پان ترکیسم و تحریف کتاب زبان ترکی در ایران احمد کسروی
پس همین جا کافی است بدانیم که زبان اصلی آذربایجان، ترکی نبوده است و یک زبان ایرانی بوده است، زیرا مادها در نظر محققان، یک قوم ایرانی حساب میشوند.
کسروی نیز سپس به مهاجرت ترکان در زمان اسلامی به ایران اشاره میکند (باز اینجا همنظر کتاب خود آذری یا زبان باستان آذربایجان) و البته این نکته در تاریخ امروز بدیهی است:
We do not claim that the people of Azerbaijan or all speakers of Turkish in Iran are pure Turks like their brothers among the Turks of Turkestan; this is put the lie to by the plain senses. Similarly, we do not claim that Azerbaijan has been a cradle of Turkish since ancient times; indeed, the Medes who had lived in Azerbaijan and Hamadan and `Eraq thousands of years before them were not Turks, as claimed by some extremist Turkish leaders.
در اینجا نیز به صراحت زبان ترکی را پس از اسلام میداند که مردمان آذربایجان آن را در دراز مدت انتخاب کردند:
rather, it was for the native population who were subjected to their rule and mingled with them to be assimilated into them and see their language turkified and changed to Turkish, and not the other way around.
پس اینجا بومیان آذربایجان را جدا از ترکان میداند و میگوید که این بومیان آذربایجان بودند که زیر تسلط ترکان، ناچار در آنان آسیمیله شدند و زبانشان به ترکی تغییر یافت.
در اینجا نیز به صراحت وارد شدن زبان ترکی را بخاطر سلجوقیان و هلاکو و تیموریان از آسیای میانه (ترکستان) میداند:
But the issue is not so enigmatic if it is examined fairly and free of prejudice, for Iran borders on the steppes of Turkestan, crowded with roving Turkish tribes, herders of horses and livestock. Their places of settlement, situated between those steppes and Transoxiana and Asia Minor, were known since ancient times for the land’s lushness and the abundance of plants and pasturage and a plenitude of gardens and widespread lushness. Indeed, in the earliest times and before these times, it had been a refuge for these tribes. They took refuge there when they had been defeated by the enemy and they beat a broad path to Transoxiana and Syria or to any region they pleased when they became hard-pressed in their deserts or there was a shortage of pasturage or herbage. The deeds of Hulagu Khan and his descendants and Amir Timarlang and his, as well as the Seljuks, including their overrunning of Iran and their dividing between themselves the lands beyond were no different than those of their ancestors in prehistoric times. Iran did not have a wall like China did to restrain or block them; they burst through her borders along with their children and women and horses and livestock, and divided up the length and breadth of the land in search of safety and pasture.
خلاصه این نظرهای کسروی هیچ تناقضی با کتاب آذری یا زبان باستان آذربایجان او ندارد؛ زیرا:
۱) زبان مادی (یعنی زبان ایرانی) را ترکی نمیداند و در آن دوران عموم دانشمندان نیز زبان مادی را ایرانی میدانستند و امروز این نظر صددرصد دانشمندان ایرانشناس است. پس زبان ترکی، زبان ایرانی را از آذربایجان رانده است. چیزی که کسروی در کتاب آذری خود نیز ثابت کرده است و در این مقاله نیز بومیان آذربایجان را غیرترک میداند.
۲) در این کتاب، زبان ترکی را از ترکستان میداند و نه از بینالنهرین و ایلام و غیره (مانند پانترکیستهای امروزی) و آمدن زبان ترکی را در دوران سلجوقیان، هلاک، تیموریان، قرایقویونلو و … میداند.
۳) در این کتاب به طور واضح، نظر کسروی اینست که ترکزبانان آذربایجان برخلاف ترکان ترکستان، از تبار خالص ترکان نیست، اما باز مقالهی تحریفگرانه این جمله را حذف کرده است.
