei otiosi.
At this point, it is essential to make one clarification; the well-known, theophoric name ‘Mithridates’, which was used by several Arsacid Parthian rulers, does not directly imply Mithraic affiliation. Certainly, the name means literally ‘given by Mithra’; it was also attested in Pontus, Commagene, Armenia and elsewhere. But every case of use is different. In some cases, it may involve the Zendist / Zoroastrian concept of Mithra; on other occasions, it may reflect a compromise among the Parthian Arsacid Empire’s imperial and the sacerdotal cliques, which were plunged in an endless conflict against one another.
Last, the use of the aforementioned theophoric name can eventually denote the pro-Mithraic tendency and affiliation of a Parthian monarch; there were indeed few Mithraists among the Arsacid rulers. This was an abomination for the monotheistic Parthian Zendist priests, and it appears that some of the pro-Mithraic Arsacid rulers were overthrown. The analysis of the reason(s) that stood behind the selection of a theophoric name in the Antiquity may be very long and complicated a topic, because usually these names heralded the nature of the imperial rule that was to be expected in terms easy to understand for the contemporaneous people and difficult to decode for modern scholarship. About:
———– A SELECTION OF ARSACID PARTHIAN MONUMENTS ———
Hatra, NW Iraq: a major caravan city on the Silk Roads that prospered during the Arsacid Parthian times, being mainly inhabited by the local Aramaeans
A barrel vaulted iwan at the entrance at the ancient site of Hatra, modern-day Iraq, built c. 50 CE
Statue unearthed in Hatra, currently at the Tokyo National Museum: Aramaean amalgamation of Verethragna and an Aramaean deity into a Mithraic divinity similar to Artagnes, who is known to have been worshipped in Nemrut Dagh and Commagene in general
Temple of the Aramaean divinity Gareus, near Uruk, Southern Mesopotamia – near the borders of the vassal kingdom of Characene
Parthian ceramic oil lamp, from the province of Khuzestan, currently in the National Museum of Iran (Tehran)
Baal temple in Palmyra: a frieze relief
Grave towers in Tadmor / Palmyra / Phoinicopolis; known among Syrians as the ‘Valley of the Tombs’ (Wadi al-Qubur). Majestic funerary monuments bear witness to the extraordinary wealth of the great Aramaean caravan city (1st-3rd c. CE).
Statue of a young Palmyrene Aramaean in fine Parthian trousers; from a funerary stele at Palmyra / Tadmor, early 3rd century CE
Mordechai and Esther. From the Aramaean Synagogue of Dura Europos (near Abu Kemal) on the Western bank of Euphrates River in Syria (right before the Syrian-Iraqi border): wall mural with representation of a story from the Book of Esther (early 3rd c. CE); artistic style known as ‘Parthian frontality’
Hélène Carrère d’Encausse : Des Intellectuels Jadidistes à Brejnev et à Poutine – Nécrologie
Элен Каррер д’Анкосс: от интеллектуалов-джадидистов до Брежнева и Путина — некролог
Contents
Introduction
I. D’Encausse is not Encausse!
II. L’Empire éclaté
III. Bobojon Ghafurov, the Tajik Soviet Orientalist, and his Hajj
IV. The Islamic Republic of Mecca & the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
V. Broadened horizons: Orientalism and Sovietology
VI. ‘Le pouvoir confisqué’ & Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s writing style
VII. Suslov, Pravda, and ‘The State and Revolution’
VIII. My classmates at Sciences Po: today’s ignorant, worthless and miserable administrators and politicians
IX. Nicos Poulantzas’ suicide & the Western leftist intelligentsia’s funerals
X. Either Leonid Brezhnev or Ronald Reagan – or get lost!
XI. How the Jadid Intellectuals impacted the formation of the Hélène Carrère d’Encausse School of Sovietology
XII. Charles de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, and Hélène Carrère d’Encausse
XIII. Soviet Union, Spirituality, Religion and Eschatology
XIV. John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Polish quagmire
XV. Viewpoint from the Mount Elbrus
XVI. The European convictions and the pragmatism of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse
XVII. The limits of historiography: a History of leaders and governance or a History of peoples and culture?
Содержание
Введение
I. Д’Анкосс – это не Анкосс!
II. «Расколотая империя»
III. Бободжон Гафуров, таджикский советский востоковед, и его хадж
IV. Исламская Республика Мекка (Теракт в Мекке) и советское вторжение в Афганистан
V. Расширение кругозора: ориентализм и советология
VI. «Конфискованная власть» и стиль письма Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
VII. Суслов, «Правда» и «Государство и революция».
VIII. Мои одноклассники в Science Po: сегодняшние невежественные, никчемные и жалкие администраторы и политики
IX. Самоубийство Никоса Пуланцаса и похороны западной левой интеллигенции
X. Либо Леонид Брежнев, либо Рональд Рейган — или проваливай!
XI. Как интеллектуалы-джадиды повлияли на формирование школы советологии Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
XII. Шарль де Голль, Жорж Помпиду и Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
XIII. Советский Союз, Духовность, Религия и Эсхатология
XIV. Иоанн Павел II, Рональд Рейган и польская трясина
XV. Смотровая площадка с горы Эльбрус
XVI. Европейские убеждения и прагматизм Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
XVII. Пределы историографии: история вождей и правления или история народов и культуры?
Permanent Secretary of the French Academy, Helene Carrere d’Encausse and her husband Louis Carrere d’Encausse attend the Private View of “Icones de l’Art Moderne, la Collection Chtchoukine” at Fondation Louis Vuitton on February 20, 2017 in Paris, France.
Introduction
She died 94; I am 67, and I was her student before 42-43 years, back in 1980-1981 at the illustrious Institut d’études politiques de Paris (also known as Sciences Po or IEP). Back at those days, the Anglo-Saxon countries and ‘universities’ were filled with nonsensical Kremlinologists, who were mere Anti-Soviet propagandists rather than objective scholars and impartial researchers.
It is certainly to the credit of my late professor, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse (6 July 1929-5 August 2023), that she killed this term in France, across the member states of the Francophonie, and throughout the Francophone world. The extremely absurd term ‘Kremlinologie’ never existed in French, as it was duly replaced by the far more reasonable word ‘Soviétologie’ – to large extent thanks to the deceased academician.
In fact, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse was the founder of the French School of Sovietology; she actually entered the academic arena in 1963 with her celebrated thesis “Réforme et révolution chez les musulmans de l’Empire russe, Bukhara 1867-1924” (Reform and revolution among the Muslims of the Russian Empire; Bukhara 1867-1924) {Préface de Maxime Rodinson (Thèse, Doctorat 3e cycle; Histoire Paris)}. But I am digressing! About:
Соболезнования в связи с кончиной Элен Каррер д’Анкосс
I did not move to Paris (in October 1978) for postgraduate studies in Sovietology and Political Science; there was a time when I did not know her grand name. If someone asked me in 1978 whether I knew “d’Encausse”, I would certainly reply positively only due to my own misunderstanding, because I would recall my earlier readings and my research about Gérard Anaclet Vincent Encausse (also known as Papus), the illustrious French Freemason, occultist, hypnotist, thaumaturgist and mystic (1865-1915). Of course, as you can imagine, ‘Encausse’ was not ‘d’Encausse’, but still there was a certain Franco-Russian connection in this case, because Papus was sought after by none else than Nikolai Vtoroy (Czar Nicholas II)!
Facing social unrest after a calamitous and very humiliating defeat by the Japanese (1905), the Russian Emperor invited the famous mystic to Tsarskoye Selo (now known as Pushkin, 25 km from St. Petersburg), the imperial residence. It is said that in a particular séance, Encausse-Papus evoked the spirit of Alexander III (father and predecessor of Nicholas II, who had died one year earlier), and the … ‘spirit’ gave counsel for more repression (this was understandable at least) to ‘avoid a revolution’.
The ‘spirit’ must have apparently come from another universe, because ‘it’ did not know that the revolution had already taken place and it had been duly squelched. However, one of the most intriguing rumors maintained that Encausse-Papus said to the distressed Nicholas II that the fearsome revolution would not break out as long as he himself was in life (note that he died in 1915). About:
As a matter of fact, I relocated to Paris in order to undertake postgraduate studies in Egyptology, Assyriology, Hittitology, Northwestern Semitic languages, History of Religions, Gnosis, Manichaeism, and Oriental Christianism; soon afterwards I added Iranology, thus covering a vast area from North Africa to Central Asia and from Anatolia to the Indus River Valley. I also studied Russian Literature, thus continuing my earlier intensive studies of Russian language at the Greek Soviet Friendship Association in Athens (греко советское общество дружбы; 1975-1978), during my undergraduate studies. The interest for Russia/USSR was permanent, as part of my family had lived there.
It was in early 1979, in a rainy Saturday afternoon, that I found a fascinating book while spending some time in a bookstore; the title was ‘L’Empire éclaté’ (the Shattered Empire). It was published in 1978 and the author’s name was Hélène Carrère d’Encausse. As you can guess from the previous paragraphs, it was easy for me to retain the name! Reading few lines from several pages that belonged to different chapters, I realized that the core purpose of the well-written book was the solemn announcement of the forthcoming fall of the USSR. About:
Saying something like that at the time was not a joke; it was an entrance ticket to the madhouse. In 4-5 minutes, I was able to find out the major reason that the author evoked to support her claim; the Muslim populations of Central Asia and Caucasus were creating a major demographic challenge for the Russians, who -after some decades- would end up as the minority within the borders of the Soviet Union. It was enthralling. I bought the book and in the next few months, in parallel with my heavy schedule, I managed to read it all. It was certainly a best-seller in France. But there was a reason for this. On 16th January 1979, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi left Iran, and on 1st February 1979, the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Tehran.
In her ‘L’Empire éclaté’, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse did not discuss issues pertaining to Islamization or radicalization; but the scarecrow of a USSR -with the Russians as minority and the Turkic Muslim nations of Central Asia as the majority- could after some decades end up with either a nationalist revival or an Islamic theological conservatism.
It was not a bluff; there were many indications for this, well beyond the events in Iran. I was then shaping my understanding on the basis of diverse data and pieces of collected information. As I was studying the past of many countries of North Africa and the so-called Middle East, I befriended many students originating from those nations; they were next to me as we attended together various courses (Egyptology, Assyriology, Aramaic & Phoenician, History of the Red Sea region, etc.) and, before the courses started or ended, they used to become my source of information for what happened in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Iran, etc. I was constantly discussing with them in order to evaluate how the overall situation was from Morocco to Pakistan and from Turkey to Yemen. There was no Internet, no mobile telephony, and not even computers at those days, but people corresponded with others, and the news from Soviet Union did not look like the governmental or partisan propaganda of the last Brezhnev years.
III. Bobojon Ghafurov, the Tajik Soviet Orientalist, and his Hajj
The story of Bobojon Ghafurov was known to me already in 1979; Igor Diakonoff (Игорь Михайлович Дьяконов; 1915-1999), the famous Soviet Assyriologist, was friend of my French professor, the renowned Orientalist Jean Bottéro (1914-2007), and like that, I started corresponding with him; in parallel I also knew several other academics in USSR through my Communist connections. The Bobojon Ghafurov story was included in Diakonoff’s auto-biographical ‘Book of Memories’ (Книга воспоминаний) and it can be found in the Russian Wikipedia entry about him, but the news had already spread those days, because Ghafurov had just died.
The great Tajik Soviet statesman (Бободжан Гафурович Гафуров; 1908-1977) was also an outstanding Orientalist; he was the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Tajikistan from 1946 to 1956, and from that date to the end of his life, he was the Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union. His doctorate thesis about the Ismailiyah (الإسماعيلية; the Isma’ili Order of Muslim mystics) was a most recommendable publication, and his contention about the Tajiks and Tajik History became easily a matter of grave polarization (Are the Tajiks ‘Persianized Turks’ or are the Uzbeks ‘Turkified Eastern Iranians’? / at the time, I did not side with either position, but now I accept the Ghafurov thesis, which is the second leg of the aforementioned dilemma). I have to add here that the Tajik Orientalist had become known to me through his academic partner and co-author, the Greek Soviet historian Dimitrios Tsibukidis (Димитриос Цибукидис; 1921-2006).
However, in 1974, Ghafurov found the correct political pretext (namely the initiation of some state contacts) to get a special permission to travel for Hajj to Mecca and Medina – at a time there were no diplomatic relations between USSR and Saudi Arabia; but apparently the real reason for this travel was a latent faith that had been meanwhile developed. No diplomatic improvement happened following this trip, but when the Tajik Orientalist returned, he made shocking revelations to all of his Orientalist colleagues; more specifically, he said that for him his career as statesman was meaningless, his academic employment was pointless, but the pilgrimage that he had just performed was highly considered among his friends and neighbors in the village. Afterwards, he lived the rest of his life at home. About:
These words constituted an indirect confession of Muslim faith; the rumor spread among academics, Orientalists and partisans throughout the vast country and also beyond the borders; it was actually the time when Roger Garaudy (1913-2012) had become a Muslim. With her ‘L’Empire éclaté’, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse had caught the pulse of the moment. This made of her one of the very few people worldwide who predicted the fall of Soviet Union more than 10 years before it occurred. Two critical events took also place in 1979, setting the new stage of Soviet-Muslim polarization.
IV. The Islamic Republic of Mecca & the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
First, from 20th November to 4th December 1979, the short-lived Islamic Republic of Mecca shook the foundations of the obsolete Saudi monarchy, particularly if we take into consideration the fact that king Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (1906-1975) had been assassinated. This development ended up in terrible bloodshed, but it acquired a fascinating eschatological dimension in the minds and the hearts of hundreds of millions of Muslims; now, it is somewhat forgotten and deliberately minimized as the ‘Grand Mosque seizure’, but it then made many Muslims believe that the arrival of Mahdi and Prophet Jesus was a really imminent affair, i.e. for the people of this generation. Actually, all the discourses and speeches made by the Juhayman group were strongly eschatological of character. It goes without saying that they undertook this operation, apparently guided by the criminal rascals of the English secret services.
Few days later, the Soviet army entered Afghanistan (24 December 1979) thus directly involving Moscow in a confrontation with the local stooges of the CIA. Contrarily to what many believe today, the Soviet operation in Afghanistan was not a mistake; things went wrong only because the Marxist-Leninist authorities did not realize that the Western secret services were not the enemies and the opponents of the Islamists but their producers, protectores and promoters; even worse, the Soviet leadership did not have a correct plan as to what to do after invading the country, which is a difficult mountainous terrain inhabited by many different nations that have nothing in common. About:
However, thanks to the then existing SSRs of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, a large part of Afghanistan should have been divided and annexed by these three Central Asiatic SSRs. Another large part of Afghanistan should have been established as the Hazara SSR and then adequately helped to integrate with the USSR. The rest would form the secluded Pashtun territory and Pashtun populations from other parts of the fake state of Afghanistan should have been relocated there. After the resettlement of all the populations as per the aforementioned arrangements, the Soviet army would only need to militarily occupy the Pashtun territory which would not be larger than 150000 km2. But all the good Soviet Orientalists had failed to realize that there is no Afghan nation and that Afghanistan was (and still is) a fake country fabricated by the English colonial gangsters of the East India Company as a means of weakening the Iranian Safavid-Afshar-Qajar Empire.
