Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 3

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

Pakhtunwali

May I ask a question of the folks invoking Pakhtunwali—as politely as possible? Some folks have been invoking Pakhtunwali, yet remaining anonymous. Do you think it is worthy of/in conformance with that code of honor to engage in an interaction like this and not reveal your identity?

Secondly, is there/shouldn't there be an article on Pakhtunwali?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:40, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

The word Afghan, Sprenger, "some people"

The following was anonymously deleted:

Some people claim that the word "Afghan" appears in the inscriptions of Shahpur I at Naghsh-e Rostam which names Goundifer Abgan Rismaund. Also, according to Sprenger a similar name 'Apakan' occurs as the designation of the Sassanian Emperor Shahpur III.

The deletion comment was, "'some people claim' is not enough to allow a clear bullshit to get in an article. what kind of logic is this 'some people cliam' business?"

I'd agree that "some people claim" isn't worth much. I'd really like to see a citation on this before restoring. As for Aloys Sprenger, can someone either come up with a direct citation of Sprenger, or at least some reliable document that quotes him as saying this? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

jambel please give reference to your text

you added

"Prior to this period no other book mentions that Afghans are descended from Jewish tribes"

can you tell your references for this statement?

Zain 21:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not mine, I just restored it because it was deleted without comment. I've now communicated with the anon who deleted it. It sounds like he has earlier references and will provide them, which is fine by me. This is a much-vandalized article, so as a matter of process I restore unexplained deletions. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I can't understand why this page is vandalized? Any reason?

Zain 21:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Constant battles between a cultural and a patrilineal definition of Pashtun. I do my best to make sure the article continues to embrace both. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:41, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also, much back-and-forth over how much of this article shoudl be dedicated to the theory that the Pashtun are descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. My own take would be to give that about three paragraphs here and a main article elsewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:57, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well it is easy to solve by using 'cite your refrences'. And with the claim you can tell who is making this claim. Any way I have detailed examples with my personal observations. I'll like them to put their views on talk where I can give them examples.

Second they can give a full seperate article of ancestory. There are several claims but jewish claim is most known/believed. It is the only claim used in encarta!.

Zain 23:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mostly agree about citations, but no amount of citation tells us how much space to give to what, what deserves a separate article, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Gibberish"

I cant beleive the gibberish, and totally unscienific mumbo jumbo written here about the whence came the pashuns. An Eastern Iranian people of Central Asia writen in the encyclopedia as desended from some "lost tribes of Israel"??? The ariticle is as hilarious as it is an insult to academia. Omer Khan omerlivesOmerlives 04:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's gibberish, but I also don't like the way it's presented in the article. However, I lack the expertise to respond to it.

As far as I can tell, what we have here is a good accounting of something that many of the Pashtun believe about their own origins, and solid documentation that this belief was shared by many 19th-century British and that there are still some non-Pashtun today who agree. The citations appear to be good, and they do demonstrate (just about exactly) that much. What is missing, and it will require someone with knowledge about the Pashtun which I lack, is a comparably solid set of citations demonstrating that this is now a minority opinion among anthropologists.

I had deleted earlier half-baked material related to the "Israelite origin" theory, as had some others. However, this material seems good enough that it at least mostly belongs here. I don't think it's "gibberish" at all, but I do think that without the counter-view -- now dominant except among the Pashtun themselves -- also being presented, it is misleading. I, for one, would welcome someone presenting that counter-view. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tanoli a Pathan Caste

Tanoli belong to Dara Tanawal in Afghaniztan. They are pure pathans. Infact Tanoli is not a caste. Tanawal is the name of area by the virtue of which they are called tanolis. Tanolis originally consist of following castes Mughals Suleman Khel Bagiyal Rans Malik Matyal Bansyal These all are pathan tribes who are resident of Tanawal hence called Tanolis

That is ridiculous, that means that the Saiyids who reside in Tanawal are also Tanoli too? Please talk sense. {{subst:unsigned|Supersaiyan|26 June 2006} This remark was made after this talk page was archived.

Genetics

Is there any citation for the recent anonymous contribution about genetics? If not, it probably shouldn't be in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Untenable historicity

As a student of anthropology, i am quite taken aback and, quite frankly, disappointed at the assertions made in the main article introducing the Pashtuns/Pakhtuns, concerning the historic origins of the Pashtun people. While it is a well-known fact that in their own cultural lore, the Pashtun regard themselves as descendants of Jacob - Bani Israil - it is (or should be) equally well-known that this is not supported by any evidence of history or physical anthropology. The Pashtuns are not a semitic people: like the Baloch, they are an eastern Iranian people (i would say "Aryan" as it is accurate in this context). "Iranian", here, refers not to the citizens of the Republic of Iran, but to the numerous ethnicities that speak (or have historically spoken) the various languages and dialects that make up the Iranian sub-branch of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages. This makes the Pashtuns and the Baloch related to other people sharing the same linguistic heritage, which would certainly include most of the population of Iran, but also other people outside, and to the west of Iran, such as the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey, or the Ossetians of Georgia and Russia in the Caucasus. They are NOT related to the Afro-Asiatic (a.k.a "Hamito-Semitic") speaking people of the Middle & Near East and North Africa, which includes the original Hebrew people and the Arabs.

Certainly, a corpus of traditional Pashtun folk literature exists that contends that the Pashtuns are the lost tribes of the Jewish Diaspora. Many early Western "Orientalists" also bought into this view. But please understand, all of this harks back to a time when the sciences of paleo- and physical anthropology were in their infancy. Lacking the benefit of an understanding of the peopling of the earth, the only recourse available to early commentators and contemporaries of, say Olaf Caroe, were the traditional folklore and/or scriptures of various people.

Adhering doggedly to such views now would be quite at par with the mindset: Ancient Egyptians and Mesoamericans both had pyramids... hence they must have been the same people... and they came from Atlantis!

Kamran Saeed | Talk .

Kamran, I agree with almost all you said. I myself am a student double majoring in bio and anthro and have taken increasing interst in demography, history, linguistics and historical linguistics. I wish I had more time to write/correct articles for the sake of academia and pursuit of truth in knowledge.

One thing worth mentionig is that ARYAN today in almost ANY context is a misnomer or atleast politically incorrct. If referring to the language family than indo-european is more acurate as it has nothing to do with race, origin or political claim. Ofcourse, I hope fortunately most people are educated and informed enough to know that use of ARYAN as a race is total hogwash and myth. One may speak of a Urheimat or proto indoeuropean population which most philoligist, linguists and archaelogists locate anywhere from Anatolia, caucuses to north of blacksea and even to the east of Caspian. But that has little or no bearing on the use of the word ARYAN itself which is a modern political psuedo construction. The racial ELEMENTS and features of the proto indoeuropean peoples is a topic of another discussion and one unsettled even today. Probably it was a amalgam of near eastern races of Asia Minor in the neolithic age like most of the other populations of the ancient world.

This leaves using the word ARYAN to refer to people who atleast in some historical context referred to themselves as such. Hence many times the meta sub-family of indo-european which includes modern langauges such as Farsi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Pashto, Kurdish, Ossetic, Marathi, Gujarati etc are referred to as the ARYAN family. However, the sound cognate of this word is aslo found in other IE sub families such as Celtic and proto-Greek vocabulary. Hence, even for this purpose the use of INDO_IRANIAN langauge family is more appropriate. Coming to the even further sub division of this meta Indo_Iranian entity, The Sanskrit derived branch is referred to as Indo_Aryan but more recently as Indic....which ever one suits th fancy of the researcher.

Yes Iranian as a linguistic title has absolutely nothing to do with the Republic of Iran. Perhaps modern Iran is not even central to the discussion when referring to IRANIAN ethno-linguistic genesis in ancient times at all! Unfortunately politics, ethnocentrism, personal ghosts, hatred and fear engulf such discussions if those who control the discussion themselves belong to the ethnicity under question and overshadows the true esssence of scholarship: pursuit of the truth with HONEST attempts to overcome one's prejudices.

omerlivesOmerlives 04:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Population

"The total population of the group" was recently, anonymously modified from 42 million to 35 million, without citation. I have no reason to think one uncited estimate is any more accurate than another. Does someone have a citable estimate? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Spin Khan Ghalji

Hazara, through ages, has remained a permanent part of Pakhtunkhwa. Some people, due to their superfluous information, think that the inhabitants of Hazara are hindko speaking but the fact is Majority of them are pashtuns and speak pashto as thier mother tongue.In this paper, I intend to put before the readers the basic information and historical facts on the topic. Hazara, since long, has been inhabited by Pukhtuns. This area is known as Hazara. The word Hazara means good place. Its root is Hozar; Ho stands for good and Zar for place. The word zar denotes the same meaning composites like Gulzar (the place of flowers), Marghuzar (the place of birds), Lalazar (the place of tulips.) A well known Pashto poet, Hameed Baba, says: Da Bagram Da Lalazar Bulbulan War'a Da Hameed Khushgoyayae Kr'l Khamosh. [All the nightingales of the Lalazar of Bagram, Were hushed by the melodies of Hameed.] The land of Hazara remains green even in the summer. The area of Chaj, adjacent to it, is famous for reed (naloona) and thickets (darge). Both of these things are used in making winnowing fan and folding bamboo curtains. Pashto words chaj means winnowing fan and checki stands for folding bamboo curtain. The recent history of Hazara shows that Gadana (jadoon tribe) live on the major portion of this land. This tribe consists of two sections, named after Salar and Mansoor, both of them being brothers. The descendents of Salar live in the western parts having the notable place of Abbottabad and mansoor with the adjacent areas. Gadana or Jadoon, the major racial part of Pukhtuns, live near the area of the Yousafzai and share their pleasures and pains. In addition to Salar and Mansoor, other Pakhtun tribes like those of Tareens, Swati and Mashwanis are also living in Hazara. Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan belonged to the Tareen tribe. Many Pashto poets, like Hussain Ahmad and Ahmad Gul, belonged to the Pakhtun tribes of Hazara. A collection of poetry of Hussain of Paklae has been published in Peshawar. James Darmsteter, a French orientalist, had collected poetry of those poets living in Hazara, with the help of Maulvi Ismail and others, and published them under the title Da Pakhtunkhwa HaaroBahaar. This collection has a variety of forms like Charbeta and Ghazal. The book also contains odes on the gallant struggles of the Pukhtuns against the Sikhs and Britishers for the defense of their mother land. Deshan khel which is a clan of Swati tribe also live within the parts of Hazara.They belong to those tribes which had migrated from Swat to Hazara when the Yousafzai occupied their land. Deshan khel were then living in Swat. Swati is the biggest land owning Tribe in the region. Some Dalazak also moved to Hazara after a series of unsuccessful clashes with the Yousafzai who had come down from Kabul. Dalazak, descendent of Kodi, belong to the Karlan group of the Pakhtun tribes. It is evident from the history of Hazara that it is the land of the Pukhtuns. As Jahangiris(subsection of Swatis) dynasty of Swati tribe was from Jalal Abad to Jehlum. Swati ,Dalazak, Tareen, Gadana, Mashwani , Tanoli and other Pakhtun tribes, are its original inhabitants. Tordil, a well know hero of a Pakhtun folklore composed during the reign of Mughul emperor Akbar, was portrayed as belonging to Dalazak tribe. He fell in love with a Yousafzai girl. Their romance has been composed by Sardar Khan Khattak. Some people claim that the Hindko is the widely spoken language in Hazara. Thier claim is not correct and is based on wishful guess work. Hindko is spoken only in urban areas. It is not a language, but a dialect of Hindi, as is evident from its very name. The people who claim it to be their language do not belong to this area but had migrated from Hind. Similarly there are Hindkowans or other nonPukhtuns living in other cities of Pakhtunkhwa. In addition to Hindko there are some other regional languages like Gujri, Kohistani and Noori which are spoken in Pakhtunkhwa. But the major and dominant language is Pashto, an ancient language of IndoAryan origin with rich literature and culture. Even today, majority of the rural population of Hazara is speaking Pashto. They have, at least, eight literary associations and have been making remarkable contributions to Pashto language. (anonymously added 18 March 2005)

Overall problems with this page

This page needs an entry in something like Snopes.com to straighten out the bizarro Lost Tribes of Israel thread. The very large section in question beginning "The claim of Afghans to be the Bani Israel (Children of Israel) is not founded on oral tradition alone. It is supported by ancient monuments ..." and ending in "Pashtun Israelite Origins" contains citations to texts before 1900. A sample search on three of the cited authors Bellew, Caroe, Ben-Zvi found not a single citation in a modern refereed journal article.

Links and references to other Lost Tribe/Israelite articles simply give the appearance of legitimate scholarship to what could only kindly be called flights of fantasy.

This is not a matter of view point either. Documenting the state of knowledge from 50, 100, 200, 300 years ago to support some notion is not a form of legitimate research. It should instead bring up big RED FLAGS.

See Kamran's comment above.

--Germsteel 09:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the theory has little basis in fact. Quite possibly it belongs in an article of its own (much as we do with, for example, various conspiracy theories about 9/11). However, it should certainly not simply be deleted. This was clearly someone's very careful research, and the theory, even if discredited, is an encyclopedic topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tanoli removed again

The Tanoli's are NOT a Pashtun tribe. Any Pashtun will tell you that. Look in any PROPERLY RESEARCHED book on the Pashtuns and you will find out.

IMPORTANT: As you may have noticed a number of websites have started using the information we have in Wikipedia.

What this means is that it is EXTREMELY important for references to be incorporated and for the information to CORRECT, otherwise the reputation that this site is "anyone's message board" will spread, and the hard work by some contributers will be wasted - and that would be a shame. My references for Tanolis NOT being Pashtun are (as well as common knowlwedge):

The Hazara Gazetteer by JD Watson 1907 The Pathans by Olaf Caroe (and references within) Pukhtun Society and Economy by Prof Akbar S Ahmed Notes on Afghanistan by Raverty

I can give others if need be.

Insaaf.

Perhaps we need another section to this article explicitly listing those tribes that are not Pashtun in terms of patrilineal descent, but who live in the same region and are culturally similar? It might head off some edit wars. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

GREAT IDEA!

- Insaaf

Don't Deny this universal fact (Tanoli are pashtun)

I can also refer you a few books which will lead you to the fact that tanolis are pathans UPANAN 01437

Al-Afghan Tanoli by Ghulam Nabi Khan
History of Hazara    Sher Bahadur Khan Panni
The Constitution revolution in Frontier   Sir Abbott

and very many more references. I can have a debat on this topic. My tribe is Suleman Khel. I am called tanoli because I belong to the area so called Tanawal. This is illetaracy of our people that they don't wanna understand. Every person who lives in Tanawal whether he is a swati, jadoon or anybody else he will be called tanoli. So Tanoli is not basically a caste. Caste is pathan. Now Sibghat ullah Mujadadi is our prior forefather who belongs to Afghanistan.

Non-encyclopedic material

I cut this recent rambling, POV, and partly first-person material recently added to the article. This is simply not encyclopedic material, but I'm preserving it here in case there is something here worth mining.

According to Tarikh-e-Farishta By Qasim Farishta written in 1560s AD, he mentioned Afghans (I think he was mentioning Pashtuns as Afghans otherwise Pashtuns are much much ancient then the term Afghan)as Qabti Fironni, he took this referrence from a book name Matlaulanwar. He wrote when Hazrat Moosa Allaisalam over come on Firon, majority of Qabtis embraced Moosa's religion but unfortunately a group from Qabtis didn't accept this religion and goes in favour of F

iron to accept him as God, for this sin they had put on exile to move to Hindustan and dwell in Koh e Suleman where they had been known as Afghans. He also revealed that this group Afghans were present with Abraha to attack on Kaba sharif and where they couldn't save themselves from the wrath of God. (In my opinion Pashtun is Pashtun who speaks Pashto and lives in Pakhtunkhwa. How it is possible the name is Afghan and speaks Pashto) ... According to his knolwledge the term Pathan was applied to Afghans because in the times of Muslim kings they were first settled in PATNA so called as Pathans by Indians.

(Craving for new research). We must be thankful to the Greek historian Herodotus who mentioned Pashtuns as Pashtun by their name Pakat and land of the pashtuns as Paktivas(Pashtunkhwa)and we can also see these names of Pashtuns in Righved(Indian) and Osta of Persian religous book, both the books were of 13 to 16 hundred BC, it shows clearly that the Pashtuns were all around in Pakhtunkhwa from more than 3500 years that's why they have mentioned this great nation from their original name.

Reply to Nonencyc

Now it's seperate of what you have done in the main so let readers to decide now, be a nice gentle man to avoid editing anyone's contribution please !

Opinion

While fixing some spelling and grammar in this article I came across this sentence:

(In my opinion Pashtun is Pashtun who speaks Pashto and lives in Pakhtunkhwa. How it is possible the name is Afghan and speaks Pashto) ...

Personal opinions shouldn't be included in articles. I don't really know anything about the subject but the word opinion stuck out. If there's a reference you can provide that'd be great! Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 14:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply Opinion

As far as grammer and spelling mistakes concern I may be a bit weaker but as my point concern it's quite clear and understandable. Articles are usually written for opinion with references and my reference is visible.(Tarikh-e-Farishta) People admire new research .. Thanks ! Haider

Can someone with more patience than I have for it right now try to explain to this anonymous user why the material he keeps adding is not appropriate to Wikipedia? And maybe look through it to see if something in there belongs in that article? I'd be a lot more willing to deal with it if his substantive edits didn't seem to be mixed with what seems to me to be outright vandalism (removal without explanation of accurate material expressing other points of view). -- Jmabel | Talk 23:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

From a quick survey of references, it appears that the source claimed (Qasim Farishta) is generally considered to provide exaggerated, unreliable information. Nor is it clear whether what we have is really what that doubtful source claims, since it seems to be based on the poster's recollection. The intelligibility of the passage is also borderline. With all these problems, I consider this unverifiable material and will remove it again. The point attributed to Herodotus also leaps to a conclusion that he was referring to Pashtuns, without establishing why this connection should be made. More precise statements, preferably quotes from actual documents that we can trace, would be more acceptable. --Michael Snow 00:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone who send me any single example half of dozen names given to one Nation or I would say thrust names on Pashtuns, those are Rohillas, Sulemani, Khurasani, Afghani and Pathani ? Where Pashto has gone and it's speakers Pashtuns? Giving references is something else and to agree with them other ! Transfer of views will be appreciated, this is the best way to gain knowledge. Thanks! Wasim Afridi

What's wrong with Bhopali Pathans if they once migrated from Pakhtunkhwa to Indian places like Patna and Bhopal and become Pathans due to name PATNA ! Haider

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say here. --Michael Snow 17:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the page at the request of Michael Snow and Jmabel as posted on WP:RFP. I've never edited this page before and have little relevant knowledge on the subject. However, it is clear there are differences which need to be addressed without continual edit warring over the content. older≠wiser 02:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I see at least three issues here:
1. The article should distinguish between those tribes that are universally considered Pashtun, and those that are accepted by those who use a definition based on adherence to Pashtunwali or other cultural factors, but not by those who rely strictly on claims of patrilineal descent. Haider keeps removing this, without explaining why.
2. Haider keeps adding clearly unencyclopedic material, some of it even first-person to the article, and making remarks that we are all finding incomprehensible in the talk page.
3. It is quite possible that Haider knows something that belongs in the article. Is there anyone who (whether they agree with him or not) can possibly give what they believe will be a comprehensible summary of what he is saying, so that we can evaluate it on its merits rather than having an edit war?

It wouldn't surprise me if there is more, and that I am missing something. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to make myself clear

Hello to Friends! First of all I just want to say that I am not here to thrust my views on anyone around, the main cause to be here was to gain some knowledge through transfer of views. I have some contribution in Pashtun Tribes to fill those empty boxes by some genuine information, those were totally empty before me, I thought I have done something good but what I have found "Block" as a user but that was I think totally a misunderstanding. I am here because I found Wikipedia a different site without any suppression. One another thing which is very important to tell my Friends about my English, it's a bit weaker so if I write anything wrong and someone find it wrong according to grammer will highly be appreciated to rectify it, by the way I will improve my English very rapidly if I keep continue with Wikipedia and Friends.

Now something about the Pashtuns Tribes. Discrimination has been made in the Pashtuns Tribes list by some of my Friend by giving some references from Hazara Gazetteer 1883-84, in the same book the Tribes has been discussed as Pashtuns through their cultural definition, now my point is, in the same book a Tribe name Jadoon has also been discussed like that so Jadoon should also join down two of them, a Pashtun Tribe Dilazak is facing the same problem , same Shalmanis are there with the same discrimaination. As Shalmani accoriding to a book "encyclopedia of the races by E.D Macligan/H.A Rose" and "Panjab Castes by Denzil Ibbeston" are at the same stage where above mentioned tribes are. In the same book Khilji/Ghalji or Ghalzai are mentioned as Turks Qalchi which means Sword man and they have also adopted the language and traditions of Pashtun so are called Pashtuns, that way they should also join the Swati,Jadoon,Shalmani and Dilazaks. According to Dr Bellew Pashtun Tribe Kharoti he identifies them with the Arachoti of Alaxander's historians and points out that they still live in the ancient Arachosia so it also dosn't prove them from Qais Abdul Rasheed baba. In one another book "Khilji Family by K.S Lal" Khiljis were the sons of Changaiz Khan's son in law Qlaeech Khan so as Swati Tribe has been mentioned as Tajigiree Turks by a Pashtun genius Dr Sher Bahadur Khan Panni in his book "History of Hazara" according to that book those turks adopted the language, culture and triditions of Pashtuns. A book by Abdul Ali Ghorghushti "Pakhtunkhwa" he discussed swatis as from Karlanis. Who put Swatis in Bhittani family tree, a son of Qais Abdul Rasheed (which I don't believe in) so that way Swati is also present in Patrilineal definition. Qais Abdul Rasheed had only three real sons one of them namely Ghorghust,Subatani and Bhittani or batani, the fourth one was a step son found under the karai (pashto word) by which he named as karlani from which the Wazir, Mahsud, Afridi, Khattak, Bangash and Bannuchi etc came into bieng. (For readers benefits a Book "Tareek-e-Khanjahani-Makhzani Afghani by Khwaja niamatullah harvi written in the times when Jahangir was the King of India and lot more books)That means Karlanis were not Pashtuns according to Patrilineal definition, on the other hand they had also adopted the same code of life (Pashtunwali) so are called Pashtuns, because an infant who was found under that karai might be from another race of that region like Turk or Arab etc but defenitely not Pashtun, so they should also join the Tribes who accepted Culture. I can send more tribes those who adopted/accepted the language of Pashtuns if required but a question will definitely come into mind, Who is Pashtun just two or three tribes ? My request is kindly take those discrimaination off of the main page among the Pashtun Tribes even it dosn't looks good also, let it be in a straight one lane alphabetical wise ! I will recommend a book for Pashtun lovers "Pashtun in the mirror of their race by Syed Bahadur shah zafer kaka khel" I was really thinking to stop myself calling as Pashtun due to that so many stories to trace this great Nation but when I read Kaka's book I found myself as a Proud Pashtun. Thanks to all ! Haider 12:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)Haider

Just one sided judgment

I will take it as just one sided decision about the list of Pashtuns Tribes on the main page or someone especial has the authority to make it controversial deliberately accoriding to his liking. I have already tried to make it easy in my previous writings just above through some logical references.

Administrators must have come forward to resolve Pashtun page problem.

Thanks! Haider 12:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)Haider

There are two most prominent views about the Pashtuns, one is patrilineal definition (as from one Progenitor Qais Abhul Rasheed, who was from Bani Israel), while the second one is Cultural definition (Aryans, who created and accepted the same language and Culture through evolutionary period). The topic has been discussing in Pashtun hujras from centuries, belittling among them will be so regretful in the Tribes List of Pashtuns.

Haider 19:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)Haider

Haider, at least two of us with whom you've been battling are administrators. The article as it stands is very clear on the patrilineal vs. the cultural definition of Pashtun, and covers both. One of the edits you've kept making is to obliterate the distinction between which tribes are univerally considered Pashtun and which are considered so only under the patrilineal definition. I presume that this means you come from the "cultural" side of the debate. If you look at the edit history of the article, you will see that prior to us making this distinction, we kept having people from the "patrilineal" side entirely remove, for example, the Swatis. I'm not at all an expert on the topic (although I know experts, and have talked to them) and it's very hard for me to imagine any other appropriate way of handling the list.

As for the addition you keep trying to make: (1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The encyclopedia articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. You simply cannot say, in the article, "I think he was mentioning...", "In my opinion", "Craving for new research", "We must be thankful". (2) It is by no means a given that Herodotus' Pakat are the Pashtun. You don't even give a good citation of a reputable scholar who believes this to be the case. (3) Michael Snow, who usual knows what he's talking about, says that Qasim Farishta is, at best, a controversial source. (4) May I suggest, that since your English is obviously not so great, that instead of trying to write a passage in the article yourself, that you indicate here on the talk page whatever facts you feel are missing from the article, or what in the article you think is false? Please, don't try for florid language, you are only making yourself harder for us to understand. Just the basic facts, stated as simply as you can. Or, if there is some other language in which you feel you can explain this better than in English, tell us what and we can probably get hold of someone to translate. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:40, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

We need to debate

Remarks added to archived page by Raja 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC) moved to current talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 19:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Jmabel

Jmabel, I really I didn't know, I was Battling two of my friends both of them are administrators so it means that's what panishment I am having in return? (Catching in your words)I can't afford any battle against administraters !

I thought I was trying to take part in debate to reach on some concensus concerning this dispute. Will you please take a look as I wrote something regarding this issue in headings "Make myself Clear"? Read that carefully and try to concenterate those references, wrong or right !

Now I will need some of your attention please !

That's what I am reciting from a book name PANJAB CASTES by DENZIL IBBESTON what he wrote about Khiljis! The true Pathans(Pashtun) are apparently of Indian origin. Their language is called Pashto or Pakhto and they call themselves pukhtana or Pakhto speakers; and it is the word of which Pathan is the Indian corruption. They held in the early centuries of our era the whole of the safed koh and Northern Suleman systems, from the Indus to the Helmand and from the sources of the spread into their country and adopted their language and customs; and just as Englishmen, so all who speak the Pakhto tongue came to be included under the name Pathan(Pashtun). Thus the Afghans and Gilzais(Khiljis or Ghaljis) are Pathans(Pashtun) by virtue of their language, though not Pathan origin. The Gilzais (Khiljis) are a race probably of Turkish origin, their name bieng another form of Khichi, the Turkish word for Swordman.

Now in the same book of Mr Denzil Ibeeston about Swatis, Jadoons, Tanolis, Dilazaks and Shalmanis, he wrote almost the same cultural definition as he wrote about Khiljis as assamilated with them in manners, customs and character. These Tribes chiefly occupy the Hazara divison.

Haider 13:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now some more from Mr Denzil Ibbeston in his own words!

The origin and early history of the various tribes which compose the Afhgan nation are much are much disputed by the authorities of wheight who hold very different views. I have in the following sketch followed the account given by Dr. Bellew, as it affords a convenient framework in which to base a discription of those tribes. But it is said to be doubtful wether the distinction which he so strongly insists upon between Pathan proper and Afghan proper really exists or is recognised by the people; While the Jewish origin of any portion of the nation is most uncertain.

In Another Paragragh he wrote It is not certain when the Afghans of Ghor moved down into the Kandhar country where the Gandghari colony was settled; but they probably came as conquerors with the Arab invaders of the 1st century of the Mohammadan aera. They soon settled as the dominant race in their new homes, intermarried with and converted the Gandhari, and adopted their language; and in course of time the two races became fused together into one Nation under the name of Afghans, as distinguished from the neighbouring Pathans(Pashtuns)of whome I shall presently speak, though the original stock of Ghor still called themselves Bani Israil to mark the fact that their origin was distinct from that of their Gandhari kinsmen. It is probable that this tradition of Jewish origin was little more distinct than is the similar tradition of Norman descent which some of our English families still preserve. Thus the Afghan proper includes, firstly the original Afghans of Jewish race whose principal tribes are the Tarin, Abdali and Shirani, and secondly the descendants of the fugitive gandhari , who include the Yusuzai, Mohmand, and other tribes of Peshawar. These latter returned about the first half of the 15th century of our era to their original seat in the Peshawar valley which they had left nearly ten centuries before; while the original Afghans remained in Kandhar, where in the middle of the 18th century they made themeselves rulers of the country since known as Afghanistan, shortly afterwards moved their capital to Kabul. Mr Ibbeston next says; I have said that the Gandhari were one of the four great divisions of the Pactya of Herodotus. The other three nations included under that name were the Aparyte or Afridi, the satragyddae or Khatta, and the Dedicae or Dadi, all alike of Indian origin. Mr Ibbeston says; These three nations constitute the nucleus of the Pathans (Pashtuns) proper. But around this nucleus have collected many tribes of foreign origin, such as Scythic Kakar, Rajput Waziri, and the many tribe of Turk extraction included in the KARLANI section who came in with Sabuktagin and Taimur; and these foreigners have so encroached upon the original territories of the Pactyan nation that the Khattak and Afridi now hold but a small portion of the countries which they once occupied, while the Dadi have been practically absorbed by their Kakar invaders. The whole have now become blended into one nation by long association and intermarriage, the invaders have adopted the PAKHTO LANGUAGE, and all alike have accepted Islam and have invented traditions of common descent which express their present state of association. He wrote about Mashwanis as are descended from a Sayyad Father by a Kakar woman and are allied to Kakar Pathans

These were the lines takes by Mr Denzil Ibbeston as far as you do believe in him! Now how many tribes left to be differentiate among the great Pashtuns? There are still lot to be discussed if something more required. If you don't have much information about Pashtuns then keep yourself away of this topic or read in between the lines with some great interest! Experts here would be more helpful for creative and positive concensus and If some one who don't want even to listen then there's is nothing I can do to solve atleast Pashtun page dispute.

Pashtuns were every where in Pakhtunkhwa even before the times of Hakha Manshi four hundred years BC when Assakenois and Aspasois were the most barbarious tribes of the region like Swat, Bajawat, Dir and Hazara, where they fought against Alexander of Maccedonia so bravely and killed his governers even Alexander himslef has been injured, all of above given names are still in Pakhtunkhwa. Now try to find out who were Pashtuns, it was history which make them united by their language, traditions and customs through evolutionary period.

Haider 14:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am signing all of my previous wrote stuff on this page because I didn't know how to sign when I first came in and join Wikipedia.

Haider 17:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

Here's a suggestion: Why don't have more than one list of Pushtun tribes: one by genetics; one by culture and so on. And also have a section describing "Indian Pathans" (or even "Bhopali Pathans"), explaining their origin, how they have intermarried and also that "Khan" and "Khan Bahadur" were also used as titles given by the British and inherited, etc. and ahve nothing to do with a Paukhtun family background...What say?67.118.240.18 21:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Why don't have more than one list of Pushtun tribes: one by genetics; one by culture." Excuse me, but that is basically what we have, that User:Haider is running roughshod over. There is a list of the tribes that are incontestably considered Pashtun, and a list of the ones that are culturally, but not patrilineally, Pashtun. If there are more distinctions that should be made, I'm open to that, but Haider was collapshing the distinction that is there. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I think you are just trying to gain some more knowledge through me about Pashtuns otherwise there is no need to defferenciate Pashtuns tribes like this ! It's some sort of game for you playing with Pashtun tribes? I think you are not paying any attention in this dispted matter otherwise I would have get my reply, just by saying we have two lits of tribes is not the proper answer as a reliable administrater, what I want is, reply me as I have try to proven something about the various tribes of the Pashtuns on the same page. Just see what Mr Denzil Ibbeston (1847-1908) says about different tribes of Pakhtunkwa(Land of Pashtuns),are they incontestable or contestable since you believe in that?

And please don't come so harsh if someone is trying to solve this dispute by contributing some proposals regarding Bhoplai Pathans also! -Haider 10:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jmbel,I have right now a list of Pashtuns family tree (Shajara) in which I can see a name Swati in Batani family tree, it may be their new research or whatever but I don't believe in that genealogical tree, it is just for you since you do believe in that ? -----Haider 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still there is a message on the main page of Pashtun, "This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page". The question is who will solve these disputes, any Angel or someone do think he is battling with me ? -- Haider 19:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mistake in "Who is Pashtun"

Mistake in "Who is Pashtun" My point about patrilineal defition that Qais Abdul Rasheed had three real sons namely Surbatani, Batani and Ghorghusht, the fourth one was found under karai (Pashto word) from which he had been calling as Karlani, now an infant might be a Turk, Tajik or Arab but definitely not Pashtun because he wasn’t the blood of Qais baba so according to this how come Karlanis which consist of Wazirs, Mahsuds, Khattaks, Afridis and Bangash etc are Patrilineal Pashtuns ? Today we can see Karalanis are much greater Pashtuns as compare to other Pashtuns of Pashtunkhwa (Land of Pashtuns). But in the main page of Pashtun in an article “Who is Pashtun”, writer made an intentional mistake by mentioning Four sons of Qais Abdul Rasheed, where he tried to lead a reader! Now if we take a look about Khiljis (Gilzais) their father was a Turk Prince, he married Bibi Mato, daughter of Sheikh batan (son of Qais baba), how would we consider them as Patrilineal Pashtuns because Khiljis mother was a Pashtun not Father . Every body knows Khiljis are the most greatest among the Pashtuns Tribes.. (For readers benefit , a Book by niamatullah hirvi –“ Tareekh e Khan Jahani – Maghzane”-Afghani written in 17th century). Wazirs, Mahsuds, Afridis, Bangash, Khattaks, Swatis, Khiljis, Jadoons, Dilazaks, Tanolis, Mashwanis and Shalmanis are great Pashtun Tribes and they do not need any sort of certificate from any writer! -- Haider 22:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Haider, that last point is exactly the spirit we have to focus on in writing here. We are not issuing certificates here on who is and isn't Pakhtun. We are trying to document what is out there in the real world. And in my humble opinion, we need to present a complete picture: provide as complete a list as possible and where some or even a majority of people dispute something, to say that on the page. And also explain what other things are out there that either claim to be Pakhtun or have Pakhtun origins--or even can be confused with Pakhtun (like people with the title Khan and Khan Bahadur, for example).—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:45, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC) IFaqeer, you have been mistaken I think, I didn't mentioned you one who is nominating certifcates here to Pashtuns, kindly see what I was taking references from a Book (Tareekhe Khan Jahani - Maghzani Afghani),since someone believe in him but I don't! Niamatullah Hirvi(who was an Afghan) was the author in the reign of Mughal Emperor Jahangir where he was appointed as Events writer by the King and served as Government Civil Servent for some years, due to some reasons he was terminated of his job then he attached himself with an Afghan KhaneJahan Lodhi who was an adopted son of King Jahangir. These were the people who have been honored as with the title of Khans with lands, there were lot numerous who had these titles in Mughals and British Period. -- Haider 12:28, 16 Apr 2005 (U

Jmbel,Mashwanis mother was from Kakar Tribe and father was an Arab that's what we have in some books like Panjab castes by Denzil Ibbeston and some others also, Khiljis father was a Turk and her mother was from Batani tribe. Since the Pashtun lineage traditionally stems from the Father !! Who will believe in it ? What to say Jmbel? According to your criteria Khiljis are in and Mashwanis are out if that then both the Tribes do not deserve even to place them in Pashtuns tribes list! Both the above Tribes are definitely Pashuns without any argument by any means as Khan Roshan Khan described them in his book "History of Pashtuns and it's reality". What left now to resolve disputes? How many tribes left in your list? On the other hand we can see some Pathans in India we know them by their famous name Bhopali Pathans, they claim themselves as Pashtuns, they have lost their body of customs or traditions passed down from generation to generation, language and every thing ! Nobody will reckoned them as Pashtuns by any view cultural or Patrilineal. -- Haider 15:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Culture

There were many glorious civilizations which were once at the zenith of enviable glory, but now they have lost their climax and, there is no trace of their dazzling and gloring cultures and societies. In other words, we may say that the splendour is due to two factors, i.e., an eye on the culture and civilization, and hard struggle for the future. But history is a witness that the former is more important. In the words of Changez Khan, "If you want to crush a nation completely, you can't succeed unless and until you do not crush their culture". This shows the significance of culture. But nowadays, the Pashtoons are turning their eyes from their past. It has even become a great controversy as to who the pashtoons are? To which land they originally belong to, and how did their culture and civilization flourish?

No one can deny the fact that if the nations at the culmination of their splendour and glory forget their glorious culture and civilizations then nothing will save them from sinking into the abyss of miserable calamity and disaster.

Many historians and writers have tried their best to compile books and conduct research in this matter, but very few have been able to find out the truth. According to their research, Pushto is one of the most ancient languages of the world which has been spoken from the Hindukush hills in the south west of Asia to the bank of the River Indus for thousands of years. It is said about the age of this language that it is almost four thousand years old.

How much Culture can play a role to destroy a Nation, we can easily be achieved from above two paragraphs. If we want to help Pashtun nation then we will have to take some keen interest to promote it's Culture and Language. They must think about themselves who have lost their Culture, Language and Identity, what would they call themsleves after one or two generations? -- Thanks Munshi Ahmed Jan -- Haider 16:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marwat

The predecessor or the ancestor of the Marwat was named as Marwat and there is a hill in Katwaz, Afghanistan, which is called Marwati. The Marwat tribe formerly inhabited there, and so they were named Marwat. The word Marwat is derived from Arabic word “Murrawat”, which means compassion, generosity and manliness. This really reflects and interprets the word Marwat on account of their moral values, habits, social contacts and hospitality even to day. In the past, the Aryan Chiefs took oath in the name of the Marwat tribe’s modesty, when they were sworn as leaders of their tribe’s.

The modern Western historians are of the view that all these old names are of geographical importance. For instance, Bait is the center of river Dajla and Farrat, and Haroot and Maroot are the names of two tribes. They were famous in the past for their purity. In the ancient religious books they have been mentioned in literary and allegorical sense. (For readers benefit, Dood-e-Chirag by Dr Syed Chiragh Hussain).

There are lot of disputes to be solved but a healthy debate is required about the two most prominent theories regariding Pashtuns, As we have just read Cultural defintion of the Great Marawats. Pashtun is a Garden and defenders are Tribes. -- Haider 17:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still Blocked Pashtun page

Do anyone think, discussion is on the rise to resolve the disputes on Pashtun main page regarding Tribes list or who will solve these disputes? Do just a man has the authority to block or unblock it without any logical reason, dosn't it hurt the beauty of Wikipedia? Now a time comes that a higher authority will come to solve and unblock that concerning page to let the lovers of wikipedia to edit it with some great references. -- Haider 15:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haider, you have not acknowledged anyone else's concerns about the changes you, as a minority of one, are making to the article. The article is blocked because you were repeatedly editing without seeking consensus; indeed, you were editing in opposition to clear consensus.

I would be perfectly happy to see the page unblocked, but not if it means that you intend to resume (1) removing material describing the existence of views other than your own, and (2) adding unencyclopedic material. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, Infact I was trying to reach at some consensus about Pashtun Tribes list, but not any what I wrote as an article, What I wrote on this page earlier were mostly all about Pashtun Tribes list. I really do admire the friends who have some knowledge utilizing it through their contributions about Pashtuns, they are already been appreciated to take part in healthy discussions. Do you think if the page unblocked I will go and make changes again, definetely not. Basically there are two most famous views about the origin of Pashtuns, one is Cultural and second one is Lineal defintions, which has been discussing in Pashtun Hujras from centuries and that dosn't mean to differentiate Pashtun Tribes like this as it is in Pashtun Tribes list right now. As a contributor I have my right to edit those tribes in alphabetical order with announcements at the same Pashtun talk page. So can you see any dispute even now? As they say (Pashto proverb) Jranda ka de plaar da - Kho pa waar da. (If well belong to someones father even then he will have to wait for his turn). -- Haider 17:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, do I understand that if we open this up, you will not remove the distinction between the list of tribes that are Pashtun by partilineal descent and those who are Pashtun only by a cultural definition? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, You are just making it an issue ! If you or any of my friend want to take part in debate/discussions will be appreciated, so that must be in Pashtun Talk page or otherwise you will have to add so many tribes like Turkish blood Pashtuns, Arabic blood Pashtuns and the step son of Qais baba's tribes etc etc in the Pashtuns Tribes list as far as cultural defintion concern. I think I have some rights also to edit those tribes wihtout any distinction among them. -- Haider 19:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I take it, then, that you will not make such a commitment. In that case, I will continue to request that the page remain protected. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:03, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, It's up to you now but don't you think you are just misusing your authority? There is no need to be positive about Pashtuns but you have no right to make distinction among them! For you a Pashto proverb "Uss Pisho shekha shwa" and another one "Che sa karey haga ba rebey". Kindly try to learn Pashto also atleast to understand these proverbs. One very significant point, you have never tried to answer my replys point to point as I wrote so much tried to resolve this dispute? . Thanks ! -- Haider 22:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No: I'm not just not misusing my authority, I'm not using it. Because I am an active editor in this page, I am not functioning as an administrator on this page. I made my reverts, and the request for page protection, exactly like any other editor could.

And, again, I am not the one "making" the distinction. Clearly, large numbers of Pashtun make a distinction between those who have patrilineal descent from the Pashtun forefathers and those who do not. Frankly, I don't adhere to this distinction, I adhere to the cultural definition, but this is an encyclopedia article, and I (unlike some people) am interested in having it accurately reflect the range of well-documented views held by significant numbers of people. For some time we attempted to maintain a single list, and the result was that that patrilinealists kept coming in and simply deleting tribes such as the Tanoli and Swati whom they don't consider Pashtun. Listing these with a distinction is, as far as I can see, the only way we can get an article that explains both points of view.

Also, please, understand: I don't have a large stake in this. I'm working on this mainly with the goal of a good, evenhanded article. I've been just as persistent about people who are trying to remove the Swati from the article as I am about you trying to suggest that no one makes this distinction.

I don't have final word on this: you can request that the page be unprotected exactly as easily as I can. But as long as it is your intention to abolish the mention of a distinction that a large number of Pashtun clearly make, and as long as you intend to re-insert copy in the article that is in no way encyclopedic and simply expresses your own personal opinions and ramblings, I will continue to say that the article needs to be protected from that, and I will continue to be ready to revert those changes if the article is unprotected and you make them. And, as you have seen, I will not be the only person ready to revert them. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I am here with Wikipedia for almost six months, I havn't saw a man making changes in Pashtun Tribes like this. Pashtuns according to some reliable books have never make any sort of distinction among them, (For readers benefit "Pashtuns" by Syed Bahadur shah Zafer kaka khel and "Pashtun" by Dr Habibullah Tazi, and also "Pukhtunkhwa" by Abdul Ali Ghorghashti), if someone with lesser knowledge comes in and start editing, dosn't mean that would be consider his last words.

Now I have some questions regarding this dispute.

1- Do you believe in Patrilineal or Matrilineal definition about pashtuns?

2- Are you sure Qais baba had three sons and a fourth one was his stepson?

3- Tell me about khattaks, do you believe that when a brother unveiled his damsel, when it was discovered that the one in the finest clothes was a ugly old maid, on the other hand his three brothers found were comely young virgins when unveiled. The fortunate younger brothers laughing and twitted the other in selecting such a bride and said in Pashto "Pa khatta larey" , that is " You have gone into the mud or you have put your foot in it", from this Afghan genealogist, is derived the name of Khattak or will you take them as Sattagydae of Herodotus were identified in the Saitak, Sattak, and Khattak of modern writers? (see Races of Afghanistan by Dr Henry W Bellew).

I will consider these folklores a joke with great Pashtun tribes. Pashtuns will never reckoned Bhopali Pathans as Pashtuns due to their Culture and Language as they say "Da kali ooza kho da karkhey ma ooza", and for Pahtuns a proverb "Pa kanri joka na lagi".

Now kindly come to me with some authentic information with point to point. Bieng an Afridi from tribe I will defend and define every pashtun tribe because I love Pashtuns. I want to gain knowledge not to waiste!

Swatis, who claim patrilineal descent from Mohammad(Peace be upon him),(which is a bigger honor) the founder of Islam,(that's what we see on Pashtun main page), dare to write here also, is it right? Do you have any reference? All you have to do is just to send replys now or take off those rubbish information of the main ! Can't you see such a big lie on the main page? Go and apply revert policy here also! Atleast you must take care the beauty of Wikipedia !

Pashto proverb for you "Bal ta naseehat kaway - auo zaan dey hair day". Kindly try to translate these precious proverbs. L Khan Canada - Take care -- Haider 12:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what I believe, it's about what various authorities believe. They are in conflict with one another, and it is our job to report all views to which a reasonable number of knowledgable people subscribe. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pashto

Please add a small section on pashto mentioning its genetic classification which is IndoEuropean> Indo-Iranian> Iranian> Eastern Iranian. And a link to pashto langauge wiki page. I am surprised there is no mention of that here amidst all this supreme mumbo jumbo of misinformation, insecure obsolete nationalistic unscholarly artice. (Added anonymously)

Tribe

About what Tribe is, I have taken this paragraph from some of my very close friend from his collections(Books, Articles etc). I really found it very impressive and interesting for me and my friends here.

Tribe, group of people sharing customs, language, and territory, such as the Apache people of North America. Anthropologists stress the importance of kinship in tribes. Usually a tribe has a leader, a religion teaching that all its people are descended from a common ancestor, and a common language and culture. A tribe is often small in size, is fairly limited in its contacts with other societies, and is correspondingly ethnocentric in its view of the world. Experts disagree about the relative importance of linguistic, political, and geographical boundaries for defining tribal groups. Whatever definition of tribe is chosen, however, exceptions to it abound. The most important criteria for a tribe continue to be linguistic and cultural resemblances. -- Haider 20:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

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

Thanks to all

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

I have just add some authentic paragraph about Great Khiljis in empty box as I already filled empty boxes of different Pashtun Tribes before. -- Haider 16:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Pashtun tribe Mashwani was missing from the tribes list, just added now -- Haider 17:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Mistake in "Who is Pashtun"

Wazirs, Mahsuds, Afridis, Bangash, Khattaks, Swatis, Khiljis, Jadoons, Dilazaks, Tanolis, Mashwanis and Shalmanis are great Pashtun Tribes and they do not need any sort of certificate from any writer! -- Haider 22:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haider, that last point is exactly the spirit we have to focus on in writing here. We are not issuing certificates here on who is and isn't Pakhtun. We are trying to document what is out there in the real world. And in my humble opinion, we need to present a complete picture: provide as complete a list as possible and where some or even a majority of people dispute something, to say that on the page. And also explain what other things are out there that either claim to be Pakhtun or have Pakhtun origins--or even can be confused with Pakhtun (like people with the title Khan and Khan Bahadur, for example).—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:45, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

IFaqeer, you have been mistaken I think, I didn't mentioned you one who is nominating certifcates here to Pashtuns, kindly see what I was taking references from a Book (Tareekhe Khan Jahani - Maghzani Afghani),since someone believe in him but I don't! Niamatullah Hirvi(who was an Afghan) was the author in the reign of Mughal Emperor Jahangir where he was appointed as Events writer by the King and served as Government Civil Servent for some years, due to some reasons he was terminated of his job then he attached himself with an Afghan KhaneJahan Lodhi who was an adopted son of King Jahangir. These were the people who have been honored as with the title of Khans with lands, there were lot numerous who had these titles in Mughals and British Period. -- Haider 12:28, 16 Apr 2005 (U (That was my reply) -- Haider 19:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

TO ALL:

For some time I have not been around - my apologies for that.

Tanolis are ALL OVER THE PLACE in Hazara, and NO ONE Considers them Pashtun - that is the REAL world. PLUS the books support that.

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

So I am putting them in a separate column: Pashunns in the REAL World and Pashtuns in CYBERSPACE.

I don't know why are you editing like this, please be calm and cool and stop vandals! I have already mentioned my tribe see what I wrote earlier, and please come with your sign(Name). -- Haider 18:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Kindly stop making changes, what I wrote on this discussion page ! -- Haider 19:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheers! Insaaf

You can't do this-no such thing as cyberspace Pashtun. Please read WP:POINT. People are Pashtun or they are not. Sort it out on this page and reach a consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

(Reply from Isaaf):

Haider and Tony - The point is this: Mashwanis and Tanolis are not Pashtun. Simple. That's on Paper and more importantly on the Ground - i.e. if you actually GO TO the place such as HAZARA district where there are Mashwanis and Tanolis, the local poeple say "Yes Mashwanis and Tanolis are not Pashtun". This is what the actual people belonging to these tribes also say. I have Mashwanis and Tanoli friends. Unfortunately people contributing to this topic don't want to believe that.

It's as clear as someone saying a Bantu Tribesman from Africa belongs to the Bedouin tribes of Arabia. The continent is Africa and the people are of a similar complexion but that is where the similarity ends.

And regarding "Pashtuns in Cyberspace" - you will have to accept the fact willingly or unwillingly, that anyone can post anything on the internet, without having any knowledge on the subject. Unfortunately, webapges BORROW information, as is what is happening with wikipedia, and hence alot of mis-information is being copied from wikipedia and being propogated. Hence "knowledge of Pashtuns" is being generated on Cyberspace, which actually is "baseless" on the ground and so exists only in Cyberspace.

From Insaaf

Insaaf, it's no problem to me, but if you have a difference of opinion on this with others then you have to be able to produce verifiable information that you are right. If you don't, you're just asking us to take your word for it (and we don't do that in this encyclopedia). So if you have some book, professor, contactable person, etc, you can reference then cite it or them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

: Thanks Tony and JMabel for correcting the page, here are some references;

1. Notes on Afghanistan and part of Baluchistan: geographical, ethnographical, and historical.

Extracted from the writings of Afghán and Tajzík historians, geographers, and genealogists; the histories of the Ghúris, the Turk sovereigns of the Dilhí Kingdom, the mughal sovereigns of the house of Tímúr, and other Muhammadan chronicles; and from personal observations.

By Major H.G.Raverty , Bombay Native Infantry (retired). Published London .1880 Author of a "Grammer" and "Dictionary" of the Pus'hto or Afghan Language; "The Gulshan I-Roh, or Selections, Prose, and Poetical, in the Afghan Language;" "The Poetry of the Afghans, from the Sixteenth Century to the Nineteenth Century;" "The Fables of Aesop Al-Hakim in the Afghan Language;" "Translation of the Tabakát-i-Násirí, from the Persian of Minhá-i-Saráj;" "The Pus'hto Manual," etc etc.

2. The People of India: A series of photographic illustrations of the Races and Tribes of Hindustan. Edited by J.Forbes and Sir John William Kaye, London, Indian Museum 1872.

3. Notes on the Eusofzye tribes of Afghanistan

By The Late Capt. Edward Connolly (published after his death in the First Afghan War, in the Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for the British and Foreign India, China, and Australasia. Vol.XXXV-New Series, May-August, 1841.)

4. The Pathans: 500 B.C.-A.D. 1957 (Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints) by Sir Olaf Caroe.

5. Gazetteer of the Hazara district, 1907; (N.-W.F. province district gazetteers: vol. I.A) by Hubert Digby Watson.

6. Ibbetson, Denzil, Edward Maclagan, and H.A. Rose 1919. A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. Volume I. Lahore: Sperintendant of Government Printing.

7. [1980] Pukhtun Economy and Society: Traditional Structure and Economic Development in a Tribal Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. by Dr Akbar S. Ahmed.

From Insaaf

Well, that's a bibliography, but it isn't citations. Citations mean specific page numbers, and what you claim is being asserted. That allows someone else to verify. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

There he go again, first the page was blocked and now start making changes in Pashtun tribes list, which is in correct form now! -- Haider 11:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Mashwanis are pashtuns according to a book (Pathans by Olaf Caroe, page no 472 in Urdu edition translated by Professor Dr Ashraf Adeel).

Mashwanis are pashtuns according to a book (Origin of Pashtuns and their History by Khan Roshan Khan, page no 183,184).

Mashwanis are Pashtuns according to a book, in it's addtional Pashtuns tribes tree (Tareekhe khan jahani written by niamatullah hirvi in 17th century, which was originally in Persian language, translated in urdu by Dr Mohammad Bashir Hussain, last page 808).

The Mashwanis are descended from a Syed father by a Kakar woman and allied to the Kakar Pashtuns.(book Panjab Castes by Denzal Ibbeston, page no 92)

Mashwani a Pashtun tribe, also registered themselves as Syeds. (a book, Encyclopedia of the races by E.D Magligan and H.A Rose urdu edition translated by Yasir Jawwad, page no 405).

Khiljis/Gilzais are a race of Turkish origin, their name being another form of Kilchi, the Turkish word for Swordsman.( book Panjab Castes by Denzel Ibbeston, page no 62).

The true Pathans are apperantly of Indian origin. Their language is called Pashto or Pakhto and they call themselves Pukhtana or Pushto speakers, and it is this word of which Pathan is the Indian corruption. They held in the early centuries of British era the whole of the safed koh and northern suleman systems, from the Indus to the Helmand and from the sources of the Swat river and Jalalabad to Peshin and Quetta. The Afghans and Gilzais spread into their country and adopted their language and customs. (same book , Panjab Castes by Denzel Ibbeston, page no 62).

In his own words , I have included in my account pashtuns and a few allied races, who thought not usually acknowledged as Pashtuns, have by long association become closely assimilated with them in manners, customs and character. They chiefly occupy Hazara division and are called Dilazak, Swati, Jadun Tanoli and Shilmani.(same book, Panjab Castes by Denzil Ibbeston, page no 64).

Now what some traditional historian have their views about Pashtuns . Qais Abdul Rasheed had three real sons, forth one was his step son, his name was Karlani. ( Books – Tareekhe-Khan Jahani Maghzane Afghani, Khulasatul Ansab by Hafiz Rehmat Khan and History of Pashtuns by Sardar Sher Mohammad Khan Gandapur and some more). Afridis , Bangash , Wazirs , Mahsuds , Orakzais , Khattaks and Bannuchis etc belong to Karlanis, as far as lineal definition concern, now the point is, an infant which was found was not Pashtun definitely, because Qais Abdul Rasheed had only three real sons. Those who believe in Patrilineal view, it totally proves them wrong.

We have three views about the origin of Pashtuns now, Patrilineal, Matrilineal and Cultural? Insaaf please send me your email address I just want to send you a very classical book "Pashtun in the light of their origin by Syed bahadur Zafer Kaka Khel(Tamgha e Imtiaz)", or stop belittling Pashtun Tribes kindly!

Now will insaaf tell me that how many tribes left in his distinctive list ? Or will he keep opposing me ridiculously (Cyberspace Pashtuns)without any logic? I am an Afridi Pashtun and do believe in untiry of the Great Pashtun Tribes without any discrimination ! -- Haider 16:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)