چند نکتهی دیگر، کسروی در این مقاله میگوید که زبان ترکی آذربایجانی، دارنده سنت ادبی قدیم و قوی نیست و میگوید که حتی در تبریز، زبان فارسی در دوران مشروطه زبان حاکم ادبی بوده است و نشریات زبان ترکی نسبت به فارسی ناچیز بودند و این سه نشریه ترکی، همگی به جز چاپ کمتر از تعداد انگشتشمار جلد، دوام نیاوردند.
During the 1905 Constitutionalist revolution, over thirty magazines were founded and published in Tabriz and the other cities of Azerbaijan, but only three of them were written in Turkish, and none of them came out except for a few issues, no more than you could count on your fingers.
اما مترجم پانترکیست، این بخش را ترجمه نکرد!
کسروی در این مقاله به طور واضح، زبان ادبی آذربایجان را همان فارسی میداند و زبان ترکی را غیرادبی:
Turkish in Iran is a spoken and not, as we have indicated above, a literary language.
تنها دو بخش این مقاله بود که مورد سوءاستفادهی پانترکیستها قرار گرفت:
۱) کسروی یک جا اغلب ترکزبانان را بازمانده مهاجران از ترکستان (آسیایه میانه) میدانسته است. در جای دیگر آمیختگی از هر دو طرف بین ایرانیان و ترکان را انکار نمیکند و جای دیگر میگوید که بومیان را ترکان تسحیل کردند و جای دیگر میگوید که این ترکزبانان آذربایجان همانند ترکان ترکستان (آسیای میانه) خالص نیستند.
در حالی که دانشمندان ایراندوست بیشتر ترکزبانان ایران را بازمانده ایرانیان پیشین میدانند، اما از دوران کسروی بسیار گذشته است. نظر ولادمیر مینورسکی و فرای هم همین است که ترکزبانان ایران، اغلب بازماندگان بومیان ایرانیزبان پیشین هستند. امروز این بحث را میتواند با د-ن-ا برای همیشه پایان داد.
البته این نباید تهمت به نژادپرستی شود (چیزی که قومگرایان میگویند هر زمان بحث د-ن-ا میآید.) د-ن-ا یک بحث علمی است و کسروی هم اگر زنده بود، امروز با چنین روشی دنبال حل این مسئله (تاثیر نفود ژن ترکی در ایران) میبود. یعنی یکی میتواند حتی از تبار ایرانی باشد و خود را ترک بداند یا برعکس. اما با د-ن-ا، میتوان دانست که نفوذ ژنهایی که از ترکستان به ایران آمدند، در میان مردمان ایران (چه ترکزبان و چه ایرانیزبان) چقدر است.
۲) یک نکتهی دیگر نیز هست که کسروی برخی از ویژگیهای دستور زبان ترکی را میشمرد که در فارسی و تازی نیست، اما برای نمونه میتوان گفت که فارسی برخلاف ترکی در واژهسازی میانوند/پیشوند و پسوند دارد در حالی که ترکی تنها از پسوند استفاده میکند یا برای نمونه عربی معرفه دارد که در ترکی یا فارسی نیست. در مورد ادعاهای پانترکیستها در رابطه با زبان پارسی، به اینجا بنگرید.
۳) در مورد آمار جمعیت ایران، کسروی میگوید آماری وجود ندارد. جایی تخمین میزند که تعداد ترکزبانان با جمعیت آن دوران ایران (شاید هشت ملیون نفر) شاید بیشتر بوده است، اما در نهایت اقرار میکند که:
We have decided, as we have said, to explain nothing except what can be explained with Arabic numerals, and estimations and speculation are absolutely unsatisfactory
ما تصمیم گرفته ایم (همان طوری که گفتهایم) چیزی را نخواهیم گفت مگر این که با اعداد عربی قابل بیان باشد، و تخمین و خیال به طور مطلق قانعکننده نیست، اما باز در این مورد، آمارهایی از روسها وجود دارد از سال ۱۸۹۰ با بررسی دقیق که از جمعیت شش ملیونی ایران، حدود یک ملیون نفر را تاتار(ترکزبانان) میخوانند.
