Man-Made Laws vs. Shari'ah

[Loy Afghanistan]

Please prove us that you are not a half breed.

Absolutely, Inshallah in future when we have control over our own sovereignty, and can sit on around a table like true brothers. We will together check our race and population, after that, I not only proof, but you will feel the policy of purify. The truth will set us all free and ignorance about this topic will be no more.

Take care wroora.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

"Here, in this region (Khorasan), the language is Persian, and the kings of this realm are Persian kings."

Samanid edict. The History of Iran By Elton L. Daniel, pg. 74


Since afghanistan was created by brits in 1893 by durrand (actually even the name of khorasan was changed into afghanistan by elphistone. ahmad shah durrani never called to his empire "afghanistan") and there is no historical evidence about any pashtun presence in what used to be called sakastan-khorasan one thousand ago (actually according tarikh al hind by al biruni he calls to pashtun an indian tribe from solemain mountains lol) your statement is pure nationalist garbage.

Please prove wrong. You won't because you can't. You will just call me tajik b*stard just because I point out facts LOL

Samanids were a vassal of Al-Mamun, meaning they were under his subordination.

And "Khurasaan" in Ancient times was just a word for place where the Sun Rises, meaning the Eastern Territories. I'm not against Persians, but this type of Iranian/Persian nationalism that you seem to subscribe to is pure imagination.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

"Here, in this region (Khorasan), the language is Persian, and the kings of this realm are Persian kings."

Samanid edict. The History of Iran By Elton L. Daniel, pg. 74


Since afghanistan was created by brits in 1893 by durrand (actually even the name of khorasan was changed into afghanistan by elphistone. ahmad shah durrani never called to his empire "afghanistan") and there is no historical evidence about any pashtun presence in what used to be called sakastan-khorasan one thousand ago (actually according tarikh al hind by al biruni he calls to pashtun an indian tribe from solemain mountains lol) your statement is pure nationalist garbage.

Please prove wrong. You won't because you can't. You will just call me tajik b*stard just because I point out facts LOL

I'm actually a Pashtun who agrees that the actual Ethnogenesis of Pashtuns occurred at a much later date than Modern Pashtuns claim; claims of an alleged 5000 years old heritage are as vacuous as the air in a balloon. But despite that your intellectual dishonesty is blatant; Al Biruni never claims that Pashtuns were Indians, he suggested that their religion was some type of Hinduism, probably related to Polytheistic tendencies and such. Tajiks too adopted Hinduism since we know the Kabul Shahi was Hindu and Buddhism, another religion of Indian origins was practiced by Bactrians, who were ancestral to both modern Tajiks, Baluch and Pashtuns.

[vinyard80]

I'm actually a Pashtun who agrees that the actual Ethnogenesis of Pashtuns occurred at a much later date than Modern Pashtuns claim; claims of an alleged 5000 years old heritage are as vacuous as the air in a balloon. But despite that your intellectual dishonesty is blatant; Al Biruni never claims that Pashtuns were Indians, he suggested that their religion was some type of Hinduism, probably related to Polytheistic tendencies and such. Tajiks too adopted Hinduism since we know the Kabul Shahi was Hindu and Buddhism, another religion of Indian origins was practiced by Bactrians, who were ancestral to both modern Tajiks, Baluch and Pashtuns.

Dude I am just trolling those nationalist guys.

Kabul despite being originally a tajik city, kabuli shahis were not "tajiks" but turkic.

On hinduism well I don't have any problem with them. To me all religions are same sh*t just different names. Islam, zoroastrism, buddism or hinduis I don't care. But if I was religious I would be zoroastrian, buddist or hindu after all I feel more related to them (according some hindu scholars Rig Veda was written in the valley of "kabura", kabul) and not with that evil panarabic movement called islam.

Al Biruni claims that a tribe called pathans live in solemain mountains who are "akin to hindu people".


Hail.

[vinyard80]

Absolutely, Inshallah in future when we have control over our own sovereignty, and can sit on around a table like true brothers. We will together check our race and population, after that, I not only proof, but you will feel the policy of purify. The truth will set us all free and ignorance about this topic will be no more.

Take care wroora.

So you can not prove us that you belong to a "master pure race".

I told you many times that I don't give a care about "Races" or "ethnicity". Good and bad people can be found in every religion, ethnicity and/or religion.

You are a joke.

[vinyard80]

I'm actually a Pashtun who agrees that the actual Ethnogenesis of Pashtuns occurred at a much later date than Modern Pashtuns claim; claims of an alleged 5000 years old heritage are as vacuous as the air in a balloon. But despite that your intellectual dishonesty is blatant; Al Biruni never claims that Pashtuns were Indians, he suggested that their religion was some type of Hinduism, probably related to Polytheistic tendencies and such. Tajiks too adopted Hinduism since we know the Kabul Shahi was Hindu and Buddhism, another religion of Indian origins was practiced by Bactrians, who were ancestral to both modern Tajiks, Baluch and Pashtuns.

Pashtun origin is not clear. Some pashtun claims they descend from jews, some claim they descend from qais an arab and some other pashtun trace back their roots to scythians, kushans or bactrians. Pashtuns just like tajiks are a confederation of many tribes who speak one language and got one culture. Tajiks are mainly bactrian, sogdian, parthians and persians but there are also mongol-turkic, greek, scythian,..etc contributions. On pashtuns same thing: confederation of iranian, indian and turkic tribes. Pashtuns are originally an indian tribe after all first pashtun empires in history were located in india and not in khorasan (those pashtuns who claim ghorids were pashtuns without providing any proof are a joke).

[vinyard80]

Samanids were a vassal of Al-Mamun, meaning they were under his subordination.

And "Khurasaan" in Ancient times was just a word for place where the Sun Rises, meaning the Eastern Territories. I'm not against Persians, but this type of Iranian/Persian nationalism that you seem to subscribe to is pure imagination.

I did not say khorasan was a country. Khorasan was just largest province of iran zameen. I am talking about a cultural identity inhabited by several tribes and was ruled by many ethnic tribes ("tajik", pashtuns, persianized turkic tribes, etc). Ahmad Shah Durrani was a pashtun and he was last king of khorasan (After him most of pashtun rulers were a bunch of uneducated donkeys until abdul rahman khan/brits who abolished khorasan and created afghanistan).

On samanids they were a de facto independent kingdom. Every islamic kingdom during islamic golden age claimed to be loyal to bagdad.. Even shia kingdoms such as buyies claimed to be loyal to abbasids (LOL= but they were independent de facto. After al Harun al Rashid abbasids became puppets and had no real control over their "empire".

[vinyard80]

What does any of this BS you are writing have to do with sharia law? who is taking you seriously?

You do.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

Pashtun origin is not clear. Some pashtun claims they descend from jews, some claim they descend from qais an arab and some other pashtun trace back their roots to scythians, kushans or bactrians. Pashtuns just like tajiks are a confederation of many tribes who speak one language and got one culture. Tajiks are mainly bactrian, sogdian, parthians and persians but there are also mongol-turkic, greek, scythian,..etc contributions. On pashtuns same thing: confederation of iranian, indian and turkic tribes. Pashtuns are originally an indian tribe after all first pashtun empires in history were located in india and not in khorasan (those pashtuns who claim ghorids were pashtuns without providing any proof are a joke).

Qaid Abdur rashid could be a bactrian,Who acccepted Islam after his visit to arabia and became a Sahabi.

Upon return he succeeded in Converting his fellow tribes.

He may not be the father of all pashtuns as claimed and his 4 sons.But since the Foundation of a Pashtun is/was based on Islam.He was considered as the father of pashtuns and is considered till now.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I

On samanids they were a de facto independent kingdom. Every islamic kingdom during islamic golden age claimed to be loyal to bagdad.. Even shia kingdoms such as buyies claimed to be loyal to abbasids (LOL= but they were independent de facto. After al Harun al Rashid abbasids became puppets and had no real control over their "empire".

Al Mu'Tadid used the Samanids to be their foot soldiers against Amr Layth. He made Khurasani fight Khurasani, this ghulamagi to the highest degree if you ask me.

[vinyard80]

Qaid Abdur rashid could be a bactrian,Who acccepted Islam after his visit to arabia and became a Sahabi.

Upon return he succeeded in Converting his fellow tribes.

He may not be the father of all pashtuns as claimed and his 4 sons.But since the Foundation of a Pashtun is/was based on Islam.He was considered as the father of pashtuns and is considered till now.

Makes sense who knows?

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

Makes sense who knows?

Indeed.these are just mere assumptions

I have come across some latest genetic tests in the indian forums claiming that pashtuns had 44% genetic similarities with Indic People.

I believe pashtun being part of iranian people is not true at all.Both of them in every sense are completely different including kurds

[vinyard80]

Al Mu'Tadid used the Samanids to be their foot soldiers against Amr Layth. He made Khurasani fight Khurasani, this ghulamagi to the highest degree if you ask me.

You are wrong. Khurasanis were at the time abbasid "guard corps". Samanids raided several times "turkestan" and brought thousand of turkic slaves and sold them in Bagdad. Those slaves replaced khurasanis.

Anyway I don't know what are you talking about. Samanids are known as successors of sassanids, sons of bahram chohbin and brought to live persian culture and persian language. They got islamized but not arabized. Rudaki, Ferdowsi, daqiqi,.. and so on. To be honest with you khurasanis never trusted arabs. Arabs/muslims killed abu muslim khorasani and betrayed barmakids, those who fought for them and and taught them a new and better culture.


As you can see my beloved pashtun nationalist brothers and sisters, persian/khurasani history is much more exciting than pashtun history. And you guys wonder why I prefer them over pashtun tribal culture? lmao

[vinyard80]

Indeed.these are just mere assumptions

I have come across some latest genetic tests in the indian forums claiming that pashtuns had 44% genetic similarities with Indic People.

I believe pashtun being part of iranian people is not true at all.Both of them in every sense are completely different including kurds

I don't think so. Actually it depends. Some pashtun tribes such as yusufzais claim to be originally persians. Ghilzais are originally turks,.. and so on. Every "pashtun tribe" is related to his neighbor. Same with tajiks. Tajiks from west afghanistan are related to persians from mashed. Tajiks from south and east are related to their pashtun cousins. And tajiks from north afghanistan are related to their tajik brothers from uzbekistan and tajikistan.

Its not that easy.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You are wrong. Khurasanis were at the time abbasid "guard corps". Samanids raided several times "turkestan" and brought thousand of turkic slaves and sold them in Bagdad. Those slaves replaced khurasanis.

Anyway I don't know what are you talking about. Samanids are known as successors of sassanids, sons of bahram chohbin and brought to live persian culture and persian language. They got islamized but not arabized. Rudaki, Ferdowsi, daqiqi,.. and so on. To be honest with you khurasanis never trusted arabs. Arabs/muslims killed abu muslim khorasani and betrayed barmakids, those who fought for them and and taught them a new and better culture.


As you can see my beloved pashtun nationalist brothers and sisters, persian/khurasani history is much more exciting than pashtun history. And you guys wonder why I prefer them over pashtun tribal culture? lmao

It's actually recorded by Al Tabari that Samanids were vassals and they helped The Calpih dispose of the Saffarids. The Samainds were LOYAL servants of the Abbasids, This how Tabari describes them.

The only thing I find interesting about Persian/Tajik histyory is how Modern Persians or Persianphiles romanticize something that never existed. I'm not a Pashtun Nationalist by any means in fact I'm 100% against Pashtunwali, but Persian reivalists are worse in self delusions than Pashtuns are.