Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 3

message: As a student of anthropology, i am quite taken aback and, quite frankly, disappointed at the assertions made in the main article introducing the Pashtuns/Pakhtuns, concerning the historic origins of the Pashtun people. While it is a well-known fact that in their own cultural lore, the Pashtun regard themselves as descendants of Jacob - Bani Israil - it is (or should be) equally well-known that this is not supported by any evidence of history or physical anthropology.  The Pashtuns are not a semitic people: like the Baloch, they are an eastern Iranian people (i would say "Aryan" as it is accurate in this context). "Iranian", here, refers not to the citizens of the Republic of Iran, but to the numerous ethnicities that speak (or have historically spoken) the various languages and dialects that make up the Iranian sub-branch of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages.  This makes the Pashtuns and the Baloch related to other people sharing the same linguistic heritage, which would certainly include most of the population of Iran, but also other people outside, and to the west of Iran, such as the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey, or the Ossetians of Georgia and Russia in the Caucasus. They are NOT related to the Afro-Asiatic (a.k.a "Hamito-Semitic") speaking people of the Middle & Near East and North Africa, which includes the original Hebrew people and the Arabs.
Certainly, a corpus of traditional Pashtun folk literature exists that contends that the Pashtuns are the lost tribes of the Jewish Diaspora. Many early Western "Orientalists" also bought into this view.  But please understand, all of this harks back to a time when the sciences of paleo- and physical anthropology were in their infancy. Lacking the benefit of an understanding of the peopling of the earth, the only recourse available to early commentators and contemporaries of, say Olaf Caroe, were the traditional folklore and/or scriptures of various people.
Adhering doggedly to such views now would be quite at par with the mindset: Ancient Egyptians and Mesoamericans both had pyramids... hence they must have been the same people... and they came from Atlantis!
Kamran Saeed | Talk .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamran, I agree with almost all you said. I myself am a student double majoring in bio and anthro and have taken increasing interst in demography, history, linguistics and historical linguistics. I wish I had more time to write/correct articles for the sake of academia and pursuit of truth in knowledge. 
One thing worth mentionig is that ARYAN today in almost ANY context is a misnomer or atleast politically incorrct. If referring to the language family than indo-european is more acurate as it has nothing to do with race, origin or political claim. Ofcourse, I hope fortunately most people are educated and informed enough to know that use of ARYAN as a race is total hogwash and myth. One may speak of a Urheimat or proto indoeuropean population which most philoligist, linguists and archaelogists locate anywhere from Anatolia, caucuses to north of blacksea and even to the east of Caspian. But that has little or no bearing on the use of the word ARYAN itself which is a modern political psuedo construction. The racial ELEMENTS and features of the proto indoeuropean peoples is a topic of another discussion and one unsettled even today. Probably it was a amalgam of near eastern races of Asia Minor in the neolithic age like most of the other populations of the ancient world. 
This leaves using the word ARYAN to refer to people who atleast in some historical context referred to themselves as such. Hence many times the meta sub-family of indo-european which includes modern langauges such as Farsi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Pashto, Kurdish, Ossetic, Marathi, Gujarati etc are referred to as the ARYAN family. However, the sound cognate of this word is aslo found in other IE sub families such as Celtic and proto-Greek vocabulary. Hence, even for this purpose the use of INDO_IRANIAN langauge family is more appropriate. Coming to the  even further sub division of this meta Indo_Iranian entity, The Sanskrit derived branch is referred to as Indo_Aryan but more recently as Indic....which ever one suits th fancy of the researcher. 
Yes Iranian as a linguistic title has absolutely nothing to do with the Republic of Iran. Perhaps modern Iran is not even central to the discussion when referring to IRANIAN ethno-linguistic genesis  in ancient times at all! Unfortunately politics, ethnocentrism, personal ghosts, hatred and fear engulf such discussions if those who control the discussion themselves belong to the ethnicity under question and overshadows the true esssence of scholarship: pursuit of the truth with HONEST attempts to overcome one's prejudices.
 omerlivesOmerlives 04:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untenable historicity 

message: While fixing some spelling and grammar in this article I came across this sentence:
(In my opinion Pashtun is Pashtun who speaks Pashto and lives in Pakhtunkhwa. How it is possible the name is Afghan and speaks Pashto) ...
Personal opinions shouldn't be included in articles. I don't really know anything about the subject but the word opinion stuck out. If there's a reference you can provide that'd be great!
Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 14:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion

message: As far as grammer and spelling mistakes concern I may be a bit weaker but as my point concern it's quite clear and understandable. Articles are usually written for opinion with references and my reference is visible.(Tarikh-e-Farishta) People admire new research .. Thanks !
Haider
:Can someone with more patience than I have for it right now try to explain to this anonymous user why the material he keeps adding is not appropriate to Wikipedia? And maybe look through it to see if something in there belongs in that article? I'd be a lot more willing to deal with it if his substantive edits didn't seem to be mixed with what seems to me to be outright vandalism (removal without explanation of accurate material expressing other points of view). -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
:From a quick survey of references, it appears that the source claimed (Qasim Farishta) is generally considered to provide exaggerated, unreliable information. Nor is it clear whether what we have is really what that doubtful source claims, since it seems to be based on the poster's recollection. The intelligibility of the passage is also borderline. With all these problems, I consider this unverifiable material and will remove it again. The point attributed to Herodotus also leaps to a conclusion that he was referring to Pashtuns, without establishing why this connection should be made. More precise statements, preferably quotes from actual documents that we can trace, would be more acceptable. --Michael Snow 00:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say here. --Michael Snow 17:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply Opinion

message: Hello to Friends! First of all I just want to say that I am not here to thrust my views on anyone around, the main cause to be here was to gain some knowledge through transfer of views. I have some contribution in Pashtun Tribes to fill those empty boxes by some genuine information, those were totally empty before me, I thought I have done something good but what I have found "Block" as a user but that was I think totally a misunderstanding. I am here because I found Wikipedia a different site without any suppression. One another thing which is very important to tell my Friends about my English, it's a bit weaker so if I write anything wrong and someone find it wrong according to grammer will highly be appreciated to rectify it, by the way I will improve my English very rapidly if I keep continue with Wikipedia and Friends.
Now something about the Pashtuns Tribes. Discrimination has been made in the Pashtuns Tribes list by some of my Friend by giving some references from Hazara Gazetteer 1883-84, in the same book the Tribes has been discussed as Pashtuns through their cultural definition, now my point is, in the same book a Tribe name Jadoon has also been discussed like that so Jadoon should also join down two of them, a Pashtun Tribe Dilazak is facing the same problem , same Shalmanis are there with the same discrimaination. As Shalmani accoriding to a book "encyclopedia of the races by E.D Macligan/H.A Rose" and "Panjab Castes by Denzil Ibbeston" are at the same stage where above mentioned tribes are. In the same book Khilji/Ghalji or Ghalzai are mentioned as Turks Qalchi which means Sword man and they have also adopted the language and traditions of Pashtun so are called Pashtuns, that way they should also join the Swati,Jadoon,Shalmani and Dilazaks. According to Dr Bellew Pashtun Tribe Kharoti he identifies them with the Arachoti of Alaxander's historians and points out that they still live in the ancient Arachosia so it also dosn't prove them from Qais Abdul Rasheed baba. In one another book "Khilji Family by K.S Lal" Khiljis were the sons of Changaiz Khan's son in law Qlaeech Khan so as Swati Tribe has been mentioned as Tajigiree Turks by a Pashtun genius Dr Sher Bahadur Khan Panni in his book "History of Hazara" according to that book those turks adopted the language, culture and triditions of Pashtuns. A book by Abdul Ali Ghorghushti "Pakhtunkhwa" he discussed swatis as from Karlanis. Who put Swatis in Bhittani family tree, a son of Qais Abdul Rasheed (which I don't believe in) so that way Swati is also present in Patrilineal definition. Qais Abdul Rasheed had only three real sons one of them namely Ghorghust,Subatani and Bhittani or batani, the fourth one was a step son found under the karai (pashto word) by which he named as karlani from which the Wazir, Mahsud, Afridi, Khattak, Bangash and Bannuchi etc came into bieng. (For readers benefits a Book "Tareek-e-Khanjahani-Makhzani Afghani by Khwaja niamatullah harvi written in the times when Jahangir was the King of India and lot more books)That means Karlanis were not Pashtuns according to Patrilineal definition, on the other hand they had also adopted the same code of life (Pashtunwali) so are called Pashtuns, because an infant who was found under that karai might be from another race of that region like Turk or Arab etc but defenitely not Pashtun, so they should also join the Tribes who accepted Culture.
I can send more tribes those who adopted/accepted the language of Pashtuns if required but a question will definitely come into mind, Who is Pashtun just two or three tribes ?
My request is kindly take those discrimaination off of the main page among the Pashtun Tribes even it dosn't looks good also, let it be in a straight one lane alphabetical wise !
I will recommend a book for Pashtun lovers "Pashtun in the mirror of their race by Syed Bahadur shah zafer kaka khel" I was really thinking to stop myself calling as Pashtun due to that so many stories to trace this great Nation but when I read Kaka's book I found myself as a Proud Pashtun.
Thanks to all ! Haider 12:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to make myself clear

message: Remarks added to archived page by Raja 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need to debate

message: :Jmabel, I really I didn't know, I was Battling two of my friends both of them are administrators so it means that's what panishment I am having in return? (Catching in your words)I can't afford any battle against administraters !
I thought I was trying to take part in debate to reach on some concensus concerning this dispute. Will you please take a look as I wrote something regarding this issue in headings "Make myself Clear"?
Read that carefully and try to concenterate those references, wrong or right ! 
Now I will need some of your attention please !
That's what I am reciting from a book name PANJAB CASTES by DENZIL IBBESTON what he wrote about Khiljis! The true Pathans(Pashtun) are apparently of Indian origin. Their language is called Pashto or Pakhto and they call themselves pukhtana or Pakhto speakers; and it is the word of which Pathan is the Indian corruption. They held in the early centuries of our era the whole of the safed koh and Northern Suleman systems, from the Indus to the Helmand and from the sources of the spread into their country and adopted their language and customs; and just as Englishmen, so all who speak the Pakhto tongue came to be included under the name Pathan(Pashtun). Thus the Afghans and Gilzais(Khiljis or Ghaljis) are Pathans(Pashtun) by virtue of their language, though not Pathan origin. The Gilzais (Khiljis) are a race probably of Turkish origin, their name bieng another form of Khichi, the Turkish word for Swordman.
Now in the same book of Mr Denzil Ibeeston about Swatis, Jadoons, Tanolis, Dilazaks and Shalmanis, he wrote almost the same cultural definition as he wrote about Khiljis as assamilated with them in manners, customs and character. These Tribes chiefly occupy the Hazara divison. 
  
Haider 13:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Jmabel

message: Here's a suggestion: Why don't have more than one list of Pushtun tribes: one by genetics; one by culture and so on. And also have a section describing "Indian Pathans" (or even "Bhopali Pathans"), explaining their origin, how they have intermarried and also that "Khan" and "Khan Bahadur" were also used as titles given by the British and inherited, etc. and ahve nothing to do with a Paukhtun family background...What say?67.118.240.18 21:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why don't have more than one list of Pushtun tribes: one by genetics; one by culture." Excuse me, but that is basically what we have, that User:Haider is running roughshod over. There is a list of the tribes that are incontestably considered Pashtun, and a list of the ones that are culturally, but not patrilineally, Pashtun. If there are more distinctions that should be made, I'm open to that, but Haider was collapshing the distinction that is there. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel, I think you are just trying to gain some more knowledge through me about Pashtuns otherwise there is no need to defferenciate Pashtuns tribes like this ! It's some sort of game for you playing with Pashtun tribes? I think you are not paying any attention in this dispted matter otherwise I would have get my reply, just by saying we have two lits of tribes is not the proper answer as a reliable administrater, what I want is, reply me as I have try to proven something about the various tribes of the Pashtuns on the same page.
Just see what Mr Denzil Ibbeston (1847-1908) says about different tribes of Pakhtunkwa(Land of Pashtuns),are they incontestable or contestable since you believe in that?
And please don't come so harsh if someone is trying to solve this dispute by contributing some proposals regarding Bhoplai Pathans also! -Haider 10:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Mistake in "Who is Pashtun"
My point about patrilineal defition that Qais Abdul Rasheed had three real sons namely Surbatani, Batani and Ghorghusht, the fourth one was found under karai (Pashto word) from which he had been calling as Karlani, now an infant might be a Turk, Tajik or Arab but definitely not Pashtun because he wasn’t the blood of Qais baba so according to this how come Karlanis which consist of Wazirs, Mahsuds, Khattaks, Afridis and Bangash etc are Patrilineal Pashtuns ? Today we can see Karalanis are much greater Pashtuns as compare to other Pashtuns of Pashtunkhwa (Land of Pashtuns). But in the main page of Pashtun in an article “Who is Pashtun”, writer made an intentional mistake by mentioning Four sons of Qais Abdul Rasheed, where he tried to lead a reader!
Now if we take a look about Khiljis (Gilzais) their father was a Turk Prince, he married Bibi Mato, daughter of Sheikh batan (son of Qais baba), how would we consider them as Patrilineal Pashtuns because Khiljis mother was a Pashtun not Father . Every body knows Khiljis are the most greatest among the Pashtuns Tribes.. (For readers benefit , a Book by niamatullah hirvi –“ Tareekh e Khan Jahani – Maghzane”-Afghani written in 17th century).
Wazirs, Mahsuds, Afridis, Bangash, Khattaks, Swatis, Khiljis, Jadoons, Dilazaks, Tanolis, Mashwanis and Shalmanis are great Pashtun Tribes and they do not need any sort of certificate from any writer! -- Haider 22:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake in "Who is Pashtun"

message: There were many glorious civilizations which were once at the zenith of enviable glory, but now they have lost their climax and, there is no trace of their dazzling and gloring cultures and societies. In other words, we may say that the splendour is due to two factors, i.e., an eye on the culture and civilization, and hard struggle for the future. But history is a witness that the former is more important. In the words of Changez Khan, "If you want to crush a nation completely, you can't succeed unless and until you do not crush their culture". This shows the significance of culture. But nowadays, the Pashtoons are turning their eyes from their past. It has even become a great controversy as to who the pashtoons are? To which land they originally belong to, and how did their culture and civilization flourish? 
No one can deny the fact that if the nations at the culmination of their splendour and glory forget their glorious culture and civilizations then nothing will save them from sinking into the abyss of miserable calamity and disaster.
Many historians and writers have tried their best to compile books and conduct research in this matter, but very few have been able to find out the truth. According to their research, Pushto is one of the most ancient languages of the world which has been spoken from the Hindukush hills in the south west of Asia to the bank of the River Indus for thousands of years. It is said about the age of this language that it is almost four thousand years old. 
How much Culture can play a role to destroy a Nation, we can easily be achieved from above two paragraphs. If we want to help Pashtun nation then we will have to take some keen interest to promote it's Culture and Language. They must think about themselves who have lost their Culture, Language and Identity, what would they call themsleves after one or two generations? -- Thanks Munshi Ahmed Jan -- Haider 16:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture

message: The predecessor or the ancestor of the Marwat was named as Marwat and there is a hill in Katwaz, Afghanistan, which is called Marwati. The Marwat tribe formerly inhabited there, and so they were named Marwat. The word Marwat is derived from Arabic word “Murrawat”, which means compassion, generosity and manliness. This really reflects and interprets the word Marwat on account of their moral values, habits, social contacts and hospitality even to day. In the past, the Aryan Chiefs took oath in the name of the Marwat tribe’s modesty, when they were sworn as leaders of their tribe’s.
The modern Western historians are of the view that all these old names are of geographical importance. For instance, Bait is the center of river Dajla and Farrat, and Haroot and Maroot are the names of two tribes. They were famous in the past for their purity. In the ancient religious books they have been mentioned in literary and allegorical sense. (For readers benefit, Dood-e-Chirag by Dr Syed Chiragh Hussain).
 
There are lot of disputes to be solved but a healthy debate is required about the two most prominent theories regariding Pashtuns, As we have just read Cultural defintion of the Great Marawats. Pashtun is a Garden and defenders are Tribes.  --  Haider 17:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marwat

message: About what Tribe is, I have taken this paragraph from some of my very close friend from his collections(Books, Articles etc). I really found it very impressive and interesting for me and my friends here.
  
Tribe, group of people sharing customs, language, and territory, such as the Apache people of North America. Anthropologists stress the importance of kinship in tribes. Usually a tribe has a leader, a religion teaching that all its people are descended from a common ancestor, and a common language and culture. A tribe is often small in size, is fairly limited in its contacts with other societies, and is correspondingly ethnocentric in its view of the world. Experts disagree about the relative importance of linguistic, political, and geographical boundaries for defining tribal groups. Whatever definition of tribe is chosen, however, exceptions to it abound. The most important criteria for a tribe continue to be linguistic and cultural resemblances.  --   Haider 20:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tribe

message: Three weeks is way too long.  Please be nice.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: I have made some changes regarding Pashtun Tribes list to marshall them in an alphabetical order, it now really reflects the beauty of Wikipedia. Infact there was no need to make any sort of distinction among Pashtun Tribes, anyway it looks so impressive and great now ! Before making any changes without any references, one should come and take part on discussion page. Thanks --  Haider 15:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks to all