Kazakhstan History

Ashat Kerimbay

Ashat Kerimbay(Chinese:艾斯海提·克里木拜, b. November 1947) is a Chinese politician of Kazakh nationality.

Ashat was born in 1947 in Yining, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. He graduated from Xinjiang University and joined the CPC in 1975.

Ashat Kerimbay
Member of the 17th CPC Central Committee, Deputy Secretary of the CPC Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Regional Committee, Chairman of the CPPCC Xinjiang Uygur Regional Committee
Born: 1947
Birthplace: Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Yining City

Biography

Ashat Kerimbay, male, Kazak nationality, is a native of Yining, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Ashat was born in 1947, graduated from Xingjiang University and joined the CPC in 1975.

Ashat spent much of his career in party leadership positions and judicial positions in Ili Prefecture. In 1993, he became vice-chairman of the People's Government of Xingjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Later, he became a standing committee member of the 6th CPC Xingjian Uygur Autonomous Regional Committee.

Ashat was an alternate member of the 15th CPC Central Committee and a member of the 16th CPC Central Committee. In 2007, he became a member of the 17th CPC Central Committee.
Career Data
2007—     Member, 17th CPC, Central Committee
2003—     Member, 10th CPPCC, National Committee
2003—     Chairman, CPPCC, Autonomous Regional Committee Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
2002—2007     Member, 16th CPC, Central Committee
2001—     Member, CPC, Autonomous Regional Committee, Standing Committee Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
1997—2002     Alternate Member, 15th CPC, Central Committee
1996—     Deputy Secretary, CPC, Autonomous Regional Committee Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
1993—1998     Deputy, 8th NPC
1993—1996     Vice-Chairman, Autonomous Region People's Government Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
1988—1993     Governor Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Kazak Prefecture
1988—1993     Magistrate, Intermediate People's Court Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Kazak Prefecture
1988—1993     Deputy, 7th NPC
1988—1993     Deputy Secretary, CPC, Autonomous Prefectural Committee Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Kazak Prefecture
1987—1988     Secretary, Ili Teachers' College CPC, Party Committee Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Yili
1984—1987     Deputy Commissioner, Prefectural Administrative Office Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Yili
1976—1983     Deputy Head, CPC, Autonomous Prefectural Committee, Organization Department Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Yili
1975     Joined, CPC
1972—1976     Magistrate, County (District) People's Court Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Yining County
1970—1972     Soldier, PLA
1970     Graduate, Xinjiang University, Chinese Language and Literature Department Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region

Ashat Kerimbay

Kazakh Famous People 

Timur

Timur (Chagatai Turkic: تیمور - Tēmōr, "iron") (1336 – 19 February 1405), among his other names, he is commonly called as Tamerlane. He was a 14th century Turco-Mongol[3] conqueror of much of western and central Asia, and founder of the Timurid Empire and Timurid dynasty (1370–1405) in Central Asia, which survived until 1857.

Timur belonged to a family of Turkicized Barlas clan of Mongol origin. He was Turkic in identity and language, he aspired to restore the Mongol Empire. He was also steeped in Persian culture and in most of the territories which he incorporated, Persian was the primary language of administration and literary culture. Thus the language of the settled "diwan" was in Persian and its stribe had to be adept in Persian culture, regardless of their ethnic origin.

Timur was a military genius and his troops were essentially Turkic-speaking.He wielded absolute power, yet never called himself more than an emir, and eventually ruled in the name of tamed Chingizid Khans, who were little more than political prisoners. His heaviest blow was against the Mongol Golden Horde, which never recovered from his campaign against Tokhtamysh. Despite wanting to restore the Mongol Empire, Timur was more at home in a city than on a steppe as evidenced by his funding of construction in Samarkand. He thought of himself as a ghazi, but his biggest wars were against Muslim states.

Statue of Timur in Shahrisabz, Uzbekistan

He died during a campaign against the Ming Dynasty, yet records indicate that for part of his life he was a surreptitious Ming vassal, and even his son Shah Rukh visited China in 1420. He ruled over an empire that, in modern times, extends from southeastern Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Iran, through Central Asia encompassing part of Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, North-Western India, and even approaching Kashgar in China. Northern Iraq remained predominantly Assyrian Christian until the destructions of Timur.When Timur conquered Persia, Iraq and Syria, the civilian population was decimated. In the city of Isfahan, he ordered the building of a pyramid of 70,000 human skulls, from those that his army had beheaded, and a pyramid of some 20,000 skulls was erected outside of Aleppo.Timur herded thousands of citizens of Damascus into the Cathedral Mosque before setting it aflame, and had 70,000 people beheaded in Tikrit, and 90,000 more in Baghdad. As many as 17 million people may have died from his conquests.

Timur is historically considered to be a contradictory and controversial figure, as was the case even during his lifetime. He was a patron of the arts, but also destroyed the great centers of learning during his conquests.

Early life

Timur was born in Transoxiana, near Kesh (an area now better known as Shahr-e Sabz, 'the green city,'), situated some 50 miles south of Samarkand in modern Uzbekistan. His father Taraghay was the head of the Barlas, a nomadic tribe in the steppes of Central Asia. They were remnants of the original Mongol invaders of Genghis Khan of whom many had embraced Turkic or Iranian languages and customs.

The spurious genealogy on his tombstone taking his descent back to Ali, as well as the presence of Shiites in his army, led some observers and scholars to call him a Shiite. However, his official religious counselor was the Hanafite scholar Abd al Jabbar Khwarazmi. There is evidence that he had converted to extremist Shia Nusayri sect under the influence of Sayyed Barakah, a Nusayri leader from his mentor, Balkh. He also constructed one of his finest buildings at the tomb of Ahmed Yesevi, an influential Turkic Sufi saint who was doing most to spread Sunni Islam among the nomads.

In his memoirs Timur gave the following information about his ancestry:

    My father told me that we were descendants from Abu-al-Atrak (father of the Turks) the son of Japhet. His fifth son, Aljeh Khan, had twin sons, Tatar and Mogul, who placed their feet on the paths of infidelity. Tumene Khan had a son Kabul, whose son, Munga Bahadur, was the father of Temugin, called Zengis Khan. Zengis Khan abandoned the duty of a conqueror by slaughtering the people, and plundering the dominions of God, and he put many thousands of Moslems to death. He bestowed Mawur-ulnaher on his son Zagatai, and appointed my ancestor, Karachar Nevian, to be his minister. "Karacher appointed the plain of Kesh for the residence of the tribe of Berlas (his own tribe), and he subdued the countries of Kashgar, Badakshan, and Andecan. He was succeeded by his son Ayettekuz as Sepah Salar (general). Then followed my grandfather, the Ameer Burkul, who retired from office, and contented himself with the government of his own tribe of Berlas. He possessed an incalculable number of sheep and goats, cattle and servants. On his death my father succeeded, but he also preferred seclusion, and the society of learned men."

