Historical Transformations and Shared Patterns
Historical Transformations and Shared Patterns
A Comparative Study of Khorasan and Europe
The East as Khorasan: Rethinking the Concepts of Orient and Occident
Author: Dr. Najibullah Anwar
⸻
Abstract
One of the fundamental roots of identity-based conflicts in Afghanistan and its surrounding region lies in a conceptual confusion between historical civilizational spheres and the modern state. Employing the comparative method in historical analysis, this article argues that historical Khorasan was not a nation-state but a broad civilizational domain. In terms of structure and function, this domain is comparable to Europe’s civilizational frameworks such as the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Habsburg Monarchy.
The article demonstrates that the concepts of Orient and Occident in European intellectual tradition were originally geographical–natural categories and share semantic overlap with the concept of Khorasan in Islamic tradition. The failure to distinguish between civilizational heritage and the political legitimacy of the modern state has led to the politicization of history and the intensification of identity conflicts in contemporary societies.
Keywords: Khorasan, East and West, Orient, Occident, civilizational sphere, modern state, comparative method
⸻
1. Introduction
In modern historiography and social sciences, the state is defined as a legal–political institution grounded in sovereignty, clearly demarcated territorial boundaries, and equal citizenship. However, in many non-European societies—including Afghanistan—the concepts of state, nation, and civilizational heritage have become deeply entangled. This conceptual entanglement has hindered the formation of national consensus and the establishment of stable political order.
This article seeks to demonstrate, through a conceptual re-reading of Khorasan and a comparison with the European historical experience, that the primary source of the identity crisis lies not in cultural diversity itself, but in a fundamental misunderstanding of political and civilizational history.
⸻
2. Khorasan as a Civilizational Sphere
In classical historical sources, Khorasan is neither depicted as a unified state nor as a homogeneous nation. Rather, it is presented as a civilizational–cultural sphere with relatively defined geographical contours. Throughout different historical periods, this sphere encompassed multiple political entities—including the Tahirids, Samanids, Ghaznavids, Ghurids, and Timurids—each of which exercised authority over parts of the region at various times.
Despite this political plurality, linguistic, cultural, and intellectual continuity generated a shared historical memory that continuously reproduced Khorasan as a coherent civilizational whole.
⸻
3. Orient and Occident in European Intellectual Tradition
In European intellectual tradition, the term Orient derives from the Latin oriens, meaning “rising” or “the rising of the sun,” and originally possessed a purely geographical–natural connotation. In contrast, Occident stems from occidere, meaning “to set” or “to fall,” referring to the western direction.
Initially, this binary distinction was devoid of cultural or normative valuation. It was only in the modern period—particularly with the expansion of colonialism and the emergence of Orientalist discourse—that these terms acquired political and cultural meanings. In Islamic intellectual tradition, the concept of Khorasan likewise signifies “the land of the rising sun,” revealing a clear semantic convergence with the original meaning of Orient.
⸻
4. Khorasan and Europe: Structural Parallels
A comparative analysis of historical Khorasan and Europe’s civilizational frameworks demonstrates that both should be examined at the level of civilizational spheres rather than as nation-states. Just as Europe existed for centuries within imperial and transnational structures, Khorasan likewise comprised a multiplicity of political units embedded within a shared civilizational framework.
This comparison reveals that reducing Khorasan to a single historical state constitutes a methodological error with far-reaching political and identity-related consequences.
⸻
5. Khorasan within the Abbasid Caliphate
During the Abbasid Caliphate, Khorasan was formally recognized as a geographical–administrative unit and played a central role in the caliphate’s political legitimacy and military power. Abbasid sources frequently referred to Khorasan as al-Mashriq (the East), in contrast to al-Maghrib (the West).
This conceptual usage firmly situates Khorasan as the civilizational East of the Islamic world and places it within a framework that transcends shifting political boundaries.
⸻
6. Afghanistan as a Civilizational Heir to Khorasan
From a scholarly perspective, Afghanistan constitutes one of the civilizational heirs of Khorasan, rather than its sole inheritor. This position is comparable to Italy’s relationship to ancient Rome or Austria’s relationship to the Habsburg Empire.
Such an understanding neither undermines the sovereignty of the modern Afghan state nor negates the country’s internal plurality of identities. Instead, it facilitates a reconciliation between civilizational history and the modern state.
⸻
7. Theoretical Implications for State-Building
A clear conceptual distinction between civilizational spheres and the modern state enables the state to function as a neutral institution, prioritize citizenship over primordial identities, and liberate history from political instrumentalization. This approach constitutes a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable state-building in multicultural societies.
⸻
8. Conclusion
Like Europe’s historical civilizational frameworks, Khorasan was a broad historical domain whose continuity was cultural and intellectual rather than political. Rethinking the concepts of Orient and Occident in light of this historical reality can contribute to a more accurate understanding of regional history and help mitigate contemporary identity-based conflict.
