Mahayana Buddhism or Paganism?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I believe you should have dug a bit deeper in your research:
Do you have any other sources, Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker? Not only are the sources listed by Kansas Bear in great abundance, but are written by highly prominent authors (including arguably one of the most prominent scholars in Medieval Islamic history of the Near East, C.E. Bosworth). No disrespect meant to the two figures, but Chandra and Nizami does not seem to be near the level/prominence of the listed authors. I could be wrong, of course. Another source that calls them pagan;
  • "They were descended from eastern Iranian Tajik stock but spoke a dialect of Persian sufficiently different from that of their neighbors for the Ghaznavid Sultan Masud to require local interpreters during his campaign to subjugate the region in 1020 and convert its pagan inhabitants to Islam" - Thomas, D.C. (2016). Ghurid Sultanate. In The Encyclopedia of Empire (eds N. Dalziel and J.M. MacKenzie). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe216 --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding it hard to swallow that the contributors of such excellence failed to catch my main point. Obviously, I am nowhere denying that scholars did not designated them as Pagans, as a matter of fact Nizami himself called them as pagans. But, they are simply refering to them as Pagans by citing Juzjani who wrote the iconic Tabaqt-I-Nasiri. Anyone, who followed Persian historiography in any length are quite aware that the chroniclers simply call their non-muslim nemesis as pagans. Juzjani, Juwyani, al-Athir et al; called Mongols pagans as well does it change the fact that they were followers of Tangrism ? Paganism doesn't means that they can't be Buddhist, perhaps we need to make a new section in the article body regarding it and then summarize it into the lead. Since, it's meaning is ambigious, then there is definate need to shed light upon it with availiable reliable sources.
Also HistoryofIran - nobody is beliting Bosworth repute in the eastern Islamic world but neither he is saying that they weren't Buddhist, as explained earlier paganism is no definate religion it's a vague designation by Muslim historians (medieval times) for the non-muslim empires. BTW, despite the Ghurids despite being of Iranian origin and of Persian speaking dialect, their legacy in the eastern Islamic world is inconsequential and except a spur under the dyarchy of Ghiyath al-Din & Muhammad Ghori they were largely confined to the hills of Ghor. Their any lasting legacy actually survived east of the river Indus in the South Asia. I don't think anybody who are active on Indian history articles will rate Satish Chandra or K.A. Nizami as unreliable. Actually, Nizami was the one who composed the chapter on the Ghurids in History of civilizations of central Asia: Volume IV The age off achievement: A.D. 750 to the end of the fifteenth century : (part one) The historical, social and economic setting in which Bosworth was the general editor. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 05:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, and I know you weren't belittling Bosworth. My point is that it seems that the the beliefs of the early Ghurids is uncertain to the point that a lot of scholars simply choose to call them "Pagans", not considering the Ghurids being Buddhist to be a possibility. Perhaps it could be written that the beliefs of the early Ghurids are uncertain, with many referring it to as paganism, with Chandra and Nezami suggesting it to be a form of Mahayana Buddhism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it may be assumed that people of Ghur also believed in some sort of Mahayana Buddhism.." --Mohammad Habib; Khaliq Ahmad Nizami
  • "Even then it is believed that paganism, ie. a variety of Mahayana Buddhism persisted in the area..." ---Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526), page 22.
Habib/Nizami say assumed, while Chandra states it is believed.
As such, Wikipedia should not present assumptions or beliefs as fact. Wikipedia can state it is believed/assumed by (Habib,Nizami,Chandra) they were Buddhists, while other academics simply call them pagans. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also HistoryofIran - nobody is beliting Bosworth repute in the eastern Islamic world but neither he is saying that they weren't Buddhist..."
We are not here to prove negatives, and K.A. Nizami in the History of civilizations of central Asia: Volume IV The age of achievement: A.D. 750 to the end of the fifteenth century : (part one) The historical, social and economic setting fails to call the Ghurids Buddhist. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghurid origin[edit]

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

Not sure why you created two threads for this. Anyways, read WP:SOAPBOX. Moreover, in Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not your personal theories/deductions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for comment Realone23 (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

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

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

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

Realone23 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PST, WP:SYNTH and misunderstanding of sourced material - all in all WP:OR. This is the same person that claimed that the Parni were Afghans [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol and I also know who are you.racist Realone23 (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origins[edit]

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


Which means nothing. No author, no page number, no quote, no link. Meaningless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford University(2000)
Cambridge University(2020)
Cambridge University(2016)
Princeton University(2018)--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that there is qoute from cambridge history of islam in article, but the VERY cambridge on history of india and iran call it suri Afghans. Which was funny and as expected you prove my point by pointing some links. Any way, you don't want me to add 10s of books calling them Afghans,? Will it change a thing? Things are really stupidly funny here! 84.210.149.236 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

Per the source[edit]

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

My edit: [2]

Your revert: [3]

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

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

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

I cannot read the source anymore, but I could when I reverted your edit. I don't remember why I performed that revert, however, feel free to revert me if you think that your edit was an improvement of this article. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani Just saw this now, will be reverting, thanks for clearing this up. Not sure why you can't read the source though, that is kind of annoying. Noorullah (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories