Talk:Ghurid dynasty

I observed some recent changes to the article where Noorullah21 changed the early religion part of the Ghurids from Buddhism to Paganism citing that only late historian Satish Chandra (d. 2017) elaborated about it although Chandra's views are substantial enough to merit a inclusion directly in the leas itself, another notable scholar K. A. Nizami also elaborated about it in detail, a small of chunk of it is as follows:-

We know very little about the pre Muslim religion of Ghur and no contemporary record of the Ghurid conversion to Islam has survived. Since Tukharistan, Kabul and Bamiyan were active centre of Buddhism, it may be assumed that people of Ghur also believed in some sort of Mahayana Buddhism.....There is nothing improbable, therefore, in the region of Ghur being inhabited mostly by the Buddhists..... Sultan Mahmud, we are told that had patronized the Karamis. It was probably due to him that this sect spread in Ghur and acted as a bridge between Mahayana Buddhism and Islam

Foundation of the Delhi Sultanat. In Mohammad Habib; Khaliq Ahmad Nizami (eds.). A Comprehensive History of India: The Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206-1526). Vol. 5 (Second ed.) (pp. 148-149)

Since there have been a number of reverts by several senior editors in the past 24 hours, I being a involved editor here brought these to talk page for a better discussion to garner a long term consensus. I am pinging them all @Noorullah21, HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, No2WesternImperialism, पाटलिपुत्र, and Sutyarashi: for comments here instead of edit waring on the article mainspace.

Lastly, I am inclined to include Mahayana Buddhism for obvious reason that this is cited by two eminent scholars (Chandra & Nizami) over Paganism which by all means is ambigious as Paganism can be anything other then orthodox Islam - i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism in some cases even the Carmathians. The historians which are laconically refering to the Ghurids as Pagans (citing contemporary Muslim chroniclers who always use this label for non-muslim empires even with the Mongols) are not claiming that the early Ghurids were not Buddhists. So, If we have reliable sources on hand addressing the early Ghurids as followers of Mahayana Buddhism, then there is no good reason to include the ambigious Paganism here, Cheers. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 07:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe you should have dug a bit deeper in your research:

• "As late as the end of the tenth century, the population of Ghur was for the most part heathen. According to the geographer al-Istakhri, it was the biggest pagan enclave within the borders of Islam..[..].. The nature of the imperfect conversion is best illustrated by the fact that sometimes the names were Muslim, but the people led the life of pagans." -- K.A. Nizami, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume 4, page 178.

• "Indeed, Ghūr remained an enclave of paganism – but of what this paganism consisted is wholly unknown to us." -- C.E. Bosworth, Medieval Central Asia and the Persianate World, A.C.S. Peacock, D.G. Tor, page 210.

• "..Muhhamd ibn Karram is said to have been instrumental in converting Ghur from paganism to Islam." --Finbarr Barry Flood, Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval "Hindu-Muslim" Encounter, pag e96.

• ".. helped convert the recalcitrant Ghur from paganism to Islam." -- D.G. Tor, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, page 193.

• "Pagan cults did not disappear overnight with the Arab invasions , despite the later juridical position that their practitioners were not entitled to the protection of the dhimma . In the remote and mountainous district of Ghur, for example, in what is now Afghanistan, Islam made few inroads and the older pagan religious traditions survived intact until the early eleventh century." --Jonathan Porter Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, page 169.

• "Ghur, a province amid mountains and rugged country. It has a king called Ghur-shah. He draws his strength from the mir of Guzganan. In the days of old this province of Ghur was pagan.." -- Scott Cameron Levi, ‎Ron Sela, Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Historical Sources, page 33.

• " GHUR ( Pagan enclave ) " -- The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4, edited by William Bayne Fisher, Richard Nelson Frye, R. N. Frye, page 93.

• "The Ghaz- navids also used madrasas endowed with augaf in order to establish Islam in the stubbornly pagan territory of Ghur , possibly through the inter- mediary of missionaries from the Karamiya." -- Robert Hillenbrand, Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning, page 173.

• "..called Ghor, was almost wholly terra incognita to the early Islamic geographers..[..].. and as the home of a race of bellicose mountaineers who remained pagan until well into the eleventh century." -- C.E. Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, page 298. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I would add on but @Kansas Bear has said everything I would have said and posted the sources for it.

  I am in support of keeping it to paganism as the claim of them being buddhist is dubious and many other sources refer to them as Pagan. Noorullah (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Let me again stress on this point that there are sources which adressed the early Ghurids to be Pagans but none of them dismissed the very likely Buddhist connection which Professor Nizami touched upon. No, it's not dubious by any means instead the current designation of Paganism is dubious as it's obviously ambigious. Buddhists were obviously refered to as Pagans/infidels/healthens etc. by Muslim historians so there is no point of it being dubious..

