Why do we include Balochistan in a hypothetical Pashtunistan?

[Kushan Prince]

Kushan, I never implied that they look like your average white American. Rather, most tend to look eastern-European, mediterranean/Jewish. Get out a little, to Afghanistan/Pakistan or even around in Canada and meet some Pashtuns. You can't just rely on google searches to form your opinions about everything.

Very ironic of you considering i am pashtun and people in my family range from different skin tones. I have also been to Afghanistan in the past and might go again this month.


And didn't you say you were leaving?

[TheCongo]

Yeah I did say that, but I got distracted because both of you suddenly jumped at my throat. And yes, skin tones do vary.

[Kushan Prince]

I am considering marrying a Pashtun girl, I just don't know how that will go because I don't know if I will be accepted or not.

I don't think her family would be accepting of her marrying a foreigner like african or european. No offense.

[Kushan Prince]

That's not Islamic though. I would like to marry a Pashtun girl. The ones I have seen here have a natural beauty. I have even learned Pashto fluently, lol. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to. Times are changing, we live in the 21st century.

Agree that it's not Islamic but maybe they can see this one day. Not all Pashtuns are like that though only a few.


BTW where do you live? you seem to have a lot of Pashtuns in your area.

[TheCongo]

I edited my post, but at least you were able to read it when I answered your question.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

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.

correct

[RevolutionThroughReason]

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?

Pashto is not even mutually intelligible with Balouch, are you joking? a Swede can communicate with a Norwegian. N. and S. Koreans can communicate with each other.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

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.

AH see that's where you're making the FAULTY logic; I have already stated earlier that It was never claimed that the Khalaj were Mongoloid. That was your faulty assumption; I'd figure you'd have paid attention to my response to Wahe Guru; where I state that NONE of his arguments contradict mine because I never claimed them to be Mongol. I just claimed they were Turkic; You are confused easily because you think Turkic which is a linguistic/cultural identity means racial identity, NOT so. I already posted a source which explains all your contentions. Here's another one that explains the same thing.

The Khalaj are usually referred to as Turks, but Josef Marquart (pp. 251-54) claimed that they were remnants of the Hephthalite confederation, which would indicate that they were originally Indo-Iranian. “Muslim authors agree that the Khalaj are one of the earliest tribes to have crossed the Oxus,” Vladimir Minorsky informs us (p. 430). According to the Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam (p. 111), compiled in 982-83 CE, most of them settled down in the Ḡazna region, but they were also numerous in the Balḵ, Toḵārestān, Bost, and Guzgān regions. Many of the Khalaj of the Ḡazna region became assimilated to the local Pashto-speaking population. Indeed, it seems very likely that they formed the core of the Pashto-speaking Ḡalzay (see ḠILZI) tribe, the name Ḡalzay being derived from Khalaj (Bosworth, p. 917; Frye, p. 1001). - See more at: KHALAJ i. TRIBE ORIGINATING IN TURKISTAN ? Encyclopaedia Iranica

Hudud Al 'Alam is an EASTERN source; so it is BOTH Eastern ANd Western scholars demonstrating Ghilzai are of Non-Pashtun, Turkic origins. Your problem is you have a poor logical understanding of how other scenarios can happen. Wahe Guru never denied them being Turkic, just Mongoloid. Go back and read for yourself. Thus your "holes" are baseless, go back and read for yourself

You haven't presented anything for me to get mad at about at you because the "holes" you reveal are are just straw man arguments which has nothing to do with mine. Not only that but you have not presented any evidence for your hypothesis that they Ghilzai were not Turks. Checkmate.

[hamid954]

We Afghans support Balochistan. I believe we include Balochistan as the same reason we include include badakshan as Afghan land. Ahmad shah baba united with baloch and tajik tribesmen to fight the maratha hindus and united we defeated them. Badakshan and Balochistan became part of the Afghan empire. Baloch are Afghans We are all brothers. We should focus our attention against Pakistan and Iran enemy nations that are against balochistan and Afghanistan peace and freedom.

[khushal]

AH see that's where you're making the FAULTY logic; I have already stated earlier that It was never claimed that the Khalaj were Mongoloid. That was your faulty assumption; I'd figure you'd have paid attention to my response to Wahe Guru; where I state that NONE of his arguments contradict mine because I never claimed them to be Mongol. I just claimed they were Turkic; You are confused easily because you think Turkic which is a linguistic/cultural identity means racial identity, NOT so. I already posted a source which explains all your contentions. Here's another one that explains the same thing.

Hudud Al 'Alam is an EASTERN source; so it is BOTH Eastern ANd Western scholars demonstrating Ghilzai are of Non-Pashtun, Turkic origins. Your problem is you have a poor logical understanding of how other scenarios can happen. Wahe Guru never denied them being Turkic, just Mongoloid. Go back and read for yourself. Thus your "holes" are baseless, go back and read for yourself

You haven't presented anything for me to get mad at about at you because the "holes" you reveal are are just straw man arguments which has nothing to do with mine. Not only that but you have not presented any evidence for your hypothesis that they Ghilzai were not Turks. Checkmate.

What are you talking about. Your own source says they are not Turkic in the title and that is my point that there are holes in the Turk theory. Usually you'll play games in not putting up the link of the source you quote but this time you did. You should learn to read your own sources and quit quote mining to strengthen your own flawed argument.

Plus Turks are mongloid you idiot. You are too dense and stupid to actually read about the origins of Turks.
Hudud allam states that it is possible the Khalaj assimilated into Pashtun tribes and the core could have assimilated into the Ghilzai pashtun tribe. It does not mean the Khalaj became Ghilzai.
There is one Ghlizai village in our tribe of Zazai, they have assimilated into the Zazai tribe and we consider them Zazai but we all know their origin. One feature with them is that they are bigger and taller then the rest of us, most of them tower 6'3" and taller. The feature about Turks are they are short and stocky. Among all pashtuns, Ghilzi are known to be big and tall.

The fact is your an idiot who knows nothing about afghanistan and nothing about Ghilzai and nothing about Turks.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

What are you talking about. Your own source says they are not Turkic in the title and that is my point that there are holes in the Turk theory. Usually you'll play games in not putting up the link of the source you quote but this time you did. You should learn to read your own sources and quit quote mining to strengthen your own flawed argument.

Plus Turks are mongloid you idiot. You are too dense and stupid to actually read about the origins of Turks.
Hudud allam states that it is possible the Khalaj assimilated into Pashtun tribes and the core could have assimilated into the Ghilzai pashtun tribe. It does not mean the Khalaj became Ghilzai.
There is one Ghlizai village in our tribe of Zazai, they have assimilated into the Zazai tribe and we consider them Zazai but we all know their origin. One feature with them is that they are bigger and taller then the rest of us, most of them tower 6'3" and taller. The feature about Turks are they are short and stocky. Among all pashtuns, Ghilzi are known to be big and tall.

The fact is your an idiot who knows nothing about afghanistan and nothing about Ghilzai and nothing about Turks.

No My SOurce says they were Turkified Hephtalites; which means at one time THEY WERE Turks; You need better reading comprehension. See it says there "ORIGINALLy Indo-Iranian" not "ALWAYS Indo-Iranian".

See read for yourself

The Khalaj are usually referred to as Turks, but Josef Marquart (pp. 251-54) claimed that they were remnants of the Hephthalite confederation........

According to Gerhard Doerfer, in the 1960s they numbered 17,000 individuals and occupied some 50 villages (Doerfer, 1968, p. 720). In his article “The Turkish Dialect of the Khalaj,” Vladimir Minorsky gives us two lists of Khalaj villages in central Persia (Minorsky, pp. 435-36). In a recent work, Iraj Afšār-Sistāni writes that “the people of this tribe live in the vicinity of Āštiān and Tafreš, and make a living from their flocks” (Afšār-Sistāni, p. 115). The Khalaj of central Persia speak a Turkic dialect which contains so many archaisms and other unique features that Doerfer argues it should be referred to as “the Khalaj group of languages” (Doerfer, 1978, p. 918).

NOT all Turks aren all Mongoloid; Turkish people are Turks but are Caucasian. Turk is a cultural and ethnic designation not a racial one. You know nothing about how to read correctly and understanding things logically and this ignorance is what leads you to falsely conclude that better educated people like myself don't know the subject matter. WHat you suffer from is confirmation bias and you reject any information that does not support your predefined narrative rather than letting the information speak for itself. WHatever the case; the Ghilzais were not originally Pashtun; even Zazais weren't originally Pashtun; you were Hindus with Indian blood who were converted by the Saljuks.

[khushal]

^^How are you educated when you dont read your own sources Ghul.

Khalaj tribe originating from Turkistan, generally referred to as Turks but possibly Indo-Iranian.

read the underline portion of your own source dumbass. And your wrong, Turks are indeed mongloid. The majority in Anatolia(Turkey) are not Turks. The reason it is called (Turk)ey is because the area was ruled by Turks for 600 years and the Turks in Anotolia are probably less than 10% of the population. The majority of Turks live in Central Asia reaching to Siberia, Mongolia, and even the Ughurs in Western China are Turks and they are all Mongloid.



Ghul, the Turk theory has been shattered and many scholars are dismissing it. You wont let go of it because your ego wont let you admit your wrong. There is no evidence that Haphthalites were Turks.

In 1959, Kazuo Enoki proposed that the Hephthalites were probably Indo-European (East) Iranians as some sources indicated that they were originally from Tokharestan, which is known to have been inhabited by Indo-Iranian people in antiquity.[6] Richard Frye is cautiously accepting of Enoki's hypothesis, while at the same time stressing that the Hephthalites "were probably a mixed horde".[18] More recently Xavier Tremblay's detailed examination of surviving Hephthalite personal names has indicated that Enoki's hypothesis that they were East Iranian may well be correct, but the matter remains unresolved in academic circles.[7]

And your Zazai theory is as stupid as the rest of your jibberish.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

^^How are you educated when you dont read your own sources Ghul.
read the underline portion of your own source dumbass. And your wrong, Turks are indeed mongloid. The majority in Anatolia(Turkey) are not Turks. The reason it is called (Turk)ey is because the area was ruled by Turks for 600 years and the Turks in Anotolia are probably less than 10% of the population. The majority of Turks live in Central Asia reaching to Siberia, Mongolia, and even the Ughurs in Western China are Turks and they are all Mongloid.



Ghul, the Turk theory has been shattered and many scholars are dismissing it. You wont let go of it because your ego wont let you admit your wrong. There is no evidence that Haphthalites were Turks.

And your Zazai theory is as stupid as the rest of your jibberish.

Because I've already explained to you; TURK is a cultural/ethnic designation NOT a racial one. I've done this several times and you keep mindlessly and robotically repeating the same thing while ignoring that key point. That is what these sources are saying they were ORIGINALLY Indo-Iranian THEN TURKIFIED ...then PASHTUNIFIED. Not sure what is so complicated about this. BUT It alll proves Ghilzais were NOT Pashtun originally.


You have an INCORRECT understanding of what being a TURK or TURKIC means

Turkic peoples -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Turkic peoples, any of various peoples whose members speak languages elonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages.

It has absolutely nothing to do with race but rather Language and Culture; why you're such a moron and can't grasp a simple distinction like this is beyond me. Probably desperation and denial. This is why you're uneducated and then go around running your mouth when you simply don't know what you're talking about.

[khushal]

I never stated it has anything to do with race. But what you have stated does not prove that Turk are not a Mongloid ethnic group and it does not disprove what Hudud allam states that the Khalaj most likely assimilated into the pashtun tribes and the core of it being assimilated into the Ghilzai tribe. You have not proved that the Khalaj actually became the Ghilzai. The fact that Ghilzai who ruled over south asia for centuries and were known as Afghan to everyone in the region also reinforces this.

Your the moron, your the one who does not read correctly and your the one who likes to manipulate things to fit your own narrative of stupidity of bad mouthing pashtuns on every topic.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Yes you do, but saying MONGOLOID you're referring to race. NOT Culture/Ethnicity/Language.

Mongoloid - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Mon·gol·oid adjective \ˈmäŋ-gə-ˌlȯid\

Definition of MONGOLOID

1
: of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Asia and classified according to physical features (as the presence of an epicanthic fold)

so yes YOU ARE INDEED mixing up the words and have a poor understanding of the terms involved and show poor reading comprehension. Hence making erroneous arguments.

I actually have shown the evidence that the Khalaj became Ghilzais.


remember this? didn't think this was going away or that you'd side track us from this? Well it's back.

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

checkmate