V. Broadened horizons: Orientalism and Sovietology
For me, my studies and my understanding, the books of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse constituted an exquisite opportunity to establish bridges between Russia and the Ancient Orient, Russia and Central Asia, Iran and Central Asia, and Russia and Africa. It was then that I became fully conscious of a fact that I already knew somewhat superficially: that Russia was part of the ‘Orient’, and not of the ‘Occident’. This was actually the first territorial expansion of my research interests.
That is why after two years of postgraduate studies in the aforementioned disciplines of Orientalism, I decided to also enroll in the department for doctoral studies in Sovietology (Cycle Supérieur d’Etudes sur l’URSS et l’Europe Orientale) where, in addition to the seminar offered by the head of the department, I would also follow courses conducted by the Polish-French scholar Eugène Zaleski (a very remarkable specialist on Political Economy and Soviet economic planning), Patrice Gélard (who became later a senator), who scrutinized Soviet Constitutional Law, and many others. It was a well-organized department superbly put in order by Renée Sergent, an excellent administrative assistant who was of great help for all the students. About:
VI. ‘Le pouvoir confisqué’ & Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s writing style
It was then (1980) that a new book just published by France’s best Sovietologist confirmed that my aforementioned decision was correct and that I should truly add Sovietology to the other fields of my Orientalist specialization: ‘Le pouvoir confisqué’ (‘The confiscated power’). I read it while taking intensive summer courses of Russian Literature at the (run by the French Jesuits) Centre d’Etudes Russes Saint Georges à Meudon; my intention was to have very strong linguistic skills in Russian, adding the Christian Orthodox czarist jargon (that had been obliterated in USSR). Little did I know at the time! My professor had indeed preceded me there by a quarter century. This ‘detail’ I learned many years later. It was truly amusing to learn the alphabet that Lenin had abolished. About:
Before having the compulsory interview with the head of the department prior to the final decision (September 1980), I knew already much about the very personality of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse. The way she was elaborating her books was very different from the writing style of all my other professors in the disciplines of Orientalism. With this I do not mean the contents or the stylistics of the text, but her temperament and powers of attraction. She was writing to pugnaciously convince the reader and she was engaged in her struggle to make others accept her approach, analysis, and descriptions.
Only two among my Orientalist professors, the Assyriologist Jean Bottéro, and Maxime Rodinson (1915-2004), a very exceptional connoisseur of the Orient (mainly for the Late Antiquity, Islamic and Modern times), were writing with great passion and/or empathy for the topics that they analyzed and the historical persons that they portrayed. But Carrère d’Encausse, who had also been the student of M. Rodinson, did not express any feelings for the subject of her text; on the contrary, she displayed passion in her effort to convince.
Maxime Rodinson
In French, this is not called ‘amour’ (love), but ‘amour propre’ (self-esteem). She was struggling to convince her readers about her judgment, evaluation and conclusions; she was therefore using the French language and structuring her sentences for this purpose, making always grammatically strong statements. The titles of her two books that I had already gone through offer a very good example in this regard; the structure ‘noun + past participle’ is in French far stronger than any similar structure in any other language.
VII. Suslov, Pravda, and ‘The State and Revolution’
Her seminars were attended by European, Asiatic, African and American students; we were all urged to subscribe to Pravda (Правда) and follow the directives as to how to decipher and interpret those heavily impacted by ideological jargon articles that had to always get an ‘imprimatur’ (official license) by hierarchical bureaucrats, who formed the Soviet equivalent of the Western ‘bourgeoisie aisée’ under the ‘spiritual’ or ‘sacerdotal’ or ‘ceremonial’ auspices of Mikhail Andreyevich Suslov (Михаил Андреевич Суслов; 1902-1982). And, to my eyes, this was a very serious problem.
No 2 in the Soviet hierarchy after Leonid Brezhnev, the ‘theoretical Custodian’ of the October Revolution, Second Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1965-1982), Senior Secretary of Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1948-1982), and (to use a Western vulgarity) ‘Chief Ideologue’ of the Communist Party of USSR, had failed to detect something truly crucial that was so obvious to my eyes: from the impulsive language that Lenin had used in his venerated ‘The State and Revolution’ (Государство и революция) there was nothing left in the routinely written, bureaucratic, apathetic, crystallized jargon of the Pravda scribes.
Irrespective of his ideas, opinions and choices, Lenin wrote in a vivid, sentimental manner with strong contrasts impressively painted thanks to his well-selected words; there was indeed life in his sentences. But Pravda texts in the 1970s were fossilized combinations of grammar, syntax and lexicography. I have to also add at this point that my familiarity with the ancient scribes of Mesopotamia and Egypt and with their role in the formulation of imperial and Pharaonic Annals helped me greatly understand that the role of the Pravda scribes in reality endangered the existence of the revolutionary Soviet state. Turning a ‘revolution’ to mere ‘ceremony’ is tantamount to funerals.
Suslov was at the time portrayed as a ‘hardliner’, but although I was under 25, I was already able to understand that such silly statements and descriptions were typical Anglo-Saxon propaganda good only for the ash-heap of history. But due to the ostensible mummification of the October Revolution, Suslov risked justifying the Anti-Soviet propaganda of the Western world. The long awaited, quasi-Messianic society that Lenin defined as ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ had unfortunately died in the meantime due to a malignant tumor named ‘Nomenklatura’. It was very clear to me at the time that the USSR could not live thanks to enthralling, impulsive and enthusiastic movements and ‘revolutions’ generated elsewhere (Vietnam, Cuba, Somalia, Yemen, Angola, etc.), simply because the heart (: Moscow) had already died.
Political science, economics, political economy, law, and international relations were apparently new scientific fields for me and I definitely had to make an extra effort; but the fact that I continued attending all my other courses in Orientalism offered me the unique opportunity to study in parallel international affairs in the times of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (mainly during 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE) and in Modern Times. The comparisons that I was able to then establish in the scholarly approach to either topics was of cardinal importance in my formative years and in the judgment of the modern societies that I was empowered to formulate in striking contrast with political scientists, geopolitical analysts, and politicians who think they know whereas they know nothing. About:
VIII. My classmates at Sciences Po: today’s ignorant, worthless and miserable administrators and politicians
To most of my classmates in Orientalism, political developments and politics were entirely unimportant issues; still, by having learned aspects of the historical past of mankind, they had gradually acquired a certain perspective and they were able to make pertinent judgments, seeing things from far. Quite contrarily, to my classmates in Sciences Po, political developments and politics were of vital importance; to judge based on the passion that they expressed for these topics, I would say that they truly lived in order to monitor and comment politics. This was totally futile and useless, because they knew too many details about a topic for which they did not have any perspective and which they could not see from far. In reality, they could not ‘learn’ (let alone ‘understand’) politics and the ongoing political developments, because they only were part of them, i.e. part of the problem.
However, I have to state that Hélène Carrère d’Encausse stood perfectly well at her level; she was never induced to enter into political discussions that most of my classmates were eager to initiate supposedly making a ‘question about the course’! It was then clear to my eyes that she was not only a shrewd observer and an excellent author, but also a well-disciplined professor and a regimented academic, who never confused the political analysis of a system with the political talk.