  Except Boworth 2015 none of these sources commented upon the nature of paganism, even Bosworth laconically just mentions that the nature of paganism is unknown. If there are reliable sources which commented on our topic in detail (Nizami attributed a whole chapter on this titled "Conversion of Ghur") that they should be prefered over the references which just made a vague reference to the Ghurids. Anyway, let's wait for more comments upon it.

  On other note, I am soon going to write a religion section where all these aspects including their later change of schools will be covered at length. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 16:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any other sources, Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker? Not only are the sources listed by Kansas Bear in great abundance, but are written by highly prominent authors (including arguably one of the most prominent scholars in Medieval Islamic history of the Near East, C.E. Bosworth). No disrespect meant to the two figures, but Chandra and Nizami does not seem to be near the level/prominence of the listed authors. I could be wrong, of course. Another source that calls them pagan;

• "They were descended from eastern Iranian Tajik stock but spoke a dialect of Persian sufficiently different from that of their neighbors for the Ghaznavid Sultan Masud to require local interpreters during his campaign to subjugate the region in 1020 and convert its pagan inhabitants to Islam" - Thomas, D.C. (2016). Ghurid Sultanate. In The Encyclopedia of Empire (eds N. Dalziel and J.M. MacKenzie). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe216 --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am finding it hard to swallow that the contributors of such excellence failed to catch my main point. Obviously, I am nowhere denying that scholars did not designated them as Pagans, as a matter of fact Nizami himself called them as pagans. But, they are simply refering to them as Pagans by citing Juzjani who wrote the iconic Tabaqt-I-Nasiri. Anyone, who followed Persian historiography in any length are quite aware that the chroniclers simply call their non-muslim nemesis as pagans. Juzjani, Juwyani, al-Athir et al; called Mongols pagans as well does it change the fact that they were followers of Tangrism ? Paganism doesn't means that they can't be Buddhist, perhaps we need to make a new section in the article body regarding it and then summarize it into the lead. Since, it's meaning is ambigious, then there is definate need to shed light upon it with availiable reliable sources.

Also HistoryofIran - nobody is beliting Bosworth repute in the eastern Islamic world but neither he is saying that they weren't Buddhist, as explained earlier paganism is no definate religion it's a vague designation by Muslim historians (medieval times) for the non-muslim empires. BTW, despite the Ghurids despite being of Iranian origin and of Persian speaking dialect, their legacy in the eastern Islamic world is inconsequential and except a spur under the dyarchy of Ghiyath al-Din & Muhammad Ghori they were largely confined to the hills of Ghor. Their any lasting legacy actually survived east of the river Indus in the South Asia. I don't think anybody who are active on Indian history articles will rate Satish Chandra or K.A. Nizami as unreliable. Actually, Nizami was the one who composed the chapter on the Ghurids in History of civilizations of central Asia: Volume IV The age off achievement: A.D. 750 to the end of the fifteenth century : (part one) The historical, social and economic setting in which Bosworth was the general editor. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 05:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I get what you're saying, and I know you weren't belittling Bosworth. My point is that it seems that the the beliefs of the early Ghurids is uncertain to the point that a lot of scholars simply choose to call them "Pagans", not considering the Ghurids being Buddhist to be a possibility. Perhaps it could be written that the beliefs of the early Ghurids are uncertain, with many referring it to as paganism, with Chandra and Nezami suggesting it to be a form of Mahayana Buddhism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

• "it may be assumed that people of Ghur also believed in some sort of Mahayana Buddhism.." --Mohammad Habib; Khaliq Ahmad Nizami
• "Even then it is believed that paganism, ie. a variety of Mahayana Buddhism persisted in the area..." ---Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526), page 22.

Habib/Nizami say assumed, while Chandra states it is believed.

As such, Wikipedia should not present assumptions or beliefs as fact. Wikipedia can state it is believed/assumed by (Habib,Nizami,Chandra) they were Buddhists, while other academics simply call them pagans. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

• "Also HistoryofIran - nobody is beliting Bosworth repute in the eastern Islamic world but neither he is saying that they weren't Buddhist..."

