Talk:Ghurids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghurids article.
Article policies
WikiProject Central Asia Ghurids is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Ghurids is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Iran Ghurids is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Ghurids as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Urdu language Wikipedia.

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 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)

[edit] Continues false claims made by User:Tajik

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)

[edit] Ghaznawids

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!!

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

[edit] Ghurid Map

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)