Even worse, my classmates, who -in their majority- were graduates in Political Science, Law and Economics, could not distinguish between the fake historical narrative that political instructors of every government, party, elite or regime write and the true, objective, unbiased and impartial History as evidenced by textual and epigraphic sources, archaeological findings, ethnographic data, and the cultural life of each and every genuine nation. Please, note that I don’t mention here anything about spirituality, cult, faith and religion, because had I uttered one of those words, my classmates would have asked me to return to my theological seminar. So, to all of them, ‘History’ was only the historical forgery that their respective governments had forced them to ‘learn’ in the primary and secondary schools; in other words, it was a recently invented sketch that had absolutely nothing with the historical process.
I still remember the reaction of an Algerian schoolmate who was shocked when I spoke to him about the Berbers, the majestic mausoleums of the Ancient Numidian kings, and the Ancient Berber writing system. Having ostensibly been indoctrinated in the colonial falsehood of Panarabism, intoxicated with French Enlightenment, inculcated with Marxism-Leninism, and duly brainwashed against the importance of the Berber Islamic civilization, he wondered how I knew all that! He then started being too apologetic against his national identity (‘there are only few Berbers now’), imperial heritage (‘only for vacations we go to Tipaza’, i.e. the location of the tomb of Juba I of Numidia), cultural integrity (‘we don’t care about old traditions’), and historical continuity (‘no one reads Ibn Khaldun nowadays’). It then became clear to me that, with such people in the administration, Algeria under either Houari Boumédiène (1932-1978) or Chadli Bendjedid (1929-2012) would always be expendable stuff in the hands of either French or Soviet diplomats.
This situation made me realize, already back at those days, the worthlessness of politics; if the people, who study in order to learn and then get involved in politics and in the administration of their countries, first have been indoctrinated due to a totally constructed pseudo-historical narrative (geared only to validate infamous if not criminal political purposes and interests), and second fail to see from far the world in which they are, then ‘politics’ is an interminably reproduced problem that engulfs us all in temporary misery, compact absurdity, spiritual prison, and intellectual swamp with no way out.
IX. Nicos Poulantzas’ suicide & the Western leftist intelligentsia’s funerals
So, in the very last months of 1980 and in the first months of 1981, thanks to my conversations with Sciences Po classmates, I was able to early draw a very correct conclusion about an event that had already taken place before 12-15 months, shaking the academic-intellectual-political establishment of France: the suicide of Nicos Poulantzas (October 1979). Of course, when this event occurred, I did not bother at all about it, and my conventional response to pathetically ideologized friends and acquaintances was always the same:
– You cannot study cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts, learn about Hammurapi and Ramses III, pass exams on Thutmose III’s campaigns in Syria and Neo-Assyrian imperial Annals, and possibly spend one second for worthless leftist intelligentsia.
But I must admit that at the time I could not fathom why this incident happened. All the same, 15 months later, due to my contacts with postgraduate classmates in Political Science, the reason for this suicide was revealed to me quite easily. Simply, it was a natural circumstance. Such were those days of the ideologically leftist lunatics, such was the extreme focalization on absurd ‘thinkers’ and ignorant ‘intellectuals’, and such were the incommensurately high expectations of all these fools, that I conclusively realized that the entirely failed realm of anti-USSR (anti-Soviet) and anti-US (anti-capitalist) European theoreticians was predestined to doom, pulling -in the process- Western Europe (as we called the capitalist part of the continent) to final extinction. In other words, I saw back in 1980-1981 the impasse that many attest in Europe nowadays; it was inevitable.
The paranoia of those days had impacted our distinguished professor too; if you search among Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s publications, books, lectures and public speeches, you will find many great essays and treatises about several czars and valuable presentations of the French-Russian relations; but if you check the dates, you will soon notice that they have all been published after 1991. It was a pity for us back in 1980, but it could not happen otherwise. She could certainly write at the time, as she finally did later, fascinating researches and comprehensive conclusions about Nicholas II, Alexander II, and Catherine II, but few people would read those books back in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.
Alexander II and his groundbreaking tenure are the key to understanding Russia before the Romanov, during the Soviet rule, and also today, but in 1980 most of the people and the students would feel that the brave imperial visionary was closer to Sargon of Akkad than to us! Such was the madness we lived in, and that’s why the people of my generation failed, the global situation deteriorated, and the entire world heads now to an unprecedented but well-deserved disaster. About:
X. Either Leonid Brezhnev or Ronald Reagan – or get lost!
Speaking and writing about Soviet Union at the time necessitated a bold character and guts; this is so, because there were only two positions that you could defend before triggering a ‘tollé’ (an outcry) against you! From one side, you had all the Communists and the PCF (parti communiste français), who routinely reproduced the endless volumes printed by the Academy of Sciences of USSR and supported blindly whatever Brezhnev and his associates would decide.
From the other side, you were constrained to face the dark nebula of anti-Soviet European leftists, socialists, social-democrats, Trotskyists, anarchists, nihilists and atheists, who were so pathetically ideologized, so foolishly unrealistic, and so absurdly outlandish that you could not help but wish them all the same abominable fate as that of the aforementioned miserable self-murderer. All those trivial and useless scoundrels detonated volumes of hatred and negativity, described as hypothetical problems facts that were not troublesome, and -overwhelmed by their enormous psychological complex of inferiority- reached to unprecedented levels of theoretical, ideological, pseudo-scientific, and bogus-intellectual delirium.
Cursed and pathetic figures, the likes of Max Weber, Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Theodor W. Adorno, Jean-Paul Sartre, Lucien Goldmann, Louis Althusser, Cornelius Castoriadis and many other nauseatingly defeatist faces, are the sole reason for all the problems standing in front of Europe, Africa and many other parts of the world today. But back in 1980 they constituted the ‘holy saints’ for mentally sick, psychologically abnormal, sentimentally dead, intellectually corrupt, and lazy students who had failed to understand first that not a shred of truth could possibly be found in the infernal texts of those petty ‘philosophers’ and second that they did not truly read, understand and appreciate all those texts, but they instantaneously accepted them beforehand only to obtain psychological support, socio-professional status, and economic privileges as ‘consecrated’ and ‘respected’ ‘followers of Adorno’, ‘admirers of Gramsci’, and ‘fans of Max Weber’. All this was disgustingly lowly but fake proletarian.
Opposite the aforementioned two standpoints, every liberal or conservative criticism of the USSR and of the European Left was automatically denounced as ‘betrayal of the labor class’, ‘petty bourgeoisie deviation’, ‘bloody imperialist exploitation’, ‘fascist reaction’ or even ‘feudal resurgence’. Last, the insults were culminating with the following words: ‘bigot’, ‘pietist’ or ‘Russian émigré’. So, it took strong courage and real guts for Hélène Carrère d’Encausse to launch a new, modest but realist, objective (as much as possible), and balanced approach and school of Sovietology. It would even be accurate to state that she created the discipline in France.
XI. How the Jadid Intellectuals impacted the formation of the Hélène Carrère d’Encausse School of Sovietology
Technically, Carrère d’Encausse’s approach must be categorized as belonging to the ‘totalitarian school’, namely all the Western academics who viewed the October Revolution as a historical accident and the Soviet state as a form of totalitarianism. She certainly does not make part of the ‘revisionist school’ that attempted to refute, cancel or condition the arguments made by the opposite school.
Although in her books, she may momentarily give the impression of being a political scientist and astute commentator, Carrère d’Encausse was a historian, and to this testifies her thesis. It was therefore normal for her to see things in perspective and to introduce new parameters to the academic discourse about the Soviet Union, notably the ethnic identity, the cultural integrity, the spirituality, and the religious affiliation.