We are not here to prove negatives, and K.A. Nizami in the History of civilizations of central Asia: Volume IV The age of achievement: A.D. 750 to the end of the fifteenth century : (part one) The historical, social and economic setting fails to call the Ghurids Buddhist. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

He did not know the Persian language, so he had a Persian translator in his court. he was not tajek. Realone23 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not sure why you created two threads for this. Anyways, read WP:SOAPBOX. Moreover, in Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not your personal theories/deductions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

thanks for comment Realone23 (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

A Turkic runic inscription in Southern Kazakhstan dating to 720 AD, refers to Arab invaders as "Taziks" (Tajiks)

The term Tazik or Tajik was originally applied to Arabs or their descendants in Ajam. The author of Hayat-i-Afghani says : "Of the many theories regarding the etymology of this word Tajik, the most probable is that which makes it a corrupt form of the Pahlvi word, Tazi, an Arab, a word still current in modern Persian with the same meaning. All the dictionaries give Tazi as meaning the descendants of Arabs in Persia or any other foreign country."

Note that Ghorids were not Tajiks in the meaning of Farsiwan. They are called Tajiks because they claimed to be descendants of Zahhak, an evil Arab king of Persian mythology who had serpents growing out of his shoulders.He did not know the Persian language, so he had a Persian translator in his court.

Realone23 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:PST, WP:SYNTH and misunderstanding of sourced material - all in all WP:OR. This is the same person that claimed that the Parni were Afghans [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lol and I also know who are you.racist Realone23 (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Talking about credable "modren sources" both cambridge history of india & iran call ghurids, ( suri Afghans)! 84.210.149.236 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which means nothing. No author, no page number, no quote, no link. Meaningless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Richard Eaton (2000). Essays on Islam and Indian History. Oxford University Press.
• Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, Online Edition, 2006
• Wink, André (2020). The Making of the Indo-Islamic World: c.700–1800 CE. Cambridge University Press.
• Cynthia Talbot, The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
• Flood, Finbarr B. (20 March 2018). Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval "Hindu-Muslim" Encounter. Princeton University Press.

Oxford University(2000)

Cambridge University(2020)

Cambridge University(2016)

Princeton University(2018)--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

My point was that there is qoute from cambridge history of islam in article, but the VERY cambridge on history of india and iran call it suri Afghans. Which was funny and as expected you prove my point by pointing some links. Any way, you don't want me to add 10s of books calling them Afghans,? Will it change a thing? Things are really stupidly funny here! 84.210.149.236 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which means nothing. No author, no page number, no quote, no link. Meaningless.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

• "..Tajik Ghurids which also held sovereignty in Khurasan and Ghur...." -- Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Volume IV: Age of the Great Mughals, André Wink, Brill, 2024, page 36. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  you cut out the start of the sentence right? :D where he is talking about Kurt dynasty who is descendents of tajik ( section) of ghurids :D good lord... 84.210.149.236 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No more than you attributing Ghurids to being Afghans when the sentence clearly doesn't call them that! No more than you ignoring the two quotes posted on Noorullah's talk page calling them of Tajik origin. Save your "good lord" for your own blind nationalistic bias. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

yeah right, everyone knows who is nationalistic here. And who is tireslly editing against a certain group. Thanks for the request. But save it. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, tirelessly, using academic published sources to write what you don't like. Got it.

• "everyone knows who is nationalistic here."

LMAO. You've been reading too much of your own propaganda. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only the sources you like. Others get deleted as - rv disruptive. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Clearly you've never heard of WP:CONSENSUS. Last time I removed references was here. Which means you must be Kamal Afghan01. Which also means, you didn't take it to the article talk page to get consensus. Instead you canvassed Noorullah to proxy edit for you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which means i dont know kamal and it also means dont make things up. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just see past 3-4 months and see how many sources are removed including norullahs, as disruptive. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Wikaviani Hi, per this edit, you said that what I posted in my edit and edit summary was not what the source said.

My edit: [2]

Your revert: [3]

Here was what I added: Many Ghurid princes married into local ethnicities such as Tajiks, Persians, Turks, and Afghans, thus characterizing them as some of these ethnicities.

