Talk:Ghurid dynasty

Use of medieval

Medieval is not a singularly European term. As seen here[1] the Cambridge History of Iran Vol.5, p159; "The medieval topography and history of Ghur........". The term "medieval" is used to represent a period in time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesnt prove that their is anything near a concensus about an Afghan historical period called "medieval". Medieval is a word many people, historians and amateurs, use to provide an easy definition (lazy definition) instead of really bothering to understand the history of in this case Afghanistan from an Afghan POV they use and already known model for them (Europes historicals periodization) and call it ancient, medieval or early modern history. Usually if a countries history fits in the timeline of the Middle Ages 5th-15th c. (a solely European period), or if it doesnt fit in the 5th-15th century but has any similiraty with Europes middle ages no matter how remote they are (example feudalism in Tokugawa Japan or the use of body armour pass the time when according to said people it was obsolete), they tag it "medieval history". So this articles lead takes no benefit from including a vague and subjective categorization to describe its subject, the infobox already states the years the Ghurid Dynasty lasted.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest writing it as "... was a Muslim dynasty .... in Khorasan during 12th and 13th centuries." Cabolitæ (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing that supports these statements, "medieval is a european period nothing to do with afghanistan" or "hardly conclusive as a source, inventing a period....". Whereas I have given a source from Cambridge University which is discarded as hardly conclusive as a source according to some. On the other hand, I have seen no viable reason to remove "medieval" from the lede and no source(s) have been presented to illustrate "medieval" as a European period or an invented period. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your soucer doesnt support your statement either, it only refer vaguely to something called "medieval geography" wich you interpret freely as supporting your opinion. You want a proof of medieval is a European period?just check google, or buy any book with the title medieval or look at the dictionary, even our article in Wikipedia states clearly "The Middle Ages (adjectival form: medieval or mediæval) was a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century. The period followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, and preceded the Early Modern Era." nothing to do with Afghanistan.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Medieval geography"?? Seriously??? So along with ignoring what the source says, you have decided Cambridge University is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your putting words in the source that arent there, you interpret the source so that its says what you want to hear. Misrepresentation of reliable source is also a sign of disruptive editing.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Really?

• The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, by C.E.Bosworth,[2]
  Ghurids/Ghurid being mentioned on pages, 118, 147, 148, 152, 317.
• The Multiple Dirhams of Mediaeval Afghanistan, by M.B.Michiner, [3]

Instances of Medieval Afghanistan;

• http://books.google.com/books?id=TzwkF07PwR0C&pg=PA59&dq=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&hl=en&ei=MdOYTdyaB4fTgQeE9YXVCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22medieval%20Afghanistan%22%20inpublisher%3AUniversity&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=3Z7rAAAAMAAJ&q=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&dq=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&hl=en&ei=p9OYTb6nOoGCgAey-sCCDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw
• http://books.google.com/books?id=OLNE_li8C10C&pg=PA345&dq=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&hl=en&ei=p9OYTb6nOoGCgAey-sCCDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22medieval%20Afghanistan%22%20inpublisher%3AUniversity&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=T_hjAAAAMAAJ&q=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&dq=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&hl=en&ei=89OYTd-TDcbDgQez-cDXCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg
• http://books.google.com/books?id=EeTZAAAAMAAJ&q=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&dq=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&hl=en&ei=89OYTd-TDcbDgQez-cDXCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw
• http://books.google.com/books?id=ZqU5AQAAIAAJ&q=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&dq=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&hl=en&ei=UtSYTbKVIobKgQePiI3BCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA
• http://books.google.com/books?id=-joXAQAAMAAJ&q=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&dq=%22medieval+Afghanistan%22+inpublisher:University&hl=en&ei=ZdSYTYzRDMPJgQfeoOG6CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ

All of these are from Universities by the way. So I am not "putting words in the source that arent there". You are ignoring a source, now sources, that clearly use the word medieval to describe a time period in Afghanistan. And since this sentence, "At its zenith, their empire, that was centered in Ghōr (now a province in Afghanistan), stretched over an area that included the whole of modern Afghanistan.", is contained within the article those sources do apply. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Scholars have long accepted some inaccurate or anachronistic terms to describe their field of study. The important point is that everyone knows what they're talking about. See, e.g., THE professional guild of these scholars in the United States, the Middle East Medievalists (http://www.middleeastmedievalists.org/). You will also note that the term "Afghanistan" is terribly anachronistic for this region of the world. Should we instead say "Greater Khorasan" or "Cis-Oxanian Central Asia" or "the Marches of Khorasan"? And why privilege the Persian, rather than the Indic, point of view of this region? With almost an infinite variety of terms, this would some become not only pointlessly bewildering, but also rather tedious. Let's save our energy for times when such precision does matter, where the improvident use of a word might actually lead the unsuspecting reader astray--such as saying "fief" to translate the term "iqta'". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.61.117 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PASHTUN ORIGIN

Salam Just because you say the Ghurids were Tajik or Turk doesn't make them Tajik or Turk. It is all speculation and i suggest we remove that from their wiki page. Even historians or encyclopedia can do is speculate not demonstrate and as a matter of fact pashtuns have left more history and evidance of their rule, and is still there to see so Ghurids are more likely to have been pashtun but even that is speculation. SALAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.8.50 (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

just because you are inferiority complexed so cannot except the truth does not mean we need to edit wiki page to please your complex. For that please go see a shrink. Salam! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.166.139 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you inferiority complexed Pishtons changing history?

Even the reference number 1 says 'Turk'. But some Pishton changed it to Afghan. Is this is a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.166.139 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't you mean Qutb-ud-din Aibak, who started the Ghulam dynasty in India? If you have published sources stating Ghurids were Turkic, please post them here. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about reference number 2 (which was previously reference number 1). That reference clearly states they were "Afghan (Turkic) Samanid Subject Kings". 'Afghan' is a term of Pishtons. As the defeated, exiled, Pishton fugitive Khushhal Khattak said Pishton is Afghan and afghan is Pishton. Pishton is not Turk. Just because the Turk ruled over the Pishton for centuries does not mean Turk is Pishton. The reference clearly states Turkic!!!! not Pishton! please remove all reference to Pishton (Pashtun) as they were created by the British (after 2nd Anglo Afghan war). All Pishtons must stop creating lies to hide their inferiority complexes! This is not British created Afghanistan you Pishtons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.166.139 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The origin of Ghurids and insulting of people

First of all mr Kansas Bear, the reference for my claim are easy. Even wikipedia will give you references. First of all, what was the fathers name of Muhammad of Ghor? His name was Sultan Bahauddin Suri, as wikipedia stated in the article box of Muhammad of Ghor here and here about Sher Shah Suri here and about Sur or Suri tribe here! It do clearly shows that Ghiasuddin and Mohammad of Ghor are from Suri tribe of Pashtuns.

Ghor of the times of Ghurids wasn't the ghor of today. Before Ghorids there where people like Amir Suri, who ruled Ghor. Till the Ghurids where founded by Ala'uddin Ghori and some says Ghiassuddin Ghori. Ghor mostly inhabited by Pashtuns. By the time of Ghurids, Pashtuns have moved with the dynasty toward India. After which people from other areas have come to present Ghor.

Ghorids like Ala'uddin Ghori, Ghiasuddin Ghori and Shahabuddin Ghori are Pashtuns of Sur/Suri tribe. After the death of Muhammad of Ghor. His Turkic slave Qutbuddin Aibak of Afghan-Turkic origin takes the power over. And would become the first Muslim ruler of Delhi Sultanat. The fact is that Ghurids are Pashtuns from Ghor and that there ideology was based on Islam and not on any ethnic issue! So, after the death Muhammad of Ghor was Qutbuddin Aibak the ruler of the dynasty.

First off, your statement, "'The evidence is quite easy and simple. Muhammad of Ghor is the son of Sultan Bahauddin SURI. So, it means they are from SURI tribe of Pashtuns! A good evidence that shows that SURI tribe is a Pashtun tribe. Is of course Sultan Sher Shah SURI, the founder of Suri dynasty! :P LOL".

is unencyclopedic(the ":p LOL" part and the wording) and original research. Which is why I removed it. I have no bias for or against any ethnic group. If your information is so "easily" referenced, produce a reference. FYI, wikipedia articles can not be used to reference other wikipedia articles. Happy editing! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason why i have written this ":P LOL" was because of the wording and the statement of wikipedia toward their language and toward Pata Khazana. There many references that shows them to be Pashtuns from Suri tribe. The reason why i was refering wikipedia articles. It was to show that wikipedia is talking against herself :P lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.148.252 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Insulting of people

First of all, people are insulting each others. But by insulting someone, you aren't able to change true. Although this aggressive attacks of insulting ethnics are used against Pashtuns. But wikipedia is don't taking any step against it (although i haven't see any step against it so far). But however contrary is done against those Pashtuns, who raise there voice! Although wikipedia have lesser voice of Pashtuns of story (Point of View), than they deserve it!

There is much that is wrong with all of this. The "founder" of the Ghurids, in so far as we can point to a time when the Shansabanid family asserted primary within the region of Ghur, may be most appropriately considered `Izz al-Din Husayn (ca. 1100-46), who was even called Abu al-Salatin ("Father of Sultans") for the number of his sons who attained to a position of power. Secondly, the man whom you call Muhammad of Ghor (Muhammad b. Sam b. Husayn, Shihab al-Dunya wa'l-Din, after 1203 Mu`izz al-Dunya wa'l-Din) was most definitely not the son of Suri (presumably you mean Sayf al-Din Suri, who was killed by Bahram Shah in Ghazna in 1149). This latter was his paternal uncle. Thirdly, as far as their having an "ideology [that] was based on Islam" goes, you have clearly not read anything published over the last decade by F. Barry Flood. Finally, since this is merely Wikipedia (meaning we should mirror the most widely accepted scholarly point of view and not engage in original research or speculation), we should probably endorse Bosworth's view that the Ghuris were of eastern Tajik extraction. (Cf. his entries in the Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica; and also his "The Early Islamic History of Ghur," Central Asiatic Journal 6 [1961]: 116-33). After reading nearly everything published on the Ghurids over a two-year span, I know of no scholar since Dorn's day that seriously entertains the view that they were Afghan (Pashtun), whose Ur-Heimat was on the other side of the Sulayman mountain range. I trust that the argument for a Pasthun progeny from the name "Suri" requires no specific discomfiture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.61.117 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This Article is False and unrealible please pay close attention

wikipedia's credibility and Admin's attention is needed

wikipedia's credibility and Admins is needed. Well I may be just another spamer for those fake and liers who just wants to feel as Wikipedia is theirs. Well if your organizations invested money into Wikipedia than I am sure you have a point, but in a general sense if this site is out there as one number popper in google search engine it creaps people out. Just because Iranians are involved in this site made this page or whatever does not everything must belong to Iranians. Afghans have their own identity, history, classify themselves as race and yet despite the world divided them by ethnic groups they still redefined the "ethnic names" being put simply in linguistic classification. The question to you people is just because you people read some Iranian source which does not obey International law of Copy right, and nor being sued simply because they have a terrorist ignorant government. Does not mean the job is done put simply because there is no other sources. Afghanistan is doing all of its best to bring back the baseless, propagandist agenda of their enemies who claims their history. In the 40 years of (1970-2010 )war and political conflict, considered to be the most important era of modern “nation building” and Afghanistan as of few 2, or 3 nations which did not achieve this opportunity while history of its neighbours are complete.

