Wikipedia

Talk:Ghurid dynasty/Archive 1

< Talk:Ghurid dynasty
Latest comment: 14 years ago by 188.107.209.214 in topic Early comments
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Early comments

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

At time time of this writing, the online reference 2-

^ Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, Online Edition, 2006: "... The Shansabānīs were, like the rest of the Ghūrīs, of eastern Iranian Tājīk stock. ..."

was unavailable.

I'm extremely skeptical about the validity of the statement that the Ghurids or the Ghuris were Tajik in origin. The Ghurids were from Ghor, now currently in central Afghanistan and the bounds of the Ghurid empire encompassed most of what was Afghan territory at the time, not Tajik.

I will edit the Tajik entry out and include the section on the origin of the Ghurids name unless anyone has objections.

--ZeroFC 08:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ghurids were not Pushtuns since Pushtuns were not even existing in Kandahar during the time of Ghurians. Modern state Afghanistan and the modern term Afghan has nothing to do with the ancient region that is today known as Afghanistan and it´s population known as Afghans, no matter if they are Pushtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras or Uzbeks. Then, the region was known as Khorasan and was part of Greater Khorasan and Pushtuns as it is attested in nearly all documents, where living outside of Khorasan. Pushtuns immigrated to Afghanistan during Abdurrahman Khan in the late of the 19th century. Even Kandahar (Ghazni, Kunar etc.) was a Tajik country, predominantly populated by Tajiks and Pushtuns are there immigrants who moved there from the Sulaiman Mountains Eran, Land zwischen Tigris und Indus, by Dr. Friedrich Spiegel, 1889, P. 187.--188.107.209.214 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Islam is - unfortunately - only available to academics and scholars. However, the quote is certainly correct (maybe you can contact User:Elian who is an orientalist and has unlimitted access to the online version of the EI). Prof. Clifford Edmund Bosworth has also written the "Ghoris" article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica, and there, he clearly says:
  • "... The Ghurids came from the Šansabānī family. The name of the eponym Šansabānasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Wišnasp (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 282). [...] We can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks ... The sultans were generous patrons of the Persian literary traditions of Khorasan, and latterly fulfilled a valuable role as transmitters of this heritage to the newly conquered lands of northern India, laying the foundations for the essentially Persian culture which was to prevail in Muslim India until the 19th century. ..." [1]
Thus, I have reverted your latest edit.
Tājik 16:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


I've made an edit that includes the rest of what was said in that entry about the Ghurids in the reference section and I’ve made the edit to the main article to reflect the uncertainty of the reference.

I'll continue to do research as I have strong doubts about the Ghurids being composed primarily of "Tajiks", currently numbering approx 20 million, compared to the current 40 million Pashtuns whose culture was much more militaristically oriented and who had occupied much of the area that the Ghurid Empire encompassed. .

I have less of a doubt that the founder of the Ghurids was of Tajik origin, although born and raised in the borders of modern day Afghanistan. The meaning of “Tajik” has been given a fairly liberal definition but a distinction should be realized for Pashtuns due to distinct genetics, culture and society. Short of this would be a disservice to the readers.

I stand open to correction. Thanks. --ZeroFC 04:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your doubts are based on pure assumptions. First of all, "Tajik" is only a Central Asian term for the Persian people who are more than just 16m. Secondly, 1000 years ago, the Pashtuns had not yet reached the region around Ghor. The Pashtuns as a people were centered in and around what is now Peshawar in Pakistan. Even cities like Gardez or Ghazni were (and are still) predominantly Tajik in ethnic composition. Thrid: the Tajiks, as well as other peoples of the region, have the same fighting culture as Pashtuns. It just happens that Persians are mostly known for their cultural contributions rather than fighting, while Pashtuns are only known for their fighting abilities (though there are some renowned classical Pashto poets, such as Khushal Khan Khattak or Rahman Baba). This fighting culture of the Tajiks still exists in the shape of the Panjsher militia and late Ahmad Shah Massoud. The Encyclopaedia Britannica writes:
  • "... An important district also known as Kohistan lies to the north of Kabul in Afghanistan, extending to the Hindu Kush. The Kohistani Tajiks proved to be the most powerful and the best organized clans that opposed the British occupation of Kabul in 1879-80. ..." [2] Tājik 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a sensitive spot for you but i'm not trying to break hearts or hurt anyones feelings, just representing the historical truth so don't take it personal.

There is absolutely no reason the entry for the Ghurids should exclude the full quote from the reference as anything short of that is entirely misleading. That being said, the body of the text should reflect the uncertainty of the reference as well. Please set aside personal feelings about the Tajiks for a moment and focus on painting the most clear picture for the readers. This should be done presenting the reader with the entirety of what is known. If there is more known and I'm mistaking, then please correct me and provide your source. If not, then I'm reverting it to include what it did under my revision.

On the note of corrections, Ghazni is primarily composed of a population of Pashtuns and Hazaras. This is due also to its close proximity to cities like Katawaz, which later became a stronghold and still is today for Ghilzai clans like the Suleimankhel which are among some of the largest.

And thirdly, I agree with you in regards to the Tajik "fighting culture". However, this "culture" unfortunetly couldn't bear the brunt of the Soviet invasion while the Afghans proved victorious.

Ahmad Massoud, although ethnically Tajik, fought for Afghanistan, not for Bukhara or Tajikistan or whatever it is you have pride in. If you're Afghan as you say you are, be proud as an Afghan just as the Tajiks in Afghanistan are. They have a rich history and culture as Afghans and to call them Tajiks rather then Afghans is a mark of insult to them, not because theres something condescending about being Tajik, but because they choose to take on the identity of what it means to be an Afghan today and have fought for equal grounds for generations. Backwards thinking such as ethnic isolationism is what will continue to run the people of Afghanistan into conflict with each other.

You're open to disagree but please do so sensibly. 

--ZeroFC 07:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And to those wondering about the addition I made to the reference, that is from the original source of the reference and is the line directly preceding what was left out from the Encyclopedia Iranica article. That is not my own wording. He is clearly stating the uncertainty of his presumption. --ZeroFC 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a sensitive spot for me, but to those who do not want to accept certain facts - and one of those facts is that the Ghurids were not Pashtuns. I do not have to explain the authoritative status of the Encyclopaedia Iranica, or the expertise opinion of Clifford Edmund Bosworth ... and if he says that the Ghorids are assumed to have been of Tajik origin (in fact, in the Encyclopaedia of Islam article, he clearly says that they were Tajiks), then he has good reasons for that. And your claim, that "Ghazni is populated by Pashtuns and Hazaras" is wrong again, because even today, the largest ethnic group are the Tajiks - like in all larger cities of Afghanistan, except for a very few, most notably Qandahar. Take a look at this map: [3]
The Encyclopaedia Iranica describes these cities as "belonging to a network of old isolated Tājīk settlements in southern Afghanistan that are remnants of a time when Pashto had not yet reached the area." (see: C.E. Bosworth, "Notes on the Pre-Ghaznavid History of Eastern Afghanistan", in The Islamic Quarterly IX, 1965)
Pashtuns are not native to large parts of modern Afghanistan, they are only native to the mountainious south and south-east ... other regions - including Ghor - were (and are) largely Non-Pashtun.
1000 years ago, it was not different.
Tājik 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you on whether the Ghurids founders and people of Ghor were Pashtun or not but disagree as to the composition of Ghurids military and empirical administration. However I agree with the current revision of the article.