Military leader

Map of the Timurid Empire

In about 1360 Timur gained prominence as a military leader. He took part in campaigns in Transoxania with the khan of Chagatai, a fellow descendant of Genghis Khan. His career for the next 10 or 11 years may be thus briefly summarized from the Memoirs. Allying himself both in cause and by family connection with Kurgan, the dethroner and destroyer of Volga Bulgaria, he was to invade Khorasan at the head of a thousand horsemen. This was the second military expedition which he led, and its success led to further operations, among them the subjection of Khwarizm and Urganj.

After the murder of Kurgan the disputes which arose among the many claimants to sovereign power were halted by the invasion of the energetic Jagataite Tughlugh Timur of Kashgar, another descendant of Genghis Khan. Timur was dispatched on a mission to the invader's camp, the result of which was his own appointment to the head of his own tribe, the Barlas, in place of its former leader, Hajji Beg.

The exigencies of Timur's quasi-sovereign position compelled him to have recourse to his formidable patron, whose reappearance on the banks of the Syr Darya created a consternation not easily allayed. The Barlas were taken from Timur and entrusted to a son of Tughluk, along with the rest of Mawarannahr; but he was defeated in battle by the bold warrior he had replaced at the head of a numerically far inferior force.

Rise to power

Tughlugh's death facilitated the work of reconquest, and a few years of perseverance and energy sufficed for its accomplishment, as well as for the addition of a vast extent of territory. It was in this period that Timur reduced the Jagatai khans to the position of figureheads, who were deferred to in theory but in reality ignored, while Timur ruled in their name. During this period Timur and his brother-in-law Husayn, at first fellow fugitives and wanderers in joint adventures full of interest and romance, became rivals and antagonists. At the close of 1369 Husayn was assassinated and Timur, having been formally proclaimed sovereign at Balkh, mounted the throne at Samarkand, the capital of his dominions. This event was recorded by Marlowe in his famous work Tamburlaine the Great:
“     Then shall my native city, Samarcanda…
Be famous through the furthest continents,
For there my palace-royal shall be placed,
Whose shining turrets shall dismay the heavens,
And cast the fame of Ilion's tower to hell.     ”

It is notable that Timur never claimed for himself the title of khan, styling himself amir and acting in the name of the Chagatai ruler of Transoxania. Timur was a military genius but sometimes lacking in political sense. He tended not to leave a government apparatus behind in lands he conquered, and was often faced with the need to conquer such lands again after inevitable rebellions.

Period of expansion

Timur spent the next 35 years in various wars and expeditions. He not only consolidated his rule at home by the subjugation of his foes, but sought extension of territory by encroachments upon the lands of foreign potentates. His conquests to the west and northwest led him among the Mongols of the Caspian Sea and to the banks of the Ural and the Volga. Conquests in the south and south-West encompassed almost every province in Persia, including Baghdad, Karbala and Kurdistan.

One of the most formidable of his opponents was Tokhtamysh who, after having been a refugee at the court, became ruler both of the eastern Kipchak and the Golden Horde and quarreled with him over the possession of Khwarizm and Azerbaijan. Timur supported Tokhtamysh against Russians and Tokhtamysh, with armed support by Timur, invaded Russia and in 1382 captured Moscow. After the death of Abu Sa'id, ruler of the Ilkhanid Dynasty, in 1335, there was a power vacuum in the Persian Empire. In 1383 Timur started the military conquest of Persia. He captured Herat, Khorasan and all eastern Persia by 1385 and massacred almost all inhabitants of Neishapur and other Iranian cities.

In the meantime, Tokhtamysh, now khan of the Golden Horde, turned against his patron and invaded Azerbaijan in 1385. It was not until 1395, in the battle of Kur River, that Tokhtamysh's power was finally broken after a titanic struggle between the two monarchs. In this war, Timur first led an army of over 100,000 men north for more than 700 miles into the uninhabited steppe, then west about 1000 miles, advancing in a front more than 10 miles wide. The Timurid army almost starved, and Timur organized a great hunt where the army encircled vast areas of steppe to get food. Tokhtamysh's army finally was cornered against the Volga River in the Orenburg region and destroyed. During this march, Timur's army got far enough north to be in a region of very long summer days, causing complaints by his Muslim soldiers about keeping a long schedule of prayers in such northern regions. Timur led a second campaign against Tokhtamysh via an easier route through the Caucasus. Timur then destroyed Sarai and Astrakhan, and wrecked the Golden Horde's economy based on Silk Road trade.

Indian Campaign

Informed about civil war in India, Timur began a trek starting in 1398 to invade the reigning Sultan Nasir-u Din Mehmud of the Tughlaq Dynasty in the north Indian city of Delhi. He invaded India on the pretext that the Muslim Delhi Sultanate was too tolerant and soft toward its Hindu subjects.

Timur crossed the Indus River at Attock on September 24. The capture of towns and villages was often followed by the looting, massacre of their inhabitants and raping of their women, as well as pillaging to support his massive army. Timur wrote many times in his memoirs of his specific disdain for the 'idolatrous' Hindus, although he also waged war against Muslim Indians during his campaign.

Timur's invasion did not go unopposed and he did meet some resistance during his march to Delhi, most notably with the Sarv Khap coalition in northern India, and the Governor of Meerut. Although impressed and momentarily stalled by the valour of Ilyaas Awan, Timur was able to continue his relentless approach to Delhi, arriving in 1398 to combat the armies of Sultan Mehmud, already weakened by an internal battle for ascension within the royal family.

The Sultan's army was easily defeated on December 17, 1398. Timur entered Delhi and the city was sacked, destroyed, and left in ruins. Before the battle for Delhi, Timur executed more than 100,000 captives[36][4], mostly Hindus.

Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri. In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

    In a short space of time all the people in the [New Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground….All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

    One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives….on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty…no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.

As per Malfuzat-i-Timuri,Timur targeted Hindus. In his own words, "Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulama and the other Musalmans [sic], the whole city was sacked". In his descriptions of the Loni massacre he wrote, "..Next day I gave orders that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved."

During the ransacking of Delhi, almost all inhabitants not killed were captured and enslaved.