در این راستا، میتوان به چند کتاب اشاره کرد که حدود ترکزبانان آن دوران را اقلیت میدانستند:
Persian question, by the Hon. George N. Curzon, 2 v. illus., plates, ports., maps (1 fold.) 23 cm., London, New York, Longmans, Green & co., 1892.). Based on the Russian scholar Zolatoraf who used official Iranian documents in 1888, the population of Iran was recorded as six million people, half of these were Persian, 1 million Turk/Tatar (the name Azeri was a recent designation and in the 19th century, the term Turk/Tatar was used for the speakers of this language), Lurs 780,000, Kurds 600,000, Arabs, 300,000, Turkmans 320,000. And the rest were Armenians, Assyrians and other groups. Large number of Assyrian Christians actually existed in Iran before they were massacred by the pan-Turkist young Turk government invasion of Western Iran during WWI.
ترجمه: جورج ان کورزون، در کتاب دو جلدیش (انتشار درسال ۱۸۹۲) آمار جمعیت ایران، از زولوتارف روسی که خود در سال ۱۸۸۸ میلادی از آمار رسمی یا غیر رسمی دولتی گرفته است، ارقام زیر را ارائه می دهد:
در ایران فارسیزبانان ایرانی سه میلیون، ترک و تاتار (لقبی که خاورشناسان و روسها برای ترکزبانان به کار میبردند)، یک میلیون، لرها ۷۸۰ هزار، کردها ۶۰۰ هزار، عربها ۳۰۰ هزار، ترکمنها ۳۲۰ هزار که جمعاً رقمی حدود شش میلیون.
این کتاب به طور رایگان در اینجا قابل بارگذاری است و آمار در صفحه ۴۹۴ امده است.
همچنین کتاب دیگریست به نام:
در این کتاب حدود گویشوران زبان فارسی را دو سوم جمعیت ایران شمرده است:
Linguistically the Persian is the chief race of Persia speaking an Iranic language… Of the estimated population of Persia, about two-thirds are true Persians or “Tajiks”.
البته این نکته باید یادآوری شود، که جمعیت ایران از آن دوران (دوران کسروی و جرج کروزون) کم و بیش ۹ یا ۱۰ برابر شده است و در این صدسال، مناطق شمال و خراسان و مرکز و جنوب ایران نیز آباد شدند و کم و بیش بسیاری از روستاها در فرهنگ شهرنشینی تحلیل شدند.
آمارهای امروز کم و بیش تعداد گویشوران زبانهای ایرانی را ۸۰ درصد جمعیت ایران میدانند (اینجا) که کم و بیش با آمار ۱۸۹۰ لرد کروزون تطبیق میکند.
این نکته را باید نیز یادآوری کرد که کسروی، هرچند برای زمان خود یک پژوهشگر در تاریخ حساب میشود، ولی معلومات زبانشناسی و نژادشناسی و تاریخنگاری ما از دوران او بسیار پیشرفت کرده است. برای نمونه، زبان آذربایجان همان فهلوی-آذری بوده است و این فهلوی، جدا از زبانهای گیلان و ری و همدان و غیره نبوده است و لقب “آذری” دادن به آن، به جای “فهلوی آذری” به نظر ما نادرست است. همچنین آثارهایی از زبان خود تبریز در کتاب سفینه تبریز دیده میشود که کسروی آن را به دست نداشته است. در واقع، مارکورات آلمانی پیش از کسروی، زبان کهن آذربایجان را “فهلوی” خوانده است. آنچه کسروی انجام داد، جمعآوری برخی از گزارشها و نمونهایی از زبان فهلوی-آذری آذربایجان بود. اما علم و دانش ما امروز از آن زمان بسیار پیشرفت کرده است و هم اکنون، به نظر این نگارنده، دکتر محمدامین ریاحی که خود آذربایجانی است، بهترین مطالعات را در رابطه با زبان باستان آذربایجان و شروان و آران انجام داده است:
از دیدگاه د-ن-ا نیز، آزمایشهای تازه نشانگر آنست که عموم مخزن ژنهای مردم آذربایجان قفقاز با مردم ارمنستان یکی هست:
Hum Genet. 2003 Mar;112(3):255-61. Epub 2002 Dec 14
Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome.
Nasidze I, Sarkisian T, Kerimov A, Stoneking M.
بنابراین، در این مقاله نشان دادیم که چگونه پانترکیستها حتی ترجمهی مقالهها را تحریف و تحذیف میکنند تا به نتیجهی دلخواه و نادرست خود برسند.
ترجمهی انگلیسی The Turkish Language in Iran
Note: This article was originally published in the The Journal of Azerbaijani Studies (vol. 1, no. 2, 1998). Evan_J_Siegel@yahoo.com. Unless you object, I will post the comments, with your name and email address, at the end of the article so that there can be a discussion on the issues raised in it. Finally, if you want to reach Evan Siegel’s main page, please click here. I have posted a few comments below.
It is generally thought that in the land of Persia, nothing is spoken but Persian, and few are aware that Turkish is widespread throughout Iran. It is perhaps even more common than Persian, and many Iranians themselves, if asked if Turkish is spoken in their country, would reply, “Sure, in some provinces like Azerbaijan and Khamse,” and many of them would explain this by the proximity of these provinces to the Caucasus or to Ottoman territory.
I have never seen, either among Iranians themselves or among foreigners who talk about Iran and its affairs, anyone who has discussed this, the truth of this matter. As for the Iranians, even those who speak Turkish claim that it is a foreign language which had penetrated their country during times of Turkish and Mongol rule and had spread and become popular at sword-point. They ceaselessly despise and loathe it and would love to eliminate it and wipe it out from their provinces and exchange it for sweet Persian. As for foreign books, the Orientalists who discuss Turkish and the peoples who speak it it limit their discussions to the Ottomans and the people of Turkestan and the Muslims of Russia known as the Tartars and rarely say a word about the Turkish speakers of Iran; and those who discuss Iran and the language spoken there talk about Persian and its dialects, such as Gilaki or Mazandarani or Lurish, etc., which are current in this or that province of that land. But as for Turkish, they neglect to mention it except rarely, when they say that it is popular particularly in Azerbaijan. Probably most of their information came from travelers or embassy staff or missionaries who generally witnessed nothing but the cities and provinces [sic], particularly the national and provincial capitals, and they rarely took the trouble to travel to the villages or the tent camps of the wandering tribes to discuss their languages or their other affairs. In addition, Persian includes works of art and the most precious literature, such as the poetry of Sa`di and Ferdawsi and the like. And so the commentators on Iranian affairs neglect to notice any other language spoken there, such as Turkish. Compared to Persian, Turkish is like a beautiful girl who sits idly beside an unveiled second wife who enchants the heart with her jewelry and bewitches the mind with her adornments.
But we want to travel down this road not taken and open the gate never before opened. We do not claim that this article is perfect, nor do we attempt a thorough investigation. Rather, we are satisfied to limit our discussion and its subject matter to our travels in the provinces of Iran, and perhaps some of al-Irfan’s readers will supply details to what we have summarized and perfect what we have left incomplete and call to our attention our errors. We have divided the article into four sections.
II: Are There More Turks or Persians in Iran?
Turkish is not limited to one province of Iran, as some maintain; rather, it is spread throughout every province and district, as we have said. The Turks ۲ and Persians in Iran are not like two separate heaps, but like a chessboard during a game in which each player has penetrated the other’s ranks and the black pieces have mingled with the white ones: Among the villages in which the inhabitants speak Persian, one sees villages in which the people speak Turkish, and many Persian cities, such as Tehran or Shiraz or Qazvin or Hamadan, are surrounded on all sides by Turkish villages or tribes; indeed, the people of the latter two cities understand both languages and speak both of them.
It is difficult to decide these days whether there are more Turks than Persians. This can only be decided after a census is taken which distinguishes Turks from Persians, but the Iranian government has not to this day conducted such a census of its citizens or the population of its provinces, let alone distinguish Persian from Turk. His estimation generally inclines the author to the belief that the majority are Turks, but we will not speculate idly, but stick to the research we have conducted which we present below, with general and approximate figures.
- Azerbaijan, which is the largest of Irans four provinces,3 and Irans most important. It has a population of one and a half million souls, and the district of Khamse, which is generally populated, among its nomads and settled people, its villages and its cities, by Turks (along with a small minority of Mokri Kurds in Azerbaijan who speak Kurdish) and do not understand Persian until they are taught it by a teacher or an official.
- Most villages and tribes in the provinces of Khorasan and Fars and the districts of Hamadan and Qazvin and `Eraq and Astarabad are Turks, and travelers wandering the streets and alleys of Tehran have been astonished at seeing the villagers walking about speaking in Turkish. Some of these had migrated from Azerbaijan and Khamse in recent years and stay in the cities and no longer consider themselves to be from their land of origin, but from these cities.
- As for the other parts of Iran, the majority of the people there are not Turks, but there are many among the tribesmen and villagers who are. An exception is the province of Kerman and the districts of Gilan, Mazandaran, Kurdestan, Lurestan, etc., in which there are no Turks except those who have migrated there recently, and they do not consider themselves to be true residents of these provinces. That Russian adage is true which says, “There is no reed without a knob.” Indeed, Mazandaran has two Turkish tribes, along with their clans, and in Sari, the capital of that district, over twenty Turkish clans which have migrated from all over Iran and settled there, and they no longer speak Turkish.
We have decided, as we have said, to explain nothing except what can be explained with Arabic numerals, and estimations and speculation are absolutely unsatisfactory.4
III: Are They Turks or Are They Turkified?5
When Turkey’s propaganda intensified in the beginning of this century (the thirteenth AH) and the Ottoman political perspective turned from pan-Islam to pan-Turkism, the Turks of Iran, and particularly the people of Azerbaijan, could not be left out, and they spread the propagandists and published articles in their newspapers appealing to the Turks of Iran and proving that they were Turks just like them.6 And then came the Caucasians, who tugged at their heartstrings, appealing to them and demonstrating that they should form their own independent state called the Republic of Azerbaijan, even though there was no relationship between their lands and Azerbaijan except their being neighbors. They did not suspect that the people of Azerbaijan were zealously upholding the torch of Iran, but believed that they bore it reluctantly and unwillingly and that they would not hesitate to separate from Iran and unit with them because of their common bond of language and faith and their unity of race and descent; they would then transfer their capital from Baku and make Tabriz the capital of Azerbaijan. They tried to spread propagandists and sent missions to call on the Azerbaijanis to unite with them and to instigate them to help them. Their press published articles which struggled to advance this goal, with Aciq Soz (or Plain Talk) in the lead. Its editor, the illustrious, talented writer Mohammad Amin Rasulzade, the leader of the Musavat Party7 and the Iranians were angered at this republic being called “Azerbaijan,” and no sooner had one or two articles appeared on this theme in the Caucasus than the Tehran press swung into action and rose up in defense and responded, with the semiofficial Iran and its illustrious, talented writer Malek osh-Sho`araBehar in the lead. The two journals polemicized with each other and debated, going at each other this way and that, this one answering that one and laying waste to all its accomplishments, that one going after this one and demolishing all it had built. The issues were as follows:
- Were Baku, Ganje, and other lands situated in the South Caucasus part of Azerbaijan and was there an excuse for the people of those lands to call their republic “Azerbaijan”?
- Were the people of Azerbaijan, Khamse, and other Turkish-speakers of Iran of Turkish descent who had migrated from Turkestan, or were they Persians who had been compelled to speak Turkish because the descendants of Chengiz Khan had overrun their lands and so had come to completely forget their original Persian language?
