Talk:Nader Shah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Nader Shah was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 29, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
March 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Timur and Genghis[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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]
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)

According to what i remember from reading the article, Nader was raised Shia, converted to Sunni to please his Sunni soldiers, friends and family said he was actually non religious. 216.123.0.214 (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Death toll on hindus[edit]

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)

Delhi was muslim city inhabitated by Muslims, upto 1947(before partition) muslims made 50% of delhi population its unlikely Delhi habitants were mostly muslims and nadir shah was no protector of muslims, he made russian empire a catholic empire his ally against declining ottoman empire who were muslims themselves. 122.161.116.167 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

requested change: map[edit]

Can we add this image to the article? File:Afsharid Dynasty 1736 - 1802 (AD).PNGgoethean 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?[edit]

The map fails to illustrate Nader's conquests in Northwestern Central Asia(Khwarezm), India, and in the Arabian Peninsula.(Kaveh94 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)) Found a more accurate map. (Kaveh94 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

nadir achievements exaggerated[edit]

the achievements of nadir shah has been exaggerated by many scholars specially those who are hardcore fans of ancient persia(first he was turk not persian). Second to determine one general strenegth we need to asses the strength of their enemies. His major neighbours were -

1-Russian Empire of Czar(a powerful and formidable empire)

2-Ottoman(or osman) Empire(a declining empire with great speed relies on european powers such as british and french to top russian empire from making inroad in asia minor,in a sense used by british empire as a buffer state against russian empire)

First mentality of both these empire, Russians were fearless of nadir shah even at his extreme some historian who are partial to nadir shah cause try to show that russian feared nadir invasion however that seems unlikely many of nadir shah enemies and fugitives were given asylum by Russian empire of Czar. Even though Russians were immediate neighbours of nadir shah and were more agrresive than ottomans but NADIR remain extremely neutral towards russian empire avoiding any conflict . But he never missed opportunity to bully his co-religionist empire of ottomans who were in their great decline. This raises doubt both on calibre and ability of nadir shah. Asians conquerors were at all time low specially post 1500AD their was a time when Asians were most feared warriors from ancient times, Cyrus the great keep Greeks at bay however his low point was his defeat against small greek armies. However this point of Greeks being greatest warriors was destroyed by Indians who first show how difficult it was for Alexander to conquer a small Indian King Puru(european name porus). Undoubtedly among world greatest conquerors Chandragupta Maurya revenge the loss of indians against greeks by inflicting a crushing victory on greeks and taking empire to south-east persian(now iran). Similarly Genghis Khan and Timurlame dont fear europeans but i have to admit post 1500AD the asians who have given all the legendary warriors , emperors, conquerors to this world who never feared europeans be it greek, roman or anyone by 1500AD even the most powerful asian king nadir shah avoids conflict with russian he made russian his ally against another muslim empire.

Similarly as a student of indian history his victory at karnal(40km north of delhi) will be reviewed by me. To asses this victory impartially we have to asses the strength of "MOGUL EMPIRE OF 1739 AND NOT OF TAMERLANE DESCENDANT BABUR OR AURANGZEB" . This once powerful empire started to show signs of decline in late 1690s and 1700s though because of aurangzeb it was not falling very quickly but yes it was clear that "MOGUL EMPIRE LOST THE WAR AGAINST MARATHA" commonly known as "27 YEARS WAR" from 1680-1707 maratha pushed Mogul empire out of maharashtra and the grip of mogul empire started weakning though Maratha are a small hindu clan but soon they showed that their objective is not only to force mogul empire out of their homeland but out of complete INDIA(including pakistan).

