Afghanistan Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

History Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Beh-nam deleted the Hotaki dynasty from this template saying: "History of Afghanistan starts with the Durrani empire, not the short Hotaki dynasty."

I disagree. The Hotaki dynasty was short, 1709-1738, but it was the first local rule that the Pashtuns had had, and showed their strong desire to cast off Persian rule. --Bejnar 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I notice that Beh-nam also deleted the Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan and Islamic conquest of Afghanistan articles from the template. I think that they are appropriate references, well in keeping with the history templates of other countries. What do others think? --Bejnar 17:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So far as I can see Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan and Islamic conquest of Afghanistan haven't been deleted. Raoulduke47 17:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was mistaken, you are correct, they have been moved up above the line. --Bejnar 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Even if the Hotaki dynasty also falls into history of Iran (or Greater Iran), it is a very real part of the history of the area that we now call Afghanistan. But, if you have a problem with listing it in the Template:History of Afghanistan, please state why you consider it a problem to list it in the template in the template's discussion page. When I say "why" I don't mean a bald statement like "History of Afghanistan starts with the Durrani empire, not the short Hotaki dynasty." I mean the reasoning behind it. Thanks. --Bejnar 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you insert the Hotaki rule then you will have to include the following Afsharid rule as well, that is the problem. --Behnam 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No you won't. See article History of Afghanistan. --Bejnar 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then that article is missing the Afsharid rule in betweenthe Hotaki and Durrani and will also have to be fixed. -- Behnam 21:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hotaki Dynasty has nothing to do with Afghanistan. The term Afghanistan was unknown during that time period. Just because there center was in kandahar doesnt mean its Afghan history, if thats so then why arent we adding the uzbek khanates in the north during the 19th century, they also controlled parts of modern day afghanistan--Anoshirawan 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have already covered this extensively, the History of Iran is not just about the time periods where Persia was called Iran. It is about the land area that now is covered by Persia. The History of India is not just since the British arrived, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by India. Similarly, the History of Afghanistan has little to do with the use of the name, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by Afghanistan. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do you think that so many of the history articles start out with Pre-historic sections? That is before writing, and in most cases the people who gave the land its current English name had not yet invaded. --Bejnar 14:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bejnar the Hotakis only controlled parts of southern Afghanistan, If thats soo we should add the independent khanates in the north during the same time.--Anoshirawan 22:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an article about them? --Bejnar 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you suggesting that we put the Khanates of the north? Then you might as well throw in the entire history of the region. Afghanistan means Afghanland, Afghanland means Pashtunland, the northern areas have nothing to do Pashtuns Bejnar and neither does most history of this land. -- Behnam 01:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, what was Anoshirawan thinking when he made the above comment? What did he intend to say? --Bejnar 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

During the 18th century the only place which was called "Afghanistan" was the Peshawar valley and the Salaiman Mountains(the land of Roh).

Here is an extract from the Babur Nama

"The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were ques­tioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and dis­turbances.” Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns."--Anoshirawan 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We have already covered this extensively, the History of Iran is not just about the time periods where Persia was called Iran. It is about the land area that now is covered by Persia. The History of India is not just since the British arrived, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by India. Similarly, the History of Afghanistan has little to do with when the name was used, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by Afghanistan. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do you think that so many of the history articles start out with Pre-historic sections? That is before writing, and in most cases the people who gave the land its current English name had not yet invaded. Don't you get it that when the land began to be called Afghanistan is not the determining factor? Look at the Template:History of Iran for a comparison. --Bejnar 19:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The History of Iran template covers ALL of the history of the land today within the boundaries of "Afghanistan". The History of Afghanistan template does not cover hardly any of the history on this land. -- Behnam 19:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When editors keep deleting articles from the template, how can you expect any coverage? The ideal template would be specific to the area and list the articles that are specific to the area. It would not list articles that are primarily tangential to the area, but it might have links to sections of articles that deal specifically with the area. To many of us, it is obvious that the Template:History of Iran is over-broad for many articles that deal with the history of Afghanistan. --Bejnar 22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The fact that the Afsharid dynasty intervened after the Hotakis doesn't change the fact that the Hotakis were there --Bejnar 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not even an argument in this discussion. -- Behnam 03:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good, I didn't think that the existence of the Afsharid dynasty was a real issue either, but you mentioned them. What is the real issue for you, Behnam? --Bejnar 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The hotakis only controlled small regions in modern day Afghanistan. They werent even native to the land. This template is for Afghanistan's modern history(Afghanistan isnt even 200 years old). --Anoshirawan 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes, the Hotaki did not control all of what now constitutes Afghanistan, but their capital and center of power was in Kandahar. Tahmasp I did not control all of what now constitutes Iran, but he is still part of Iranian history. --Bejnar 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(2)The template is not just for modern Afghanistan, it includes Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan and Islamic conquest of Afghanistan. The template is not named "Template talk:History of Modern Afghanistan". --Bejnar 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tahmasp ruled not only modern Iran but Greater Iran thats why he isnt listed in the Iranian section. Hotakis also ruled parts of Afghanistan,Iran,Baluchistan but they never ruled Afghanistan and during that time period there was no Afghanistan. Mirwais's first capital was in Baluchistan then he moved it to kandahar; His descendants moved the capital from kandahar to modern Iran.--Anoshirawan 03:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We have already extensively covered the fact that it doesn't matter what the land was called at the time. Second Mirwais's first capital was Kandahar, he was an appointed official of the Safavid rulers when he started his rebellion. In fact, Gurgin Khan, the governor of Kandahar, was quite upset when Mirwais returned from his trip to the Persian court with full honors. Malleson, George Bruce (1879) "Chapter 7: The Ghilzai Rule" History of Afghanistan, from the Earliest Period to the Outbreak of the War of 1878 W.H. Allen & Co., London Mir Wais's first capital was Kandahar, unless you consider that his tribal area before the rebellion was a capital. But it still doesn't matter, Kandahar was the initial capital of the rebellion that went on to become a dynasty. That dynasty ruled in what is now southern Afghanistan, and other territories, although the borders are never exactly the same. But we have covered the border issue already. Mir Wais and the Hotaki dynsaty started out in what is now southern Afghanistan, and conquered a great deal of territory (a large portion of which is now in Afghanistan, but in other countries as well) before the rebellion of Nāder Qoli Beg. --Bejnar 04:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing that you dont get is that the Hotakis had a bigger impact on Iran than Afghanistan. It should be listed in the Greater Iran template not in this one.--Anoshirawan 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

Afsharid dynasty did not establish rule over the land of Afghans, which covered southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Nadir Shah only explored the territory, he did not annex the territory as part of Persia. His mission was to loot and plunder Hindu territories with the help of Afghans. He had joint forces of Persians and Afghans. He conquered in the name of Islam, not in the name of Persia. Therefore, the territories he conquered were left with same rulers and same administrations. After he died, Ahmed Shah conquered the same territories in the name of Afghanistan, setting up Afghan rulers over all the territories he conquered. That's the major difference. Same thing with Hotaks, when they conquered territories, they established Afghan rule over the area and set Afghan governors and rulers. --Dilbar Jan 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, the new template has the problem of classifying the Hotaki dynasty as Pashtun rule since we are not sure of Mirwais Khan Hotak's ethnicity and also the Hotaki dynasty did not have control of most of today's Afghanistan. -- Behnam 06:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:Hotaki dynasty for ethnicity of the Hotaki, and the weight of scholarly authority. The area of total control is not relevant, they were Pashtun and ruled from Kandahar. --Bejnar 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They did not rule most of the territory in today's borders of Afghanistan. Implying a Hotaki rule of today's Afghanistan is misleading. -- Behnam 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for continuing the discussion, but as I have already remarked to you there is no such implication that ancient boundaries are exactly the same as modern boundaries. There is nothing to be misleading about. You admit that the Hotaki were based in Kandahar and that Kandahar is now in Afghanistan. Yes, the Hotaki did not control all of what now constitutes Afghanistan, but their capital and center of power was in Kandahar. Tahmasp I did not control all of what now constitutes Iran, but he is still part of Iranian history. Similarly, the Hotaki did not control all of what now constitutes Afghanistan, but they are still part of the history of the area. See, for example, the article History of Afghanistan. --Bejnar 23:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Behnam said in an edit summary, "that makes no sense, alot of dynasties that ruled parts of this terrotiry are part of this land's history, that doesn't mean we include them all. only an Afghan Nationalist would make this argument"

The argument is not that the Hotaki are "just any dynasty" it is that they are a Pashtun dynasty, centered in the territory that is now called Afghanistan. They are properly written up in the History of Afghanistan article, which any editor may read for further understanding of their place. --Bejnar 23:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In removing the Hotaki dynasty from the template, User:Beh-nam wrote in an edit summary, "yes it is consistent if you actually read the article, Hotakis did not rule this area". My, slightly rhetorical, question to him was, "What area did the Hotaki rule? Where did they have their capital?" He did not respond, but the answer is Kandahar, and other adjoining territories. It appears that they took Isfahan at one point, but I haven't found a citation that gives a date for that yet. The Persians then drove them back. --Bejnar 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey bros, what do you think now about the template?? if you don´t like it you can change it..but i think we should stay close to history . --Aspandyar Agha 20:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that we should stick to the history, and to Wikipedia policies. See History of Afghanistan --Bejnar 06:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for comments on whether this template should include the Hotaki dynasty:

• Statement in favor of inclusion:

The Hotaki ruled southern Afghanistan from 1709 to 1736. They are included in the History of Afghanistan article. There has been a separate article about them for over two years (Sept. 2005), even though it is short and could be profitably expanded. The utility of the History of Afghanistan template is enhanced by including all of the appropriate articles, that is articles that correspond to the section level in the main article. Including every biography would not be appropriate. Please see the edit history for possible versions. --Bejnar 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Statement opposed to inclusion:
• Statements by parties not previously involved:

I've added separate categories to expand the history of Afghanistan to better fill in the massive gap from 600 to 1700 AD. I've not participated in the discussion previous and it seems to me that the Hotaki are important. You have Afghanistan on the fringe of two massive empires, and the Hotaki is their first success at throwing off the yokes of both of them. Yes, they are a transitional dynasty, but they form the basis on which the more stable dynasty could be founded. I've also added a category for the Mongol Invasion, which should warrant it's own section as with the Mughal and the Safavids. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am persuaded by the points raised by Bejnar. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THERE WAS NO STH LIKE A PERSIAN AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 1911 it was Kabulistan, Khorasan, Bactria and Aryanam Vaey....Tajik!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.213.70 (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your concerns are irrelevant. Read the above posts. Also your edits completely screwed up the layout of the template, so they were reverted. Raoulduke47 14:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nothing is irrelevant because it is facts. Afghanistan exist since 1919 officially. BUT THERE WAS NO AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 1911. It was called by the local people as Kabulistan, like Persians called their country Persia because of the province Pars where the rulers sit was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.220.108 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As above: We have already covered this extensively, the History of Iran is not just about the time periods when Persia was called Iran. It is about the land area that now is covered by Iran. The History of India is not just since the British arrived, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by India. Similarly, the History of Afghanistan has little to do with the use of the name, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by Afghanistan. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do you think that so many of the history articles start out with Pre-historic sections? Prehistory is before writing, and in most cases the people who gave the land its current English name had not yet invaded. --Bejnar 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Afghanistan is a unique name which translates to the "land of Afghans". Afghans have lived in their Afghanistan for over 1,000 years. This is why the name "Afghanistan" is always used everywhere in the nation's modern and pre historic articles. "History of Afghanistan" is not about the name's history but about the land's history. I wonder why is this name issue so important to 88.68.220.108? This here proves that there was a country called Afghanistan before 1911, Harlan's 1842 work, A memoir of India and Avghanistaun, with observations on the present exciting and critical state and future prospects of those countries.--LloydHawk (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read this, do not edit until you have read it.

Until the 19th century the name was only used for the traditional lands of the Pashtuns, while the kingdom as a whole was known as the Kingdom of Kabul, as mentioned by the British statesman and historian Mountstuart Elphinstone.^[1] Other parts of the country were at certain periods recognized as independent kingdoms, such as the Kingdom of Balkh in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.^[2]

With the expansion and centralization of the country, Afghan authorities adopted and extended the name "Afghanistan" to the entire kingdom, after its English translation, "Afghanland", had already appeared in various treaties between British Raj and Qajarid Persia, referring to the lands that were subject to the Pashtun Barakzai Dynasty of Kabul.^[3] "Afghanistan" as the name for the entire kingdom was mentioned in 1857 by Frederick Engels.^[4] It became the official name when the country was recognized by the world community in 1919, after regaining its full independence from the British,^[5] and was confirmed as such in the nation's 1923 constitution.^[6]''

"History of Afghanistan" is referring to history of the land, not history of the name. There was no such nation by the name of Kabul, "Kingdom of Kabul" means that Kabul was where the King's palace or court was located. Kingdom of Delhi does not mean India was called Delhi, it was where the ruler's (Sultan's) palace was located.--LloydHawk (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I read it, but it does change the fact that the article History of Afghanistan and this template are about the land area, not the name. As I said above, "Similarly, the History of Afghanistan has little to do with the use of the name, it is the history of the land area that now is covered by Afghanistan. Why is that so hard to grasp?" --Bejnar (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to repeated reverts by socks of Beh-nam, I have semi-protected the template for a month. This means no new or unregistered users will be able to edit it. If you have any problems with this, please let me know. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 January 2008 Anoshirawan deleted detail from the template claiming "Durranis and hotakis werent local". This is clearly a spurious reason, as reading the Durrani Empire article: "The Durrani Empire was a large state that included territories within modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Khorasan province of Iran and a smaller section of western India." and the Hotaki dynasty article: "The Hotaki dynasty (1709-1738) was founded in 1709 by Mirwais Khan Hotak, an ethnic Pashtun from the Ghilzai clan[1] of Kandahar province in modern-day Afghanistan." clearly show that they are part of the history of this place. --Bejnar (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Durranis were from Multan of Panjab which has nothing to do with Afghanistan. The Hotakis were also from the Salaiman ranges which is part of Pakistan not Modern day Afghanistan.--Anoshirawan 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

But why do those facts, if true, mean that their reigns were unimportant or irrelevant to the history of this place? How do those facts, if true, justify removing their rule from the template? --Bejnar (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The soft protection was no sufficient. Please discuss concerns about this template here. An edit war must be averted. Kingturtle (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the firs box, we just need to write simple words as: History of Afghanistan from ancient times. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about adding Kushan Empire and Greco-Bactrian Kingdom as subsets in the first box? --Bejnar (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are going to add those then you need to add all the Persian dynasties. Also right now you have Ghaznavid and Ghorid for some reason even though a link to the whole article is provided. If you will include those then you might as well include the following list:

Islamic Conquest

This is why several users have been removing the Ghaznavid (Turkish) and Ghorid (Tajik) dynasties Hazara898 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But many of these did not operate in Afghanistan such as the Buyid dynasty. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few of them did not. I'll modify the list. Here,, all of these dynasties operated in what is today Afghanistan since the Islamic conquest:

If you have Ghaznavid and Ghorid dynasty now you must either include all these or remove those two. Hazara898 (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Kushans
• Saffarids
• Ghaznavids
• Ghurids
• Timurids
• Hotakis
• Durranis

Kapisa was the capital city of Kushans, Zaranj was the capital of Saffarids, Ghazni was the capital of Ghaznavids, Ghor was the capital of Ghurids, Herat and Kandahar were capitals of Timurids, Kandahar and Kabul were the capitals of Durranis. All of the above are obviously part of Afghanistan's history first, then they become part of the history of neighboring countries.--203.175.65.176 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This timeline needs a lot of improvement .

• It urgently needs correction of dates
• Relating Dynasties to areas and dates
• Inclusions
• Perhaps some exclusions

It currently states a blanket date for Sassinds (224-651)??? , ruling all of Afghanistan ???
Intothefire (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are certain things that I should make clear, since I added the new list of dynasties in the template.

• The dynasties which have been added are those who have ruled whether the whole Afghan territory, whether parts of the country (at least not less than half of the Afghan territories).
• Not all the dynasties had their capital(s) inside the current Afghan territories. For example, Khwarezmids, Ilkhanate, or many others of them, had their their capitals outside but ruled major parts of today's Afghanistan.
• Their ruling date which I have added in the template refers to the date of their existence (i.e. foundation until decline). It is very hard to find the exact date when the empires conquered Afghanistan. The same applies to the ruling date of Sassanids.

@ User:Intothefire, I did not get your point. What do you mean by "blanket date"? As to whether Sassanids ruled all of Afghanistan; actually, they ruled all of Afghanistan only for a short while, but between 226 to 457, they ruled major parts of Afghanistan (western and northern). During Ardashir I, Sassanids ruled Sistan and parts of Afghanistan till Balkh. When Shahpur I came to power, he defeated the Western Kushans sometime around 248 CE, and conquered all of Bactria and thus had the entire Afghanistan's territory under his empire. Later on, those Sassanids who ruled Afghanistan were called Indo-Sassanids. After 320 CE, eastern parts of Afghanistan were ruled by several other empires such as Kidarites, Hephthalites and Kabul-Shahis, each at different stages of time. But the Sassanids ruled the western and northern parts of Afghanistan (including Haree (Herat) and Balheeka (Balkh)) as well as the Transoxiana even well after the ruling of Bahram V (known as Bahram-e Gor). But after Bahram-e Gor's son, Yazdegerd II, Hephthalites attacked the Persians in 483 and Sassanids lost their eastern territories. When Khosrau I came to power, he defeated the Hephthalites and re-conquered western and northern parts of Afghanistan (i.e. Bactria) in 560 and had them till his death in 579.

Therefore it is very difficult to provide the exact ruling dates of Afghanistan by the Sassanids, since they lost their eastern territories to the Hephthalites after Yazdegurd II but Khusrau I retook the lost territories. Therefore, I propose two dates for the Sassanids presence in Afghanistan on which the editors can decide: 226-457 (from Ardashir I to the end of Yazdegerd II) or 226-579 (from Ardashir I to the end of Khusro I).

Ariana (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I just explained in the above paragraph, it is difficult to write the ruling dates and conquered areas of each dynasty in Afghanistan. Since during the existence of an empire, it attacked several times Afghanistan, ruled some parts or all of Afghanistan for a period, then lost all of them, and again re-conquered some of its territories in Afghanistan after a period of time. There is another difficulty in putting in order the Pre-Islamic dynasties. Between 226-438 (or 579), the Sassanids were present all the time in the western and northern Afghanistan. But in the eastern areas, the later four dynasties overlapped each other. And not to forget, that Kidarites and Hephthalites all belong to to the same tribe known as White Huns, and Kabul Shahis as the descendants of Kushano-Sassanids. Therefore, between 410-651, the Sassanids, Indo-Sassanids, Kidarites, Hephthalites and Kabul Shahis whether co-existed in different regions of the country, whether existed solely. So "Relating Dynasties to areas and dates" would be a difficult task to do. Ariana (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response 2 from Intothefire
.

My friend with a little patience it may not be so difficult to put in order the Pre Islamic dynasties .

In order to develop this topic better I have copyed this map from the Provinces of Afghanistan page .

This map should enable us to now put in ref and context the geographical domains to each dynasty . Lets first enumerate the main dynasties that come after Alexander . Next we also know that Alexander conquered Afghanistan after 330
and was followed by the Selucids
followed by the Mauryan
followed by the Sunga
followed by Greco Bactarians,
followed by Indo Greeks
followed by Kushanshahs or Indo-Scythians
followed by Parthians
followed by Indo Parthians
followed by Kushans
followed by Sassinds and Kushanshahs
followed by Kidarite Huns or Huna collectively known as Hephthalite
followed by Sassanian king Khusrow 1 Overlapping with Turk Shahis
followed by Hindu Shahi

Apart from this there are several important pre-islamic dynasties ruling different parts of Afghanistan at the time of Mahmud Ghazni , these include the

• Zunbils in Zabulistan
  
• Suri in Ghor

The above should also be listed , Afghanistan is an ancient and culturally advanced country with a known history . Hope you agree with this approach .
Intothefire (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then such a task would be no less than an original research on Afghanistan's history. It might seem very easy to you, but believe me it's a challenging work.Ariana (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the map , reference section and below table I have created , an attempt may be made to improve the timeline and domains of the pre-islamic dynasties . I hope that by working collaboratively on this section on a discussion page rather than directly on the article page , we can work collaboratively before altering the timeline substantively .For the time being we can work on the period following Alaxander and later take up the period before Alaxander , since Afghanistan has a long history preceeding that event Intothefire (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table of Pre Islamic dynasties of Afghanistan from the period following Alaxander

Intothefire (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Intothefire (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supporting table for regions to augument above table

Intothefire (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion consolidated

Hi user Ariana310
Would you also like to look at the order of Shahis and Ghaznavids on the template
...the Ghaznavids defeated the Shahis
but in the template the dates are showing a seperation of about 3 centuries ,
I think this needs correction as well .Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Actually, in the Template, it is meant the first period of the Kabul Shahi dynasty. The first dynasty of Kabul Shahi is also known as Ratbel-Shahan, which ruled parts of Afghanistan between 565 CE to 670 CE with Kapisa, Kabul and Kandahar as their capitals. However, the term "Kabul Shahi" has also been used for "Hindu Shahi" when they had Udabhandapura as their capital, because Hindu Shahis were their descendants. So Ghaznavids defeated Hindu Shahis, not the early Kabul Shahis.

In the Template, we should only keep the record for the early Kabul Shahis. We are not interested in the later Hindu Shahis because they ruled outside the current Afghan territories. Ariana (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ariana310 ,

• I agree The Turk Shahis and Hindu Shahis are two seperate dynastys.
• I agree Ghazni defeats the Hindu Shahis .
• Hindushahi were not the descendents of Kabulshahi
• However the Hindu Shahis ruled from Kabul and their domain extended from Kabul ,Gandhara to Punjab .See the below recorded quote from a reliable source . So both Turk Shahi as well as Hindu Shahi need to be on the table .
• And Ghazni was also ruled by the Zunbils before capture by the Ghaznavids.

Alptigin seized Zabulistan together with its capital Ghazni from Amir Abu Bakr Lawik in c AD 963 , and there established an indipendent kingdom .He raised Sabuktigin to the position of a general . ^[23] Intothefire (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Udabhanda was the capital of the Shahi dynasty . The Shahi (Devanagari शाही) also called Shahiya,^[24][25] dynasties ruled portions of the Kabul Valley (in eastern Afghanistan) and the old province of Gandhara (northern Pakistan and Kashmir) from the decline of the Kushan Empire in third century to the early ninth century.^[25] The kingdom was known as Kabul-shahan or Ratbel-shahan from (565 - 670 CE) when they had their capitals in Kapisa and Kabul, and later Udabhandapura (also known as Hund)^[26] for its new capital. The term Shahi is the title of the rulers, likely related to the Kushan form Shao^[25] or Persian form Shah and refers to a series of 60 rulers probably descended from the Kushans or Turks (Turshkas).^[25] They are split into two eras the Buddhist Turk-Shahis and the later Hindu-Shahis with the change-over occurring sometime around 870.

Intothefire (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Therefore Considering all the references provided above , this template needs immediate correction , the Shahis were contemporarys of the Ghaznavids and it is ridiculous for the timeline to show a 3 century interval . Lets correct this to begin with immediately ....hope you agree.
Intothefire (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You must be mixing up Kabul Shahis with Hindu Shahis. Although both come from the same lineage and Hindu Shahis are the descendants of the Kabul Shahis, but still there is an important distinction between them due to their capital locations. In the article of Kabul Shahi, it is written:

Please also check Kabul_Shahi#Lineage_of_Kabul_Shahis and Kabul_Shahi#Conclusion for more details and for more academic references.

So in the Template of History of Afghanistan, we should only mention the first period of Shahis i.e. Kabul Shahis who had their capital in Kabul between 565 and 879 AD. Mentioning Hindu Shahis is irrelevant because they were ruling in the areas other than today's Afghanistan boundaries. I hope your confusion about Shahis being contemporary to the Ghaznavids was solved. Ariana (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I did not get what exactly you want to say. Let's consolidate our points:

• Are you saying we should also mention Hindu Shahis as well in the template so that they be contemporary to the Ghaznavids? But please remember, we mention only those dynasties who ruled over the current territories (over the major parts) of Afghanistan. Mentioning Hindu Shahis till 9th century will be irrelevent.
• Or are you suggesting that Hindu Shahis were always present in Afghanistan till Ghaznavids came to power?

Yes of course, the template needs an improvement, especially the pre-Achaemenid era. But specifically concerning the Kabul Shahis, I don't see any conflict.Ariana (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please use easy to understand titles. "Islamic period" ending in 1747 is giving impression to people who don't know Afghanistan's history that Islam came and gone, "Post 18th century" is also confusing sometimes because people think of 1800 or 19th century. Modern history or Modern era is better, I believe.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although nothing in the template indicates that the Islamic period ended in 1747, I may agree with your first point. But "Modern era" is confusing too; it is usually employed to the period starting at the 16th century, while we're dealing here with the 18th century. "Post 18th century" is precise and not confusing. Cabolitæ (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The average people of the world don't know much about Islam or Afghanistan as much as you may know. Islamic period includes 7th century to present but in the template it cuts off at 1747 and that confuses the general readers. Post 18th century may be precise but not to the general readers. For example, why aren't the Hotaki dynasty (1709-1738) and Afsharid dynasty (1738-1747) included under "Post 18th century"? Clearly both of these existed in the 18th century.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the reasons we split the Islamic period on the Durrani empire was because the Durranis are considered to be the first Afghan empire (cf. Britannica) who founded the modern state of Afghanistan, with their capital inside Afghanistan and later on it adopted (during Shah Shuja) the name "Afghanistan" instead of Khorasan. Hotakis despite being Afghans/Pashtuns, had Isfahan as one of their capitals. Afsharids came from modern day Iran. So only the Durrani empire marks the start of the modern history of Afghanistan. Cabolitæ (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a good way to do this, and this template has nothing to do with when the name (Afghanistan) was chosen. This template has to list all the events and eras in a proper order for the readers.

• Concerning your assertion, Britannica states: Last Afghan empire (Overthrow of foreign rule) Periodic attempts were made to gain independence. In 1709 Mīr Vays Khan, a leader of the Hotaki Ghilzay tribe, led a successful rising against Gorgīn Khan, the Persian governor of Kandahār.
• According to other sources a temporary Afghan kingdom was first established in 1709. Iranic states: In 1121/1709 a Ḡilzay uprising, led by the Hōtakī tribal chief Mīr Ways, had freed all of southern Afghanistan from Safavid control, thus establishing the basis of a state which would extend westwards into the heart of Persia (fall of Isfahan, 1135/1722)

I was even thinking of adding the Mughals and Safavids under the Modern history, what do you think? I chose not to because these two were some how still involved in conquering in the name of Islam or spreading their version of Islam. Safavids were spreading Shia Islam and Mughals were Sunni Muslims conquering lands of nonmuslims.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I disagree. Almost all academic sources commence the modern history of Afghanistan with the Durrani Empire. Brittanica calls Ahmad Shah Abdali as "founder of the state of Afghanistan", and The Encyclopaedia of Islam starts its section of "The Afghan National State" with the Sadozay/Durrani dynasty. The modern history of Afghanistan should start with the the empire which founded the modern nation-state of Afghanistan. How can you add Mughals, Safavids or Afsharids in the modern history of Afghanistan while they had their capitals outside of Afghanistan? The two passages which you cited from Britannica and Iranica do not give any evidence that the modern history of Afghan nation-state actually starts with the Hotakis. They only explain how they reached to power. Cabolitæ (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is not limited to the political situation of the current state "Afghanistan", it is for the complete known history of the "land" that is known today as Afghanistan, regardless who ruled it and where their capital was located. "Modern history" describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages and may include as far back as the 1500s. Aren't the above two (Britannica and Iranica) academic sources? It doesn't make sense for you to limit the history of this territory to the founding of the Afghan rule in 1747, and I haven't seen anyone do that else where. It also doesn't make sense to add Hotaki dynasty (1709-1738) and Afahrid dynasty (1738-1747) under "Islamic conquest". Since you disagree with me I think we should ask experts for advice.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just cited you Britannica and The Encyclopaedia of Islam, who both consider Afghanistan's modern political history to start from the Durrani empire. This template is more about a "political entity" named Afghanistan, than a "region". The history of the region has already been covered in Template:History of Greater Iran; and the current template deals with the political history of the state of Afghanistan. If you want to focus on the region, then first of all it should be consistent with the title of the template. "Afghanistan" refers to a political entity, and the region was not called as Afghanistan before the 18th century. Then rename the template, and then you can arrange the section as you like. (...which is not correct!!)

Yeah, sure. I will ask in the Talk:Afghanistan for the view of other editors. Cabolitæ (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is about the History of Afghanistan, any image placed in the template must be clearly about Afghanistan. Something that Afghanistan is well known for. I have added an image of one of the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan as this is the first thing that comes into people's mind when they think of the history of Afghanistan.Ksmdr (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the User:Ksmdr in selecting the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan as an appropriate image, representing the history of Afghanistan. The image Rohtas Fort is absolutely an inappropriate one, firstly, it is situated in today's Pakistan, and secondly, it was built during the Suri dynasty, a dynasty mostly ruling the Indian territories, and their rule did not include the lands which are today known as Afghanistan. An alternative to Buddhas of Bamiyan, can be one of the following:--Artacoana (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:13 bactrians.jpg

These images are very interesting but I don't think having one of them in the template would stand out much like the giant Buddha statue. Making a unique Afghan history collage of images would look good. This one in particular (File:13 bactrians.jpg) would've been nice but it is in Persepolis (South-western Iran) and having this in the Afghanistan template would create even more confusion. Another reason why I prefer the Buddah statue is because of the fact that they were completely destroyed and having the image shown in Wikipedia would help many people of the world see what it or they looked like. Seeing the person standing at the front of the statue makes it more interesting because it allows people to see that these were not just ordinary but very huge statues. The point is that the Taliban destroyed Afghanistan's history by blowing the statues but we can keep it alive with this image. It also explains that Buddhism was widespread in Afghanistan before the people accepted Islam (Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan#Archaeological remnants from Afghanistan.27s pre-Islamic period). I will contact someone if he is able to make the photo collage.Ksmdr (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 2 images on the left (sculpted heads) are copyright violations, they are not the works of US Federal Government but of Louis and Nancy Dupree.Ksmdr (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, for the next fifteen centuries, these two colossal Buddhas of Bamiyan, the largest figures of their kind in the world — 55 meters and 38 meters high — epitomized the glory, splendor, stability and prosperity of Afghanistan during its golden age – a civilization in harmony with its neighbours. Soon I will try to create few examples of photo collages, representing the prehistory, the ancient, the medieval and the modern history of Afghanistan. Regarding the first two images, they are not copyrighted and I took them from the website 'Cultural Training Resources', which belongs to US Department of Defense --Artacoana (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first two images are hosted on Colorado State University's website, but the author is Louis Dupree or someone else, the same images are found in Dupree's 1970s book An Historical Guide To Afghanistan.[2] The only time the US federal government license tag applies is when the work is made by US federal government employees while on official duty. You should see templates of other nations at Category:History by nation navigational boxes to get a better idea.Ksmdr (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the image to Mazar-i-Sharif's blue mosque. Using the Buddha's is a bit pretentious because these don't in any way represent modern Afghan society; their only claim to fame is that they were blown-up by the Taliban. On the other hand, the blue mosque represents a famous, beautiful building which represents the modern Muslim society of the country.--58.106.233.55 (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arachosia alone does not represent what is today known as Afghanistan, but rather a small part (province) of the ruling empires and dynasties. (See the map) Afghanistan, due it's geostrategic position in Central Asia and on the ancient trade routes, such as the Silk Road, and migration of various peoples throughout its history, has always been a multi-ethnic and multicultural country. The identity of this country doesn't represent only one particular ethnic group, but rather all the ethnic groups together living in this country for centuries. Pashtuns are not the owners of this country, neither it's their original homeland. In fact, there is no single trace of Pashtuns' presence in the history of this country, before the 17th century. Moreover, Wikipedia is not the place for racial and ethnic bigotry, as this is a clear violation of Neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia.--Artacoana (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you telling me that "The identity of this country doesn't represent only one particular ethnic group"? Pashtuns are not the owners of this country, neither it's their original homeland. In fact, there is no single trace of Pashtuns' presence in the history of this country, before the 17th century? Are you here trying to express your anti-Pashtun POV? Your argument is off topic here. We go by sources here not by POVS. Pashtuns were known as ethnic Afghans before the 17th century and there are plenty of sources which verify that they lived in what is now Afghanistan since at least the 3rd century, read the "Afghan" article for details. Herodotus has mentioned the Afridi Pashtun tribe as "Apridai" in the 1st millennium BC. [3] As for Afghanistan being called "Arachosia" in the past, which is what I'm adding to the remplate and the topic here, there are many sources for that. Please see this for example.Ksmdr (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ksmdr, I have nothing against Pashtuns. Apparently, you haven't got my point. The history of our country doesn't only cover the modern period, ie. from 1747 and the establishment of the first Pashtun rule in our country and onward. The history also include the ancient and medieval periods, when Pashtuns were not ruling our land, but it was the Persians, Macedonians, Scythians, Huns and Indians during the ancient times and their descendants, the Tajiks together with the Turks during the medieval times. The ancient names of ethnics are not relevant here. The name "Apridae" that you mention doesn't necessarily mean that they were the ancestors of the Afridi tribe of the Pashtuns, otherwise, the Hebrew tribe of Ephraim may also be a reference to the Afridi tribe, who have never ruled this land. Furthermore, the name "Afghanistan" is not relevant here, but it's the history of the LAND that matters. There has never been a ruling dynasty or empire with their capitals in Arachosia. In fact, Bactria is much better candid, due to it's center and origin of Greco-Bactrian and Kushan rule. But these small provinces alone are not relevant either. However, "Ariana" was the name of a country, including these provinces, as mentioned by the ancient Greek and Roman geographers. There are also countless references of the geographers of the Islamic period to the name "Khorasan", including Balkh, Tukharestan, Kabulistan, Zabulistan, Herat, Sistan, Samangan, and many more. We are not here to initiate an edit waring, based on ethnic conflicts. I'm going to change the template, leaving the country names "Ariana" and "Khorasan" on the top, and mentioning the regional and provincial names underneath. I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion about this.--Artacoana (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have nothing against Pashtuns then why are you removing empires and names of places that relate to them? Ther's no reason for you to oppose Arachosia as the ancient geographic name for the territory of the Afghans (Pashtuns). This behaviour indicates that you are advancing the Persian history and culture in Wikipedia but downgrading the Afghan (Pashtun) history. Afghans or Pashtuns may not have ruled as kings in what is now Afghanistan before 1709 but they inhabited the land and were employed in the kingdoms of others. What do you mean "The ancient names of ethnics are not relevant here? It is you who started the ethnic conflict when I only added the name Arachosia between Ariana and Khorasan. Whether you accept the Afridi mention by Herodotus in the 1st millennium BC or not doesn't matter, and Ephraims and Afridis don't sound the same.. but that's another issue and irrelevant to this discussion.

The name "Afghanistan" in this case refers to 2 things, the current territory of the modern state of Afghanistan and the "land of Afghans (Pashtuns)", a large part of which is now in Pakistan. The Afghans (Pashtuns) lived as one nation throughout the history, and their land was called Arachosia by Europeans before it became known by the Persian or Sanskrit name "Afghanistan". This particular area (Arachosia) made up part of the larger Indus Valley Civilization, the Hindu/Buddhist relics that are often found in this territory is a reminder. Your edits indicate that are so busy learning about Persian history and culture, but not the history of this part of Afghanistan. There have been many Hindu/Buddhist kings and kingdoms in this part of Afghanistan with their capitals at Bost (Lashkar Gah), Kandahar, Kabul, Jalalabad, and so on. If you read about the time when the first Arabs came to this part of Afghanistan, south of the Hindu Kush, they described it as Hindustan (land of Hindus). This was the frontier between ancient Persia and ancient India, and I'm not saying that the Pashtuns (Afghans) were Indians.. Pashtuns were a tribal society living mostly in the mountains as they still do today, visiting the cities for trade purposes. The reason why not much is mentioned about the local Indian kings of Afghanistan is because they lived peacefully in their territory, which was obtained around the 3rd century BC, when Seleucus Nicator gave control of the region to Chandragupta Maurya (Sandrocottus) upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange 500 elephants, as mentioned by Strabo 64 BC–24 AD.[4]

Khorasan was also a non-state geographic name and only a part of today's Afghanistan was included with it. Hamdallah Mustawfi wrote and described Khorasan in 1340 AD and you can read that here. As you can see that Khorasan was basically a Persian-speaking territory which had Persian fire temples but the area south of the Hindu Kush had Buddhist stupas. About Ariana, that article was written by you [5] and it too is a non-state geographic name just like Arachosia and Khorasan. There has never been a ruling dynasty or empire with their capitals in Aiana.

If you look at Category:History by nation navigational boxes, no other country has the so many names that you just added. For this reason, and the fact that you are trying to promote and advance the Persian history over Afghan history, I decided to remove all these geographic names from the template. They are irrelevant for the Afghan template and creates confusions. Having the 3 (Ariana, Arachosia, and Khorasan) is fair because it covers the whole current territory of Afghanistan as well as the pre-1893 Afghanistan, which includes the native Afghan territories of neighboring Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and part of Balochistan in Pakistan. The Pashtun people living in Pakistan who were divided by the 1893 Durand Line still believe that they are Afghans and the dispute over the Durand Line is still active. Just like northwestern Afghanistan is considered culturally the same as Iran, the same goes for northwestern Pakista which is culutrally the same as Afghanistan.Ksmdr (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not advancing the Persian identity and heritage over the Pashtun's, as you can see from my edits on 'History of Afghanistan (pre-Islamic period) in Persian Wikipedia. The reason I removed empires and names of places from the article 'Herat' is because I'm worried about a barbaric and false belief among some Pashtuns that consider themselves as the true owners of Afghanistan and see other ethnic groups as 'the immigrants'! This is totally unfair and wrong! Today it is commonly accepted that the Tajiks are the oldest inhabitants of this country and have made an outstanding contributions in various domains of our cultural heritage (See people like Avicenna, Biruni, Rumi, and hundreds more.) But these Pashtuns ignore this fact, simply because they see it as a threat to their rule over them. The same indication, when you included Arachosia in the template, ignoring Bactria, simply because it lies to the north of the country where it's inhabited by non-Pashtuns, mostly by the Tajiks.

In the past century, it has been Pashtun ethnic prejudice and religious bigotry that have been the most active forces in Afghanistan. Large tracts of the most fertile lands in western and northern Afghanistan have been emptied of their native Parsiwan, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimaq and Turkmen inhabitants to open the way for Pashtun migrants. Kabul governments since the time of Amir Abdul-Rahman Khan in the 1890s have followed this with gusto and under various pretexts. All the vast pockets of Pashtun in northern and northwestern Afghanistan, as well as the central Hazara highlands, date to this period. The Hazara Shias and the ancient Kapirs of "Kafiristan" suffered the most, since their physiological differences (one being of Asiatic extraction, the other of European bloodline) were augmented by their religious differences (Hazaras being Shia, and the Kapirs following ancient Aryan creeds). This trend reversed between 1979 and 1996, to reverse once again following the NATO invasion of the country in 2001. The policy was revived and enforced under the Taliban in the 1990s, when "official" circulars were produced and passed around on how to remove the Parsiwan from Kabul and Herat, the Tajiks from the Panjshir Valley, and Hazaras from central Afghanistan. The Taliban, Pashtun-centered exclusionary formula, "Tajiks to Tajikistan; Uzbeks to Uzbekistan; Hazaras to goristan (["graveyards") proved far more than just an empty slogan. The notorious booklet "The Second Bachcha-i Saqqo" written in Pashto and circulated in 2001, outlined the procedure.

I'm not saying this to provoke hatred towards my Pashtun fellow-country-folk in general. I only hate this particular belief that have resulted in ethnic cleansing of some of our people, and stealing their lands. Today, all we need is respect, tolerance and acceptance of each other's identity and culture and unity to rebuild our war-torn country. We need to realise the fact that the centrality of our country in the ancient trade routes created a rich mosaic of cultures and ethnics. In fact, the only successful and thriving dynasties were those who respected this multi-ethnic society and showed tolerance toward cultural and religious differences, cultural and artistic thrive and economic prosperity during the Kushans were an example. In contrast, those totalitarian intolerant forces such as the Arabs and most recently the Taliban failed. I hope you have understood my point of view. I don't hate anyone, nor I'm trying to downgrade any culture in my country.--Artacoana (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, why did you post that complaint by Mehrdad Izady, some Kurdish guy who is defaming and degrading Pashtuns with his nonsense opinion, and instigating ethnic conflict between Afghans. Instead of foreigners, you should bring forward Afghan politicians/representatives who feel that their ethnic group has been mistreated. Just as I have said that you're here to promote and advance Persians / downgrade Pashtuns.

You come here to distort Wikipedia's information because you're worried about a barbaric and false belief among some Pashtuns that consider themselves as the true owners of Afghanistan and see other ethnic groups as 'the immigrants'!? Wikipedia is not the place for such activities my friend and I think that's a violation here. All editors avoid such name calling, descrimination and bashing here, that stuff belong in unmonitered chat rooms or forums. I don't see a reason why the Pashtuns shouldn't call themselves the true owners of their land, and I think they're refering to the political system of the Afghan state because it is based on Pashtun power. Are you trying to challenge their authority? How is this totally unfair and wrong? The Pashtuns conquered the land which makes up Afghanistan in the mid 18th century after treaties were signed with local leaders, and all of this land belongs to them. At the same time all the citizens (including non-Pashtuns) have equal rights to move and live anywhere within the state. The policy of Abdur Rahman Khan was not only to send some Pashtuns to the north but it also included shifting Tajiks and others to the south, to the Pashtun areas. This was something nessary at the time when Russian Empire in the north was facing a threat from the British Empire in the south. That's how governments took care of things, and yes all governments around the world at that time were ruthless. The British were 10 times more ruthless than Abdur Rahman, and so were the Russians. Abdur-Rahman Khan targeted anti-state elements. That is how the government dealt with enemies of the state in those years (which were the Shias/Hazaras) and today Afghanistan is targeting the Taliban (Sunni/Pashtuns), who are often called the enemies of the state by Afghan officials. On the other hand, the Taliban also kill mostly Pashtuns. Your argument about Pashtuns descriminating non-Pashtuns is baseless and totally irrelevant to this discussion.

The origin of the Tajiks is unknown just like all the other ethnic groups in Afghanistan, and they are not important than the others. They are the inhabitants north of the Hindu Kush, I have explained that south of these mountains is the native land of Pashtuns. You need to stop ignoring the Pashtuns and their history. Categorizing Avicenna, Biruni and Rumi's as Tajiks is wrong because these people never identified themselves as such. This is just speculations made by some editors in Wikipedia. If Avicenna (Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā) and Biruni (Abū al-Rayḥān Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī) were Tajiks then why did they have Arab names? Throughout the history Persians never liked Arabs or their culture, so what's going on here? Rumi's ethnic background is also vague like the others, some claim that he was Turkic while others mentioned him as Persian, and that could just be that he used the Persian language as is the case with many people. It's possible that he relate to modern day Uzbeks. We don't have a clear idea about these people's ethnicity other than just speculations or educated guesses.

Afghanistan is just like all other nations in the world, where their citizens can choose to live anywhere within the state. No body owns part of the land based on ethnicity, it belongs to the government and a piece of it can be purchased by any citizen. In all parts of the world, if someone becomes a traitor to their own country then they are punished according to the law of the state. You appear to be a nice person who is probably upset about the security situation in Afghanistan, and you're not alone because all Afghans are upset, including the NATO states. On the other hand, most Muslims around the world pray in a way that the war doesn't stop because ask for the Taliban victory. This is the real problem. So in this conclusion I'd like to say don't blame others when you are the problem, mainly because Afghans have no proper education and they always act out of anger. If the Taliban were educated they would've stopped fighting and rebuild their country instead of destroying it. Muhammad (pbuh) used non-violence and became successful, Ghandi, Bacha Khan, and many others followed his way and they all became successful.Ksmdr (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently, this page is turning into a forum page! See my response to your comments in my discussion page.--Artacoana (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]