As for your map, I think without saying as well, there hasn't been an accurate concensus of Afghanistan made in decades, making it near impossible to construct a modern detailed demographics map of Afghanistan.

So if the majority of almost every major city in in Afghanistan is Tajik, as it shows in that map, wouldn't that make them the majority population? But we know this is far from the truth with Pashtuns being almost twice as large. You may want to refer to

http://www.bk.psu.edu/Images/Academics/MapOfAfghanistan_rdax_450x382_90.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/afghanistan/images/info_g1.gif For more accurate maps.

By any means, Ghazni has a high concentration of Hazaras if anything other then Pashtuns due to its proximity with Hazarajat.

--ZeroFC 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You have said yourself that "there has not been a census for decades", then why do you also claim that "Pashtuns are almost twice as much as Tajiks"?! Besides that, what has the number of the peoples in Afghanistan to do with the origins of the Ghurids 1000 years ago?!
The Tajiks ARE the majority or the largest gourp in all major cities in Afghanistan. In fact, that is one of the deffinitions of the term "Tajik" - "city dweller". That's also the reason why Tajiks are - alternatively - knwon as "Dihgan", which means "settled people". But Only 1/3 of Afghanistan's population is centered in the cities, the rest lives in the country-side. Pashtuns, for example, including 5 million so-called "Kuchees", nomads in the south. The Hazaras and Aimaqs, who live in Central Afghanistan (note: 1000 years ago, there were no Hazaras or Aimaqs in the region, but came 200 years later with Genghis Khan's army).
The larger cities in Afghanistan, including those in the south, were once part of an important Tajik community in the region. They were centers of powerful Tajik empires, such as the Ghaznavid Empire (in this case, labelling the Ghaznavids "Tajiks" is correct, because the rulers were extremly persianized Turks).
The family-name of the Ghorids (Shansabani), the location of their power-centers, their interest in Persian culture and poetry, as well as their non-tribal way-of-life ... they all point to an ethnic Persian origin, and that is the same as "Tajik".
As for the map: here are two maps that are based on the last official governmental census (in the 1980's, published in 1985, and re-published in 2001): Demographics of Afghanistan.
I would really not say that the two maps you have provided above are "more accurate".
Regards. Tājik 13:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Continues false claims made by User:Tajik

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Tajiks are not the majority in Afghan cities. Kandahar is the second largest city of Afghanistan with Pashtuns at about 90% of the population there. Kabul, the biggest city has Pashtuns as majority although most of them speak Persian language rather then Pashto. This makes everyone think that all Persian speakers in Kabul are Tajiks, they are all wrong. Don't forget that Hazaras, Uzbeks and others all speak Persian language in Kabul. The Ghaznavids were NOT Tajiks, neither were the Ghurids. The Ghaznavids were "Turkish origin" (originally from what is now the country Turkey), their place in Afghanistan was called Turkistan. They inter-married with Pashtuns and their later children were born as "native Afghans" NOT Tajiks. The Ghurids were originally Arabs and later mixed with Pashtuns, their children became known as Ghilzai Pashtuns. Ghor is a Pashtun dominated area, mostly Ghilzais. The Ghurids had nothing to do with Tajiks. It's easy for people to make false claims online because it's very easy to do so. But if you go to Afghanistan, you'll see who really live in those places and ask them their history and they will tell it as the way I'm telling it here. The Tajiks live in their own world and believe what they want to believe. They don't want to accept the beliefs of others...especially the beliefs of the Pashtuns and that's their weak point by being hard headed all the time. All the Pashtuns in Afghanistan claim that Ghaznavids and Ghurids are Pashtuns. I'm telling you what 12.5 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan believe and 28 million Pashtuns in Pakistan believe. You can go around ask other Pashtuns about this and they all will agree. The Tajiks think that we Pashtuns don't know our history. The encyclopedias say that Sultan Mahmud of the Ghaznavid Empire was Afghan and User:Tajik stated that the encyclopedia is wrong.The Ghurids are part of the history of Afghanistan....not Iran. Ghurids are were from Afghanistan and they are all buried there in Afghanistan. Their history should remain with them in Afghanistan. They (Ghaznavids and Ghorids) were not interested in Iran at the time as there was nothing there in Iran. They all wanted India.--NisarKand 10:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Columbia encyclopedia - Mahmud of Ghazna (mämOOd', gŭz'na) [key], 971?–1030, Afghan emperor and conqueror. He defeated (c.999) his elder brother to gain control of Khorasan (in Iran) and of Afghanistan. In his raids against the states of N India, Mahmud, a staunch Muslim, destroyed Hindu temples, forced conversions to Islam, and carried off booty and slaves. Hindus especially abhorred his destruction of the temple to Shiva at Somnath in Gujarat. Mahmud's territorial gains lay mainly W and N of Afghanistan and in the Punjab. At Ghazna (see Ghazni), his capital, he built a magnificent mosque. His successors in the Ghaznavid dynasty, which Mahmud founded, ruled over a reduced domain with the capital at Lahore until 1186.[4]

NisarKand, you are by far the most uneducated person I have ever seen in Wikipedia.
  • you were given a source from National Geographic (see here: from the "Center for Afghanistan Studies", University of Nebraska) showing that Tajiks are indeed the largest group in Kabul (as well as in most major cities in Afghanistan). Kandahar's Pashtun population is less than 70%. And just for your information: there are more Tajiks in Kandahar than Pashtuns in Herat!
  • The Ghaznavids were not from "Turkey", as some uneeucated people claim. They were of Central Asian Qarluq origin. There were no Turks in Anatolia at the time of the Ghaznavids.
  • The Tajik ethnicity of the Ghoris is given in both Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica, the two most authoritative sources on oriental studies. Both articles are written by Prof. C.E. Bosworth who has received many international awards for his outstanding works in this field. If you have problems accepting these scholarly sources, then it's your own problem.
The Columbia Encyclopaedia is only a free online encyclopedia and not a scholarly masterpiece like the EI or EIr (the price of the EI is more than $1500!)
No serious encyclopedia would ever claim that the Ghaznavids or Ghoris were "Afghans" ... only this major mistake proves that the Columbia Online Encyclopaedia cannot be as reliable as the EI or EIr.
Tājik 13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You and that silly 2002 map again? Stop using old outdated and unreliable information. Your map from NGEO is from 2002, at a time when Kabul had less than 1 million population and I told you that before. The population of Kabul currently is as high as 4 or even 5 million people. This is due to over 4.5 million Afghan refugees from Pakistan repatrated since 2002 to now. According to sources...over 80% of those 4.5 million coming back refugees are Pashtuns. I live in Kandahar and about 90% are Pashtuns. Ghazni is a hotbed of Taliban, that's a clear sign that it is Pashtun territory, unless you think Tajiks and Hazaras are joining the Taliban. Don't forget that Jalalabad and Kunduz are also Pashtun cities. You live in a dream world, thinking that if you wish for less Pashtuns in Afghanistan it will come true.
About Ghaznavids..they are Turkish people originating from the country Turkey...the same way Arabs are known for people that originated from Arabia. Ghaznavids were anti-Iranians or anti-Persian. The first people they began killing were Persians and you claim that they were Iranians or Persians. You rely on what one or two people claiming to be scholars say. There is no need for scholars into this...it is well known fact that Ghaznavids were Turkish NOT in anyway Persians or Iranians. There are many TV documentaries made about them in the History channel and also in National Geographic channel. Most of the things you do here in Wikipedia is trying to label everyone as Persians or Iranians. That proves that you are the most uneducated person in Wikipedia. You won those brown stars for that reason.--NisarKand 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Stop talking nonsense and present your sources! And if you do not have any sources, then just keep quite and accept the available ones! What you are doing is not only rejecting authoritative and/or reliable sources. You also push for your own original research - that is against the rules of Wikiedpia.
As for the Ghaznavids: as I had states many times before, you are totally uneducated and in 90% of the time, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Claiming that "Ghaznavids were Turks from Turky" is pure nonsense. It's the word of an uneducated amateur trying to mess up the works of others. Just inform yourself about the History of the Turkic peoples, about who they are, where they come from. Inform yourself about the Ghaznavids and the Turkic slaves at the beginning of the Islamic era (that was the origin of the Ghaznavids - they were Persianized Turks and descendants of converted slaves). Just read the History of Anatolia, about the Turkish Beyliqs, and about how (and when) the Turks came to Anatolia.
If you had even a bit knowledge about the toppic, you would know that Ghaznavids, who were descendants of Qarluq-Turks, had nothing to do with modern Turkey which is predominantly Oghuz-speaking (the difference is as big as between Persian and Urdu!). You would also know that today's Turkish people are not ethnic Turks, but Turkic-speaking Anatolians ... descendants of the pre-Turkic population of Anatolia.
All the rest you have said about the Ghaznavids is unsourced POV (like 90% of what you write in Wikipedia). There is no need to comment them, because anyone who has at least some knowledge of the toppic knows that what you are saying is pure nonsense.
Tājik 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said Ghaznavids are from today's modern country Turkey. Seems like you can't concentrate on history. Ghaznavids were from ancient or old Turkey. This means they were from the land that we identify on the map as Turkey...doesn't matter what the land was named then...the people were Turks. When speaking of past history and mentioning of modern countries, you should focus on the past of that country...not its name but the history of that place. Do not talk about modern countries because we all know that most of these modern countries did not exist during those times. Why is it only you who keeps mixing modern nations with the old countries? The "name" of a country is not important...it's the "history of that place or area, along with the people who lived there" that's important. Ghaznavids were Turkish or Turks, which ever is better or easier to understand. This means they were not Persians, Arabs or Iranians but simply Turks. The place where you find Turks today are in modern country Turkey and the surounding areas. That's how I came up with Turkey. Any educated person would've instantly understood me but you have hard time understanding this. I am an expert on history and don't call me uneducated. If I was uneducated about history, believe me I wouldn't be here correcting your mistakes all the time. I would've been like all other uneducated people wasting time on other things. By the way, the Wikipedia:No original research does not apply to me because none of what I've been stating here in the discussion was placed on the front of the articles. You can't even understand the basic rules of Wikipedia and accusing me of violating its rules. The No original research is for articles only...not for discussions.--NisarKand 09:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User tajik should Not Call Other people in afghanistan The Dari speaking Groups "PERSIAN" Because this is historically and incorrect usage when reffering to afghans or Tajiks. I have seen you contributing more to Persians specially to iran than Afghanistan and half of what you wrote is not only not verified but of western theory. I see that you have no knowledge of afghanistan why do you keep answering peoples question? I have many afghan history books here in dari and in Pashto i have not seen in any part of this book say that we refer to ourselves as persian, You should take note and look out for your own mistakes. Pashtun786 07:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786

You already wrote your sayings from your User:NisarKand account. Don't create sockpuppet accounts. -Ariana310 07:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghaznawids

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Ghaznawid were persianized Turks of Turkestan whos ancestors were slaves and generals of the sassanians. After the Sassanians they were slave of the Samanids in Nishapur. Sebütgin called himself as Persian. He wrote that his ancestor was Pirus, the last persian king after Yazdagaard who fleed to the Turks were he married a turkish princes of a tribe.

Why do you guys change some informations like the name of classical dari?? DAMN, who shall know what the classical Dari was??? EVERY NON-PERSIAN will think it is the same language in an archaic form!! But it isn´t!!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajik-Professor (talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

can the second paragraph of the language sources become deleted? I mean it´s not more necessary because we know Ghurids spoke classical Dari and it is proven. So it would bring confuses if it would be stand there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.224.67 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghurid Map

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Who is responsible for the map?? good job but i would also make a another map of the Ghurid empire with the Indo-ghurid empire aside —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.217.53 (talk) 11:20, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


I created that map... i also did several similar maps to other post-islamic dynasties in Iran and the Arab States

The map for the Ghurids is inaccurate, because many areas depicted in the map were not conquered by the Ghurids. The Ghurids gave the final blow to the Ghaznavids, and inheritted the southern parts of their realm (modern South-Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India) in addition to their traditional fiefdom (Herat and Ghor). Only a few other smaller states in Central Persia were dependent. The rest belonged to the Seljuq Empire. The Ghorids never conquered Iraq or Syria, they did not even conquer western Persia. Here is a link to the correct map: [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.153.142 (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

the Ghorids defeat the seldshuk turks and pushed them to modern anatolia, their whole empire. the map above is not correct, dear friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.114.54 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ghorids did not defeat the Seljuqs. The Seljuq Empire fell appart after the death of Malikshah I, and the many Seljuq princes tried to grab some lands. At the end, only the Rum Seljuqs of Anatolia survived, while the rest was mostly conquered by the Khwarezmian Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.131.168 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


There are many various maps about their empire. For sure we know they defeated also along the Ghaznavids the Seldshuks who were also present in Ghazna. I have an old map of 1956 on a book that showes they also conquered northern Irak and larger part of Kurdistan.. In Kurdistan they are still mentioned in their folksongs. --Aspandyar Agha 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted edits by an anon IP who had removed scholarly sources (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica) and replaced them with Encarta. Tajik (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghurid ethnicity

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

Encyclopedia Britannica:

LINK

Encarta:

LINK

Haroon Tareen (Researcher):

LINK

Islamic Civlization in Asia:

LINK

--119.73.7.139 (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This information is certainly wrong. We have clear archaeological evidence that unlike the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs, the Ghurids were NOT Turks. Their family name, Shansāb, is a clear derivation of the Persian name Wišnasp. Their language and way of life have been described as Non-Turkic. Besides that, the two most important reference works in this case - the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica - have been presented, both times citing Prof. C.E. Bosworth, the leading scholar on Ghurid history. That's the reason why the main article in Britannica does not call them Turks. The information your are inserting in the article (not to mention the fact that you are actually removing University-based standard reference works) is totally and most certainly wrong. You have been reported to admins. Tajik (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is the quote from Eir (C.E. Bosworth):
  • "... The Ghurids came from the Šansabānī family. The name of the eponym Šansabānasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Wišnasp (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 282). [...] We can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks ... The sultans were generous patrons of the Persian literary traditions of Khorasan, and latterly fulfilled a valuable role as transmitters of this heritage to the newly conquered lands of northern India, laying the foundations for the essentially Persian culture which was to prevail in Muslim India until the 19th century. ..." [6]
You are only relying on speculative works by someone who didn't really try to seek further in determining their ethnic background. It's common sense the Ghurids were of Turk ethnic background they became to what are now the Pashtun people. If the Ghurids were Tajiks then where did their history go? Are you saying Tajiks became Pashtun rulers of India? That makes no sense because there is no traces of Tajiks in India. Besides, the Britannica and Encarta clearly say they were Turks or Turkish and those are very reliable sources. I'm sure there are many other sources to support the same claim because many historians wrote on Indian history. You can report me to admins zillion times but that will not help you in changing of Ghurids ethnic background from Turkish to Tajik. You are only wasting your own time on useless things--119.73.5.39 (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Britannica and Encarta do not have the same scholarly worth as Encyclopedia of Islam and Iranica and C.E. Bosworth.. I did not find anything in Britannica, but Encarta is a tertiary source. Here is a good source about Ghurids:“Bartold, Schineye, pg 460, describes tensions between them during the period of the Khorezmshahs. At the time when there were both Turkish and Iranian commanders, in reply to a proposal from the Turkish commander that they can cooperate, the Gurid command is said to have replied: “We are Gurids and you are Turks. We cannot live together”. Likewise, when the (Turkic) Khorezmshahs proposed an alliance with Mazandaran, his advisors warned: “The paths are dark between Turk and Tajik” and “The Tajik will never trust a Turk”(Paul Bergne, “The Birth of Tajikistan”, Published by I.B.Tauris, 2007. Pg 136.) Also Pashtun people are not Turks, they are an Eastern Iranian people.

Read the whole Britannica article. I couldn't find the "We are Gurids and you are Turks. We cannot live together" anywhere, I couldn't even find the "Bartold, Schoineye, pg 460. Is this fake information? If not then provide a way for me to find this. I found, however, in your Encyclopedia Iranica the Ghurids asking for help from the Ghaznavids. Then the chief of Ghurids even went to stay in Ghazni because he had issues with his brothers and he was welcomed there by the Ghaznavids (Ghazni Turks). This means they were both one or similar people, if you think Ghurids were Tajiks then there's a problem because why would they build relations with Turks? Your other 2007 book by Paul Bergne, is not much helpful we all know that Tajiks don't like Turks, you are an example to this. Tell us something we don't know. Also, Pashtuns are a collection of people or tribes. All the Turkish tribes who lived in the Pashtun areas lost their former culture over time and assimilated into the Pashtun society. Not only Turks but Arabs and others also became Pashtuns.--119.73.2.214 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not only about Britanica or Encarta, there are several other sources which mentions that Ghorids were Afghans or Turks. I will quote some of the sources here:


The punishment of virtue: inside Afghanistan after the Taliban - By Sarah Chayes


Architecture of Mughal India, Part 1, Volume 4 - By Catherine Ella Blanshard Asher


What is Islam? - By William Montgomery Watt


Afghanistan, the great game revisited - By Rosanne Klass


Afghanistan: a new history - By Martin Ewans

These are few of the several sources present on the net. (Ketabtoon (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

These sources are not specialized but generalized sources. Also Pashtun and Turk are not the same thing. Pashtuns are an East Iranian group and the Ghurids might have been Pashtun (possibly). The Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam concentrate on Ghurids and are written by the expert in the field. Removing those sources is unacceptable. Specially using an ip to do it and then asking for a lock up of the article. That is not the way that Wikipedia works. There are many sources in google books also that calls them Persian or Iranian [7]. What is important is not to delete sources but add specialized sources. From an academic point of view, C.E. Bosworth is a top academic and articles dealing with Ghurids in the highly specialized Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Iranica should be seen as the mainstream scholarly opinion. But a book about "What is Islam?" or "Architecture of Mughal India.." is not the same thing. So Ghurids can be Afghans (Pashtuns) but Pashtuns are an Iranic ethno-linguistic group and not Altaic. So when the page is unlocked the Encyclopedia Islam, Iranica should be restored but if you have other academic sources to counter these, then you can add them (however the books you mentioned are not written by experts in the field nor is Encarta considered an expert source). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another specialized source on the Ghurids [8] It is written by Professor. Willem Vogelsang and describes it as an Iranian dynasty. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The recent book by Vogelsang didn't describe Ghurids as an Iranian dynasty in particular. Iranian dynasties is the name of the chapter in his book, he also added Ghaznavids (Turks) in the same chapter. The other link to the 2004 book only mentions one time "Persian Ghurids". The term "Persian" has many meanings and that is not proof to ethnic background. The book writer figured that Ghurids lived in Ghor which was considered part ancient Persia by most. The Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam does not tell us the Ghurids race or ethnicity but the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta and all the books written by experts claim Ghurids were Turks or Turkish. The area in which the Ghurids lived in was part of the Greater Turkistan region, all the major rulers were Turks. There were small pockets of Persians, Hindus and other people so the Shansabanis may have had Persian past but they were influenced by Turks of the region and eventually assimilated into the Turkish/Afghan (Pashtun) society. We know who C.E. Bosworth, a historian and there are many like him in the world. Bosworth wrote articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica which states Ghurids were Turkish. By the way Bosworth's short article lacks references.--119.73.6.155 (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the part that both sides should be presented in the article. The problem is that user Tajik blames IP 119.73.5.39 for POV edit, however, his edits are not different in anyway. There is a reason why majority of the generalized sources (according to you) use the word Afghan instead of Tajik when referring to the Ghurids. (Ketabtoon (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

I will add a quote from a specialized source (On the coins of the Patan sultans of Hindustan - By Edward Thomas, Esq). He writes,


You can read it here

Or how about if I quote another specialized source (History of Afghanistan, to the outbreak of the war of 1878 - By George Bruce Malleson),