Now Side by side Growth of Maratha Empire and Decline of Mogul Empire. By 1720 Maratha obtained rights of collecting taxes from Mogul provinces as their subordinate however in 1724 AD a large Mogul Army was destroyed by Maratha empire in Bhopal which made clear to Hindustan(INDIA AND PAKISTAN) that now Maratha empire are supreme force of Indian Subcontinent and Mogul empire of Timurid descent is all but over . Maratha army started raiding Mogul provinces which extreme fierce Mogul armies failed to protect their province from these raids made it clear to the population that "MOGUL EMPIRE AUTHORITY DONT STAND ANYONE". However the biggest blow to Mogul prestige came in 1736/1737 when Maratha General Peshwa Baji Rao raided Mogul capital Delhi with just 5000 light cavalry , plundered the sub-urbs of delhi, And soon returned to Pune In South-central india their own capital. The fear of Mogul emperor itself conveyed that Mogul emperor themselves are not secure from Maratha Raids how will they save their province. Mogul emperor was so terror stricken in 1737 that he ordered 20 boats at ready to flee if Maratha army entered the palace(RED FORT) itself to kill Mogul monarch itsef, he along with his harem(wives and children) were ready to flee Red Fort if Maratha force capture it. http://www.hindu.com/mp/2004/01/26/stories/2004012600750200.htm. 2 years after this Nader Shah leading an army of estimated 60,000-80,000 defeated Mogul Empire do you think it is such a great achievement . I dont feel so this victory seems hollow when your enemy is so weak, his only achievement was "KOH-I-NOOR" and "PEACOCK THRONE" out of this "KOH-I-NOOR" was taken by Afghan Durrani empire from iran and from Durrani Empire, Indian Conqueror Maharaja Ranjit Singh captured it by defeating Pathan armies in kashmir valley 1819. From Him British Empire won it in battle.122.161.116.167 (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nader's achievements[edit]

I suggest you look at the battles of herat, damghan. baghavard, murch-khort on wikepedia which i added and then i think you'll change your mind about whether or not he was a genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsa1993 (talkcontribs) 20:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read that Nader Shah was a Kurd[edit]

I have read that he was a Kurd. In several reports of explorars in the 19, Cent. is written that he was a Kurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.109.91 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read that Peter I of Russia and Alexander the great were Kurdish. Oh damn, I just don't have the right cites to prove it... LouisAragon (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisAragon (talkcontribs) 17:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesus was also Kurd86.189.233.8 (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's hilarious when Kurd nationalists try to call everything theirs. They seem to especially like steal Persian history. The only claim that has some backing is Karin khan being Kurdish 216.123.0.214 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC) oh wait I'm not logged in

Nader Shah was not a Kurd, but the founders of Safavid Empire and the Zand Dynasty were Kurds. There is no doubt about that. In fact, Safavid is based on the Kurdish version of Sufi Islam called Safaviya. Ismail I, first ruler of the Safavid Empire, was a direct descendant of the Kurdish Safavi Sheikh. Furthermore, most of the arts and culture of the Safavid Empire were encouraged by Ismail I the Kurd, and later revived by Karim Khan, the Kurdish ruler of the Zand Dynasty. So claiming that Kurds want to steal Persian history is false. Most of what is deemed persian culture was actually encouraged and started by Kurds. The first Persian Empire, the Median Emprie, was one started by ancestors of the Kurds; the Medes. And the last powerful Persian Empire was also one started by Kurds; namely the Safavid Dynasty. This has nothing to do with trying to steal other people's accomplishments, but simply with recorded history and facts. If you can't accept that, that's too bad for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny thing though, while Nader Shah was so successful, it was eventually in Kurdish lands (Khorasan, where he went to repress Kurdish rebels) where he ultimately found his death. And then the throne was picked up by a Kurd; Karim Khan.

Calling everything Iran has achieved Persian is simply falsification of history. It is Iranian culture and heritage, not just Persian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity playings[edit]

Instead of "Afshar", or "Oghuz" as wider term, someone insists on "Turkic" label in start of the article. There's no doubt that Nader was Afshar, that Afshars were Oghuz, and that Oghuz is Turkic, but selective imputs of widest clearly ethnically motivated. There is no labeling of various Spanish, German, Iranian or Indian rulers as "Indo-European", and also there's no categories like Category:Germanic rulers in article about British queen Victoria and so on. Labeling dynasties under ethnic origins is normal and widespread, but such imputs for individual people makes little sense. Beside it, someone has inserted that Shah Sultan Husayn belong to Persian people. He doesn't, he's of mixed origins (also includes Turkic) which clearly show some pan-Turkic "patriot" has tried to played here. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Turkic label is there because that's what it says in the source (Michael Axworthy's definitive biography). Encyclopaedia Iranica also calls the Afshar tribe "Turkic". --Folantin (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's Turkic but to be as accurate as possible it's better to call him an afshar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.0.214 (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Defeats in Dagestan[edit]

