Why do we include Balochistan in a hypothetical Pashtunistan?

[Wahe Guru]

If you don't click the links you're going to miss out on some wonderful music tracks.

You're the one deviating!
Title thread is:
Why do we include Balochistan in a hypothetical Pashtunistan?
It is not:
Why do we include Canada in a hypothetical United States of North America?

By recommending total intermarriage, you are effectively saying wipe-out the Baloch by intermarriage with Pashtuns (being much larger in numbers), job done, sea-route established for Pashtuns?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Did Islam come with the sword? When people convert, does it mean conquer? Were they forced to convert at the threat of having their heads chopped off?
Come on, dont contradict yourself again. Think about what your saying.

Like I keep telling you, its just a theory, it says "Marquart's theory is by no means certain."
Theories can not be proven true or false, they are interesting to read though. I have a hard time believing in it because if Turks are mongloid, then ghilzi are not turks and there is no linguistic association to make it probable.

Well Mahmoud Ghaznawi came with a sword, not sure if Islam came with the sword, but his conquering of Afghans lead to mass conversions. As for the certainty. Even if it's not certain; it's strong, stronger theories should be endorsed.

You also haven't read things carefully

. The Oghuz and Khalaj Turks, who in early Islamic period nomadised from Tukharistan and Badakhshan in the north down to Bust, would thus be the remnants of Turkish peoples brought from north of the Oxus as part of the Ephtalite confederation that then left behind in eastern Afghanistan.[/B] Marquart's theory is by no means certain,

This is the "uncertain:" part of Marquart's Theory, however it's an educated theory. Better than very faulty Pashtun theories claiming Bactria was Pashtun

Yet there is no doubt about their existence there in pre-Ghaznavid times. At the opening of the 9th century, the Kabulshah had to send an annual tribute of 2000 Oghuz slaves to the governor of Khurasan, 'Abdallah b. Tahir. In the Caliphate of al-Mansur Ma'n b. Za'ida as-Sulami was governor of Sistan, and he received from the Zunbil at his winter capital of ar-Rukhaj [Arochosia/Kandahar] the customary tribute of camels and Turkish felt tents and slaves. The Zunbil is said to have had a bodyguard from the local Turks, at-Turk-ad-Dawari. Istakhri says that up to his own time, the Khalaj of Zamindawar had kept their Turkish customs, external appearance and language. The Khalaj survived as an ethnic unity for several more centuries; they were subdued by Sebuktigin and recruited into his army ; they formed an important element in the armies of the Ghaznavids, Ghurids and Khwarizmshahs; they were the progenitors of the Lodi Kings of Delhi (1451-1526); and their name probably survives today in that of the modern Ghilzai Afghans. Some form of authority was excercised over these nomads in the 10th century by the Samanid central government; the youthful Sebuktigin was once sent by his master Alptigin in a military force to collect the customary taxes from the Khalaj and Turkmens."

Ghaznavids: Part 1: The Empire under Mahmud, Section 2: The establishment of Sebuktigin in Ghazna: pg. 271-272.[/I]

all this stuff, more or less conclusive and then the part about Ghilzai is with strong degree of certainty.

[SiiNii]

By recommending total intermarriage, you are effectively saying wipe-out the Baloch by intermarriage with Pashtuns (being much larger in numbers), job done, sea-route established for Pashtuns?

Total? Never said that. Look at my Thailand example of 15%, decades of peace.

Besides several here have said Pashtuns n Balochis are the same.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Total? Never said that. Look at my Thailand example of 15%, decades of peace.

Besides several here have said Pashtuns n Balochis are the same.

he's saying that as an excuse for Pashtuns to push themselves on others which is not rightfully theirs to trespass upon.

If Pashtuns and Balouch were the same, they wouldn't be called Balouch and speak Balouchi. They's speak Pashto and call themselves Pashtuns.

[khushal]

Well Mahmoud Ghaznawi came with a sword, not sure if Islam came with the sword, but his conquering of Afghans lead to mass conversions. As for the certainty. Even if it's not certain; it's strong, stronger theories should be endorsed.

You also haven't read things carefully

This is the "uncertain:" part of Marquart's Theory, however it's an educated theory. Better than very faulty Pashtun theories claiming Bactria was Pashtun

all this stuff, more or less conclusive and then the part about Ghilzai is with strong degree of certainty.

Who cares what it says. They are just theories that are written by people like yourself(and we know how often wrong you are) who have never been there. Unless you have strong primary sources to back it up, all it is just an interesting hypothesis.
People in the past as well as today identify themselves with Rulers. Today you have Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks identify themselves as Afghans even though they are not ethnic Afghans. You have most of the Arabian peninsula identify themselves with one family(Al Saud family) and for 600 years people in Anatolia peninsula identified themselves after some guy names Osman(Ottoman).

Mahmud of Ghazni did not come to Afghansitan to conquer it. He was born in Afghanistan in the city of Ghazni and turned Ghazni into a very prosperous and wealthy city before he went and conquered India.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You sir are ALWAYS wrong and the reason that is because you ALWAYS lie; you literally FABRICATE stuff and you've been caught doing so many times. So don't even begin telling others who is unfamiliar with what. If there's any example of someone who's unfamilar with Pashtuns and never went to Afghanistan or encountered the people; it's someone who manufactures claims about them. This is your trait.

The difference is these "theories" are based on evidence; where as yours are based on hot air and self deluded cultural ego. One is trustworthy, yours are not.

My job isn't to convince you whether this theory is true; my Job is to highlight that the evidence exists that affirms this theory and that the evidence that Ghilzais are originally Pashtuns is lacking. Ghilzais are Turkic (Turkified Indo-Aryans). They're non-Natives. When you have evidence that supports your "theory" then you can try to discredit it; but as it stands it's strong and with repute. Your choice to be convinced. You will only accept evidence that suits your bias, confirmation bias.

ALl your other babble is irrelevant and nonsequttur.

[khushal]

I never presented my hypothosis for you to label it as wrong. I just said there is holes in the turk theory.
I already presented the western theory which is what you consider as fact and I with Wahu Guru have given you reasons of why there are holes in it and I presented the eastern scholars theory which you put down without giving a reason. I even presented you primary sources that give zero evidence to your filled with holes theory.
I am not saying one is right or wrong, they both could be wrong.

It just does not make sense that the so called mongloid looking Ghalaj turks invaded and then pashtunized their language, culture without keeping any of their original language and culture and miraculously had their mongloid looking features disappear.

Dont get mad at me when I reveal holes in your arguments, get mad at yourself for not seeing them in the first place before your presentation of them.

[SiiNii]

he's saying that as an excuse for Pashtuns to push themselves on others which is not rightfully theirs to trespass upon.

If Pashtuns and Balouch were the same, they wouldn't be called Balouch and speak Balouchi. They's speak Pashto and call themselves Pashtuns.

Sure. Some have said that the differences are merely language and name. There are Norwegians and there are Swedes, there are N Koreans and there are S Koreans, and they're different groups but are they really that different?

[Registerwal]

'The Afghans received the religion of Mahomet from their Tartar conquerors, and like them professing the Sooni creed, are avowed enemies to the Schies, or the sectaries of Ali. Though many of the tribes must have been converted at the period of the Ghizni dynasty, it is seen that Timur encountered a fierce body of this nation, whom he denominated infidels.’ Ibid, p. 77.

[Kushan Prince]

'The Afghans received the religion of Mahomet from their Tartar conquerors, and like them professing the Sooni creed, are avowed enemies to the Schies, or the sectaries of Ali. Though many of the tribes must have been converted at the period of the Ghizni dynasty, it is seen that Timur encountered a fierce body of this nation, whom he denominated infidels.’ Ibid, p. 77.

False. The Pashtuns were converted to Islam by the umyad arabs who also brought Islam to Persia. Tatars did not become Muslim until the 10 century.

[Kushan Prince]

he's saying that as an excuse for Pashtuns to push themselves on others which is not rightfully theirs to trespass upon.

If Pashtuns and Balouch were the same, they wouldn't be called Balouch and speak Balouchi. They's speak Pashto and call themselves Pashtuns.

Really? If that was the case, then why do a lot of baloch tribes have pashtun tribe names then? Don't say it's because they were "Pashtunized" because they still speak balochi as you said. A language which also contains a lot of Pashto words. Both of them look similar and share close culture similarities.

[Wahe Guru]

False. The Pashtuns were converted to Islam by the umyad arabs who also brought Islam to Persia. Tatars did not become Muslim until the 10 century.

I read somewhere that a lot of Pashtuns became Muslim in 10th century i.e. year 9nn (I cant remember the nn now). Basically that the Afghans did not all become Muslim during Arabs rule but more later during the rule of Mahmud Ghaznavi.

[Kushan Prince]

I read somewhere that a lot of Pashtuns became Muslim in 10th century i.e. year 9nn (I cant remember the nn now). Basically that the Afghans did not all become Muslim during Arabs rule but more later during the rule of Mahmud Ghaznavi.

This is partially true. The Pashtuns in ghazni and the surrounding areas became Muslim because of him. Other theories suggest that Qais Abdur rashid, the ancestor of all Pashtuns, went to Arabia who met the prophet and brought Islam to Afghanistan. But not all Pashtuns became Muslim at the time.

[TheCongo]

The only reason I said that was because that picture you posted was accused of really being a Nuristani...There is nothing great or better about being lighter, those with the real inferiority complexes just act like it is.

[Admin Khan]

I saw Nuristanis on Afghan television a few times. They have some air time dedicated to them with news or cultural events in their own language. Nuristanis are not as light as people make them out to be on the internet, lol. There was once a user here from Kunar who was brought up in Afghanistan and he said something along the lines of Nuristanis on the whole are dark when compared with Pashtuns.

Am I wrong in this anyone?

Nuristanis are generally pale.