You can read it here

Just because one or two people assumed ("we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks", Edmund Bosworth) that they were Tajiks, won't actually make them Tajik. (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

Kateboon, first of all: please stop adding your own comments into the comments of others. Put your comments UNDER older comments, otherwise the chronology will be destroyed.
Secondly, not every source is equal. You do some research on google, find weak, tertially sources, usually written by non-experts, and then you think that you can add that to the article. Wikipedia is not a list of POVs, it's ment to present the consensus among experts. And the articles you have provided are not even close to that. The standard reference works of Oriental studies are totally contradicting your POV and that of the IP (who is the banned User:NisarKand). And because there is not a single admin in here who has knowledge of the subject, anon IPs and POV-pushers can add all kind of nonsense to these articles. Even the Encyclopaedia Americana, which is another scholarly source, rejects your claims: they were neither Turks not Pashtuns. Bosworth even explains: "... claims which were made in Afghanistan some decades ago (e.g., Ḥabībī in his ed. of Moḥammad Hōtak) of the existence of poetry in Pashto from the Ghurid period remain unsubstantiated. ..."
Three major encyclopaedias (Encyclopaedia Americana, Encyclopaedia of Islam, and Encyclopaedia Iranica), two of them being authoritative scholarly sources on the subject, totally disprove your POV. So please come up with REAL SCHOLARLY sources and not some old books from the 19th century or some unreliable internet sites. NOT A SINGLE ONE of the authors you have listed above is a historian or specialized on the medieval history of Persian and India. Tajik (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. I have mentioned this several times before and I will mention it once again, if you want to stick with your Iranica and Ency of Islam, good for you. However, I have much more stronger sources than you. I have sourced multiple books which prove that Ghorids were Afghans, not Tajiks. It is not mine or the IP address' edits which are POV. It is your edits which are POV. You are blindly ignoring the tens of sources we have provided you which clearly states that they were Afghans. (Ketabtoon (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
Keep your "blah, blah, blah" to yourself. You lack both, a) understanding of Wikipedia and its purpose, and b) the knowledge or qualification needed to write such an article. Claiming that some books on the Soviet War in Afghanistan are "superior" to long-time scholastic projects of world renowned universities and 500+ academics who have spent their lives studying the people and history of the region actually shows that you have no qualification in this (except meatpuppetry for a banned user). Quantity does not define quality ... you still have to learn that. Tajik (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We cannot use the Encyclopedia Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Americana to explain the ethnic background of Ghurids because they don't tell us. On the other hand, all the reliable sources that tell us the ethnicity of the Ghurids shall be used. This is the rule of Wikipedia. If you don't agree with relaible sources then you have a problem. Just from the actions of the Ghurids they could not have been Iranians.--119.73.2.214 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have NOT presented ANY reliable source. The ethnic background of the Ghurids is NOT KNOWN. But it is CERTAIN that they were NOT Turks or Arabs. They were not Persians either, at least their native language was significantly different from the Persian court language ("Dari"), although they were great patrons of Persian. It is ASSUMED that they were an East Iranian tribe (and that's what the article says), with the possibility that they were remnants of the pre-Islamic Persian or Persianized population that had fled to the East during the ARab conquest. Their family name "Shansabasp" ("Shansabani"), which is evidently derived from the Middle Persian personal name "Wishnasp", points to a distant relation to Middle Persian nobles who had not been Islamized and (Semi-)Arabized. They themselves claimed descent from Zohak, a legendary king of Persian mythology, which clearly proofs that - unlike early Pashtuns - the Ghoris were firmly integrated into the larger Perso-Iranian culture (--> Shahnama). al-Biruni who was a contemporary clearly distinguishes between Pashtuns/Rajputs and the people of Ghor. That is the consensus among SCHOLARS and EXPERTS. And that's what the article said BEFORE it was distorted by unreliable sources and POV by banned users. Tajik (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It's only a mere speculation that Shansabani is the same as "Wishnasp", I've read the entire Iranica articles on Ghurids and Ghaznavid so there isn't anything that you know more than me. Follow the rules of Wikipedia if you want to end this discussion in a peaceful way. You can't ignore all these reliable sources written by dozens of experts who are not just book writers but researchers as well. I myself, as a researcher, came to the conclusion after doing all the reading and research that Ghurids were Turks from Ghor and Ghaznavids were Turks from Ghazni. They were something like the Durranis and Ghilzais, both are one group of people but different tribes. Sometimes they were friends other times they destroyed each others' cities. There is no indication that they were Iranians (or Tajiks). I know they mean alot to you because you want to built some kind of Tajik legendary rulers of Afghanistan who made Turks their slaves and captured India. There is not a trace of Tajik history ruling in Pashtun areas or in India. You think you are real smart but there are always others much smarter than you. I suggest you stop fighting here and accept all the information presented because all you do is argue over and over wasting our time as well as yours and others'.--119.73.2.214 (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
First of all, there is no need to threaten me (WP:STALK). Secondly, you are a BANNED USER. Thridly, WHICH "reliable experts" are you talking about? Can you please give their names and explains their qualifications? Tajik (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghorids were Afghans

Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

According tot he following sources (authors/books), Ghorids were Afghans.

  1. "A short history of India: and of the frontier states of Afghanistan, Nipal, and Burma" by: James Talboys Wheeler Link 1
  1. "The Numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, Volume 10" by: Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain), Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain). Link 2
  1. "On the coins of the Patan sultans of Hindustan" by: Edward Thomas Link 3
  1. "The history of India, Volume 1" by: Mountstuart Elphinstone Link 4
  1. "A short course of history, Volume 1" by: Havilland Le Mesurier Chepmell Link 5
  1. "History of India, Volume 5" by Abraham Valentine Williams Jackson, Romesh Chunder Dutt, Vincent Arthur Smith, Stanley Lane-Poole, Sir Henry Miers Elliot, Sir William Wilson Hunter, Sir Alfred Comyn Lyall Link 6
  1. "Indian antiquary, Volume 2" by: James Burgess, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Archaeological Survey of India Link 7
  1. "The Encyclopaedia Britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, and general literature, Volume 12" by: Thomas Spencer Baynes Link 8
  1. "History of mediaeval Hindu India, Volume 3" by Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya Link 9
  1. "A brief political history of Afghanistan" by: Abdul Ghani, Abdul Jaleel Najfi Link 10
  1. "The cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia:" by: Edward Balfour Link 11
  1. "English rule and native opinion in India: from notes taken 1870-74" by: James Routledge Link 12
  1. "Islam at war: a history" by George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton Link 13
  1. "Advanced Study In The History Of Medieval India - Vol I" by Jaswant Lal Mehta Link 14
  1. "The punishment of virtue: inside Afghanistan after the Taliban" by Sarah Chayes Link 15
  1. "Architecture of Mughal India, Part 1, Volume 4" by Catherine Ella Blanshard Asher Link 16
  1. "What is Islam?" by William Montgomery Watt Link 17
  1. "Afghanistan, the great game revisited" by Rosanne Klass Link 18
  1. "Iran's diverse peoples: a reference sourcebook" by Massoume Price Link 19 (Pashto-speaking)

