Talk:Greater Khorasan/Archive 1

Afghanistan

Afghanistan was called Khorasan up to the 18th century, when Ahmad Shah Abdali renamed it to its current name.

modern Afghanistan was considered Part of Persia up to 18th century (by afghan accounts) and officially till 19th century in which Persia recognized its independence as a political entity. So it doesn't make sense to say Afghanistan was called Khorasan up to 18th century. There was no separate entity back then. You can say that land that comprises Afghanistan was part of a territory which was called khorasan. This is already mentioned

File:Maps of Timurids and Safavids.jpg

Maps of both Timurids and Safavids Empires from the year 1407 to 1737.

Your not afghan my friend, you are khorasani. just go ask your dad he will tell you.

I am Afghan and I think Afghanistan was part Persia...take a look at these maps from the University of Pennsylvania. It is only claimed by Persians that Afghanistan was part of Persia up to the 18th century.......It was the other way around, Persia was part of Afghanistan (check Hotaki and Durrani Empire...and also read about the empire of Ghaznavid and Ghorids in encyclopedias).--NisarKand 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One must differenciate between Persia (Fars) and Khorasan. "Khorasan" was mostly attributed to the eastern regions of Persia (Please refer to the book "Hudoodul Alam menal mashreq-e menal maghreb"). It is true that some of the regions of Afghanistan were under the ruling of Persians, so were the vice versa. Even during the reign of Ahmad Shah Abdali, Afghanistan was called Khorasan. In the official and formal documents of that period, one can clearly observe this point. The land of Afghanistan was officially named to its current name during the ruling of Abdul Rahman Khan in the 19th century. This can be perfectly observed in the assignment/ treaty between Abdul Rahman Khan and Sir Martimir Durand, in which Afghanistan lost its western and southern territories to the British India. In the other hand, you can refer to the works of great Poets and Writers who lived for example in Balkh. They have never called themselves as Persian, but in fact as Khorasanis. So this indicate that these regions were rarely attributed to Persian territory or people did not regularly call themselves as Persians.

There is difference between Persian in English and Persian in Perisan. The former means Iran, and the latter means Pars or Fars province. So of course people from Khorasan did not call themsevles Farsi. People from Rey didn't call themsevles Farsi either. Because none were from "FARS" province, which was one of many Iranian provinces.

Khorasan means East not West: خراسان را بود معنی خورایان from fakhreddin assad gorgani (vis o ramin). Since when does the Sun come from the West?

Khorasan was always considered part of Iran (where Iran in the West was called Persia (till recently) because Sassanids and Achaemenids who formed two of the greatest dynasties pre-Islamic era were from Fars province)

Farrokhi Sistani calls Soltan Mahmoud Ghaznavi" (who ruled over all of Khorasan, and only part of some other provinces of Iran) "the king of Iran" as it can be seen from all these verses: [1]

Roudaki calles Saffari Amir as the "Glory of Iran" (مفخر ایران). [2]

From Introduction to "Abu-Mansouri Shahnama" we read that Iran is the territories from Egypt to Amooy River.[3]

Also Yaghut Hamavi quotes from Abureyhan khwarazmi:

«ایران شهر هی بلاد العراق و فارس و الجبال و خراسان یجمعها»: Translation: Iran shahr (land of Iran) is the territories of Eragh, Fars, Jebal and Khurasan altogether) [4]

What you have posted is blatant Afghan POV. In fact Persia (Fars) was a province in Iran. So was Khorasan, so was Azarbaijan.

Khorasan has always been part of Iran. For Balkh specifically we read in Shahnama (Kingship of Gushtasp section پادشاهی گشتاسب) that Balkh was part of Iran. Turan (under the leadership of Arjasp) attacks Iran by attacking Balkh.

History of Khorasan does not make sense separate from other provinces.

Behaafarid 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

* You are trying to mix up "Persia" (Fars), "Iran (as a country name)" and "Iran (as a great Aryan civilisation)". The former which refers to the Aryan civilisation (Aryana Weejha) cannot be only attributed to Iran (as a country). Aryana was/is a vast territory containing the northern parts of Oxus river (Amu Darya) (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan), Afghanistan and Iran (as today's country). So all these countries share the same Aryan civilisation and heritage. However, Iran (as a country, and not as a synonym for Aryana) is not but a small part of Aryana, mostly the western parts of Aryana. Today's Iranian territories were always called as Fars or Pars during ages. Almost all the poets who lived in cities like Neishapoor, Sheraz, Asfahan or other cities of Iran, called themselves as "Fars": e.g. Hafiz Sherazi, several times in his Diwan, Imam Ghazali in the preface of his book, Kimyaye Sa'aadat.

First show me one classic Persian text that uses Ariana! Aryan civilisation is something prehistoric and does not concern me.

Todays Iranian territories weren't always called Pars. Read the texts that I showed you. Some times people call a bigger geographic entity by a part of it. Like calling The Britain, "England". This does not mean that Britain IS England.

The word "Fars" (Persia) was always attributed to the current territories of Iran (as a country) by Arabs and by European Empires (whether by the Roman empires, or later by British or French empires). By changing "officially" the name of Fars or Persia to "Iran" in 19th and 20th century, it does not make it become the same Great Iran-zameen (Aryana). So today whenever they say "Iran", they all mean the Great land of Persia and not the Great Aryan civilisation.

Show me one classic Persian source that uses "Ariana". Arana is a Greek term that was used to refer to a land that was where today's Herat is. That's it. The fact that the Romans called the neighbouring empire (sassanids) to the east Persia is a classic example of calling a bigger entitity by a part of it. Sassanid empire extended from syria to India. That included khorasan too. So does it mean khorasan is part of persian. Well if you consider persia as a country yes. but not as a province.