But the polemics, no matter how long they lasted, came to no conclusion, nor did either side achieve a clear victory over the other, for neither side looked at the issue from a scientific perspective free of prejudice; rather, each side wanted to come up with an historical or scientific basis, both of them in a very shaky and confused way, to build upon their political prejudices as they pleased. Before long, the Bolsheviks swept over the Caucasus and the attention of the little republics there were turned from interfering with others and it became more urgent to use their means of defense and their guns to protect their own lands from their enemies rather than using their pens to propagandize others to join them.
But the issue is not so enigmatic if it is examined fairly and free of prejudice, for Iran borders on the steppes of Turkestan, crowded with roving Turkish tribes, herders of horses and livestock. Their places of settlement, situated between those steppes and Transoxiana and Asia Minor, were known since ancient times for the land’s lushness and the abundance of plants and pasturage and a plenitude of gardens and widespread lushness. Indeed, in the earliest times and before these times, it had been a refuge for these tribes. They took refuge there when they had been defeated by the enemy and they beat a broad path to Transoxiana and Syria or to any region they pleased when they became hard-pressed in their deserts or there was a shortage of pasturage or herbage. The deeds of Hulagu Khan and his descendants and Amir Timarlang and his, as well as the Seljuks, including their overrunning of Iran and their dividing between themselves the lands beyond were no different than those of their ancestors in prehistoric times. Iran did not have a wall like China did to restrain or block them; they burst through her borders along with their children and women and horses and livestock, and divided up the length and breadth of the land in search of safety and pasture. They settled wherever they pastured and lay down their bindle stiffs. If a parcel of land caught their eye, they took it for themselves to settle in and live there to benefit from and to utilize, and no more than a decade or two would pass before they would forget their commitment to their old land and would not return to or recall their former homeland but mix in with those around them and learn their culture and mode of dress and accept their religion.
As for language, it is the firmest of those factors which distinguish one people from another, and it is not as easily and quickly abandoned and forgotten as the others. If one language encounters another, it competes with it and overcomes it and does not abandon its position, even if it receives a clear imprint from it and accepts a large corpus of vocabulary and expressions from its rival. As for Turkish, which had witnessed all those settlements in Transoxiana, its speakers did not easily forget or forsake it as much as they forsook and lost their other characteristics. Since we only intend here to summarize this process, we should say that there are two possibilities here: either the migrants are a small number and settle among an indigenous population which is larger and more powerful and they defer to them and settle among them and live with them, in which case it would not take long before they intermarry with them and are overcome because of their small numbers and weakness and are incorporated into them so that they become indistinguishable from them. Then Turkish would despite its firm roots-have had to have been abandoned and forgotten and leave its position for Persian or to whatever language the native population spoke. Otherwise, the nomads might be a large population with might and stamina who, whenever they settled in a parcel of land, would occupy it and expel those who lived there or subjugate them to their domination and build independent villages and cities and, on more than one occasion, countries of sufficient stature as to be mentioned in the history of Iran, e.g., in the case of the Aq Quyunlu and the Qara Quyunlu tribes, for example, there was no question of their abandoning Turkish for any other language; rather, it was for the native population who were subjected to their rule and mingled with them to be assimilated into them and see their language turkified and changed to Turkish, and not the other way around.
In short, the Turkish speakers among the Iranian population who were spread through every region of Iran were not Persians who were forced to abandon their original language and forgot it and learned Turkish. No one spoke Turkish as a result of being vanquished by the Turkish conquerors over their lands, as was the opinion spread throughout Iran; the Turkish speakers are nothing but the descendants of the Turks who had migrated in ancient times from Turkestan in search of safety and pasture and became conquerors of Iran and spread throughout it and settled here and there in tracts of land and mingled with the population over the course of time and intermarried with them and followed them in their customs and clothing and religion,8 although they have preserved their Turkish language and their descendants still speak it although there are some of these Turks who have assimilated into the indigenous population and have forgotten their languages as well.
Proof of our claim, in addition to what has been outlined above, comes from the history books. To force a people to abandon the language int