Ok, I am tired now. I hope every one understands what I am trying to say. (Ketabtoon (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

Old stuff ... can you present ANY SCHOLARLY work that was not written 150 years ago?! #2 and #3 are actually the same book (written more than 100 years ago!). #4 does not support your claim at all (keeping aside the fact that this one was written 100 years ago as well). #5 is also antique and even factually wrong (claiming that Qutb-ud-din Aybak "founded a Patan dynasty". #6 is also from over 120 years ago. #7 and #8 are also from the 19th century. #9 is not the work of a historian, but that of a novel author! The last one (written more than 100 years ago by a surgeon!) has the same problem. Come on, is that all you have to "disprove" the STANDARD REFERENCE WORKS of oriental studies, most of them being published by EXPERTS in the past 5 years?! Tajik (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
A 100 and 150 year old research on history is not good enough any more, that is interesting. (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
"The descent of the house of Ghor has been discussed by Professor Dorn, by Mountstuart Elphinstone, by De Gingues, and by other eminent authorities. The balance of opinion is in favour of their pure Afghan origin..." (George Bruce Malleson Read the book) (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
Yeah ... very reliable ... a text written in 1878 by George Bruce Malleson, a British soldier in India. You reject the writings of Clifford Edmund Bosworth, who was awarded a UNESCO Avicenna Silver Medal for his special contributions and has written many books and papers about the Ghurids (for example The early Islamic history of Ghor, in Central Asiatic Journal, vi, 1963), and want to disprove him by presenting unreliable reports by British soldiers and Indian novel authors, most of whom lived more than 100 years ago and did not have the slightest knowledge of history and orinetalistics?! This has to be POV at its worst! Tajik (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys. Several points here. Afghan could mean citizen of Afghanistan or from Afghanistan as well as Pashtun. I think the term Iranic covers Pashtun, Persian and Tajik and we can then give a variety of opinions if there are valid sources (not Old Stuff) that claim the Ghurids as Pashtuns/Pathans. However, my own personal opinion is that Ghurids were neither exactly speaking standard Dari-Persian nor Pashtun. They had their own Iranian language which had to be the old dialect of Ghurr that was spoken in the area at least since Sassanid or Hephtalite times. It was probably something like the Bactrian language. Overall though, the current label for them based on the authorless and tertiary Encarta is wrong and is far away from the scholarly opinion. So we can say "Iranic ethno-linguistic group" and then in the footnotes put the sources that state them as Pashtun/Tajiks (however these sources should be new and reliable). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, the term Afghan stands for a citizen of Afghanistan. However, that was not the case before Zahir Shah or before the 19th century. The term Afghan only and only referred to an ethnic Pashtun. Like you mentioned, it would be a good idea to leave the ethnic origin open in the start of the article, even though majority of the sources consider(ed) them to have been Afghans.
Why exactly can't we use "Old Stuff"? The entire history is based on old sources. If there was a single old source, than yes it might not be that reliable. However, if 18 or more sources (mostly books) are given to prove that they were Afghans, than there shouldn't be a problem. We are not talking about the present demographics of a region and using a 100 year old source as a reference. Obviously, there is a problem when we do that. It would make much more sense to use up-to date sources in that case to prove the demographics of a region at present date.
So yes, we can go ahead with your suggestion and use the general Iranic term in the introduction of the article. (Ketabtoon (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC))


