This is an archive of past discussions about Pashtuns. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Lovely Proverb

There are many outsiders came in at different time, migrated to Pashtunkhwa and assilimated with them in language and culture, that will never effect the origin of Pashtuns, like if some Turks came in and get mingled with Pashtuns, that dosn't mean, we would call them Turks, they will be called Pashtuns due to their language and culture. For example there are so many rivers making their way and fall in Great Abasin(Sind River) before they fall, they have their identity but once they fell in Abasin(sind river), they lose their identities, those rivers couldn't effect the identity of Abasin.

Language and Culture create nations ! What a lovely Pashto Proverb here for friends "Da kali ooza kho da karkha ma ooza" (Leave your village but don't leave your line". Thanks -- Haider 22:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Controversial issue on some tribes sholud be indicated on main page

(Note: My use of CAPITALS is to make those words stand out from the "haze" of writing, and not to be taken as "Shouting")

Believe it or not I actually DO have the above references (as I have an interest in this area also) but not at hand with me right now so I cannot give you the book pages. However, the books which I have quoted above are EASILY accessible in the US or the UK through interlibrary loan. The books you have quoted (URDU ones) I don't think I can get in the US or the UK, otherwise I would have definitely read them by now.

So my references are more easy to check up on (i.e. you quoting a page number doesn't authenticate it).

Regarding Denzil Ibbetson - the fact that his book mentions Shalmanis and Jaduns as assimilated into Pashtuns, shows his lack of knowledge in this subject, since these are well established tribes (see again my above references).

IMPORTANTLY, when studying the history of the Pashtuns, try not to take just one book and say that's correct. Read several books preferably by non-pakhtuns as they will be unbiased (that's my experience - ) but read several books to get an idea of what really may have happened.

If you read all these books there is something that comes across to you. Some tribes such as the Afridis, Wazirs, Khattaks, Bangash, have no recollection of a foreign land other than the one they inhabit. I.e. Waziristan for the Wazirs and Tirah/ Khyber for the Afridis. You are the most best one to tell me about your own tribe. But this is what I have understood from those books.

So these tribes could have an "Indian" origin, in reality (as you put it).

However some, such as the Yousafzai, Jadoons, Mohmands, Mohammadzai, always say they came from "around Qandahar" in Afghanistan. So these tribes are not "Indian" but "foreign" whatever that may mean since in the subconscious is the image of a migration. So these are not indigenous to the lands they now inhabit. This is the main thing I have learnt in all my readings on the Pakhtoons. Interestingly these are also the "True" descendants of Qais, who also was "foreign". The Karlanri Pashtuns, are the Afridis, Wazirs Bangash, etc. who in folklore are not true sons of Qais, and interestingly, never claim to come from a foreign place - in all the readings I have read. You may have read those Urdu books that may say something else.

Regarding the Mashwanis, just like you are the best person to tell me about the history of the Afridis, the Mashwanis are the best to tell me about their history. Mashwanis tell me they are Syeds not Pashtuns, so who am I to argue with them?

You know the Pashto proverb, that translates as:

"Although the Pir (Saint) does not fly, his disciples would have him so." Such has happened on Wikipedia for the Mashwanis, Tanolis and Swatis.

You have your reasons I have mine. Both are valid and SINCE Wikipedia is not the USUAL type of Encyclopedia this DIFFERENCE of views should be mentioned in the main page and the interested reader then can read further in the discussion. THIS is the BEAUTY of Wikipedia.

So I URGE contributers to help me keep that message . OBVIOUSLY, the Mashwanis , Tanolis, Swatis are controversial tribes, 80% of this discussion page debates this issue, and therefore, THIS has to be portrayed in the main page.

Wikipedia is not a "Pashtun Unity or Nation website'. The fact of the matter is there are some tribes that are more controversial more than others.

In Pashtun villages, you are only a Pashtun if your father is a Pashtoon and you follow Pashtoonwali. SIMPLE. (IDEALLY, your mother should be Pashtun too). All the rest you read on the main artcle page is what some people believe and so Wikipedia includes their views (to be a COMPREHENSIVE source).

