It has been said above that to the Ṣafawís belongs the credit of making Persia, after the lapse of eight centuries In what sense the Ṣafawí movement may be described as “Nationalist.” and a half, “a nation once again.” This is true, but the nationalism which thus found expression was very different in several respects from the various forms of nationalism with which we are familiar at the present day. Language and race, which are the key-notes of the latter, played a very small part in it compared with religion. At no time was the mutual hatred of Turk and Persian more violent and bitter than during the eight years (A.D. 1512-1520) when Sulṭán Salím “the Grim,” and Sháh Isma'íl, the founder of the Ṣafawí power, were the respective protagonists of the two nations. The despatches of this period, recorded by Firídún Bey, pass from the realm of diplomacy to that of vulgar abuse, and “rascally Red-heads” (Awbásh-i-Qizil-básh) is the politest expression wherewith the Turkish Sulṭán refers to his Persian foes. The cause of this intense hatred, equally adequate and obvious, will be discussed under the heading of “Religion,” but it did not extend to race or language. When America entered the late War it was stated in the newspapers that in certain towns the people, to give vent to their hatred of everything German, collected all the German books they could find and burned them. No Turk or Persian of the sixteenth century would have given expression to his feelings of hostility in so puerile a fashion. On the contrary, it is a remarkable fact that while Sulṭán Salím and Sháh Isma'íl both possessed considerable poetic talent, the former wrote almost exclusively in Persian, and the latter, under the pen­name of Khaṭá'í, almost exclusively in Turkish. * Ottoman hatred was directed against the heretical Qizil-básh as mis-believers, not as Persians (Írání), while the Persian language (Fársí) continued to hold its position as the polite idiom of literature and diplomacy. And though the ancient conflict between Írán and Túrán was familiar to all educated Turks and Persians in the classical Sháh-náma, or “Book of Kings,” of Firdawsí, Salím, in the following curious exordium to a despatch written in April, 1514 (Ṣafar, 920), * compares him­self to the legendary Persian kings Firídún, Kay-Khusraw and Dárá, while likening his Persian opponent Sháh Isma'íl to the Turkish protagonist Afrásiyáb:

<text in Arabic script omitted>

[After the doxology] “But to proceed. This excellent ad­dress hath been issued on our part, we who are the Refuge of the Caliphate, * the slayer of the infidels and polytheists, the extirpator of the foes of the Faith, the humbler of the Pharaohs' pride, * the tarnisher of the Kháqán's * crowns, the King of those who fight and strive for Religion, whose pomp is as that of Firídún, whose Court is as that of Alexander, whose justice and equity is as that of Kay-Khusraw, that Dárá of noble descent, Sulṭán Salím Sháh, son of Sulṭán Báyazíd, son of Sulṭán Muḥammad Khán, to thee, who art the ruler of the Persians, the most mighty general and puissant leader, the Ḍaḥḥák * of the time, the Dáráb of the combat, the Afrásiyáb of the age, the famous Amír Isma'íl.”

On the other hand I have only found one verse wherein Sháh Isma'íl is definitely identified with the Persian as contrasted with the Shí'a cause. This verse occurs in the Aḥsanu 't-Tawáríkh * and runs:

<text in Arabic script omitted>

“The illuminator of the crown and throne of the Kayánians, *
The upholder of the star of the Káwayán.”*

For the rest, the seven tribes who formed the back-bone of the Qizil-básh army were, as their names Rúmlú, Shámlú,

Extensive use of Turkish under the Ṣafawís. Mawṣillú, etc., sufficiently indicate, almost ex­clusively Turkish, as were the principal officers of the Ṣafawí army, whose war-cry, as we learn from the rare history of Sháh Isma'íl, * was not “Long live Persia!” or the like, but, in the Turkish language, “O my spiritual guide and master whose sacrifice I am!”

<text in Arabic script omitted>

More than a century after Isma'íl's death, when the capital had been transferred from the north of Persia to Iṣfahán, Turkish seems still to have been the language generally spoken at Court. * These instances, to which might be added many more, will suffice to show how different was the spirit which animated the Ṣafawí revival (though it undoubtedly produced that homogeneity which is the basis of national sentiment) from the Nationalism of the modern Pan-Turanians and “Young Persians,” who put the ex­tension and purification from foreign elements of the national language in the foremost place in their programme. At the present time the Turkish nationalists of Angora pro­claim their new Caliph in Turkish instead of in the time-honoured Arabic, while Ríḍá Khán, the Persian military dictator, strives to introduce in his army a purely Persian military terminology.