The point is that there is no historical evidence. All we know is that Sultan Mas'ud of the Ghaznavid dynasty needed interpreters to communicate with the people of Ghor. Therefore, it is assumed that they spoke another language. But it could also mean that they spoke a very unique dialect close to Persian, but considerable different from the courtly "Dari" dialect of Ghazni (compare to modern local Persian dialects of northern or eastern Afghanistan with those of western Iran). The name of the family, Shansabani, is clearly a derivation of "Wishnasp". The claim that they were Turks, as the IP claims, is not supported by any scholar, because the evidence is clear.
As for Ghuris being Pashtuns: Two "arguments" are brought by supporters of this claim. A) That the family was named "Suri", apparently the name of a Pashtun tribe, and B) that the language spoken by the Ghuris was not Persian.
Answers: the family's name was NOT "Suri", but the personal name of one of the 7 Ghuri princes. The word "Suri" is Iranian (in various languages, such as Kurdish) and means "the red one". The family itself never claimed to be "Suri". It was simply the name of ONE of the princes. As for B) see above. Besides that, certain contemporary historians (most of al al-'Utbi; see: Bosowrth, "The Early Islamic History of Ghur", Central Asiatic Journal, 6 (1991), pp. 116-118) clearly differenciate between "Ghuris", "Afghans", and "Sagzis" - that means that there was a clear ethno-linguistic differentiation between the Afghans/Pashtuns at the Indian frontier, the Ghuris in the central mountains of Khorasan, and the "Sagzis", the inhabitants of Seistan.
So all we can say about the Ghuris is that they were neither Turks nor Arabs, but local Eastern Iranians. We do not have any proofs for the claim that they spoke Pashto; quite the contrary: contemporary authors clearly and consistently differentiate between "Afghans", who were allied with the Rajputs, and "Ghuris". We do not know anything of their language, only that it was considerably different from the courtly Dari Persian of Ghazni. However, that's not a proof for the claim that it was not Persian; maybe it was a very unique dialect of Persian, not easily to comprehend by others. The family's name, "Shansab", is certainly Persian. But, again: that does not prove a Persian origin. Tajik (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you would be surprised to know that the word "Sur" in Pashto means "Red" as well. Nothing is clear about their origin. The word Shansabani can be a derivation of any word from any of the Iranic language. Not that I am a linguist, but Shansabani is not even close to Wishnasp. So how can you guys claim that it is a derivation of Wishnasp? You keep on writing that "We do not know", so if we do not know, than how can you only pick the Persian/Tajik origin and ignore the Pashtun side of it? That clearly is POV (especially since you are a Tajik yourself).
Again, I agree with Nepaheshgar's suggestion that we should use the word Iranic in the lead, instead of Pashtun/Tajik. Otherwise, the edit war would not come to an end. If we give up or get tired, than the next day we will have others going through the same process. (Ketabtoon (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC))
See my comment above: "Sur" is an Iranian word common in all Iranian languages, from Kurdish to Pashto. That means that it does not prove any "Afghan" or "Pashtun" origin (aside the fact that two of his brothers were named "Feraydūn" and "Sām", both pure Persian names). As for you not being a linguistic: that's certainly true, and is evident from your writings and your "arguments". I also assume that you have never written a scientific paper (dissertation?!), because you lack the ability to differentiate between reliable and non-reliable sources. The name "Shansabānī" is the Persianized version of Arabic "Āl-e Shansāb", itself derived from Middle Persian "Wišn(āb)asb" (as in Ādur Wishnāsp; via "Shansābasp"; the eponymous pagan ancestor of the Ghurids). All versions are evident in historical Arabic and Persian writings. The ending "-asp", meaning "horse" in Persian, was dropped in later versions. But in Indian chronicles - as far as in Bengal - the Ghuris are given the additional title aśvapati, "Lords of the Horse", a reference to their riding skills (M.S. Asimov, "History of civilizations of Central Asia", Volume IV, Part 1, p. 189). Tajik (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
18 sources and all non-reliable. James Talboys Wheeler, Mountstuart Elphinstone, Abraham Valentine Williams Jackson, Vincent Arthur Smith, Sir Henry Miers Elliot, Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, Edward Balfour, George Nafziger, Jaswant Lal Mehta, Sarah Chayes and so on were/are all historians and/or orientalists. The surgeon, Edward Balfour, was an orientalist as well. Sarah Chayes has a master's degree from Harvard in history and Middle Eastern studies, specializing in the medieval Islamic period.
You have your own definition of reliable sources, specialized sources and non-reliable sources. Like it or not, I have provided 18 reliable sources (old and new). (Ketabtoon (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for proving my point: that you have no idea of the subject and that you lack the ability to differntiate between sources. It's hopeless. Graduating in some field of history ist not the same as being a specialist or expert on a subject. Vladimir Zhirinovsky has a graduation of Moscow State University in the field of Turkish Studies. But he is hardly an expert on Ghaznavid or Seljuq history. Hence: Note a single one of the names you have mentioned are specialized on Ghurid history. That's the reason why you won't be able to find any - not even one - scholarly paper published by these people on Ghurid history, genealogy, culture, literature, or political history. All you can find is some tertiary reference in some book - and thus you have to quote selectively, the parts you like (while rejecting the parts you do not like) --> WP:POV. That's the difference between experts and laymen (like you) who do some selective searching on Google Books and believe that they represent the consensus among scholars (which is totally untrue and misleading). Not to mention the sad fact, they you do not understand (or do not want to understand) that the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica represent the scholarly consensus which is supposed to be shown on Wikipedia. Tajik (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you call Ghurids Iranic when they were all Turks? I mean the couple of kings were from an obscure ancient Shansabani family of no historian know anything about, but the entire Ghurid administration/government and military were Turks or Turkish. None of the history books or encyclopedias mention them as Iranian or Tajiks, they all say they were Turks or Turkish. These Ghurid, as well as Ghaznavid, Turks do not exist today because they culturally assimilated into ethnic Afghan (known as ethnic Pashtuns today) society. The reason why because Afghans were strict Sunni Muslims and war-like people just as they were. The Pashtuns are a collection of different tribes and people. Some Persian/Iranian/Tajik people also became ethnic Afghans/modern Pashtuns, these are usually found among the educated class of Pashtuns. So my conclusion is that we label Ghurids as Shansabani/Turkish or Shansabani-Turks in the intro, this is because the "couple of leaders were of Shansabani family" but the rest were all Turkish. I'm opposed to adding Iranic in the intro because they were not Iranian and that is pre-historic term which is very difficult to understand by the majority non-Iranian readers. We can just create a section and explain the full details of who their ancestors were and so forth, and today they are referred to as Afghans in many literature works because they (Turks) assimilated into ethnic Afghans/Pashtuns over time, and that their birth place as well as their main headquarters was in Afghanistan. By the way, the names of all the Ghurids (especially the ones ending with "Din") are very common among all the Pashtuns. I believe this is the best solution to help settle this long debate over a very minor issue. I'm being very neutral over here, not taking any side, and I'm not Turk or Turkish.--119.73.2.146 (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your personal comments as you can't comment on people (and your accusation is invalid against me as I stick to sources but obviously not teriatary Encarta or Britannica when there are actual academic sources) but you need to stick to the topic. As per the Ghurids, if they were Turkic, then you need to find better source than Encarta and then your theory can be included. Tertiary sources are not to be included and Encarta is not a source (it is a teriatary source). They were probably similar to Pashtun/Tajik but they were not Turkic, however if you have sources from such scholars as C.E. Bosworth, then one can entertain your theory.. Bottom line is you need reputable secondary sources and not Encarta. Encyclopedia of Islam and C.E. Bosworth are such sources. Your theory in my opinion is invalid and I'll quote: “Bartold, Schineye, pg 460, describes tensions between them during the period of the Khorezmshahs. At the time when there were both Turkish and Iranian commanders, in reply to a proposal from the Turkish commander that they can cooperate, the Gurid command is said to have replied: “We are Gurids and you are Turks. We cannot live together”. (Paul Bergne, “The Birth of Tajikistan”, Published by I.B.Tauris, 2007. Pg 136.)
The above is sufficient it makes your theory invalid. What Ketabtoon brought was okay though but it needs to be more modern and scholarly sources. If Ghurids were Turkic then they were not Pashtuns so your theory is not valid in that sense because if at that time, according to you, they were Turkic.. then they will not be Pashtuns or Afghans. You can't make original research or impose your viewpoint here due to your problems with user Tajik (and I am not interested in your edit wars, but removing Encyclopedia of Islam and adding something like Encarta is ridicolous). If you can't find a better source than Encarta, then it is obvious your theory has no weight in Wikipedia. According to one source (although the book is not about Ghurids but the Taliban): "These Ghurids spoke a weird dialect, very different from the Persian around them. It could possibly have been Pashtu". However the statement quoted: "“We are Gurids and you are Turks. We cannot live together” clearly rejects and nullifies your original research (along with that of teriatary Encarta). So unless you have some serious secondary sources (within the last 30 years and not 1800s), you should desist from trying to add POV. Also the term Iranic covers both Pashtun/Tajik but Ghurids as explained spoke a slightly different Iranian dialect. If this goes on, I urge users Tajik and Ketabtoon to ask for mediation.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There are excellent secondary sources:
And all of the sources agree: the Ghurids were neither Turks nor Afghans. There are clear primary sources - most notably al-Biruni and al-'Utbi - who clearly and consistently differentiate between "Afghans", "Turks", and "Ghoris". Tajik (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