You as a Pashtun should know that. In fact this is EXACTLY what your proverb (Lovely proverb) says; You should not forget your lineage.

I hope we can end this discussion with BOTH views being supported on the main page, as this is "What is out there."

Insaaf

Reply controversial issue

Even in Swabi no one considers them Pashtun, so Haider - are you a Tanoli that you want them included? If so fine if that makes you feel happy, but in the REAL WORLD TANOLIS ARE NOT PASHTUN. Sorry for the capitals but noone seems to undrstand that fact. The MASHWANIS THEMSELVES say they are not PASHTUN but SYED - that is the REAL world. I met a Mashwani and asked him if he was a "Pathan" and he said "No" we are SAYED. (from insaaf to Haider) .

Remember what you had for me ? Now it's time to say you in Pashto "Par me ka - Mar me ka" (Convince me through Jirga/debate/discussion), or don't come harsh again !

Did I make any shout when pashtun page was blocked, (as you were shouting,, not now but some time earlier) as some of my friend requested,, but I was keep in touch to write some references here so calmly?

First a book Panjab Castes by Denzil Ibbeston was your choice to take reference from,, not mine! (lacking knowledge now, as you mentioned)

Second a book Pathans by Olaf Caroe was your choice to take reference about Mashwanis, which prooves you so wrong ! (Pathans by Olaf Caroe "english" will be in my hands soon). Will you accept the page nos then ?

Third a book encyclopedia of races by E.D Magligan and H.A Rose was your choice to proove something about Mashwanis not mine !

What would you say about great Khiljis and Karlanis? On the other hand I have showed you some information through books ! Do you have a book "Maghzane Afghani by Niamatullh Hirvi of 17th century", if yes then you can see a Tribe name Mashwani in his lineal tree? Karlani was an adopted son,, not a real one ,, do you believe in that ?

Now the major problem with you is, (same book,,same author) you are taking references which goes in favour of you only and trying to duck under it, what he wrote about some other tribes !

Do you think just the people of Qandhar or migrated from around,, are Pashtuns ? This is a real world and please try to face some reality about great Pashtuns and their land (Pashtunkhwa). Please accept the beauty of Wikipedia and stop belitilling Pashtun tribes.

First you will have to reach at some consensus then you should go and make changes whatever you like,, so please don't make any changes in Pashtun tribes list or I will request for page protection(Locked).

just send me your postal address , I promise you I will send you these books which you don't have.

Believe me I don't even believe in those books but since you believe in them. I have a collection of books regarding Pashtuns and can proove more tribes if required .

I have a friend from Mashwani Tribe also,, when I asked him about his origin , he replied without any hesitation ,, Is there any doubt ?

Why do you believe in ,, more controversial and less controversial Pashtun tribes ? I can't see even none out there !

A lovely Pashto proverb is not mentioning lineage,, that indicate us about Culture (Tradition, rules, laws etc) -- Haider 11:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Another Pashtun tribe Dilazak has been added in Tribes list!

-- Haider 15:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I just want your attention here ,, what is out there in an article on the main page of Pashtuns !

The cultural definition would include all Pashto speakers and those tribes and communities who have assimilated into Pashtun tradition, who, however, may not have a patrilineal connection. A prime example of this are the Arab tribes who settled amongst the Pashtuns after the Arab invasions of Afghanistan and Sindh during the rise of Islam. These same tribes today are considered Pashtun by some due to their cultural assimilation of Pashtun culture. Additionally, some feel that this cultural definition excludes those whose connection is merely ancestral- though of this there is great debate and historical precedent. Taking this idea further, the cultural definition would exclude the Afridis and Yousafzai of Bhopal. A pashto proverb would take place here so perfectly "Che pa khoi sara sani vi - Da hagho sara yaari vi -- Haider 16:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

= Reply 1 =

Haider, I mentioned before that you should not go by just one book - but several. Olaf Caroe's book does have mistakes like all history books - they are a mans perspective as he sees the history fit. Hence you should always try to read more than one at least. But he does mention that they are not Pashtuns by the "true" definition (in the beginning pages on geneologies) because their father was a Syed. However, "He" likes to make them Pashtuns because they helped the British. But remember he does make the distinction.

Tell me what do the books above say about Tanolis? Is Tanoli in Nimatallahs book a Pashtun tribe? Are Tanolis Pashtuns in the Hazara Gazetteer? Are they Pashtuns in Hilary Roses. Book on the Castes of Panjab and the northwest Frontier? It is clearly a definite "No" for the Tanolis - you must agree with me on that? Can we come to that consensus?

"Syeds" are a distinct group among Pashtun villages who are treated with great respect because they belong to the family of the Prophet. These Syed families are not considered Pashtun, despite the fact that they follow Pashtunwali and speak Pashto. The non-Pashtuns on this forum aren't aware of that.

They think that being Pashtun is a bit like being "American". Everyone can be it. But infact, being Pashtun is a bit like being "English", only the "White, Christian, "indigenous"people of England are "English" the rest are "British". This is the mentality of the villages, and the majority of Pashtunkhwa belong to the Village.

Haider, being a Pashtun you must be aware that Pashtuns are accused of certain crimes that go against Pashtunwali. Most (not all) of these crimes are committed by "Pashtuns" who are "assimilated" into the Pashtuns, i.e. are not Pashtuns by lineage, and so are not as Passionate about Pashtunwali as a Pashtun belonging to a recognised tribe would be. Hence they give "Pashtuns a a bad name." This is why I am so passionate about Highlighting which tribes are controversial and which are not.

It is important for non-Pashtuns to be aware of that. For instance the "Pashtuns" of the cities like Peshawar, who are Rajputs initially or migrated also consider themselves Pashtuns. But Haider brother, these people don't have one iota of Pashtunwali in them, they destroy your hopes with their false promises. You know what I mean. We are both Tribals.

Out of Pashtunwali, I will not make any changes to the main page until I have convinced you. For starters at least remove Tanolis from the list.

Insaaf

Reply1 controversial tribes

Insaaf my dear brother, I didn't take references just from one book as you can watch it out - very politely, it was you my brother, who took references about mashwanis to proove them non Pashtuns according to Olaf Caroe - am I right?

About tanolis it is very visible in Hazara Gazetteer as author wrote that they have long association become so assimilated to the pashtuns it is difficult to seperate them. Major Wace had his views almost the same. Yes you are right I didn't find name Tanoli in Niamatullah's hirvi book but there are so many tribes missing like the great Yousafzais? And please do take some time atleast, what Hirvi wrote about some other tribes like the great Khiljis and Karlanis !

Mashwanis were on of British side that's what you said if that then what was wrong about the great Swatis with their neighbours Hassanzais, chgarzais and akazais,, as they fought against them for almost forty years 1852 to 1892 in Hazara,(Still we can see some tribal areas of the Swati country like Thakot, Nandhiar, Tikri, Battagram, Agror, Allai and Deeshan). - Mashwanis were in favour so they have recieved some incentives,, you meant - Swatis were against them so they have recieved some names like,, Decietful, coward, cruel etc etc? For Swatis bravery see books "Campaigns on the North West Frontier" by Captain H.L. Nevill and "From the Black Mountain to Waziristan" by Colonel H.C Wylly .

Insaaf, you just believe in Lineal view about Pashtuns - why are you persisting people like me to believe in the same view as we can see, there are lot of controversies as compare to Cultural view.

Believe me I really working on a book regarding Pashtuns but it will take time because it's not an easy job because want to write a creative one, a cousin of mine is helping me in this task.

Dosn't matter if Pashtun is living in Urban or rural areas.

See what a Pashtun Mir Afzal Khan Jadoon wrote about some Pashtuns !