Having learned Turkish to work on a vast documentation that her professor and mentor Maxime Rodinson guided her to find, having studied the texts of the great Uzbek Jadidist intellectual and scholar Abdurauf Fitrat (عبد الرؤوف فطرت; Абдурауф Фитрат; 1886-1938), and having understood what was at stake in Central Asia for either the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse knew very well what and when to put on the table for discussion. Her approach was superior to that of many others, because it was at the same time systematic, realist, serious and comprehensive. About:
XII. Charles de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, and Hélène Carrère d’Encausse
Of course, she had the advantage to have also lived at a time when major statesmen like Charles de Gaulle were constantly giving the tuning note (‘donner le la’) to all the rest, specialists or not. But she was also a perspicacious researcher, and therefore she carefully noted that the illustrious French general and statesman never called the USSR with any of the country’s various appellations; to him, Moscow was always ‘Russia’ – either imperial or soviet. And this is what came to surface with her ‘L’Empire éclaté’.
Carrère d’Encausse was proud to say in one of her recent interviews that the man who welcomed her at the Sciences Po (where she also studied) was none else than Georges Pompidou (1911-1974), the former President of France; but before being elected in the presidency of his country with 58% (1969), Pompidou was the French Prime Minister who faced and vanquished the notorious May 1968 rebellion. And yet, Pompidou had never been elected before his appointment as prime minister (1962), having only been a close associate of General de Gaulle, a professor of French Literature in Sorbonne University, and the PDG (CEO) of the Rothschild Bank (1956-1958).
Hélène Carrère d’Encausse – “À Sciences po, l’homme qui m’a interrogée était Georges Pompidou”
It was therefore only normal for my former professor to conclude that the soviet system had failed to find and implement updates, introduce constructive criticism, and initiate changes that would enable the vast country to cope with the various international socioeconomic developments; as long as the Soviet Union was not a sealed off territory and Moscow maintained commercial relations with other states, it would be imperative for the USSR to renovate accordingly.
XIII. Soviet Union, Spirituality, Religion and Eschatology
I mentioned spirituality earlier; this was entirely absent throughout Soviet Union, at least across the society and the government. The state was entirely composed by partisans who were ‘convinced’ that man was an entirely material entity, because ‘there was no spiritual universe’ and, as Lenin had said, thought ‘is’ the supreme function of the material world.
There were certainly psychics, astrologers, and many clairvoyants in the USSR, and many of them were consulted by the ruling elite of the Communist Party, but their abilities, skills, activities, energies and vibrations were believed to merely be the yet unstudied part of the material universe; it was thought that, once these fields would be duly explored and fully assessed, they would turn out to be new scientific disciplines.
Far from the fooled society and the faithless rulers, spiritual life was the deep, lifelong experience of several individuals, who happened to be indiscriminately Shaman, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or other; worshipping God does not really demand public space. Even more importantly, it does not demand seclusion and anachoretism or asceticism. Hélène Carrère d’Encausse knew this fact very well. As spirituality is a phenomenon that makes people focus on the spiritual universe and quite often disregard the material world, it was normal for every objective observer to expect that the October Revolution was too tiny an event to possibly eliminate spirituality.
Spirituality is personal, but religion is institutional; as such, religion was almost uprooted in the USSR, despite the fact that Stalin finally started to scale back the anti-religious campaign in 1941, as he needed the moral support of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War (WW II). Things improved after the meeting Stalin had with the three top clerics of Soviet Union on 5th September 1943. All the same, 35 years later, it would still be absurd to expect things to change in the vast country only due to a religious revival; the Church was closely controlled by the administration. About:
The Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War
Pope Benedict XVI is greeted by Gabriel de Broglie, Helene Carrere d’Encausse and Jean Leclant, members of French Institute, during a visit to the French Institute in Paris.
However, there were few peripheral nations from where a possible reversal, originating from a religious revival, could be initiated: Georgia, Armenia, and Poland. At this point, I have to state for the readers, who happen not to know the biographical details of the deceased academician, that she was of Georgian and Russian / German origin (from her mother side); her paternal grandfather was a Georgian statesman of the Russian Empire, whereas her father was Georges Zourabichvili (Георгий Зурабишвили/გიორგი ზურაბიშვილი; 1898-1944), a philosopher, economist, and taxi driver émigré, who was later considered to be collaborator with the German Occupation forces and then abducted and lost in September 1944. This means that Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, who was stateless (‘apatride’/’без гражданства’) for the first 21 years of her life, having been born Zourabichvili, knew the Caucasus region directly, pertinently, and authoritatively.
The Western involvement in this region had caused many wars between the Ottomans, the Russians, and the Iranians. But due to the denomination of the Armenians and the Georgians, any new Western interference would not bring spectacular results. Contrarily, Poland could attract a major intrusion, because Poles are Catholics. In this case, the country would serve as tool of a destabilization effort that would target the USSR, which had always been considered as a major opponent by the Roman Catholic Church, even more so because the atheist Soviet state stood on a territory that was never considered as duly Christianized by the Catholic popes, according to what the Third Secret of Fatima reveals (Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary).
This affair extended the otherwise simple ‘religious concern’ for Poland to an apocalyptic ‘eschatological apprehension’ for Russia. Of course, although we all had an idea about the Fatima (Portugal) apparitions back in 1917 (which had already become known to Nicholas II little time before his, and his family’s, bloody and appalling execution), none of us took them seriously as far as USSR/Russia was concerned. All the same, the serious developments, which took place in Vatican (in 1978) and in Poland (in 1979), were closely monitored and adequately highlighted to us by our head of department.
XIV. John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Polish quagmire
Following the brief passage (26 August-28 September 1978) of the assassinated Albino Luciani Pope John Paul I from the ‘Holy See’ (Sancta Sedes / Святой Престол), the controversial election of Karol Józef Wojtyła (1920-2005) as pope John Paul II, which was not accepted as canonical and legitimate by the Sedevacantists and Archbishop Giuseppe Siri, caused vivid discussions due to his origin and because of the fact that the circumstances were bizarre for the much disputed election of a Pole as the Roman Catholic pope. About:
It was certainly a clear indication of degradation, if not degeneration, of the Soviet elite; the ‘old guard of Kremlin’ (namely Brezhnev, Kosygin, Suslov, Ustinov, Gromyko, Chernenko and Andropov) seemed unable to grasp the gravity of the moment and react immediately, resolutely and irrevocably. The result was that, few months only after his ‘election’, John Paul II asked the permission to visit the place where he was born. In fact, the game was lost. The papal visit took place in June 1979, and at this point, I have to herewith republish several paragraphs from a recently published article, which was written by a former American Ambassador to Vatican, only to demonstrate how clearly an astute reader can read in-between the lines of the text the otherwise invisible but extant traces of the anti-Soviet conspiracy.
The title of the article reads: “Nine Days that Sparked the U.S.-Holy See Partnership and Changed the World” (By Callista L. Gingrich, U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See). I herewith include two excerpts:
« …
From June 2-10, 1979, the Polish pontiff traveled across the nation of his birth, delivering more than 50 speeches, and inspiring a revolution of conscience that would transform Poland and reshape the spiritual and political landscape of the 20th century. Millions of Poles, crushed under the weight of Soviet tyranny, turned out to see the Holy Father. On the first day of his pilgrimage, in Warsaw’s Victory Square, Pope John Paul II declared, “There can be no just Europe without the independence of Poland marked on its map!”»