There is currently one dubious source in the article which claims two battlefield defeats Nader suffered in Dagestan. However I cannot find these two alleged battles even though I am pouring through a host of primary and secondary material. Will post again soon. Parsa1993 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that there were no set piece battles in which the Lezgis attained victory. All the successes were in ambushes and raids alongside general harassment of the main Persian army. Whether its Axworthy, Floor, Lockhart or Tucker (modern sources) or Astarabadi, Sheikh Hazin, Marvi and Hanway (primary/contemporary sources) none mention set piece battles in which the Lezgis triumph. Parsa1993 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Nader Shah's skull[edit]

I found an image of nader shah's skull here: http://www.parsine.com/fa/news/269846/%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87-%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1 . Should it be put into the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.65.128 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

I checked page 34 of Axworthy, ironically the same source which I used for the current description, and it does not talk explicitly about Nader's faith at all. It is merely a sentence reporting the naming of his newborn son and the cultural setting of Nader's upbringing (Shi'ite Islam) which the name "indicates". The problem is however that Axworthy goes on to deal specifically with Nader's faith in detail later on in his book and the best summary of the complex topic is already provided with accurate citation t the page numbers. Hence there is no need for change here.Parsa1993 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There most definitely is a conflict in the sources here. The latter source, which is merely a general military history text, talks about Nader being a Sunni Turkmen tribesman and says nothing about a conversion at all. Axworthy which is by far the more appropriate source, but here a page number isn't provided for verification so it's not valid. Also, there is no disputing that he was born a Twelver Shi'ite (Ja'fari Madhab). Also being irreligious does in fact describe one's position as regards to the matter of religion!Parsa1993 (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
There might be some confusion around the Jafari Mazhab of Sunni Islam so I'll explain in brief. Of course I would urge you to see Tucker for an in depth and scholastic study of Nader Shah's religious policy. One of the main foreign policy aims of Nader with regard to the Ottoman caliphate and his expanding empire (which was incorporating larger populations of Sunnis with each campaign) was to alleviate the tensions between Shia and Sunni adherents by establishing a new sect called Ja'farism after the Shia Ja'fari school of thought. This new sect would be considered as one of the five main schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam but would retain enough of the original Twelver Shi'ite theological concepts to be acceptable to the core of the Perisan population (almost all of whom were Twelver Shi'ites).

So the official faith of the state as espoused and designed by Nader and his theologians was an amalgamation of the original Shia Twelverism with Sunni Islam. He referred to this faith as Ja'farism or the Ja'fari Mazhab. The religious policy section is obviously in dire need of change and expansion.Parsa1993 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So you are claiming that Nader Shah founded a completely new Sunni madhhab called Ja'farism? A madhhab that happens to share the name of the main Shi'a maddhab? I have searched for this supposed Sunni madhhab but I can find no sources for it. I understand that there has been much debate over the religious beliefs of Nader Shah on this page, but this seems to only add more confusion. The religion portion of the infobox currently states that his religion was "Officially Ja'fari school of Sunni Islam". Yet the linked "Ja'fari school" links to the Wikipedia page of the Shi'a madhhab. I have attempted to change this section to "Ja'fari school of Sunni Islam", but it has been reverted. It is clear that Nader Shah converted to Sunni Islam for political reasons, but it seems inaccurate to label it as Ja'fari when that sect is Shi'a. Unless you can provide evidence that a Sunni Ja'fari maddhab did exist, or the religion section of the infobox is revised to remove a connection between Ja'farism and Sunni Islam, more discussion needs to be conducted to resolve this issue.98.215.241.205 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't waste time. There are numerous citations which explain Nader's Ja'fari Mazhab. Consult them and shut up about it. Parsa1993 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone kindly posted a source that explained in clear terms what Nader was attempting to create with his Ja'fari school. I was not wasting time, as it was legitimately confusing and not clear. I wish you would display some manners and actually discuss issues with your fellow contributors, but it seems you often resort to trivial insults against those who disagree with you instead. Just because we contest something you wrote does not instantly make us "intellectually sub-par" as you haughtily claim on your user page.98.215.241.205 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

On Nader's nationality[edit]

I intend here to cast light on what the modern academic literature has to say on the subject of Nader's national identity, (which is distinct from his strictly ethnic identity). To this end, I have used those reputable sources which deal most pertinently with Nader's identity, starting with Sha'bani and then coming to the English speaking academic world, especially as this is an English language article, with the discussion involving all major contributors to the scholarly discourse on Nader Shah in the 20th & 21st century.

Reza Sha’bani, Tarikh-e Ejtemai-ye Iran dar asr-e Afshariyeh (translation: A social history of Iran in the Afsharid period), Tehran, 1986, pp.116-122 talks in depth on the various views present in the secondary sources on Nader Shah's “his cruel treatment of his own people and how this reconciles with his highly Persianised identity.” Sha’bani is a well-established scholar and has been cited by many Persian language historians as well as by academics in the English speaking world such as Willem Floor and Nader’s most recent biographer and researcher Dr. Axworthy who has contributed tremendously to the study of Nader Shah as a ruler. See his publications on Nader’s army, Nader’s naval policies, and of course his biography of Nader.

Axworthy actually mentions Sha’bani when specifically dealing with the subject of Nader’s identity. On page 292, the notes to his biography, he explicitly agrees with Sha’bani on the matter and also quotes a seal inscription where Nader describes himself as “the Iranian Nader”. There are also many references throughout Axworthy’s literature which unambiguously demonstrate he assumes Nader’s Iranian nationality as a matter of fact. As only an example, take his justification for writing the biography in the first place, “If this narrative does something more widely to stimulate interest in him, and in Iranian history, it will have been useful.” (Preface xix). Also "If Nader and his dynasty had succeeded, he might today be remembered as a figure in Iranian history to compare to Peter the Great in the history of Russia: as a ruthless, dynamic monarch who set his country on a new path." (p.284-285).

A similar assumption of Nader’s Iranian national identity is even more easily perceptible in Lockhart’s biography Nadir Shah, 1938. Not to mention Ernest Tucker’s analysis of Nader’s reign and his philosophical justifications for establishing a new dynasty in Nadir Shah’s quest for Legitimacy in Post-Safavid Iran, or Willem Floor’s numerous publications on Nader. All of these English language histories and studies mention his ethnic origins as an Afshar Khorasani Turcoman of north east Iran, and all of them assume or explicitly write of Nader as having an Iranian national identity. Those that write of Nader's ethnic origins as what they think is a counter-point to his Iranian identity are rather out of tune with how scholars explain and reconcile Nader's Turcoman and Iranian identities. (For example, see both Axwworthy's and Malcolm's writings on Nader's letter to his son Reza Qoli in which mention is made of Turcoman heritage.)

In conclusion, it is reasonable to say that the modern academic consensus is that Nader's national identity was indeed Iranian.

As an aside, I can say that I was tempted to include a number of my own arguments citing archival material that I have uncovered in the form of royal decrees, personal correspondences, as well as other numismatic and sigillographic evidence which overwhelmingly make the case that both Nader and his contemporaries saw him as an Iranian. Although I strongly believe that Nader's idea of Iran, to say nothing of the concept of nationality itself, would've been markedly different to how we modern contemporaries think of these concepts. In fact, I would argue that any claim of kinship and shared national identity with a distant historical figure or even people, is a fundamentally preposterous claim. However, this is a fringe view and definitely not in sync with the current academic discourse on the matter at hand and even in general. Also, I did not include my own evidence and arguments as Wikipedia is not a platform that allows for "original research", which is on balance, probably a good idea. In my opinion, Wikipedia has no choice but to wait until someone publishes an article specifically studying the subject of Nader's identity. (a wink and a nod)! Parsa1993 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)