Talk:Muslim conquest of Transoxiana

Arabs = muslims?

Why such liberty with the title of the article - "Muslim conquest..."? "Arab conquest..." would be closer to the factual truth, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.23.207 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding Turgesh people and infobox

Well I think there should be mention of Arab-Turkic clashes, I mean including Turkic peoples/states such asTürgesh Kaghanate and their battles against Umayyad Caliphate, and perhaps with military conflict infobox just like it is in Islamic conquest of Persia. Maybe we can also improve article by including Khazar-Arab Wars in it. Nozdref (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've addded the infobox regarding the Arab-Turkic conflicts in the region. I know it needs improvement, and that its missing things. I'll add more sources and and things I missed to infobox and add into article aswell. Please don't remove it for now. Nozdref (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

OK Thanks. However, Khazar were not living in Turkestan. Kavas (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is about Arab-Turkic conflicts as of Muslim expansion. Khazar-Arab wars also can be considered as Arabs conflicts with Turks, and those battles also took place in Transoxiana. Nozdref (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Arab Turkish Clashes over Transoxiana

Turkestan was a big region including Mongolia and Kazakh Steps. Transoxiana was just a colony where Turkic Step Khanates did not have a direct control and the cities of Transoxiana were fully autonomous city states of which only the ruling class were Turkic whereas population were of Iranic stock. The ruling Turkic nobility were no different than the Sicilian Normans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.213.207 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Error! Mongolia is not part of Turkestan. There's no such thing as "Turkic Step Khanates" - I'm assuming you were trying to say "steppe"? Sicilian Normans? What the . . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Scope

I'm not sure of the scope of this article. Is the Turkestan referred to here any place containing Turkic peoples or a particular region? Is this referring to a particular series of campaigns or the general spread of Islam in Central Asia? Does this article refer only to Arab conquests of Turks or does it include Muslim Turks and Iranian peoples spreading Islam? Could the intro paragraph be fleshed out some to clarify these questions? Jztinfinity (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkestan is referred to here as part of Central Asia containing Turkic peoples. This is referring to the campaigns of Arabs Muslims to spread Islam in Turkestan. This is my view. What do you think Nozdref? Kavas (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Arab descriptions of Turkic peoples

Page 204

http://books.google.com/books?id=s9EmAQAAMAAJ&q=It+should+be+emphasised+that+although+Arab+sources+commonly+used+the+term+“Turks”+as+a+generic+term+designating+people+living+in+the+Eurasian+Steppes&dq=It+should+be+emphasised+that+although+Arab+sources+commonly+used+the+term+“Turks”+as+a+generic+term+designating+people+living+in+the+Eurasian+Steppes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YXxkU9SKJ-3MsQSr7ICQCQ&ved=0CCwQ6wEwAA

Page 222

http://books.google.com/books?id=s9EmAQAAMAAJ&q=One+of+the+issues+that+most+occupied+the+travelers+was+the+physiognomy+of+the+Turks.+Both+mentally+and+physically,+Turks+appeared+to+the+Arab+authors+as+very+different+from+themselves&dq=One+of+the+issues+that+most+occupied+the+travelers+was+the+physiognomy+of+the+Turks.+Both+mentally+and+physically,+Turks+appeared+to+the+Arab+authors+as+very+different+from+themselves&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZnxkU9PROtGzsATP4IDwBA&ved=0CCwQ6wEwAA

Hadith found in Sunni collections describe the physical looks of the Turkic peoples over 1,000 years ago as Mongoloid. They also describe them as infidels and say that the day of judgement would not come until the muslims fight them. Another hadith tells the Muslims to leave them alone if they left the Muslims alone.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179 : Narrated by Abu Huraira Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."

Sahih Bukhari : Read, Study, Search Online

http://sunnah.com/search/Turks

Turkic mongoloid looks

http://sunnah.com/urn/269590

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/56#141

http://sunnah.com/nasai/25#93

http://sunnah.com/abudawud/39#13

http://sunnah.com/abudawud/39#15

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/61#96

A hadeeth on Live and let live by the Prophet Muhammad, telling people to leave the kuffar (infidel) abyssinians (ethiopians) and turks alone if they leave you alone

http://sunnah.com/abudawud/39#12

http://sunnah.com/nasai/25#92

Other descriptions of Turkic peoples

The Volga-Ural region was inhabited by the Turkic Pechenegs who were being driven westward by their neighbors the Oghuz and would soon leave the area entirely. The Oghuz tribes extended from the middle and lower course of the Syr Darya (Yaxartes, Saihun) and Aral Sea region, where Khorezmian outposts kept watch on them, to Ispijab (Isfijab, Isbijab, identified with Sairam near present day Chimkent in the Kazakh SSR). Here they bordered with the Karluks. They nomadized as far north as the Irtysh and the Kimek confederation. The Karluk encampments stretched from Ispijab to the Ferghana valley and beyond in the east and extended to the Chu and Hi rivers in the north where the subject Chigil and Tukhsi tribes lived. The entire Oghuz-Karluk border with the Muslim world is described as being in a state of constant warfare, with the raids of the "Turks" reaching deep into Khorasan. South and east of the Karluks, and closely associated with them, were the Yaghma who extended towards Kashgar. (p. 348)

The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge University Press, 1990.