«…
Ronald Reagan was elated. At the time, he hosted a popular radio show and dedicated numerous broadcasts to John Paul II’s historic pilgrimage. “It has been a long time since we’ve seen a leader of such courage and such uncompromising dedication to simple morality,” Reagan said.
A few months later in November of 1979, the former Governor of California announced his candidacy for President of the United States. Soon after taking office, the President requested a meeting with the Pope.
The two leaders met in Vatican City in 1982, and it was then that President Reagan asked Pope John Paul II when he thought Eastern Europe would be free from Soviet domination. When the Pope responded, “In our lifetime,” the President took his hand and asked the Pope that together they make it happen.»
The above lines show that the fall of Soviet Union is not merely a Mikhail Gorbachev affair, and that the intention to spread chaos, disorder, wars, moral depravity, and disastrous deterioration of the level of life -by means of fake promises and in the name of the nonsensical terms ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’ and the rest of the Western world’s evil jargon- existed already in the minds of various groups of power in Western Europe and North America.
It is noteworthy that Wojtyla’s hypocritical and malignant visit to Poland antedates the early strikes undertaken by the Solidarity ‘movement’. So, every Soviet reaction against evil initiatives undertaken by the Anti-Christian West was indeed two steps behind the developments. Thinking retrospectively, an observer may eventually suggest today that Wojciech Jaruzelski’s appointment as Chairman of the Council of Ministers (11 February 1981) should have taken place already before the Gdansk Agreement was formalized (31 August 1980); however, this is quite naïve and very wrong. Jaruzelski’s nomination should have taken place immediately after the ridiculous election of the Polish Anti-pope, and in addition, it should have resolutely and permanently blocked any perspective of papal visit to Poland. About:
In other words, the only way for Soviet Union to survive was to up the ante, and this was then very clear to my eyes. I was not anymore a Communist at the time; in fact, I had accepted that ideology, with the strict exception of its atheistic / materialistic part, for one year (i.e. 1975-1976), and then rejected it. However, a person with moral standards cannot possibly be a sectarian; consequently, he does not need to be a Communist in order to abhorrently disapprove of the US evildoing against the USSR. There is absolutely no Manichaeistic (or dualistic) reality in the realm of politics, states and governments, and only an idiot would believe that the US gangsters are ‘Christian’ and ‘good’, and that the atheistic governments represent the ‘focus of evil’, as per the well-known but ludicrous expression of the grotesque former US president Ronald Reagan.
What was the main mistake in the Soviet policy-making and propaganda? They did not understand that they denounced the US and the Western world in terms that were comprehensible or valid only to them (to the Soviet elite) and not to others. Quite contrarily, they should have identified the reasons for which the US and the other colonial states of the Western world were unacceptable, abhorrent, and also repugnant to others (Africans, Asiatics, Latin Americans, etc.), and they should have decried them accordingly.
The Soviet elite was making a propaganda war against the West, utilizing theories and ideologies instead of strikingly focusing on the down-to-earth reality, which would have offered them the most convincing elements of their anti-Western propaganda. In other words, the West was not contemptible because the theory of Marxism-Leninism defined so, but because numerous, real facts supported this conclusion.
To offer an example in the case of Poland, the pathetic and worthless Yuri Andropov should have identified the final target of Solidarity and he should have therefore warned the Poles that, instead of driving them back to the Christian faith, the secret guides of that execrable movement would impose the ‘freedom’ of prostitution, incest, homosexuality, fornication, and drugs throughout their country; many documentary movies from the abominable Woodstock Music and Art Fair (1969) should have been widely popularized to plainly reveal the true, pseudo-Christian, and execrable face of the lawless and valueless Western world. Even worse, the so-called Christian clergy of the West should have been accused for not campaigning against the Woodstock contamination in their own country in the first place.
But, quite unfortunately, this is the permanent error of every kind of sectarianism: you must never evaluate the ‘other’ as per your measures, standards and criteria, but according to his principles, values and virtues; and Marxism-Leninism had already become a sort of sectarianism in the USSR.
Most of my classmates were anti-Soviet, hawkish idiots, who confused Political Science with politics, and interstate relations with hypocritical and silly propaganda.
It is certainly to the credit of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse that she never allowed the enthusiastic anti-Russianism of our German, American and Polish classmates to affect our judgment and evaluation of the overall situation; it was clear that she was consciously educating future ambassadors, statesmen and diplomats, who would have to take into consideration the weight of History, many other parameters, and the bilateral relations in depth in order to compose. This standpoint was also obvious in her books; she was even criticized for not being an outspoken negator of the USSR. The following book review of one of her earlier published books is an example:
Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, L’Union Soviétique de Lénine à Staline, 1917-1953 [compte-rendu] sem-linkGeorges Mond
Immediately after the election of Ronald Reagan (4 November 1980), it was very clear to her that the détente was over, and this was what our professor immediately conveyed to us. The news shocked many of our classmates, who thought that this situation would last for long, whereas others were jubilant; but I was frozenly indifferent. From the heights of Sargonid Assyria or Nabonid Babylonia, which constituted my main field of specialization, my vivid concern, and my basic criteria, every Reagan and every Brezhnev looked to me as an insignificant mosquito. My good professor had actually reconfirmed my inclination repeatedly; if she forced herself to see things from distance, why shouldn’t I do the same?
‘Petite fille du Caucase’ (granddaughter of Caucasus), Hélène Carrère d’Encausse was always able to take the distance and observe from far. Physically, she was in Paris; but her academic and intellectual outpost was at the peak of Elbrus. She was able to discern crucial issues and unnoticed dimensions that no other specialists were able to timely identify – let alone incorporate in their conclusions. The viewpoint from the peak of Mount Elbrus in the Caucasus range of mountains must be very serene. The late academician was confident that, if they wanted, Georgians, Azeris, Armenians and other Caucasus nations could have -all- lived peacefully within one multi-ethnic state instead of mercilessly killing one another.
This was apparently a rightful conclusion, if one takes into consideration the Special Transcaucasian Committee (9 March 1917), the Transcaucasian Commissariat (11 November 1917), the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (22 April – 28 May 1918), and all the events that took place before the Ottoman and the German involvement in the region. About:
The title of a tour schedule organized by the Connaissance & Partage Association reads ‘Cocasse Caucase’; echoing the name of the mountain, this adjective means ‘funny’ in French. But Caucasus is not funny. It is serious, tense, intense, and grave; and so was the presence of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse: sober, terse and austere. She was able to take her colleagues and assistants to a higher level of understanding, widen the horizons of her readers, and enrich the knowledge of her students with valuable data that they would need considerable time and a certain dose of luck to eventually find. About: https://www.connaissanceetpartage.net/new-blog/2020/11/26/caucasse
She was much demanded in politics (member of the European Parliament for the period 1994-1999), science (elected to seat 14 of the Académie Française, one of the five sections of the celebrated Institut de France on 13th December 1990; voted for the position of Permanent Secretary on 21 October 1999), and public debates (with an extraordinary record of interviews and participation in TV programs), but she always found the time to come up with new, outstanding books, groundbreaking lectures, and pertinent comments about socio-political, linguistic, bilateral and international affairs.
Despite her undeniable Georgian origin (her cousin being Salome Zourabichvili, the incumbent President of Georgia), and notwithstanding her evident congruence with the Russian mindset and mentality, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse was indeed a Parisian original. Although she became French only in 1950 at the age of 21, she dedicated herself to the vocation of bringing her own country and that of her ancestors together – and with spectacular success.
