Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 7

Linguistic Map
I have inserted a linguistic map of Pakistan that includes the regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan inhabited by Pakhtun people. If there is a better map then please replace it. The user 70.122.73.105 removed the map without replacing with another map. Siddiqui 17:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the other map was more specific to the areas of the Pashtuns as opposed to explaining the other groups who are explained in other country articles. It also denoted, for example, the areas where large populations are found even when not in a majority as well. Thus, I think the previous map worked better. Thanks. Tombseye 20:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Pakhtuns do not live in southern Balochistan. I have visited Balochistan and did not find any significant Pakhtun population in the south. The southern and western Balochistan is exclusively Baloch and Brahui. The only exception is Las Bela district that has significant Sindhi population. This map is based on "Pakhtunistan" map and does not represent any ground realities. The Baloch are bitterly opposed to Pakhtun movement. The Baloch areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan on this map are included as Pakhtun areas that surely will raise objections from Balochs and Brahuis. The most prudent comprise would be to add both maps and let the reader make his informative conclusions.


 * 22:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The map isn't great, but it shows where Pashtuns are found in addition to their core areas. They aren't a majority in southern Baluchistan, but they do live there as well. I didn't go to the region when I travelled to Pakistan, but I doubt there are many places in Pakistan that are exclusive to any groups. These people all overlap anyway. The map is a US govt. creation and isn't meant to denote a Pukhtunistan vision at all. The areas with the diagonal lines show where the Pashtuns are the majority and the other areas are where they also live. The linguistic map would have been okay if it also included groups in Afghanistan, but it's too Pakistan-specific. Tombseye 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Khyber.org has a copy of Olaf Caroes map of the pashtun tribes. It's a scanned copy so I am not sure if it can be used? Zakksez 16 Feb 2005(UTC)


 * They're probably not using it legally. Anything by Olaf Caroe would still be under copyright. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for assistance
The article Kharotha-Khel is currently at Articles for deletion/Kharotha-Khel and I confess near-complete ignorance and would appreciate a more knowledgable look. I suspect that it may be a valid entry, but appears 1) misspelled, 2) incorrectly hyphenated name, and 3) apparently written by a non-native speaker of English, all of which is making matters difficult in determining validity of this article. Thanks in advance for your input - KillerChihuahua?!? 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Kharotay Khel (Khel meaning tribe..Khar meaning Donkey and rotay meaning bread or food) is the way I thought it was spelt..they are a pashtun tribe based in Afghanistan, I have met a few from the group but I am afraid I don't know much about their origins and history. Still I'll have a look and get back to you on that Zakksez16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes in " Established Pashtun Tribes Lineal Tree"
Karan or Karlan was an adopted son of Qais Abdul Rashid Baba, even in stories, not a missing son, as you mentioned in Patrilineal tree, so make it correct ! atleast that will reflect your line of thought according to those fables. Don't misguide the readers like a missing son! Haider 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * roger on that! I was using Caroes Pathans and Jens Nightingale of Peshawar as source material..there are discrepancies and I am getting feedback for other corrections as well, so constructive feedback is welcome.. Zakksez 12:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You may also like to consult "Frontier and Overseas Expeditions from India" Volume One published by Government Mono Type Press, Simla, India - (Originally Published 1907) - and - "A Dictionary of the Pathan Tribes of the North West Frontier of India"'' published by The General Staff Army Headquarter, Calcutta, India - (Originally Published 1910), both written / compiled before any major work published on the topic of Pashtuns / Pathans. McKhan


 * corrections added I ..uploaded a modified version of the same file..I am not sure why Dilazak has been included as a tribe in the other list..there is debate about whether they were pashtuns..I believe they aren't as there is no record of them as one..despite what Olaf caroe wrote Zak 23:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zak, I think you are just trying to see Pashtuns from the goggles of Mr Caroe Olaff or might be some other Western authors, kindly just take off those glasses and then see who were and are Pashtuns, taking references from the books may glorify your article and is a fun but to bilieve in them is hell. Those were not the writtens landed from the sky.

What makes you believe that great Dilazaks are not Pashtuns? And what makes you sure that great Ghaljis are Pashtuns not Turks, and what your Caroe Olaff had his views about them ? There are numerous tribes, I can mention them if you want me to do so, but definetely a question will take place in mind, who are Pashtuns then, just few tribes !? Otherwise all these tribes can easily be described in their cultural view.

How much time gone, when these lineal trees have been explored or written, just in 17th century by Niamatulla Hirvi, in his book "Tareekh e Khan Jahani - Maghzan e Afghani", who himself was far far away from the land of Pashtuns. Infact Pashtuns were every where in Pashtun Khwa from the thousand of years that's why Herodotus mentions them as Pactyans, Righved as Pakat and Persian Osta as Bagad.

Now another point, how could one adopted son can take place of a real son, and their offsprings will trace their ancestor to Qais Abdul Rashid Baba? According to folklores, fables, an infant was found and adopted might be of some another race but defenitely not Pashtun ! Great Karalanis are more Pashtunic as compare to other Pashtun tribes, what makes you so confident about to accept Karlanis in that lineal tree ? Kindly don't see these great Pashtun tribes on behalf of your own likings and dislikings. Here is a Pashto proverb " che ta sok na manay - ta ba hum sok na mani " ! Haider 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Now what Denzil Ibbeston has his views about Pashtuns, he has dicussed the origin of Pashtuns but realy don't know, what his aim was, just tried to make discrimination amongst them, like proper Pashtun and doubtful pashtuns ? I will need your concentration here for Pashtuns sake !

According Mr Ibbeston's book "The Panjab Castes - The Afghans proper claim descent from Saul, the Jewish King, and there is a fomidable array of weighty authority in favour of their Semitic origin. The Afghan proper is said still to call himself indifferently Bani Afghan or Bani Israel to distinguish himself from the Pakhtun proper, who is of Indian, and the Ghilzai who is probably of mixed Turkish and Persian extraction. Pashto the common language of all three is distinctly Aryan, bieng a branch of the old Persian stock.

Now another theory from the same author - The True Pakhtuns are apparently of Indian origin. Their language is called Pakhtu and they call themselves Pukhtana; and it is this word of which Pathan is the indian corruption. The Afghans and Ghilzais spread into their country and adopted their language and customs. Thus the Afghans and Ghilzais are Pashtuns by virtue of their language, though not of Pashtun origin.

You are just opposing Dilazaks, where Ibbeston already makes it so easy for you to sort it out like who are Pashtuns, Afghans and Ghilzais (so rediculously)!!!! So should I believe what Mr Ibbeston has written in his book or should I use my own mind by reading in between the lines of the different authors not just Mr Ibbeston? Its upto the readers also to make up their own mind. Cha lala Afghan krama - Cha lala Pathan krama - za sada pakhtun yama - za sada insan yama. This is my start replying just in favour of the great Pashtuns. Haider 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is imposible to accept or believe the whole nation has been delivered by just one man even if some writers mentions him as their symbolic progenitor, if that then it will counted as acceptence, goes in favour of the cultural definition of the Pashtuns ! Haider 17:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Logic
I am willing to express my feelings although I don't have any mass collection of words.. Here is a logical example from a Book "Pashtun in the light of their race" by Syed Bahadur Shah Zafer Kaka Khel, that there are many rivers like Ravi, Jehlum and Kabul etc making their way and fell in great Indus river,, Ravi is no more ravi untill or unless it falls in Indus, that means ravi has lost it's identity, while no one can filter ravi and rest of the rivers from the great Indus....In the same way, in different period of time there might be some tribes and people, who migeratted and get assimilated in Pashtuns, so how these out side people could effect the origin of Pashtuns same like small rivers assimilated in River Inuds! Haider 15:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Blood line vs Heritage
According to encyclopedia Iranica, and according to Persian historians, the Persians (Farsiwan – including the Tajiks) called Pakhto speakers “Afghans”. Rigvida also mentions Asvakan, and a Chinese historian mentions Apokian in the same region where Herodotus mentions Paktues of Paktikuk.

As far as Afghans and Pashtuns being two different people is concerned, that claim is false, since both the terms (Afghan and Pathan) was designated to the Pakhtuns by theirs neighbors i.e. Persians called them Afghans and Indians denoted them as Pathans.

Karlanri are most likely to be the original Pakhtun tribes, where the sons of Qais intermingled and assimilated amongst them. None of the tribes that are under his linage have mentions in history before the Mazkan-e-Afghan. On the other hand Apreede, Shatak, Bangash etc. are mentioned in Hindu scriptures. The other major factor to them is their names, they are not Abrahmic or Islamic. They are original i.e. Apreede, Bangash, Khatak, Shinwari, Mangal, Zazi, Wardak, Mashud, Viziri, Orak.

Blood is irrelevant to discuss when it comes to ethnicity and race is a flawed concept. Language, culture, geographical location, common interest, common goals, and loyalty to a cause define a nation and people.

Punjab is also a melting pot of many different races, but regardless of their genetic makeup, they are Punjabi and their cause is Punjabi. Their loyalty falls for the Punjabi territory, the Punjabi language and the Punjabi establishment. Even though the Punjabis share 3 major religions amongst them (Hindu, Sikh and Islam) their culture and language over rides all of that when you see Punjabis of all 3 faiths dancing together on basant whether it be in Lahore or Chandigar.

Pakhtuns (ethnic Afghans) are defined by their language, their common culture, and their common heritage, and in the most orthodox perspective, by their religious beliefs (Islam). Blood to them only matters on the level of Khels (sub-tribes). Beyond Khel, blood don’t matter. Most Pakhtun tribes won’t allow their men or women to marry another Khel of the same tribe. That is where blood truly matters, when it comes to close family, or extended family. After that point, the definition is in a broader perspective (language, culture, heritage, religion). Then it is truly a matter of characteristics. You can be the son of Qais or Kanrani, if you don’t speak Pakhto, it will be problematic for you to marry a Pakhtun. Then you can speak pure Pakhto, but if you are not a Muslim, it will be difficult to marry a Pakhtun. Chances of that happening, are null. Sync2k5 18:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, Mr. Caroe Olaf was a pro Pakistani establishment with some raw feelings toward Afghans and Afghanistan. You can get a hint if you just read between the lines on the last pages of his book “The Pathans”. Not a big fan of the uncrowned King of the Pakhtuns Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Sync2k5 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * here is some info, please note in Pashto horse is "Aspa","Asva" or "As".