Various scholars have presented a new theory on scientific lines about the origin of Afghans. Fraser tytler pleaded for the mixed race theory according to which the Pashtuns are Aryans by origin, but have intermingled with elements of Turkish, Mongol and other strains. He is supported by Charles miller, saying that they had been on the scene for centuries, by a bubbling ethnic stew of Persian, Greek, Scythian, Turk and Mongol to mention only a few of the invading and migrating peoples who contributed their racial ingredients to the Afghan stock. Abdul Ghani khan, a Pashto poet and philosopher (late) also share the same opinion. He considers the Afghans as a mixture of many races that came through their areas from central Asia. Suddum (mardan) , Khyber (Peshawar) and elum (swat) are the places, which resemble in names those of bani Israel. Mir afzal khan Jadoon is of the opinion that the features as well as the habits of the Afghans resemble those of the Jews. Apart from the clans of Karlanr and mati, tannulis, swatis and Jadoons are similar to the Jews in their dwelling and clothes.

Insaaf, it's not an easy dispute to be solved !

In last I will delete Tanolis only, kindly don't even think about other Pashtun Tribes,, it's not because I am convinced, but If you are happy with that and will gives you some satisfaction - please don't forget as they say "Snake in the Grass" (They don't like unity of Pashtuns). I have a humble request to read a book "Pashtun in the mirror of their race" by Syed Bahadur Shah Zafer Kaka Khel .

Brother, If I some day convinced you, promise me you will add Tanolis as Pashtuns. Take care ! -- Haider 18:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Shitak has been added to Pashtuns tribes list. -- Haider 18:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply2

Dear brother Haider Khana,

Thank you for doing that. For your information, in the 1907 book of the Hazara Gazetteer they don't say this about the Tanolis.

But can I ask you one thing if you could explain this to me? If Tanolis are Pashtuns because of their long association, then shouldn't Bannuchies and Peshawaries also be Pashtuns? These are people who have lived there for centuaries, and have "assimilated" into Pashtun culture. So they are Pashtuns? Correct by your line of thought.

A Peshawari friend of mine used to always tell me that he too was a Pashtun. I once asked him his "tribe" and he said Rajput. So Rajput should be Pashtun? Another firend of mine who really was a Pashtun in habit and behaviour, I once asked him his tribe he replied "Queraish, Pukhtun "(He was from Malakand Agency). So that would mean Queraish and Rajputs are also Pashtuns? It would also include the Gujars of PakhtunKhwa, because these are also assimilated into Pashtun culture. Because they all follow Pakhtunwali.

You must also include Dhunds as Pashtun, because these are also mountain tribes who are living in Pakhtunkwa and have assimilated into Pashtun cultures and the list goes on.

So there has to be a proper way to catgeroize who is Pashtun and who is not. I have mainly only read the books written by English writers, plus the ones written by Dr Akbar Ahmed (I recommend them (by Dr Akbar Ahmed) to you - they are a must to anyone wanting to write about Pashtuns - read: Millenium and Charsima among Swat Pathans, Resistance and Control in muslim society (all about Waziristan) and Pukhtun Society and Economy - all about Mohmand Pukhtuns, then he has written a book on Islam and the muslim world, (can't remember its name ) - but it talks about muslim history, and had a number of chapters devoted to Pukhtuns as examples of a certain type of muslim living in the middle east, Afghanistan and Pakistan).

In those books I have always come to understand that Tanolis are not Pashtun, The Mashwanis are by father, not Pashtun, and Swatis are the people who inhabited Swat, before the Yousafzai and were pushed into Hazara by them and are a mixture of non-Pashtun tribes. These books also have said that If you look at the Sub-tribes/sections in the Swatis you come across names like "Hindwal" and Pallal", names which indicate a non-Pashtun origin, (since Pashtun sub-sections end in "Zai" and "Khel".

In all these books there are a set number of tribes that are unequivocally "recognised" as Pashtun, and is the list we have on wikipedia MINUS the "three" above tribes which are always controversial. So the GOOD thing is that we tell the interested reader that there are three types of classification of Pashtun. So that covers everything in a sense.

