Seems like Tajik (Khorasani) nationalists are fiercely anti-Pashtun (anti-Afghan). Is Afghanistan an artificial country created as a buffer by the British and Russians during the Great Game. It seems like Afghanistan's disintegration is inevitable because of the ethnic rivalry/hatred between Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc.

Interesting views from a proud Tajik nationalist:

http://members.tripod.com/~khorasan/...neous/why.html

Interesting views taken from another forum:

The founder of Afghanistan (Ahmed Shah Abdali) was a PUNJABI Pashtun (of Abdali tribe) who was born in MULTAN, PUNJAB of PAKISTAN region!!!! Here is a reference from Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...d-Shah-Durrani

The fact is Abdali conquered the Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Baluchis, Punjabis, etc around 1747 AD. This was a forceful OCCUPATION of various lands/peoples subdued to the Abdali monarchy. Per Encyclopedia Britannica, "Ahmad Shah began by capturing Ghazni from the Ghilzai Pashtuns, and then wresting Kabul from the local ruler. In 1749 the Mughal ruler ceded sovereignty over Sindh Province and the areas west of the Indus River to Ahmad Shah in order to save his capital from Afghan attack. Ahmad Shah then set out westward to take possession of Herat, which was ruled by Nadir Shah's grandson, Shah Rukh. Herat fell to Ahmad after almost a year of siege and bloody conflict, as did Mashhad. Ahmad next sent an army to subdue the areas north of the Hindu Kush. In short order, the powerful army brought under its control the Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik, and Hazara tribes". So in reality Afghanistan was an ILLEGAL creation because of Abdali conquests and subjugation of various peoples/lands.

Later on when Afghanistan was almost becoming extinct, it were the British and Russians who decided to create a modified Afghanistan: "In 1886 a Russian army fresh from its conquest of the Oasis of Merv, in today’s Turkmenistan, occupied the Panjdeh Oasis near Herat. It was also the time of The Great Game. Britain immediately warned Russia that any further advance towards Herat would be considered as inimical to British interests. As a consequence of the May 1879 Treaty of Gandamak after the Second Afghan War, Britain took control of Afghanistan’s foreign affairs. After the Panjdeh incident a joint Anglo-Russian boundary commission, without any Afghan participation, fixed the Afghan border with Turkestan, which was the whole of Russian Central Asia, now Kirghizistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Thus as a consequence of the competition between Britain and Russia, a NEW COUNTRY, the Afghanistan we know today, was created to serve as the BUFFER."

The FACT is Afghanistan is an ARTIFICIAL country !!!!

1. Originally first created 250 years ago as a result of illegal conquests and subjugation of various peoples by an opportunitst Pashtun born in Punjab named Ahmed Shah Abdali.

2. Re-created by the British and Russians to serve as a buffer during the Great Game.

3. Afghans (Afghan = Pashtun .... ethnic Afghans are only Pashtuns) are only 38% of the country yet it is named ("Afghanistan") after this ethnic group representing Pashtun/Afghan ethnic domination.

4. The ethnic hatred/rivalry between Pashtuns/Afghans, Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks is ages old, and this is represented in the never-ending destruction and warfare in Afghanistan.

5. Afghanistan has become one of the most poorest and backward country in the world (literally "stone age" with the addition of klashinkovs). Afghans are desperate to flee to Iran and Pakiland so that they can escape the misery of Afghanistan.

6. The Taliban which represents Pashtun/Afghan culture and mindset in its purest form showed the world how savage/ignorant these people are with examples of brutal massacres of Hazaras/Shias/etc, destruction of their historic sites, and no rights to women.

The ONLY solution to bring an end to Afghanistan's misery is to disintegrate the country... which is inevitable any way! Tajiks lands should go to Tajikistan, Uzbek to Uzbekistan, Hazara as an independent Mongol Shia state, western Shia lands (Herat, Aimak, etc) should go to Iran, Pashtun lands (1/3rd of Afghanistan) should be an independent state or merged with their neighboring Pashtun brethren in Pakistan, Baluch lands should be an independent state or merged with their neighboring Baluch brethren in Iran-Pakistan. And these newly created states should have a mandatory secular educational system to eradicate their backwardness/ignorance.

Less so than Pakistan...

Originally Posted by Pakistan4ever

Seems like Tajik (Khorasani) nationalists are fiercely anti-Pashtun (anti-Afghan). Is Afghanistan an artificial country created as a buffer by the British and Russians during the Great Game. It seems like Afghanistan's disintegration is inevitable because of the ethnic rivalry/hatred between Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc.

Interesting views from a proud Tajik nationalist:

http://members.tripod.com/~khorasan/...neous/why.html

1) Tajik areas are not where the land of Khurasaan was. These are Pashtun areas. Tajiks like to claim it because of the signficance in Islamic history.
2) Ahmad Shah Abdali was a Pashtun living in Multan.
3)Afghanistan did include all of Pakistan when it was formed so if Pakistan is classed as "artificial" Afghanistan is historically and presently more so.

