Talk:Muslim conquests of Afghanistan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge with Islamic conquest of Persia

Since there was no "Afghanistan" at the time of the Islamic conquest, and that "Afghanistan" was part of the Persian Empire, I do not understand why there are two seperate articles dealing with the same issue. Therefore, I suggest to merge these two articles. Tājik 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true I was meaning to get around to this, but never did, basically I saw this as refocusing this article towards the later push of Umayyads towards Sindh, Soghdiana, Transoxiana etc. Turn into a more Central Asia focused article, There was enough of a time gap between the collapse of the Sassanids, and the capture of these territories to allow this whole area to fall into flux. A lot of this area ranges from beyond the Sassanid border, to areas where Sassanids had lost control during their wars with the Byzantine. Still unsure where to dilineate its begging. Input is acceptable, I beleive there is a bit of an overlap but generally this section can stand on its own independently.--Tigeroo 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, yet still, this article - including it's title - is wrong. Maybe we should rather create an article which primarily deals with the conquest of Greater Khorasan (which would also include parts of modern day Iran), Sindh, etc. The western and northern parts of Afghanistan were Islamized during the reign of the first 4 Khalifs, the southern and eastern parts were Islamized as late as the 11th and 12th century AD. Please note that the Sassanid Empire ended in Khorasan, when Yazdgard III was murdered in Merv. His family fled to Badakhshan, and from there to China.
Anyways: "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan" is confusing and wrong.
Tājik 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree the title is wrong, but didn't the umayyads extend the rule upto Bokhara and Samarkand, well beyond even Greater Khorassan. If we can flesh out a concept for the page we can change the name. Note, timeline wise I do not really see the need to stop it at the Umayyad conquests, either there is no reason why it cannot extend to Timur etc, and beyond as a portal page as well.--Tigeroo 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone please go ahead and merge the articles as soon as possible. The discussion on merging has been going on for over 2 months. Radagast83 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the agreement was the last proposal that got the merge tag removed of which this dicussion is a part was that this article would have to be renamed to something akin to Central Asia because the push was beyond the Iranian plateau, and then beyond and there was enough of a break and political shift between the events covered in the conquest of Persia to differentiate these expansion as a seperate campaign.--Tigeroo 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles must not be merged

I totally disagree with all of you and this article should be left intact. Afghanistan may have been ruled by Persian Empires in the past, however, the land that is now called Afghanistan was not always part of Persia's territory. Afghanistan mainly refers to the Pashtun inhabited territories, which are southern and eastern Afghanistan along with western Pakistan. That's where the name Afghanistan was first born. You have to have convincing and credible sources to prove to us that Afghanistan was always a territory of Persia, which is not stated in any encyclopedia. This article focuses directly on the country that we know by Afghanistan (which was created as a nation in 1747 by Ahmad Shah Durrani). Therefore, Afghanistan has a history of its own and under the article of Afghanistan...no where does it state that Afghanistan as a whole was territory of Persia. In fact, this is not explained in any encyclopedia...it is only the views of Persians that Afghanistan was a territory of Persia in which they are totally confused or perhaps purposly lying. If you insist of trying to conceal facts of history with your nonsense....I will be here to challenge you all the way until you give up your bull.--NisarKand 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The above given logic is unfair and if applied to Afghanistan should be equally applicable to Pakistan as well ...quoting from above ... "Since there was no "Afghanistan" at the time of the Islamic conquest, and that "Afghanistan" was part of the Persian Empire, I do not understand why there are two separate articles dealing with the same issue. Therefore, I suggest to merge these two articles ".

I see no reason whatsoever for merging of this article on Afghanistan with the other on Persia. By that logic all articles on Pakistan may as well be merged with articles on India since Pakistan has had a much briefer existence as a separate entity from India than Afghanistan may have from Persia.

If this logic is accepted than it stands to reason and in all fairness the article Islam in Pakistan should be agreed by the proponents here be merged with the article Islam in India since there was no "Pakistan” at the time of the Islamic conquest of India. 59.176.27.49 09:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments noted, but they are irrelevant. There is an article called Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, and it is about the Islamic conquest of India and Pakistan. "Afghanistan" and "Iran" were at that time both part of the Sassanian Iranian Empire, and thus, Afghanistan's conquest was not any different from that of the rest of the empire. Please also keep in mind that the entire royal family of Persian fled to what is now Afghanistan and Western China (see Sassanids), and the Persian struggle continued in Afghanistan. There is no reason for having two seperate articles. Tājik 14:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