One of the issues that most occupied the travelers was the physiognomy of the Turks. Both mentally and physically, Turks appeared to the Arab authors as very different from themselves. The shape of these "broad faced people with small eyes" and their physique impressed the travelers crossing the Eurasian lands. In their accounts, they presented the Turks as people with an alien physical appearance. The anonymous author of Ḥudūd al-'ālam asserted that, "The Ghuzz have arrogant faces and are quarrelsome, malevolent and malicious." (p. 222-3)

« The Turks of the Eurasian Steppes in Medieval Arabic Writing », in : R. Amitai, M. Biran, eds., Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World. Leyde, Brill, 2005, pp. 201-241.

05:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Length of Aftermath section

It seems to me that the "Aftermath" section of this page is unnessicarily long. I feel that it could be condensed into something shorter and easier to comprehend. If you have something to say about this, please write your thoughts below. Dretler (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

In the section "Islamisation", there is an unsourced statement that "The Muslim conquest led to the spread of the Persian language in Transoxiana, where it is known as the Tajik language and its speakers are known as Tajik people." Please remove it. This is historically blind, not least in its assumption that Arabic invaders would bring the Persian language!.

My evidence is here. See https://www.britannica.com/place/Tajikistan Britannica:

"The Tajiks are the direct descendants of the Iranian peoples whose continuous presence in Central Asia and northern Afghanistan is attested from the middle of the 1st millennium bc. The ancestors of the Tajiks constituted the core of the ancient population of Khwārezm (Khorezm) and Bactria, which formed part of Transoxania (Sogdiana). They were included in the empires of Persia and Alexander the Great, and they intermingled with such later invaders as the Kushāns and Hepthalites in the 1st–6th centuries ad. Over the course of time, the eastern Iranian dialect that was used by the ancient Tajiks eventually gave way to Farsi, a western dialect spoken in Iran and Afghanistan."

So here you have a source saying that people of Iranian/Persian culture have been in Central Asia since Before Christ, so definitely before the invasion by Muslims! 89.243.165.189 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

89.243.165.189 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Removed unsourced line from article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Turkic Khaganates involvement

the second Turkic khaganate was not involved in the Umayyads conquest of Transoxiana. The text says

"Samarkand was taken by Qutayba after they achieved victory over the army of the Eastern Turks under Kul Tegin Qapaghan Qaghan came to assist against the Arabs after his vassal, the Tashkent King, received plea from the Samarkand Prince Ghurak against the Arab attack by Qutayba bin Muslim."

While Kültigin nor Kapgan Kağan never directed any battle against the Umayyads. It should be removed unless a reliable source with evidence/proof is provided. Suluk Çor Kağan (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It has a reliable source, which you tried to remove. So please don't do that. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Specific Principalities and Kingdoms involvements

For millitary conflict infobox, I have attempted to add specific principalities and kingdoms involved in Combatant 2 during the Muslim conquest of Transoxiana against the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphage.

Here are the list im specifiying:

Sogdians:

1. Ikhshids of Sogdia
2. Ferghana Kingdom
3. Principality of Ushrumana
4. Bukhar Khudas
5. Principality of Khuttal

Tokharians:

1. Kingdom of Guzgan
2. Principality of Chaghaniyan
3. Tokhara Yabghus

Turkics:

1. Türgesh
2. Second Turkic Khaganate
3. Shule Kingdom

Chinese:

1. Tang dynasty

Tajikpedia (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary of key facts attested in the article itself. That means that material has to be reflected in the article body, and moreover what is included is restricted to only the most important information at a glance. Remsense ‥ 论 20:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand that however it would moreover be more logical to specify the principalities and dynasties for the readers of the article know which specific principalities/dynasties were involved in Combatant 2, the lists above are considered important informations as it assess’s involvements of certain principalities during the conquest. It would also give readers an easy way of access to specific source of information regarding the topic (it’s dynasties) as it’s connecting two articles which are linked to the same topic. If it’s a summary of key facts it’s it logical to atleast append on important principalities during the conquest which had a significant impact that deserves a mention in key summaries? Tajikpedia (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it is totally nonsensical to provide a totally uncited summary that doesn't actually summarize anything. What is logical is to improve the actual article first, and then update the lead section and infobox accordingly. Remsense ‥ 论 21:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of belligerents is to present to the readers of the article which entities were involved this includes Empires, dynasties and even principalities. Having a minor mention of entities that were involved sure that seems fair to not include however the ones with significant impacts do indeed deserve to be labeled there, if we go by your logic we should also remove belligerents from “Islamic conquest of Persia” which consists of certain facts that don’t summarise the whole page. However I do indeed have citations for my lists, if I was allowed to revert my changes I’ll gladly give citations on the important entities and its significance during the conquests. Tajikpedia (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The whole point is to summarize the article. Articles are meant to largely stand on their own. If the information listed in an infobox is not reflected in the article, then it is perfectly useless for the reader; there is no context for the reader to actually learn anything other than a name. Remsense ‥ 论 21:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If the specific entities I’ve mentioned were part of the article with context and it’s contribution, significance. Will I be given permission to add them in the summarise infobox as part of the belligerents? Tajikpedia (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If they constitute key facts about the conflict. Generally, less is more, and infoboxes should not attempt to be exhaustive. See an article like First Punic War for an example of the brevity that is ideal here. Every article is different, but there are very few reasons for glaring exceptions. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense ‥ 论 21:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write that other article, why are you mentioning it? Many infoboxes are bad. Remsense ‥ 论 21:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)