Alternative Universe: What If Afghans/Persians etc.were creepily fixated with Indics?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Not exactly accurate, but some points are right, most of it is errant, but even then the Saljuks for example had to cooperate wth us to rule or they'd have not ruled. Afghanistan didn't technically exist until the 18th century so your argument doesn't make much sense. But the Turks you speak of didn't carry us around in chains like we did to your ancestors. And raping and pillaging, definitely did not happen because we were nomadic peoples for the majority of this time.

[salman47]

Start with the Seljuk Turks who ruled eastern parts of modern Afghanistan. The famous Ghaznavids, including Mahmud of Ghazni, were actually Turks. They came to power in Afghanistan in the mid 10th century CE. Then came the Khwarazmians, another Turkic Mamluk dynasty, who ruled the territory including Afghanistan until the 13th century, when the Mongols came. The Qarlughids, then the Mongol Ilkhanate, the Chagatai Khanate, the Khalji, the Kartids, the Timurids (Turco-Mongols), Arghuns (also Turco-Mongols), Mughals (Turco-Mongols), and finally Afsharids (Turkic). Basically Afghanistan was ruled by Turks, Mongols and Turco-Mongols until as late as the 18th century

As far as I know(also the History tells this), Mahmud was half Turk-Half Afghan(thats the only reason why most of Pashtuns came together for our first united dynasty.
Furthermore, Khwarezmian were not Turks but Iranic people with language very close to Pashto. I don't think they ever ruled south but were absorbed/destroyed by Turks.
Mamluk dynasty was formed in Egypt, which defeated the Mongolians(plus coward Romans) in Ayn Jalut(AlhamdUlillah). They never step foot North of Syria.
We were more protected than ruled by Turks as they knew they would lose or lose us forever(which has very negative consequences).
And yes many of the Turkish dynasties were very cruel, e.g. All the Muslims west of Iran hate those times(especially Timur lang). But here in our Pashtunistan we have very high respect for those Turks(esp. Timur because our land had peace under his reign, while he spread fitnah in the then Khilafah)

Also we don't consider Mahmud Shah a Turk, because he is Afghan to us...

P.S. In most of the Turkish countries, Afghans have very high respect. They are known for their courage. You can ask any of the Turk people!
While in the same place Pakistan/Indian Muslim is still unknown.

[maneatinglizard]

the guys with the horse are Scythian warriors related to Pashtuns. This was a Iranic Scythian practice.

Lakshmana Temple, Khajuraho - Wikipedia

These sculptures were created by the Chandelas, who were Indians, and they're only around 1000 years old, which is long after the time of the Scythians.

So no, these have nothing to do with our Scythian relatives. Actual Scythian art usually depicted people hunting animals, a manly endevour that your ancestors banned.

Banning hunting and depicting beatiality in temples. I wonder if that's where the saying "make love not war" comes from

Funny thing is you Punjabis like to pretend you're descendants of the Scythians, but now you're turning around and claiming Scythians committed bestiality. i wonder what you're trying to say about yourself...

[ذو الفقار]

As far as I know(also the History tells this), Mahmud was half Turk-Half Afghan(thats the only reason why most of Pashtuns came together for our first united dynasty.
Furthermore, Khwarezmian were not Turks but Iranic people with language very close to Pashto. I don't think they ever ruled south but were absorbed/destroyed by Turks.
Mamluk dynasty was formed in Egypt, which defeated the Mongolians(plus coward Romans) in Ayn Jalut(AlhamdUlillah). They never step foot North of Syria.
We were more protected than ruled by Turks as they knew they would lose or lose us forever(which has very negative consequences).
And yes many of the Turkish dynasties were very cruel, e.g. All the Muslims west of Iran hate those times(especially Timur lang). But here in our Pashtunistan we have very high respect for those Turks(esp. Timur because our land had peace under his reign, while he spread fitnah in the then Khilafah)

Also we don't consider Mahmud Shah a Turk, because he is Afghan to us...

P.S. In most of the Turkish countries, Afghans have very high respect. They are known for their courage. You can ask any of the Turk people!
While in the same place Pakistan/Indian Muslim is still unknown.

1. Mahmud's father Sabuktigin was a pure Turk who was born in modern day Kyrgyzstan. His father is the one who actually started the dynasty.

2. The Khwarezmian dynasty was Turkic too, founded by Anushtegin Gharachai, and his son Qutbuddin Muhammad, first Shah of Khwarazm. They were not at all "Iranic"

3. Mamluk is a term which basically means "possession", it was used to describe the slave warriors of various ethnic origins employed by the ruling Arab dynasties, but as they became powerful and began to seize control for themselves. It is a mistake for you to the think that Mamluk is restricted to south of Syria. The Mamluks of that region were mostly Circasian and Caucasian origin, but the Khwarezmians were Turkic Mamluks and they ruled over the eastern lands including Afghanistan.

4. The point I'm making is that just as India has been conquered and ruled by foreigners, the same is true of Afghanistan and the Pashtuns.

I am a Muslim that is described as "Indic" by people on this forum, but that doesn't stop me from identifying more with the Turks, Mughals, Ghaznavids, Afghans, etc., who raided and ruled over India than with the Hindu Indians to whom I may be closer genetically. For me people like Sikander Butshikan, Mughal emperor Aurangzaib, Ahmad Shah Abdali, Mahmud Ghaznavi, etc., are heroic great leaders and I identify with their cause, not with the native Indians who resisted them.

[Kakar-Wardak]

When Mahmoud ghaznavi invaded India, his army was split into 3 Turks, afghan and Hindus, the Hindus were slave soldiers whilst the Afghans were free men, also All pashtuns were muslims before Mahmud ghaznavi Came to power.

[maneatinglizard]

When Mahmoud ghaznavi invaded India, his army was split into 3 Turks, afghan and Hindus, the Hindus were slave soldiers whilst the Afghans were free men, also All pashtuns were muslims before Mahmud ghaznavi Came to power.

Not to mention he was likely half-Afghan himself, and gave his sister to the chief of the Zabulistani Afghans. And even still other Afghans didn't accept his rule and regularly fought against him.

[Charsi Malang]

1. Mahmud's father Sabuktigin was a pure Turk who was born in modern day Kyrgyzstan. His father is the one who actually started the dynasty.

2. The Khwarezmian dynasty was Turkic too, founded by Anushtegin Gharachai, and his son Qutbuddin Muhammad, first Shah of Khwarazm. They were not at all "Iranic"

3. Mamluk is a term which basically means "possession", it was used to describe the slave warriors of various ethnic origins employed by the ruling Arab dynasties, but as they became powerful and began to seize control for themselves. It is a mistake for you to the think that Mamluk is restricted to south of Syria. The Mamluks of that region were mostly Circasian and Caucasian origin, but the Khwarezmians were Turkic Mamluks and they ruled over the eastern lands including Afghanistan.

4. The point I'm making is that just as India has been conquered and ruled by foreigners, the same is true of Afghanistan and the Pashtuns.

I am a Muslim that is described as "Indic" by people on this forum, but that doesn't stop me from identifying more with the Turks, Mughals, Ghaznavids, Afghans, etc., who raided and ruled over India than with the Hindu Indians to whom I may be closer genetically. For me people like Sikander Butshikan, Mughal emperor Aurangzaib, Ahmad Shah Abdali, Mahmud Ghaznavi, etc., are heroic great leaders and I identify with their cause, not with the native Indians who resisted them.

Your point about Afghanistan being conquered and ruled just like the Indians were conquered and ruled is completely wrong. The Afghans were invaded many times but not conquered or subdued. Especially the Eastern parts of the country., which have hoistorically been very difficult to control.

There is a stark difference in the history of resistance to invasions between Indians and Afghans. Afghans/Pashtuns have always been at war in some way shape or form. On the whole we have never been slaves nor subjects of anyone like that.

[Nekrofrost]

I blame my ancestors fkr same, 500 years of brahmin rule over Afghans and we still failed in civilizing hillbillies

Fekar not as Pakis are doing that for us first Culture later religion.

You cant civilise another culture if you are more retarded than them

[Nekrofrost]

4. The point I'm making is that just as India has been conquered and ruled by foreigners, the same is true of Afghanistan and the Pashtuns.
.

Except that isnt true even nowdays cuz other than the cities the states of pak and afg have very little influence on the way we live our lives so

[Samandri]

Mahmud of Ghazna was not a king of Pakhtunkhwa/Roh, and Pashtuns were not his subjects, they were unruly and troublesome. At best he was nominal ruler of Afghanistan (i.e Pakhtunkhwa, not to be confused with present-day country of Afghanistan) . Ghaznvid sources mention the attacks of Mahmud Ghaznavi on Afghans and call them infidels (not that Afghans were actually non-Muslims but they were doing takfir on Afghans for opposing a Muslim ruler, just like Babur did takfir on Afghans). Even within the environs of Ghazni, the resistance of Afghans against the Ghaznavid Sultans is mentioned in 11th century sources.

The Afghan/Pashtun and Khalji tribesmen joined Mahumd Ghaznavi whenever any expedition was launched towards India or Central Asia. They were not regular soldiers but free mercenaries unlike the Turks and Hindus who were slaves. They joined him in his expeditions for plunder, they were not bound by any duty or obligation.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

^^^ one Indian triggered so many Pashtun warriors.

Actually, the ones who are triggered are you guys since I made this thread specifically for that purpose and all of you are here. LOL

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

For me people like Sikander Butshikan, Mughal emperor Aurangzaib, Ahmad Shah Abdali, Mahmud Ghaznavi, etc., are heroic great leaders and I identify with their cause, not with the native Indians who resisted them.

This is what being a cuck is, and why we have such a low opinion of Indic peoples, regardless of their religion. No sense of dignity what so ever,

[maneatinglizard]

This is what being a cuck is, and why we have such a low opinion of Indic peoples, regardless of their religion. No sense of dignity what so ever,

His prophet was a self-hating loser who claimed to have received a revelation from God telling him he was actually a Persian (and not a Punjabi), and bragged about being a loyal slave to the British. Can't expect someone like that to have any self-respect. In some other post he even rants about how great the British were when they ruled India.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

His prophet was a self-hating loser who claimed to have received a revelation from God telling him he was actually a Persian (and not a Punjabi), and bragged about being a loyal slave to the British. Can't expect someone like that to have any self-respect. In some other post he even rants about how great the British were when they ruled India.

I don't want to trash Qadiyanis even if I disagree with their views, but I will contest their beliefs and silliness ....this guy is spineless

[ذو الفقار]

BTW, the Nuristanis of northeast Afghanistan are an Indic, Indo-Aryan people. The Pashai are a Dardic people who speak a Dardic language. Dards are also Indic, Indo-Aryan people.