Here's the source: Many of the Shansabani princes married Turkish slave-girls or possessed them as concubines. A notable admixture of Tajik, Persian, Turkish, and Indigenous Afghan ethnicities therefore characterized the Shansabanis." [4]

So could you explain how this would be OR? Noorullah (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I cannot read the source anymore, but I could when I reverted your edit. I don't remember why I performed that revert, however, feel free to revert me if you think that your edit was an improvement of this article. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Wikaviani Just saw this now, will be reverting, thanks for clearing this up. Not sure why you can't read the source though, that is kind of annoying. Noorullah (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The source in the beggining of article makes no mention of "presumably tajik", but only mentions that they were from Afghan Mountains.So it should only be left with eastren iranic origins. Correct me if i am wrong. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Read the sourced "Origins" section. Making more threads [5] will not get you closer to remove sourced info. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I said about the opening if you cared to read, just making up excuses as usual right? Then leave the origin in the " origins" section and stick to source in the opening , as was before u changed it. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you cared to read the policies of this website before your user account was indeffed, you would know that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the the body of the article. Scholars consider the Ghurids to have been Tajiks, thus that will remain in the lede, and you will just have to deal with it. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hehe you know more than me that most scholars considers Suri Afghans well.. suri Afghans. And dont get over excited behind your monitor, it's just wiki ( the most unreliable website, infact the only website that warns that i am very unreliable". Dishonesty should be in sale..and the discussion is over. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

And yet you are still remaining here despite being indeffed and desperately making new threads to remove sourced information by scholars who know much more than you. Make it make sense. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If Scholars that apparently know more than us nobodies still hold a strong belief that Ghauris were Tajiks then that is just laughable and pathetic.

In no empirical measure can Ghauris ever be described as Tajiks or Turks, from any respectable opinion whatsoever. We certainly know they weren't from those two as rational beings of course instead of from the perspective of the damaged psyche of many who feel the need to tie their ethnic group to whatever deemed glorious empire in spite of blatant intellectual dishonesty; a phenomenon that extends to Wikipedia and this article itself. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

In Wikipedia, we follow WP:RS, not our personal opinion. Since you have already been blocked for personal attacks once, I've pinged the blocking admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I consider myself principled enough to not lie to every human being who lays eyes on the article. It's objectively morally wrong to write up an indication towards a falsehood in the opening intro of an article from what is meant to be an impartial website. Wikipedian editors have no right to comment on the ethnicity of a people of whom the information is not known, non of you know they were Tajiks so why are people so insistent on the inclusion of that sentence?

Calling Ghauris as Tajiks is justified because its sourced. Now how does Wikipedia react to sources calling them Afghan or Turkic?

If it matters, I want "presumably ..." removed. If you can't claim it was a Tajik empire then why is it there? Theres sources that have us writing they're apparently of a different ethnicity.

"Presumably" and "Tajik" should be removed. Left to just say Eastern Iranic. Or just Iranian Empire which is the only appropriate classification.

To an extent Wikipedia does in fact let you use you think for yourself in the interest of the betterment of the site. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

In Wikipedia, we still follow WP:RS, not your "morals" or what you consider to be a "falsehood". I looked at the cited sources, 4 outrightly say that they were Tajiks, 1 says "probably", and the other "we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks." So I've removed, "presumably", that should satisfy your "morals". HistoryofIran (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not my morals; it's God's given morals, I am not one who uniquely decided this, billions of humans believe that if you lie to other you will be held accountable for it. If I phrased my comment in a way where I seemed very specific on the existing sources of the article itself then my mistake. I'm saying If I pulled out a source, what does Wikipedia do upon this?

If a source says that Ghauris did not natively speak Persian, what are you going to do about it? Just inquiring out of curiosity.. Do non-Persian speaking Ghurids come under the category of Tajiks in your mind? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia does not cater to "God's given morals" either. Read our policies this time, we follow those, and only those, including WP:RS. And I don't care about your question, this is not a WP:FORUM. See also WP:SOAPBOX. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very amusing. I've made my point atleast. I just wanted readers to see this entire discourse on the insistent publication of falsehood on wikipedia.

Reminds me of the Afghanistan not being apart of central asia thread on Wikipedia RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, very amusing that we have to follow the policies of this website, something you also tried to go against here [6] where you ended up getting blocked. Just like that thread, just because you don't agree with something, doesn't make it a "falsehood" - we still follow WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no Tiananmen Square massacre and Ghurids were not Tajiks. Falsehoods.

That was my point. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

He acts like he owns wiki, he even deleted - presumably- ,he is more confident than most scholars:D. Time you guys really do something. Take it to wikipedia administrasjon or something. 178.232.112.187 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I am relying on scholars (WP:RS), unlike you and RevolutionaryPatriot. Take it to Wikipedia adminstration? Like you were and got indeffed? Perhaps it's about time your IPs got the same treatment, since you're evading your block (WP:BLOCKEVASION). HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have NEVER been blocked! what are you on? And we have given 10s of books as reliable sources only to get reverted! Check history ones. 178.232.112.187 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've already reported you, you're not fooling anyone - you're the same person as 84.210.149.236. And instead of spamming article and user talk pages, you should perhaps read WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply