Talk:Tajiks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tajiks article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Peer review Tajiks has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] request for improvements to article

This article is very-very wrong and probably is written by an uneducated person, it is also very old please take it from this site. Tajiks are Arians the original inhabitants of Central Asia. They spoke Eastern-Iranian Languages prior to conquest of Arabs. Tajik name come from Persian word "Taj" meaning Crown. It meant crownies or royal nation probably indicating their nobelity and or superiority over new-comers, Turks. Later this name was given to all sedentary muslims which were arabs and sogdians (Tajik ancestors) thus later it became solely refered to Iranian speaking population. The reason Tajiks started to speak Dari is because Samanid kings tried to revive the ancient history of Arian and thus one of the way to create unity and revival they saw having common language. Dari became the common language for Persians and Estern Iranians. In fact this short unity best known in history as the peak of civilization in Eastern Middle Ages that produced many world-wide famous scholars. like Avicenna, Algfarabius, Dzhami, Rudaki, Beruni, Omar Khayam, Firdowi to name a few

Dear editor of this web-site Please remove this aritcle or upgrade it with newest information. I am as Tajik ashamed to read it.

The thing is that anybody can modify articles, so you, and the guy below, can add stuff or change anything that's wrong, and it's of course always better if you provide reliable sources.
Also, to anybody, this article could use the ethnicity template, and if someone knows the estimated Tajik population, it would be a good thing to add.

[edit] Biased article

The Article is unfortunately not accurate.It is biased,...the reason might be that the person who uploaded the article might have been an Iranian Persian, no offence to anybody but history is a big deal to the people of this region and there is a certain level of rivalry going on amongst us.So all i ask from the people in charge is to try and neutralise this article.Thanks


What is biased about the article? It accurately describes the Tajiks and there history. I think your objection is from the statement that Tajiks are Persian. Tell me, what is the difference between the Tajik of Central Asia and the Persian of Iran? Both people speak the same language, have the same literary tradition, same cultural habits, and same history. The only difference is political. The difference is similar to that of the Germans. In that, the northern Germans are predominantely Protestant, while the southern Germans are predominantly Catholic. The Persians of Iran are predominantly Shi'e, while the Persians of Central Asia are predominantly Sunni.

In addition, in some cases but not all there is more documented genetic admixture from Turkic-Mongol groups and the Persians of Iran and the Persians of Central Asia have interacted with various other groups and have diverged historically in many cases in the past, while also converging. The dialect also varies, but more to the point, one can acknowledge the similarities and differences without too much problem I think. In this case, the Tajiks are mainly related to and linked to larger 'Persian' people, but also have regional distinctions. Fair enough? Tombseye 19:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously there are regional distinctions. There is no ethnic group that does not exhibit regional distinctions. But, Persian speakers in Central Asia are grouped collectively together as "Tajik," when, obviously, there are differences between a Tajik from Herat, Afghanistan and a Tajik from Bukhara, Uzbekistan. Also, Shi'a Tajiks make up a significant minority in Central Asia (especially Herat). So, every region has its own distinct cultural markers, but that does not discount the greater general similarities Persians from Iran and Central Asia share. Persians, being a primarily urban dwelling population, tend to identify more with the urban region they are from (Tehrani, Herati, Isfahani, Bukhari, etc.). However, this does not downplay the obvious similarities that make the Persians of Iran and Central Asia a single ethnos. Gradually, with the aide of the internet and the trend of secularization (especially in Iran), Persian speakers are beginning to recognize each other as the same people.

I'm not too sure what genetic admixture has to do with ethnicity in the Middle East/Central Asia. Traditionally, amongst urbanized Iranian peoples(Persians, Sogdians), ethnicity was solely determined by how one idenitified themselves. Persian history is filled with examples of foreigners accepting and assmilating Persian culture and being recognized as Persians. The ethno genesis(language, culture, religion) of the modern Persian people (in Iran and Central Asia)comes from the mixture of Persians fleeing the Arab/Islamic onslaught into Central Asia with the native Iranian peoples of Central Asia (primarily the Sogdians). The historical region of Khorasan (Central Asia and Eastern Iran) is the homeland of the modern Persian, not the province of Fars in Iran (the ancestral home of the pre-Islamic Persians). Even the modern Persian language is a sort of pidgin of Pahlavi (the language of the Sassanians) and Sogdian. In fact, until the coming of the Samanids, western Iran (including the Isfahan valley, the Zagros and Alborz mountain ranges) were described by Arab geographers as still speaking the Pahlavi language. The modern Persian language spread into the urbanized areas once this new language become adopted as the lingua franca of Central Asia.


-If you ask me, I believe ethnicity is dependent on three things: philology, history, and culture. Race, in my mind, plays a secondary role. People who are similar/identical in the first three categories but differ greatly in the last are still of the same ethnicity, regardless. I think this can apply to the Tajiks. I think we have established that Tajik is for the most part a dialect of the Persian language rather than a separate tongue. Tajik, Dari and Farsi speakers can understand each other really REALLY well, maybe with a few difficulties in inflection due to dialectal variation, but still, overall the same. I've seen all three types of speakers in Pakistan (I unfortunately dont speak Persian in any form) and they all can claim to understand one another quite fine. Now there is history. The region of Tajikistan was for the most part, an eastern extension of the ancient Persian empires (unless if I'm wrong, someone please back me up). Persian culture was predominate in these regions. Persian in its Pahlavi form was predominate in both regions in pre-Islamic times. With the arrival of the Arabs, this language was replaced by the fusion that led to modern Persian, however branching out. Tajikistan, due to receiving Arab influence and adopting Persian sunni culture, embraced the new Persian language and that became the lingua franca. Many of the famous Persians of this period, including Avicenna? and Rum ( I thought Rumi was Afghan Persian, but I'm not sure) and some others were native to this region and Persian civilization was the nor here. Overtime, though, a gradual cut off from mainstream Persia left the Tajiks open to heavy Turko-Mongol influence that helped mold the Central Asian Persians to develop an identity slightly different from their brethern on the Iranian plateau. So for the most part, there is still a strong historical connection. Now cultural. I think I already covered this in the historical debate but I will go over it again, Persian culture with Islam was the norm throughout southern Central Asia, be it Samarkand, Bukhara, Herat, etc. Tajikistan was no exception. Also, Pre-Islamic Persian culture thrived here throughout much of its history as part of the Sassanian, Parthian, and Achaemenian empires. So Tajiks have enough philological, historical and cultural connections with the Persians to be considered a Central Asian branch of the Persians. Now comes the most debated part; race. When I think of this debate, I use the example of a people who are spread out and have different geographical branches that racially tend to look anything but alike; Arabs. Arabs as an ethnic group are spread out throughout Southwestern Asia, both the Arabian peninsula, and the Levant and in Northern and eastern Africa. Racially, the Arabs do not look alike but culturally they are generally the same. Racially an Arab from Morrocco is different than an Arab from the UAE. An arab from Lebanon is fairer skinned and more European looking than an Arab from Oman, who may be from light to dark brown, with black hair and looking something similar to a South Asian. And, most radically, an Arab from Kenya or Zanzibar or Sudan is almost completely racially removed from all these other Arabs other than for a few drops of Arab blood. These Arabs would be more sub-Saharan African looking. So much racial difference yet they all have the same culture, values, and language. I knew two Arabs in school, one Palestinian and one Sudanese, and they both looked really different yet saw each other as the same ethnicity, shared the same values, customs, music cultural habits, etc. Likewise, the relationship between the Tajiks and the Persians are the same in my mind. The Tajiks are racially descended from other Iranian groups and from various Turkic groups may tend to look more Caucasoid/Mongoloid, yet culturally, philologically and historically are identical to the Persian people and as much a part of Persian culture. That is how I see it, which may be wrong, but, hey, that's what I can tell from studying this history. So can other people as well. Hope my bits of info can be of some help. [[Afghan Historian 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)]]

absolutely BS stinky Pashtun. Tajiks of tajikistan are related to Turks just by 3%. Did you ever analized a dna-record?? To 97% they are indo-europeans. They also have not an persian culture because in the ancient the people of modern tajikistan spoke the same language..just their langauge differed accentually from the western iranian language. The had also the same culture and identity. Like dariuosh codmannus said, bactrians, sogdians, persians ect. are all one greater tribe just cut by geography.

Ps: Mongols gen-marker are not found till yet in central Asia because they never gave theri y-chromosome to other or left children there when mongols moved back to their originally homeland. --88.68.213.164 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] turkic

1 Ibni Sina (please don't call him Aviccena, because his original name is Ibni Sina) is a Turk. 2 Tajik 's are Turkic peoples of Asia, some of the Turkic tribes spoke a kind of Persian language. Their Persian is not similar to Persia Persian. 3 Mevlana is a Turk also ,in one of his poem, he said that he is a Turk although he speaks Persian His verse is: "Aslem Turkest egerçi Hindu guyem" 4 In Ottoman Turkish there were thousands of Persian words in their language altough they are Turks. 5 Turk is the common name of all the Turkic tribes such as Ugric's, Tuva's , Kazac's, Azeri's, Turkoman's ,Uzbek's, Khirkiz's and Tajik's and more. For the Western people is very difficult to differenciate, Irani and Turani tribes. 6 Safavi and Harezmsah States in persian history were Turkic States. 88.228.3.104 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rumi doesn't have such a verse: "Aslem Turkest egerçi Hindu guyem". Please cite a reliable reference.--80.66.181.11 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

i was under the impression that the tajiks were a turkic people, but i didn't see anything about that in the article. Gringo300 29 June 2005 05:06 (UTC)

That would be because they're not. They're the only major ex-Soviet Central Asian group that aren't Turkic. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 05:10 (UTC)

[edit] Merge articles

The Tajiks of China are a group that is quite distinct from the Tajiks of Tajikistan or the Tajiks of Afghanistan. I'm in favour of explaining these differences, not in favour of merging the articles. Babelfisch 03:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I just realized that took place and you're absolutely correct. The Tajiks in China have a distinct identity from those to the west. It's a shame that the article was merged. Tombseye 19:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic rivalries have no place in an encyclopedia

Now here is one of the weaknesses of wikipedia. Some clown claims (and I directly quote) Pakistan's "dirty name doesn't belong in this article" and keeps deleting the documented figures that show that at least half a million Tajiks live in western Pakistan, which is substantially more than those in western China. This is endemic throughout wikipedia, which nonetheless is a popular resource for people, but is ruined by idiots who think they can re-write reality and vent their personal animosity by deleting things that make them upset. I understand that there has been a rivalry between the Tajiks and Pashtuns and that the welcome in Pakistan was more directed towards the Pashtuns and the support for the Taliban came from Pashtuns from both sides of the border and this has angered many Tajiks (this and alleged ISI involvement and interference in Afghanistan, which to be fair has also come from Iran, the US, Saudi Arabia etc.), but one can't blame entire peoples for what some do and nor can reality be re-shaped. I've seen this as well with the Iranian Persians who do not view Tajiks as real Persians and this goes back and forth. This becomes a never-ending cycle and like I said is the major weakness of wikipedia and possibly an insurmountable one unless people can work together more and perhaps after a point lock articles that are pretty much complete and get special permission to make alterations that could be mutually agreed upon. Just my two cents. Tombseye 19:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect in the hope that the anon has moved on. Let me know if it starts up again. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tajik population in Tajikistan

I was the one who changed the population of Tajiks in Tajikistan from 2.5 million to 4.55. I don't think a citation is necessary because that's what the CIA estimates point to, (Estimates currently being cited as reliable by wikipedia itself). The population of Tajikistan according to the CIA World Factbook is 7.1 million while Tajiks make up 65% of the population. A lil maths and you will have the figure there. User:Casimiri

[edit] Physical characteristics

Like the dispute at Turkic peoples, this section should be sourced or removed. SouthernComfort 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The man in the picture does not appear to be Tajik. Please get a picture of another Tajik person.

[edit] Disputed section

The section "Application of the term" is completely unsourced. AucamanTalk 11:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian peoples

Aucaman, please don't remove this for now. Things are still being discussed at Talk:Iranian peoples, and it's pretty obvious that the Tajiks are related to most other "speakers of Iranian languages". --Khoikhoi 18:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Tajiks'in Iran

'Even Persians in Iran who live in the Turkish-speaking parts of the country call themselves "Tajik".'

Is this really true? I've never heard it. Citation please?

86.8.109.89 15:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They do not call themselvs "Tajik", but they are called "Tajiks" by certain Turkic-speaking peoples. Even during the Safavid era, the Persians were called "Tajiks" by the Turkic-speakers. See Encyclopaedia Iranica oder Encyclopaedia of Islam for more details. Here is an extract, taken from the Encyclopaedia of Islam: [1] Tajik 15:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never heard that before either, don't think it should be added72.196.229.15 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sart, Tajik, and Fars

All these 3 words are synonyms, not necessairily for an ethnic group, but certainly for certain "civilization" and "way-of-life" (comparable to "American").

The following is taken from the article Sart:

"... "Sart" seems to have originated as a term used by nomads to describe settled people and town dwellers, from the Indic root Sarthavaha meaning a merchant or caravan-leader (related to the modern Hindi word Seth). It probably entered Uyghur from Soghdian in the 8th or 9th centuries AD. The earliest known use of the term is in the Turkic book Kudatku Bilik ("Blessed Knowledge"), dated 1070, where it refers to the settled population of Kashgaria, and in this period it apparently could be used to refer to all settled Muslims of Central Asia, Persian or Turkic-speaking. Rashid al-din in the Jami' al-Tawarikh writes that Genghis Khan commanded that Arslan Khan, prince of the Muslim Turkic Qarluqs, be given the title "Sartaqtai", which he considered to be synonymous with "Tajik". ... In the post-Mongol period the meaning of the term seems to have changed: Ali Sher Nawa'i refers to the Iranian people as "Sart Ulusi", and for him "Sart tili" was a synonym for the Persian language. Similarly when Babur refers to the people of Margelan as "Sarts", it is in distinction to the people of Andijan who are Turks, and it is clear that by this he means Persian-speakers. He also refers to the population of the towns and villages of the vilayat of Kabul as "Sarts". ..."

Tajik 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


They were synonyms in a particular time period Tajik. If you want to mention Sart in the article do mention it in context i:e in the medieval post Genghis Khan period. From the same article:

"The earliest known use of the term is in the Turkic book Kudatku Bilik ("Blessed Knowledge"), dated 1070, where it refers to the settled population of Kashgaria, and in this period it apparently could be used to refer to all settled Muslims of Central Asia, Persian or Turkic-speaking."

"It is thus very difficult to attach a single ethnic or even linguistic meaning to the term "Sart". Historically the various Turkic and Persian peoples of Central Asia were identified mostly by their lifestyle, rather than by any notional ethnic or even linguistic difference. The Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Turkmens were nomads, herding across steppes, mountains and sand deserts, respectively. The settled Turks and Tajiks, on the other hand, were Sarts, as they either lived in cities such as Khiva, Bukhara or Samarkand, or they lived in rural agricultural communities."

"It seems that, in Khorezm at least, Sarts spoke a form of Persianised Oghuz Turkic whilst Uzbeks spoke a Kipchak dialect closer to Kazakh. In Fergana Sarts spoke a Qarluq dialect that was very close to Uyghur and is, indeed, the ancestor of modern ‘Uzbek’. In 1924 the Soviet regime decreed that henceforth all settled Turks in Central Asia would be known as 'Uzbeks', and that the term 'Sart' was to be abolished as an insulting legacy of colonial rule. The language chosen for the new Uzbek SSR was not, however, Uzbek, but 'Sart'."

"‘Sart’ was also commonly employed by the Russians as a general term for all the settled natives of Turkestan. There was a great deal of debate over what this actually meant, and where the name came from. Barthold writes that “To the Kazakh every member of a settled community was a Sart whether his language was Turkish or Iranian”. N.P. Ostroumov was firm in his conviction that it was not an ethnic definition but an occupational one, and he backed this up by quoting some (apparently common) local sayings: “A bad Kirghiz becomes a Sart, whilst a bad Sart becomes a Kirghiz”. omerlivesOmerlives 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to modify the text. But the term "Sart" shoud be mentioned. Tajik 18:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collage

The image collage in the article only shows men. There should be an image of a woman as well to balance out things. I propose this picture be included in the collage: Image:Hammasa np5 Kopie.gif

--Zereshk 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture is already included in the article ;) Tājik 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then lets get a different picture of her. Or lets get a picture of another ethnic Tajik women.User:Tajik-afghan

[edit] Update

I updated the number of Tajiks in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.Iranian Patriot 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need a map of the distribution of the Tajik ethnic group

I suggest this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tajik_ethnic_map.jpg

(I already added this, but for some reason, the user Tajik keeps reverting it)

The map is fake. Tājik 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I see.

That is a good map but it is not showing any Tajik population in Pakistan while we all know, there are more than 500 thousand Tajiks living in Northern Areas of Pakistan- Gilgit and surrounding areas.

[edit] Biruni's picture is useless

whats the point of having Biruni's picture up there? its not as if Biruni is an easily recognized person. and the picture is black and white. that picture should be removed. but Biruni should be mentioned somewhere.

Biruni is certainly more important than Hammasa Kohistani who is hardly recognized as "Tajik", or Ahmad Shah Massoud who himself has never considered himself "Tajik" or any important for the Tajiks as a nation.
al-Biruni is the father of modern geography and historgraphy, he is considered as one of the greatest scholars ever, and even certain asteroids and certain regions on the moon are named after him.
The term "Tajik" has for centuries been a synonym for the cultured and educated urban population of Central-Asia ... therefore, these scientists and scholars have to be shown in the picture as a symbol for the Tajik people. And since Rumi, Khwarizmi, ibn Sina, and Biruni are the most famous among the Tajik scholars of the past, their pictures are an absolute necessity.
Tājik 10:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I think we should put their pictures in the article, not at the top. At the top we should give the reader an idea of what a Tajik looks like. And Biruni's picture does not do that. So I think we should put Biruni's picture in the article, not at the top. What do you think?

The images may be and most probably are authentic, but by what stretch of imagination does the writer of Kitab-Ul-Hind, Abu Raihan Abu Muhammad Al Bairuni(here named Biruni) a Khwarzami from Khiveh become a Tajik? And the same question goes on to the wrong classification of Maulana Jalaluddeen Rumi ethnically an Azerbaijani, shown here as a Tajik.Lutfullah 05:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Lutfullah

Rumi was born in Balkh. Azerbijan and Balkh are very far apart. There were no Azerbaijanis in Balkh. Balkh was Tajik. And Biruni was indeed from Khwarzam, but Khwarzam was a very large area, including mostly Tajik areas. Also, he lived in the Samanid dynasty which was centered in Samarqand which is a Tajik city.

May the enlightened inserter of the above lines please explain where the province of Rum was in the past, from which Maulana Jalaluddeen is named as Rumi? Was it any where near the Central Asian Balkh region? Lutfullah 15:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Lutfullah.

Rumi is the shorter form of the name Mowlānā-e Rumī or Mowlā-e Rum, a name that was given to him AFTER he moved from Central Asia to Anatolia, back then known as Rum (derived from Roman Empire). His real name was Jalāl ud-Dīn ibn Bahā ud-Dīn Valad-e Balkhī. Tājik 17:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethymology of Tajik

Hi everybody,

I think that the ethymology of the term Tajik as it appears in the article is wrong. Tajik is from the pahlavi root: Tazik which basically means "foreigner". This term has been developed to both "Tazi" meaning Arab and Tajik meaning foreigners in old Dari. The term is then taken up by turks that began using them to denote the persian speaking people of central asia. Interestingly, the term is still used by Armanians to refer to Anatolian Turks, which they call "Dadzik".

Please give your comments on this.

Arash the Bowman 11:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


If no one has any objections, I will write this in the text later!

Arash the Bowman 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide your claims with valid sources. Otherwise, your changes will be reverted. The current version is partly based on the information given in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Here is an extract: [2] Tājik 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi Tajik,

Here is a link from an online encyclopedia citing encyclopedia britannica:

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/SUS_TAV/TAJIK_or_PARSIWAN.html


Please notice this sentence:

The name itself originally occurs in the Pahlavi writings, and is explained to mean, first, the Arabs in general, then their descendants born in Persia and elsewhere out of Arabia, and, lastly, the Persians in general and their descendants born Turkestan and elsewhere out of Persia

What are, if I may very humbly ask with a thousand pardons begged, Pahlawi writings? As a student of epigraphy in the Institute of Archaeology of the Archaeological Survey of India ( Epigraphia Indo-Islamica )I was taught that the reference to Pahlawi is a classic form of Parsi poetry in the sibq e awwal of the 11th - 13th century (AD) Fars and its adjoining areas. Khwaja Shamsuddeen Hafiz Shirazi writes (Persian: Murghaan i baagh qaafiyeh sanjad wa bazleh gao! Taa khwajeh mei khurad beh ghazal haa i pahlawi ) What has Pahlawi to do with the ethnic classification of Tajiks? LutfullahLutfullah

The parts about armenians using "dadzik" is my own experience with my armenian friends!

Hope this is enough evidence!

Best wishes Arash the Bowman 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly in this case - this is not a reliable source. It is from the 1911 version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and therefore no match for the information given the Encyclopaedia of Islam or in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. "Tajik" does not mean "stranger" and is - evidently - derived from the name of the Arab "Tayy" tribe. Tājik 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A map of the distribution of Tajiks is needed.

We need one map that shows the Tajik ethnic group across the various regions. I provided one but some are saying that it is not allowed because it is from a Christian source.

Image:M109733 rs.gif
The distribution of the Tajik ethnic group across the borders of Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and surrounding areas.

I'd like to ask where in Wiki's rules does it say we cannot use images from Christian sources? And if we cannot use this map, then we need to find another one. I tried to find one but couldnt. So if we cannot use that one, then we should make one. Lets try to do this, I think its very important.

[edit] Dīhgān

Dīhgān (or Dihqan دیهگان، دهقان) is drived from Dīha (deh) and means village settler, not urban (its original meaning is head of village). Jahangard 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your direct translation is correct. However, the wider meaning of the word is "urban". It is mainly used by the semi-nomadic peoples of South-Afghanistan. Dīhgān (literarly village settler) - in contrast to nomanic - means urban or not nomadic. The same translation is given the Encyclopaedia of Islam Tājik 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
So, what's wrong with roughly "village settler" in contrast to "nomadic" or "tribal"? It shows both the translation and the common usage. Jahangard 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Because the direct translation "village settler" does not reflect the actual meaning of the term. Not the term village is important, but the fact that the Tajiks are urbanized, meaning that they are not nomads and that they do not consist of different tribes.
Tājik 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Avicenna and Beruniy

How is it that Avicenna (Ibn Sino) and Beruniy are listed as Tajiks, they were certanly Uzbeks. Some historians think Avicenna has some genes of Tajik, but he is more Uzbek than Tajik, since his parents were Uzbeks, he was born and grew up in area of Uzbekistan. Beruniy however was 100% Uzbek. I do not have references to this, but this is what they teach in school, in Samarkand (yes I'm Tajik), and it is known in almost whole Central Asia (I guess, Tajikistan excluded). So you guys need to do your research and know your roots, also just because people did great things they don't have to be Tajik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogg187 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 October 2006.

Ofcoarse that is what they teach you in school, I am not surprised. The current regime in Uzbekistan is an anti-Tajik Uzbek supremest regime. You are from Samarqand, dont you know about the Andijan massacre. The current regime in Uzbekistan wants to wipe out Tajiks from Samarqand and Bukhara and is currently brainwashing them with Uzbek nationalism. The fact is the rest of the world considers him a Persian. And in today's world those Persians and Persian-speakers living east of Iran are know as Tajiks. Parsiwan 21:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, I know all about Uzbekistan's regime and Andijan Massacre, but it is not anti-Tajik, in fact Karimov himself is a Tajik. Also I know well about what they brain-wash young students today, however the fact that Beruniy and Ibn Sino are Uzbeks are certainly not brainwashing. You are right they are considered Persian in many places, but remember that at that time there really was no nationalities called Uzbek or Tajik. Since the Soviet Era many documents of history were destroyed, and only those of that written by Western historians(which in many cases are misunderstood, example: many of them think Amir Temur was mongol) or just told from generations to generations are saved. Therefore many claim heroic persons, such as these, to be their own nationalities, but Ibn Sino, and Beruniy, especially Beruniy, are Uzbek. In their times, those areas were mixed of ethnics, I'm sure you know about it very well, so noble people as these knew many languages. Based on what they speak, a person should not tell someone nationality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogg187 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 October 2006.
Abu Ali Hussein ibn Sina was evidently of Persian stock, wrote some of his works in his Persian mother-tongue, claimed to be Persian, and lived in a time when the Turkic masses had not yet reached his homeland. When the first Turkic dynasty, the Ghaznavid dynasty was created in Khorasan, Ibn Sina - partly a Persian nationalist - left his homeland and moved to to the Buyyid kingdom who were ethnic Persians. There, he spent the rest of his life.
And what's most important: the very first Uzbeks arrived in that area roughly 500 years AFTER Ibn Sina with the Sheybanid armies. Before that, there were no Uzbeks at in that region.
As for al-Biruni: he was neither Persian nor Uzbek, but Khwarizmian. He has written many of his books in his native Khwarizmian tongue.
And since "Tajik" is an overall general term for "Iranian", both of them are correctly stated as "Tajiks". They had absolutely nothing to do with Uzbeks.
Tājik 22:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if you read what I wrote carefully, you would know that I'm aware there were no Uzbeks or Tajiks nationalites at that time. Remember that parts of today's Uzbekistan was Persia, thats why Ibn Sino called himself Persian, as Turks were distinct at the time. As for Beruniy he was Harezmi, and Harezm is part of Uzbekistan, essentially Harezmis are Uzbeks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogg187 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 October 2006.
What you say makes no sense. 30 years ago, the entire region was part of the Soviet Union. So according to your logic, that made Avicenna, Biruni, and Timur Soviets, right?! Or maybe even Russians, correct?!
Uzbekistan's national poet (although not an ethnic Uzbek himself), Mir Ali Shir Nava'i, was born and lived in what is now Afghanistan. Does that mean that Nava'i was not an ethnic Uyghur but an Afghan, meaning a Pashtun?!
Modern nation-states do not define the ethnic origin of historical people. Avicenna, al-Biruni, and others at that time were ethnic Iranians and took much pride in the new arrived and revived Persian language which they connected with the Iranian kings of the past, thus the name Dari. Although Biruni was not an ethnic Persian but a Khwarizmian (which you wrongly pronounce as "Horezm"), he took much pride in the Persian language, the laanguage of the pre-Islamic kings of Iran.
Both, Khwarizmians and Sogdians (Avicenna's possible ethnic origin), are among the most recent ancestors of the Tajiks. In fact, 1000 years ago, all Iranian peoples in Central Asia were known as Tajik and were identified and unified by the literary Persian language of the ruling houses and courts. That's why both of them are correctly described as ethnic Tajiks. Any other description would be wrong.
Tājik 22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you are mixing up Tajikistani and Tajik. Tajik is an ethnolinguistic group, not a nationality. Tajikistani is a nationality. For instance there are Uzbek and Kyrgyz Tajikistanis, then there are are Tajik Tajikistanis. Same thing with Uzbek. Uzbek is an ethnicty, not a nationality. Uzbekistani is a nationality. The word Tajik is a term that refers to all either Persians or native Persian-speakers east of modern day Iran. Back then Avicenna would have been only a Persian, since Tajik did not exist as you said. However, today we can call him both Persian and Tajik by the definition of Tajik.Parsiwan 23:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Well first of all, what I'm trying to say is that they are not Tajik, not necessarily that he was Uzbek. Also "Soviet" is not a nationality, I'm not trying to misinform anyone of anything here. No, they aren't Russians either just because the region which they lived in was taken and ruled by Russians. What I'm trying to say is, there were many different nationalities, and as times go by, they change. Those people were in fact Persian, but like I said remember regions of today's Uzbekistan were Persia, they also had close relations (economic, cultural, and other) with today's Iran and Afghanistan, and other regions. Like you, and I said there were no such nationalities as today, Ibn Sino was Persian. So before all people in this area were generally the same, much later as Uzbek nationality emerged in the area, the people changed, but those of Tajik stayed the same to their roots. What I'm saying is, according to the region Ibn Sino was born, if you "traced he's nationality forward in time" it would be the same of Uzbeks, you got to understand the concept when I say Uzbek is not the same of Shaybanids, but just generally the same culture of people, as they were once Persian, just like Tajiks today.

Also I didn't spell "Horezm" incorrectly, thats how the Horezmis today spell it. Khwarizmian is Western way of spelling it, and it makes no difference in the meaning of the word. As for Ali Shir Nava'i, or the correct way to spell it Alisher Navoi (Alisher is a whole name, unlike other names with "Ali") he was born, in today's Afghanistan, but remember like I said, the relationships between those areas were close, and people would move a lot, for different reasons, whether it was for more education, better life, or anything else.

Your argumentation still does not make any sense. Even IF people change, that does not change the past. What's important is not who lives in that area today, but who lived there in the past.
Besides that, you are giving too much credit to Avicenna's birthplace. As you can read in his biography, his father was a native of Balkh, a city that is now located in Afghanistan. That's where his family was from. That was his real homeland. That'S also the reason why in many sources he is known as Avicenna of Balkh or Abu Ali Sina Balkhi. Being born in a region that became known as "Uzbekistan" 800 years after Avicenna's death does not make him an "Uzbek".
As for Khwarizm: you did spell and pronounce it wrong. It's still "Khwārizm" - that's the original and only correct pronounciation of the term, no matter what certain people call it.
As for Navā'i: his real name was Nizām ud-Dīn Ali Sher bin Ghiāth ud-Dīn Herawī. Navā'ī was one of his pen-names. It's a Persian word and means "the weeper" - nawā in Persian means tears. His second pen-name was Fānī. He used this one when he wrote his poems in Persian.
Tājik 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You still don't understand what I'm saying, neither of those people are Tajik or Uzbek, as these nationalities didn't exist then. Just because they were Persians doesn't mean they were Tajiks. Yes, I know Tajiks are traced back to Persians, but so are Iranians, so are Afghans, even Uzbeks are traced back to Persians, they were just forced to take up different cultures, "Uzbek" is just a current name of people that live in the same regions as Avicenna and others, and unlike Russians who moved here, they are "natives" even though their customs were slightly altered by whoever took over the regions. As for how you spell Navoi's name you can't argue about it, since their language was written in Arabic. You are talking about the how it is spelled "universally" and it doesn't really matter how you spell it, as people back then who were they talking about by their many different names and spellings, you know who you are talking about anyways. You also need to look up who Horezmiis were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogg187 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 October 2006.