Timur left Delhi in approximately January 1399. In April he had returned to his own capital beyond the Oxus (Amu Darya). Immense quantities of spoils were taken from India. According to Ruy Gonzáles de Clavijo, 90 captured elephants were employed merely to carry precious stones looted from his conquest, so as to erect a mosque at Samarkand — what historians today believe is the enormous Bibi-Khanym Mosque. Ironically, the mosque was constructed too quickly and suffered greatly from disrepair within a few decades of its construction.

Last campaigns and death

Before the end of 1399, Timur started a war with Bayezid I, sultan of the Ottoman Empire, and the Mamluk sultan of Egypt. Bayezid began annexing the territory of Turkmen and Muslim rulers in Anatolia. As Timur claimed sovereignty over the Turkmen rulers, they took refuge behind him. Timur invaded Syria, sacked Aleppo and captured Damascus after defeating the Mamluk army. The city's inhabitants were massacred, except for the artisans, who were deported to Samarkand. This led to Timur's being publicly declared an enemy of Islam.

In 1400 Timur invaded Armenia and Georgia. More than 60,000 people from the Caucasus were captured as slaves, and many districts of Armenia were depopulated.

He invaded Baghdad in June 1401. After the capture of the city, 20,000 of its citizens were massacred. Timur ordered that every soldier should return with at least two severed human heads to show him (many warriors were so scared they killed prisoners captured earlier in the campaign just to ensure they had heads to present to Timur). After years of insulting letters passed between Timur and Bayezid, Timur invaded Anatolia and defeated Bayezid in the Battle of Ankara on July 20, 1402. Bayezid was captured in battle and subsequently died in captivity, initiating the 12-year Ottoman Interregnum period. Timur's stated motivation for attacking Bayezid and the Ottoman Empire was the restoration of Seljuq authority. Timur saw the Seljuks as the rightful rulers of Anatolia as they had been granted rule by Mongol conquerors, illustrating again Timur's interest with Genghizid legitimacy.

By 1368, the Ming had driven the Mongols out of China. The first Ming Emperor Hongwu demanded, and received, homage from many Central Asian states paid to China as the political heirs to the former House of Kublai. Timur more than once sent to the Ming Government gifts that could have passed as tribute, at first not daring to defy the economic and military might of the Middle Kingdom.

Timur wished to restore the Mongol Empire, and eventually planned to conquer China. Mongol khan Enkh sent his grandson Ulzitumur, also known as "Buyanshir." Timur made an alliance with the Mongols and prepared all the way to Bukhara. In December 1404, Timur started military campaigns against the Ming Dynasty, but he was attacked by fever and plague when encamped on the farther side of the Sihon (Syr-Daria) and died at Atrar (Otrar) in mid-February 1405.[42] His scouts explored Mongolia before his death, and the writing they carved on trees in Mongolia's mountains could still be seen even in the 20th century.

Of Timur's four sons, two (Jahangir and Umar Shaykh) predeceased him. His third son, Miran Shah, died soon after Timur, leaving the youngest son, Shah Rukh. Although his designated successor was his grandson Pir Muhammad b. Jahangir, Timur was ultimately succeeded in power by his son Shah Rukh. His most illustrious descendant Babur founded the Mughal Empire and ruled over most of North India. Babur's descendants, Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb, expanded the Mughal Empire to most of the Indian subcontinent along with parts of modern Afghanistan.

Markham, in his introduction to the narrative of Clavijo's embassy, states that his body "was embalmed with musk and rose water, wrapped in linen, laid in an ebony coffin and sent to Samarkand, where it was buried." His tomb, the Gur-e Amir, still stands in Samarkand. Timur had carried his victorious arms on one side from the Irtish and the Volga to the Persian Gulf, and on the other from the Hellespont to the Ganges River.

Contributions to the arts

Timur became widely known as a patron to the arts. Much of the architecture he commissioned still stands in Samarqand, now in present-day Uzbekistan. He was known to bring the most talented artisans from the lands he conquered back to Samarkand. And he is credited with often giving them a wide latitude of artistic freedom to express themselves.

According to legend, Omar Aqta, Timur's court calligrapher, transcribed the Qur'an using letters so small that the entire text of the book fit on a signet ring. Omar also is said to have created a Qur'an so large that a wheelbarrow was required to transport it. Folios of what is probably this larger Qur'an have been found, written in gold lettering on huge pages.

Timur was also said to have created Tamerlane Chess, a variant of shatranj (also known as medieval chess) played on a larger board with several additional pieces and an original method of pawn promotion.

Timur's mandating of Kurash wrestling for his soldiers ensured for it a lasting and legendary legacy. Kurash is now a popular international sport and part of the Asian Games.

Legacy

Timur's legacy is a mixed one. While Central Asia blossomed under his reign, other places such as Baghdad, Damascus, Delhi and other Arab, Persian, Indian and Turkic cities were sacked and destroyed, and millions of people were slaughtered. Thus, while Timur still retains a positive image in Central Asia, he is vilified by many in Arab, Persian and Indian societies. At the same time, many Western Asians still name their children after him, while he is called as "Teymour, Conqueror of the World" in the Persian literature.

References

Timur's generally recognized biographers are Ali Yazdi, commonly called Sharaf ud-Din, author of the Zafarnāma in Persian (ظفرنامه), translated by Petis de la Croix in 1722 , and from French into English by J. Darby in the following year; and Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Abdallah, al-Dimashiqi, al-Ajami (commonly called Ahmad Ibn Arabshah) translated by the Dutch Orientalist Colitis in 1636. In the work of the former, as Sir William Jones remarks, "the Tatarian conqueror is represented as a liberal, benevolent and illustrious prince", in that of the latter he is "deformed and impious, of a low birth and detestable principles." But the favourable account was written under the personal supervision of Timur's grandson, Ibrahim, while the other was the production of his direst enemy.

Among less reputed biographies or materials for biography may be mentioned a second Zafarnāma, by Nizam al-Din Shami, stated to be the earliest known history of Timur, and the only one written in his lifetime. Timur's purported autobiography, the Tuzuk-i Temur ("Institutes of Temur") is a later fabrication,[Quotation from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source] although most of the historical facts are accurate.

More recent biographies include Justin Marozzi's Tamerlane: Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World (Da Capo Press 2006), and Roy Stier's Tamerlane: The Ultimate Warrior (Bookpartners 1998).