[1] ASHVAGAN =AFGHAN = LAND OF HORSES [LAND OF CAVALARY-MEN]**

The non-Afghan invaders first settled in Afghanistan before invading the Indo-Pak subcontinent and all the invaders made use of Afghan soldiers to carry out their military campaigns. These non-Afghan invaders made use of Afghan soldiers simply because the Afghans were famous for their acts of heroism; and this explains why the original name of Afghanistan was Ashvagan, meaning land of the heroes and from Ashvagan the name evolved into Afghanistan.

http://jang. com.pk/thenews/nov2003-daily/13-11-2003/oped/o6.htm

[2] ASHVAGAN =AFGHAN ='LAND OF THE HORSES'*** And now, many years later, my eyes have been opened by a host of personal events, and a series of good people, to a new point in my life where I quietly practice the religion which I publicly acclaimed more than twenty years ago in a long-gone and war-free Ashvagan (the Persian word for Afghanistan, meaning "LAND OF HORSES"). I no longer wear guns. My sword collects dust and sleeps with her memories. But most importantly, I try in my daily life to put into practice what the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) taught, mainly to love my fellow man and to worship naught but God.

http://www.thelongridersguild. com/Word02.htm

[3] ASHVAGAN =AFGHAN='LAND OF THE HORSES'*** Poor Afghanistan. The Persian rule in Ashvagan ('LAND OF HORSES') as the area was then known, was overthrown in 1747 and a monarchy established in the land thereafter to be known as Afghanistan. The Shahs and Amirs ruled until 1973 when the country became a republic. In 1994 the Taliban converted the republic into an emirate.

http://www.dawn. com/weekly/cowas/20011104.htm

[4] ASHVAGAN =AFGHAN='LAND OF THE HORSES'*** Ashvagan, the ‘LAND OF HORSES,’ as Afghanistan was once known long, long ago, formed itself into a state in 1747. The first Amir, Ahmad Khan ruled well and wisely (1747-73). His brothers and sons succeeded him, the last of the family, brother Mahmud being overthrown in 1818. Thereafter, for eight years, anarchy prevailed. It was during this period that Afghanistan became the main playing field for the Great Game, started in 1824 and which now, almost two centuries later, still continues.

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/05Sep98.html#ashv

[5] ASHVAGAN=AFGHAN = 'LAND OF THE HORSES'*** Et maintenant, plusieurs années plus tard, mes yeux se sont ouverts par une foule d'évènements personnels, et par une série de gens bons, et je suis arrivé à un nouveau point dans ma vie où je pratique tranquillement la religion que j'ai acclamé publiquement il y a plus de vingt ans dans un Ashvagan (le mot Perse pour Afghanistan, qui veut dire "Terre des Chevaux") disparu depuis longtemps et paisible. Je ne porte plus les armes. Mon épée est couverte de poussière et dort avec sa mémoire. Mais le plus important, c'est que j'essaie au quotidien de mettre en pratique ce que le Prophète Mahomet (PBUH*) nous a enseigné, surtout d'aimer ses semblables et de ne vénérer que le bon Dieu.

TTRANSLATION: "And now, several years later, my eyes opened by a crowd of personal events, and by a series of good people, and I arrived at a new point in my life where I quietly practise the religion which I acclaimed publicly there is more than twenty years in Ashvagan (the word Perse for Afghanistan, which wants to say "LAND OF THE HORSES") for a long time disappeared and peaceful. I do not carry any more the weapons. My sword is covered with dust and sleeps with its memory. But most important, it is that I try with the daily newspaper into practice to put what the Prophet Mahomet (PBUH *) taught us, especially to like its similar and to venerate only good God."

http://www.worldtrailrides. com/1voyageacheval/chevalislam.htm http://www.worldtrailrides. com/pdf_files/chevalislam.pdf


 * COMMENT -1: ASHVAGAN=LAND OF HEROES OR CAVALRY-MEN

Mahabharata especially referes to the Kambojas as ASHVA-YUDHA-KUSHALAH...i.e. THE KAMBOJAS AN EXPERT CAVALARY-MEN OR HORSEMEN..

See below Ancient Sanskrit evidence:

tathA yavana KAMBOJA mathurAmabhitash cha ye /. ete ashva.yuddha kushalA dAkShiNAtyAsi charmiNaH// [Mahabharata 12/105/5]

cf: "..... The Kambojas of Ashoka and of the Sanskrit and Pali texts thus occupy exactly the same position as Arrian's Assakenois (Ashvakas). We thus get another name for the Kambojas, i.e Ashvakas. The Kambojas were famous for their horses and as cavalar-men (ashva-yuddha-kushalah); Ashvaka, 'horsemen' was the term popularly applied to them" [Hindu Polity, A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times, Part I & II, 1972, p 140, Dr K. P. Jayswal]

ASHVAGAN=AFGHAN= 'LAND OF THE HORSES'
 * COMMENT-2:

Compare KAMBOJO-ASSANAM.AYATANAM of the Buddhist Jataka SAMANGAVILASINI [P.T.S.] Vol I, p 124, which expression literally means 'THE KAMBOJA COUNTRY IS THE 'LAND OR HOME OF THE HORSES'.

Cf Dr B. C. Law: "The horses of Kamboja were famous throught all periods of Indian History. In the Sumnagalavilasini, Kamboja is spoken of as home of horses [Kambojo assanam ayatnam....Sumangalavilasini Vol I, p 124]. The great Epic is full of references to the excellent horses of Kamboja..................."[Some Kshatrya Tribes of Ancient India, p 238, 'The Kambojas', Dr B. C. Law]

http://punjabi.net/talk/messages/1/52683.html?1075172231 http://punjabi.net/talk/messages/1/21776.html?1020043322

cf Dr J. L. KAMBOJ: "The Buddhist texts like Samangavilasini, Manorathapurani, Visudhimagga, Kunala Jataka etc refers to the Kamboja land as 'Kambojo Assanama ayatanam'........i.e.Kamboja ...the 'HOME OF HORSES'............." [Ancient Kamboja, People And the Country, 1981, p 26, 124, 244, Dr Kamboj]

cf Dr J. C. Vidyalankar: "KAMBOJO ASSAANAMAYATANAM =KAMBOJA ........ THE LAND OF HORSES .."[Ref: Bharrat Bhumi Aur Unke Nivasi,, 1930, p 274-304, Dr J. C. Vidyalankar; also Bhartya Itihaas ki rup rekha, p 526-537]

cf Dr H. C. RAYCHAUDHURY, Dr B. N MUKERJEE: "............. With the sxpression Assanam Ayatanam ...'LAND OF HORSES' used by Pali Texts in reference to Kambojas, [Dictionery of Pali Proper Names, I, 826, cf Mahabharata VI, 99, 3] may be compared to the names Aspasios and Assakenois given by classical writers to the sturdy people living in the Alishang and Swat valleys in the days of Alexander (Camb Hist Ind I, 352 n)" [Ref: Politicla History of Ancient India, 1996, p 133, p 216 foot note 2, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukerjee, while writing on Kambojas]

cf: K. S. DARDI ".....Panini has used tewrm Ashvakayana for Kambojas..... This Sanskrit Ashvakayan or Aashvakan means the 'THE HOME OF THE HORSES'.. or the 'THE LAND OF THE HORSES'......" [Ref: These Kamboj People, 1979, p 193, K. S. Dardi]

Also compare the following from Buddhist website:

KAMBOJA (KAMBOJAKA) "One of the sixteen Mahájanapadas which, with Gandhára, belonged, not to the Majjhimadesa but, evidently, to the Uttarápatha (A.i.213; iv.252, 256, 260). It is often mentioned as the FAMOUS BIRTH PLACE OF HORSES (assánam áyatanam) (E.g., DA.i.124; AA.i.399; Vsm.332; also J.iv.464)......."

http://www.palikanon. com/namen/ka/kamboja.htm

COMMENT-3:

In Indo-Iranian languages, 'g' can replace 'k' or vice versa so also 'p' and 'b' or 'p' and 'f'. 't' and 'd'

Hence the Sanskrit ASHVAKA or ASHVAKAN which comes from ASHVAKAYAN of Panini's Ashtadhyai [IV-1.99] becomes ASHVAGAN.[k ==>>g]. Hence, according the above writers:

ASHVAKAN ==>> ASHVAGAN ==> AFGHAN [=LAND OF THE HORSES....i.e THE ANCIENT KAMBOJA LAND].


 * Kindly do come with signs Haider 19:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time
Many of the writers esp about the origin of the Pashtuns, authors had made delibelrate mistakes while writing history some few centuries back - Atleast they have appeased some authorative people around of that times otherwise they have missed a golden chance to be some golden authors, the great loss of those writtens are, today's writer still taking references from those books, dosn't matter, wether they are acceptable to mind or not, logical or illogical - Because majority of them have wrote lot of fables and took start like "some says" and "Once upon a time".

Caroe in his book of 1958 wrote about the two great tribes, one of them is Assakenois and other Aspasios, both the tribes gave very tough time to Alaxender of Maccedonia. Caroe do believes that, were not of the same origin, he mentions in his book, the Aspasis as Persian tribe and Assakenios as an Indian tribe and drawing a boundry in between Persia and India, somewhere between the kunar and swat rivers, both the tribes were famous as horse men or horse traders, he took this reference from Mahabharata about assakenois ... What I want to explore that he mentions Aspa for a horse from Persian and Pashto for Aspasis and Asva for a horse from sunskrit for Assakenois ... If Asva in sunskrit that's good, wouldn't it be more authentic and significant, if we take "as" of Pashto for Assakenois !

In Caroe's own words, Alaxender was not the first or the last to be made to realize that the real limit of the Iranian region is not the Khaiber pass, or even the River Indus, but a point ancient Taxila where the modern road and railway run through the Margalla pass. Pashtuns still recognize when they pass it that they are leaving or, coming, home.

First he mentions Persian boundary somewhere in between Kunar and Swat rivers and in the same book same chapter on p nos 48 and 49 of Alexander, he explored boudries of the Persia upto Taxila!! Persian Horses and Indian Horses, spread in the same region even residing with in few miles, but of different origin!! Weldone Mr Caroe Olaf !

