Talk:Muslim conquests of Afghanistan

message: Please explain to me the relevance of these sentences;
*In the eighth and ninth centuries ancestors of many of today's Turkic-speaking Afghans settled in the Hindu Kush area (partly to obtain better grazing land) and began to assimilate much of the culture and language of the Pashtun tribes already present there..
*The most explicit mentioning of the Afghans appears in Al- Baruni’s Tarikh al hind (eleventh century AD). Here it is said that various tribes of Afghans lived in the mountains in the west of India. Al Baruni adds that they were savage people and he describes them as Hindus.
*Al Beruni mentions the Afghans once saying that in the western mountains of India live various tribes of Afghans who extend to the neighbourhood of the Sindh (i.e., Indus) valley. Thus in the eleventh century when the Afghans are first mentioned, they are found occupying the Sulaiman Mountains now occupied by their descendants, the very tribes which the advocates of the exclusive claims of the Durannis will not admit to be true Afghans. Al Beruni no doubt also alludes to them in the passage where he says that rebellious savage races, tribes of Hindus, or akin to them inhabit the mountains which form the frontier of India towards the west..
There is nothing in the 3 prior quotes that have anything to do with the Islamic conquest of Afghanistan. 
*The most renowned of the dynasty's rulers was Mahmud of Ghazni, who consolidated control over the areas south of the Amu Darya then carried out devastating raids into India. With his booty from India, Mahmud built a great capital at Ghazni, founded universities, and patronized scholars. By the time of his death, Mahmud ruled a vast empire that stretched from Kurdistan to the entire Hindu Kush region as far east as the Punjab  as well as territories far north of the Amu Darya. However, as occurred so often in this region, the demise in 1030 of this military genius who had expanded the empire to its farthest reaches was the death knell of the dynasty itself. The rulers of the Ghurids  of Ghor in modern-day Afghanistan, captured and burned Ghazni in 1149, just as the Ghaznavids had once conquered Ghor. Not until 1186, however, was the last representative of the Ghaznavids uprooted by the Ghorids from his holdout in Lahore, in the Punjab.
Relevance?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kansas Bear
*The relevance of the second and third quote is that as this article is about the Islamic conquest of Afghanistan ,
it would stand to reason that a correlation to a  point in time is provided 
that provides contextual reference to   when the  Islamic conquest was made on a non Islamic Inhabitants of the geographical <BR>.location . The relevance of Al Beruni's recordings provide that attestation .
*Further there is a problem with the alluded time frame that you mention . The Islamic conquest of Afghanistan was not accomplished in the period 642-714 , but till much long after . This was being worked on by me and discussed on another page [Template talk:History of Afghanistan] under the section 13 improve , till user Ariana310 comes along edits the page and the page completely disappears. You may like to refer to the work done there to generally improve the wiki content on the pre islamic  period of Afghan History .
Cheers<BR>
Intothefire (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to History of Afghanistan, by Abdul Sabahuddin(page 36), there were Kafirs that remained untouched by Islam until 1896. So this article should be written until that time?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The entire article is an invention of Wikipedia. It has been suggested many times to merge this article with Islamic conquest of Persia and Islamic conquest of India, based on academic literature. The territories north of the Hindu Kush were conquered along with the rest of Persia (Sassanid Empire), while the southern regions were attached to the Islamic raids on Indian soil (the expansion of the Ghaznavid empire and their successors). This article stubbornly tries to establish a medieval history of a country that did not exist until the 19th century and did not have a separate history at that time. Tajik (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. That explains why the article is named, Islamic conquest of Afghanistan, yet the article itself reeks of ethnicities and conversion and avoids "conquest" like the plague. Thanks for the clarification, Tajik. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Good job on the expansion MonsterHunter32. I just made some edits that clarified certain terms and also restored some of the quotes by historians such as Al-Biruni and Farishta, which help the reader in understanding the pre-Islamic background of Afghanistan. Capitals00 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance? 

message: *Arabs were not on a conquest to conquer lands, they were just conquering people in the name of Islam. This is why they never created Arab kingdoms or held territories. 
*Afghanistan in this article is simply refering to the area that was occupied by the Afghan tribes (Pashtun tribes). This is what the Library of Congress, Dupree, and everyone else are mentioning, and in the 7th century the territories north of the Hindu Kush were not occupied by Afghans. It was around 1750 that the Hindu Kush territories became part of Afghanistan. Just because the modern nation state didn't exist in the 7th century it doesn't mean the Afghan people didn't exist. There are many sources which speak about Afghan tribes and those tribes are today's Afghans. In fact, these tribes are mentioned even during 500 B.C. 
*The name "Afghanistan" simply translates to "land of the Afghans" in the local Afghani language. So basically this article is titled Islamic conquest of the land of the Afghans and is specifically about when and how the Afghan tribes became Muslims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooliodog (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job on the expansion MonsterHunter32. I just made some edits that clarified certain terms and also restored some of the quotes by historians such as Al-Biruni and Farishta, which help the reader in understanding the pre-Islamic background of Afghanistan. Capitals00 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Clearing confusion over the name

message: The immediate precursor to the Islamic period of the Ghaznavids in Aghanistan was the Hindu Shahi , and various other Buddhist and Hindu realms of  Zunbils and  Suris dynasties in Afghanistan . Starting with user 119.73.5.169 various  content has been deleted . I have restored much of that content which was already in the article .
Intothefire (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Shahi]] Section Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic conquest of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929125948/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0 to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929132016/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Muslim conquests of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205074605/http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/20010105/iin05014.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: This line sure sounds like it;  The Pashtuns later began migrating westward and displaced or subjugated the indigenous populations such as Tajiks, Hazaras, the Farsiwanis, Kakars and Baloch people before or during 16th and 17th centuries. They also displaced the Kafir people from Kunar Valley and Laghman valley to the less fertile mountains.[28]
This is a huge fallacy which can be easily cleared; 
1. Kakars are a Pashtun tribe yet it says that Pashtuns conquered them, this makes no sense.
2. There were no Farsiwans, Baloch and definently no Hazaras in Afghanistan in the 8th century.
3. Kaffirstan is in modern day day Nuristan and its boundary did not stretch into Kunar
Therefore i am going to change the way this reads a bit since i might get a warning for removing it alltogether. Akmal94 (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Pashtun POV?