Exhumation

Timur's body was exhumed from his tomb in 1941 by the Soviet anthropologist Mikhail M. Gerasimov. He found that Timur's facial characteristics conformed to that of Mongoloid features, which he believed, in some part, supported Timur's notion that he was descended from Genghis Khan. He also confirmed Timur's lameness. Gerasimov was able to reconstruct the likeness of Timur from his skull.

Famously, a curse has been attached to opening Timur's tomb.[43] In the year of Timur's death, a sign was carved in his tomb warning that whoever would dare disturb the tomb would bring demons of war onto his land. Gerasimov's expedition opened the tomb on June 19, 1941. Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany, began three days later. Timur's skeleton and that of Ulugh Beg, his grandson, were reinterred with full Islamic burial rites in 1942.

Exchanges with the West

Timur had numerous epistolary exchanges with Western, especially French, rulers. The French archives preserve:

    * A July 30th, 1402, letter from Timur to Charles VI, king of France, suggesting him to send traders to the Orient. It was written in Persian.[44]
    * A May 1403 letter. This is a Latin transcription of a letter from Timur to Charles VI, and another from Amiza Miranchah, his son, to the Christian princes, announcing their victory over Bayezid, in Smyrna.

A copy has been kept of the answer of Charles VI to Timur, dated June 15th, 1403.

After death

Timur became a popular figure in Europe for centuries after his death, not in the least because of his victory over the Ottoman Sultan and the humiliations to which he is said to have subjected his prisoner Bayezid.

Timur was officially recognised as a national hero of newly independent Uzbekistan. His monument in Tashkent takes the place where Marx's statue once stood.

Kazakh people in History

Aman Tuleyev

Aman (Amangeldy) Gumirovich Tuleyev (Russian: Аман Гумирович Тулеев, Kazakh: Аманкелді Молдағазыұлы Тулеев) is the governor of Kemerovo Oblast. He ran for President of Russia in 1991, 1996 (withdrawing during the campaign) and 2000, both times coming fourth. Tuleyev was born of Kazakh father and Tatar mother in Krasnovodsk, Turkmenistan, on 1944-05-13.

Career in the Soviet Union

Tuleyev was a railway engineer. In 1964, he finished his Higher Education at the Tikhoretsky Railway Technical College with distinction. He then moved to Siberia, to be a railway clerk at the small railway settlement of Mundybash in the Kemerovo area, where he became Station chief in 1969. In 1973, he graduated from the Novosibirsk Institute of Engineers as a railway engineer specialized in communication. From 1973 to 1978 he was Railway Station chief in the town of Mezhdurechensk. From 1978 to 1985 he worked at Novokuznetsk Railway Station, first as an assistant, and then as the chief of the Novokuznetsk branch of the Kemerovo Railway. In 1985, A.G.Tuleyev was appointed head of the Department of Transport and Communication in Kemerovo and in 1989 he became Head of the Kemerovo Railway System.

In 1990, he switched to politics and was elected to the Parliament of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) from Kuzbas. In March 1990, Tuleyev was elected Chairman of the Kemerovo Regional Soviet.

Political career in Russia

Through most of the 1990s, he was a prominent member of the Communist Party of Russia. In January 1992, Tuleyev offered his resignation from the Post of Chairman of the Kemerovo Oblast Regional Council in protest against the policies of Yegor Gaidar, but the deputies voted to refuse his resignation.

In October 1993, Tuleyev took the side of Parliament against Boris Yeltsin. After the events of that month, the Kemerovo regional Soviet of People's Deputies was disbanded, like many other regional branches of government in Siberia and elsewhere in Russia. Tuleyev however, decided to remain active in politics, and for this purpose, he created a new political movement in the Kuzbas, called "People's power. Tuleyev Block.". In 1993 Tuleyev got the majority of the votes in Kuzbas and was elected to the new Russian Parliament. A year later, he was again voted Chairman of the local Parliament.

From August 1996 to June 1997 he was a Russian minister responsible for relations with the CIS. In this capacity, he proposed plans for a union between Russia and Belarus.

In July 1999, it was rumoured that he had accepted baptism in the Russian Orthodox Church. Although he denied being religious at all and claimed that an earlier visit to Mecca was not a pilgrimage, the Islamic Shura of Chechnya, under Sharia law, condemned him to death for apostasy.

In March 2000 as a candidate he took part in the Russian presidential elections.

In 2000, Viktor Tikhonov, the brother of the former Olympic champion in biathlon, and former governor candidate of Moscow region, Alexander Tikhonov, was charged with plotting Tuleyev's assassination and sentenced to 4 years in prison. The person who is claimed to have ordered the assassination, Mikhail Zhivilo (who has since received political asylum in France), had had a business dispute with a Tuleyev ally. In the same year, Tuleyev received his doctorate.

In December 2003, he finally broke with the communist party, and supported Putin's regional party. In November 2005, he joined United Russia, one of the last regional governors to do so.

Tuleyev has been criticised for creating near-to-authoritarian regime in Kemerovo Oblast.

Private life

His hobbies include mushroom gathering, langlaufing, driving a snowmobile and taking Russian baths. His mother, Munira Fayzovna Vlasova (maiden name Nasyrova) died in 2001, while his father, Moldagazy Kaldybaevich Tuleyev, died in the war, before he was born. He was brought up by his "Russian" stepfather, Innokenty Ivanovich Vlasov. Aman is married to Elvira Fedorovna Tuleyeva. They have a son, Dmitry, who lives in Novosibirsk, and is a Manager of the Federal Highways, and a grandson called Andrey who was born in 1999.

Kazakhstan History Information

Ali Khan Bukeykhanov

Alash Orda

Alash Orda is the autonomous Kazakh government established by the liberal-nationalist Alash party in December 1917. Alash was the mythical ancestor of the Kazakhs, and Alash Orda (Horde of Alash) long served as their traditional battle cry. His name was adopted by the Kazakh nationalist journal, Alash, that was published by secularist Kazakh intellectuals for twenty-two issues, from November 26, 1916, to May 25, 1917. Alash Orda then was taken as the name of a political party founded in March 1917 by a group of moderate, upper-class
Ali Khan Bukeykhanov

Kazakh nationalists. Among others, they included Ali Khan Bukeykhanov, Ahmed Baytursun, Mir Yakub Dulatov, Oldes Omerov, Magzhan Zhumabayev, H. Dosmohammedov, Mohammedzhan Tynyshbayev, and Abdul Hamid Zhuzhdybayev. Initially, the party's program resembled that of the Russian Constitutional-Democrats (Kadets), but with a strong admixture of Russian Menshevik (Social Democrat) and Socialist-Revolutionary (SR) ideas. Despite later Soviet charges, it was relatively progressive on social issues and demanded the creation of an autonomous Kazakh region. This program was propagated in the newspaper Qazaq (Kazakh), published in Orenburg. The paper had a circulation of about eight thousand until it was closed by the Communists in March 1918.

After March 1917, Alash Orda's leaders dominated Kazakh politics. They convened a Second All-Kirgiz (Kazakh) Congress in Orenburg from December 18 through December 26, 1917. On December 23, this congress proclaimed the autonomy of the Kazakh steppes under two Alash Orda governments. One, centered at the village of Zhambeitu and encompassing the western region, was headed by Dosmohammedov. The second, headed by Ali Khan Bukeykhanov, governed the eastern region from Semipalatinsk. Both began as strongly anti-Communist and supported the anti-Soviet forces that were rallying around the Russian Constituent Assembly (Komuch): the Orenburg Cossacks and the Bashkirs of Zeki Velidi Togan. In time, however, the harsh minority policies of Siberia's White Russian leader, Admiral Alexander Vasilievich Kolchak, alienated the Kazakh leaders. Alash Orda's leaders then sought to achieve their goals by an alignment with Moscow. Accepting Mikhail Vasilievich Frunze's November 1919 promise of amnesty, most Kazakh leaders recognized Soviet power on December 10, 1919. After further negotiations, the Kirgiz Revolutionary Committee (Revkom) formally abolished Alash Orda's institutional network in March 1920. Many Alash leaders then joined the Communist Party and worked for Soviet Kazakhstan, only to perish during Stalin's purges of the 1930s. After 1990 the name "Alash" reappeared, but as the title of a small Kazakh pan-Turkic and Pan-Islamic party and its journal.

Kazakhstan History Reference : Muslim National Communism in the Soviet Union: A Revolutionary

From Answers.comKazakh Historic People

Al-Farabi

Abū Nasr Muhammad ibn al-Farakh al-Fārābi[1] (Persian: محمد فارابی) or Abū Nasr al-Fārābi (in some sources, known as Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ibn Uzlagh al-Farabi[2]), also known in the West as Alpharabius, Alfarabi, Al-Farabi, Farabi, and Abunaser (c. 872[2] – between 14 December 950 and 12 January 951) was a polymath and one of the greatest scientists and philosophers of Persia and the Islamic world during his time.

Al-Farabi's imagined face appears on the currency of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Name:     Abū Nasr Muhammad ibn al-Farakh al-Fārābi
Title:     The Second Teacher
Birth:     c. 872
death:     c. 950
Region:     Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Syria
Maddhab:     Likely Shia
Main interests:     Metaphysics, Political philosophy, Logic, Music, Science(Tabi'iat), Ethics, Mysticism, Epistemology and Medicine
works:     Purposes of Metaphysics of Aristotle, Fosus Al-Hekam, Kitab Mabda’ ara’ ahl Al-Madina Al-Fadhila, Counting the knowledge(Ehsa Al-Ulum), The Great musics(Al-Musiqi Al-Kabir)
Influences:     Aristotle, Plato, Porphyry, Ptolemy,[citation needed], Al-Kindi
Influenced:     Avicenna, Yahya ibn Adi, Abu Sulayman Sijistani, Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, Ibn Bajjah, Mulla Sadra Al Amiri and Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi

Biography

The existing variations in the basic facts about al-Farabi's origins and pedigree indicate that they were not recorded during his lifetime or soon thereafter by anyone with concrete information, but were based on hearsay or guesses (as is the case with other contemporaries of al-Farabi). But what is known with certainty is that after finishing his early school years in Farab and Bukhara, Farabi moved to Baghdad in 901 to pursue higher studies. He studied under a Nestorian Christian cleric Yuhanna ibn-Haylan in Harran who abandoned lay interests and engaged in his ecclesiastical duties, and he remained in Baghdad for more than 40 years and acquired mastery over several languages and fields of knowledge.He left Baghdad in 941 and went to Aleppo. There, he was supported and glorified by Saif ad-Daula, the Hamdanid ruler of Syria. He had some other journeys and traveled to Cairo[2] Finally Farabi died in Damascus sometime between 14 December 950 and 12 January 951.

There is no consensus on the ethnic background of Farabi. All sources on his ethnic background have been written at least 300 years after Farabi and these few classical primary sources have described his ethnicity differently. Among notable scholars who have done extensive research on Farabi's life and works is Prof. Dimitri Gutas who has examined primary sources dealing with Farabi's background.

Persian origin

The oldest known document regarding his background, written by the medieval Arab historian Ibn Abi Osaybe'a (died in 1269), mentions that al-Farabi's father was of Persian descent.Mohammad Ibn Mahmud Al-Shahruzi who lived around 1288 A.D. and has written an early biography also has stated that Farabi hailed from a Persian family.Ibn al-Nadim, a younger contemporary of Farabi and a close friend of Yahya ibn Adi (Farabi's closest and most successful student), states Farabi's origins to lie in Faryab in Khorasan ("men al-Faryab men ardhµ Khorasan"). Faryab is also the name of a province in today's Afghanistan. The Dehkhoda Dictionary - based on Ibn Abi Osaybe'a's accounts - also calls him Persian (فارسی المنتسب‎), mentioning the fact that his father was a member of the Persian-speaking Samanid court of Central Asia. The older Persian form Parab (Persian word meaning cultivated land by streams) is given in the historical account Hodud al-'alam for his birthplace. Farabi has in a number of his works references and glosses in Persian and Sogdian,[7][8] pointing to an Iranian-speaking Central Asian origin. A Persian origin is also discussed by Peter J. King and some other western sources as well a comprehensive source on Islamic Philosophy written in Arabic by the Egyptian scholar Prof. Hanna Fakhuri.

Turkic origin

The oldest known reference to a possible Turkic origin is given by the medieval historian Ibn Khallekān (died in 1282), who claimed that Farabi was born in the small village of Wasij near Farab (in what is today Otrar, Kazakhstan) of Turkic parents, and in the following decades and centuries, many others copied his work.[12] But scholars criticize Ibn Khallekān's statement, as it is only aimed to ridicule the earlier reports of Ibn Abi Osaybe'a, and seems to have the sole purpose to prove that Farabi was a Turk.  In this context, it is criticized that Ibn Khallekān was also the first to use the additional nisba (surname) "al-Turk" - a nisba Farabi never had.  Ibn Khallekān's statement also contradicts Ibn al-Nadim and Yahya bin Adi, both contemporaries of Farabi, who had reported that Farabi's birthplace was Faryab in Khorasan. Ibn Khallekān's accounts are also partially contradicted by the above mentioned fact that Farabi has in many of his writings references and glosses in Persian, Sogdian, and Greek, but not in Turkish.