  1. "A short history of India: and of the frontier states of Afghanistan, Nipal, and Burma" by: James Talboys Wheeler Link 1
  2. "The Numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, Volume 10" by: Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain), Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain). Link 2
  3. "A history of India under the two first sovereigns of the house of Taimur, Báber and Humáyun, Volume 1" by William Erskine Link 3
  4. "On the coins of the Patan sultans of Hindustan" by: Edward Thomas Link 4
  5. "The history of India, Volume 1" by: Mountstuart Elphinstone Link 5
  6. "A short course of history, Volume 1" by: Havilland Le Mesurier Chepmell Link 6
  7. "History of India, Volume 5" by Abraham Valentine Williams Jackson, Romesh Chunder Dutt, Vincent Arthur Smith, Stanley Lane-Poole, Sir Henry Miers Elliot, Sir William Wilson Hunter, Sir Alfred Comyn Lyall Link 7
  8. "Indian antiquary, Volume 2" by: James Burgess, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Archaeological Survey of India Link 8
  9. "The Encyclopaedia Britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, and general literature, Volume 12" by: Thomas Spencer Baynes Link 9
  10. "History of mediaeval Hindu India, Volume 3" by Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya Link 10
  11. "A brief political history of Afghanistan" by: Abdul Ghani, Abdul Jaleel Najfi Link 11
  12. "The cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia:" by: Edward Balfour Link 12
  13. "English rule and native opinion in India: from notes taken 1870-74" by: James Routledge Link 13
  14. "Islam at war: a history" by George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton Link 14
  15. "Advanced Study In The History Of Medieval India - Vol I" by Jaswant Lal Mehta Link 15
  16. "The punishment of virtue: inside Afghanistan after the Taliban" by Sarah Chayes Link 16
  17. "Architecture of Mughal India, Part 1, Volume 4" by Catherine Ella Blanshard Asher Link 17
  18. "What is Islam?" by William Montgomery Watt Link 18
  19. "Afghanistan, the great game revisited" by Rosanne Klass Link 19
  20. "Iran's diverse peoples: a reference sourcebook" by Massoume Price Link 20 (Pashto-speaking)

These are 20 sources (old and new - primary, secondary and tertiory - written by Iranians, Indians, Westerners and so on) and they all mention that Ghorids were Afghans. (Ketabtoon (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

Shansabanis are ethnic Afghans or modern Pashtuns

The Ghurid kings belonged to the Suri clan or sub-tribe of the Shansabani tribe.

Ferishta, a historian in India, writes in 1500s:

LINK

"Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province" H.A. Rose, Ibetson 1990, P210

The name "Suri" is not tied to Persians, Iranians or Tajiks. It's the name of a Pashtun tribe or sub-tribe, and some people in India also use it as a last name probably originating from the non-Muslim Ghor people who may have moved to India or in connection with the Suri dynasty of India, under Pashtun ruler Sher Shah Suri.--119.73.7.47 (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Ketabtoon: do you actually know the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources?! Yes? Then please enlighten us, because your definition seems to be totally different from that of the rest of the world.
@ IP of banned User:NisarKand/User:Khampalak/User:Alishah85: please read WP:POV and (especially) WP:OR. Because Ferishta is not speaking of Amir Kror Suri (who is a legendary figure of Pashtun folklore and considered a myth by mainstream historians), but of Amir Banji Nahārān and one of his successors (known as "Sūri", the "red one"), the father of Muhammad bin Suri. To summarize: you are falsifying history and propagating your own WP:OR.
Tajik (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


The term Afghan which is used in old sources does not say that the Ghurians were ethnic Pushtuns but that they were from Afghanistan. Britannica with some other older sources f.ex. call also the Ghaznavids as Afghan dynasty. Pushtuns are new-coming immigrants in modern Afghanistan. According to vaious older and new studies on their genetical background they are a mix of many hordes. Their genetical cluster reflect mostly an south-eastern origine, closely related with the population of India and Punjab/Sindh with strong connections to Arabs, Dravidians, east-Asian Turkish tribes (f.ex. Ghalzi are descandants of Khalji Turks/half-Mongols). Ghurids were Persians or at least eastern-Iranian Tajiks. Their life-style was not the same as Pushtuns are, they did not spoke a Pushtu-related language (Choresmian, Soghdian etc. are not related with Pushtu, except that those languages are known as eastern-iranian languages) nor did they had any Pashtun-related culture (Pashtunwali or something like that). Unlike Pushtuns, they were even related with Iranian mythology and Iranian identity. Some losers from the Sulaiman Mountains are barking but the Tajiks and the allied world are already in Kandahar and tomorrow they will step in Peshawar and Waziristan--188.97.72.181 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, can someone delete the BS of Bacha Berish Amir Khar-or Suri (it would be new for me that Habibi used Suri for Khar-or and his imaginare relationship that some ultra-nationalists build up with the M Suri, the Ghurian chief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.72.181 (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Full-protected against dispute

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

There's a bit of an edit war going on. I'm not going to judge who is "right" or "wrong" or anything else, but I locked the page down for two weeks. Please reach a consensus or go to WP:DR. If this edit war continues after the 2 weeks, consider this your warning against WP:3RR. I won't be watching this page, and I don't want to be involved except for someone to come to my talk page and indicate that you've reached a consensus and would like the full protection lifted. tedder (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not oppose protecting this article, but "Turkish" should be "Turkic". I think everybody regardless of their veiws about their ethnicty, whether Tajik, Turkic or Pashtun, agrees with this. Thanks.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The word "Turkic" needs to be removed, because it is totally baseless, without any reliable source. Not a single expert on the subject - not one - claims that the Ghurids were Turks. Tajik (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Ghurids were mainly Turks. Unfortunately, some sources does not explicite devide the Ghurids and Indo-Ghurids ethnical from eachother, since both groups had a single iranian chief in Firuzkoh, so most sources count the Turks to Ghurians or call the Ghurians as Turks--188.107.209.104 (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Due to numerous sources supporting Iranic (both Tajik and Pashtun) origins of Gurrids, the word Turkish must be removed, even if the article is going to remain protected. Ellipi (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
In any case the word TurkISH should be removed because Turkish means simply from Anatolia, which isnt the case. Then the debate remains whether it was Turkic, Tajik or Pashtun. As I know these dynasties had usually a mixed ethnic origin, but belonged to the Iranian relam, which is called as TurkoIranian, TurkoPersian tradition or Persianate societies, by different authors.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ferishta in 1500s states:

LINK

The above evidence indicates that the Ghurid dynasty (Ghiyásu-d dín and Mu'izzu-d dín) was made up of ethnic Afghans (Pashtuns), their father belonged to the famous Pashtun Suri tribe. The overlwelming majority of their military force was made up of Turks. Is this article about the Ghurid dynasty only or the entire Ghurid military force? If it's just about the dynasty then they were Afghans but if it's about the military then they were Turkish, which means something relating to or from Turkestan, a region of Central Asia inhabited by Turkic peoples. Ferishta's quotation is copied from the 13th century work of Juzjani.--119.73.0.108 (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does the Ferishta quote support your WP:OR. Only one of the very early Ghurid leaders had the additional nisba "Suri". The equation of that "Suri" with the Pashtun tribal name "Suri" is your OR and POV. Your claim is already disproved by the fact that NONE of the succeeding Ghurid sultans, not even his sons, had that nisba, making clear that it was only the niba of one person and not that of an entire clan. It is simply a word common in all regional Iranian languages, meaning "red". That's it. And that is also the reason why NO modern historian - not a single one - supports your POV and OR. Tajik (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghurid_dynasty/Archive_1&oldid=1012429412"