Although the Muhammadans, according to their own statements, are divided into seventy-two or seventy-three Essential nature of the Shí'a doctrine. different sects, * in later times at any rate, when certain controversies, such as those connected with Free Will and Predestination and the Creation of the Qur'án, have sunk into a subordinate position, it may fairly be said that the capital and cardinal division is into the People of the Sunnat and the People of the Shí'a. Scattered communities of the latter are found in Asia Minor, Syria (where they are called Mutawallí, pl. Matá-wila ), India and other Muhammadan lands, but in Persia only is the Shí'a doctrine not only that held by the great majority of the people, but also the State Religion. Before considering how it was raised to this position by the Ṣafawís about the year A.D. 1500, we must briefly consider its essential nature, and here we cannot do better than quote Shahristání, the learned author of the Kitábu'l-Milal, or “Book of Sects,” who died in the middle of the twelfth century, and who writes of them * as follows:

“THE SHÍ'A.—They are those who took the side of (Sháya'ú) 'Alí in particular, declaring him to be Imám and Shahristání cited. Khalífa by explicit written deed, public or secret, and believing that the Imámate cannot quit his posterity; and that, should it do so, it is only by reason of wrong wrought by another, or prudential re­nunciation on his own part. * They assert that the Imámate is not a question of expediency but of principle: it does not depend on popular choice, so that an Imám can be set up by their appointment, but is an essential of Religion which it is not permissible for even the Apostle of God to ignore or neglect, and which cannot be transferred or committed to the common people. They are united in their assertion as to the necessity of such explicit designation [of the Imám on the part of his predecessor] and the established innocence of the Imáms of all sins, small or great, and also in their principles of recognition and repudiation, alike in word, deed and faith, save in cases of ‘prudential conceal­ment’ (taqiyya), in which point, however, some of the Zaydís oppose them. As to the actual transmission of the Imámate, however, there is much discussion and difference of opinion, and at each such transmission and stage there is an argu­ment, a doctrine and a schism. There are five [principal] divisions, the Kaysánis, the Zaydís, the Imámís, the Ex­tremists (Ghulát) and the Isma'ílís, of whom some incline in their principles to the Mu'tazila, some to the Sunna and some to Anthropomorphism (tashbíh).”

Put in a briefer, clearer and more concrete form, this means that all the Shí'a reject and repudiate the first three Why the Shí'a doctrine especi­ally appeals to the Persians. of the “Four Orthodox Caliphs” (al-Khulafá'-u'r-Ráshidún ), Abú Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthmán, who were elected, and hold that 'Alí, the cousin of the Prophet Muḥammad and the husband of his daughter Fáṭima, should have succeeded him, and had in fact been nominated by him as his successor; and that after 'Alí the succession continued in his family by Divine Right. But even within this family there was no place for election, each Imám specifically choosing and nominating his successor, as the Prophet had chosen and nominated 'Alí. Amongst those who agreed in these general principles, however, there was plenty of room for disagreement as to details. Some of the Shí'a were content that the Imám should be descended from 'Alí, and were therefore ready to recognise Muḥammad ibnu'l-Ḥanafiyya, “the son of the Ḥanafite woman”; others, including the “Sect of the Seven” or Isma'ílís and the “Sect of the Twelve” or Imámís, with which last we are chiefly concerned, limited the succession to the children born to 'Alí by his wife Fáṭima, the Prophet's daughter. With the third Imám Ḥusayn, 'Alí's younger son by Fáṭima, a new factor came into operation, for, ac­cording to quite early and respectable historians, such as al-Ya'qúbí, * a daughter of the last Sásánian king of Persia, Yazdigird III, was given to him in marriage and bore him a son named 'Alí and entitled Zaynu'l-'Ábidín, who was the Fourth Imám, and who combined in himself direct descent from the Prophet through his daughter Fáṭima and from the ancient Royal House of Persia. Small wonder that to him and his descendants the loyal devotion of the Persians was so freely rendered!