Didnt Afghanistan exist much before Pakistan. There was no Pakistan before 1947.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

1) Tajik areas are not where the land of Khurasaan was. These are Pashtun areas. Tajiks like to claim it because of the signficance in Islamic history.
2) Ahmad Shah Abdali was a Pashtun living in Multan.
3)Afghanistan did include all of Pakistan when it was formed so if Pakistan is classed as "artificial" Afghanistan is historically and presently more so.

1. Khorasan was located in northern Afghanistan, northeast Iran, and parts of southern Central Asia. Tajiks were the overwhelming majority and rulers of Khorasan. It was later on that the ethnic demographics changed with the Turko-Mongol invasions/migrations into Khorasan region. Also, some Pashtun tribes later migrated into that region.

2. Abdali was a Pashtun also born in Multan.

3. True.

Originally Posted by Pakistan4ever

1. Khorasan was located in northern Afghanistan, northeast Iran, and parts of southern Central Asia. Tajiks were the overwhelming majority and rulers of Khorasan. It was later on that the ethnic demographics changed with the Turko-Mongol invasions/migrations into Khorasan region. Also, some Pashtun tribes later migrated into that region.

2. Abdali was a Pashtun also born in Multan.

3. True.

Agree, except for 1)

Most Muslim academics currently think that Khorasaan of 1400 years ago, was located in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan (perhaps Malakand?)

For the past few decades, Muslim academics have described Khorasan as the Central Asian states, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GE20Aa01.html

The Persian Sassanids took control of a region in 550 AD and called this region "Khorasaan". This wasnt a Persian occupied site, if it was they would not have needed to assert control of the area. In 650 AD, the Arabs invaded and conquered Persia and the Khorasan region was incorporated into the Arab Caliphate. By 820 AD, the Arabs lost control of Persia and Khorasaan was returned to the control of the Persian Sassanids. Khorasan wasnt Persian, it's possible Tajikistan was part of it, but not the main part of it - i doubt it was such a small country. The main part of Khorasan was undoubtedly the South of Afghanistan.



550:

Weakened by over-reach and rebellions, Hunnish rule collapses. Local Sahi dynasty (claiming lineage back to Kushan rulers) establishes power around Kabul. Persian Sassanid Empire reasserts claim to region but still fails to subdue tribal resistance. Persians call region province of Khorasan.

http://www.morc.info/MORC_Afghan_History-1.html

^^Khorasaan was the Shahi dynasty which was Kabul. Balkh was the name of the Northern parts of Afghanistan at that time I believe.

Pashtun tribes migrated into the region most likely during the time of Christian revelation.

Originally Posted by Pakistan4ever

2. Abdali was a Pashtun also born in Multan.

Thank you

Originally Posted by CheGuvera

Less so than Pakistan...

Unlike Afghanistan, Pakistan was supposedly created with some degree of democratic means....

Also:

99% of Pakistanis are Indo-Iranians whereas 84% of Afghanistanis are Indo-Iranians. The name Pakistan does not represent any ethnic group and is suitable for a multi-ethnic country whereas Afghanistan is named after Pashtuns (Afghan is the ethnic name of only Pashtuns) who are only 38% of the country representing their unjust ethnic domination. Unlike Pakistan, Afghanistan is one of the most poorest countries in the world and for decades have experienced warfare/civil-war.

I disagree with your definition of Khorasan. Pls refer to the following:

http://www.answers.com/topic/greater-khorasan

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/rumi/Rumi-Times-Map.JPG

^^ I wont accept answers.com or wiki as a source of evidence for what Khorasaan was between the 5th and 8th centuries AD.

Your map is a better reference but it was made during the 13 th century. This is not the Islamic Khorasan referred to in the Hadiths. Even now a Khorasan exists in Iran, but it was not the Khorasan of the 7th or 8th centuries. I'll repeat it again, Khorasan was initially given to the Sahi (sic) dynasty of Kabul by the Persians that were trying to conquer it. It passed into the hands of the Arabs, and then back to the Persian Sassanids, and then the boundaries of Khorasan might have expanded. I will try and find a map of an earlier Khorosan.

Ahmad Shah Abdali was a true Pukhtun. I think he was born in [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Qandahar in a Sudhan family of Abdali tribe.
He conquered all Pushtun land and then other neighbouring territories except those under Iran control
Abdalis though a true Pukhtun tribe but have caused maximum damage to Pukhtun cause. Ghiljis were in majority in Qandahar but Iran's king supported Abdali because of his close affinities with persian (he was a general of a Persian King Nadir Shah).
It was his son Taimur Shah who was born in Multan and initially grownup there and then in Iran. Hence he was mostly out of Qandahar affairs and that was the reason he was uncomfortable in Qandahar and changed his both capitals
These bloody tajiks should be thankful to Allah that Ahmed Shah was selected as king. If the Ghiljis would have come in power, the most of todays Iran would have been the part of Afghanistan
Ahmad Shah Abdali only attacked Indian region and not Iran.
He cant be dubbed as Punjabi. Punjabis at large consider him as a plunderer and Ranjit Singh as their hero.

^

Punjabis at large consider him as a plunderer and Ranjit Singh as their hero.

I assume that you're referring to Sikhs when you talk about 'Punjabis at large'. I have yet to meet a Punjabi Muslim who considers Ranjit Singh a hero. Pashtun 'plunderers' are held in high esteem though.

Originally Posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT

Most countries are artificial.

The UK is the result of the conquest of 3 distinct peoples and nations (Scotland, Wales, Ireland) by a fourth (England).

Canada is the result of the conquest of a distinct people (French) by another (English).

The list could go on and on. In the aftermath of wars of conquest and imperial rule, from nations varying from arabs to persians to afghans to Indians, to Thais and Chinese and the English and French and Spanish..... the world is full of countries that are essentially artificial.

Pakistan is artificial. India is artificial. Sri Lanka is artificial. Afghanistan is artificial.... the UK is artificial, Canada is artificial, almost every coountry in Africa is artificial.

I can agree with that.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

^^ I wont accept answers.com or wiki as a source of evidence for what Khorasaan was between the 5th and 8th centuries AD.

Your map is a better reference but it was made during the 13 th century. This is not the Islamic Khorasan referred to in the Hadiths. Even now a Khorasan exists in Iran, but it was not the Khorasan of the 7th or 8th centuries. I'll repeat it again, Khorasan was initially given to the Sahi (sic) dynasty of Kabul by the Persians that were trying to conquer it. It passed into the hands of the Arabs, and then back to the Persian Sassanids, and then the boundaries of Khorasan might have expanded. I will try and find a map of an earlier Khorosan.

And I wont accept claims of "Muslim legends/religious-scholars" either. It is true that Khorasan region has evolved through the centuries. When you say that it passed to the Arabs then to the Persian Sassanids, that statement cannot be true since the Sassanid era predates Arab rule, which was around 226-651 AD (Sassanid empire).

Originally Posted by Khushaalkhan

Ahmad Shah Abdali was a true Pukhtun. I think he was born in [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Qandahar in a Sudhan family of Abdali tribe.
He conquered all Pushtun land and then other neighbouring territories except those under Iran control
Abdalis though a true Pukhtun tribe but have caused maximum damage to Pukhtun cause. Ghiljis were in majority in Qandahar but Iran's king supported Abdali because of his close affinities with persian (he was a general of a Persian King Nadir Shah).
It was his son Taimur Shah who was born in Multan and initially grownup there and then in Iran. Hence he was mostly out of Qandahar affairs and that was the reason he was uncomfortable in Qandahar and changed his both capitals
These bloody tajiks should be thankful to Allah that Ahmed Shah was selected as king. If the Ghiljis would have come in power, the most of todays Iran would have been the part of Afghanistan
Ahmad Shah Abdali only attacked Indian region and not Iran.
He cant be dubbed as Punjabi. .

It is an accepted fact that Ahmed Shah Abdali was born in Multan of Punjab/Pakistan region. Here is a reference again: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...d-Shah-Durrani

By the way, there are also many Pashtuns today who were born in Karachi and lived most of their lives in Karachi... they are by all means true Karachi-wallas not lesser than other Karachiites! If a Karachiite Pashtun achieves some thing exemplary, I am sure that their fellow Karachiites will consider him a hero belonging to the same land.

Do you know Pashtuns are only 38% of Afghanistan: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...ic.afghan.html That means there are more Pashtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.

True Muslims will always be united with each other Insha'ALLAH...

I agree but which country in our region is not artificial?

Pakistan is made up of about four/five main ethno-linguistic groups that can be divided into the Indic east and Iranic west, which have hardly anything in common with each other except for religion.

India is five times more ethnically diverse than Pakistan and it can be divided into the Indic north and the Dravidic south, it has its own countless freedom movements.

I think a good idea would be to divide all South and Central Asian countries along ethnic lines and form natural nation-states (working together under something like the European Union) so that they can have autonomy and have their own languages as national languages but other aspects of their culture should be in line with the rest of the modern world i.e. contemporary and cosmopolitan. I mean there’s no need to preserve regional traditions and rural/archaic codes of honour to maintain identity, fair enough all that can be considered a part of ones history/heritage but in today’s world language and geographical location are enough to determine distinct national identity.