So would you please show me a source where it says that "Ariana" was attributed for the regions of Hari (Herat)? In fact, Ariana and Iran are exact synonyms. You can even refer to the definitions of Airyanem Vaejah, Aryan and Iran in Wikipedia. Here, let me copy you the key phrases:

The name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and literally means "Land of the Aryans." The earliest Iranian reference to the word (airya/arya/aryana etc), however, predates the Iranian prophet Zoroaster (est. anywhere between 1200 to 1800 BCE, according to Plato and other Greek sources as early as 7000 BCE.) and is attested in non-Gathic Avestan; it appears as airya, meaning noble/spiritual/elevated; as airya dainhava (Yt.8.36, 52) meaning the land of the Aryans; and as airyana vaejah, the original land of the Aryans. (Iran)

The Old Persian and Sanskrit languages both pronounced the word as arya- (/ɑːrjə/) and aryan. Beyond its use as the ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians, the meaning "noble/spiritual" has been attached to it in Persian and Sanskrit.The Old Persian form of *Aryāna- appears as Æryānam Väejāh "Aryan Expanse" in Avestan, in Middle Persian as Ērān, and in Modern Persian as Īrān. Similarly, Northern India was referred to by the tatpurusha Aryavarta "Arya-abode" in ancient times. (Aryan)

The term Airyanəm Vaējah or Ērānwēz is echoed in the name of the country Ērān (Modern Persian: Iran), from proto-Iranian *aryānām"(land) of Aryas/Iranians", and also in the name Ērānšhahr (Realm of Aryas/Iranians).[1] These names first appear in the reign of Ardashir I, at the beginning of the Sāsānid Empire. (Airyanem Vaejah)

So your claims are baseless, and even contradict the contents of wikipedia. Iran and Ariana are both synonyms, and Persia (Fars) was a part of Iran or Ariana. But today's Iranian territory is mostly the territories of Persia. Ariana310 16:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Please read the policies. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Use third party sources. Based on what you are doing I can go and change that wikipedia article and then cite that again for my own benefit.

You are using some archaic linguistic term to denote a more modern entity. Besides your quote is against you. According to your own source Iran and Iran shahr were first used by sassanids (ie Perisan empire). So Iran means the Persian empire. (which is different from the pars province). The sassanids never used (Ariana and never used Iran vaeg) to denote the Persian empire. The name Iran may have been derived from Aryan, but the term Aryan was not used in that era.

Thus, saying "Khorasan was part of Iran" can be only basicly correct if you concieve Iran as Iran-zameen or Aryana. The same conept for saying "Persia was part of Iran". While people, especially non-Persians and non-Afghans, who refer to Wikipedia think "Iran" as today's country. I had already mentioned that Khorasan was part of Ariana, and you can further modify it by using the term "Iran-shahr".

Dude! there is no Ariana. Stop adding your POV. Iran-shahr means land of Iran. Khorasan is not part of Ariana. There is no mention of this name in any classical Perisn work. It is greek name. Iran and Iran shahr were used interchanbly! Read Shahnama!

I just showed you the key sentences from the Wikipedia, from the Airyanem Vaejah, Aryan and Iran pages, which clearly refuses your claims. And Khorasan is part of Ariana, as Iran and Ariana are synonyms, according to wikipedia. ~~ Ariana310 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Aryana is not synnonym with Iran. Iran and Aryana may have same linguistic roots but you can't equate them.

In addition, the examples which you gave, they all present "Iran" as "Iran-shahr or Iran-zameen or Aryana". So your examples are baseless in this context. I am sure you are agree that Khorasan was part of Aryana/Iran-shahr and not "always" part of Persia (Fars) [although Khorasan had been conquered by the Persian empires for decades and sometimes for almost a century].

Iran MEANS Iranshahr. Let's see. 450 years of Ashkani. and 425 years of Sassanids. and Shahnama

Again no Ariana. I don't know why you keep inserting this name. Stop interpreting the terms the way you like it. look at ferdowsi. It never uses Iran shahr a single time. look at karnamag ardashir papakan (http://avesta.org/mp/karname.htm) It uses Iran shahr (translated territory of Iran) and Iran interchangably. No Ariana.

* Please read carefully the text, and then present your comments. I had clearly written in the article that: "Khorasan" is a term used by Arabs for the eastern regions of Persia during their Islamic conquests. As Khorasan was considered too far from the Arabian Peninsula and was situated in the East of Arabia, thus Arabs started to use the name "Khorasan", which means Land of Sunrise. and then I further mentioned the Persian word used as a synonym for Khorasan: "Khawar-e Iran". I never said it was the Western parts. If so, then please cite me the exact sentence.

It is not a term used by Arabs. It is Pahlavi term used first used by the Sassanids. So Arabs invented a pahlavi term to refer to Iran?! Do you know any Persian or Arabic for that matter? Look at karnamag Artakhshrir papkan. It might help you in settling the matter. http://avesta.org/mp/karname.htm. It uses khorasan and Iran.

This is what you said in the comments (second paragraph) «"Khorasan" was mostly attributed to the western regions of Persia...»

Our discussion was about the real article posted in the main page. And in the real article, I always wrote Eastern parts. In this page, it was a mistake, a mis-typing.

* By commenting on ONLY two points of the article, you cannot delete and bring up the old article. You presented your comments by mixing up Persia (Fars), Iran (as a country) and Iran (as an Aryan civilisation, Iran-shahr). Creating an ambiguation among those three terms cannot give a solid authority to bring up the old article. Please present your exact objections on the article. Even by considering your current comments, the previous article did not contradict your sayings. There was NOWHERE mentioned that Khorasan was NOT part of Aryana or any contradictory points like this. Ariana310

This Ariana story has no merit as I mentioned.

Your article is blatant POV with no source! I object to every line of it.

I show you sources and you just talk

Behaafarid 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

More on deleted material

• There is not historical mention to the term Greater khorasan. There is only khorasan. So greater khorasan is a modern term.
• Khorasan was a term used by the Sassanids. (I showed you karnama ardashir papakan so it means it was not coined by Arabs. The word is Middle Persian itself. and is also used extensivly in Modern Persian including by Ferdowsi and others.

Where exactly in this article has it been mentioned that Khorasan was used by Sassanids? The link that you provided does not contain even a single word of Khorasan.

• Iran Vaege is only mentioned in Avesta. and probably means khwarezm. that is the land that Aryan tribes came from originally that's it. throughout written history era Iran vaeg hasn't been an entity, whatsoever.

Again, let me repeatedly copy the key sentence from wikipedia: The term Airyanəm Vaējah or Ērānwēz is echoed in the name of the country Ērān (Modern Persian: Iran), from proto-Iranian *aryānām"(land) of Aryas/Iranians", and also in the name Ērānšhahr (Realm of Aryas/Iranians).[1] These names first appear in the reign of Ardashir I, at the beginning of the Sāsānid Empire. (Airyanem Vaejah) So Airyanem Vaejah has never been referred to Khwarazm.

1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source! What you are doing is called self referecing!

2) But if you relly like wikipedia read the last section of Iran vage article it says that many scholars believe it to be somewhere in khwarezm.

3) As for distinction of Aryana and Iran (in written History era) see Iran under 1911 Britanica ("Eratosthenes limited the name of Ariana to the south-eastern part of Iran,")

• First khorasani empire being saffari is none-sense. I showed you the Ghasideh from Roudaki that he calles Saffari chief "the glory of Iran". Besides you better check the meaning of empire. not every kingdom is an empire.

Please read carefully a text and then make your comments. Would you please show me where did I wrote that the first Khorasani empire was Saffarids??? Here, let me copy you that piece of text: The first independant Khorasani empire was established by Tahir Phoshanji in 821. Other grand Khorasani dynasties were Saffarids (861-1003), Samanids (875-999), Ghaznavids (962-1187), Ghurids (1149-1212), Seljukids (1037-1194), Khwarezmids (1077-1231) and Timurids (1370-1506). I hope this time you will read it carefully. The first independant Khorasani kingdom was Tahirids or Tahiryans, check Tahir Phoshanji.

Your always going in an inverse logic. I said Khorasan was under the reign of Persian empires, during some periods (and obviously Persia is a state of Iran/Ariana, so Khorasan becomes a part of Ariana/Iran, and I had CLEARLY this point in the article) But you deny this point and say that Khorasan was not part of Persia but part of Iran. Doesn't it seem ridiculous?

If you consider Persia as empire then khorasan was a part of it. If you cosider Persian as a province then khorasan is not part of it; as simple as that.Behaafarid 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Mention of Ariana through the article has no merit and is not used in any Iranology circle, only by some Afghan nationalists.

Again your claims are proved incorrect according to Wikipedia, as I already cited the key sentences from the wikipedian articles.

Wiki is not a reliable source. Behaafarid 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• In short what you added had no source and was blatant POV.

I am sorry I can't salvate any of the matrial that you added. I suggest you write it using classical texts and Non-afghan (and non-Iranian) sources. There was no source and no referencing.

I just proved my points authentic according to the Wikipedian articles. Even according to Wikipedia, what you say is false and incorrect. Your sources did not have any clear point to support your claims. As for supporting your claim (that Khorasan was a term used by the Sassanids), you gave me this link: karnama ardashir papakan Empty source ! ~~ Ariana310 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Its in the link please read it: 2) For the purpose of bringing to an end the battle with the Worm, he dispatched a person to Burjak and Burj ataro, invited them to his presence, and deliberated with them. He took with himself many dirams, dinars, and garments, dressed himself like an inhabitant of Khurasan, and arriving at the foot of the castle of Gular, with Burjak and Burj-ataro, spoke (to its inmates) thus: "I am an inhabitant of Khurasan. I crave indulgence from that glorious lord, that I may approach (him) for the worship of his threshold (babâ)." --alidoostzadeh 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all parts of afghanistan lie in khorasan.

Not all parts of Afghanistan lie in Khorasan, e.g. Kandahar was more a part of Indian subcontinent. Behaafarid 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the term "Indian subcontinent" is inappropriate. As a geographical point of view, some people even place Afghanistan in South Asia and consider it as part of Indian subcontinent. You had better said Indian Empires.

You cannot consider a short period, in which most of the parts of Khorasan were under the reign of Moghuls, because in that case, Bukhara, Merv and Samarqand were also under the rule of Russian Tzars for centuries. If you consider only the period of Moghuls, then even Kabul was under the reign of Moghul Empire. Kabul was part of Moghul empire from its beginning when Babur Shah conquered in 1554 the Kabulistan. Here's the book BABURNAMA.

As a whole, there were two frontier posts (cities) between Khorasan and Hindostan (Indian): Kabul and Kandahar. The regions lied north of these two cities were considered as Khorasan, and the south as part of India. In the old city of Dehli, called Shahjahanabad, there was (even is) a gate where the caravans from Khorasan (Kabul and Kandahar) took Goods to India: Kabuli Darwaza (then named as Khooni Darwaza) which is situated in Chandani Chowk. This gate is very famous for the transportation of Goods from Khorasan. Check here

I agree with you on that. So according to what you say the regions south of Kabul and East of Kandahar were considered part of India. But some regions in Current Afghanistan ARE situated south of Kabul and East of Kandahar, e.g. logar and pakita provinces. So these regions were more a part of India than (greater) Khorasan, so Khorasan did not comprise ENTIRE Afghanistan. And I reverted to my own version. Behaafarid 14:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you got a ruler and put it on the map of Afghanistan, and saw which regions lie in the south of that line. I did also the same thing. And I noticed that "Ghazni" (one of the famous and large cities of Khorasan) just came in the south of the line. So will you exclude Ghazni also? Will you also say that Ghazni is part of India???

No, that is an illogical statement. Paktia, Logar and Nengarhar lie between the provinces of Kabul and Kandahar. And by the way what about my 2 following points (in the next paragraphs). You could not provide any source which disprove my statements. Please read the next paragraphs just after this line.Ariana310 18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing Kandahar any more, I am just saying that there exist regions in Afghanistan that are not part of greater khorasan, that's it. Behaafarid 03:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

During ages, Kandahar was under the reign of Khorasani/Persian empires, such as: Sassanids, Saffarids (whose one capital was Zaranj, not far from Kandahar), Samanids, Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Seljukids, Timurids and then Safavids.

Another most authentic source, is that in 18th century after the Moghuls and after the assassination of Nadir Shah Afshar, when Ahmad Shah Abdali was crowned in the city of Kandahar as the King, he was called as the King of Khorasan and the city of Kandahar was called as a city of Khorasan. This text was written by Abdullah Khan Popalzayee (mentioned in a book called "Surajul Tawareekh") when Ahmad Shah Abdali created the new city of Kandahar:

دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد، جمال ملک خراسان شد، این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد

So Kandahar was part of Khorasan, an important region of Ghazna. If you deny that Kandahar was part of Khorasan, then please present your arguements with references, as I did. You cannot just simply say: Khorasan was more a part of India. Ariana310 10:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in that despute any more, and accept that kandahar is part of khorasan for now.

You wrote in the Editing summary: I haven't said kandahar is not part of khorasan in this version, what it wrong with it.

You yourself provoked against my editing (Afghanistan's entire region was included in Khorasan) and said that some parts of Afghanistan such as Kandahar were not part of Khorasan. For your claim, you did not provide reliable source and finally agreed that Kandahar was part of Khorasan. So in this case, what I am editing is not supposed to be modified. When you could not provide reliable source then you cannot either edit my sentence simply. Ariana310 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please leave your hostility aside and pay attention. My argument is that some parts of afghinstan are not historically part of khorasan. I thought kandahar is one of them, you argue that it is not. That's fine with me. but you yourself have said south of Kabul city and Kandahar city is part of historic India, and there are indeed such regions in current Afghanistan. Is that clear? Behaafarid 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the book "Khorasan" written by Mir Ghulam Mohammad GHUBAR, the renown Afghan historian, which was published in 1937 in Kabul. There is an online edition of the original Persian versian: CLICK HERE Ariana310 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Transoxiana?

Was transoxiana entirely contained in Khorasan? The Jade Knight 07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not easy to give a definite answer to this question. Transoxiana was always known as Faraa-rod or Mawara-ul Nahr, covering the two famous regions of Bukhara and Samarkand. In some historical books, the authors have called Bukhara and Samarqand (transoxiana) as part of Khorasan. And today, the Tajiki officials and scholars state that Transoxiana was entirely part of Khorasan. However, in some other books, the authors have avoided using the word Khorasan for those regions, instead they have called them as Mawara-ul Nahr.

As a resume, Bukhara and Samarqand were popularly known as Mawara-ul Nahr or Faraa-rod, and they have also been called Khorasan, oftenly. So there's nothing wrong to call Transoxiana as part of Khorasan. Ariana310 12:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In historical texts, Transoxiana has been considered a separate region (neighbor to Khorasan). In those texts, Khorasan refers to north-eastern parts of the moderrn-day Iran (including cities such as Nishabur, Sabzevar, and Tus), southern and eastern parts of modern-day Turkmenistan (including Marw), and western (and northern) parts of modern-day Afghanistan (including cities such as Herat, Badghis, and Balkh). There is no historical text (from the related historical era, i.e. 8-16 centuries A.D.) which considers Transoxiana, or eastern parts of Afghanistan (such as Kabul and Badakhshan) as parts of Khorasan. Jahangard 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jahangard. This image show this issue correctly.[5]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would be entirely wrong to state that Transoxiana was a part of Khorasan. It was not. Khorasan is Khorasan. Mawara-ul Nahr is Mawara-ul Nahr. Throughout Central Asian history inhabitants of Transoxiana considered Khorasan to be a separate region. Read Babur Nama, or Zafar Nama by Sharafuddin Ali Yazdi. Herat is part of Khorasan. Samarqand and Bukhara are not. Just because some Tajik nationalists think it fits their needs to preach that Transoxiana was a part of Khorasan doesn't mean that it is correct. Whatever is to the North of Jayhun is not Khorasan. Just the way it is, no offence) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.55.239 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant citations

[6] and [7] has been given as references for the inclusion of Kabulistan and Khwarazm in Khorasan. There is no sentence in those sources which suggests this inclusion. Jahangard 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't read carefully. Those links are there to suggest that some times they were NOT considered part of khorasan and were called something else! Behaafarid 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To include Transoxiana (Bukhara, Khwarazm, and Samarqand), and Kabul in Khorasan, there should be some historical sources which mention that. There isn't such a historical source, and mentioning their names as parts of Khorasan is wrong. Saying that some times these regions were called something else is misleading. These regions never have been considered as parts of "Khorasan". Jahangard 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph should be rewritten. Jahangard 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed these sentences:

It is also used to indicate that Greater Khorasan encompasses territories that were perhaps called by some other name when they were individually referred to. For example the Bactrian regions in Afghanistan, Kabulistan (which contained Kabul, Ghazni, Bamian and Peshawar). For example refer to Shahname. e.g. So happy became the king of Kabulistan from the marriage of the sun of Zabulistan [8], Khwarezm (containing Samarqand and Bukhara) or refer to Anvari Qasida in which he refers to Samarqand as Turan and complains about devistation in Khorasan (and more generally Iran) caused by Ghuz Turks. [9] .

It implicitly says that "those regions were parts of Khorasan, but they were also called by their individual names". This is wrong. They weren't considered as parts of Khorasan. Jahangard 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jahangard I am not bringing the discussion whether Bukhara and Samarqand were part of Khorasan or not. Although, Bukhara and Samarqand were popularly known as Fara-rod or Mawara-ul Nahr, but they were sometimes considered as part of Khorasan. Rodaki Samarqandi has mentioned this point several times in his poems.

However, you stated that Badakhshan and Kabul were not part of Khorasan. I think you're totally wrong in this point. Badakhshan and Kabul were part of Khorasan. I am sure, when you argue about Persia and Khorasan related historical aspects, you do know Persian language (Farsi or Dari). So here I am writing the original Persian texts of historical text books and poetry books.

• Regarding Badakhshan, Nasir Khusraw has always called it to be part of Khorasan. Here are the verses:

سلام کن ز من ای باد مر خراسان را

به چند گونه بدیدید مر خراسان را

کنون که دیو خراسان به جمله ویران کرد

مرا به دل ز خراسان زمین یمگان است

نبینی کز خراسان من نشسته پست در یمگان

همی آید سوی من یک به یک هرچه ایم همی یابد

حکیم آن است کو از شاه نندیشد، نه آن نادان

که شه را شعر گوید تا مگر چیزش فرماید

مانده به یمگان به میان جبال

نیستم از عجز و نه نیز از کلال

یکسره عشاق مقال منند

درگه و بیگه به خراسان رجال

For its online reference and for your satisfaction, please check this Iranian website and type in the search bar Khorasan. You will find the poems of Nasir Khusraw in which he has used the word Khorasan. I also copied the above verses from that sources.

So you can clearly see that Nasir Khusraw has called Yamagan (his native homeland and one of the villages in Badakhshan) as one of the cities/ villages of Khorasan.Ariana310 12:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding Kabul, let me tell you that it was a more vast region, known as Kabulistan than its today province. In some periods it has its own independent Kingdoms such Kabulshahan and Ratbelshahan. But after the Islamic invasion, it was coquered by the Khorasan-based Empires such as Sassanids, Saffarids, Samanids, Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Seljukids and Timurids.

During the Ghaznavids, Kabul was under the reign of Ghaznavid Empire and known as part of Khorasan. The regions controlled by the Ghaznavid Empire were divided in to 2 parts: Khorasan and Iraq. The eastern regions of the empire were known as Khorasan, while the western regions as Iraq. So Kabul as well as other eastern regions (except the Indian regions) were called as Khorasan. Here are the sources:

Manuchehri writes about Shah Mahmood Ghaznawi:

ای خداوند خراسان و شهنشاه عراق

ای به مردی و شاهی برده از شاهان سباق

ای سپاهت را سپاهان رایتت را ری مکان

ای ز ایران تا به توران بندگان را وثاق

از همه شاهان چنین لشکر که آورد و که برد

از عراق اندر خراسان وز خراسان در عراق

همچنان باز از خراسان آمدی بر پشت پیل

کاحمد مرسل به سوی جنت آمد بر براق

The same point is mentioned in Tarikh-e Baihaqee of Abul-Fazl Mohammad Baihaqee, narrated during the Ghaznavid period and one of the most trustable old History books. He describes the empire of Ghaznavids into three parts: Iraq, Khorasan and Hindustan (Indian) regions. He attributes the regions of Kabul to Khorasan in his book. Let me copy you a part of its text:

درآن وقت که امير محمود ازگرگان قصد ری کرد ميان فرزندان واميران مسعود ومحمد مواضعـتی که نهادنی بود بنهاد. اميرمحمد را آن روز اسپ بردرگاه نبود، اسپ امير خـراسان خـواستند ووی سوی نيشاپـور بازگشت وامـيران ديگر پـدر وپسر سوی ری کشيدند. چـون کارها به آن جانب قـرارگـرفـت وامير محمود عـزيمـت راست کـرد بازگشتن را، مـرفـرزنـد را خلعت داد وپيغام آمد نـزديک وی به زبان ابوالحسن عقيلی که پسرم محمد را چنانچه شنودی بردرگاه اسپ اميرخراسان خواستند وتو امروز خليفهء مايی وفرمان ما بدين ولايت بی اندازه می دانی چه اختيارکنی که اسپ تو اسپ شاهنشاه خواهند يا اسپ امير عراق. امير مسعود چون پيام پدر بشنود برپای خاست ...

And then Ansuri Balkhi, the Malikul Shu'ara of Ghaznavids, even call Peshawar a part of Khorasan. And according to some other sources, Peshawar used to be one of the regions of Kabulistan. So when he recognises Peshawar as part of Khorasan, then without any doubt Kabul was part of Khorasan:

خـدايگان خـراسان به دشت پيشاور

به حمـله ای بـپـراکـند جمـع آن لـشکر

و ايا شنيده هنرهای خسروان به خبر بيا

بيا زخسرو ومشرق عيان ببين تو هنر

As a resume, Kabul was known as part of Khorasan during the Ghaznavids.Ariana310 12:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

During the Mughuls, as I stated for User:Behaafarid, there were two posts/ frontier cities between Hindustan and Khorasan: Kabul and Kandahar. Both Kabul and Kandahar were considered as cities of Khorasan. Please refer to my answer to User:Behaafarid for the details.

During the Mughuls and Safavids, the region which lied between Hindustan and Faars (Persia, or contemporary Iran) was called Khorasan. Although Kabul under the reign of Moghuls, but it was known as Khorasan. You can notice this point in the books called "Ma'aasir Alamgeeree" and "Mar'aatul Aalam", which were written during the period of Moghuls. In plus, refer to BABURNAMAH, which considers Kabul as part of Khorasan. In addition, Zeb-un-Nissa Makhfi the daughter of Aurengzeb (the last of King of Moghuls) and one of the great poets, mentions Kabul and Badakhshan as cities of Khorasan in his diwan called Diwan-e Makhfi (Edited by Dr. Sidiqyan, Publications of Intisharat Amir-Kabir, Tehran 1381):

دل آشفته مخفی به فن خود ارسطویی است

به هند افتاده است اما خراسان است یونانش

بود اندیشه دل را اگر در آستین دستی

برون آرم من از کان سخن لعل بدخشانش

- تواز ملک خراسانی به اصطبل وطن سازی

به خواب شد اگر رنج و غم هندوستان بینی

- ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم

درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی

وانشد چون غنچه دل در بهارستان هند

رفت مرغ روح مخفی گوشه کابل گرفت

So when you claim that Kabul and Badakhshan were not parts of Khorasan, you have to provide sources. Without providing any sources in the discussion, you cannot just simply edit the article. Ariana310 13:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

About the inclusion of Transoxiana (including samarqand and Bukhara) in Khorasan, you should provide a reference. About Kabul and Badakhshan, you have mentioned 5 sources. The first shows exactly the opposite of your claim (it shows that Yomgan, a village in Badakhshan, was considered out of Khorasan). The other 4 citations are irrelevand. Let's check all these 5 sources more thoroughly:

Now, you are attempting to prove the references/ sources as empty, while did not try to find the relation between them.

• In that poem of Nasir khusraw, which you mentioned, Nasir khusraw talks about his nostalgia for Khorasan. He says "O wind, send my greating to Khorasan". He talks about the "monster" (deev) that destroyed Khorasan and forced him to take refuge in Yomgan (in Badakhshan).

No, you have misunderstood the meaning of the first piece of poem of Nasir Khusraw. He says: maraa ba del, ze khurasan-zameen, yamagaan ast. Even if I agree with you on this first one, the second and the third pieces of poem shows that he attributed Yamagan to Khorasan.

• The second source is irrelevan to our discussion. It admires Sultan Mahmoud as the king of Khorasan and Iraq. In that poem, Iraq refers to "Irag-i Ajam" which includes Ray, Hamadan and Isfahan.
• The third source is also irrelevant. It doesn't mention anything about the inclusion of Kabul and Badakhshan in Khorasan.

I quoted the second and third sources in order to show you that the Ghaznavid Empire's territories were divided into two parts: Khorasan and Iraq. The regions which lied in the eastern part, were all called Khorasan. So obviously Badakhshan and Kabul were situated in the eastern section.

• In the fourth poem, the poet admires Sultan Mahmoud (refered as "King of Khorasan") in the battle of Peshavar. There are also other poems about his victories in Sind and Penjab and destroying Sumenat Temple (in India). Also, there are poems about his victories in Ray and Isfahan. These poems don't have anything to do with the inclusions of these lands in Khorasan.

Ansuri only admires the victory of Shah Mahmood in Peshawar, and does not mention his Sumenat Battle or other parts of India. Ansuri implicitly refers Peshawar to Khorasan.

• In the fifth poem, the poet says that he is like a Aristotle who is in India, but Khorasan is his Greece (as his homeland). The only sentence that mentions Badakhshan is "برون آرم من از کان سخن لعل بدخشانش" (I bring out "la'l-i Badakhshan from the poetry mine). "La'l-i Badakhshan" is gemstone and in that sentence is a metaphore for the priceless poetry.

I am completely agree that the usage of Badakhshan is a metaphore. But there are relations between the verses of a poem, when the poet suddenly brings up another point. In that poem, after mentioning the word Khorasan, she uses the metaphorical expression of Badakhshan. No doubt, that she considers a link between Khorasan and Badakhshan, that she suddenly uses it.

I think you did not pay any attention on the last poem:

ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم

درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی

وانشد چون غنچه دل در بهارستان هند

رفت مرغ روح مخفی گوشه کابل گرفت

This poem is in a "Tarkeeb-Band" form. They're all in a single Tarkeeb Band. The first two verses are in the first part of the poem, and the last two verses in the second part. Even if we refuse any relation between "Khorasani" in the first part and "Kabul" in the second part, we can clearly see that she considers Kabul a city out of the territory of Hindustan or India. At that period, it was Fars, Khorasan and Hindustan. There was no other dynasty or state between India and Khorasan, to which Kabul would refer. When she says that the desire of her heart was not brought up in India and then her heart went to the city of Kabul in order to fulfill its desires, it is completely evident that Kabul was not part of India. If you say that Kabul neither belong to India nor to Khorasan, then please tell me to which state did Kabul belong to. Ariana310 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Providing a reference for a statement" means mentioning a source that (explicitly or implicitly) supports that statement. Mentioning a poem, which has both the words "Khorasan" and "Badakhshan" in it, can not be a reference for the inclusion of Badakhshan in Khorasan. Jahangard 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote my answers after each part of your text, please read them. Ariana310 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the book "Khorasan" written by Mir Ghulam Mohammad GHUBAR, the renown Afghan historian, which was published in 1937 in Kabul. There is an online edition of the original Persian versian: CLICK HERE

Ariana310 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maps of Khorasan:

File:Muslim Expansions in 13th century and Khorasan's region.jpg

Sources for Kabul and Ghazni

User:Tajkoss added the citation tags for Kabul and Ghazni. I am adding the sources here in the discussion:

• Very often he visited the court of the king of Khurásán or Kábul as an envoy on behalf of... A History of Sindh, Translated from Persian by KALICHBEG FREDUNBEG, 1902 Karachi

Here the author uses the word "or", which means that Kabul was part of Khorasan.

• ...while towards the south it embraced Kunduz, Balkh, and, at the outset, Khorasán—a country which, at that time, spread east­ward to beyond Herat and Ghazni, and southward to Mekrán. A History of the Moghuls - Tarikh-i-Rashidi edited 1897

Here, it directly says that Khorasan contained Herat and Ghazni.

• On the road between Hindustān and Khorasān, there are two great marts: the one Kābul, the other Kandahār. And Kabul was considered as a city other than that of Hindustan. The memoirs of Babur, Translated by JOHN LEYDEN, Oxford University Press, 1921

--Ariana310 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ariana310, you are totally mistaken by claiming that Kabul and Ghazni being part of Khorasan. Allow me to post here what Babur stated in his Memoirs of AD 1525. Babur clearly states that Kabul, Ghazni, Kandahar, and others were not part of Khorasan. The people of these independent countries were perhaps influenced by the people of Hindustan and Khorasan but not part of either Hindustan or Khorasan.

Babur stated: "The people of Hindustān call every country beyond their own Khorasān...On the road between Hindustān and Khorasān, there are two great marts (meaning Counties): the one Kābul, the other Kandahār. Caravans, from Ferghāna, Tūrkestān, Samarkand, Balkh, Bokhāra, Hissār, and Badakhshān, all resort to Kābul; while those from Khorasān repair to Its trade. Kandahār. "This country" lies between Hindustān and Khorasān.

This explains that "only Hindustanis" call every country beyond Hindustan as being Khorasan. This way of thinking is not acceptable or in any way apply to the people living in countries between Hindustan and Khorasan, such as people from the country of Kandahar, country of Ghazni or country of Kabul and or others. So you are going by the idiology of the people of Hindustan only, which is wrong. I notice that you keep using Babur's memoirs as your source of evidence to help you. However, you are using something that totally contradicts your claim about Kabul and Ghazni being part of Khorasan. If what you say was in anyway true, then there would be mentioning of your claim in most Encyclopaedias about Khorasan or about the city of Kabul or Ghazni. I believe you are going too far with this Greater Khorasan's territory claims. --Italisa 12:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

You have formed a good result from your personal analyze and comprehension about the case of Khorasan. I am agree that Ghazni and Kabul were also called as The Country of Kabul/Ghazni or The country of Kabulistan/Ghazneen, but they were both known as regions lying in Khorasan. By the way, several sources have been presented to support the point, and enough discussion has been made both in this discussion page and in Afghanistan's discussion page. Please pay a glance on the discussions. Your single source cannot invalidate all other sources.

Just look at the above two maps, in previous section, which are approved by an educational and research unit, and tell me whether Kabul and Ghazni are located in Hindustan's territory or in Khorasan. Ariana310 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the maps (uploaded by User:Ariana310 and purposly concealing part 2 of the full image) they are for a specific time period only. Plus, the maps only explain the names of territories...which does not explain that all territories make up Khorasan. These maps have no value in using as land or territorial claims. You must have well known encyclopedia references to help your false claims of Afghanistan being part of Khorasan before the middle of 18th century. Look at the false claims you've been making in the begining of this discussion....all the way at the top. Not one encyclopedia says that Afghanistan was called or known as Khorasan....only some never heard marijuanna smokers from Balkh stated this in their never heard of books. This entire article should be deleted because it is spreading false and misleading information to the public of the world.--NisarKand 04:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

File:Maps of Timurids and Safavids.jpg

Maps of both Timurids and Safavids Empires from the year 1407 to 1737.

I strongly dispute that Balkh, Kabul and Ghazni being part of Khorasan in the past. Also, I would like to see ENGLISH references. Why are all the references from the same site with the same "non-English" language? How would ENGLISH READERS understand what is written in the references? The following map was purposly cut in the previous showing, here you may look and clearly see that Balkh, Kabul, Ghazni or Kandahar NOT being part of Khorasan. But you clearly see that all these cities and territories were part of Afghanistan--NisarKand 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Nisarkand and his sockpuppets User:Tajkoss and User:Pashtun ! Just have a look to the previous section of this discussion where I cited the sources for Kabul and Ghazni in English language with their approved translation.

Moreover, please show me the exact article of wikipedias rules which state that one cannot present sources in the original language when the subject itself is of a foreign subject.

Just look at the 1st map that you posted, you can clearly see that all those cities (Kabul, Ghazni, Herat and Balkh) are included in Khorasan. Ariana310 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at the map I posted and the greenish colors does not represent Khorasan. It represents the Timurids Empire. Khorasan was not an Empire but simply a territory of Persia. According to both maps above....Kabul, Ghazni, Balkh, were not territories of Khorasan. They were smaller territories with own names but ruled by the Timurids (Mongolians). You think the greenish color represent Khorasan and that's where you're wrong.--NisarKand 04:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ariana310 is socketpuppet of User:Tajik, User:Tajik-afghan and many others....I placed the dispute tag, why do you remove this...you realize it is an act of vandalism. By the way, I am ONLY using one User:Name which is User:NisarKand. About the language....this is ENGLISH Wikipedia so all references must be in English. I am not going to show you the rule...you check for yourself and find it. I want others to see the disputed tag so they can come and join the discussion. You're claims are 100% false and those non-English references must be replaced with English so that English readers be able to understand. What do you mean by this article being foreign subject? Almost everything other article in Wikipedia is foreign subject and they all have English references. If you persist on removing the disputed tags then I will report you to administrators.--NisarKand 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand, you are totally unable to understand maps. This is not the first time that you post irrelevant maps which do not contain any information about the ongoing dispute. What do you expect from a map that is a simple discription of the Timurid empire?! That it writes the word "Khorasan" next to any city on it?!

Keeping aside the fact that this map is in no means a "source" or a "proof" for any claim, the name "Khorasan" in it clearly covers the region of Balkh and Kabul! There are so many works written about this, and you - claiming that you were "born with extra knowledge" - dispute facts that are not disputed by any serious scholar! Afghanistan'S most important historian, Mir Gholam Muhammad Ghobar, has written an entire book about this issue, called "Khorasan" (Kabul 1937 [10]), and he proves that the greater part of the region today known as "Afghanistan" was called "Khorasan" for more than 1000 years! And the Encyclopaedia Britannica writes:

• "... Khurasan - historical region and realm comprising a vast territory now lying in northeastern Iran, southern Turkmenistan, and northern Afghanistan. The historical region extended, along the north, from the Amu Darya (Oxus River) westward to the Caspian Sea and, along the south, from the fringes of the central Iranian deserts eastward to the mountains of central Afghanistan. Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India. ..."

More important, the Britannica article explains the very beginning of the word "Khorasan" and it's original meaning:

• "... Khorasan was first named, however, by the Sasanians (beginning in the 3rd century BC), who organized their empire into four quarters (named from the cardinal points), Khorasan being literally the “Land of the Sun.” ..."[11]

So, Khorasan, in its ORIGINAL meaning, was all the eastern lands of the Sassanid Empire! And this automatically includes the cities of Herat, Balkh, Kabul, Ghazni, and so forth. Here is a map of the Sassanid Empire taken from Britannica: [12]. Just accept the sources!

Tājik 12:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mir Gholam Muhammad Ghobar's 1937 book was immediatly banned by the government of Zahir Shah, which means it must've been untrue and contained political propaganda (seehere).

• About Britannica...Khorasan - historical region and realm comprising a vast territory now lying in northeastern Iran, southern Turkmenistan, and northern Afghanistan. The historical region extended, along the north, from the Amu Darya (Oxus River) westward to the Caspian Sea and, along the south, from the fringes of the central Iranian deserts eastward to the mountains of central Afghanistan. Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India.

• The last sentence, Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India, is talking about the boundaries of India at the time of Arab invasion, which was southern Afghanistan, a region that was ruled by Hindu kings (see Shahi)

• Sassanid Empire was not named Khorasan. Khorasan is a territory not an Empire. There is no evidence anywhere that Afghanistan was known as Khorasan. This is a totally false claim by the Persians. In here, if you don't have clear evidence then you can't make clear claims like...Khorasan mostly contained Kabul, Ghazni and Balkh (Afghanistan). These places were not territory of Khorasan but were self ruled with own independent kingdoms and own territory names.--NisarKand 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

FALSE CLAIMS, POV, BAD ARTICLE

This article is completely false writen by iranains and pro iranians. I dont believe a word about this article. from what i know that khorasan was half of iran all afghanistan, tajikistan, uzbek, half of pakistan. And its main city centers was in afghanistan and thus making afghanistan the legitimate in its claims. Simple as that, i dont want to hear afghan history written by persians its enough they stole half the history of the region especially afghanistan. Dont trust anybody else but afghans in there own history.Pashtun786 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This Iranians systematically using wiki as a propaganda tool. History tells Iranian arrogance was a problem (still is, don't you agree?) in the Muslim world. In the article of Rumi, the word persian counts 85 times, whereas Rumi is 200 times. Now, the author claims entire Turkic people are Persian origin. Was Adam Persian, too, duche? This is becoming ridiculus, and turning wiki a totally rubbish. Shame on you, stop manipulating on the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.207.128 (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK just take it easy. Khorasan is not the same as Afghanistan, Afghan as you know is a reference to the Pashtun people, so it's very likely that the northern afghans of today (Tajiks) did not call their land Afghanistan, but rather khorasan or in a greater sense just "Iran". The ossetians of caucasus even call their land "Iron". It's natural for any Iranian settler to call his land Iran and it's very strange why some of them didn't do so (Pashtuns and Kurds mostly; maybe because they were pastoralists for most of their history and did not start to settle till 500 years ago). But the fact that a political concept called Iran exists does not mean that any "Iran" should be part of today's Iran. And I do not see why it's a problem for a land to have different names designated to it by different people, it happens all the time.18:49, 19 November 2010 حضرت محمود (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Khorasan is a wholly Iranian province in the historical sense. It has nothing to do with Pashtuns/Afghans and does not include the entire area of modern Afghanistan. Khorasan was the northeastern quarter of the Sassanid domains after the reform period divided the Persian empire into four quarters for military and administrative reasons. On the other hand, the original Afghanistan covered only the southern and parts of eastern modern-day Afghanistan, in addition to the Pashto-speaking regions of modern Pakistan. The description of Afghanistan in its original boundaries can be found in the Timurid Prince, Babur's autobiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.190.8 (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan and Khorasan

Pakistan wasn part of Khorasan. It was known as Sindh and Afghanistan, not modern Afghanistan, but the region between modern Afghanistan and Pakistan up near to Peshawar was called by some writers as Afghanistan, a part of Sindh, like Punjab still is. Read Babur´s memoires. He describe the countries very well and exactly.--84.59.213.34 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

India started east of the indus river and east of the Thar/indian desert which lies roughly near the current Pakistan border with india. Kabulistan contained considerable parts of Peshawer and surrounding cities. Southern and western Panjab(Multan/attock)) and Sindh had and stll have considerable Afghan influence. Being a transitional region where mountains meet green rivers, Pakistan was the true border region of Khorasan in the South East that lay adjacent to indian civilization. Its no wonder why the country has a considerably multi-ethnic, multicultural society to this day and exudes a uniqueness from the rest of South Asia to this very day.

Both of the above are wrong. Regarding the second post, Khorasan only defines the Persian speaking region comprising eastern Iran, western Afghanistan and southern Transoxiana (Turkmenistan and parts of Uzbekistan). The Pashtun belt was never considered "Khorasan". This region was always known loosely as "Afghanistan". Pakistan is not a natural entity as you assume. It consists of four historically separate countries: the western part of Punjab, Sindh, the eastern parts of the Pashtun belt or "eastern Afghanistan", and most of Baluchistan. Also, South Asia is not a unified region either. Its a diverse area consisting of many peoples, languages and customs. The ethnic groups of Pakistan more or less are part of this diverse area. They're different from the rest of south asia only so far as other parts of south asia are unique from the rest. Also, I'm a little bemused at the talk of Pakistan being a crossroads culture of greater Iran and greater "India" (whatever that means). Pakistan was mostly founded by Urdu-speakers from the Indo-Gangetic plain as a homeland for "Indian Muslims", on par with "Hindustan", the Hindu component of the subcontinent. Pakistan was never thought of as distinct from "India", it was merely the homeland of "Muslim India". Read Jinnah and Iqbal's comments for clarification. "India" is a region like Europe. The Pakistani founders saw this region as consisting of a Muslim nation (Pakistan) and a Hindu nation (Hindustan). But that's a whole different story. The other groups in Pakistan, the Pashtuns and Baloch, were incorporated into the Raj as merely border groups and by force. They never uniformly felt at home with South Asia and sought independence for themselves. For over 60 years, many Balochis have waged an insurgency against the Pakistani government for its "Punjabi cultural/political hegemony" over them. Many identity-conscious Pashtuns likewise view Pakistan as a "dal khoor" or a Punjabi-"Indian" homeland. And they also have much hatred for the Muhajirs, or descendants of migrants from other post-partition Indian cities like Lucknow, Delhi, Agra, Calcutta and Bombay, for holding political clout along with the Punjabis. Overall, Pakistan is culturally defined by its South Asian ethnic groups whereas the Iranian peoples make up 20-25% of the population and are a minority in comparison, in terms of cultural influence. Pakistan is like China or Russia, where both countries have large territories populated by minority groups vastly different from the cultural mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.41 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No part of what is now the modern-day country Pakistan was ever apart of the historical Khorasan. For those ignorant vandals out there kindly stop your stupidity of trying to include Pakistan into this article. Khorasan did not even share a border with the territory now known as Pakistan.

• cough* nationalism? *cough* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.42.95 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Khorasan

I believe this is the best name, greater khorasan is very confusing with iranian khorasan province that was split some years back.--Mullaji (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I placed better image up at the top; fixed few references; and rephrased couple of sentences. If you have any problem with my edit please exlain here. Thank you.--Mullaji (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You did many edits that some of them are POV and OR. For example ythe thing that you change the border of the great Khorasan only to West of Afghnistan is your POV and OR. Also you provide no source for what you add--St. Hubert (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

English Language references

Are the 4 references from two books in this article from English Language sources??
Intothefire (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Baburnama (Memoirs of Babur) is in English. The link to the online version is provided. Ghubar's book is in Persian. As to Nasir Khusraw's Safarnama, I am not quite sure. Although the English translation of the book might be available, but the current reference refers to the Persian version, I guess. The article lacks references, that's true. But let's not revert ALL the edits as User:Alefbe did. We can discuss the inaccurate points and try to find reliable references for each point put forward in the article. Especially for the geographical distribution.Ariana (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added several English references including Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopaedia of Islam. Ariana (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

I have removed most of the information because whoever wrote it forgot to add sources to it.--Inuit18 (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is preferable if you add sources for each major point you write. You removed the earlier text because it was unsourced, yet the new paragraph is unsourced too. Though some of the points in the earlier version were accurate, and were supported according to the Britannica and EI articles, but the editor had forgotten to add the references. Ariana (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Geography of Khorasan

I have edited the the geography of khorasan regarding Afghanistan and I have provided lots of credible sources and there is non to back yours if any of you have any credible sources then please provide and if not then stop vandalizing this article. Naz45228517 (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing your edits. Actually, you have to make a distinction between "proper" usage of Khorasan and "imporper" usage of Khorasan. Khorasan in its proper sense was limited to the area lying between and around the four cities: Balkh, Herat, Merv and Nishapur. Khorasan in its improper sense extended to larger areas, which might have included the whole territory of Afghanistan.

The first paragraph which you edited gives the "proper" definition of Khorasan - i.e. only north-western Afghanistan. However, in the subsequent paragraphs, it has been clearly mentioned that the whole territory of Afghanistan might have been called Khorasan. For example in the second paragraph, it says: However, Khorasan has been widely used through out the history to cover a larger region that encompassed all the entire Transoxiana and Soghdiana in the north, extended westward to the Caspian Sea, southward including Sistan deserts and eastward to the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan. Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India- more specifically to the Indus valley in Pakistan. Therefore Kabul, Ghazni and Kandahar were also considered to be parts of Khorasan.

Or for example in the section "Geographical Distrubtion", in the fourth paragraph, it explains the same issue that you are discussing.

You may make your edits at the end of the fourth paragraph of the Geographical Distrubtion section; it would be more appropriate. By the way, to make the references more credible, would you also please cite the exact sentence from those three sources that you are adding, outlining that Khorasan encompassed the whole Afghanistan? Ariana (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just moved your edits along with the three sources you added to the Greater_Khorasan#Geographical_distribution section. Ariana (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no need of adding improperly defined term (as you say) into an Encyclopaedic article. Xashaiar (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not actually "improperly defined term" (improper meaning wrongly or inappropriate); but saying "Khorasan in its improper sense" is more like saying "in a more general or widely usage" or "loosely applying to". If User:Naz45228517 provides the exact sentences from those references, then I would support its addition. Ariana (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition 1-3 of Khorasan

• http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-cbe368c6fbcf43b68107af29bc35fb45-fa.html
• http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-db7715f3666c4cba97f0e8951184c7c8-fa.html
• http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-2016573e4f47499f870c1b6cc9f117ec-fa.html

The entire article need to be overworked. Entire Afghanistan, Samarkand, Bukhara, Merv, Choresmia, Sistan etc. were part of Khorasan and presented it´s different provinces.--84.59.184.224 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You can see the approximate boundaries of Greater Khorasan in this map by Columbia University: http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Middle-East-Cultural-Historical-Regions-Map.jpg

Khorasan (Corasan thats how originally written) was an Afghan Empir (Hotak Empire, a dynasty). Hotak dynasty or Hotak empire was founded in 1709 by Mirwais Hotak after his death in november 1715 and was succeeded be his brother Abdul Aziz Hotak who was later killed by Muhmud Hotak son of Mirwais Hotak, allegedly for planing to give Kandahar sovereignty to persia (Sultan Husayn). the main point is here that khorasan was afghanistan. after the death of Hussain Hotak, Nadar Shah conquered it. it was a short pause before the establishment of the last afghan empire (Durrani Empire). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidkhorasanii (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)