These were the two related tribes of the same origin because due to their common culture and business of Horses also and, like Ass and Aspa of Pashto. Remember, it was the land and home of the Horses. Why Persian boundary, why not Pashtunkhwa boundry, Pashtun is the race of ancient times, already been mentioned by greek historians as pactivas and it's inhabitants as Paktyans. All the above ancient names clearly shows the ancestors of Pashtuns, whether they are in rigved, osta, mahabharta, sunskrit or greeks, their line is signifying about the people of the same region. Atleast they shall have the same language and culture, and that's what, they shall have adopted through evolution. Haider 19:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Still we can see many tribes and clans helped each other of the Bajuar, Swat and across the Indus, Hazara Division, with the adjacent Mountain of Allai, and clans on both the slopes of the Black Mountain, when externel danger threatens. The tribes against the Alexander shall have done the same way. Haider 13:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What proof is their that there were any pashtun tribes in the malakand region at the time of alexander, conventional logic says pashtuns originated from the Kandahar region and migrated North, the original inhabitants of swat moved to the hazara belt in response to the spread of the pashtuns. Caroes logic is flawed in places, it is still well researched, and yes when you write something you need to reference it, so I would prefer using a few sources and cite them rather than simply critcise and not cite anything. Zak 18:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any prove, regarding about the mass exodus of the Pashtuns from Qandhar to Kabul, today's NWFP and it's tribal belt, exept those conventional stories? Or any single clue, the tribes against Alexander were not Pashtuns?. "Twarikhe Hafiz Rehmat khani" would be your main source or do you have "Tazkara" of Akhun Derwaiza ... both the authors wrote about the different tribes migration, both of them were almost of the same era but holding different views of the same events, like "Tareekh" says, the King of Kabul was Mirza Ulagh baig and according to "Tazkara" the king was Quli baig ...The assasinated chiefs were 700 in "Tareekh", while elevated in Tazkara upto 900! Now more from "Tazkara", mentions one migration of the Pashtuns from the East to West during the reign of Mehmood Ghaznavi in 11th century including Swat, and the second exodus took place, in the reign of Mirza Baig in 15th and 16th century ! Tawarike Hafiz Rehmat Khani might be a Romantic, lively, older and lengthy book about the events of the Pashtun tribes but from the historic point of view could not take place as an authentic book due to it's conventional aspects. "Maghzani Afghani" mentions migrations of Pashtuns down to Multan even, in the times of Shahabuddin Ghouri in 12th century. These were just few of the sources .. as far as you believe in them, but I don't, because Pashuns were not the people of just a small specific area! Saifi Harvi believe in his "Tareekh Naama" of 8th Hijri, the Pashtuns had moved from the east to ancient Ganghara or Qandhar and up to Hirat, they moved from one fertile land to another. Pahstuns were well scattered before Alexander 1500 BC, as we can explore them in Rigved and Osta etc. ~ Thanks ~  Haider 15:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Pukhtun/Afghan tribes did not appear in Peshawar Valley until after 800 AD (Tarikh-e-Farishtah; H.G. Raverty Notes on Afghanistan; Peshawar District Gazetteer 1897-98). Again the swati tribes of hazara openly claim they were the original inhabitants of swat valley..how do you adjust the stories of the Gujjar tribes if the situation was otherwise? --Zak 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Tareekh-e-Farishta of Qasim Farishta, the Afghans were the people who had taken part with Abraha to attack Qaba Sharif, he took these references from a book "Matla-ul-Anwar", he had further mentions that the Afgans infact are Qabti Fironis, when Hazrat Moosa AS had subdued Firon then lot of Qabtis offered Toba of their sins and accepted the religion of Hazarat Moosa AS, but one of the group amongst them did not accept the religion of truth, and became the front line friends of Firon for his claim of God, due to this they had been put into exile, so reached Hindustan and scattered in Koh-e-Suleman. Now will you or anyboby believe it, how one could say himself a proud Pashtun?..did he mentions "Pashtuns" or "Afghans", or does he applied both the terms on the same race "Pashuns"? Great Pashtuns had their heritage to remain Pashtuns thruogh evolutionary period. Kindly take a look what I wrote ahead of your last paragraph esp about the exodus, whether the older migrations were from the east to west or west to east?
 * Abdul Ghani khan, a Pashto poet and philosopher (late) share the opinion. He considers the Pashtuns 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 Pashtuns resemble those of the Jews. Apart from the clans of Karlanr and mati, Jadoons, Tanolis and Swatis are similar to the Jews in their dwelling and clothes. I hope, you would have heard about this.
 * What would you say if we see Pashtuns from the theory of Henry Walter Bellew (1834-92), who had already connected Pashtuns from Rajputs? What were their crendentials for Pashtuns? What would be the case or to adjust Pashtuns if we had to believe in that theory or majortiy of tribes if the situation was otherwise? Pathan, Rohilla, Sulemani, Khurasani, Afghani are the names which we have been awarded already, but dejectedly to find Pashto speaking Pashtuns! They were here just to made distinction among great Pashtun tribes for their own incentives/targets/goals, they knew they couldn't subdue them ever, so let them divide and rule. A pashto proverb "Mula che sa wai hagha kawa - Che sa kai hagha ma kawa". Another one also, "Wai Cha Akhpala - Biya Gila Sala". I hope you must be a Pashtun, not Pathan. ~Thanks~  Haider 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Family tree
Please remove the family tree since it is not correct. Karlanri and Karlan are the same person. Bitan is not Qais son, Bitani tribes starts from Bibi Mato+Shah Hussian linage so their originator is not Qais at all. All the tribes listed under "Karlan" should go under Karlanri. Those tribes have no relation with "Qais". Remove that image it is false! Sync2k5 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 100/% agreed, there is no need of any imaginary patrimoneal tree so that should be removed without any further delay!  Haider 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, don't know if it will work or not. Sync2k5 20:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That should have been removed earlier, definitely it will work because that was an illogical image. In future if anybody wants to edit Pashtun main page, please come forward and take part in healthy debate to make consensus, discussion page is open for disputed issues rectification.   Haider 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you could have contacted me and I'd have added the changes without any fuss, rather than toss something away over one or two mistakes! You mentioned consensus ..that involves some courtesy and patience Zak 18:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's exectly what I did as far as contact concern. You can see on the main page of Pashtuns, different theories like Cultural and Ancestral, have already been glowing and mentioned too, now readers have full advantage to makeup their own mind, so is there any need to affix a family tree also ~ Thanks! Haider 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a useful add on for those who want a quick glance at Pashtun lineage, I agree it's not comprehensive and it may need the odd correction but hence the addition of a comprehensive tribes section in the article. I was also thinking of adding individual shajaras for certain tribes as there is no graphical representation for them in English. Zak 22:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Bieng a Pashtun, I don't believe in those trees due to it's unreliable stories, it is very much dubious, certainly very blur and fake! Don't make your "Tree" more comprehensive, otherwise, that will go beyond Pashtun page, and a capacious file will be required if we start imposing personnel shajras. Kindly make another portion for the Trees of Karlan and Batan, blend togather with Qais's two sons, will not be appreciated, as we can already see them in line, without connecting line.
 * Atleast that signifies your line of thought, the creator, mastermind, ancestor couldn't be just one man regarding great Pashtuns, but at the same time, you feel happy with those shajaras. Trees are important in Plarganey, khels, clans and tribes, but to relate those tribes and intermingled them with each other will be unrecoverable and unable to find the right way to go! Remind you, Pashtun is a Nation, not the offsprings of just a single man ~ Thanks    Haider 15:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well in that case we'll leave it as is, and not add any more tribal trees. We can place a comment below the tree saying that it is not definitive. Zak 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Still there are lot has to be done, innovation through personal observation is greater than imitation. If you think, something is knowledgeable and judicious, you can take part in debate before amendments, without any quarrel ~ Thanks ~   Haider 12:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the tree again, it was wrong, and were missing many tribes. I agree with Haider that there is no reason for such a "tree", this tree is only to please "pathans" who have lost basicaily everything Pashtun and what remains is the "family tree". Those Pathans are no good to Pashtun nation or the Pashto language. On top of that this tree does a disservice to many Shahs, Qurayahis, Ansari, Gilanis, Sayeds, Khans, and Maliks who are Pakhtun, yet might not trace their decent from the great "QAIS" or "Kanlanri". The family tree is nothing but a fairy tale that surves no benefit to the Pakhtuns in reality. Most Pakhtuns don't even know who "Qais" is, and infact no one cares. BUT--if you insist on having a tree then there should be a disclaimer in huge letters stating that this is considered BS. by modern scholars, and the elite of Pakhtuns. Sync2k5 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already told my friend, who is emphasizing on patrimoneal trees that, there are already two most prominent views, like it's Cultural and Ancestral even ethnic definitions on Pashtun page, so it would be futile to affix a family tree ... Why don't we leave it upto the readers to makeup their own mind as lot of material available. Now the majority of Pashtuns do not believe in those so called Shajras, it was just has been an ineffectual try to blend the different great Pashtun tribes! Kindly don't thrust your imaginary and fanciful line on readers or I will put up a request for the page Blockage! As they say, Pashto proverb "Par me ka - Mar me ka". I do agree with Sync here ~ Thanks ~   Haider 20:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Transitional Pashtuns ?
It was so distressing, when I saw Hindko or Panjabi pashtuns in an article "Transitional groups". I will ask the contributor, whether do he ever visited the northern areas of Pakistan ... Hindko is just a common dialect as same as urdu in urban areas, in cities like Abbotabad etc, while the Pashtuns themselves do chat to each other in their mother tongue Pashto, upto the Mountains of Allai and Black Mountain and even in Kohistan. I have no hesitation to remove that impolite and repulsive material from Wikipedia's pashtuns main page! Durranis may speak any language they want, but the question is, the language of their home? Haider 14:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Pakhtuns in Karachi
Karachi is the biggest Pakhtun city in the world. There are more Pakhtuns living in Karachi than Peshawar, Quetta, Kabul or Kandahar. I will get the reliable source before adding this information in the Pakhtun page.

Siddiqui 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Without any doubt, there are numerous Pashtuns in Karachi, but never heard about the exact figure. The most significant aspect of the Karachi's Pashtun is, the majority of them strictly speak Pashto amongst them, even Pashto songs are very familiar to other non Pashtun people and some can understand chat as well, nevertheless they dwell in, where lot of other languages have been spoken, like Sindhi, Panjabi and Urdu etc, that's a very great sign for the advancement of Pashto language in Cosmopolitan cities like Karachi.   Haider 17:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Pakhtuns stats removed !!
The User 202.61.56.99 on 20 March 2006 removed the stats of Pakhtuns in Lahore, Islamabad, and Rawalpindi. He also decreased the number of Pakhtuns in Karachi from 3 million to 1 million. I have reverted these lines. Siddiqui 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * '''According to Pakistan population census of 1998, the number of Pashtuns in Karachi was 1.1 millions at that time and 1.2 millions in the entire Sindh. In Punjab, they were 0.8 millions in Punjab. Moreover, the economic, cultural, and political life of Karachi is dominated by Muhajirs. Peshawar, Kandahar, etc. are pure Pashtun cities where Pashtuns dominate and that is what the difference is.


 * Siddiqui, stop your political propaganda. India has more Muslims than Pakistan.'''


 * Zarak


 * According to Pakistan population census of 1998, Pashtuns were 1.1 millions in Karachi, a long period has gone since 1998, now we are in 2006! Accoriding to Pakistan population census what was the estimated figure of the whole population of Karachi..did they tell you the truth?
 * Haider 19:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody is disputing that Kabul, Kandahar, Peshawar and Quetta are predominantly Pashtun speaking cities. In Karachi there are estimated to be nearly 3 million Pashtuns in 2006. If you compare the populations of Kabul, Kandahar, Peshawar and Quetta all of them have less than 3 million population.


 * Pakistan's population is 162.4 million (not including 4 million Afghan refugees) in 2005 and over 97% are Muslims. That percentage is equivalent to 157.5 million Muslims ( 161.5 million if you add Afghan refugees) in Pakistan. In India, 1,080,264,388 population has 13.43% Muslim population that calculates to 145,079,507. Please read Islam in India.


 * Siddiqui 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Obvious comment a significant proportion of the Pashtuns in Karachi are transitory as such census figures may not be accurate at any one time. I do know the 1998 census was disputed because of the lack of raw information that could be verified. --Zak 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahsud Dance & awans
I've deleted the Awans as a pashtun tribe..I think it is a matter of fact that while some awans were and are pashto speaking both ethnically and linguistically they cant be considered pashtuns. I've added a link to Khattak dance under culture and I hope whenI get the time I will add another one for Attan ..if someone else can add it though feel free...is there any plan to add sections on handicrafts peculiar to the pashtun region of food?--Zak 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Buskashi
I have added Buskashi as a cultural sport. The game has been playing for hundreds of years on the back of the horses, but on the other hand, the game has been criticizing for few years as well. ~ Thanks ~  Haider 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * perhaps a separate section is needed on cultural sports and cuisine? --Zak 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Stock - Derogatory
A great page overall, but we all must remember that this not a page where one is to impose one's own opinion, just the facts, therefore, I have omitted that Pashtuns are of "Iranian Stock" as that is, first, not completely true, second, derogatory, and third, the Pashtuns are a group to themselves, not anyones "stock". Thank you very much.69.201.139.98 07:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Source? SouthernComfort 07:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pashtun / Iranian People
Per research in New York, as discussed before, they may have the same origins, but Pashtuns, are not "mainly Iranian people". They are a distinct group, with many similar lineages, with perhaps the same origins, but are definitely not "mainly Iranian People". Talk to you all soon!


 * Please provide a source. This page already lists quite a number of sources which may be consulted - until then, please do not remove information. SouthernComfort 07:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Semantics
Very broad terms are used in the definitions on the Pashtuns page. The 2 main issues here are that much of the information on this page is incorrect, and the semantics and wording of the information as stated is very misleading. Pashtuns may share lineages with "Iranian people", but they are not of "Iranian stock". I hope you understand what is being relayed to you here in English. Pashtuns are not "mainly Iranian people". That is a statement that is factually and demographically incorrect just from reading the rest of the page on Pashtuns let alone basic scholarship. I will update you further soon. If any of the English terms are too complicated, please let me know and I will explain them further.

Corrections and source
So far, the corrections that have been implemented were simply found through sources already listed. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/displaced.php I will gather further information to make further corrections. Being of Iranian descent may be wonderful, but I hope noone is taking this personally. We should all want the facts to be stated on Wikipedia, not opinions. Thank you very much.


 * That doesn't say anything about Pashtuns ethnic origins. SouthernComfort 08:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph
I don't have much time for this but.. Read the first paragraph. The first paragraph states whom Afghans draw their lineage from and nowhere does it state "Iranian ", "Iranian stock" etc. There seems to be a hint of someone trying to impose an opinion, rather than stating factual evidence here! This page needs serious revision, but I will leave this to scholars after further discussion with them and discussion with Wikipedia about incorrect information and non-primary sources being used. The source for debunking the Bani-Israel theory is from a website with no primary sources to back it up. Anyone can find a source to prove anything, but to have proper primary sources is what is always needed. This page needs primary sources immediately as many of the sources used are a joke. References are used for some of the page, ok in some instances, but in between some of the facts stated, are statements passed on as fact that have no substantive sources to back them up, such as the statement that Pashtuns "are Iranian People". What?!!!

Also to say, Iranian this, and Iranian that, on the Pashtun page is really misleading, as Iran as it is known today, was called Persia until 1935. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html Please stop imposing a view that everything on this page derives from something Iranian. Even if one accepted many of the false statements on this page, many would say that they would be Persian not Iranian as they pre-date 1935. It is not proper to mislead people with weak sources and false statements. According to Wikipedia Resolving Disputes, one should limit their bias in the writings on Wikipedia. This does not seem to be the case here.


 * I have heard about the theoreis of Bani Israel, Greeks ancestory, Sythians, very old race, Heterogenous and Aryans .. Now a branch of Persian people or stock! Definitley you would say now Pashto is the sister or younger brother of Persian language!
 * Pashuns are itself a very old race, as already been mentioned by Rigved, Osta and Herodotus, Pashutns have their own history, tradition and culture, do they speak Persian language or do they have any similarity as far as their code of honor concerned? The compilation of Rigved is said to be 14 to 1600 years BC, it means that the Pashtuns would have been united in different tribes atleast 500 years before been mentioned, that's why Rigved or Osta had mentioned them with their own name, because creation of any nation is not an overnight game!!
 * The Persians have their own history of glory, they should have been discussed on their page, why trying to relate Pashtuns with Irani stock? Pashtuns have their own glorious Past, present and future also! Bellew had mentioned them with Rajputs, still we can see the Rajputs with their own heritage and culture, why people amongst them had became Pashtuns, same way Persians have thier way of culture, why a large group of scattered people had chosen their way of life .. yes I would admit that some of the irani tribes would have intermigled with pashtuns and acceted their code of honor to become Pashtuns, pure races are rear now even in remote corners of the icee world.
 * Don't you think the tribes, nations came into bieng through evolutionary period or Persians have fables or folklores of any of their some lost tribes, which now they are trying to find them out in Pashtuns? I don't know what Persians had done, when Alexander invaded their country but I know, what the people of Paktivas (Pakhtunkhwa-land of Pashtuns) had shown esp the tribes of Swat and adjacent areas, when women came forward to help their husbands and brothers against Alexander, they the tribes of "as" and "aspa" of Pashto, they had chosen the death of honor rather than the lives of slaves. Finally my request is, not to thrust your great Persian history on Pashtuns!    Haider 21:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Haider!
I am glad to see that someone agrees with keeping bias out of the pages of Wikipedia and just stating the facts. Please keep up the good work!

There is evidence all over Wikipedia of strategically placed phrases about "Iranian" this and "Iranian" that. This must be stopped as most of the statements are not true and are only placed in various pages to attempt to impose their brainwashing view. Facts should be used not made up thoughts of what you would like to be true. Good job Haider!!


 * considering the recorded history of pashtuns stretches so far back..one can claim a common migratory origin..and that Afghanistan..and likewise Mighal India was influenced culturally by Iranians..but to claim of iranian stock is pushing it..I don't think there is sufficient DNA evidence to confirm that either..

--Zak 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zak, Pashtun is like a garden to me and it's tribes/clans are like flowers to make this garden so glorious, attractive and marvellous. The main problem with us was the authors, who have used their arrows just to pleased the kings or authoritative persons of their times, that's why we have been keep sweeping those rubbles, otherwise the ancient history is so brihgt and visible. Thank you also ZAK ! Haider 20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zak!
Not only is it pushing it, but I have researched most of this page, and almost all the misleading material comes from one website, which I will not promote, that imposes this arrogant idea that everything is of Iranian descent, come on, let's get real here!!! Yes, you are correct, the people of that region are very closely related in many aspects, but as you said, don't push it, with incorrect fact pushing here and on other sites where they feel they can hide these little sentences on "Iranian" this and "Iranian" that. Good job Zak!! --- ''Iranic or Iranian is an appellation used for culturally related people. The term shouldn't be confused with modern Iran. Tajiks, Kurds, Persians, Zazas, Baluchis, etc. are all Iranic or Iranians. That doesn't mean they descended from Persians. Persian itself is an Iranian language.

Zakk, Iranian or Iranic is a cultrolinguistic term than having anything to do with race.

And before you people so enthusiastically object to the term Iranian used for Pashtuns, please consult studies by George Morgenstierne, Wilheim Griegar, Darmister, etc. who decisively classified Pashto to be an iranian language.''

Mohammad Naeem


 * Mr Naeem the usage of the term Iranic I can understand but while there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest an iranic influence..and there is no harm in citing that evidence as one point of view..the reality is a lot more research needs to be done..the implication of what a some people have said was implying much more influence then is realistic..while I have utmost respect for iranian culture ..a few writers points of view does not a link make..I can cite equal number of references declaring the jewish link..ideally this article should incorporate all accepted and researched points of view..but not jump beyond that..unrelated issue..I hope everyone thinks my edit on separating buzkashi as a cultural sport under a separate heading makes that section flow better.

Regards --Zak 20:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From the historial point of view, in different period of time, who had invaded Pashtunkhwa, would have been assilimated in Pashtuns for example, Iranis, Maqdoonis, Hindi greeks, Bactrians greeks, saka, koshanis and aptalaits or white huns. That dosn't makes any difference because all the above mentioned people have been absorbed by the great Pashtuns! ~ Thanks ~    Haider 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone. The Pashtuns have avoided intermarriage historically and managed to be more isolated than other groups around them, but their language and genetic studies do link them mostly to Iranic peoples or Iranian peoples. This does not mean Iranian in the modern sense or the Persians necessarily either, but a larger West Eurasian group. The Pashtuns probably absorbed some small elements of invaders, while remaining mostly an Eastern Iranic population with their own distinct Iranic tongue that is probably as old as Persian. Most observors who have been to the region confirm the striking similarities between the Pashtuns and the other Iranic peoples from the Kurds to the Baloch. Clearly, the Iranian languages spoken have also meant, at least, some common ancestry as well.  Tombseye 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, which are you calling small elements? You have already mentions that Pashtuns are the people who avoided intermarriages and managed to be more isolated than other groups around .. these are the great real compliments for Pashtuns by your own self, and answer itself for your above written parapraph. It clearly signifies that the tribes or people, who have blended with Pashtuns, is case of hundreds and thousands of years, certainly they would have adopted the language and culture, otherwise what stopped them to make new relatives, because still we can observe nowadays even, that Pashtuns avoiding intermarriages with other non Pashtuns. Most probably the most major element were Iranis, bieng absobed by the Pashtuns.
 * Kurds and Baloch have their distinct culture and language, any similarity dosn't prove anything, there are countless groups around the world who have dazzling similarities in some cases but language and culture counts. There are so many words of Pashto, which we can explore in Persian language, that would not be suitable for any Pashtun to mention Persian language as a branch or younger sister etc, of Pashto language.   Haider 18:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Morphology does make many academics conclude the relationship between Pashtuns and other Iranic peoples in a way similar to the Punjabis being an Indo-Aryan people. Basically, the term Iranian people or Iranic people should refer to a language relationship as both Persian and Pashto have a common ancestry that is the most recent in terms of language families. In other words, when looking outside the Pashtun group, their closest relatives are other Iranian peoples for the most part. More research and genetic studies will be required before we can make any conclusive arguments though I'd say. Tombseye 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have signify it earlier, resemblence of words and some similarities are so common not even amongst Pashtuns and Persians but also around the world .. Indo-European family would have been more than one hundred languages but some of them are dead, the symbols of these languages have just left in books. Osta including zand, pahelvi(persent farsi) and Sunskrit including Hindi, and other indian spoken languages. Pashto, latin, greek, german, english, russian and so many others .. linguistics have further divided this big family of Indo European Aryan languages into so many sections. Few authors have their opinion that Pashto is one from eastern irani languages and consider it as a language of "sakas". But it is not related to sunskrit not irani or sakas, because under the lights of historical evidence Pashto was already persent before the arrivals of sakas and creation of zand so certainly Pashtun had their own language, they wouldn't be language less, after all they would have been using a language for chat and this is the language which had became famous like sunskrit and zand, so that way Pashto itself a permanent language amongst the bigger family of indo/european/aryans, with it's distinctive presence, in other words, the roots of Pasto is in the first aryan language, which the aryan people had been speeking earliest in their country. Pashto is the accurate language, which should have been spoken among the other big languages around. Pashto is a very ancient tongue cannot by doubted. That's all what I had to say! Above paragraph has been written with the help of a book "Pashtun" by Syed Bahadur Shah Zafer Kaka Khel with some personal observations.
 * Certainly new research with the help of logical (accepted to mind) history would be always appreciated.    Haider 19:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, keep in mind one thing, the vast majority of universities, academics, and Pashtun academics as well all agree that Pashto is Iranian language that is related to the other Iranian languages. We aren't here to do original research, but to simply reiterate what is known. Perhaps some future research will convey that Pashto is not an Iranic language, but I doubt it. Pecularities that some languages have does not preclude their links to more ancient languages or cultural drift etc. Thus, the Iranian peoples linkage is the correct designation until mainstream academia claims otherwise (along the lines of the IndoAryan, Germanic, Slavic, Latin groups etc.). Tombseye 18:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What to keep in mind and what not, that's I know better! Kindly do not impose your views like this, it dosn't looks good! What majority of universities have been teaching, that's a seperate issue, the question is, what are we gaining from the universities and collection of books that we have? You mentions new research, how it is possible, if we will be keep following the old illogical stuff? Wouldn't it be great, if we compare so many books and read in between the lines to make our own personal view, don't you think that will be your first step for a new research or we will have to sit in any laboratory, a place where drugs and chemicals are manufacured? What is "original research" under your vision, well that's you know best but I will not go here just for "known"!


 * See No original research. --Khoikhoi 20:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * These are the views under reliable books and personal observations!   Haider 20:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you name some of these books? --Khoikhoi 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the great Pashto has any relation with Irani languages. Pashto is as older as any other language around could be! Take care! Haider 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ethnologue classies Pashto as an Iranian language. --Khoikhoi 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and Encyclopedia Britannica and Americana both classify Pashto as an Iranian language as well. What you personally believe is not relevant. You're backing original research that is not supported by the academic community. We might as well put back that the Pashtuns are a lost tribe of Israel too since many want to believe that. Everyone wants certain things to be true or that 'feel' right, but that's not what an encyclopedia is about. It's about informing based upon what is known, not what is speculated by a few people. Irani is not what we mean here anyway. Iranian is something that pre-dates the Persians and the modern state of Iran. All these people such as the Sakas, Scythians, Sarmatians, Kurds, Baluchis, Persians, etc. speak languages that can be traced back to a parent Iranian language that then split off. The US Library of Congress also places Pashto as an Iranian language, since we're talking sources. Unless you have something better than your gut feeling and obscure books, your position is not a tenable one. Tombseye 15:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I know the majority of anthropologists and authors have mentioned Pashto as one the eastern irani languages and some believes it from the semetic family also esp of Ebrani. Major Raverty in his book "Pashto Grammer" had difined Pashto as an aryan language and then mentions it with the family of Semetic languages, he has also tried to prove through pronunciation with arabic and semetic language, further stated Pashto is a different language, very possible, it would born from Zand Pahelvi and Ebrani. Mr William Johns, first considered Pashto as closer to Semetic languages. Many other authors rejected the theory of Pashto as a Semetic language, like Mr Bernard Darwin wrote in 1863, that Pashto is not related to Ebrani or Kuldani, as far as grammer and pronuciation concern, rejected any relation of the whole semetic family. Mr Beckster in 1848 had also rejected the theory of sami language. Professor Adlung mentions Pashto as a different permenant language and Mr Devere, M. Schele, in a book "Outlines of Comprarative philology 1853" also mentiones that Pashto has for itself revealed one special and latest way but also in favour to consider Pashto is related to Irani language. Darwin in his book "history of afghans", has his opinion that Pashtuns are not related to Iranis and Indians but they are permanent nation amongst the great indians and iranis. John Melcom has also mentioned in a book "History of Persia", that Pashtuns are different from Iranis and Indians.
 * Pashto is a regular permenant language amongst the different aryans family, which has been already accepted by the some authors like Mr garisson, Mr tromp, Mr James darmester, Mr bellew, Mr margestren, Mr Surparsi samaks, Mr alwadson, Mr frezier tetler, Dr Shahidullah and Dr Abdulrahim of Karachi university. Pashto is as old aryan language as any language around. If Zand, and other european aryan languages originated from earliest aryan language then certainly Pashto should have been the first aryan language among others, as all the other aryan languages flourished through evolutionary period, so reckoning Pashto as a family language of Sunskrit or Zand etc would be wrong. For readers benefit see a book "Pashtun" by Syed Bahadur Shah Zafer Kaka Khel. We can place and reckoned Pashto as from an Aryan family, not from the family of the Irani or Sunskrit languages although all o f these languages belong to aryan family of languages. Remember one thing if something is "known" to you or in your country, it is not certain those "knowns" are also well known in our country so these are my known! There might be some spelling mistakes because majority of stuff, I have is in Urudu. Haider 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is you're talking about an old theory that has largely not been accepted by the majority of linguists. There are lots of theories out there, some trying to link Burushaski with Basque or Georgian with Basque. Some think Finnish is related to Japanese, I mean there are a lot of possibilities, but Pashto is still believed to be an Iranian language by the vast majority of linguists. Until that changes, this does constitute original research, BUT feel free to add information to the article that some researchers believe that Pashto is not an Iranian language, but is part of its unique branch of the Indo-Iranian family. I don't have a problem with adding such info., but I do have a problem with removing what is commonly accepted information such as the placement of Pashto as an Iranian language by the mainstream. Is that a fair compromise? Tombseye 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Infact there are different theories about the many races around the world but I think great Pashtuns are the leading one due to the authors esp of the Mughal period and few of earlier, who have deliberately imposed illogical theories just tried to pleased the Kings of their times etc. I have already admitted that majority of the anthropologist consider Pashto as an estern irani language but that couldn't be accepted, because the authors like Zafer Kaka Khel (Tamgha-i-Imtiaz - A highly ranked official medal for his classical researched work} has strongly opposed to accept Pashto as a part of irani language but also gave us some logical evidence to prove Pashto as same as other irani or sunskrit languages are! That was a good debate between us, I would appreciate it!  Haider 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a compromise I have removed the Eastern Iranian ethnic designation and changed the info. in the info. box to reflect related peoples only. The Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians are both extinct parent language groups, while the Pashtuns, according to genetic tests and history are related to their neighbors such as the Tajiks, Dards, and Punjabi Pathans. Let me clarify something here as well, Iranian language does not mean Farsi or Dari, it means that Pashto could be an ancient Iranian language as old or older than Farsi as it is traced back to an ancient branch of the Aryans of the Proto-Iranian type. The term Iranian is somewhat arbitrary and gained popular use because it's synonymous with Aryan and the modern state of Iran added more confusion by changing the name of the country from Persia to Iran. Obviously the name is associated with IRan and Persians just as Germanic is associated with Germany, BUT this does not mean that modern German is the oldest or parent language of the family either. These are just terms to describe RELATED languages such as Indo-European and Indo-Iranian. that's all. It does not mean that Pashto is derived from Persian, on the contrary most linguists think it comes from some old Scythian tongue. In fact, Pashto might be as old as Avestan or Sanskrit, but still within the Iranian subfamily of languages. That's really what i meant here. Tombseye 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Appreciated ! Nations and Cultures developed through evolution - All of the Aryans didn't migrate all at once, they moved from their ancient centers in form of larger groups and scattered in different parts of the massive area, there is some possiblity to accept that their lanuguage would have be the same and creation of new languages would have took start later, so remember to one thing that their original form or model on which examples are based were Aryans group of languages, not iranis, which itself an aryan language. Haider 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tanolis ARE NOT Pashtun
My greetings to all Pashtun editors and brothers. I believe I can shed some light on the Tanoli issue. I am a Janjua researcher. I have fully referenced sources that confirm that Tanolis are in NO WAY Pashtun and also have links with the last Nawab of Amb, Nawab Salahuddin Khan who is a Hindwal Tanoli (Pindwal and Pulowal are 2 sub branches of Tanoli) and he has also confirmed this from his own family ancestral records, without dispute and actually much support. HOWEVER they have taken many wives from Pashtun clans and the like (which is obviously a localised practice wherever any peoples settled they practised this) however a certian user from this page 202.83.173.117, who is a Tanoli in denial is vandalising my own Janjua page and also it appears your Pashtun page. I have huge respect for my Pashtun friends and my links to Hazara and Amb confirm the same as the editors above have also stated (as well as a ton of books from the colonial and modern era)

Can something be done about this guy as he's clearly illiterate to debate on the subject (his TYPO errors alone evidence this) and based on 2 or 3 poorly written (not to mention mysterious as I can NOT locate these books anywhere here in UK or Pakistan). He is challenging over 10 reputable and fully sourced books. He's also vandalising his Tanoli page implying Pashtun descendancy which is POV pushing and denial as it is, he's also vandalising the Janjua page.

His opinion that the 'residents of Tanawal are all known as Tanolis' alone shows poor argument. In that case Hari Singh Nalwa the Governor of the Sikhs was also a Tanoli? I think not.

Ahmed Shah Abdali had allied with Kahuta Janjua's too and they also allied with the Tanolis to fight along side against the Marathas, so this strong detail denial is very bad in my opinion by this Tanoli denier. My own end I can provide these sources off the top of my head confirming that Tanolis aren't Pashtun in origin;
 * 1) Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab by Lepel H.Griffin (1910, ii, p254)
 * 2) Gazetteer of the North-Western Frontier Province p138
 * 3) Journal of Central Asia Vol XII, (July 1990), Prof.Ahmed Hasan Dani, July, 1990 p79
 * 4) Tehreek e Janjua written by Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua
 * 5) Chronicles of Early Janjuas by Dr Hussain Khan

Failing this by him, his own Chief Nawab Salahuddin Khan (the last Nawab of Amb and head of all Tanolis) is prepared to clarify this for him if he attends his residence, that I CAN GUARANTEE without hesitation.

Please feel free to contact me regarding this reference. -- Raja 18:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr Raja,

Thank you for your input you seem to have researched the topic well, and if there are no objections I think the deletion of the tanolis from the list will be accepetable. Your particpation is appreciated. --Zak 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Changes
Please refer to our conversations with Zak and Haider on April, 1st. We decided on some permanent changes and yet, some people once again are trying to push it with all this "Iranian' this and "Iranian" that. Come on people, give it up and let's state the facts here, not your own agenda. Enough with the Pushy "Iranian" comments. STOP IT!!! Tombseye and SouthernComfort keep reverting the article back to the pushy subliminal messaging with "Iranian" this and "Iranian" that, strategically placed throughout the page. ZAK and HAIDER agree with me according to April 1st! We all agreed on it, Khoikkhoi (sorry if I mispelled it), also agreed to it earlier this month. Stop reverting back to older versions. Thank you!!


 * I am sure you are absolutely right!   Haider 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

''It is unfortunate that senseless tampering with the original article, which portrayed Pashtuns to be an East Iranian people based on credible sources, has destroyed its academic value. On the top of this, someone has also added the baseless information that there are 3 millions Pashtuns in Karachi and 1 million in Lahore.''

''All this smacks of political propaganda and a deliberate attempt to spread confusion about Pashtuns. Probably, the motives are to detach Pashtuns from their East Iranian roots and have them assimilated in the "Indic" mold to the east of Indus.''

''I request Tombseye to revert the article to what it was before April 1, 2006, when someone criticised it for its citing the Pashtuns's Iranian heritage. The East Iranian theory about Pashtuns is based on credible and authentic research and not psuedohistories like those by Bahadar Shah Zafar Kakakhel and other conventional "historians". Modern ethnography is not speculations; it draws conclusions from such academic fields like linguistics, archeology, anthropology, and genetic sciences. Pashto has been conclusively classified East Iranian as a result of the extensive 20th and 19th-Century research in Pashto linguistics by prominent linguists like Morgenstierne and others. A disputation of this point will be tantamout to a ridiculous disputation of this research without any argument. Physical anthropology also supports Pashtuns's East Iranian heritage. As for as DNA studies, exhaustive and broader studies, especially based on representative gene-sampling, are yet to be conducted''

''The dominent, authentic, and credible view about the origin of Pashtuns, as for as the latest and more scientific research is concerned, is that Pashtuns are an East Iranian people. This has been concluded, recorded, and accepted by majority of academicians and sources of academic information (like encyclopedia Britinica, Encarta, etc.). Until we have arguments, we should not dispute it.''

''I will request Tombseye to restore the article to the form as before the phrase "East Iranian" was expunged from it. Please, don't let the people, whose authenticity and motives can not be ascertained, to tamper with it. If you like, I can give you the email of a contemporary Pashtun philologist that has extensively written on Pashto language and Pashtun ethnogenisis.''

Thank you.

Mohammad Naeem


 * Since Tombseye is not here at the moment, I decided to to do it. I also added a tag for the information about Pashtuns living in Karachi and Lahore. Let me know if there are any other problems with the article. Cheers, Khoikhoi 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

''Thank you KhoiKhoi! I will let you know if there was any problem.''

Mohammad Naeem

Your opinion is well noted
You may say that the Pashtuns are descendants of Eastern Iranians, but do not say that they are "mainly of Eastern Iranian stock". That is derogatory! I will change it to that they are descendants of Eastern Iranians.

'''The people here who are trying to make the Estren Iranian origin of Pashtuns disputed are probably non-Pashtuns doing all this out of political motivation and ethnic biase. I strongly request Tombseye and Khoikhoi to restore the original article as authored by Tombseye and expunge the politically motivated comments like "Pashtuns are in parts descendant from Eastren Iranians" and include the academically correct statement i.e. "Pashtuns are primarily of Eastren Iranian Stock.". '''

'''I also request the administrators and moderators and the editors, Tombseye and Khoikhoi, not to allow the inclusion of material in the article on whims. Further, these people must be warned not to modify the article without sound proof. '''

Azad Khan.

Fact versus opinion
It is one thing to mention the Pashtuns part descendants from eastern Iranians, but another to say that "Pashtuns are mainly eastern Iranian stock". That is completely derogatory. STOP changing it back to this phrase. Wikipedia is becoming a joke if it allows such writing to take place. Please do not allow this to take place.

''What is derogatory is your malicious and purposeful tamporing with the facts to reject credible scientific research and incorporate politically-motivated propaganda. Further evidence of your malicious intentions is that you have included Abbasin and Nuristan in an article, which is concerned only with Pashtuns as a people and Pashtuns ethnicity and has nothing to do with politics. Another proof of this is that you've tried to spur controversy regarding the political division of Pashtuns by making twisted inferences from demographic data.'' ''I further request editors to exclude political topics like Abbasin and Nuristan from the list of links and references. This article should be about Pashtun Culture, Society, and ethnic origin.'' ''I consider Tombseye and Khoikhoi authorized to do this and wouldn't do this myself because that would be intellectual dishonesty. I further request that everyone shouldn't be allowed to make changes to the main article and if someone has to say something or want to provide information should do it here in the discussion part with source and citation of supporting material.''

Mohammad Naeem

Please see discussion between Khoikhoi and Souther Comfort on April 1st
They may edit it now but take a look at Khoikhoi's discussion page, they discuss the "Iranian Stock" derogatory comment.Very interesting and works toward my point that there is an agenda on Wikipedia that is not healthy. They knew that that using the word "stock" couldn't be backed up at that time, but did not change it. Furthermore, when someone went on to take it off, they were the first to issue "warnings" and put the "Iranian Stock" comment back on. Real sneaky if you ask me. Many of us, such as Haider, Zak etc. think that this agenda should be stopped and only the facts stated. Is this the way Wikipedia works? I hope not. I will address the rampant Iranian comments throughout many ethnic pages with Wikipedia soon. Like I said before, it is one thing to mention a partial descendants from eastern Iranian / Persian people, but another to call a whole peoples, mainly Pashtuns, "stock". That is inappropriate and derogatory. Furthermore, mentioning it at once is fine, but to make it a focal point of every section of the entire page is also pushy, not necessary and not useful. Stop it. I will change stock to descendants and hope that you understand. Enough with the warnings. Noone is tampering with the page, they are trying to fix the page to be factual not an endorsement of the greater agenda by some! Just take a look at SouthernComfort and Khoikhoi's discussion pages, and you will see what I mean! They will probably edit there pages now!!!

I had nothing to do with Abbasin and Nuristan!
Mr. Naeem: YOU HAVE THE WRONG GUY MY FRIEND!! I had nothing to do with that part and have no clue as to what you are talking about!!

I am just dealing with the "Iranian Stock" part of the page and the pushiness of Khoikhoi and Southerncomfort on many ethnic pages with Iranian descent talk as the main focal point. Mentioning that Pashtuns are partially of eastern Iranian descent is true, and is great but do not make it the focal point. Use the word descent not "stock".

So please calm down and find the person you are addresssing before you attack me. I had nothing to do with your NURISTAN etc argument, part of the page.


 * please use the signature key on the edit list so we know who is who..it is the 2nd key from the right when editing..thanks, I have marked abasin and nuristan for deletion as they should instead be part of the pakhtunistan/pakhtunkhwa threads --Zak 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye took out "eastern Iranian Stock"
I see that Tombseye took out the derogatory "stock" wording which I agree with. Seems that everyone is fine with it now, but when I took it out, I got all sorts of warnings etc!! Proves my point exactly!!


 * Well I decided to reword it, in part due to the controversy, and also because the info box explains the related peoples, in this case obviously the Pashtuns have relationships with people who live among them and around them to some degree. Also, I think Iranian peoples is increasingly being viewed as some sort of 'race' which was not my intent as I think it's more important as a language group with some common ancestral links and cultural and historical ties. I think one difference might be the long explanation involved and the other being that I'm the one who wrote a lot of this article including that opening. Regardless, hopefully people will be okay with the changes. Tombseye 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone please explain how wikipedia works to Zmmz
Zmmz Try to understand that the information that you so deperately want to push onto everyone is in the information box. Calm down. Please stop trying to be the Iranian information police of Wikipedia. Others can contribute also, as your view of how everything should appear on the page is not consistent with the majority here!

I`m sorry, how is it not necessary to state in the intro of an article the lineage of the certain ethnic group that the article is about, in an encylopedia of all places? The infobox mention is rather irrelevant, and not a good excuse to erase this fact from the intro. Plus, this section does not belong here; perhaps it belongs in my talk page. And, your statement is very offensive, please take time to review the Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not,No personal attacks policies. Try to sign in, and stick to discussing the issues, rather than the persons per se. Thank you and Good Luck Zmmz 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Pashtuns are itself as old as any other nations around
If some hirtorians/authors/anthropoligists mentions Pashtuns as an eastern iranian people, that's okay, and that "view" could take place on the main page but that shouldn't take more than one or two lines because this is the most weakest theory amongst Pashtuns itself ! I need to tell the contributors, those who are taking keen interest to show Pashtuns as an Irani stock, should just compare the massive culture differences, atleast, or go and submitt your so-called precious comments on great irani page, don't try to make it over controvercial, nevertheless I have already displayed few of the authors, who had opposed this view so strongly! Cha lala Pathan krama - Cha lala Afghan krama - Uss - Cha lala Iran krama - Alaka lewaniya za de Haryan krama !! Haider 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Haider, the theory that Pashtuns are an East Iranian people is the most scientific theory about Pashtun origin based on linguistic and anthropological studies/evidences contrary to other theories which are just wild speculations and fantastic fairy tales. So please, now that Pashtun ethnography has taken proper course, don't push it back to speculative histography by making irrational proclaimations that "Pashtuns are an old race of its own" and that "Pashtuns are great". This is an encyclopedia article and it should relect the dominent academic view about Pashtun origin instead of folkloric myths.

Further, in detail every ethnic group has a distinct culture but on general level, different ethnic groups align with each other to form super groups with the same cultural, linguistic, and ethnic roots. There really was a proto-Iranian language, ethnicity, and culture. Anthropology, linguistics, and even social structure align Pashtuns with other Iranian people. This is a fact that cannot be refuted with mere sermises and conjectures.

I further inform the editors that Pashtun population in Karachi was 1.1 millions according to 1998 census of Pakistan. That might have swelled to at most 1.3-1.4 millions by now. I request the editors to exclude the statement like "Pashtuns are twice the number of Pashtuns in Afghanistan" because, first proper population census of Afghanistan are yet to be held and second this statement would unnecessarily propogate the impression that "Pashtuns are now well integrated in one state or the other". Moreover, we already have have Pashtun populations in various countries mentioned in the side bar.

Further, I couldn't understand this term "Punjabi Pathan"? Why coin such term in the first place?

--203.128.5.6 07:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Mohammad Naeem


 * Most seintific or most rediculous theory to relate Pashtuns with the eastern irani people! People even in the whole world have some resemblences in some respect but that dosn't provide any prove! What make herodotus to mention Pashtuns as distinct people even he described the dresses and weapons of Pactyans, while he had already mentioned Persian people? If they wern't of different cultures, he would have never described these two distintive people seperately, now even righved and Persian Osta itself mentions as Pakat and Bagad signifying the same people of the same relevent geoghrapical area!! I have already given some of the names of intillectuals, who had opposed this view strongly !, so remember to one thing that their original form or model on which examples are based were Aryans group of people, not iranis, which itself were aryan people. If you believe the most weakest thoery, than it's upto you, I couldn't do any thing, but kindly let it be a view don't try to make it a hard pushy stuff like a thrust !! There were so many major tribes were bieng absorbed by Pashtuns and one of them were the people who had been living on the eastern boundries of the ancient Persia and those were today's great iranis ! Panjabi Pathans or Panjabi Pashtuns? Well far better as compare to Bhopali pathans of India! Can you mention any single folklore or fable stories etc, which is bieng used by me as a reference at any stage ... I have been here with wikipedia for more than a year and well aware about dos and donts ! As far as history of reality concerned, let me say it again Pashtuns are great!!  Haider 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello all. Mr. Naeem is quite correct in his assessment and I support all of the statements he's made. The Pashtuns are, by most accounts, descendents, at least in part, of the Proto-Iranians, a group that split off into the Pashtuns, Kurds, Persians, etc. Out of these larger groups we later have the Tajiks (who adopt Persian at a later date from invaders from Fars), Baluchis (an offshoot of the Kurds), the Ossetes (a holdover of the old Scythian peoples and Alans of the east who lived in southern Russia), and some remnants of the Soghdians in Central Asia. Now, these groups have also drifted in nearly 3000 years so obviously that has to be taken into account, but also have had some common histories (with the exception of the Ossetes). Also, Haider I can't help but notice that you keep saying 'Iranis' as if in reference to the Iranians of modern Iran (or even the ancient Persians) and I have to tell you that is NOT what is meant by Eastern Iranians as they are derived from a Proto-Iranian peoples who are the parent group of all the Iranian speaking peoples. MOdern Iran took the name as its own, but Iranian people does not equal Iran or Persia, but INCLUDES them. Also, we can mainly surmise that the Pashtuns are related to the people they live around, as genetic tests are showing their interaction has been the greatest with their immediate neighbors.  The Punjabi Pathans are a group that the Encyclopedia Brittannica refers to as a transitional group, meaning they often speak their Hindko language and Pashto and show a great deal mixing with Pashtuns with whom they've intermarried over the centuries. They are the eastern group that is related to the Pashtuns and are an overlapping group with the Punjabis of Pakistan. Similarly, many of the Durrani have intermarried with Tajiks and northern Pashtuns sometimes with Dardic groups. At any rate, Punjabi Pathans, in my view, are a transitional group and as they often speak Pashto in addition to Hindko, they do qualify as a related people even if they are Pashtuns in the fullest sense as in speakers of Pashto only.  At any rate, I'd like to emphasize that as an encyclopedia, Mr. Naeem is correct, we aren't here to glorify anyone. The Pashtuns are a fascinating people, but my intent when editing is to relate information, good or bad (as that is a matter of opinion).  I also agree that saying that there are twice as many Pashtuns in Pakistan as Afghanistan is pointless as it doesn't tell us anything that we can't read in the info. box.  Once a census is done in Afghanistan, then we'll know exactly their demographics. Tombseye 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I know what you meant, what I am trying to say that connecting Pashtuns to the eastern Irani people is incorrect, yes it is quite understandable if we reckoned them as a part of Aryan group of family, while Iranis group of people were being described seperatley in the history, which itself were Aryans because the exodus of Aryans from their ancient centers were not bieng taken at one time, it must have took a long period of time, as according to some historians, they had been migrating in larger groups and scattered in different parts of the massive area, so in that case their would have been bright chances that there languages and culture, if not compelete, but were of distinctive amongst one another. Anyway I have my own views under the lights of some authors, you have your own make up of mind and definetly that would be also according to some historians, but just trying to imposing one theory like this would be consider an extra push! Take care! Haider 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Thanks to Munshi Ahmad Jan a Pashtun scholar! Haider 20:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The eastern Iranians are, in essence Proto-Pashtuns as the language is derived from Middle Iranian. The main thing is that the majority of academics support this view and that's what wikipedia does. What you're talking about is original research and not universally accepted. It's a viable 'alternative' perspective though, but not a mainstream one. Thanks. Tombseye 03:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I had already asked you that what is original research but coudn't revieved my answer, obviously few authors as I have mintioned - will you reckoned them as doing original research?? nevertheless some of them were old also ! Thanks   Haider 18:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to debate
The following remarks were added recently to Talk:Pashtun/Archive 3. I have moved them here to the current talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[Begin moved remarks]

My greetings to all Pashtun editors and brothers. I believe I can shed some light on the Tanoli issue. I am a Janjua researcher. I have fully referenced sources that confirm that Tanolis are in NO WAY Pashtun and also have links with the last Nawab of Amb, Nawab Salahuddin Khan who is a Hindwal Tanoli (Pindwal and Pulowal are 2 sub branches of Tanoli) and he has also confirmed this from his own family ancestral records, without dispute and actually much support. HOWEVER they have taken many wives from Pashtun clans and the like (which is obviously a localised practice wherever any peoples settled they practised this) however a certian user from this page 202.83.173.117, who is a Tanoli in denial is vandalising my own Janjua page and also it appears your Pashtun page. I have huge respect for my Pashtun friends and my links to Hazara and Amb confirm the same as the editors above, Insaf and Haider alike that Tanolis are clearly not Pashtun.

Can something be done about this guy as he's clearly illiterate to debate on the subject (his TYPO errors alone evidence this) and based on 2 or 3 poorly written (not to mention mysterious as I can locate these books anywhere here in UK or Pakistan) he is challenging over 10 reputable and fully sourced books. He's also vandalising his Tanoli page implying Pashtun descendancy which is POV pushing and denial as it is, he's also vandalising the Janjua page.

His opinion that the residents of Tanawal are all known as Tanolis alone shows poor argument. In that case Hari Singh Nalwa the Governor of the Sikhs was also a Tanoli? I think not.

Mutyal's are not Pashtun in origin as far as I am aware and indeed many Indian Mutyal's confirm this. They allege Rajput ancestry actually.

Ahmed Shah Abdali had allied with Kahuta Janjua's too and they also allied with the Tanolis to fight along side against the Marathas, so this strong detail denial is very bad in my opinion by this Tanoli denier.

My own end I can provide these sources off the top of my head confirming this;


 * 1) Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab by Lepel H.Griffin (1910, ii, p254)
 * 2) Gazetteer of the North-Western Frontier Province p138
 * 3) Journal of Central Asia Vol XII, (July 1990), Prof.Ahmed Hasan Dani, July, 1990 p79
 * 4) Tehreek e Janjua written by Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua
 * 5) Chronicles of Early Janjuas by Dr Hussain Khan

Failing this by him, his own Chief Nawab Salahuddin Khan (the last Nawab of Amb) is prepared to clarify this for him if he attends his residence, that I CAN GUARANTEE without hesitation.

Please feel free to contact me regarding this reference. --Raja 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[End moved remarks]


 * Hello Jmabel ! It's nice to see you around, kindly do visit Pashtuns without any debate sometimes! Thanks in advance ~  Haider 21:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns are Aryanic, not Iranic
Pashtuns in ethno terms are not Iranic, by saying Iranic is invalid since the term Iran/Iranic didn't exist, nor is it true to the Aryanic people and their origins. Iranic is strongly related and associated with the nation of Iran, that is where the confusion and disagreements comes up by using the term Iranic. Iran is a Persian perversion of the term Aryan or Aryana. It shouldn't be used for all Aryanic people, only for Persians since it is their perversion and invention. Sync2k5 00:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's actually now an academic term similar in usage to 'Germanic' which applies to the English, Dutch etc. It's just a word regarding the oldest usage of a self referential term that is known to have been used by the Proto-Iranians, 'Aryan'. We can't say Aryanic because that constitutes original research that is not substantiated by the majority of academics who do use the term Iranian or Iranic. Tombseye 19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Aryanic is rather broad. It denotes both Indo-Aryan and Iranian peoples. Pashtuns are known to be specifically of Iranic background and genetically closer to other Iranian peoples as opposed to Indo-Aryan peoples. The Indo-Iranian categorization, unlike it's equivalent categorizations of Germanic and Celtic, is really diverse and it's sub branches of Iranic and Indo-Aryan are somewhat branches unto themselves. -Afghan Historian 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)]]


 * Aryanic is suppose to be broad where Iranic is too direct and specific. The Pashtun are not directly related to the Iranic nations or therefore the nation of Iran from where the word is derived from by the very ~intelligent~ Western scholars. Regardless of what the term Iranic means when it comes to Western academics, generally it is associated by majority with Iran and therefore Persians which Pashtuns are not. The denotation 'Pashtun' is a blessing of the Persians or Parsio-Afghans. Generally majority of the Pashtun refer to each other as Pakhtuns specifically the tribes that reside closely on both sides of the EVIL LINE. The more you go towards the East they become Iranic, and the more you go towards the West they become Indo-Aryan. The central tribes remain unique, clear evidence is in their tribal structure, customs, and titles. They can not be classified as of IRANIC STOCK. On the other hand Aryanic doesn’t rob them from their individualism. Sync2k5 03:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Aryanic is not a common academic usage term. Look, wikipedia is not a place for original research as giving the Pashtuns a separate category within the Aryan family constitutes (like Iranian peoples, Dards, Nuristanis etc.). We have to conform to mainstream academia and linguistic, archaeological, and other evidence which has been put forth. We can't give in to every whim and alternative view and elevate it to automatic viability simply because some people find it agreeable. In addition, Iranic stock is really just another term for a variety of West Eurasian peoples who also speak Iranian languages. It is not meant to rob anyone of 'individuality' and again we aren't here to please people. This creates a form of nationalist bias and POV if the whole point is to make some ethnic group seem more special or whatever. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia.Tombseye 03:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add more in details but that would be like creating divisions amongst my people and dividing them based on each tribe history. But do note that Wikipedia like I have said is fun & play. If you are not pleasing one then you are pleasing the other. Real encyclopedias don't get sued and are not put to shame because of their research like Wiki has been many times. Real encyclopedia's dont mention half of the C.R.A.P here about the Pashtuns on Wiki. Note it. Sync2k5 05:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pashtunes are of Iranic stock, and where do you get all these new info from? All these frivolous disputes, insitance on dismembering an etnic group etc., needs authoritative academic sources please. Zmmz 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you speak Pashto? Have you lived amongst Pashtuns? Which Pashtun tribe are you from? - now don't tell me you "READ", Hitler also wrote, and was a real good writer. Sync2k5 05:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Some body has deleted stuff as I wrote in reply one who is so keen taking great interest to prove Pashtuns as from Iranis!! Now I would love to ask him whether do he ever visited Pashtuns, certainly "Not" because otherwise he would have never thrust his views on Pashtuns or do he had any of his lost people to find out in Pashtuns .. He should have read atleast what I have wrote about few of the authors on the same page, who have shown their strong views against this theory! Pashtuns are not Iranic but Aryans, it's also an academic view amongst few of the other theories in our country. I am not here to please Iranis etc aswell ! Take care   Haider 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What is East Iranian???? East Iranian is a language group not an ethnic origin. I see no evidence provided for the claim. I corrected it. Before reverting provide a source that pashtuns are of East Iranian origin. It looks very strange to me. I never heard about such an East Iranian origin. Do you know who are of Iranian origin? The origins of the Pashtun are unclear. Pashtun tradition asserts that they are descended from Afghana, grandson of King Saul of Israel, though most scholars believe it more likely that they arose from an intermingling of ancient Aryans from the north or west with subsequent invaders and not from this so-called Eastern Iran or eastern Iranian. Just tell me what is this East Iranian. an ethnic origin? geographical term? political entity? religious sect? what?


 * It's hard to believe that Pashtuns have anything to do with Iranics (not Aryanic). Iranics even though in great numbers and with advanced cultures were always over ran by invaders. Their nations destroyed and their women divided. On the other hand the Pashtuns have defended their own against all invaders, and never invaded, never over run. The recent love for Iranics amongst some disturbed individuals could be because of the bold remarks of the today Iranian leader. Just like one time Osama was making these remarks some distrubed individuals were relating us to Khalid bin Walid, the Al-Mehdi armies, the lost sons who will liberate Palestine. They had books, scholars, sayings of the Prophet everything ready to make us the decendeds of the deserts of Arabia. As soon as the American bombs dropped, everything changed. When American bombs do drop on Iran, this love for Iranics and Iranism will change over night. Sync2k5 11:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Eastern Iranian is the same as saying of Aryan origin, but it is specific to the language spoken. We aren't here to conduct original research but to reiterate mainstream academia. Also, you make the mistake of equating Iranian people with Iran or Iranism. The Persians are a sub-group of the Proto-Iranians themselves, an early branch of the Aryans. I can't help but think that you do not quite understand the meanings of these terms that are not the same as the modern state of Iran. Thus, we can't make up words like Aryanic which just means Proto-Indo-Iranian in a larger context. Tombseye 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not just say of Aryan origin? Because they lived East of Iran? Yet you say Iranic has nothing to do with the nation of Iran? The whole purpose of the term Iranic is to give a strange importance to IRAN no matter what you say. As for Western scholars who come up with their strange definitions for every living creature for example AMERICAS, Iranic is just another mumbo jumbo created by the ignorant colonists. Are all the Urdu speakers of Iranic origins, because if Pashto is of Iranic origin due to the influence of Parsio-Afghans then definitely all Urdu speakers should be as well including those in India and Bangladesh. They should be because speaking Iranic languages make you Iranic. Pashto is as old as any other Iranic language, yet the significance is given to IRANIC only. Where does this term Iranic come from if not from the historical nation of Iran? Are Germans Iranic like the rest of the Caucasoid? Are the 25% of Iranian people who claim descent from the families of the Prophet of Islam Iranic? Sync2k5 23:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I once heard of one of my friends that recently there is a critisim towards this inaccurate language classification or at least its naming.

So you say Pashtun nation are often called Iranian? Those who are descendants of Iranians now all speak Persian or dialects of Persian. (Except Hazara) Pashtuns are Indo-European because they are not sons of Parthians, Persians... http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9374656?query=Herder&ct=


 * Because Iranic refers also to the Pashto language which is related to the other Iranian languages. Iran is a variant of the term Aryan, but Aryan also includes Indo-Aryan and Nuristani which Pashto is not directly related as it is with the Iranian languages. It's a variant term. Indo-European is a not an ethnic term in the modern sense since when the various tribes separated they moved and drifted away and mixed with native peoples they encountered and then later invasions took place. Classification based upon language is often the main criteria for Eurasia and Africa and thus the usage of the term Iranian peoples which is not meant to be specific to modern Iran, which changed its name from Persia to Iran (Land of the Aryans) in the 20th century. The Pashtuns have just as much right to the name as the Persians is my main point. Tombseye 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

and this is not a good source since it has no article for Pashtuns. Pashtuns are an Afghanistani people http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pashtun


 * Yet WIKI pedia is? shall we post news articles about Wiki pedia to elaborate on it source of information? Who is Tombseye? Your qualifications please, ur origins please? We Pashtuns should at least know who is writing our History for us. Tombseye, you just don't get it. Iran is a Persian perverstion. The people classified as IRANIC deserves another classfication then IRANIC. IRAN IRANIC PERSIAN, the people who came up with these terms and are living under them are still fighting over which is correct so why associate this garbage to the Pashtuns? Sync2k5 23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)



The pic was made by me in an artistic way, and frankly Hamid Karzai had the honour of being placed right in the center. Please assume good faith first and talk to others about your concerns, as opposed to accuse others who are not aware of accusations towards them. There is no need to bring political extremism here. And, honestly, if you are concerned, you can start by stating in the intro that Pashtun people are Iranian people, and not to hide it. Thank youZmmz 01:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a PhD. student studying towards a degree in political science and historiography. I think you are making this more personal than anything else. It's just a word. I think the guy who made the picture was not trying to insult anyone, but just thought that was the only picture he could use. I don't control what other people decide to do. I wrote this article because I have been to Peshawar and the Northwest Frontier province and I've known many Pashtuns, including a good friend of mine, and I decided to fix and write much of the article since when I found it there was little more than a paragraph stub. You are getting bothered by a word that is used in academia. It's not my choice of words and the main link between larger ethnic groups is often language. Thus, English people are considered a type of Germanic people, although they don't think of themselves as Germans which is different. The same applies here. The Pashtuns aren't Iranian, but an Iranian people on the same level as all the others. It's an academic term. You keep interpreting it to mean something much more. So what are your qualifications? Tombseye 00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides Peshawar which other parts did you visit? How long where you there? My qualification is that I am a Pashtun, born and raised in the heartland of the Pashtun qawm. That should be enough. Sync2k5 01:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I went to Attock, Nowshera, the Khyber Pass, Mardan, and Takht i Bahi (the Buddhist ruins). Being born in some region doesn't give one an automatic understanding from a historical or academic view. There are countless Americans who don't know US history or even where all the states are. Similarly, I know from having been to the NWFP that many people are illiterate and rely upon oral tradition as to their origins. Nothing wrong with that, but people often believe what they want to believe rather than what can be proven. My friend, who is of Pashtun descent, was not what I'd call an expert either. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and anyone can write whatever they want, but I do try to give my sources up front. I wrote the references section for example and most of what I've written is derived from the list there in addition to other books I didn't list. All of this aside, we need to work at a concensus view as wikipedia does not promote 'new research' or speculative views so much as established academic perspectives. that's primarily what we are going by. Tombseye 16:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like you went on a picnic. I would like to remind you that we are not talking about Americans here, and like most Americans you rely too much on your books and Western intelligence. You pick up a book and you know the in and outs of the region? Most of these books are nothing but a view point of the author. Like the royal British pet, Olaf Caroe. Unlike most Pashtuns I don’t rely on oral traditions. Education doesn’t come easy in those parts, since I have acquired education I can’t afford to be superstitious. Attock, Mardan, Nowshera, I won’t comment on those places because then we’ll be stuck in lineages and age old division wars. You need to go further down to study and understand Pashtuns. Sync2k5 19:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I love this line "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and anyone can write whatever they want, but I do try to give my sources up front." <--- I know anyone can write whatever they want. The worst part is that since this site is so highly searchible, completely made search engine friendly, a lot of web suffers end up on this dump then real authentic Pedias. Sync2k5 19:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)