Talk:Zunbils

Questionable information, unsourced opinion?
The lede sentence, "Zunbil, also written as Zhunbil, was a pre-Islamic Turkic dynasty who controlled south of the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan from the 7th century until they were conquered by the Muslim Arabs in the 7th century followed by the Saffarids in 870 AD.", which is unsourced. The statement "Turkic dynasty", would appear to be an incorrect statement per Andre Wink, Al-Hind, the Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest, 11th-13th Centuries, p75, "....as already mentioned, like the Zunbils of Zabul they were not Turks but descendants of a branch of the Chionite-Hephthalites or 'White Huns'...". According to Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World, Volume 1, p115, "The Zunbils of the early Islamic period and the Kabulshahs were almost certainly epigoni of the southern-Hephthalite rulers of Zabul." --Defensor Ursa 18:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't really study their ethnic background as I was focusing on their religion and other facts. I knew that much that they were not Hindus or Indian. Therefore, I took "Turkic" out until it is determined.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I could not find anything that said they were Buddhist. Maybe the IP would be so gracious to give us a source.??? --Defensor Ursa 06:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources?!
An article that is more or less entirely based on the misleading and pseudo-scientific works of Abdul Hay Habibi is nothing else but a resignation of Wikipedia ... --Lysozym (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: there are excellent sources available and there is no need to include the nonsense of Habibi. See the German version of the article. --Lysozym (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing sourced information
Hello, please avoid removing sourced and quoted information, especially reverting without any comment should be avoided. If you have any concerns or issues regarding anything in the article talk about them here and try to find consensus first. --Xerxes931 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, all of the information which was added was also sourced, there isn't much to discuss in this issue its information taken out of good sources, not much to debate. --Xerxes931 (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does the source say what you are claiming? Zakaria1978 (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to pinge users if you want them to be notified. I also asked you to not revert before having met consensus here. All of the sources are added, you can simply read through them. The first section about the merchantry deity is taken from a German source: H. Miyakawa und A. Kollautz: Ein Dokument zum Fernhandel zwischen Byzanz und China zur Zeit Theophylakts In: Byzantinische Zeitschrift, S. 14 (Anhang). De Gruyter Januar 1984. ISSN 1868-9027 on the 14th page, it's literally just translated information from it. The second sourced information you removed is from Shōshin Kuwayama, the likely most reliable scholar on this particular subject because of his superior knowledge of the Chinese sources, paper: "Historical Notes on Kāpiśī and Kābul in the Sixth-Eighth Centuries", which literally starts with talking about the differences between Zhuna and Surya, just read through it instead of reverting. https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/48769/1/34%281%29_25.pdf. The third part which is making a connection towards the Zoroastrian God Zurvan is again just quoting from the paper "Etymology of Zhunbil and Identity of the Rulers of Kabul and Zabul in Seventh -Ninth Centuries C.E (https://www.academia.edu/38605352/Etymology_of_Zhunbil_and_Identity_of_the_Rulers_of_Kabul_and_Zabul_in_Seventh_-Ninth_Centuries_C.E), which is linked and you could have just looked up the quote on the paper. The last edit is a correction of the article talking about Solar deities and linking a Hindu God where I fixed it to link towards the article for _Solar Deities_ and not towards *a* Hindu Solar deity. The information was all added before, they can be looked up instead of reverting, it's not very hard. Please refrain from further reverting when sources for all information have been added, continuing your disruptive reverts may have consequences. If you have any further issue with the sources or anything in the article talk about them here.

--Xerxes931 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you are making a stretch, I also gave you academic link here which is saying a clear link between them and ancient Hindus. Those other edit seem to be there for a long time. But, you are using spelling as a matter to redirect the article. You are changing them to something very different without convicing anyone here. Not just me. Zakaria1978 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "In any case, the cult of Zun was primarily Hindu, not Buddhist or Zoroastrian" Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early medieval India and the expansion of Islam, 7th-11th centuries, page 118, André Wink. Zakaria1978 (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Zakaria1978 Ah finally you have started to use this page, good. Look I am not here to teach anyone, I provide the sources you can read into them.First: Zunbils being Sun worshippers has been debunked by Shōshin Kuwayama almost 20 years ago, I added a footnote and the source, what's your issue with that and how exactly is your link towards André Winks book in contrast to this? Go on point by point please. Second: The connection towards the Zoroastrian God of time Zurvan is made by the paper which I have linked, its literally just a quote from there, you only have to click on the link, not hard. Third: In what way is André Winks work a basis for reverting my edits? I literally have kept his quote in the article, however it's interesting to note that you are reading the quote("In any case, the cult of Zun was primarily Hindu, not Buddhist or Zoroastrian") only till that part and not only one sentence further where André Wink states them to still have affinities with pre-Buddhist Tibetan practices and Zoroastrianism. This basically proves your lack of knowledge on this subject and that you have not even read further into the source which you are using yourself to debunk me and it also smells of odd nationalistic views which you are trying to push by shortening quotes and manipulating them to be in accordance with your POV.--Xerxes931 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible descendants
So I think a possible descendants heading should be added to it. According to Gulman sher afridi, zun is derived from zruvan or a much older word zruvan pati whose corrupted form could be sarbani. The corruption could be as a result of Dialects of where "z" and "s" sound are used interchangeably. The southern sarabani tribes like Kasi still pronounce it a "zorbani". Ozgharzai (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Foundation date
The article claims the dynasty/kingdom was founded in 680 but the Muslim conquests of Afghanistan and Abdur Rahman bin Samara say it already existed beofre that and also controlled Kabul.

I read the translation of Tabari to check more on this and it says it was the Kabul Shah who broke away from the Rutbil in 680 to form his kingdom. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the general account in reliable secondary sources is that the Zunbils were founded by Tegin Shah's brother or nephew, who split and founded the Zunbils south of Turk Shahi territory. I wouldn't be surprised is later Muslim historians sometimes used the name "Rutbil" as a general term for all the Turks in the area. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that but I haven't found any primary source claiming otherwise. Tabari was alive during time of both the dynasties, he is not a later historian. And he clearly distinguished them. I highly doubt this is a mistake. As far as I know he provides the most signifcant account of Arab wars against the two dynasties. The source used at that article "Ancient Pakistan" seems to be reliable too afaik. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * A good review of the sources here . पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)