IP User:59.176.27.49, had purposly deleted my discussion so I re-added it now. Man this is evil thing to do...you must be worshipper of the devil for doing such evil things to remove my written discussion here. Shame on you! along with your entire family for raising you this way.--NisarKand 20:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Now about Afghanistan and Persia again. Afghanistan does not have anything to do with Persia or Iran. Afghanistan is refered to as the territory between ancient Persia and ancient India. Therefore, Afghanistan is not and was never a territory of Persia. Show me one single encyclopedia reference in which it says that Afghanistan was territory or land belonging to Persia.--NisarKand 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
NisarKand, the article Islamic conquest of Persia is about the fall of the Sassanian Empire and the Arab takeover. At the time of the Islamic conquest, the region of modern-day Afghanistan was part of the Sassanid Empire, only some parts belonged to either Turkic (see Göktürks) or Hephthalite autonomous fiefdoms. Just take a look at the map:
Sassanian Empire
Sassanian Empire
Or read: The Turkish-Hephthalite War. Which part of it don't you understand?! Do you want to see more maps? Here: [1][2]
There is no reason for having two seperate articles dealing with the SAME thing, namely the Islamic conquest of the Iranian plateau. Tājik 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You and your personalised computer made false maps. I asked for a written encyclopedia statements...not for a false and bogus map of yours. Regardless who made this fake map...it has no trust value. You want me to show you the same map covering the whole world under the Genghis Khan empire? Anyway, I said Afghanistan (territory) was NEVER A TERRITORY OR PART OF PERSIA, during the Islamic conquest. Now...what part did you not understand? You only assume it was but in reality it wasn't. Don't challenge me on these issues because you will be waisting your time here and also waisting my time. The Persian Empire ruled Afghanistan but never made it territory of theirs. There is a big difference between being a governor of a place and the landlord of the same place. By your logic....you are implying that the land lord and governors are both one. The Sassanian Empire or those other Persian Empires who ruled what is now Afghanistan from time to time...were simply the governors of the territories....NOT THE OWNERS OR LANDLORDS OF THE TERRITORY (Afghanistan). The landlords were the Afghans (sometimes known by other names...Pashtuns...Paktians...and etc....BUT NOT PERSIANS). Ther Persians rule finally ended in 1709 with the rise of the Afghans at Kandahar, which paved way for the local Afghans to start governing their selves. SOooooo....Afghanistan itself is important as Persia is or India is. Because Afghanistan has a very long history of its own. In fact, Afghanistan was created as a nation in 1747....Iran in 1935....India in 1947. So you see the importance of Afghanistan? --NisarKand 00:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You are just uneducated, NisarKand, that'S all. There are plenty of sources which confirm that there was no "Afghanistan" before 1748, and that most of the terroritory was part of Persia until the creation of an independent "Afghanistan". Especially in the pre-Islamic era, the entire region was Persian, and that's also the reason why the Persian language is still the dominant language in the region. Here is another map, which was not created for Wikipedia:
Sassanids
Sassanids
The Encyclopaedia Iranica (Prof. S. Shahbaz [3]) says:
  • "... According to Ammianus (18.6.14), Shahpur's empire comprised eighteen major provinces "ruled by Bedaxes (vitaxi), by kings, and by satraps." They were: Assyria (Asoristan), Susiana (Khuzistan), Media, Persis (Pars), Parthia (Parthav, Apar-ahr), Greater Carmania (Kerman), Hyrcania (Varkan/Gorgan and Dahestan), Margiana (Marv region), Bactria (Balkh area), Sogdiani (Sogdian land), the Sacae (Sakastan/Sistan), Scythia at the foot of Imaus (an eastern Sakaland, east of Afghanistan), Aria (Harev/Herat), the Paropanisadae (Aparsen, northeast Afghanistan), Drangiana (Zarang), Arachosia (Ruxa, Rokkaj, the Ghazni region), Gedrosia (Mokran/Baluchistan), and two unidentified eastern regions of Serica and Beyond Imaus. ..."
Just accept the sources! Tājik 00:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, I am uneducated and I am your history teacher now. First, you said there was no "Afghanistan before 1748. Yes there was...read this....---->Afghanistan described in 1525......"In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks.* Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor* and Gebrek. To the south is Afghanistān. There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni...."

Now about the map and those people you named in reference to Persian or Iranian encylcopedia. The map is not explaining that the land that is now Afghanistan being "territory of Persia".....it is showing the reach of the Empire's (rule). "Afghanistan" is a country (territory) in which the owners are the Afghans....it is NOT AN EMPIRE....the same way Hindustan (India) is or was. Persia is the name of land...not the name of an Empire. The same way Afghanistan is the name of its land.

You are trying to say that "Afghanistan" was Persia...and should be recognized as Persia. Well, you are totally misguided by thinking that way because Afghanistan was never Persia, but was only "ruled" by Persian "rulers" from time to time....and....only parts of Afghanistan were "ruled under Persian system of law". BUT the territory of Afghanistan was not owned by Persians...so it was not their land...which clearly makes it not Persia. Because in order for a territory to be considered Persia...it had to be a territory inhabited by them. Afghanistan was not inhabited by Persians...it was inhabited by many many ethnics, mainly Pashtun people. Your way of thinking is like watching a fellow walking in a high-society area somewhere, looking at a million dollar Ferrari parked on the side of the street, and claiming that it is his. Afghanistan is a land that belonged to the native Afghans even prior to Alexander the great...according to most historians. I want this article to be left as Islamic conquest of Afghanistan. Besides, it is already a section of the Article History of Afghanistan. AND, if you ever merge it or mess it up....I will create a new article with different but similar name...if you mess that one up...I will make another and another until you stop merging them. So don't waist your time.--NisarKand 02:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, NisarKand. I rather go with scholarly sources and what experts say. You, on the other hand, are an uneducated wannabe-teacher whose article are ment for people who are even more uneducated than yourself.
Create as many articles as you want ... Double-articles will be removed from the article. If you want to create an article "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan" which only deals with the conquest of the historic lands inhabited by Pashtuns, than your article should only be limitted to a small territory south of Kabul ... it should exclude the conquest of Kabul, Ghazni, Herat, Balkh, etc who were evidently NOT Afghan or part of Afghanistan at that time. This article will be merged with the article Islamic Conquest of Persia, and I hope that it will be renamed to Islamic conquest of the Sassanid Empire.
You do whatever you want ... 99% of your articles are POV anyway ... Tājik 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Get lost...stop vandalising articles with false information. Kabul, Ghazni, Herat, Balkh etc are all territory of AFGHANISTAN not Persia.--NisarKand 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude that way but you're always asking for it. Your intentions are that you see Pashtuns as people that are lower than the Persians. Believe me...I am an expert on the people of Afghanistan's region. Also, I am Afghan and we dealt with Persians for many centuries. You want this article to be merged with Persia so that more Persian can be able to edit things according to their desires and feelings. You always claim that Kabul, Ghazni, Balkh and other cities of Afghanistan being part of Khorasan...this is 100% false because there is not one single encyclopedia to prove this. This is only your claim. Nobody in their right mind would lie about history because history is online and we can instantly check things for verifications. If a Persian person says that Afghanistan was Persia before...nobody will trust him because it's too obvious that he or she will lie about this. So you are one of those liars.--NisarKand 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
NisarKind, your recent posts are convincing and make sense. However, I do not think enough discussion was warranted to remove the merge tag. I have reinserted the tag temporarily for the sake of letting other users discuss the issue. Despite your solid evidence about your claim, it is true that something is seriously wrong with this article. This article, Islamic conquest of Persia, or both may need to be merges and/or renamed. We definatly need more opinions and voices on the subject. I tagged this article for more attention. Kevingamer 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose-I oppose the merge. Both articles are long enough as it is. Plus, keeping the articles split helps gives picture the chronological direction and order of the invasions.--D-Boy 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Support-there is no need to have two different articles on the SAME issue. Besides that, many parts of these two articles are practically the same. At the time of the Arab-Islamic invasion, there was no "Afghanistan" and the entire region was part of the Sassanid Empire. It's a common phenomenon in Western languages that all of the ancient kingdoms in that region are known as Persian Empires, and thus, the Islamic conquest of Persia also automatically covers the Islamic invasion of "Afghanistan" (a term that did not exist at that time; nor did the country). The Islamic conquests of India and Pakistan were also merged into one article (Islamic conquest of the Indian subcontinent). The Islamic conquest of entire north Africa was merged into ones article (Umayyad conquest of North Africa). Why should an article be named after a country that was created more than 1000 years after the main toppic of that article?! Tājik 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose...I oppose the merge on the intelligent point of view. If this article is merged with the Islamic conquest of Persia or the History of Persia...it would make all the encyclopedias and history books untrue and unreliable. Because, Afghanistan was never considered Persian territory in any encyclopedia or history book. The "territory" that we identify by the name Afghanistan has its own extended history and should remain as such. Afghanistan refers to the land inhabited by the Pashtun people NOT PERSIANS but does include western territories of Pakistan. The Pashtun people (commonly known as Afghans lived in the area (land of the Afghans...in Sanskrit or Persian: Afghanistan) for quite a long time...perhaps even prior to the arrivale of Alexander the great in 330 BC and beyond. Persia is the land that has been inhabited by the Persian people. At the same time, India (previously Hindustan) is the land which has been inhabited by the Hindus located on the Eastern side of the Indus River (presenty eastern Pakistan). This article "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan" refers to the conquest of the Pashtun "territory" or "territories" ...NOT PERSIA OR INDIA...and not conquest of former empires of the region, but the "territory" in between Persia and India (Hindustan). User:Tajik is confused when he mentions of conquering other empires...this is not the term to be used. An empire may defeat anothet empire but an empire does not conquer another empire. "Conquering" refers to territories or lands not people or empires. In this case (Islamic "conquest" of Afghanistan) is refering to "territory", nothing else. By the way, Islamic conquest of the Sassanid Empire is a silly statement with no meaning.--NisarKand 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't agree with NisarKand reasoning about Afghanistan. Though it would fall under a history of Afghanistan just as much as it is of other soviet stans. I think the title of this article is flawed, because I think this article should be called Islamic conquests in Central Asia, and then the scope expanded to deal with Mongol dynasties such as Taimur etc. and incorporate Transoxanian territories all the way to Samarkand and beyond to Turfan and to the Uighurs etc. into this articles scope. Timeframe it was a countious push, but there was a minor break before the push resumed. Back to why I oppose, it's technical, the Umayyads did not capture the region from the Persians. Most of the region around the Kabul Valley had been already lost to the Turks, such as the Western Turks and Turki Shahis as the Satrapy of Gandhara had become independent. Even Hepthalites resurgence on the fringes after the fall of the Sassanids, the Afghanistan region is debateable if it ever even came back under the Sassand influence after the intial Hepthalite invasion. I have not been able to categorically find out if the Turk Shahi were Hepthalites or not. The eastern boundaries of the Sassanids at the onset of the Muslim conquests are very interesting and vague because of the withdrawal caused by the Byzantine wars and Turk/ Hepthalite surges on the eastern front. It seems even Sindh had been lost and parts of Baluchistan if some of the background on the Rai dynasty holds. Were the Rai also Hepthalites or not? The northern regions were a tussle between Turkic tribes, Tibetan Kingdom and the Tang dynasty. Just how much of the region do we propose to slap in the scope of this article actually fall under Sassanian control at the onset of the conquest. Just how much of it was actually wrested by the Umayyads from Sassanian forces. Others seem to have expanded themselves to fill the vacuum created by the Muslims not taking over right away and the lack of Sassnian control.--Tigeroo 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Conditionally Oppose. Understood that articles are related but not related enough to be merged into one article. Article(s) may need to renamed. There needs to be more relationship and linking between the two articles to show this relationship. Kevingamer 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
@ Tigeroo: It's not clear whether you oppose the merge or NisarKand (which would mean that you support the merge). I agree with you that "Afghanistan" should be regarded as spereate regions, and that each region should be analyzed seperately. However, it is not a secret that most of the parts of the region today known as "Afghanistan" were part of the Sassanid kingdom, especially after the victories of Bahram Chobin against the Turks and Hephthalites (see: The Turkish-Hephthalite War). Richard Nelson Frye says:
  • "... Fortunately Iran had a brilliant general of the Mihran family called Bahram Chobin who decisively defeated the Turks at a great battle near Herat in 589, reported in a number of sources. The chronology and events in this period have been studied in detail with few large problems remaining, except the usual details of chronology and verifiability, so unlike most of ancient Iranian history. After his defeat of the Turks Bahram Chobin is reported to have crossed the Oxus and secured much booty, but so much fable is intertwined with the deeds of Bahram that it is difficult to tell fact from fiction, and furthermore stories about Bahram Chobin and Bahram Gor are exchanged in the tales about both Bahrams. It is unlikely that the ruler killed by Bahram in the east was the king of the Western Turks, but more likely a subordinate ruler. ..."[4]
I still support the merge and name-change of the article to Islamic conquest of the Sassanid Empire, maybe in addition to Islamic conquest of Central Asia. But what is for sure is that Islamic conquest of Afghanistan is pure nonsense. Tājik 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Clarifying, I oppose. The Western Turk war is 589 and Herat is very border region, the link also mentions loot from the Oxus not conquest. When the Western Turks took over it was not the Sassanians territory that was they principally occupied it was Hepthalite, who had displaced the Sassanians. When the Arabs took the region it was Turki-Shahi's. Politically the region had been out of the Sassanian gambit for a few centuries, while still culturally within it. Infact they contested the Kabul Valley region and beyond until the mid 9th century with the Turki-Shahi. Ghazni, Herat were frontier regions, barely even the Afhgnistan region. I actually want this page to renamed Islamic conquest in Central Asia and the focus shifted to the push beyond the Persian empire boundaries. Is that a more acceptable situation?? The dilineation of the borders can be sub-article that you can and Nisar can fight over :) Thus this page would cover all regions in Central Asia such as Afghanistan, the Stans, Tatars, Kpchaks, and Xianjiang etc. cover the Chagatai, Timur, durrani etc. Smarkand and bokhara became rather important and I think the page missing is the one which covers the caliphate expansion beyond. So really the point is moot, parts of the area of afhganistan were captured only later by the abassids and then by the ghaznavids, parts by the umayyads. When Xianxuang in 622 visited samarkand it was under the Western Turks like much of Sogdia, Bactria, Gandhara (this is where the "afghans" were then), all the way upto Dzungaria (I want this article to conver all of these areas). When the Rabs walked into the region, the Westerns Turks were in decline pressued by the Tibetans, the Tang, and the Turk-Shahis.
On the eve of the Muslim Arab arrival in Central Asia, the Turki Shahis ruled Gandhara and Bactria, while the Western Turks controlled Sogdia and parts of northern West Turkistan. The Tibetans held Gilgit and Kashgar, while Tang China controlled the rest of the Tarim Basin as well as Mongolia. The Eastern Turks of Mongolia were temporarily held in abeyance during a short interim period of Han Chinese rule. Let's use the names of the regions as they were then. This page should not be about "Afghanistan" (there is too much overlap of policial and cultural boundaries to be limited to here, it can be dealt with in the History of Afghanistan page) nor is it about the Persian Empire, they already have a page. This should fill the gap of a page that is needed but missing!!--Tigeroo 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose because Afghanistan was never a territory of Persia except the city of Herat, which is at the north-western corner of Afghanistan. The remaining larger territory (especially the Pashtun territory) was not part of Persia. User:Tajik is strongly determined to make Afghanistan appear in the eyes of all Wikipedia readers as a country that was partitioned from Persia. As the same way Pakistan partitioned itself from India. That's his major plan here...he wants to find ways to make Afghanistan's pre-1919 history as a history of Persia. I've been concentrating on everything hi edited in Afghanistan's article.--NisarKand 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Afghanistan is part of the Indian subcontinent not Persia. Actually its an entity all in itself, thats neither Persian nor Indian.Bakaman 01:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I've been trying to term the country. You said clearly that it was a territory, niether Persia was interested in exploring it and niether India (Hindustan). The people of that territory were too wild to control. But, occasionally the territory was claimed by both sides. If you go meet Indians, they all argue and say it was always their territory. It was an unclaimed land, just the way the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan presently are. Another thing recorded is that the people living in this territory (between ancient Persia and ancient India) were known for switching sides constantly. Also, a reminder that Indian culture is more popular in Afghanistan, especially in the southern half of the country, then Persian culture. Most Afghans are crazy about Indian movies and dramas...since the early 20th century. Indian movies are not watched much in Iran.--NisarKand 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"Persia" is a socio-political term for a region, while "Indian subcontinent" is a geographical term. Geographically, most of Afghanistan belongs to the Iranian plateau, and nothing of it to the Indian subcontinent (see here: [5]). Culturally and linguistically, Afghanistan is still part of the Iranian Cultural Continent. So, your reasons for your objection do not make any sense. Tājik 20:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Your map has no value in trust...your entire argument has no base. Explain to me this, WHY do the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan wear the same exact clothes? You may also add the people of India because turbans and loose clothes, similar to that of Afghanistan and Pakistan, are widely worn in their country. However, "NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON IN IRAN" wear the pajama-style loose clothes there. Also, NO turbans worn in Iran that's for sure. This clearly explains that all those people who wear those types of clothes are from one culture. Not just clothes but there are alot of other sharing of culture between Afghanistan/Pakistan/India. Accept the facts that only small number of Persian speakers in Afghanistan wear similar clothes as Iranians. Besides, the name "Afghanistan" was originated from the southern half of Afghanistan...not from the northern half. NisarKand 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Who are YOU to tell that the map has no value. After all, you are the one who does not make ANY sense. All of your comments are uneducated blah blah with no reliable reference. Taking the cloths or even the culture as some kind of proof for the Islamic conquest of the region is the dumbest thing I've ever heared. The Punjabi peran-tunbān you are talking about was brought to the region during the Mughal rule. It's not native to Pashtun areas, and even IF, that wouldn't be a proof. Why do you not mention the Iranian language of the Pashtuns and the overwhlming majority of Afghanistan in contrast to the [[Indo-Aryan languages] of the Indian subcontinent?! Still, none of this is relevenat to the discussion. What matters is that at the time of the Islamic conquest of the region, most parts of the region were part of the Sassanid Empire - known as the Persian Empire in Western languages, as well as in the Bible. And that'S what this discussion and the sugesstion for merge is about! Afghanistan did not exist at that time, and the region's faith was no different than that of Azerbaijan, Mazandaran, Khwarezm or Fars. Tājik 22:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
TO User:Tajik....Let's cut the bull....even IF Afghanistan did not exist, which I am not saying it didn't...but even IF it didn't....It has existed from at least the 16th century until today. This means for the last 500 years or so the country or place existed as "Afghanistan", you can't deny that for sure. So when you see "Afghanistan" anywhere today, it is refering to that exact specific location...a place that is east of Persia and west of India. When people see Islamic conquest of Afghanistan, they quickly picture the area that was between Persia and India at the time of the Arab invasion. But when you call Afghanistan part of Persia, then Afghanistan (region) disapeares and vanishes. In all history books of the world...they write Afghanistan when talking about Arab invasion in the 7th century. Iran was born as a nation in 1935...why is Persian history applied to Iran? The same thing with Afghanistan....the history of pre-1747 is applied to Afghanistan. You want to say or give the impression that Afghanistan partitioned itself from Persia in 1747 or later. You are mistaken for thinking this way because this never took place and is not written anywhere in any history book. Are you trying to re-write history? There is nothing else....it's either you claim Afghanistan partitioned itself from Persia or it formed as a nation from a land that was neither Persia and neither India.--NisarKand 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think now I can remove the merge tag because as you all can see that majority voted for "NO MERGE".--NisarKand 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename & reorient page i--Tigeroo 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)nstead of merge

There is already a page called Islamic conquest of Persia and one called History of Afghanistan. Neither fits the bill of a simple page either. Parts of todays Afghanistan were captured by the Umayyads from the Persians other much later from Turks, and the Hindu shahis. There is no page addressing the Muslim conquests in Central Asia, which would cover a region larger than one encompassed by Afghanistan or Persia and better describes the scope of the Muslim conquests. This is the page that is missing in the Muslim conquests series of pages. I propose that we re-orient this page. As is the Mongols, Ghaznavids etc. covered by the article as it stands cannot be considered in terms of todays political boundaries their control and cultural influence spread over much more than any one country.

On the eve of the Muslim Arab arrival in Central Asia, the Turki Shahis ruled Gandhara and Bactria, while the Western Turks controlled Sogdia and parts of northern West Turkistan. The Tibetans held Gilgit and Kashgar, while Tang China controlled the rest of the Tarim Basin as well as Mongolia.

What I propose is that we procede and carry the story forward from this point. The Persians have been left behind (just where their borders end and our begin is a different and minor quibble) and there are a different set of military and political opponents.--Tigeroo 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan is not generally considered part of Central Asia....Afghanistan is generally considered part of South Asia and the culture of the majority group (Pashtun people) is the same as Pakistan's and India's. It is not the same as of those in Central Asia. I believe this article is perfect and should be left as is.--NisarKand 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am still convinced that this article right now is POV and unencyclopedic. The article Islamic conquest of Persia is better, but I would support a name-change. I suggest 3 articles covering the subject:
  1. Islamic conquest of the Sassanid Empire (replacing the current Islamic conquest of Persia, dealing with the Arab conquest of Greater Iran)
  2. Islamic conquest of Central Asia (dealing with the Arab conquest of Transoxania and Mawara al-Nahr, as well as Khorezm)
  3. Islamic conquest of the Indian subcontinent (which already exists)
For point 1, an alternative would be Islamic conquest of the Iranian plateau.
What do you think?
Tājik 19:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No to Iranian plateau, the Sassanids were significant enough and coheisve enough a unit that Persia needs its own. Central Asia and the sub-continent are rather more fragmented but they have consistent cast of players historically. There is already an Indian sub-continent one as well, but you will note that it covers Muhammad bin Qasim and the Rai Dynasty of Sindh. Afghanistan is one of those strange places that is the crossroad between central asia, sub-continent and Iran. It was predominantly Buddhist like the other Turkic tribes and northern Indian states of the region but it also had sizable contingents of Zorastrians, Tengri, Hindu's, Nestorians, Manachaens etc. As a rule, I think its a terrible idea to identify with the politics of today. No to sub-continent as well (historically they fluctuated influence and in this period if anything they persianized, its the rise of the Safavids and the conversion to shiism which isolated and began to reduce further persian cultural influence and the rivarly with the Mughals that slpit them apart again). Historically this means under the sway of the politics of the gangetic plains, but during this time there was mass infusion of peoples from central asia into the gangetic plains. Why I say central asia because these conquests formed the central backbone of the introduction of Islam to the Turkic tribes and became the base of empires such as the Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Chagatai, Timurid, Mongols etc. The principal political actors of the time, the alliances generally shifted between Tibetan, Caliphal, Tang and Turkic influences and onwards would be the sway of these more local forces, making this really an independent central asian cultural center that would radiate outwards in the future. At that time the political forces were also more central asian, than persian or "indian". Gandhara was dominated by turks and hepthalites who came from central asia until the mid 9th century when it changed ruling dynasties and began to ally itself with the rising Rajput political culture. Remember we are talking about historic entitities. Nationalism has played a huge role in redefining, seperating or uniting disparate cultural groups today. Would the pashtuns feel so close to south asia if the durand line was the border there was no cultural seepage in from pakistan? Even today only half the population of afghanistan is Pakhtun, the lower half by pakistan, while the other half seem to be an amalgam of mongol/ and turkic descent. Afghanistan is a mix, but during the period and the next set of centuries we are covering it was primarily central.--Tigeroo 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood my suggestion. What ment is: I believe that the best way to solve the problem is to create 3 different articles: one about Persia, one about the Indian subcontinent, and one about Central Asia. These 3 articles would also automatically cover the Islamic conquest of the region today known as "Afghanistan".
As for "nationalism": you are given way too much credit to Central Asian nomads, and you are way overestimating their numbers. As I have mentioned in other discussions: at the time of the Ghaznavids, the total (!) number of all (!) Oghuz Turks was less (!) than 100,000. This number is recorded in Ghaznavid sources, and it is mentioned in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. The Oghjuz were the largest Turkic group, the others were much smaller ... meaning the Kipchak and Qarluq and smaller tribes.
The number of Mongols was even less. While these Altaic nomads did play an important role in the post-Islamic history, their tiny numbers did not have any effect on the genetical pool of the people in southern Central Asia, Afghanistan, or the subcontinent.
At the time of the Islamic conquest, the region today known as "Afghanistan" was part of the Sassanid Empire - it had been lost to Hephthalites and Göktürks previously, but the victories of Khusrow Anushirvan (against the Hephthalites) and Bahram Chobin (against the Göktürks) had reconquered the area, until it was lost to Arabs. The Turk-Shahis and Hindu-Shahis, even the "Sveta Huna" (White Huns, remnants of the Hephthalites), were small and relatively unimporant, autonomous fiefdoms at that time. From the time of the Islamic conquest up to the victory of the Seljuqs, the Turks did not have any power as rulers (~300 years). It was only during the Seljuq era, that the Turks as a people began to conquer Islamic lands (previous Turkic dynasties were not really Turkic, but grew out of a highly Islamized and Persianized mamluk culture).
The Mongols came even later, and at the time of the Safavids, Ottomans, and Mughals, the eastern hemisphere of the Islamic world was loosely devided into 3 to 5 cultural and ethno-linguistic areas. From the Indo-Persian Mughals over the nomadic Uzbeks up to the multi-ethnic and Europeanized Ottomans.
You forget that previous to the Mongol conquest (which was the REAL factor for the devision of the Islamic cultural world), the entire Islamic world was dominated by a culture that had its origin in the pre-Islamic Sassanid Empire. That Persian nobles from Central Asia, such as the Barmakids or Samanids, dominated the political scene. Even the Seljuqs who were Central Asians, were still patrons and defenders of that culture and system. It was the Mongol conquest that changed history.
So, when we talk about the "Islamic conquest" of a region, it is very important to differenciate between pre- and post-Mongol eras. "Afghanistan's" Islamic conquest was certainly part of the Islamization of Persia. This is very evident from the fact that the first Persian Muslim dynasties and kingdoms began in what is now Afghanistan and southern Central Asia. The Barmakids, Samanids, Ghaznavids, Ghurids, and Seljuqs were very much Persian in essence. This suddenly changed when the Mongols conquered and destroyed the Islamic world. From then on, a Turco-Mongol nobility witha strong Central Asian nomadic character ruled this part of the Islamic world.
"Afghanistan'S" Islamic conquest thus needs to be devided into 3 different parts: one being part of the history of the Sassanid Empire, one being part of the history of the subcontinent, and one being part of the history of Central Asia.
Tājik 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree the persian culture was a major influence in the region and the Samanids and Barmakids, and there are three phases. I am not convinced of the Sassanid influence in the region yet. Chobin was almost 50 years before, he defeated a fief ruler not the gokturk ruler, the extent of his expdeition was unclear in that article and the region had been out of sassanid control for a couple of centuries. Chobin later rebelled as well later in the same region weakening the hold. Even the samanids did not really control the region, the Abassids contested it fiercly with the Turk-Shahi/ Tibetans/ Tang and it took the Ghaznavids to actually capture gandhara. Xuanxang's accounts of his travel in the region record Turkic rulers, not sassanids. The arab armies encountered Turkic armies in the region when they were taking control. Anyway will have to get back and look into the border details atm, but I think we can agree that a third page is necessary to the deal with the wider region, but I am doubtful if afghanistan it was entirely within sassanid borders. Will recheck, right now the closest account in time of that region is Xuanxang's.--Tigeroo 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. We are talking about political control, here not demographic, or cultural influences and affiliations else it is as Nisar says partially afghan land.--Tigeroo 14:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course at the time of the Islamic conquest the entire region was Persian. Many Persians of the western Persian lands fled to this region (which marked the beginning of the modern Tajik nation (see R.N. Frye's "Persia")). The Sassanian resistance continued from this region, with the help of the Chinese. The last Sassanian Shah, Yazdgard III, fled to this region and was finally murdered in Merv. And the later Samanids claimed to be descendants of Bahram Chobin.
And your analysis of the Samanids is wrong. The Samanid kingdom was much larger than just their capital Samarqand in Central Asia (see this map: [6]). One of the 3 capitals of the empire was Herat, the founder of the dynasty (Saman Khuda) was a Zoroastrian from Balkh.
There is absolutely no doubt that the very beginning of the Islamization of "Afgahnistan" was part of the larger Islamization of Persia. What followed in the later centuries, for example the defeat of the Pashtuns and Rajputs by the Ghaznavids, is a totally different story. What is also important to mention: the Islamization of India was brought to its zenith by a Persian (Tajik) dynasty: Ghurids.
Tājik 14:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have been researching this issue and consulting various sources. It appears the key to end of the Persian conquests and the next phase lies in what did Qutaiba bin Muslim control as governor of Khorasan and what did he add, namely like you mentioned Sogdiana, Transoxania, Khwarezm. Generally what I have found is that the eastern boundaries are vague and were somewhere in Seistan and Balochistan. Also generally the Arab conquests stopped after Herat and Merv. Merv is helpful because the Shah was recruiting the aid of northern forces (Turkic or hepthalite), and will allow us to set a northern border in the tajikistan region, with Sogdia marked as beyond his realm. Herat gives us the eastern border regions. It appears that Sassanid control would have extended upto Balkh, wether Balkh was included or not is unsure. The Kabul Valley region and Gandhara were beyond their control and captured from the Turk-Shahis in 664 before being lost again until Qutaiba. Bactria had been captured by the Western Turks after a brief control from 565-580 under the Sassanids after the alliance with anurshivan against the hepthalites. After being divided to them from the Kunduz region was under control of turkick tegins. Multiple sources have cited Merv and Herat victories marking the end of Arab conquest of the Sassanid territories until Qutaiba extended them further 50 years later. so the question of Afghanistan territory as defined by current borders is mixed. Most of it was Sassanid governed, yet significant areas beyond it.--Tigeroo 17:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also you mention Chobin, he is reported as having captured Balkh in 588 and then fought decisively at Herat in 589 so he seems to have fallen back in the interim. He also rebelled and then fled for refuge to the turkic troops after his rebellion failed. By 619 Turkic troops and their Hepthalite vassals had pushed all the way to Rayy before being defeated. So a mixed bag it appears. The Hepthalites were defeated by an allianc of Turkic, Sassnian forces, then the Hepthalites vassal kingdoms in Bactria and Gandhara were taken over by Turks, but always tried for independence. Chobin came down and defeated them and extended Sassanian influence but then he rebelled and the Hepthalites broke free. By 611 Gandhara and Bactria were now under a more direct rule of the Turks, 616-617 they invade upto Rayy and by 625 the region is annexxed from Sassanians definitively and Balkh area was also well clear of Sassanian control. It appears that even Herat was captured not from the Sassanians but from these Turkic yaghbu of Tokharistan ruled from Balkh, which was minting coins from Balkh as early as 645. Generally after being lost to the Hepthalites it was never quite under sassanian control, After the Hepthalites it became a contested region with fluid control switching between Sassanians and Turkic control. Use this link, this was the best reference that I found page 368 onwards. There were others but I am just using the best to illustrate the situation.--Tigeroo 17:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. So what do you think of my suggestion? Creating 3 different articles to cover the entire region? Yes or no? Tājik 17:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a question, are you referring to three articles for the Afghan region, or the three geographic locations. If the latter, than I think we already have 2 of them and it's merely a matter of updating this page to fill in the gap regions. If the former, than I think those can just be chronological sections int the layout of the geograhically oriented page. Generally I am against the current name and geographical scope of this article. It needs to be broader to reflect the historic fluidity of borders.--Tigeroo 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I am talking about 3 general articles about:
  • Islamic conquest of the Sassanid Empire
  • Islamic conquest of Central Asia
  • Islamic conquest of the Indian subcontinent
That means that there won't be any special article about "Afghanistan's Islamic conquest".
So what do you think? I suggest changing the name of Islamic conquest of Persia to Islamic conquest of the Sassanid Empire, and the name of this article to Islamic conquest of Central Asia.
Tājik 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds perfect to me.--Tigeroo 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Sounds logical! Kevingamer 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Islamic conquest of Afghanistan should be merged into Islamic conquest of Persia for various reasons: (1) during the Arab-Islamic conquest, all the lands from Mesopotamia to the Hindukush were known as "Persia" and belonged to the Sassanid kings; (2) there was no country known as "Afghanistan" until the late 18th century; (3) the entire Persian empire was conquered in single, decades-lasting insult by the Arabs, starting with the rule of Omar ibn al-Khattab and ending with the death of Uthman ibn al-Affan; (4) certain parts of the former Persian Empire remained hostile to Islam at least until the 12th century - not affacted by modern countries; (5) the modern boundaries between Central Asian states were created in the past 200 years and do not reflect the actual political and cultural scene of 1400 years ago. It is both, systematically as well as factually wrong to name an article "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan" and deal with it seperately from the Islamic conquest of the Persian Empire. That would be like differenciating between the Islamic conquest of India and "Islamic conquest of Pakistan". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.83.135.55 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

  • No merger. The Islamic conquest of the area now known as Afghanistan, except for some eastern portions, occurred later than Persia. The last portion not until the 19th Century. The Islam of Persia and the Islam of the Pashtun tribes was not the same. --Bejnar 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

the whole text is not really correct

the informations are not really correct. there are many faults, specially when someonme writes that Pashtuns live on al birunis times in modern NWFP while they didn´t, just in the southern areas, mainly in balochsitan and sindh. There are a lot of faults which is not correct and differ very strongly fro the inhabitent history of islam in afghanistan.

Merge, Part II

Please see Talk:Islamic conquest of Persia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.73 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole

This sentence in the introduction: "Arab Muslims shattered the might of the Persian Sassanians" reads more like a period thriller than an encyclopedia article. Would the community on here be happy with something a little less hyped, like "Arab Muslims defeated the Persian Sassanians" for example? 213.121.151.174 (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding Afghans and Hindus

In the article, it lists Al-Biruni as identifying the Afghans as neither Hindu nor Muslim. But in the quotes themselves, it has him identifying the Afghan tribes as being Hindu tribes. Can someone explain this discrepancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.41 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


The peoples of present day Afghanistan were mostly Hindu & Buddhists; they were killed/migrated eastwards/converted to Islam under the threat of the sword.MajMaverik (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Referenced content from reliable sources deleted from this article

Intothefire (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nancy Hatch Dupree - An Historical Guide To Afghanistan - Sites in Perspective (Chapter 3)

Intothefire (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

tagged

It has been criticized many times: separating the Islamic conquest of the region now known as "Afghanistan" from that of historical Persia (= Sassanid Empire) and its vassal states in Central Asia is unsourced POV. The lands to the west and north of the Hindu Kush were part of the Islamic conquest of Persia, took place at the same time and were the same event. The lands to the south of the Hindu Kush were conquered in the course of successive waves of Arab, Persian, and Turkish infiltrations and the conquest/conversion was - based on all available evidence - completed by the end of the 13th century. These were part of the Islamic conquest of India. No serious academic work actually talks of an "Islamic conquest of Afghanistan". The Encyclopaedia Iranica does not even have such a section, the Encyclopaedia of Islam makes clear that the different territories and provinces that now make up Afghanistan were part of the Islamic conquests of Persia and India.

Hence, since this article is not supported by the main academic works, I have tagged it with neutrality and accuracy. Tajik (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

recent changes

I have added Yaqub's ethnicity plus removed Afghan from that paragraph because during the Islamic conquest neither Herat or Sistan were known as Afghan areas or regions.--Inuit18 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you tamper with the quote again I'll report you and you'll get blocked permanently.Ahmed shahi (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muslim_conquests_of_Afghanistan/Archive_1&oldid=1150843919"