However, aside from early Islamic sources and the mentioned controversies, a significant number of sources as well as the Encyclopaedia Britannica consider al-Farabi to be of Turkic, some even of Turkic Seljuq origin.

Contributions

Farabi made notable contributions to the fields of mathematics, philosophy, medicine and music.

As a philosopher and Neoplatonist, he wrote rich commentary on Aristotle's work. Al-Farabi was also the first Muslim philosopher to develop a non-Aristotelian logic. He discussed the topics of future contingents, the number and relation of the categories, the relation between logic and grammar, and non-Aristotelian forms of inference.[16] He is also credited for categorizing logic into two separate groups, the first being "idea" and the second being "proof."

Farabi wrote books on sociology and a notable book on music titled Kitab al-Musiqa (The Book of Music). He played and invented a varied number of musical instruments and his pure Arabian tone system is still used in Arabic music. Perhaps, his most notable work is Al-Madina al-fadila where he theorized an ideal state as in Plato's Republic. Farabi is also known for his early investigations into the nature of the existence of void in physics.

Al-Farabi had great influence on science and philosophy for several centuries, and was widely regarded to be second only to Aristotle in knowledge (alluded to by his title of "the Second Teacher"). His work, aimed at synthesis of philosophy and Sufism, paved the way for Ibn Sina's work.

Al-Farabi saw religion as a symbolic rendering of truth, and, like Plato, saw it as the duty of the philosopher to provide guidance to the state. Influenced by the writings of Aristotle, in The Ideas of the Citizens of the Virtuous City and other books, he advanced the view that philosophy and revelation are two different modes of approaching the same truth.[citation needed]

He also mentioned Alexander the Great in his works.

Philosophical Thought

The main influence on al-Farabi's philosophy was the neo-Aristotelian tradition of Alexandria. A prolific writer, he is credited with over one hundred works.Amongst these are a number of prolegomena to philosophy, commentaries on important Aristotelian works (such as the Nicomachean Ethics) as well as his own works. His ideas are marked by their coherency, despite drawing together of many different philosophical disciplines and traditions. Some other significant influences on his work were the planetary model of Ptolemy and elements of Neo-Platonism,particularly metaphysics and practical (or political) philosophy (which bears more resemblance to Plato's Republic than Aristotle's Politics).

Al-Farabi as well as Ibn Sina and Averroes have been recognized as Peripatetics(al-Mashsha’iyun) or rationalists(Estedlaliun) among Muslims.However he tried to gather the ideas of Plato and Aristotle in his book "The gathering of the ideas of the two philosophers".

According to Adamson, his work was singularly directed towards the goal of simultaneously reviving and reinventing the Alexandrian philosophical tradition, to which his Christian teacher, Yuhanna b. Haylan belonged. His success should be measured by the honorific title of "the second master" of philosophy (Aristotle being the first), by which he was known. Interestingly, Adamson also says that he does not make any reference to the ideas of either al-Kindi or his contemporary, Abu Bakr al-Razi, which clearly indicates that he did not consider their approach to Philosophy as a correct or viable one.

Works

 Metaphysics and Cosmology

In contrast to al-Kindi, who considered the subject of metaphysics to be God, al-Farabi believed that it was concerned primarily with being qua being (that is, being in of itself), and this is related to God only to the extent that God is a principal of absolute being. Al-Kindi's view was, however, a common misconception regarding Greek philosophy amongst Muslim intellectuals at the time, and it was for this reason that Avicenna remarked that he did not understand Aristotle's Metaphysics properly until he had read a prolegomena written by al-Farabi.[28]

Al-Farabi's cosmology is essentially based upon three pillars: Aristotelian metaphysics of causation, highly developed Plotinian emanational cosmology and the Ptolemaic astronomy. In his model, the universe is viewed as a number of concentric circles; the outermost sphere or "first heaven", the sphere of fixed stars, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury and finally, the Moon. At the centre of these concentric circles is the sub-lunar realm which contains the material world.[30] Each of these circles represent the domain of the secondary intelligences (symbolized by the celestial bodies themselves), which act as causal intermediaries between the First Cause (in this case, God) and the material world. Furthermore these are said to have emanated from God, who is both their formal and efficient cause. This departs radically from the view of Aristotle, who considered God to be solely a formal cause for the movement of the spheres, but by doing so it renders the model more compatible with the ideas of the theologians.

The process of emanation begins (metaphysically, not temporally) with the First Cause, whose principal activity is self-contemplation. And it is this intellectual activity that underlies its role in the creation of the universe. The First Cause, by thinking of itself, "overflows" and the incorporeal entity of the second intellect "emanates" from it. Like its predecessor, the second intellect also thinks about itself, and thereby brings its celestial sphere (in this case, the sphere of fixed stars) into being, but in addition to this it must also contemplate upon the First Cause, and this causes the "emanation" of the next intellect. The cascade of emanation continues until it reaches the tenth intellect, beneath which is the material world. And as each intellect must contemplate both itself and an increasing number of predecessors, each succeeding level of existence becomes more and more complex. It should be noted that this process is based upon necessity as opposed to will. In other words, God does not have a choice whether or not to create the universe, but by virtue of His own existence, He causes it to be. This view also suggests that the universe is eternal, and both of these points were criticized by al-Ghazzali in his attack on the philosophers

In his discussion of the First Cause (or God), al-Farabi relies heavily on negative theology. He says that it cannot be known by intellectual means, such as dialectical division or definition, because the terms used in these processes to define a thing constitute its substance. Therefore if one was to define the First Cause, each of the terms used would actually constitute a part of its substance and therefore behave as a cause for its existence, which is impossible as the First Cause is uncaused; it exists without being caused. Equally, he says it cannot be known according to genus and differentia, as its substance and existence are different from all others, and therefore it has no category to which it belongs. If this were the case, then it would not be the First Cause, because something would be prior in existence to it, which is also impossible. This would suggest that the more philosophically simple a thing is, the more perfect it is. And based on this observation, Adamson says it is possible to see the entire hierarchy of al-Farabi's cosmology according to classification into genus and species. Each succeeding level in this structure has as its principal qualities multiplicity and deficiency, and it is this ever-increasing complexity that typifies the material world. 

Epistemology and Eschatology

Human beings are unique in al-Farabi's vision of the universe because they stand between two worlds: the "higher", immaterial world of the celestial intellects and universal intelligibles, and the "lower", material world of generation and decay; they inhabit a physical body, and so belong to the "lower" world, but they also have a rational capacity, which connects them to the "higher" realm. Each level of existence in al-Farabi's cosmology is characterized by its movement towards perfection, which is to become like the First Cause; a perfect intellect. Human perfection (or "happiness"), then, is equated with constant intellection and contemplation.

Al-Farabi divides intellect into four categories: potential, actual, acquired and the Agent. The first three are the different states of the human intellect and the fourth is the Tenth Intellect (the moon) in his emanational cosmology. The potential intellect represents the capacity to think, which is shared by all human beings, and the actual intellect is an intellect engaged in the act of thinking. By thinking, al-Farabi means abstracting universal intelligibles from the sensory forms of objects which have been apprehended and retained in the individual's imagination.

This motion from potentiality to actuality requires the Agent Intellect to act upon the retained sensory forms; just as the Sun illuminates the physical world to allow us to see, the Agent Intellect illuminates the world of intelligibles to allow us to think. This illumination removes all accident (such as time, place, quality) and physicality from them, converting them into primary intelligibles, which are logical principles such as "the whole is greater than the part". The human intellect, by its act of intellection, passes from potentiality to actuality, and as it gradually comprehends these intelligibles, it is identified with them (as according to Aristotle, by knowing something, the intellect becomes like it). Because the Agent Intellect knows all of the intelligibles, this means that when the human intellect knows all of them, it becomes associated with the Agent Intellect's perfection and is known as the acquired Intellect.

While this process seems mechanical, leaving little room for human choice or volition, Reisman says that al-Farabi is committed to human voluntarism. This takes place when man, based on the knowledge he has acquired, decides whether to direct himself towards virtuous or unvirtuous activities, and thereby decides whether or not to seek true happiness. And it is by choosing what is ethical and contemplating about what constitutes the nature of ethics, that the actual intellect can become "like" the active intellect, thereby attaining perfection. It is only by this process that a human soul may survive death, and live on in the afterlife.

According to al-Farabi, the afterlife is not the personal experience commonly conceived of by religious traditions such as Islam and Christianity. Any individual or distinguishing features of the soul are annihilated after the death of the body; only the rational faculty survives (and then, only if it has attained perfection), which becomes one with all other rational souls within the agent intellect and enters a realm of pure intelligence. Henry Corbin compares this eschatology with that of the Ismaili Neo-Platonists, for whom this process initiated the next grand cycle of the universe. However, Deborah Black mentions we have cause to be skeptical as to whether this was the mature and developed view of al-Farabi, as later thinkers such as Ibn Tufayl, Averroes and Ibn Bajjah would assert that he repudiated this view in his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics, which has been lost to modern experts.

Psychology, the Soul and Prophetic Knowledge

In his treatment of the human soul, al-Farabi draws on a basic Aristotelian outline, which is informed by the commentaries of later Greek thinkers. He says it is composed of four faculties: The appetitive (the desire for, or aversion to an object of sense), the sensitive (the perception by the senses of corporeal substances), the imaginative (the faculty which retains images of sensible objects after they have been perceived, and then separates and combines them for a number of ends), and the rational, which is the faculty of intellection.[46] It is the last of these which is unique to human beings and distinguishes them from plants and animals. It is also the only part of the soul to survive the death of the body. Noticeably absent from these scheme are internal senses, such as common sense, which would be discussed by later philosophers such as Avicenna and Averroes.

Special attention must be given to al-Farabi's treatment of the soul's imaginative faculty, which is essential to his interpretation of prophethood and prophetic knowledge. In addition to its ability to retain and manipulate sensible images of objects, he gives the imagination the function of imitation. By this he means the capacity to represent an object with an image other than its own. In other words, to imitate "x" is to imagine "x" by associating it with sensible qualities that do not describe its own appearance. This extends the representative ability of the imagination beyond sensible forms and to include temperaments, emotions, desires and even immaterial intelligibles or abstract universals, as happens when, for example, one associates "evil" with "darkness".The prophet, in addition to his own intellectual capacity, has a very strong imaginative faculty, which allows him to receive an overflow of intelligibles from the agent intellect (the tenth intellect in the emanational cosmology). These intelligibles are then associated with symbols and images, which allow him to communicate abstract truths in a way that can be understood by ordinary people. Therefore what makes prophetic knowledge unique is not its content, which is also accessible to philosophers through demonstration and intellection, but rather the form that it is given by the prophet's imagination.

Practical Philosophy (Ethics and Politics)

The practical application of philosophy is a major concern expressed by al-Farabi in many of his works, and while the majority of his philosophical output has been influenced by Aristotelian thought, his practical philosophy is unmistakably based on that of Plato.[53] In a similar manner to Republic (Plato), al-Farabi emphasizes that philosophy is both a theoretical and practical discipline; labeling those philosophers who do not apply their erudition to practical pursuits as "futile philosophers". The ideal society, he says, is one directed towards the realization of "true happiness" (which can be taken to mean philosophical enlightenment) and as such, the ideal philosopher must hone all the necessary arts of rhetoric and poetics to communicate abstract truths to the ordinary people, as well as having achieved enlightenment himself.[54] Al-Farabi compares the philosopher's role in relation to society with a physician in relation to the body; the body's health is affected by the "balance of its humours" just as the city is determined by the moral habits of its people. The philosopher's duty, he says, is to establish a "virtuous" society by healing the souls of the people, establishing justice and guiding them towards "true happiness".

Of course, al-Farabi realizes that such a society is rare and will require a very specific set of historical circumstances in order to be realized, which means very few societies will ever be able to attain this goal. He divides those "vicious" societies, which have fallen short of the ideal "virtuous" society, into three categories: ignorant, wicked and errant. Ignorant societies have, for whatever reason, failed to comprehend the purpose of human existence, and have supplanted the pursuit of happiness for another (inferior) goal, whether this be wealth, sensual gratification or power. It is interesting to note that democratic societies also fall into this category, as they too lack any guiding principal. Both wicked and errant societies have understood the true human end, but they have failed to follow it. The former because they have willfully abandoned it, and the latter because their leaders have deceived and misguided them. Al-Farabi also makes mention of "weeds" in the virtuous society; those people who try to undermine its progress towards the true human end.

Whether or not al-Farabi actually intended to outline a political programme in his writings remains a matter of dispute amongst academics. Henry Corbin, who considers al-Farabi to be a crypto-Shi'ite, says that his ideas should be understood as a "prophetic philosophy" instead of being interpreted politically.[57] On the other hand, Charles Butterworth contends that nowhere in his work does al-Farabi speak of a prophet-legislator or revelation (even the word philosophy is scarcely mentioned), and the main discussion that takes place concerns the positions of "king" and "statesmen".[58]. Occupying a middle position is David Reisman, who like Corbin believes that al-Farabi did not want to expound a political doctrine (although he does not go so far to attribute it to Islamic Gnosticism either). He argues that al-Farabi was using different types of society as examples, in the context of an ethical discussion, to show what effect correct or incorrect thinking could have.[59] Lastly, Joshua Parens argues that al-Farabi was slyly asserting that a pan-Islamic society could not be made, by using reason to show how many conditions (such as moral and deliberative virtue) would have to be met, thus leading the reader to conclude that humans are not fit for such a society.

Kazakhstan History , Currency and bank note

Aliya Yussupova

Aliya Yussupova Rus: Алия Юсупова (born May 15, 1984 in Chimkent, Kazakh SSR, Soviet Union) is an Individual Rhythmic Gymnast who competes for her birth country, Kazakhstan but, is coached by the famous Russian coach, Irina Viner.

At the 2004 Athens Olympics she qualified for the finals in 5th. In the finals she was placed 4th with a total of 103.975 (Ribbon 25.550, Clubs 26.325, Ball 26.600, Hoop 25.500). Aliya is a winner of Kazakhstani National Championships in the individual all-around competition in 2000-2005. In 2006 Asian championships in Surat, India, (from July 29 to August 3), Aliya swept the rhythmic gymnastics medals. She won six gold medals, including four individual apparatus titles, the team gold and individual all-around title.

Famous Kazakh people

Alia Moldagulova

Memorial of Alia Moldagulova and Manshuk Mametova, the snipers, heroes of Great Patriotic War.
(Almaty)

Akhmet Baitursynov


Stamp of Kazakhstan devoted to A. Baitursynov, 2005 (Michel 512)

Akhmet Baitursynov (Ахмет Байтұрсынұлы January 15, 1873 - 1937) was a Kazakh intellectual who worked in the fields of poetry, linguistics, and education.

Akhmet Baitursynov was born in Turgai Oblast, and was educated at the Orenberg Teachers' School. After graduating in 1895, Baitursynov held teaching positions in a number of cities in Kazakhstan including Aktobe, Kostanay, and Karkaralinsk.

The same year as his graduation, Baitursynov published his first article, "Kirgizskie primety i poslovitsy" (Kazakh Omens and Proverbs) in a regional newspaper. While living in Ural city in 1905, he collaborated with other Kazakhs to form the Kazakh wing of the Constitutional Democrat Party. His involvement in politics probably led to his 1909 arrest and exile from the Steppe regions. After being exiled, he went to Orenberg.

During his exile, he wrote articles for Ay Qap. He also served as the chief editor of Qazaq the Kazakh newspaper there, and published Qyryq Mysal (Forty Provberbs).[citation needed] His other significant publication of this time was a Kazakh translation of Ivan Krylov's fables. In 1911, Baitursynov published his first work of a distinctly political nature - Masa (Mosquito).

When the Russian Revolution of 1917 occurred, Baitursynov returned to the steppes and began to work with the Alash Orda political party. With them, he fought for the Kazakhs to have an independent state. He began to work with the Bolsheviks in 1920 when they established their dominance over the region. He served as a Member of the Committee of Deputies of the Constituent Assembly and as Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Committee of the Kazakh Krai, as well as Commissioner of Enlightenment. In these capacities, he helped to reform education and to establish the first university in Kazakhstan.

Another of Baitursynov's significant accomplishments was his adaptation of Arabic script for writing in Kazakh.

However, in 1937 Baitursynov was arrested for hiding "bourgeois nationalist sentiments" and summarily executed. This had resulted in an outcry, which was quickly and bloodily silenced. To this day, he is held in great regard in Kazakhstan, but is viewed as somewhat tragic figure, signifying the extent of the numbers of authors, poets and thinkers who have perished due to the Soviet repressions.

Baitursynov's work is part of the curriculum for high school education system of Kazakhstan.

Kazakh historical figures

Abul Khair Khan

Stamp of Kazakhstan devoted to Abul Khair Khan, 2001 (Michel 316)

Abul Khair Khan (Kazakh: Әбілқайыр хан) (1693 - 1748) was leader of the Kazakh "Little Horde" (The Lesser Jüz) in present-day western Kazakhstan. During this period the Little Horde participated in the 1723 - 1730 war against the Dzungars, following their "Great Disaster" invasion of Kazakh territories. Under his leadership Kazakh militias defeated Dzungar forces at the Bulanty river in 1726 and in the battle of Anrakay in 1729.

In order to obtain Russian help against the Dzungars, Abul Khair Khan took an oath of allegiance to the Russian crown in 1731. He subsequently attempted to limit and control the amount of Russian influence exercised over the Kazakh Little Horde.

Great History of Kazakhstan

Abu'l-Khayr Khan

    This article is about the 13th Century Uzbek leader, for the 18th century Kazakh leader see Abul Khair Khan.

Abu'l-Khayr Khan (ruled 1428–1468) was the leader who united the Uzbek confederation from which the Kazakh khanate later separated in rebellion under Janybek Khan and Kerei Khan beginning in 1466.

In 1428 Abu'l-Khayr Khan, a descendant of Genghis Khan, through Jöchi's fifth son Shiban, and a bej of the White Horde, began consolidating various Uzbek tribes, first in the area around Tyumen and the Tura River and then down into the Syr Darya region, eventually wresting some lands from Timurid control. He deposed and killed the khan of the Khanate of Sibir after a battle on the Tobol River.  Abu'l-Khayr Khan was assisted in his consolidation by the Manghits, another tribe in the White Horde, and especially by Vaqqāṣ Bej, Edigü's grandson. Vaqqāṣ joined with Abu'l-Khayr Khan in 1430 in his campaign against Khwarezm.

After Abu'l-Khayr Khan's death two separate lines of descent controlled the twin Uzbek states of Mawara al-Nahr and Khwarezm. In the first decade of the 16th century his grandson Muhammad Shaybani finally succeeded in the unification of the Uzbeks and established the short-lived Shaybanid Empire, centred in Samarkand.

Kazakhstan History