At the time of the extinction of the Safavid dynasty, historians such as Hazin Lahiji, Mirza Mohammad Khalil Marashi, Mirza Sultan Hashem and Abul Hassan Qazvini wrote works that were about the end of the Safavid dynasty, the domination of Afaghaneh, the rise of Nader Shah and the Safavid leaders. These historians were also contemporaries and migrated to India. Intellectually, they are Safavid and opposed to Afaghaneh and Nader and are supporters of Safavid. These historians have often selectively expressed their displeasure with the fall of the Safavid dynasty and its results, however, some of their content regarding the time of extinction and its consequences are different from the existing facts. This research seeks to answer the basic question that the content and claims of these historians, such as the presence and existence of a strong current of Safavidism, prominent news about Shah Tahmasb II, reports of the decline of Nader's status and other reasons, to what extent are in accordance with the facts? This research is based on the library method and with a descriptive-analytical approach combined with criticism and comparison. Studies show that these historians have often expressed their wish by ignoring the facts, although they have differences with each other due to their different attitudes. Meanwhile, Marashi and Mirza Sultan Hashem emphasize the tangible presence of the Marashi movement. Qazvini insists on the importance of other princes claiming to belong to the Safavid dynasty, and Hazin Lahiji insists on his own role.