User talk:Birdazi

Greater Khorasan

You came across or presented a source which speaks only about a specific period i.e. Samanids period. At that time, Ghazni and Kabul were ruled by different Kingdoms other than the one in "other" major cities of Khorasan. Thus by mentioning Ghazni and Kabul separately does not make them get excluded from Khorasan's territory.

Here are some first hand and old sources which show that Ghazni and Kabul were included in Greater Khorasan:

In the old historical book of Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib, written in 984, the author defines the area of Khorasan as follows:

"About the area of Khorasan: a region in its east it is Hindustan, in its north it is Rode Jaihoon (Amu Darya), in its West it is Gurgan and Ghor."

And about the area of Hindustan, he believes it was up to the deserts of Sindh.

Ibn Battuta, the famous Arab traveler, writes in his book about his trip to Mawarul Nahr (Transoxiana) and Khroasan. And he mentions the following cities as part of Khorasan: Balkh, Herat, Jaam, Tus, Mashhad, Nishapur, Bostam, Kunduz, Baghlan, Andarab, Hindukush, Charkh (Logar), Kandahar, Kabul, Ghazni and Mountains of Sulaiman. And when he reaches to Multan, he starts a new Chapter in his book and calls it part of Hindustan.

In Tarikh-e Baihqi, Abolfazl Beyhaqi divides the territory of Ghaznavids to "Iraq" (westerns portions) and "Khorasan" (eastern portions, including Ghazni and Kabul). The same case is during the Seljukids. An example can be seen in Sultan Ahmad Sanjar's response to Imam Ghazali's speech. His words are mentioned in "Faza'ilul al-anam min rasa'ili hujjat al-Islam" of Ghazali. Here's the link.

In Encyclopedia Britannica, it mentions about Khorasan: "Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India."

In Baburnama, it is written: "On the road between Hindustān and Khorasān, there are two great marts: the one Kābul, the other Kandahār." LINK So isn't Ghazni in the east to Kabul?

In other place in Baburnama, it is written: "They strongly urged me also to winter in the territory of Khorasān. But as Kābul and Ghazni were places much exposed to external violence .... " meaning Kabul and Ghazni were part of Khorasan. LINK

So Kabul was at the end of Khorasan's territory and mostly included in Khorasan rather than in Hindustan. Moreover, if you looked in the book of Ghulam Mohammad Ghubar, he uses two terms Proper Khorasan and Improper Khorasan, and he clearly defines the areas.

Plus, keep your personal attacks away. Please be Civil in wikpedia. There is no importance whether Dari or Pashto is mentioned first, both of them are the two primarily national languages. The reason I edited was to bring Dari out of the bracket and put "Persian" in the bracket, since the official name for the language in the Afghan Constitution is Dari. -Ariana310 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are picking maps of different Empires and from different period of times, which they do not show the geographical regions. They are all the Political maps of that specific period of time. The maps you provided are not reliable. For example, your first map is marked as 600 AD, while the map is computerized (the colouring, the design, and the map itself)... that is not the original map. Or for example, your last map is irrelevant. It is from the end of 19th century, when Afghanistan was already named/formed; and Khorasan did not exist as a real entity but like the same Khorasan Province of Iran. Moreover, do you rely on texts as solid proof or on maps? Scholarly, texts are primarily important.

You said: "The evidence you provided from historians are false". They are reliable historical books which are very valuable in literature and history. They will not lose any value/importance if you call them false; plus, you're not in a position to refute them -Ariana310 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And about Kabul and Kandahar, yes, I agree. Here's the article of Kabulistan which I created with some sources. -Ariana310 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban

I "must be a Paki"? You "are preparing to invade [my] country soon"? I'm trying to work out what that all means exactly. As far as I'm aware Taliban is the Pashto plural form of the Arabic 'طالب'. However, as you point out, I'm no expert. The Wikipedia policy is to source any statements that might be disputed. Therefore since your comments are disputed by a great many editors, by Encarta, and by other sources, then you will need to reference them lest they be constantly reverted. Finally, to deal with the content of your edits briefly, "countless news stories of Pakistani Taliban" don't equal "160 million" Taliban. I'm packing it in for the night, but if you can reference your edits I'd really like to read your sources so I can improve what I've been contributing in my own amateurish way. Cheers. Marshall 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. No. The purpose of having the name in the original is just that: to have the name in the original, not in the language of people who might be interested. If Taliban is a Pashto word, then it must be included in the original Pashto; if it is an Arabic word, then it should be in Arabic; if it is in Farsi, then it should be in Farsi. With regards to numbers of Taliban and their areas of operation: we're talking about the 12,000 individuals the Taliban claim for themselves, not anyone who has sympathy for the movement. I really am going to pack it in for tonight. Thanks for your input. Marshall 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]