Here is one question and most of non-Afghan by that I mean non-Afghan as being not belonging to Afghan society, such as their religion, traditions, and most importantly tribalism. Afghanistan is a tribal nation and by that 70% of the people know their tribes and some over 50% practice tribalism to the most extreme level even if it means going against their religion. Leaving this subject aside I have look the history of changes being made in Wikipedia and as the admins have also noticed people did lost hope in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has lost its credibility simply because many of its articles are bias, unreliable or lets perhaps too fake and unique in a sense that its only coming from Wikipedia. My suggestion to the admin who is control of this page shell pay a little close attention into this. Now I remember this from YouTube and I understand people will try to bring YouTube but unlike Wikipedia YouTube does not have that must discrepancy as comparing to Wikipedia. Having said that for those who might want to investigate this video by all means more than welcome, needless to say but it’s coming from Local TV channel Tolo which is famous inside and outside Afghanistan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjdFI9Q9G1c

If someone is to monitor this page, the editing request or the questions that many opposes rises are not outsiders since they know little but rather its those who freely and openly claim to be Afghan. Ghurids is one empire that is attached to a huge tribe and by that the people for hundreds of years been told of whom their forefathers were and what important role they played (If there was any). Afghan tribalism is unique and few books out there that clearly points out how detailed and accurate it is. What makes it inaccurate when non-Afghan sources are intervened? Sure possibility of more sources rises more question and perhaps gives us a better picture of things. For example despite people have posted many sources that Pashtu was the language of Ghurids and later the Ghalzi also claim themselves as being from Ghurids spoke Pashtu in their courts. Yet many sources of point out that Courtly language of Ghurids was not Farsi for sure than what was it? Its very amusing that many Mods, and Admins put blind eye into this subject simply because it shines their own interest such as Nationality, Persian pride or country. Whatever it maybe.

My last words are this who knows about their own history more? The Afghans themselves or the “Outsiders”? Whoever behind the computer just write history as their own way just because they feel like? Imagine somebody from Afghanistan just writing something about American history or an era like American Civil war by reading Afghan translated Russian sources? would it be acceptable in the “American” mass media as it may also carry misleads and mendacious effects? After all it’s coming down to where Russians got their sources ok the French. In the same matter Americans would ask “why not read our own sources we as American know what happened because our forefather’s generations have told stories or witness realities.

Aside from all Suri is well known famous tribe of millions of people. How can people be so naive to not get such simple reality into consideration. The tribe is not death, it still exists. All of them saying the same thing that their tribe ruled the world. If they are Pashtuns then Ghurid was Pashtun, and if Pashtu wasn't there at that time and the Suri speak another UFO related language than it should again be investigated.

Farsiwan (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do totally agree with user Farsiwan. Tofaan (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How about some sources instead of opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a other statement of wikipedia users that is talking against himself! Wikipedia users mention Ghorids as Shansabani Persian and mention them as Sunni Moslims. But they have forgotten that Persians are Shia's and Pashtuns are Sunni, Moslims! Ghorids aren't so-called Shansabani Persians! They are in fact Sarbani Pashtuns! Persians are Shia not Sunni !!Tofaan (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Still no sources to justify the massive changes made to this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here you are mr Kansas Bear, [4], [5], [6] is this enough or do you want more? And if you can understand Pashto, than please watch that video of users Farsiwan! Tofaan (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you not have any English published sources? Surely it can not be that difficult.

One of your "website" source states this:Warning! The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased. That is why you should use a published English source.

And no, unfortunately, Pashto is not one of the languages I can read or understand. Sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

See brother Kansas Bear the English doesn't trust the Russians ask yourself why? I am sure you are far educated and no need of my explaination in the same manner Afghans don't trust Iranian sources. Despite the fact that they might use little truth here and there but over all the make biased and selfish. This is why you want English source right. The problem is during the time of friendship between Iran and USA lots of books were published as being considered pro-Iranian. Now as I mentioned in the above statement of mine that from 1965 and on there was no such books published under supervision or confirmation from Afghan government cause there was non. Since 1965 political war and as russian invasion there is no such book that you could count on. Farsiwan (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know who put that warning there. Why do I want an English published source? Because this is English wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that source written in Russian or Turkish??????? What the hell is English?? It really doesn't matter which language it's! The matter is that you can understand it! It's written in English! What does it matter if it's written by a Russian or Turkish person??????!!! Maybe it's good for you to watch this video once, Islamic Afghan Empires 622 AD -1250 AD. Tofaan (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is a form but the statements are murderous for wikipedia users! [7]Tofaan (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tofaan and thanks Kansas for paying attention but my argument how can you just leave it as "Iranian rulers" when yet the argument from many sources point that they were Afghanan and not Iranian. Fine I will not change this for now and give you some time to read this, cause you know what if the sources mentioned in the top is some private site called "History files" dispite it did not mentioned anything Iranian and goes like this "Ghurid rulers from the Shansabani clan took over and formed a short-lived sultanate. Some scholars relate the Shansabani name to that of the Sassanids, many of who had fled east into Khorasan during the Arab invasion of Persia in 651" So how do we know these were the same people who fleed Pars province due to Arab invasion and came to Khorasan? I think it would so naive to even take this into consideration. If the wikipedia claims all of Afghanistan as Iranian then why bother? So just because Iranica assumed Sussanian were rulers and therefore considered as being only Persian, why not give identity to other non-Parsi empires who ruled Iran? According to the Legends Shansabānī family had ancestral lines to the Sassanian royal family? What Legends? Seriously the local people are still there the tribes are still there so what “legends” the fake ones that also claims Samanids as Sussanians? What is this? The Ghurids did not like the Samanids either? So What connection is there that we know today which these Ancients people didn’t knew about themselves? The line of Ghurids started from Suri tribe, and if you talk about legends it’s also true that one local leader of Suri, Shansub, who accepted Islam under Caliph Hazrat Ali, was subsequently empowered by the Caliph as the king of Ghor. This is a fact that even Baihaqi admits that “Although kings of Muslims the population was not” Even admited by Pashtun and their tribal names carrying non-Islamic names. One of the persons related to the Suri tribe was Mahawi Suri, the margrave of Merv who had the last Sassanid King Yazdi Gurd, killed by a miller in 31 H./651 A.D., and according to Tabari, had an audience with Hazrat Ali (the fourth Caliph) and obtained a letter from him authorizing Suri to collect tributes and taxes.17[17] This Mahawi Suri was a powerful ruler and, according to Firdowsi, conquered the citics of Balkh, Herat, and Bukhara. “To his first born he gave Balkh and Hari, and sent his armies in every direction. He gave the soldiers money to prosper and then toward Bukhara they marched the warriors of the brave army.” If this legendary narrative of Firdowsi is not entirely true, at least its main points such as Mahawi's relationship with the Suri tribe and his contention with Yazdi Gurd are in accord with the relations by other historians. For the letter that Hazat Ali (May Go be pease with him) had issued and bore the date of 36 H./656 A.D is itself recorded by Jabari.18[18] http://www.weesa.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/amir-kror-and-his-ancestry.pdf

Aside from all “1186: Ghaznavids succeeded by Ghorids (Pashtuns from central mountains), who vigorously extend empire. http://www.morc.info/MORC_Afghan_History-1.html

Since there are large number of over whelming number of sources be it if its from embassy of Afghanistan or others Wikipedia users reject it so just as they rejected Pata Khazana. Besides the attackers of Pata Khazana usually made false claims that Habibi made the book himself it’s funny when its older version lol even before birth of Habibi a copy of it was setting in corner of Europe. “On November 22, 2003, an article on Pata Khazana by Magda Katona appeared in Magyar Nemzet Magazin of Budapest, Hungary. The author claims that a manuscript of Pata Khazana is preseved in the Armin Vambery Collection of the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. It was obtained by Armin Vambery from Yakub Khan of Herat in 1859 A.D. Here is the full text of the article in Hungarian downloaded from the Magyar Nemzet Magazin website:” http://patakhazana.home.comcast.net/~patakhazana/

Farsiwan (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to make changes according to published sources I have found but then I am quickly reverted by user:Ketabtoon who says, "read the previous discussions first and then jump in"[8] or "After long discussions, it was decided to keep it neutral and open". Just so you know. So he/she may appear after you change something and revert you. Be careful not to editor war or you could get blocked/banned. Happy editing! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol Kansas Bear, user:Ketabtoon hasn't say anything about this discussion! In your link what you give us is, that he undo someone else editing, who is trying to claim this tribe as of being from Tajik origins! Be honestly and dare to face the true! Now we have gived you proves and you haven't any respons to it. Than you are giving us false links and false statements by other users, in this case Ketabtoon! Must we really now see wikipedia as a free and independent encyclopedia? once again, be honest and dare to face the true!!Tofaan (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL, instead of being arrogant, try reading the archives in which a previous discussion was held concerning the Ghurids ethnicity. Claim? It is no claim when backed by a published source. All I have seen from you are unpublished websites. I honestly do not care what ethnicity they were, I am only concerned with reliable sources for this article. If you can not remain civil then there is no reason to continue this discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed several times. The last time this topic was discussed, some sources were provided which supported their Tajik origin. At the same time, tens of sources were provided which considered them to be Afghans (including several old sources, 50+ and 100+ year old sources). I understand the word "Afghan" covers all ethnic groups living in current day Afghanistan. However, at the time the books were written, the word Afghan was used for ethnic Pashtuns. Thus, it was agreed to use the word "Iranian" origin instead of "Afghan" or "Tajik" in the introduction Paragraph and both origin should be included and discussed at the "Origin" section of the article. The origin section is still biased and POV because even though it mentions their Afghan origin, but the wikipedian concluded that they were of Tajik origin. There should have been no conclusion regarding their origin and should have been left open (both "Afghan" and "Tajik" origin should have been given equal coverage). (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

a) No serious, scholastic source calls the Ghurids "Afghans". In fact, the most important ones (including all publications by C.E. Bosworth who is regarded the most authoritative expert on the subject) explicitly deny this claim.

b) In academic sources, the word "Afghan" refers to Pashtuns only.

c) The word Suri is derived from sūr and is the common Iranian word for the color "red". In fact, even the modern Persian word surḫ used to be sūrḥ and is ultimately derived from sūr (Central Asian dialects of Persian - including Classical Literary Persian "Dari" - tend to the sound change of [h] → [x], hence modern ḫudā, "God", instead of MP hudā and modern ḫuš, "happy/good", instead of MP huš). The claim that the entire Ghurid dynasty was Pashtun because only one of them (Saif ad-Dīn Sūrī) had the cognomen (Ar. laqab) "Suri" and because that cognomen resembles a modern Pashto tribal name is ridiculous.

d) The language of the Ghurids was different from the literary Persian ("Dari") of that time, but there is absolutely no proof that it was Pashto. In fact, it is highly improbable. Pashto appeared much later, has distinguishable Indian influences, and there are no archaeological or historical proofs that Pashto was spoken in or around Ghor before the advances of Abdali Pashtuns in the 18th century. Besides that, there is undeniable historical proof that the first Pashtuns who moved north of the Arghandab were those allied to the Safavid Shah Abbas the Great - 500 years after the Ghurids. Also a persuasive argument against the Pashtun theory is the fact that "Afghans", as a tribal group, were well known to contemporary writers and historians (including al-Biruni and ibn al-Athir), but all of them clearly distinguish "Afghans" from "Ghurids".

e) Last but not least: see WP:NRSNVNA. Citing Jimbo Wales:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.253 (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What a non-sense go and ask a punjabi Rajputi from Khatri community and they will tell about Suri. Because when Kakars united with Rajputs to fight the king Mahmud of Ghazni, many non-Muslim Suri also united with Rajputs and they stayed in India. You bring some non-sense in the table about Iranian word lol What Iranian word? Farsi? it was created resently where as Suri was early mentioned in Sanskirt 3000 years becoming of Islam so forget about you non-sense IRanian word. Beside I am a Farsi speaker and in Afghanistan we also "Guli-Suri" flower of Suri. Besides Suri is a sanskirti word meaning "Sun". Suri is tribe that even Arabs mentioned dozen times. Suri did not came from your Farsi Irani word "red" besides you should know Farsi picks up words from everywhere, does not mean you iranians claim everything. Suri is a tribe, millions of people such as Kohzad, Shansbe, Ghura Khel, google any of these names they are sub tribe and branches of Suri tribe a group of people not some flower or some red berries.Aisde from what I said this needs to investigated Suri as mention by Taberi were "tribal" people, where as Sussanians were never tribal, nor any persian. Tribal society dig deep in the region of Afghanistan where 80% of is area are mountians. Perhaps Suri from Ghur were cleaned out due to Mongolian invasion as claim by Mandu Khle, and Ghura Khels that Suris killed Mongolian prince and resulted in death of thousends of Suri men and some escaped into high mountians towards East.Farsiwan (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Answers dedicated to this IP-address ignorent!

A) The dynasty ""Ghorids"" are from Ghor of Afghanistan, as very one knows! So, You can easly call it Afghan dynasty, because it's located in Afghanistan!

B)In academic sources the word "Afghan" means, the inhabitants of Afghanistan! And it are especially Iranian/Persian and Western ingorents who use it for only Pashtuns! But if you are calling about academic sources, than the word ""Iranian"" is refers to "only" Persians! Why do than Wikipedia mention us ""Pashtuns"" as eastern-Iranian!! We aren't Iranian aka Persian!!! We are Aryans!! Ok it's fact that shah palawi of Persia called Persia Iran inorder to claim the famous history of Aryans aka Afghans!! Ariana is the old name of Afghanistan and not of Persia!!

C)About the word ""SUR"". SUR isn't a common iranian aka Persia word for the color "RED"! if it comes to color names. Than as you must know, that sur means red in Pashto and iranians aka Persians call the color red SORKH. But in this case SUR has nothing to do with color names! Sur and Sam where two brothers. who lived in Ghor and the Ghorids like Ala'uddin ibn Sam or aka Ala'uddin Suri, Ghiasuddin ibn Sam or aka Ghiasuddin Suri and Shahabuddin ibn Sam or aka Shahabuddin Suri are their children! The Pashtun tribe SURI are the children of the two brother named SUR and SAM (Sur the older one and Sam the younger one. This is why this Tribe is called SUR and not SAM) and haven't anything to do with color names!

D)There enough proves that proves that Ghor do belong to Pashtun tribe SURI and that proves that Pashto is their mother tongue and the language of Ghor at the time! The famous rulers of Ghor of the time for example Amir Polad Suri, Amir Kror Suri, Amir Nasir Suri, Mahawi Suri, Asad Suri, Amir Suri, Mohammad Suri, Bahauddin Suri, Ala'uddin Suri, Ghiasuddin Suri, Shahabuddin Suri and many many more! So now please now you mention several rulers of the time, who where Persians and who ruled Ghor at the time!

Before you show us your ignorents it's better for you to study a little bit harder, you ingorents! Maybe it's good for you all to watch this video once, Islamic Afghan Empires 622 AD -1250 AD. Tofaan (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignorants of Wikipedia and her users!

You ignorents! By origin of the dynasty you have this statement (In the 19th century, some European scholars, such as Mountstuart Elphinstone, tended to classify them as a Pashtun tribe,. and than you ignorents statement about their language is this (There is nothing to confirm the recent surmise (as claimed in the Paṭa Khazāna) that the Ghurids were Pashto-speaking.

When Mountstuart Elphinstone classify them as Pashtuns than it do automatically means that they spoke the Pashto language!!! Why are you users acting as ignorents????? When mountstuart Elphinstine have classify them as Pashtuns. Than it's there something which confirms that they were Pashto speaking Afghans!!!! Why are you users such ignorent???? This are things which defame wikipedia as a creditable source of information!!!! It's wikipedia what ever they want!!! But their behavior regarding the history of Afghanistan and especially that of Pashtuns, wortless propoganda's and more biased on agressief attitude toward the History of Afghanistan and especially that of Pashtuns, than a creditable souce of information!!! GET A LIFE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tofaan (talk • contribs) 13:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As this seems aimed at all Wikipedia editors please note wp:No personal attacks, and wp:Assume good faith. This sort of emotional 'rant' is unlikely to advance your 'cause'. Ps. Please sign you posts with four tildes thus: ~~~~ Regards, 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Toofan Good point I came to look at its like Wikipedia is one that is just so new its like so fake and ironic. I am not sure what to say, maongst many the majority of 12 or 16 million Ghalzai confidracy the Suris are majurity and then some no its the Suliman Khel but whatever how can millions of people would fall into this. Most of the sources which looks into history of Ghurids look at it from "Iranian" point of view and non of these "non-Afghan historians actually looked at the history of Ghurid from archaelogical, native ancient historians or true native historical prospective. If you want to know about history or backround of someone wouldn't you ask himself/herself? Yet no such book was written about Afghanistan such as written about Iran "The Cambridge History of Iran" for example. While there is one source that mentions their language and yet iranian remove it.

174.88.34.126 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To keep it short: what Tofaan, Farsiwan and the 174.xxx. IP write is purely nonsense. That's not Wikipedia is about. This happens if unqualified people try to push for an ethno-nationalistic agenda. The result of it can be seen in this discussion: un-academic, un-encyclopedic nonsense.

The group also totally disqualifies itself by claiming that Western academics are not to be trusted, but that instead unqualified locals should be asked. This kind of awkward, illogical, and racist thinking is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia.

The academic sources are clear: the Ghurids were NOT Pashtuns. All available sources - literary, archaeological, and historiographic - suggest otherwise. Most of the claims put forward by the group above are unencyclopedic, unacademic, and should be ignored. Mountstuart Elphinstone (who wasn't even a real historian and had no idea of comparative linguistics or archeology) is no match for real experts on the subject, such as Bosworth or Morgenstierne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.253 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We can be sure Ghurids spoke an Iranic language, however, the form of Iranic dialect is not 100% known and it might have be a dead Iranian dialect/language. I think Iranica mentions: "The Ghurids came from the Šansabānī family. The name of the eponym Šansab/Šanasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Wišnasp (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 282)...". The current introduction is neutral as it mentions they spoke an Iranian language without getting specific.. then it in the body several different opinions are given. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

____Interesting discussions here although we all have to admin that their is lack of sources most of the sources we have are non-english. If anybody want indian I sure can provide hindi sources which all of confirms the ghuri kingdom to be Pathans. Because they were major player in history of india. I think most of their era was spend in India, I remember Karturaghti's mentioning that Ghurids were not Farsi and that their offspring hated Farsi as well and did not wanted to be spoken in their courts. With all respect to Iranian dominated wikipedian but we have to admit that Pashtuns or Afghans are really disrespected in this matter specially in their So called true and first pashtun dynasty. Many of our sources point out that Pathans were the owners of Ghurid kingdom and in fact if someone looks at the word Pathan they will see the picture clearly of how it came to be noticed by indians as first muslim "invaders".

Also talk The Iranica's is too vague if Šansabānī family were persian Sassanian/middle persian and it comes the word from the name " Wišnasp" and who was Wišnasp, what or who was Wišnasp? Iranians and indians always exchange names such as Iraj should we claim Iraj to be an indian just because its an indian name drived Raj? Wišnasp does help in anything only one guy Justi, Namenbuch, in 282 mentions about Wišnasp with less than 10 word and not even details. So we believe in that just because Iranica says so? I personally don't see any logical trace between. I remember reading this even back in india how come muzzafudin said when Arabs came we were not aware of Arabs or Islam our forefathers accepted Islam and blessed by khlifa Ali? The Shansbani might of knew about their root and if they were persian or any ruling dynasty related to persia they would take pride and condamn the Arabs like the parsis of india. One sure thing I know that suri by their own word were the first muslims of Afghanistan and considered themselves anti-persian. Because the fella called Farsiwan seems to pull out something which I researched. Correct me if I am wrong why did Suri mention in shahnameh killed the last king of Persia and helped spread Islam? Why did khawarzm who won hearts and minds of persian yat hated by sunni population and the hardcore sunni ghurids, who were pan-abbasids?. The most important concept here is that Ghurid were Afghan and perhaps pure and since pashtuns claim it as own nothing wrong with that. Because every pashtun tribe or dynasty one way or other did not give up persian and it was always in their courts. Because of their nature being natives of Khorasan as many iranian intellectuals agree came modern Persian language so what is the problem? 68.171.231.17 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you and User:Tofaan are having difficulty understanding reliable sources here on wikipedia, I would suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and this link.[9] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kansas Bear, isn't Mountstuart Elphinstone a academic source or at least a reliable source? Isn't Pata Khazana a academic source or at least a reliable source? and the most important is of course Minhaj Siraj Juzjani, the historian of Ghorids court. Who claimed Ghorids as Suri tribe of Pashtuns. However this is typical wikipedia users statement. However have a nice time, this is a endless discussion! As we Pashtuns have a saying, "with two fingers you aren't able to hide the sun.". In this case the true. ;) Tofaan (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Aren't Morgenstierne, Bosworth, Dupree, Gibb, Ghirshman, Longworth Dames academic sources? You have not explained why you removed those sources and what those sources say.[10] Essentially you are practicing cherry-picking, adding information that you want and removing sourced information you do not want. And to paraphrase a movie quote, "The Irish have a saying, don't listen to Pashtun sayings....". --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this[11], Minhaj Siraj Juzjani calls them Ghurids.

According to this[12], Minhaj Siraj Juzjani's book, Tabaqat, is written in Persian and was completed in Delhi.[13]

Which begs the question why you were removing information that stated this:The Ghurids were great patrons of Persian culture and literature and lay the basis for a Persianized state in India. They also transferred the Khurasanian architecture of their native lands to India, of which several great examples have been preserved to this date. However, most of the literature produced during the Ghurid era has been lost. Out of the Ghurid state grew the Delhi Sultanate which established the Persian language as the lingua franca of the region - a status it retained until the fall of the Mughal Empire in the 19th century. A citation would have been better.

When the information now indicates Minhaj Siraj Juzjani was in Delhi, why remove the above mentioned paragraph?

As for the Tabaqat-i Nasiri, it is a primary source and should be used "with caution" according to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.[14] --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Elphinstone, Mountstuart. The History of India. Vol. 1. J. Murray, 1841, 598, states the language as Khorasan. When I type in Khorasan language, I get Khorasani Turkic language(along with non-language hits), not Pashto language. So technically that source does not support Pashto. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Excavations at Kandahar 1974 and 1975, by Anthony McNicoll, Warwick Ball, p402, calls them Persian speaking Ghurids.

The Last Lingua Franca: English Until the Return of Babel, by Nicholas Ostler, p98, calls them Tajiks.

Indo-Persian Historiography Up To The Thirteenth Century, by I H Siddiqui, p154, quoting C.E.Bosworth, calls them eastern Iranian Tajik speaking a dialectic different Persian.

Al-Hind, the Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest, 11th-13th Centuries, by André Wink, p135, calls them eastern Persian or Tajik. Their language differed considerably from Persian.

A brief history of Islam, by Tamara Sonn, p88, calls them Persian Ghurids.

Literary cultures in history: reconstructions from South Asia, by Sheldon I. Pollock, p133, states, "Panjab thus witnessed the beginning and flowering of a high Persian literary tradition. Persian texts from the time of the first Ghurid ruler, Ala al-Din Jahansuz, stated that among the areas where Persian verse had cast its shadow and was parreciated was "the periphery of the land of Hind", referring to the Panjab."

The Cambridge history of Iran: The Timurid and Safavid periods, by Peter Jackson, Laurence Lockhart, p951, ...Ghurids and Ghurid mamluks, all of whom established centres in India where poets and writers in Persian received ample encouragement.

Just a brief search brought up these books. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Elphinstone should be used with caution because he was not an expert on the subject. He was a politician and soldier, writing history was his hobby - that means: he was not a real historian. His accounts contain valuable information on the people and culture of Afghanistan during his time (for example his work Account of the Kingdom of Cabul and its Dependencies in Persia and India). But he is not a reliable source when it comes to ancient or medieval dynasties, simply because he did not have the qualification needed or the sources we have today. That's why his accounts regarding Ghurids are universally rejected in modern scholarship. Fact is: we do not know who the Ghurids were and where they came from. The population of Ghur was isolated. Various peoples - Iranian and Non-Iranian - had crossed the region before (the most important ones being Bactrians, Persians, Tokharians, Hephthalites, as well as Khiljis and other Turkicized people). We can only assume that the "Āl-e Šansab" were eastern Iranian Tajiks, simply because their name resembles a Middle Persian name and because their family legend traced their origins to the ancient Persian mythological past (i.e. to Zohak). That's all. But whatever the case: the claim that they were Pashtuns has absolutely no basis, is pseudo-scientific and is rejected universally. There are no proofs for Pashtun tribal names, there are no proofs for the use of Pashto, there are no proofs that Pashtuns lived in that area - in fact: all available sources suggest otherwise. --Lysozym (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Along with Elphinstone, at least 18 other sources were given which considers them to be Afghans @ Talk:Ghurid_Dynasty/Archive_1#Ghorids_were_Afghans. Among them are old and new sources, written by Indians and Westerners, primary and secondary sources and so on. It is impossible for you, Lysozym to reject all those sources. That is why I would suggest and encourage all of you (including user: Tofaan to end this discussion because it won't get any where. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC))

Not the quantity is important, but the quality. And standard reference works (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Americana, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc.) - which represent the consensus in the academic world - cannot be disproved by 3rd class amateur writings by unqualified pseudo-historians, even if you present 100 of other books which claim otherwise. There are 100s or maybe 1000s of different books claiming that the earth is flat, that the world is going to end in 2012, that the Merovngians were descendants of Jesus Christ, that Islamic prophet Muhammad is a fake character created by the Abbasids (this one actually has a strong academic base which includes Christoph Luxenberg, Gerd Rüdiger Puin, Ibn Warraq, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, etc.), and so forth. But these are - at best - academic minority opinions. In case of the Ghurids, there isn't even such an academic minority opinion. No scholar and no expert on the subject claims that they were Pashtuns. It's only Pashtun nationalist writers and some other amateurs and pseudo-historians (including Abdul Hai Habibi) who stick to this claim which has been disproved and rejected so many times in the past 40 years. --Lysozym (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Lysozym - you are not being very helpful. I hope User:Kansas Bear understands complexity of this issue. (Ketabtoon (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC))

Actually, I understand everything about it. And I am sure that Kansas Bear agrees with me. You should read WP:NRSNVNA. Wrong and misleading information should be deleted immediately, aggressively, and without any compromises. There is no "complexity of an issue" when all authoritative and the most trustworthy academic works are clear about it. Lysozym (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

@Lysozym please don't be upset but to me personally you don't make sense at all have you read (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Americana's that mentions about Ghurids?, or you just assume that those were representing the consensus in the academic world. Dear Lysozym please help us and help yourself as well and read all three of them have the same source Bosworth. Besides sources of Abdul Hai Habibi was first attacked by an un-educated young British soldier David Neil MacKenzie who just turned 18 years old joined army when he was 17. Assumed that he knew enough about Pashtu because for 1 year 1945-1946 he was a soldier in NWFP but Afghans never paid attantion to his childhood claim its only the Iranians and westerners like Clifford Edmund Bosworth the orientalist historian who listen to his made up stories after a few years that claimed Ghurids not being Afghans but rather Persian related. He was also claim Abdul Hai Habibi made up the book the fact that this falsehood spread since 1945 and in 2006 disapproved as its original European sources convirmed that Abdul Hai Habibi did not made up Pata Khazana and that a copy of Pata Khazana was setting in Hungury written in unknown language to Hungerians in some over Hundred of years. Dear Lysozym and User:Kansas Bear just because Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Americana copied the same guy doesn't make that same source reliable in fact since Abdul Hai Habibi inmodern day since 2006 is verified once again to be proven right and that he did not made up Pata Khazana. The question is how reliable is your so called academic world encylopedia such as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Americana. Needless to say but I lost hope and assume that these academic world Encyclopaedias would just post anything non-sense being said against Islam and specialy our topic Afghans.Farsiwan (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Answer to User:Farsiwan

a) Please stick to the chronology of the discussion.

b) actually, the EI2, EIr, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc do represent the consensus among scholars. And the reason why Clifford Edmund Bosworth is the author of most of the articles regarding Ghurids is because he is considered (and he surely is) the foremost expert on the subject. In case of EI2 and EIr, the authors are explicitly asked by the editorial board to write articles for them, based on their reputation, academic publications, etc. In order to disprove these academic standard reference works (that means: they are authoritative) or to update the information, some really good and reliable literature (published by notable experts and/or respected universities) is needed. So far, you have only proved that you do not understand the meaning of WP:RS and that you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject.

c) Bashing David Neil MacKenzie won't help your cause. Your claims are ridiculous.

d) choosing the name of the Farsiwan will not hide the fact that you are pushing for un-academic Pashtun ethno-centric POV.

--Lysozym (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Lysozym The fact that I am farsi speaker is only I can prove and you have no right to make such argument of my origin as I have discussed this and it should not matter. Visit any Afghan site and all Afghan are own by Farsi speakers and they say the same thing this ethnic stuff does not fit well in the real world as it does in wikipedia. Besides for the arguments sake you know very well that there is no source in Farsi that claims Ghurids as being "non-Afghan" all sources point out that Ghurids were non-Arab, tribal and came out with their own system and unique form of strick sunni religous kingdom. Besides just because Afghanistan was left in the conflict for the past 40 years doesn't mean that you guys can make up anything you want. Many Farsi and Pashtu sources have came out since 9/11 and many of them oppose to Iranica and many "world known ecyclopedias simply because further research and achealogical sites discovered and proven. By 2012 and 2015 we will see these books soon to be translated into English as well as adpated by your 3 world classifed "Ecyclopedias" besides just to prove you were wrong for making this up---->How dear you '"But whatever the case: the claim that they were Pashtuns has absolutely no basis, is pseudo-scientific and is rejected universally. There are no proofs for Pashtun tribal names, there are no proofs for the use of Pashto, there are no proofs that Pashtuns lived in that area - in fact: all available sources suggest otherwise. --Lysozym (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)"' How Dear you say that? I have enough in Farsi that proves almost everyething you said was wrong. PAshtuns tribes such the Suri were natives of the central and northern Afghanistan were pushed into India by the Mongols and many of them being killed. But for the sake of argument and wikipedia's policy of not accepting non-English sources I have few English sources such as this --'The World Book encyclopedia 2006 edition page 190 5th paragraph says about Pashtun ancestoral home being Afghanistan "Ancestors of the Pashtuns lived in what is now Afghanistan by about 4000 B.C. In 1500's, some Pashtuns moved to present-day Pakistan" If you want I can scan the pages as well just let me know please.Farsiwan (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It makes no sense to further discuss this with you. You are so wrong. And you still do not understand the meaning of Wp:RS. You do not want to understand. You also do not understand the difference between language, ethnogenesis, and "nationality" as a whole (ever heard of Benedict Anderson?!). You are a hopeless case.

I do not care how many books in Persian or Pashto you want to present here. Quantity is not superior to quality. And not even 100.000.000 pseudo-scientific books by third-class amateurs driven by nationalistic agendas can "disprove" authoritative scholastic reference works such as the EI2 or EIr. EoD. --Lysozym (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Lysozym EI2 or EIr. lol they became simply because of these "third-class amateurs driven by nationalistic agendas" so now ask yourself is Iranica realiable if they post hand picked articles of A. Ḥabībī after all you wikipedian Iranians rejected his books and yet Irancia uses his source to become the heroic title you gave them. So can they such as Iranica "disprove" third-class amateurs books and yet referred to by some as authoritative scholastic reference? LOL Pick your words wisely which is why I mentioned the first attackers of Pata Khazana anmd since they are proven wrong your view of scholastic reference is simply what fits best for your Iranians claiming everything. So what happen do you want me to prove that Pashtuns did existed in Afghanistan some 4000 BCE that is further than any history of Aryanic civilization in Iran after all no since of Aryan in Iran under Archeamanids so the question is how informed are you to make a decision of what is " scholastic reference" and what is not LOL at same source Bosworth, “Karrāmiyya,” Bosworth, “The Early Islamic History of Ghūr,” Central Asiatic Journal, 1961 p. 667 LOL Karrāmiyya lol you now claim them to be Shia? yes I know what it means but you only have one source as always Bosworth same guy saying same thing Farsiwan (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for proving that you also have absolutely no idea who the Karrāmiyya were. Great. EoD. --Lysozym (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So Karramiya were anti-Shia how does that fit into your Eodiscussion lol I think you don't know exactly What Ghurids were it means that you lack greater aspect of what they really were anyone reading start to end will know exactly how you went abouts round and round saying the same thing and flaws and personal knowledge of what you made up. There are many question you have answer in the future boddy EoDFarsiwan (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)