I don't know what this Uzbek is trying to say. "Uzbek" is not just a current name it is a name adopted from mongols. That is a whole different story. For normal Tajiks to be named a mongol is unacceptable because so many of their forefathers has been slashed by mongols. Avicenna and Beruni were Tajiks there is no doubt about it. Becauase international community is not full like you that just from the air to name somebody Uzbek. Let me tell they are not Persions either why first of all because they were born in Khurasan and not in Persia and second because non of them called themselve Persian. They called themsleve Bacrian and Khorezmian which later became Tajiks. Absolutely nothing connects them not only to Uzbeks but also to Mongols or Turks in a whole. Just bare in mind that people are not fool as you think otherwise you will be seen foolish yourself. arian-tajik

I don't know what this Uzbek is trying to say. "Uzbek" is not just a current name it is a name adopted from mongols. That is a whole different story. For normal Tajiks to be named a mongol is unacceptable because so many of their forefathers has been slashed by mongols. Avicenna and Beruni were Tajiks there is no doubt about it. Becauase international community is not full like you that just from the air to name somebody Uzbek. Let me tell they are not Persions either why first of all because they were born in Khurasan and not in Persia and second because non of them called themselve Persian. They called themsleve Bacrian and Khorezmian which later became Tajiks. Absolutely nothing connects them not only to Uzbeks but also to Mongols or Turks in a whole. Just bare in mind that people are not fool as you think otherwise you will be seen foolish yourself. arian-tajik

Uzbek is the name commonly used to identify settled Turkic-speaking population of Central Asia. Majority of that Turkic-speaking population are descendants of ancient Sogdians just like Tajiks. There was a group of nomads who called themselves Uzbeks who came to Central Asia in 16th century A.D. But they were a mere drop in the sea of settled Turkic and Tajik population of the region. All that's left of them is their name that was adopted by all settled Central Asian Turks and Turkified Iranians. So, Uzbeks of Shaybani Khan and modernd day Uzbeks are two different things. So Abu Ali ibn-Sino and Abu Rayhon Beruniy and Muhammad al-Khorazmiy can be claimed by both Uzbeks and Tajiks. That is why I prefer an identification used by Soviet historians. They never called Beruniy, Khorazmiy, ibn-Sino Uzbek or Tajiks scientists. Instead they used the term: "Central Asian". And I think it is fair. Sure, there is no doubt that Khwarizmians were Iranian people. But Iranian does not mean Persian or Tajik. Kurds are Iranian. So are Pashtuns. Their languages belong to Iranian group. But I doubt any Tajik will be glad to be called a Pashtun or vice versa. I agree that ibn-Sino was most likely what we would call a Tajik. But not al-Khorazmiy or Beruniy. There were never any Tajiks in Khorazm. Khorazm (or Khwarism) is in the western part of todays Uzbekistan and is separated from the rest of the region by a vast desert. Tajiks historically lived in central, southern and western parts of the region such as Samarqand, Bukhara, Ferghana valley together with Uzbeks. Meanwhile none lived in the western part which is Khorazm. Khorazmian population was originally Iranic (as I mentioned above) but were completely Turkified later, and are now called Uzbeks. Even though Khorazm was a part of Persian empire it is wrong to call great scientists of that land "Persian". If you recall it was at one point a part of Arab Caliphate, and Mongol Empire, and Russian Empire. Does it mean that population changed every time the land was conquered??? So why not call Beruniy a Russian or a Mongol. How about calling Saadi a Mongol because he lived when Iran was part of Mongol empire. And if we follow that logic than Firdawsi who was clearly a Persian became a Turk when he ended up at the court of Mahmud Ghaznavi. So the point is, let us not claim those great people of our Central Asia who's ethnicity is unknown. It only creates tension and pointless arguments. I believe those of them who cannot be identified as Tajiks, Uzbeks, Persians should be called Central Asian. Not all Iranic ethnic groups are Persian or Tajik including those who were assimilated by other ethnicities by now. Peace. Musofir.

[edit] Vandalism in the Language paragraph?

I think the following should all be deleted or atleast corrected. Russian is widely used in government and business in Tajikistan as well. Dari, as Afghan Tajiks call their Persian, has long been the language of commerce in Kabul. Though no official census has ever been made in Afghanistan, an estimated 15% people of Afganistan, after pashtoons 60% to 65% of the total population, are Tajiks. The following link provides a very useful insight about some of the unofficial censuses made over the years in Afghanistan:http://www.hewad.com/ethnic.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tajik-afghan (talk • Parsiwan 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dear hamwatanjan-e aziz,

i want to say i like your post but you have some mistakes, specially when you say tajiks took the language of socalled persians. it s wrong and has no value or senses. sogdianic,bactrianic, arianic ect. were all a dialect of ´´old-persian´´ language. bactrian language was not another language than parsi. and persians were not a tribe they were more an alliance. their origine are in zabul,sistan, ancient turan (a region in east balochistan) and from their nothern neighbours. i am going to create a forum where i want to share my informations and knowledge with my persian tajik people. tajik has not a direct including. everyone can be a tajik. persians in iran or turkey who live beside kurds call themself as tajiks,too. i want to give you more information about tajiks and their anscestors. unfort. my english is UNFORT: bad but i thik it is enough to make you clear who really are tajiks and why we get this name in 1933 at the first from awghans. it would be nice if ou would add me to you msn or sth else.

thanks and shabe yaldaa-e khosh baraahetan biyaarat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parsistani (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 December 2006.

[edit] Should this paragraph from the "Demographics" section be removed?

Though Badakhshan, Takhar, Kunduz, Baghlan, Kapisa, Balkh, Jawzjan, Parwan, Kabul, Ghazni, Ghore, Farah and Herat are named as mainly Tajik inhabited areas in Afghanistan but Tajiks are living in almost all parts and provinces of Afghanistan. Upper and central parts of Laghman, Surkhrood in Nangarhar, Gardez in Paktia, Urgoon in Paktika, Toopkhana locality in Kandahar Provinces are of significant Tajik or Persian speaking population. However, in Logar, Wardak and Ghanzni Provinces in Afghanistan, more or less, one to tow-third of their population is comprised of Tajiks. Source: Afghanistan census 1975.

User:beh-nam 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Tajiks

Alright, I've been waiting for a list of Tajik personalities for a long long time. I don't see any so far. If Tajiks are being mixed up with Iranians, then why aren't Tajiks present in that list? If not, then why don't they have an extra list? Why is there this ambiguity?

We'll have to wait until Tajik replies to this and we hear what he has to say about that (he's the most knowledgeable person on this subject). Until then I guess we could start a list just for fun.Behnam 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable Tajiks (from all countries)

[edit] Politics

[edit] Arts and Science

[edit] Some info from an anonymous user

Bu Türk Beğlerinde atı belgülük Tunga Alp Er idi katı belgülük Bedük bilgi birle öküş erdemi Biliglig ukuşlug budun ködremi Tacikler ayur ânı Afrasyab Bu Afrasyap tutdı iller talab

"Taçikler" is the plural of "Taçik", meaning "Persians". The translation of the poem above:

Alp Er Tunga (a legendary, pre-islamic Turkish hero) was the well known hero of Turkish Begs by his hollyness and valor. Tajiks (= Persians) called him Afrasyab and Afrasyab ruled the world.

Although the message of this poem is wrong ("Afrasiyab" was a mythical king of the Avesta and had nothing to do with "Alp Er Tunga" or Turks/Huns/Xiung-Nu), it is still a powerful proof for the theory that the word "Tajik" has indeed Turkish roots and has the same meaning as "Persian".

This poem is the earliest record of the word "Tajik". Ethnic Persians of that time (like Ferdousi or Rudaki) did not use it. It was only used by Turks to refer to Persians/Iranians.


According to Iranian scholars, from SAADI'S era onwards the "Tajik" term have been defined and interpreted as a "Persian" or as a "Persian-speaker" and generally applied to Persian-speaking people of Iranian origin wherever they're.

Farsi-speakers in what is now "Afghanistan", Iran and all the way to Pakistan, Kashmir and India have been identified as "TAJIKS". The term "Tajik" is mainly USED against and as opposed to TURKS and ARABS.

For example, great Tajik/Persian SAADI says:

شاید که به پادشاه بگویند، ترک تو بریخت خون تاجیک.

Perhaps to the King be said, Your TURK shed the blood of a TAJIK

And Abdur Rahman Jaami of HERAT, a great TAJIK/Persian, writing about his Uzbek/Turk student and founder of Uzbek literature and language, Ali Sher Nawaae:

او که یک ترک بود و من تاجیک، هردو داشتیم خویشی نزدیک.

He who was a TURK and I a TAJIK, But we both were closely related

Bu Türk Beğlerinde atı belgülük Tunga Alp Er idi katı belgülük Bedük bilgi birle öküş erdemi Biliglig ukuşlug budun ködremi Tacikler ayur ânı Afrasyab Bu Afrasyap tutdı iller talab

"Taçikler" is the plural of "Taçik", meaning "Persians". The translation of the poem above:

Alp Er Tunga (a legendary, pre-islamic Turkish hero) was the well known hero of Turkish Begs by his hollyness and valor. Tajiks (= Persians) called him Afrasyab and Afrasyab ruled the world.

Although the message of this poem is wrong ("Afrasiyab" was a mythical king of the Avesta and had nothing to do with "Alp Er Tunga" or Turks/Huns/Xiung-Nu), it is still a powerful proof for the theory that the word "Tajik" has indeed Turkish roots and has the same meaning as "Persian".

This poem is the earliest record of the word "Tajik". Ethnic Persians of that time (like Ferdousi or Rudaki) did not use it. It was only used by Turks to refer to Persians/Iranians.


According to Iranian scholars, from SAADI'S era onwards the "Tajik" term have been defined and interpreted as a "Persian" or as a "Persian-speaker" and generally applied to Persian-speaking people of Iranian origin wherever they're.

Farsi-speakers in what is now "Afghanistan", Iran and all the way to Pakistan, Kashmir and India have been identified as "TAJIKS". The term "Tajik" is mainly USED against and as opposed to TURKS and ARABS.

For example, great Tajik/Persian SAADI says:

شاید که به پادشاه بگویند، ترک تو بریخت خون تاجیک.

Perhaps to the King be said, Your TURK shed the blood of a TAJIK

And Abdur Rahman Jaami of HERAT, a great TAJIK/Persian, writing about his Uzbek/Turk student and founder of Uzbek literature and language, Ali Sher Nawaae:

او که یک ترک بود و من تاجیک، هردو داشتیم خویشی نزدیک.

He who was a TURK and I a TAJIK, But we both were closely related

[edit] origins of the word Tajik

Bu Türk Beğlerinde atı belgülük Tunga Alp Er idi katı belgülük Bedük bilgi birle öküş erdemi Biliglig ukuşlug budun ködremi Tacikler ayur ânı Afrasyab Bu Afrasyap tutdı iller talab

"Taçikler" is the plural of "Taçik", meaning "Persians". The translation of the poem above:

Alp Er Tunga (a legendary, pre-islamic Turkish hero) was the well known hero of Turkish Begs by his hollyness and valor. Tajiks (= Persians) called him Afrasyab and Afrasyab ruled the world.

Although the message of this poem is wrong ("Afrasiyab" was a mythical king of the Avesta and had nothing to do with "Alp Er Tunga" or Turks/Huns/Xiung-Nu), it is still a powerful proof for the theory that the word "Tajik" has indeed Turkish roots and has the same meaning as "Persian".

This poem is the earliest record of the word "Tajik". Ethnic Persians of that time (like Ferdousi or Rudaki) did not use it. It was only used by Turks to refer to Persians/Iranians.


According to Iranian scholars, from SAADI'S era onwards the "Tajik" term have been defined and interpreted as a "Persian" or as a "Persian-speaker" and generally applied to Persian-speaking people of Iranian origin wherever they're.

Farsi-speakers in what is now "Afghanistan", Iran and all the way to Pakistan, Kashmir and India have been identified as "TAJIKS". The term "Tajik" is mainly USED against and as opposed to TURKS and ARABS.

For example, great Tajik/Persian SAADI says:

شاید که به پادشاه بگویند، ترک تو بریخت خون تاجیک.

Perhaps to the King be said, Your TURK shed the blood of a TAJIK

And Abdur Rahman Jaami of HERAT, a great TAJIK/Persian, writing about his Uzbek/Turk student and founder of Uzbek literature and language, Ali Sher Nawaae:

او که یک ترک بود و من تاجیک، هردو داشتیم خویشی نزدیک.

He who was a TURK and I a TAJIK, But we both were closely related

  • so-called Persian language is not related to the Persian Tribe who established the Persian Empire by the aid of some other tribes,

particularly Medians,eventually demolished by Alexander the Great. And also the Geographical origion of this language is not the residence area of Persians, situated in the South of "Iran" and locally named "FARS". The geographical origion of this language is the "Central Asia". That is why all pioneer poets of this language are from this area, mainly situated in Afghanistan, Uzbakistan and Tajikistan. The original speakers of this language,that speak it more perfectly than "Iranians", are called TAJIK. Therefore, "Persian" or "Farsi" is a wrong name for this language.

[edit] I need a favour!

Guys I need a favour, it has nothing to do with wiki but I would appreciate your help if you could help. I have seen a music video called Chor Jawon by Nato on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc9WJhmMpD4) The singer is Russian and I do not understand her accent; can you possibly write the lyrics in Farsi or English please? Many thanks. Kiumars

[edit] Persian & Tajik Personalities

I wanted to just point out a point, since some users have prepared a list of Tajik personalities.

  • First it is difficult to differentiate between Tajiks and Persians before the 15th century. Since all Persians were known as Tajiks, and all Tajiks were known as Persians (Farsi or Parsi)
  • The term "Tajik" was reserved after the 17th century in the regions of modern Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (more generally in the East of Greater Iran) while in the western regions (modern Iran), people continuously used the word Persians
  • We cannot judge the old Poets, Scholars, Scientists & Philosophers who were from Persian origin, whether they were Tajik or Persian. If you call Al-Khwarizmi, Biruni, Rumi, Avicenna and others as Tajiks, so why not to include Al-Ghazali, Omar Khayyam, Ferdousi and others ? It seems to me that you are relying on the fact that Khwarizm and Balkh were/are today located in the regions where Persians are called as Tajiks, but it looks a very weak logic.Ariana310 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Farsiwan

User:Tajik would you please provide a non-western reference/source for the usage of the term "Farsiwan"? Because in the article, you have mentioned it is used for Shia Tajiks, and it indicates that Shia Tajiks are always called as Farsiwans, and that the usage of the term Farsiwan is very popular.

There are some western sources which have reported this point, but it does not seem authentic. The usage of the term Farsiwan is not common. In fact it has a Pashto root (-wan), and it is used mostly by Pashtuns for Tajiks in Herat. Even in Kabul, NOONE USES FARSIWAN FOR SHIA TJIKS, but "Qizilbash". So it is only limited to Shia Tajiks in Herat, and its usage is only common among Pashtuns in Herat.

So please do not generalize the term Farsiwan in the article.Ariana310 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Farsiwan is friven from the word Parsiban which measn persian origin/ or persian speaking. Pashtun nationalists created this word to devide shia and sunni people although shia TAJIKS belong to the sunni TAJIKS.

Farsiwan is/ has been Fars(i)-Zaban who has a Farsi tongue, better said who speaks Persian. Babakexorramdin 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF? Pashtuns get featured article status???

No way! Come on, let's show them!!! IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE NOW!--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Latif Pedram on the Tajiks front page?

I believe tht Latif Pedram should not be in the Tajik's front page. I can name scores of more popular Tajik notables, from historical figures to cultural icons that woukld suitably fit this page rather than Latif Pedram, who won a mere 1.4% of the vote during the 2004 presidential elections. Scythian1 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

His picture is placed in the Recent Developements' section and it is relevant to that section. --Behnam 01:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not relevant. In fact, there is absolutely no substantial development/current events which pertain to Pedram or what he advocates in the recent months or even in the recent years. Moreover, the fact that he only received 1.4% of the vote during the 2004 (EMPHASIS ON 2004 - this is 3 years ago thus, NOT recent) Afghan presidential elections, vitaties any reason why he would even be in the "recent developments" section. Even assuming he has partaken in some kind of political activity, it would palpably be seen as sporadiac and isolated since there is virtually nothing in the news about this individual. Accordingly, his picture should therefore be removed promptly to ensure this section is free from unneutral points of views. Scythian1 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That section mentions Tajik nationalism as a recent development. And Latif Pedram has some Tajik nationalist ideaologies for instance the name change to Khorasan etc). So his picture is very relevant to that section. There is nothing un-neutral about it. --Behnam 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent development and "relevant" sentiment are two distinct and seperate notions. Just because someone espouses nationalist views, doesn't mean one should construe that to mean it as a "recent development." As earlier noted, there is absolutely nothing in the recent news about Pedram to justify his picture in this section or even in this page. If anything, the picture of Emomali Rahmon (which was strangely taken down on this page) is far more appropriate since he RECENTLY (emphasis on RECENT) dropped the "ov" in his last name and assumingly persuaded others to do the same. Therefore, as earlier noted, Pedram's picture should be removed. Scythian1 22:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that almost all of the pictures in the article are from the Tajiks of Afghanistan and non from those of Tajikistan. So having the picture of Imamali Rahman(ov) in this page, I think, would be necessary. And moreover, there is nothing so important whether to keep Pedram's picture. As Scythian said, there are many other Tajiks who deserve to have their pictures in the article. -Ariana310 08:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedram's "activitism" is anything but "active" to warrant his picture in the "recent development" section. If Pedram does initiate substantial and continuous political activity, it may then and only then, but proper to restore his picture. Accordingly, as per majority consensus, Pedram's picture has rightfully been replaced with Rahmon's who has taken bold steps to order others to remove the "ov" from their last names - which can easily been seen as a real gutsy move since it raised a lot of eyebrows in Russia where Tajikistan has an economic interest in. Scythian1 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Pedram is an active political activist at the moment. Excluding the Mujahideen leaders, Pedram is the most active among the contemporary Political Parties of Afghanistan. Since, the "recent development" section had nothing to do with it, we can avoid Pedram's picture. In the future, when the article will improve, we can put his picture under "Tajik Nationalism Movements". -Ariana310 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedram is not active under commonly known political standards - Unless you can cite credible unbias sources/articles which indicate that his "activity" is continuous, recent, and substantial. Oh, speaking of improving the article, this section certainly needs more flavor. I recommend perhaps making a culture section where one can discuss food, clothing and other cultural mannerisms. Scythian1 01:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Hammasa_np6.jpg

As this image is being used on this article, editors may want to contest or replace it before it's deleted. → AA (talk) — 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tombseye is the troll OSLONOR

TAKE CARE GUYS. TOMBSEYE IS THE PASHTUN OSLONOR!!! HE OFTEN USE TERMS LIKE IRANO-AFGHAN RACE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST CAUSE AFGHANS ARE TO % TURKIC AND HE HAVE EVEN AN AFGHAN FORUM Afghan Forum

[edit] Famous Tajiks

Every one of the eight featured famous Tajiks is a male. It would be nice having at least one third females in for a better balance. Wasn't a recent Miss England a Tajik? JdeJ 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tajiks of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan

absolutely BS stinky Pashtun. Tajiks of tajikistan are related to Turks just by 3%. Did you ever analized a dna-record?? To 97% they are indo-europeans. They also have not an persian culture because in the ancient the people of modern tajikistan spoke the same language..just their langauge differed accentually from the western iranian language. The had also the same culture and identity. Like dariuosh codmannus said, bactrians, sogdians, persians ect. are all one greater tribe just cut by geography. The indians and israelis scholars make differences between tajiks. while teh tajiks of tajikistan are count to indo-aryans the tajiks of afghanistan (or khorasani tajiks) are know as iranians.

Ps: Mongols gen-marker are not found till yet in central Asia because they never gave theri y-chromosome to other or left children there when mongols moved back to their originally homeland. --88.68.213.164 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1.7 million Tajiks in Iran?

This is obvious error, Tajiks in Pakistan are approx. 100,000 to 200,000 maxium. There are 2.1 million registered Afghan refugees in Pakistan#Demographics of whom about 80% are ethnic Pashtuns and the 15% are mixed of Tajiks, Baloch, Aimaqs, Uzbeks, Nuristanis, Pashais. Also, there are no 1.7 million Tajiks in Iran, the maximum number of refugees there are about 920,000 [3], which includes all ethnic groups of Afghanistan not just Tajiks.--ZmaGhurnStaKona 07:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tajiki" is a Persian language

"Tajiki" is a Persian language. It is written in Cyrillic, Roman or Persian characters, depending upon the author. It is a distinct language from Western Farsi, as spoken in Teheran, although it is a related language, both being in the Persian language subgroup. See the article Persian language and the Ethnologue site. --Bejnar (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tajiki is a Dialect not a language.--Anoshirawan 05:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

"Tajiki" is a dialect of Persian, but Shughni and Wakhi (the languages of Chinese Tajiks) are not. Both are East-Iranian language, and have affinities to Pashto. The overwhelming majority of Tajiks speak Persian.
Linguists generally consider the differences between Tajiki, Eastern Farsi and Western Farsi to be sufficient to be different languages, each with its own set of dialects, see Clifton, John M. (ed.) (2005) Studies in languages of Tajikistan North Eurasia Group, SIL International, St Petersburg, Russia, OCLC 122939499. But the classification as dialect or language is not important, what is important is that there are substantial differences between them, and that each one itself has notable and documented variations within it. See, for example, Payvand forum for Persian, Dari and Tajiki speakers. --Bejnar (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"Tajik is a South-West Iranian language that is genetically closely related to such major languages as Persian and Dari. Most Tajik speakers are in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; within Uzbekistan, Samarqand and Bukhara are particularly densely populated by Tajik speakers. In the beginning of the twentieth century, Tajik was considered by a number of writers and researchers to be a variety of Persian. The language that this book describes is the modern Tajik language which is referred to in the Soviet linguistic literature typically as zaboni khozirai tojik. The morphological segmentability of Tajik words is markedly high compared to words in the Indo-Iranian predecessors of Tajik, which makes Tajik morphologically more agglutinative than inflectional. Outstanding features of Tajik include the modal opposition between the indicative mood and the mood of indirect evidence, i.e. the inferential mood, that pervades the verbal system, and the utilization of both post-nominal and pre-nominal relative clauses." from "LINGUIST List 16.604: Language Description: Tajik" quoted by --Bejnar (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that there are approx 3,345,000 Tajaki speakers in Tajikistan and about 50,000 Western Farsi speakers, out of some 7 million people. There are very few Eastern Farsi (Dari (Afghanistan)) speakers, see Clifton above. That sounds like a slim majority, if any, to me. The next largest group is native Russian speakers at 237,000. If Shughni (an Iranian language admittedly not in the Persian language group) speakers in Tajikistan are included as Tajiks that gives an additional 40,000. --Bejnar (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way: the accuracy of Ethnologue is strongly disputed. It's better not to use their site as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.44 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It is true that on some points the accuracy of Ethnologue is disputed. However, overall it is generally considered a good source. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recognizes SIL International, Ethnologue's parent organization, as the proper implementer of the three letter ISO 639-3 standards. "ISO 639-3 is a code that aims to define three-letter identifiers for all known human languages. At the core of ISO 639-3 are the individual languages already accounted for in ISO 639-2. The large number of living languages in the initial inventory of ISO 639-3 beyond those already included in ISO 639-2 was derived primarily from Ethnologue (15th edition)." "ISO 639-3 Registration Authority - SIL International". If you dispute a particular point from Ethnologue, please provide citation to a scholarly (not popular press) source. --Bejnar (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian speaker!?

Who keeps referring to Tajiks as Iranian speakers? That makes no sense. Stop that please. There are lots of Iranian languages like Pashto, being a Pashto-speaker does not make someone Tajik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabul-Shahan2020 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy of current colloquial name when item linked

Anoshirawan insists, edits of 29 Dec. 2007 etc., on adding "and Afghanistan" to the sentence: "The Tajiks trace their more immediate ancestry to the East Iranian-speaking Bactrians, Sogdians, and Parthians, which means that the historical ancestors of the Tajiks did not speak Persian - the south-western Iranian language, today known as 'Farsi' in Iran and Afghanistan." The name of the language in Afghanistan is officially "Dari", although it is true that it is often called "Farsi" as well, but such local usage is irrelevant to this article and to this sentence. In truth, the fact that today the language that they did not speak is called "Farsi" is irrelevant. I suggest that the sentence be edited to read: "The Tajiks trace their more immediate ancestry to the East Iranian-speaking Bactrians, Sogdians, and Parthians, which means that the historical ancestors of the Tajiks did not speak a southwestern Iranian language, such as Persian. What do you think? --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only people who use the term "Dari" in Afghanistan are Pashtuns.--Anoshirawan 20:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

What relevance does that usage, even if true, have to the compromise suggested above that avoids the issue? Which issue is not relevant to what language the Tajiks originally spoke. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tājik" is the correct way

Please don't write "Tājīk", that is incorrect. Encyclopedia Iranica writes it as "Tājik" and that is the correct pronunciation. Dupree3 (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Farsizaban?

Another term used is Farsizaban. Should that be mentioned also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BEIJINGBOY2 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Terms not used in English may be more confusing than useful, especially as some authors do not distinguish between Farsiwan and Tajiks, despite the warning in the Encyc. Iranica. --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

EofI is written by more scholars than EI. EofI says:

“ Tadjik is the general name of the Persian-speaking population of

Afghanistan, often also called Parsiwans, or, in the East and South, Dihgans and Dihwars.

 ”

and

“ The self-designation of

Persian-speakers in AfÿŠ§nist§n had been for a long time most commonly F§rsÊw§n, F§rsÊb§n, or F§rsÊ-gå(y).

 ”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RealAfghan112 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Islam writes in the article about Afghanistan (section "ethnography"):
2) Tajik is the general name of the Persian-speaking population of Afghanistan, often also called Parsiwans, or, in the East and South, Dihgans and Dihwars. They are villagers, and also the inhabitants of most towns speak Persian. The Tajiks have no tribal organization, except in some remote regions. In the villages they are peaceful tenants. In Harat and Sistan they are a direct continuation of the Persians of Persia, while in Northern Afghanistan (from Maymana to Badakhshan) they are in contact with the Tajiks of the Soviet Union. In South-eastern Afghanistan they occupy some of the most fertile agricultural districts around Ghazna and in the Kabul region.
Obviously, the Encyclopaedia of Islam does not make the distinctions that ethnographers make. This is not surprising since it is not an ethnographic encyclopedia. Some groups, such as the Pamiri people take offense at being called Tajik. Others are often included within a Persian-speaking classification that don't even speak a southwestern Iranian language, such as the Wakhi people. --Bejnar (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics of Afghanistan

The section "Location - Afghanistan" does not seem to be based upon the data provided at Demographics of Afghanistan nor individual city and province data in the individual articles about Afghanistan. For example, the city of Ghazni is listed as about 50% Tajik, but the province is mostly Pashtun and Hazara. So this section could stand a detailed rewrite. --Bejnar (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For example Surkh Rod District of Nangarhar province is 5% Tajik, 88% Pashtun, and 7% Other according to UNCHR Profile. So I have removed it from the section as not having a significant minority. --Bejnar (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
"Toopkhana locality in Kandahar Province" is unidentifed. Apparently, unconfirmed, there is a Toopkhana in Badakhshan Province. Anyone have a citation for "Toopkhana locality in Kandahar Province"? --Bejnar (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Wardak Province is another example where the figures don't jibe. Almost all ethnicity figures show that Pashtuns and Hazaras together make up 90% of the population with 10% other. This does not leave room for much of a "significant Tajik minority". Interestingly, Afghan Magazine (not necessarily a reliable source) mentions "Pashtu-speaking Tajiks in Wardak" in an article entitled "Afghan History: kite flying, kite running and kite banning" by Mir Hekmatullah Sadat. --Bejnar (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Then go fix it instead of putting a tag there and reducing the quality of the article. Follow the rules. Rule #1 is to improve the quality of articles... not to have personal feuds with other users just so you can feel good about yourself over the internet. Don't waste our time if you don't want to improve the quality of articles.

[edit] Changes to the introduction

Changed the introduction to be more in line with the rest of the article:

Tājik' (Persian: تاجيک; UniPers: Tâjik; Tajik: Тоҷик) is a term generally applied to Persian language speakers of primarily East Iranic (mixed Sogdian, Khorezmian, Bactrian, Tokharian and Parthian[1]) origin living in Central Asia. The traditional Tajik homelands are in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and southern Uzbekistan.

The area 'northeast of Iran' has a name; it is Central Asia. Mondo Libero (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Parthian is not east Iranic. Your source are slightly outdated and their authors are not well known. I quote Professor Richard Frye here:"the Persian migration to Central Asia may be considered the beginning of the "modern" Tajik nation, and ethnic Persians along with East-Iranian Bactrians and Sogdians, as the main ancestors of "modern" Tajiks"" from the current article. For example here is another source:"After the conquest of Central Asia by Muslims, not only Arabs but also increasing number of Persians and Sogdians professed the new religion, and all these came to compromise the ethnonym "Tajik". Eventually the Persian speaking converts outnumbered the Arabs, and the ethnonym which had once been the name of Arab tribes ended up being reserved for Persian-speaking Muslims of central Asia and their language."(Svatopluk Soucek, A History of inner Asia, Cambridge University Press, 2000. pg 32). I have to remind again that Persian of Achaemenid times is different than Persian of Sassanid times. Persian expanded in Sassanid times because of large number of Persians in Afghanistan/Central Asia who mixed in with Sogdians and Chorasmians. So I think it is better to have updated sources. It seems that the sources overall say that Tajik ethnogenesis is based upon old (Sogdians, Persians, Bactrians, Parthians, Sakas, Chorasmians) and Persian basically became the ethnic language and was actually refined by Sogdian/Parthian/Bactrian from Khorasan. So I think these details are best kept in the history section. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] @ Bejnar

"Persian" and "Tajik" are synonyms. And this article is about the Persians of Central Asia. And these Persians doe not speak "a form of Persian", they speak simply the Persian language which has various dialects, like all languages.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam writes in regard of the Timurid dynasty:

"... During the Timurid period, three languages, Persian, Turkish, and Arabic were in use. The major language of the period was Persian, the native language of the Tajik (Persian) component of society and the language of learning acquired by all literate and/or urban Turks. Persian served as the language of administration, history, belles lettres, and poetry. ..."

- B.F. Manz/W.M. Thackston/D.J. Roxburgh/L. Golombek/L. Komaroff/R.E. Darley-Doran; "Timurids", in Encyclopaedia of Islam; Brill; Online Edition (2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.128.231 (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russia, Qatar, and Germany population

These numbers make sense but can anyone provide a source for them?

[edit] Language and Religion sections should be under Culture

A new section was created for Culture and Language and Religion were changed to subsections under Culture. But as usual the vandal user: Kingturtle reverts constructive edits and reduces the quality of the encyclopedia and thereby breaks the most important rules of Wikipedia. Someone should re-create the Culture section and place Language and Religion as subsections. This is done in all ethnic group articles such as English people.

[edit] user: Bejnar misquoted the source on Pamiris

Bejnar's source, titled THE FORMATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF PAMIRI ETHNIC IDENTITY IN TAJIKISTAN, is obviously (from the title) about Pamiris and Tajiks in Tajikistan not Afghanistan. In Tajikistan, just as the source says, Tajiks and Pamiris are considered and counted as seperate groups. In Afghanistan they consider themselves Tajiks and are considered and counted as Tajiks.

Yes, the report is primarily about the Pamiris in Tajikistan. It indicates that these people exist on both sides of the political border (Tajikistan/Afghanistan), and that their sense of "nationalism" is not boundary specific. --Bejnar (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah ofcoarse they exist on both sides. But the article talks about the Pamiris of Tajikistan not Afghanistan. Stop falsifying information.

[edit] Tajiks dropping ethnicity

On 11 March 2008 Anoshirawan added to the Afghanistan section the sentence "Unlike other groups in Afghanistan, the Tajiks do not organize themselves by tribes and refer to themselves by they region, province, city, town, or village they are from; such as Badakhshani, Samangani, Mazari, Panjsheri, Kabuli, Herati, etc." While I believe this to be true in the urban population, it is not supported at all in the reference given which was http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-39.html. While rural individuals may refer to their place of origin, they are also more likely to refer to their tribe or ethnicity, such as Pamiri. What the cited article actually said on this point was "Afghan Tajik live mainly in the Panjsher Valley north of Kabul and in the northern and northeastern provinces of Parwan, Takhar, Badakhshan, and also Baghlan and Samangan. Tajik also extend into the central mountains. There is a tendency of some non-Tajik groups to classify any Dari speaker as a member of this group. Some also tend to categorize any urban resident who has become detribalized as Tajik. This is particularly true in Kabul." --Bejnar (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you don't believe it to be true. It is sourced and since we are from Afghanistan we can confirm that the source is correct on this matter.

Urbanized non-Tajiks are not Tajiks and most Pashtuns who have detribalized still refer themselves as Pashtun or they simply use their tribal identity(ex. muhammadzai,noorzai,sadozai..etc).--Anoshirawan 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


What's funny is this Bejnar removed one sentence sourced by LOC because he didn't believe it and now he is sourcing another sentence with LOC because it agrees with his POVs. This guy is ridicilous. Everyone knows that Tajiks identify themselves by region and it is unheard of for a Pashtun to call themselves Tajik no matter how Tajikized (Persianized) back. He is taking full advantage of the fact that the article is protected from knowledgeable users and is pushing his POVs here also as well as on other articles (eg. claiming Dari (Persian) should be called Eastern Farsi in English when Farsi isn't even an English word, the English word for Farsi is Persian). This Bejnar is either pushing for POVs or is lacking a lot of knowledge in these areas.
I was simply repeating what the source, that Anoshirawan cited, said, which was not what Anoshirawan wrote. I agree that it doesn't matter what I believe, that was my point above. I said that I believed what Anoshirawan wrote was true, at least in urban areas. My point was that his/her source did not support it. --Bejnar (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read the source? It clearly says that Tajiks identify themselves by region. Read it again, and tell us, why you are acting like a vandal and removing the following:

Unlike other groups in Afghanistan, the Tajiks do not organize themselves by tribes and refer to themselves by they region, province, city, town, or village they are from; such as Badakhshani, Baghlani, Mazari, Panjsheri, Kabuli, Herati, etc.[2]

Sentence restored without "Unlike other groups". --Bejnar (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, stop lying and stop vandalizing. You did not restore the sentence. You changed it. It should be "region, province, city, town, or village" and it should be "Badakhshani, Baghlani, Mazari, Panjeshri, Kabuli Herati" Again you are showing how much knowledge you lack here, for instance Badakhshani is more correct than Badakhshi. The "i" suffix means "from" and you don't even know that. Restore the sentence the way it was before or you will be reported for vandalism.

[edit] (Afghanistani) Badakhshan is a Tajik province

Even if you do not include the Pamiri-speakers, Badakhshan is still by far predominately Tajiks since Pamiri-speakers live in remote areas and their numbers are low. So there is no need to mention that Badakhshan is a Tajik majority province. The read can find this out by seeing the Badakhshan Province article.

[edit] Tajik and Dari

So, from what I understand here, most Persian speakers if in Afghanistan are ethnically Tajik. How similar is their language to the "Tajik language" spoken in Tajikistan? We really should address this point in the relevant articles. Lexington1 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the same language as Dari/Tajik in Iran, only another dialect/accent, same as in english, german, italian...these two terms are developed by those who wanted to cut the identity and history of Tajiks, to make Tajiks weak by deviding them lingustically. Tajiks are Persians (of central Asia) as Iranians are Persians and Tajiks of modern Afghanistan.--88.68.204.165 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tajiks in Afghanistan are refugees

I see someone is against this statement: "Tajiks have migrated from former Russian Turkestan.

This is a fact that we are refugees living in Afghanistan. When Russians invaded our land (now Tajikistan) our forefathers escaped from there and settled in Afghanistan because it was very peaceful at the time. Afghanistan is not our native land. However, this does not mean that there were no tajiks found in Afghanistan before this period, as there were some tajiks living in Kabul and other major cities but majority of today's tajiks are originally from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan areas of former Russia. In other words, most of us tajiks have been living in Afghanistan as refugees for about 100 years. I kiss the hands of Pashtun rulers of Afghanistan (especially Abdur Rahman Khan) for giving us shelter and asylum in their country.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharkusstajik (talk • contribs) 09:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


You mean your turkic, mongolic, jewish, arabic, dravidic and Paki forefathers were refugees and immigrants in modern Awghanestan, right? Tajiks have a history in Afghanistan that goes back to ca. 4000 years..but what´s about your nomadic, homosexual, donkey-riding, sodomy practizing, animalic, savage, black, hairy, midget, cultureless, uncivilizised, historyless Sulaimani apes? You are immigrants even in Kandahar. We will either kill you and ride on your moms or we will sell them to Arabs, your Brother-In-Laws. Pagh o Dagh o dog. If we are immigrants, than try to throw us out..if you are men enough, little PigToons--88.68.206.166 (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

All tajiks in Afghanistan are aware that they are not natives of that country. Which tajik ever made a claim to being native of Afghanistan? Can you name someone? Do not explain about iranians because they are propaganda machines, like iranian president and leaders claiming that Hollocaust never took place. Pashtuns are natives or indiginous people of Afghanistan and we are their servants, we adopted their culture, we are Pashtunized tajiks and learn to accept facts. every tajik in Afghanistan wants to be Pashtun, all our tajik women are marrying Pashtun men, who already have one Pashtun wife. many of our tajik brothers are turning to homosexual activities because they can't find tajik wife. See Gay Iranian wins deportation battle and Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization or Iranian Queer Organization Pakistanis, Arabs, Americans, and Cambodians are cool people. Pashtuns are great people they are considered kings in USA, India, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, etc. Which tajik do we know is popular figure? ahmad shah massoud? burnadin rabbani? yunis kuni?--Kharkusstajik (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


lol loser boy, little dog, your fathers were nomads and you are still up to 95% nomads, uncivilizsed dogs and apes...cultureless Pashtuns that still practitze the same shit what their forefathers brought them from Mongolia, Turkey and Altai-mountains. You are foreigners even in Kandahar. It is the rest of your dogs like yourself who are persianized, who speak Farsi as bilingual language, who know how to eat, how to behave, how to wash, how to sleep..but since you are Awghans/PigToons, you still have the same savage, barbaric, animalic, cultureless, uncivlizised homosexual behave. It is not you who are known for the civlizsations of Afghanistan and for it´s Persian-Khurasan culture and language which even reach north India, all turkic states of central Asia, european Balkan and even south Russia but it is the Tajiks and all other Persians with their superior culture, mentality...while you have nothing to offer, neither art, culture, civilization, architecture, literature, books, food, science...ect, except homosexuality, sodomy, destruction (You have forgotten how your mind-sick father was blowing the Statue of Bamian, the 1700 years old Buddhas??), raping, nomadism, looting, chicken fights, dog fights and and and...and why are you caring what Iranians are or do thinking? Who cares about them? Noone..only you..it is not Iran that is homosexual it is your Awghan nation. You even have transvestites in Peshawar, Karachi, Bihar, Jallalbad and Kunduz...you are pedophiles..you are donkey riders...you are just backward, savage apes of the Sulaimans and condoms of foreighners like the UK, Russia, America, Israel. Pakiland...all these nations were your masters...do not pick other out but look to yourself..what other do or look like noone cares...but what you are doing and what kind of a homosexual and sodomy (sex with animals) practizing society you have that should be your job to cut it´s root. Stupid dog. What do you want to proof? Dirty Awghans are better than Iranians? They have a history, even in Afghanistan and a culture, you haven´t..still..they are superiour than you, you aren´t..their nation is one of the strongest in the world..what is with yours?? You are dying every day and tomorrow we will take revange and kill you in masses as result of Gneocids against Awghan dogs..look Iran and look to your backward country..Look how Iran produces the smartest heads on earth while your Awghan nation still live in the 12 century...as nomads...idiot. Pashtuns and homosexuality, sodomy, transvesti ect. ...these aspects reflect Awghans but the culture and history and all civilization of Afghanistan reflect a Persian, urban, superiour culture and civilizations..thinks with those you are unrelated for thousand of years..and still.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/28609695/m/1480907934/p/2 http://www.paklinks.com/gs/archive/index.php/t-147.html http://www.paktribune.com/pforums/posts.php?t=4889&start=1 (professor says most pathan men are homosexual in Pakistan) Just read what they write Pushtun women are one of the lowest in the world, and pushtun culture is pretty evident in the type of films churned out by Peshawar film industry. No where else in the world, and I mean it, no where else in the world such movies and produced. Here is a fat pushtun woman having her menstrual cycle, and the monkey (probably Myth destroyer) himself calls a Pushtun Tarzan to help her. Watch this video and see how sickening Pushtuns are, and you will get an idea why they are hated by all their neigbors (Punjabis, Tajiks and Hazaras)

http://tornafghanistan.tripod.com/id16.html http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=rCY4Y8-SSsM beautiful movie about transvestite Awghans hahahahaa http://gay-persons-of-color.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-pashtuns-in-kandahar.html

GAY IS OK in Kandahar say Pashtun Mullahs and Pashtuns ‘Gay is OK’ in Afghanistan

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=130563

Birds fly above Kandahar using only one wing because they are using the other to cover their behinds, the locals say.

When American and British marines started returning from the war in Afghanistan in early 2002, they brought along with them curious stories about Afghanistan’s peasants who put on make-up and consistently followed them around or even sexually abused them. This was a very shocking experience for the soldiers.

- They were more terrifying than the al-Qaeda. One bloke who had painted toenails was offering to paint ours. They go about hand in hand, mincing around the village – a terrified marine, James Fletcher, told the Scotsman upon returning from Afghanistan.

- We were pretty shocked. We discovered from the Afghan soldiers we had with us that a lot of men in this country have the same philosophy as ancient Greeks: ‘a woman for babies, a man for pleasure’ – Fletcher continued recounting his experience.

For every Pashtun there is an Ashna

After the fall of the repressive Taliban regime in which homosexuality, sodomy and generally any kind of relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman were punishable by death, Afghans have finally become free to enjoy homosexual relationships that have been an integral part of their culture for several centuries.

In the city of Kandahar, which is considered the gay capital of Southern Asia, there is an ancient custom among the ethnic Pashtun people. An adult man picks a young boy, a teenager, called an “ashna” and gives him money and presents in turn for sexual favours. This Pashtun tradition is even represented in their poetry, in odes written about the beauty of young “ashnas”. This is a tradition that is present in all facets of society, practiced by the rich and poor alike. The parents of young boys who are sex slaves are usually aware of their sons’ relations with their “sugar daddies”. And although their parents keep this a secret from others, they do not contest the custom. Especially if the Pashtun is rich.

You can see some Afghanistan male couples HERE.

Traditional dancing in women’s clothing

Such a form of prostitution has been quite widespread in recent years due to poverty among teenagers and the strict rules that forbid any contact among singles of the opposite sex. American Fox writes that in 1994 two Afghanistan officers got into a fight over a boy they both took a liking to. The government even had to pass a law forbidding Afghan soldiers from living with their “ashnas”. After the Taliban regime, the Afghanistan Supreme Court ruled homosexuality illegal and sodomy punishable by death. But in reality, nobody will lose their life because of homosexual relations. Rather, they will be given long-term prison sentences or just get away with a fine, which is a very lenient punishment in this Islamic country.

The British wrote about gay love in Kabul as far as a century and a half back, which is proof that homosexuality was pretty widespread even back then. Some gay tourist guides claim that there used to be stores in Kandahar which held pets that were considered gay symbols, quails, for example. There are even customs in which, during wedding ceremonies, entertainers dress up in women’s clothing and dance traditional dances. The local population says that birds fly above the city using only one wing. They use other wing to cover their derrieres. Taliban leader Mullah Omar curried favour with Taliban officers by offering them young boys.

Contact with a woman is taboo; contact with a man is not

There are no organised gay associations in Afghanistan, but contrary to many Western countries, men can freely walk the streets holding hands. This was especially shocking for foreign troops who became fascinating for the Afghan men. Armed and ready to engage in conflicts with Al-Qaeda, the only conflicts the foreign troops had were with local men who only wanted to stroke their hair.


- It was hell. Every village we went into we got a group of men wearing make-up coming up, stroking our hair and cheeks and making kissing noises – 20-year-old Corporal Paul Richard uttered.

One can only speculate about the roots of sodomy and homosexuality in Afghanistan because the fact is that a long-standing tradition is always the result of various factors. Some claim that the main reason for this is the ban of any contact between men and women who are not married, while men constantly spend time together.

Most indigent boys do not even know what a woman’s body looks like until they are married. And marriage is a very expensive endeavour in Afghanistan – the dowry usually consists of several average Afghanistan salaries, which only a few can afford.

Taking into consideration the reports of Western marines, much is forbidden in Afghanistan. But it would not be surprising if in a few years’ time Kandahar throws its first gay parade.

and some comments about it:

hahahaha, nothing new. Everywhere and in every male dominated society men became homosexuals. Here we can count Awghans, some greec tribes (Athenians (also Aristoteles was pedophile and along with him maybe Sokrates), Spartans and Makedonians. In India Kallystrians, in China the Han people, alot of Turks (Uzbeks, Kasakhs, Kyrgyz ... and some famous turkish ruler (M.Ghaznawi, Sulaiman II...). Kandahar is today known as Asia´s San Fransisco. During the 70s many Afro-Americans and Latin Americans were travelling to Kandahar where they could have male sex. But this is not only in Kandahar, also in other regions like Peshawar, Kunduz, Quetta... where Pashtun resides and where they have their own rules. In India like in Bengal Psahtuns are mostly tranvestites which you can also see in Jallalabad and northern Afghanistan, specially in Wardak. For three or 4 years there was an Pashtrun guy caught by having sex with an animal (donkey or camel i guess). We should preserve our society and culture from such dirty western cultures by not dominating our society and break the rule of seperation of men and women. That means we have to start from the beginning.

AND MANY MORE...

of course, this is wyh Pashtun daughters and girls and women are looking for open-minded Tajiks who have also a great personality and are not known for kundadan like Kundad-Haris (also known as Kandahari, a term for which stand for every homosexual Pashtun no matter where he lives since Kandahar is also known as San Fransisco of South Asia)..this is why Pashtun girls, like mines, are in love with Tajiks, extremly it is in Hollanda/Dutch..where they only looking for sex than Tajik bang them and leave them behind..that´s the reality..your lies don´t change facts...and a Tajik women would never marry a dirty Pashtun homosexual dog since he is not totally Persianized/Tajikizsed and domisticated, actually to say it easy, since the person is not completely turned to a Tajik..

--84.59.111.229 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's your civilized tajiki argument? Whatever you say about Pashtuns is not going to change their identity or position in this world. Out of the 50 million Pashtuns, there may be few bad ones who do retarded things but the majority are people we should follow because they will lead us to a better tomorrow. There are no tajik leaders, none at all, the closest is Mahmud Ahmadinejad of iran, he is seen as a sick-minded monster wanting to break iran into pieces. A Pashtun man (Abdul Ahad Mohmand) becoming the 3rd Muslim to reach space. The first and second were Arab Muslims from Saudi Arabia and Syria. Pashtun bollywood actors are seen 24-7 on tv sets across the world and all the girls want to have Pashtun babies. We tajiks are straight up nothing from whatever angle you look at it. Don't talk about old B.C. times Persian culture because that was totally removed by Genghis Khan and his army in the 13th century. What iranians practice today is everything BUT persian culture. The modern persian language used today is the only thing remaining. Today English is the only superior language in the world. Since your English is weak then you are inferior, and if you want war with Pashtuns then beware that they have a nuclear missile (Abdali-I), named after Pashtun Ahmad Shah Abdali, just sitting in Pakistan along with 100s of others to strike and whipe out entire Iran at anytime Pashtuns decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.77.126 (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tajiks are indigenous people of Afghanistan

The source that claims Tajiks are immigrants is ridiculous and outdated. That was false information provided to the British Empire by the ruling Pashtun governments in the 1800s and early 1900s. Today, all Western scholars know that Tajiks are the indigenous people of Afghanistan.

Here is one source:

  • Richard S. Newell "Post-Soviet Afghanistan: The Position of the Minorities". Asian Survey, Vol. 29, No. 11 (Nov., 1989), pp. 1090-1108. Publisher: University of California Press

Despite being the indigenous peoples responsible for carrying on civilized society through the centuries, since the Mongol invasion of Central Asia, Tajiks have never ruled the region that is today Afghanistan — with the exception of the Kart dynasty and the short 10-month rule of Habibullah Kalakani in 1929.

This information is not really correct. Kabulistan was ruled in the 16th century by Ganjshakar Tajikzada. After Timurids arrive Tajiks lost their ruling families in the hand of Timurids and Moghul dynasty of India. Both imperial empires were known for their superiority of their ruling and managing because Tajik were in fact the sub-rulers of these both empires who were acted as generals, governeurs, teachers, scholars ...the elite of both empires. Same count for other Non-Tajik dynasties like the Khawarezmians who were strongly persianated by Tajiks and the Ghaznavids who were originally Turks but became ethnically Persians...the Ghaznavids are known as a native Tajik empire since they were culturally persianized and they also married native women of Khurasan. Herat, Farah, Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul...all are persian names and the main population were in all provinces up to the 18 century Tajiks. Before Timurid era Afghanistan (Khurasanzameen) was ruled by Kart Maliks, Ilyazids, Ghurians, Samanids, Farighunids, Saffarids, Buyids and some other royal houses moved to Iran where there they established now dynasties like Zayyarids ect.--84.59.111.229 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that his information is incorrect. There is no way of verifying it. We tajiks are refugees from the area that is today called Tajikistan. Tajikistan was created as a nation in 1992. We don't need a western man telling us about Afghanistan's history, he did not live there and neither did his relatives or ancestors. There are no tajiks in Afghanistan claiming of being the native people of that country. If you want to learn something get to the main source and to do that you have to read the history of the land that is today Tajikistan. There is lots of history stored and you can see that tajiks in great numbers began fleeing their native territory Russian Turkistan for Afghanistan. It was either become Communist or flee to Afghanistan so majority of them chose Afghanistan.--119.30.77.126 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tajikistan means Land of Tajiks and Tajik is the term for Persians. Unlike Tajiks of Afghanistan, Tajiks in other central Asian countries became their territories as their country. The term Tajik, as a historical word for Persian, was used again in 1929 by russians and in 1933 by PigToon Facists to seperate Persians of central Asia and Iran and make them weak. Till that Tajiks were known still as Khurasanians and Farsiwans. So bark into the pussy of your mother but not here where noone is believing your PigTOON Puta Khazana shit....fart of a donkey lol--84.59.111.229 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You just said the term tajik used again in 1929 by Russians and Pashtuns to seperate persians of central Asia and iran and make them weak. You must work for Russians and Pashtuns because you are going around everyday putting tajik behind everyone's names in articles in here. So you people are seperated and proud I guess. Everything that tajiks say are nonsense and contradictions. I believe all this hate is what your parents tought you, they lacked education because there was never any good education system in Afghanistan. You tajiks ride donkeys so much so obviously you know so much about donkey farts. See here tajik women riding donkeys to work and see here Tajiks in Afghanistan I bet you used to ride a donkey to school every morning and had to hear donkey farts with your father.--119.30.72.58 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Little donkeyzai, donkey are known as work animals for Tajiks while for you PigToons they are sexual toys and part of your backward, savage, homosexual, sodomy practizing culture. And the women on the donkey is an uzbek woman from Tajikistan, little Awghan hound. You Awghans are so pathetic, poor, you are the dirt of the world hahahaha, Pashtun e Kharzai hahaha. Little hound, your royal family had 250 years the power but since all Awghuls are stupid and backward you were never able to offer sth, except homosexuality, savagery, sodomy, kidnapping, killing, looting, tents, camels, dog and chickenfights, sargin, sholomba (ROOOOFL hahahaha)..little Pashtun dog. A Tajik will never be a PigToonzai, a dirty arab jew turk mongolic homosexual hindu dog. That´s you cultural awghans who have no civilization, culture, art, science...ect..but Tajiks are those with the superiour culture, history, language that infiltrated all turkic states including Bosnia, Makedonia, Yugoslavia, Kosovo and south Russia plus entire northern India..little Awghan hound. What do you want to prove with some pictures? That Tajiks are the same as you dirty cockroaches who are made of shit, look like shit, smell like shit, eat shit,...? Ghulzai! Hahahaha pathetic Awghan boy, get some Sargin to get calm or make your worms that are in your ars calm--84.59.127.102 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.198.158 (talk)