– Condolences by President Salome Zourabichvili on the Twitter –
«A la peine du départ de ma cousine germaine se mêle la fierté de son exemple. Historienne de renommée internationale, qui fut également mon professeur à Sciences Po. Femme d’avant garde qui aura, du haut de la Coupole, démontré à tant de jeunes filles que tout leur est possible».
A la peine du départ de ma cousine germaine se mêle la fierté de son exemple. Historienne de renommée internationale, qui fut également mon professeur à Sciences Po. Femme d’avant garde qui aura, du haut de la Coupole, démontré à tant de jeunes filles que tout leur est possible.
— Salome Zourabichvili (@Zourabichvili_S) August 6, 2023
«Issues d’une famille géorgienne ayant combatttu et fui le totalitarisme soviétique, nous avions en héritage une même reconnaissance envers la France et une même conviction européenne qui porta l’une au Parlement européen et l’autre à la Présidence de la Géorgie».
Issues d’une famille géorgienne ayant combatttu et fui le totalitarisme soviétique, nous avions en heéitage une meme reconnaissance envers la France et une même conviction européenne qui porta l’une au Parlement européen et l’autre à la Présidence de la Géorgie.
— Salome Zourabichvili (@Zourabichvili_S) August 6, 2023
———————————————————————
With Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, one was certain that he would learn the truth about the essential of a topic. She was committed to displaying raw material, to making all the data available to the students, and to evaluating the synthesis that we were able to make. Her lies -or to put it better her untruths- concerned basically the form of the narrative or the description of a situation. But it was easy for a shrewd student to discover that this was rather her break time consumed in literary description and not her ordinary, scrupulous work of academic analysis.
To underscore the apparent lack of reassessments, amendments and rearrangements in the Soviet Union that were badly needed for the country’s survival, she used to often speak about «les septuagénaires et les octogénaires», who ruled the world’s leading communist state. The underlying fact was correct indeed; in many aspects Soviet Union was almost ‘archaic’. But the statement itself was deceitful; in 1980, Brezhnev was 74 years old, Suslov 78, Gromyko 71, Chernenko 69, and Andropov 66. But why on earth should the age of the ruling elite of the USSR be truly a matter of concern, when Ronald Reagan was 69, François Mitterrand 64, James Callaghan 68, and Willy Brandt 67? Of course, our professor certainly recalled that Charles de Gaulle returned to power in France (in 1958) at the age of 68 and served as president until 1969 (when 79), Konrad Adenauer was in office until 1963 (when 87), whereas Alcide De Gasperi was prime minister until 1953 (when 72). Furthermore, Winston Churchill served as prime minister until 1955 (when 81), Amintore Fanfani was appointed as prime minister in 1982 (for a fourth time) at the age of 74. However, by duly utilizing the age of the Soviet rulers, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse was trying to basically impress young audience.
Serving as adviser to many presidents, the granddaughter of Caucasus could do and actually did many good things for the benefit of the French-Russian relations and to the advantage of France; European Union (then ‘European Communities’) could also capitalize thereon. As she was sought after by the French political elite, she did her best in every sense, but she did not take any political decision as she was never a minister, prime minister or president. And this was the problem for France; because to mostly benefit from her advice, understanding, and perspective, the various elected governments and presidents of France should have taken very different decisions on many other topics, which would affect and also be affected by the Franco-Russian relationship.
For France and Europe, it is as simple as that: you cannot possibly imagine having good relations and strong partnership with Russia as long as you don’t follow the example of Charles de Gaulle against UK, NATO and the US. And it is so, either we live in 1965 or in 2023.
No French president could possibly utilize Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s pertinent advice, as long as he had not taken in advance a long series of measures to restore continental (or if you prefer ‘landmass’) concord and integration and to keep the various maritime powers out of Eurasia. This is the task of Russia/USSR to do, as far as Russian/Soviet territory is concerned; similarly, this is the imperative duty for France, Germany, China, India, Iran, Turkey, Italy, Spain and several other countries to carry out respectively. But to do this, the French political class should first uproot the parasitic weeds and remove the toxic pro-UK, pro-US and pro-NATO elements by any possible means. There are no foreign policy perspectives before the clearance of internal enemies. All the problems that France faces now are due to the absurd and calamitous way the country was governed after 1969, and more particularly after 1981. But an erudite academician and a formidable connoisseur is not a determined statesman.
XVI. The European convictions and the pragmatism of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse
I got my DEA (Diplôme d’études approfondies) in July 1981; the extra part of studies that I wanted to add to my Orientalist formation was completed, and after 3 years of studies in Paris, I moved to London, only to continue next year to Brussels and then to Muenster. Due to Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, many of my convictions were fully confirmed, my horizons greatly broadened, and my perception of the Afro-Eurasiatic continental unity finally born. Only after 1981, I started realizing that borders mean truly nothing; this definitely proved to be indispensable for my life and explorations in the following years, when I moved to the Orient.
The formation that was given to all of us was certainly Western, but thanks to my Orientalist background and my explorations in Eastern Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and other countries, I gradually converted it to the new terms and codes of comprehension that I was then creating in order to better assess the objects of my researches. The education that all my professors in Greece, France, England, Belgium and Germany gave to me and to all of my classmates was good but only up to a certain extent; I confirmed my opinion in Israel. I did the same in Syria and Iraq where I realized that the education given to locals, who had studied in Europe, was in reality ‘bon pour l’Orient’, i.e. a unilateral viewpoint that served the interests of few states in Western Europe, and those of their academic and intellectual elites.
But this education was too little or too erroneous for someone, who intended to objectively assess and comprehend the human genius in its entirety, the history of Mankind in its originality and the living spirit of Man in its integrity. After several years of trouble, self-contradictory opinions, and premature judgments, some time in the late 1980s, while in Iran, I realized that ultimately the academic education offered in Western Europe was ‘bon pour l’Occident’ – only!
It is not a matter of deliberate falsehood, but of partly examination of the topic; having no spherical perspective on a research topic, you condemn yourself in the position of a unilateral observer, who has no multiple viewpoints on his study subject. You cannot possibly evaluate correctly anything if you happen to view it as a parameter of your own interests. The French-Russian relationship has to be viewed from Moscow’s standpoint and from Paris’ point of view. If you don’t view this topic or any other issue in this manner and you apply a one-viewpoint approach to your study, your conclusions will be wrong, because simply you will have become, even without understanding it, part of the problem.
I kept reading books and interviews of my late professor, while living in different countries in Asia and Africa; with the advent of the Internet, I also had the chance to watch many of her speeches and lectures. She certainly gave a new dimension to her career by ‘forgetting’ Soviet Union and delving into the Russian past – well, mainly the 18th and the 19th centuries. But she always reproduced the same pattern that could not allow her to go beyond the level of ‘borders’.
Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s Russia is a truthful, genuine Russia that exists only for the interests of the French vision of this world! Is that an extraordinary assessment of mine? Not at all! Read some paragraphs from her books or watch some of her online interviews! The same approach is everywhere: during five centuries, the French-Russian relations existed only for France to tame and civilize Russia! After the beginning of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, speaking to a journalist about Sergey Lavrov, she described him as ‘very civilized’! Oh! Really?
– Who provided her with a special counter, a civilo-meter if you want, so that she measures every now and then the degree of civilization of the Russians and the others?
This incredible arrogance and absurd degree of Franco-centrism or Euro-centrism unfortunately does not constitute a personal issue of the deceased academician. It is an inherent part of the Western European education and it can be attested over the past centuries in all the major colonial countries. The personal problem of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse is that her multilingual and multicultural past, family traditions, culture and knowledge proved to be weak opposite her overwhelming (I should say ‘excessive’) degree of Francization. Despite her undeniable advantages and in-depth knowledge, she functioned like a clerical assistant or a high functionary of the state administration. This partiality reduced her effectiveness and limited her pragmatism.
Although she repeatedly stated that the world decisions are not taken any more in Europe or the West world, which is very correct and very exact, she failed to attack and destroy the delusions of all those who undeservedly accused her (and Hubert Védrine) for anti-Americanism. This is not a joke! Read here the typical nonsense or the folly that is being published in France and in other European countries to get an idea:
La pieuvre. Pourquoi le régime de Poutine doit être défait
An even worse sample of absurd disinformation you can find here:
Despite the fact that Hélène Carrère d’Encausse repeatedly admitted in her interviews that it is up to Moscow to decide where Russia belongs, i.e. either in Asia (with China, India, Iran, etc.) or in Europe (with the ‘civilized world’!), she failed to explain to her compatriots three crucial topics:
First, if the entire political-academic-intellectual establishment in Moscow finally comprehends that Russia has always been an Oriental state, this will be the first defeat of a multilateral Western European scheme systematically perpetrated against Russia for no less than 550 years by means of gradual Occidentalization, cultural identity elimination, and socio-economic subordination.
Second, Russia has always been an Oriental state, either this reality was perceived as such by all parts of the Russian Imperial, Soviet and Republican elites or not.
Third, if the entire Eurasiatic alliance, Russia included, appears as a coherently established organization at the international level in the years ahead, the European Union, France included, will have to either adhere to the new superpower or simply disintegrate.
Of course, I am fully conscious of what my late professor’s answer would have been, had I had the chance to discuss with her this topic any time recently! She would find a typical article produced by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and she would respond to me, saying:
– This is not what I only describe! This is what the Russians say about themselves in the first place!
And she would have been right! But I never pretended that this situation concerned only her approach. The problem exists also in the Russian perception of themselves, after many centuries of Western interference and compact effort to westernize Russia. Example (dating back to 2016s):
But, again, I have to admit that these major issues demand statesmanship decision and do not depend on academic advice; in addition, as leading historian and political scientist, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse offered either in-depth presentation of the past or pragmatic evaluation of current circumstances. However, she never attempted to spearhead dramatic changes at the international level; in this regard, she was quite different from her famous ‘heroine’, Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai (Александра Михайловна Коллонтай; 1872-1952), to whom she dedicated her last research and book. About:
Former French President of the French Republic Jacques Chirac and Helene Carrere-d’EncausseState Banquet at the palace of Elysee. Helene Carrere d ‘Encausse and the president Chirac in Paris, France on November 20, 2006Jean-Marie Rouart, Valery Giscard D’Estaing and Helene Carrere d’Encausse in Paris, France on December 16, 2004
XVII. The limits of historiography: a History of leaders and governance or a History of peoples and culture?
Great historian is not the one who writes many books and lengthy articles or comes up with the publication of new textual sources, fresh interpretations, resourceful conceptualizations, inventive contextualization of historical events and processes, groundbreaking approaches, and valuable rectifications of earlier errors, distortions, omissions and oversights; great historian is the one whose publications also offer the chance to discuss general issues of History in the light of the superb manner he/she reconstructs and represents a moment of the past throughout one of his/her texts.
Historiography is not History; it is merely a reconstruction, namely a representation of facts, circumstances, conditions, situations or even processes and developments over a certain span of time. Either you write one day or one millennium after a battle, what you write is never ‘History’; it is historiography. Of course, if you share a life experience as a real testimony or if you rely on authoritative documentation and key sources, writing little time after an event happened, your text will be considered as a ‘historical source’, whereas if you examine the historical sources about an event, your text will be classified as ‘bibliography’. However, this is a minor differentiation; the major distinction is between History and historiography; History is exclusively what happened. Even the Annals of Sargon II of Assyria or Julius Caesar’s Commentarii de Bello Gallico constitute ‘historiography’, not History.
But by means of a forceful manner of reconstruction of the historical past (or of representation of the historical events and processes) a great historian impacts other historians who may even be specializing in other fields of History. This is due to the fact that, after the adequate completion of the documentation and the comprehension processes, the reconstruction of the data involves intellectual effort, mental endeavor, and a great deal of imagination, more particularly in the identification of data interconnection.
Assessing how each piece of data is (or may be) interconnected with another is a work that can be done by every historian; but there is an enormous difference in this regard, due to the fact that there are scholars, who proceeding mechanically end up writing a dead narrative, and others, who -ingeniously feeling human life in all the pieces of data that they have collected- manage to come up with a most vivacious narrative that fully reflects the events. After all and put in few words, History is inherent and integral part of Life. But only the great historians reach this level of reconstruction. And Hélène Carrère d’Encausse repeatedly demonstrated that she was feeling the life of the environment that she reconstructed in her books. After all, it is the charisma of the great historians to know very well where the limits stand; and by this, I mean the invisible boundaries between historiography and literature.
Reading Hélène Carrère d’Encausse’s books, one gets the impression that she wrote a History made by leaders, administrations, elites, structures of governance, and series of successive decisions that impacted one another, always bringing the respective consequences. And this is true! My late professor viewed History mostly as a matter of states and ‘political power’; she kept using the term even when speaking about Soviet Union whereas there was no politics at all in that country, due to the fact that the dictatorship of proletariat -in and by itself- is the living rejection of politics. She was at the antipodes of the renowned Soviet-Russian historian Lev Gumilev (Лев Николаевич Гумилёв; 1912-1992), who was her senior by 17 years.
Strong advocate of Eurasianism, theoretician of the ethnogenesis phenomenon, great conceptual thinker who invented the concept of passionarity, adept of historiosophy, the son of Nikolai Gumilev and Anna Akhmatova portrayed History in an entirely different manner, giving the impression that History is composed by societies of people with venerated traditions, moral values, folk tales, narrative history, age-old habits, heroic legends, distinct idiosyncrasy, traditional sports, vivid spirituality, daily expression of piety, strong feeling of sacredness, rich material culture, genuine sense of communality, behavioral authenticity, imaginative impulse, unquestionable equality among the society members, strong attachment to their identity, adamant respect for their integrity, unconditional rejection of any corrupt attitude, concept or idea, and uncompromising commitment to community/society preservation.
In this case, there are no ‘leaders’; there is no bureaucracy; the administrative affairs are fast expedited; any notion of state is worthless or evil; and the male members of the community meet to decide on equal basis about every matter. They all fight together, they all migrate together, and they all resettle together. No bravery can possibly qualify for preferential treatment or ‘leadership’, because bravery is the common task for all men, and there is no exception in this regard. On the other hand, all the heroic deeds are immortalized as legends in the oral culture, which is far more valued than worthless written paperwork that can contain lies to confuse posterior generations. This is a History of peoples and culture, because for the historian, who has this vision of the historical developments, even in cases of kingdoms, empires, temples, emperors and high priests, it is culture and civilization that impact their decision-making and not vice versa.
The two schools are irreconcilable like oil and water; however there is a determinate distinction, which is intrinsic to the two diametrically opposed geostrategic models. There cannot be triumphant Eurasianism without a History of peoples and culture.
There cannot be effective Atlanticism without History of leaders and governance. However, all people know that ‘Atlantis’ sank every time; it is irrevocably inevitable.
Despite her attachment to France, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse realized this factor. That is why she tried to preserve the invisible bridges between Paris and Moscow; with all her intellectual force and outstanding eloquence.
megalommatiscomments 