Anyway, take care for now - pa makha de kha!

Insaaf.

Reply

Insaaf Pashtun, First of all let me correct you about the great Swatis that "Pallal and Hindwall" are not the subsection of Swatis ,, they belong to Tanolis! Swatis have khels like Jhangiri, Khankhel, Sherkan khel, Shan khel, Khawaja Kheli, Khazani khel, Deeshan khel or Deshai, Surkhel and some like Malkal, inzali etc. Add Khel at the end, would become inzali khel.

I don't believe in,, as about the migration of Yousafzais from Qandhar in that massive way,, they were already present there (Swat etc) so as Swatis. Let me tell you one important thing about Swatis that the last Swati ruler Owais Jahangiri was died in his own territory at Manglore,, not in Hazara ! (Remember Jahangiris dynasty was from Jalalabad to Jehlum including Hazara's lands and mountains). An interesting point,, who are Jahangiris and Khazanis of Iran? (Two related tribes of Iran, as Ishaaq Jahangiri of Iran holding a ministry there) !

In Hazara Gazetteer about Tanolis,, you can see,, what I wrote about them on page no 64 !

The Mashwanis mother was from Pashtun Tribe then please tell me about Khiljis as their mother only were from Pashtun Tribe,(that's your line of thought). There are lot of Khels in Mashwani Tribe as Yousaf Khel is one of them. I forgot to ask you about Mashwanis bravery,, where were your views when they were fighing against Sikhs (Hari singh Nalwa) in 18th century?

What I do believe in that if a tribe's mother language is Pashto then they would be defenitely consider Pashtuns,, and ofcourse mother language is not easy to adopt in over nights. Do I add Quraish, Rajputs, Dhunds etc in Pashtuns tribe list, if not then there is no need to discuss on them.

Bannuchis definitely are Pashtuns ,, what view would go against them? You will feel better if you read some of the Pashtun authors also! First you will have to change your mind like by thinking "less controversial tribes and much controversial tribes",, more controversial tribes of Pashtuns would take place in list and less dosn't deserve that, every Pashtuns tribe is controversial,, whether less or more but are!! (what a funny way to think about Pashtuns).

What I know through my personnel observations that Bhopali Pathans are not Pashtuns even if they had some links with Pashtuns severel hundred years ago, and Pashtuns who do speak Pashto around the world would be considered Pashtun,(They have leave their country but didn't leave their Narakha or Karkha"Mark").

I can prove so many subsections in some of the famous Pashtun tribes,, they didn't use khel or zai at the end,, for example in Surban sections like Tokhi, Tangi, Sepal, Khadar, Sulmehak etc,, what does these names sounds like? There are numerous in defferent major tribes,, I can show you, if you want me to do .

Insaaf brother, I don't know,, what three views about Pashtuns you have,, definetly not Matrilineal and Cultural?

What you beleive in,, Pashtuns are from Bani-Israel? Pashtuns a Greek race? Pashtuns a Sythic race? Pashtuns a Heterogenous race? Pashtuns a branch of Irani race? Pashtuns very old race? Pashtuns were Aryans?

Cha lala Pathan krama - Cha lala Afghan krama

Za saada Pashtun yama - Za saada insaan yama.

Thanks -- Haider 10:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply3

My dear brother Haider Khana!

I still cannot understand why Tanolis are Pashtun because of their long assimilation with Pashtuns, whist the same long assimilation with Pashtuns, keeps the Rajput a Rajput, a gujar a Gujar, a Dhund a Dhund, a Quarish a Quairash and so on. So there is a flaw in your logic.

Anyway, you've raised some interesting points, but let me add something. There were many tribes of Hazara , both Pashtun and non-Pashtun that fought the Sikhs bravely, many times. I don't deny that. In fact Olaf Caroe and other writers as you pointed out regarding the Swatis, that those Pashtun tribes that helped the British were often described as "brave" whilst those that fought against them or did not help them, were regarded as cowards, deceitful, and yet these same "Coward" tribes campaigned against the British many times! So it's a bit of a contradiction by the british historians and shows their bias.

There were Pashtun tribes who did not help Major Abbott against the Sikhs but that is because of two reasons, that I found after reading Major Abbotts Peshawar diaries: (1) those tribes didn't like the British and actually were not under their control (2) Dost Mohammad had made a Peace Treaty with the Sikhs and so the Pashtuns had no big cause to fight the Sikhs at that point. Also, Major Abbotts army (before he met the Masshwanis) consisted of "Peshawaris" and only God knows who these really were.

Anyway just a point to bear in mind when you read Olaf Caroes book.

Language is something that can be acquired and lost. If I can speak English better than any other language that doesn't mean that I am English, although I have blue eyes and ginger hair and fair, freckly skin. Although first they will be deceived but when you start to get to know me then you would realise that I am not English at all. So my behaviour will show people who I am.

Likewise with Pashto. Although, initially you are happy to meet other "Pashtuns" after awhile you start to realize "this Pashtun " is "good" and this is "bad". Its their behaviour and whether they guide their life by Pashtunwali that acts as a yard stick for you to measure them by and classify them as "good" or "bad".

So for me language is not important, but Behaviour.

So this is why I give no attention to language, but behaviour and tribe/lineage.

How the Pashtuns arose is lost in the abyss of time, but the important point as Ghani Khan said in his book the Pathans, that they are there, and consist of certain tribes that have been chronicled in Pashtun literature as descendants of one family tree. The tribes who have come to belong to that family tree are "Pashtun' and the tribes who don't are 'non-Pashtun'. The Ghilzai, however they arose are part of this tree from the time the family tree was constructed. The lineage now of the Ghilzai is Patrilineal. I guess the same is true of the Mashwanis you have met who want to be Pashtuns as opposed to the Mashwanis I have met who want to be Syed instead.

The Swatis as I was told earlier by someone (earlier on this discussion board) are a mixture of different Pashtun tribes, and so my answer to that person was that they should therefore ideally be classified under the names of those Pashtun tribes.

Anyway, these discussions can go on forever and a day, and although we will be wiser, but probably nowhere nearer to settling this.

As friends we agree to disagree!

Pa Makha de Kha! Insaaf.

Reply

dear writer first you will a journey to mansehara, battagram, thakot and allai... you can find majority pashtun and belong to pushtoon tribes,, they known as swati due to their magiration from swat to hazara .

i think now every thing is very easy to go and look and search personnaly. regarding the yousufzai mostly swati are belong to yousufzai tribe. like mahabat khel,musa khel,khan khel,manda khel etc... they r living in allai and battagram area.. but as they known as swati..

question is this,,when yousufzai came to swat and peshawar the swati and dalazak was rule on this area... i think old yousufzai was living in swat as swati due to their own state swat. they wellcom new yousufzai due to their close realtionship with them... this is the logic,,

mahabat khel yousufzai (26 Aug 2005)

Reply(3)

Insaaf my great pashtun brother, Infact that’s not exactly just what I am telling about Tanolis, but according to some books as I took referenceses from – As I told you earlier aslo, I didn’t see Great Yousafzais in Niamatullah Hirvi’s book , and some other famous tribes also – As far as Gujars, Karal, Dhuds etc concern ,, believe me they do not speak Pashto as their mother tongue. But Tanolis esp in Mardan and on the Western outskirts of Hazara ,, they are strict on Pashunwali and speaking Pashto as their mother tongue.

Brother, I have already prove Mashwanis as in your line of thought (Genealogical Tree), so as Great Swatis in Bhittani and Great Khijis as included in the same race and the adopted son of Qais Abul Rasheed! But I don’t believe in them - you know,, what I do believe in !

I really admire your credentials and ability, my request is to you , be a little bit positive about Pashtuns , there are large numbers of tribes(your line of thought - less or more controversials) and as we know that there are numorous tribes assimilated in Pashtuns, but definitely a question will take place in mind , who is Pashtun then?

You are right , if you are good in English that doesn’t mean , you will become an English man but will it be worth full to lose your own mother tongue(Pashto) in reply ! English is necessary but not compulsory – That is a great loss for the entire Pashtun nation – You know one thing , There are three major parts in creation of a nation ,, Language, Culture and Land ! It will not take just one generation to lose Language but how much time it will take to be acquired again (No idea)?

We will have to sphere some time for some new research regarding Pashtuns- A Pashtun will tell you itself , he is a Pashtun ,, doesn’t need any certificate.

Ofcouse as friends together we would find some great information about other Pashtuns tribes also like "Dawars" – What they have their views about them like W.G Spain and others – Those all are unbearable for me atleast if I am a Pashtun.

Anyway take great care ! Khudai pa amaan . -- Haider 10:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Cut from article

Recently added under "culture", in the middle of some other stuff. Not very coherent in its own right, and certainly ill-placed. I've cut it from the article and brought it here in case anyone can actually do something with it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

During Past and in Present( Taliban regim) Practicaly Pashtunwaly is a unity against non Pashtuns, our histry is full of exampales, Abduraman khan kiling Hazarah and other non pashtun tirbes occuping thier land discriminating them. followed by Nader khan kiling non pashtuns ocuping thier lads ileagaly giving to Pashtuns in north of Khorasa ( now Afghanistan)

and tha crime was done by Taliban All Was under Pashtunwaly. as we saw in the past , Pashtunwaly is Pashtun back up Pashtun regardless of he doing good or crim, past history of pashtunwaly shows that Pashtunwaly is cod of Racism.

Pashtuns from Parthia

The Persian Empire was an empire of satraps. There were two persian empires, the Achaemenid Dynasty who were from the clan called PasarGADae (sons of Gad). This was intermarriage between the Israelite tribe of Gad and a Median ruling clan. The second Persian Empire was the Sassanian Empire. These were the Madaii of old, and Iranians today. Between the two Persian empires there was the Parthian Empire. The Pashtuns were descendants of the first Persian Empire, who were forced to Migrate East by the Sassanians. They intermarried with Cushites who are predominate in southern India.

The Parthian Empire was controlled by the tribe of Ephraim (who were exiled to the Caspian Sea area by the Assyrians) and their ruling dynasty was the Arsacids, descendants from the tribe of Judah. The Dahan or Thahanites, the Bachtrians, and the Eranites, were the main tribes controlling the Empire. In 224 AD when they fell and migrated west, they became known as the Getae and Anglii. History knows them as the Visigoths.

The Achaemenid Persians wound up in Afghanistan and Pakistan as Pashtuns. The Parthian ruling dynasty was involved in the Anglo, Saxon and Jutes, invasion of Britain. The Sassanian Persians remained today in Iran.

response

Uh, no. Getae and Anglii were West Germanic tribes (Geats and Angles); Visigoths were East Germanic. Not only were they not the same as one another, they were not Iranians. Their languages are incredibly different from Parthian. There is no consensus linking the Medes with any particular modern or historical people, although Sasanid sources like the Karnamag-i Ardakhshir suggest to some that the Kurds are descendants of the Medes.

There was a period of centuries intervening between the end of the Achaemenid and the beginning of the Sasanian empires; it is ridiculous to suggest that the Sasanians had anything to do with the fall of the Achaemenids. The Achaemenids were defeated ca. 326 BCE by Alexander the Great.

Furthermore, "Pasargadae" is not the name of a tribe. It is the name of a place and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Biblical history. In fact, there is no credible evidence linking Biblical figures with figures from Iranian history.--KASchmidt 01:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, except for explicitly named Iranian figures, of course. The Book of Esther doesn't exactly gibe with historical fact, but it's kind of close, as long as we're on the subject. But Israelites? No. --KASchmidt 17:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Plus, Parthian has to connection to "Pathan", if that's what you were trying to do. The Iranian rendering of the parthians was parnae or parni, while parthian is the western rendering. And I have no idea where you got the incredible fact that Ephraim tribe controlled the parthians. Parthians were known as a wandering semi-nomadic people wandering east of the caspian and what is today turkmenistan. The Cushites have absolutely nothing to do with southern india either linguistically, genetically or geographically. Cushitic langauge family is spoken in Somalia, eritrea, southern Sudan etc.. The Achaeminid Persians too have no connection to pashtuns or pashtun ethnogenesis. Bactrains were a people living in Bactria, not Parthia. Bactria is in uzbekistan and north afghanistan. I would think that Bactrians have contributed significantly to the pashtuns both genetically and linguistically. BTW KASchmidt. Visigoths were also West Germanic. VISI means west in gothic as opposed to ostrogoths or east germanic.

omerlives138.23.82.86

New Additions

Since Awans, Tanolis, Malik, who are being included as Pashtuns simply because they live in that area then I have included Gujarzai, Rajputs and the like who have lived there since time immorial - why should THEY be denied that right?

INSAAF!!

Reply New Addtion

Insafa, Sstarey Mashey, Khushala Ussa! I don't know who added above mentioned tribes as Pashtuns like Awans and Maliks, I didn't make any changes since our last consensus,, you are free to remove those tribes,, but why did you add some groups ,, after all you are a sensible man ! I am taking those tribes off from the tribes list! Take care and be happy always. -- Haider 19:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why Pashtun men with guns usually

I would like to take some attention of my Pashtun friends about a photo on the main page, showing some Pashtun men sitting with AK-47 (Klashnikoves),, is it just left, what we are showing whole world that we have nothing to hold but guns !!!!!! Why can't we show Pashtun boys going to School with some Books or why can't we glow them sitting in a hujra and enjoying some Qahwa etc?? Now there are numerous Pashtuns highly qualified taking part to promote their Tribe and Nation. -- 203.130.9.24 15:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I put up the picture. I didn't think it was a big deal. It's just some men sitting around with guns which is not uncommon. However, if it's bothering people I have no problem with removing it.

Tombseye 02:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tombseye ! You will be highly appreciated if you have put up a Picture of Pashtuns in their Hujra (Room just for guests and Friends) chatting to each other with some great Tea or Qahwa in front of them because Todays Pashtun want to compete in each and every modern seintific field rather than just with weapons. I think it is more common that Pashtun geniuses holding books also ! Haider 16:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I got rid of the men and put up a picture of some boys trying to buy candy in Kohistan. Hope everybody's okay with it! Tombseye 16:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding of Umarzai tribe

I have added 'Umarzai' to the list of tribes, I cannot give any citation but I know they exist because I am one :D

cushite of india are you referring to dravidians? they are not from Cush bin Ham they are the sumerians who are Canaanites Nimrod was son of cush son of canaan there were two different cushs you people have mixed them up terribly the other branch of dravidians were the phoenicians the dravidians are not afro asiatic they have always had straight hair the elamites were afro asiatic similar in features to dravidians but long full hair I think it is right the pashtun are from Bani Israel as muslims we know the adites were in that area the hittites mixed with adites idumeans so this is before the time of Isralites the kurdish are from hittite royalty and they come from medes anyways people forget that Prophet Jonah (Yunus) was sent to people of Nineveh Mosul area of north iraq so who do you think they would have mixed up with? not sure but the idumeans Edomites could be very well the kurdish(hittite) mixed with adite then came the people of Yunus who mixed with that medes came after the hittite so the medes got mixed with that have the hittite adite mix then mixed with the descendants of Prophet Yunus AS and there are Pashtun that have beauty like iraqi kurds. the kurds and indians are from hittite royalty the the pashtun are a mix of rajput and idumean i think the dna results are lie many people are always showing pashtun like white people and this is a lie as there are many with semitic faces not indo aryan