Talk:Nader Shah

Timur and Genghis

Please stop spreading baseless rumors and idiotic claims that Nadir idolized Timur and Genghiz. There are no sources to back this claim. Wikipedia, and the hallucinating person who wrote that sentence, are the only people who can claim this. Thank You --Arad (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Try reading a book, maybe even one of those cited in the article, before embarrassing yourself with comments like the above. Thank you.--Folantin (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

122.163.198.205 (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Portrait

I think the portrait at the top of the article is in the Victoria and Albert Museum (London) collection, not the Smithsonian. There used to be a portrait on this page, that no longer appears, that was given as from the Smithsonian collection. 122.163.198.205 (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

علامت شیر و خورشید

در این مقاله جایی ندارد

واقعا ندارد! آنهم این شکل جدید آن

درود —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.76.37 (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nader Shah Sunni

Someone is furiously opposed to me adding Nader Shah being a Sunni, which most sources say he was.[1] [2] I don't understand it, why do we have to be like this? Wikipedia allows all reliable secondary sources to be presented so lets try to understand and be civilized here please. If someone addes sources that state he was a Jew, Christian, Hindu, or Athiest, I wouldn't care as long as they provide some sort of source to back up the claim. But why are these editors so strongly opposed to Sunni?--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Note about Nader's religion

I dont have any preconceived biases as far as Nader's religion is concerned i would just like to make sure that we include the fact that he was born and raised a Shia [3]. Michael Axworthy is the primary contemporary biographer on Nader and i think that the religion Nader was born into should also be mentioned. That is all Folantin and i were asserting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamidrafi23 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your link is not working. However, my sources clearly state that he was Sunni [4] [5] I can get many more stating his Sunni background if someone insist. In fact, Nader didn't like Shias much, and in the end the Shias plotted his murdered. This is also very well sourced if you do search.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link again [6]. I never said that that Nader reminaed a shi'a his whole life, i just pointed out that he was born in a shia Qizilbash tribe and raised as a shia. Nader was a political genius who then espoused sunnism in order to expand the horizons of his empire and gain legitimacy in the wider muslim world. This is exactly what is written in the article

Again, it's a dead link to an unavailable page. You typed key words "Nader shi'a Qezelbash afshar" but only result you found was link to unavailable page. The only way to cite a book page as a reference it must state that Nader Shah Afshar was a Shi'a, but there is no book that states this and that's why you are fooling around brining dead links here.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

P.34 is fully available for viewing and it is literally just a matter of clicking on the link. Please let me know if they are any other issues. Hamidrafi23 (talk)

The content of page 34 are not available. Ask others if they can see it.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see the page and it does state that Nader Shah was brought and remained a Shi'a Muslim in his youth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. perhaps panjshirpashtun you cant see it because of your region, maybe it is not available in your country, but in america we can see it. I can send you a pic of it my friend if you want Hamidrafi23 (talk)

I can see it too. The relevant text on that page says:

The name Reza Qoli, like the birth-names of Nader's other sons and his father's name (Emam Qoli), is a strong indication that Nader was brought up and remained in his youth a Shi`a Muslim, as one would expect from his Afshar, Qezelbash background.

I hope that helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see many of the other pages but not p. 34 and I don't think it has anything to do with the regions. Thanks Amatulić for quoting that, but that book doesn't say he was Shia. My sources are from 1885, 1924, 2000, and 2010, and they all say he was Sunni. [7] [8] [9] [10]

“ In the 1730s, Nadir Shah, a Sunni Turkmen tribesman from Persia's northeastern province of Khorasan... ”

“ However, later, in the mid-eighteenth century, when Nadir Shah Afshar, a Sunni commander, gained power in Iran, the Ottomans reluctantly withdew from the province. ”

“ His increasing cruelty, tyranny, avarice and extortion, but most of all, perhaps, his attempt to impose on his Persian subjects the Sunní doctrine, made him daily more detested. ”

“ He also attempted to make the largely Shīʿite populace of Iran adopt the Sunni form of Islam. ”

Therefore, the Wikipedia article should reflect what is presented here. If at least four scholarly sources say he was Sunni then why can't we put that in the infobox? Why does the article attempts to say he was Shia?--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that he was Shia throughout his life, it just says that he was born shia and that he later shifted to sunnism as he gained power and desired to reconcile with the sunni ottoman empire Hamidrafi23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

I have fully protected this article until this dispute is worked out. During the protection period, consensus-based changes can be made to the article by posting a {{editprotected}} tag on this talk page. If the requested change is uncontroversial and/or has clear consensus supporting it, an administrator will respond to the tag and make the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The money quote concerning Nader's religion is in Axworthy page 168: "Nader, raised as a Shi'a and now to all appearances a convert to Sunnism, had little attachment to the precepts of either sect. Some have speculated that he had little real religious faith at all. The French Jesuit who later became his personal physician said it was difficult to know what religion he followed, and that many who knew him best said that he had none. Russian diplomats must have reported something similar, because when speaking of the notorious atheism of Nader's Prussian contemporary Frederick the Great, the Empress Elizabeth apparently once said, 'He ridicules holy things; he never goes to church; he is the Nader Shah of Prussia.'" And, next paragraph: "Nader's shift towards Sunnism was purely political in its motives. Beyond Persia, his conversion signified a bid for hegemony within Islam as a whole; an assertion of his wider political position that would have been impossible had he and his regime remained Shi'a. At the centre of Nader's motives there was no religious drive; rather an urge to dominate the world he knew, as Timur had done..." --Folantin (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same source over and over, and even your source is telling us that Nader was Sunni. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Sunnis are 90% [11] [12] of the total Muslim population of the world. So, what's the problem here? Why do you keep removing all these valid scholarly sources that state Nader being a Sunni?--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Axworthy is the best source currently available. He is the expert on this subject. His book is a 300+ page biography of Nader Shah, not just some brief articles which happen to be on the internet. As I have shown, it discusses Nader's attitude to religion in detail and - guess what - the reason why Nader's exact sectarian sympathies are unclear is because he really didn't care one way or the other. He saw religion in political terms. You are clearly more obsessed by the issue than Nader was. Now please stop your POV-pushing. --Folantin (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of POV-pushing when I'm presenting facts to your face. We're only dealing with Nader's sect of religion here. Does Axworthy say Nader is Shia? You are refusing to accept scholarly sources (Edward G. Browne, M.A., M.B., Thomas R. Mattair, Touraj Atabaki, Britannica, and more) that clearly state Nader was Sunni.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the quotations I've just given from Axworthy? Do I have to type it out again: "Nader, raised as a Shi'a and now to all appearances a convert to Sunnism, had little attachment to the precepts of either sect". Which is pretty much what this article currently says, so there isn't a problem. --Folantin (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear control your emotions, of course I read everything presented to me. Michael Axworthy first suggests that Nader was Shia during his youth based on this theory of his (The name Reza Qoli, like the birth-names of Nader's other sons and his father's name (Emam Qoli), is a strong indication that Nader was brought up and remained in his youth a Shi`a Muslim, as one would expect from his Afshar, Qezelbash background), but in any case, Axworthty concludes that Nader has converted to Sunnism, therefore that makes him a Sunni. All the other scholarly sources that I've presented here also say he is a Sunni. We have to put him as Sunni in Wikipedia as well. So what's the problem?--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't you read the current version? He is in Wikipedia as a probable Sunni convert. --Folantin (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear, the term probable Sunni convert is your own creation based on your own personal POV. All sources say he was a Sunni and we as non-biased editors write exactly what the scholarly sources say, which is to state that he was a Sunni.--PanjshirPashtun (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, Axworthy (same passage) "now to all appearances a convert to Sunnism". But obviously he has to be a pure Sunni just like a Pashtun. And stop calling me "dear". It's quite evident you are just trolling by now. --Folantin (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Death toll on hindus

Could someone provide his relationship towards hindus ? Was 20,000 killed in one day only hindus ?

And give more factual details on the tower of skulls he supposedly made. Were these skulls that of hindus ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.235.210 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Theres this claim floating on the internet through a propoganda article: "Nadir Shah made a mountain of the skulls of the Hindus he killed in Delhi alone."

how factual is this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.235.210 (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nader's Indian campaign was against a fellow Muslim ruler, the Mughal Mohammed Shah. Although Nader was an admirer of Timur, Nader had not initially wanted to imitate Timur's slaughter when he had taken Delhi. The massacre occurred because rumours that Nader was going to impose a large tribute led to riots in which some of Nader's soldiers were killed. As Nader himself approached the Rowshan-od-Dowla mosque, someone fired a gun which killed an officer riding beside him. Nader then ordered his men to kill everyone in the districts where his soldiers had been attacked. The chief ringleaders of the riots against Nader were said to be two nobles, Seyyed Niaz Khan and Shah Nawaz Khan. Since they have Muslim names and the riots occurred in the mosque district, I'd say the victims of the massacre are just as likely - in fact, more likely- to have been Muslim as Hindu. In any case, the motives for the slaughter were not religious. Nader did build towers of skulls of his enemies, but those belonged to rebels in Iran not Delhi. The bodies of the victims of the Delhi massacre were left to rot in the streets for several days until the stench was overwhelming, then dragged off to be buried in heaps under rubble or flung in the river. (Source: Axworthy pp.3-9). --Folantin (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

requested change: map

Can we add this image to the article? File:Afsharid Dynasty 1736 - 1802 (AD).PNG — goethean ॐ 17:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a few problems with the inset in the map, saying "Afsharid dynasty 1736-1802". My understanding is the dynasty ended with the deposition and death of Shahrokh in 1796 (not 1802). It's also obvious that this is a map of Nader Shah's empire. The dynasty's domains began to crumble within a couple of years of his death. From the 1750s they covered little more than Khorasan. --Folantin (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Map is incorrect. Anyone have a better one?

The map fails to illustrate Nader's conquests in Northwestern Central Asia(Khwarezm) and in Oman.(Kaveh94 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC))