Pakistani's low self worth

[Shapur]

Good point Shapur khan, but its not correct in our context. In our country ethnicity and culture play a huge role (unlike England or Australia): in Afghanistan, if you are ethnically Iranic and culturally Persian, you are a Tajik. If you are ethnically Turkic-Mongol but culturally Persian, then you are a Hazara. So hell yeah, lets consider this: you are ethnically Pashtun (ergo Iranic), but culturally Persian. You can't speak Pashto, you don't care about Pashtun values nor their ways.. your mother tongue is Farsi, you live in a Tajik city, you are 24/7 surrounded by Tajiks, you celebrate nawrooz, you name your kids after Persian heros, you marry a Tajik girl/boy.. oh man, you are Tajik then. Cultural assimilation. But the thing is in the same scenario but instead a Pashtun with an Englishman, I would never consider him a Tajik. Never.

That's true but a persianised Pashtun would not identify as a Tajik, maybe Farsiwan or Herati, Mazari depending on where he lived unless he is mixed or completely assimilated to the point where he has no idea about his origins but most Pashtuns are recent migrants in the north so they know where they have come from.

[Dovahkiin]

Ghurids (its ruling family) were claiming descent from Zuhak bin Tazi, the mythical demonic ruler of Persia of Syrian descent. They were not Turks. They had Turk slaves in their service, just like Khorasanian Samanids were keeping Turkic slave soldiers and commanders. They had also free Khilji and Afghan mercenaries in their service. Claiming descent from mythical figures of Persia, was a fashion in this part of world. Hasan Ganju who was native of Ghazni and founded the Bahmanid dynasty of Deccan , claimed descent from Kay Bahman, the mythological figure of Iran. Ghurid dynasty belongs to Afghanistan, if not ethnic Afghans.

The so called Ghaznavids were not exactly indigenous Ghaznavids by roots. They were Turkic slaves of Central Asia in the service of Samanids. One of the Turkic slave Alpatagin dispossessed indigenous rulers of Ghazni, the Lawiks, and ruled Ghazni as nominal vassals of Samanid empire. Sebuktagin (father of Mahmud Ghaznavi), the fifth Turkic slave commander ruling Ghazni, was born in Barskhan district of Kyrgyzstan. He declared independence from Samanid empire.

If we have to probe this much deeper about ethnicity of rulers of Afghanistan, the same approach can be applied to history of Punjab. I say Porus was not Punjabi. There is no source or evidence which points towards Punjabi identity of Porus. Bahlol Lodi was also born in Punjab and yet he was of Afghan descent. Same might be the case with Porus. There is no evidence that Punjabi language existed 600 years ago let alone millennium ago.

Ghorids appear to be Persian speakers of Ghor city which was Hindu before Mahmud Ghaznavi's Turkic invasion and conquest, but were not Afghans (Pashtuns).

As for Punjabi, it existed much before 600 years ago, as it first came into writing in Baba Fariduddin Ganjshakar's poetry in around 12th century.
Porus was a native of Jhelum, and so he could be called a Punjabi.

[Samandri]

Ghorids were Tajik/Persians and Ghaznawids were Persianized Turks. Both of them were from Khorasan aka modern Afghanistan. So Azmal is right to some degree.

But at the end of the day Pashtun nationalists are like many of you Pakis: they need to relate themselves to other people and steal their cultural heritage in order to feel better.

Ghaznavids were not persianized or any thing like that, Farsi was their court language just like it was court language of Ahmad Shah Abdali. Sebuktagin was born in modern day Kyrgyzstan.

Although Ghurids claim descent from mythological ruler of Iran, Zohak bin Tazi , but some of the dynasties in India and elsewhere have also done the same to make their genealogy appear illustrious. Moreover Zohak bin Tazi was Syrian Arab in legend. They were certainly speaking another language and their culture , life style was very different and distinct from Persians/Iranians. They were like Burkis and Gibaris of Pashtun belt. Gibaris ruled Swat and Bajaur before arrival of Afghans. They had their own language called Gibari but are put in category of Tajiks. "Dihgan" Shilmanis of Peshawar valley (who were subjects of Gibaris) are also categorized as Tajiks and their native place was in Kurram. Remnants of Gibaris nowadays speak Pashto, same is the case with Shilmanis who can be found in Khyber agency.

What is called "Hindu" in Utbi and Bayhaqi's history, was Buddhist.......the term was in usage for infidels....moreover they have also used the term for faithless people.....the ruler of Ghor was Muhammad ibn-i-Suri, a Muslim, yet he is called Hindu by Utbi out of contempt. Ghor had Muslims as well as non-Muslims as evident from 10th century source Hadud-i-alam. The Kafirsitanis have also been referred to as Hindus by some sources. No traces of Hindu monuments can be found in Ghor, only Buddhist.

[Samandri]

Ghorids appear to be Persian speakers of Ghor city which was Hindu before Mahmud Ghaznavi's Turkic invasion and conquest, but were not Afghans (Pashtuns).

As for Punjabi, it existed much before 600 years ago, as it first came into writing in Baba Fariduddin Ganjshakar's poetry in around 12th century.
Porus was a native of Jhelum, and so he could be called a Punjabi.

I would like to see some sample of Fariduddin Ganj's poetry, to see whether its any thing like Punjabi.

The number of east Iranian groups in nowadays Afghanistan (styled as Tajiks nowadays), were not speaking Farsi in those times. In 10th century sources , Ghor is mentioned to be speaking a language different from that of Khorasan and Persia and Sultan Masud Ghaznavi needed translators to communicate with Ghorians according to contemporary Tarikh-i-Bayhaqi (the court language of Ghaznavids was Farsi and all of their literature is in Farsi)

[shamless]

About Ghor, this is written:

"The region had previously been conquered by Mahmud of Ghazni, and the population converted to Islam.[11]
It was also the last stronghold of an ancient religion professed by the inhabitants when all their neighbors had become Muhammadan. In the 11th century AD Mahmud of Ghazni defeated the prince of Ghor Ibn–I-Suri, and made him prisoner in a severely contested engagement in the valley of Ahingaran. Ibn-I-Suri is identified a Hindu by the author, who has recorded his overthrow.[12]"

from
The Kingdom of Afghanistan: a historical sketch By George Passman Tate Edition: illustrated Published by Asian Educational Services, 2001 Page 12

They were turks.

Turkic origin (not pure because they were likely half hindus or more by that time) rulers ruled India till Mughals overpowered them. Without them this region including Afghanistan would have been non-muslims since arabs couldn't penetrate deep in to it.

[Dovahkiin]

I would like to see some sample of Fariduddin Ganj's poetry, to see whether its any thing like Punjabi.

The number of east Iranian groups in nowadays Afghanistan (styled as Tajiks nowadays), were not speaking Farsi in those times. In 10th century sources , Ghor is mentioned to be speaking a language different from that of Khorasan and Persia and Sultan Masud Ghaznavi needed translators to communicate with Ghorians according to contemporary Tarikh-i-Bayhaqi (the court language of Ghaznavids was Farsi and all of their literature is in Farsi)

You can find it here
Turia Turia Ja Farida – Nusrat Fateh Ali: Download MP3 - TheSufi.com

As for Ghorids:

"Instead, the consensus in modern scholarship (incl. Morgenstierne, Bosworth, Dupree, Gibb, Ghirshman, Longworth Dames and others) holds that the dynasty was most likely of Tajik origin.[14][15][16] Bosworth further points out that the actual name of the Ghurid family, Āl-e Šansab (Persianized: Šansabānī), is the Arabic pronunciation of the originally Middle Persian name Wišnasp, hinting at a (Sasanian) Persian origin.[17]"

However, this is complicated by the fact that Ghor and Ghoristan at that time are noted to have been Hindu and Buddhist before conquest and conversion by Mahmud Ghaznavi and Turkics, rather than Zoroastrians.

[Samandri]

What is called "Hindu" in Utbi and Bayhaqi's history, was Buddhist.......the term was in usage for infidels....moreover they have also used the term for faithless people.....the ruler of Ghor was Muhammad ibn-i-Suri, a Muslim, yet he is called Hindu by Utbi out of contempt. Ghor had Muslim majority , as well as significant non-Muslim population, as evident from 10th century source Hadud-i-alam. The Kafirsitanis have also been referred to as Hindus by some sources. No traces of Hindu monuments can be found in Ghor, only Buddhist.

[Dovahkiin]

What is called "Hindu" in Utbi and Bayhaqi's history, was Buddhist.......the term was in usage for infidels....moreover they have also used the term for faithless people.....the ruler of Ghor was Muhammad ibn-i-Suri, a Muslim, yet he is called Hindu by Utbi out of contempt. Ghor had Muslim majority , as well as significant non-Muslim population, as evident from 10th century source Hadud-i-alam. The Kafirsitanis have also been referred to as Hindus by some sources. No traces of Hindu monuments can be found in Ghor, only Buddhist.

From Tarikh-i-Guzida:

"Sultan Mahumud now went to fight with the Ghorians, who were infidels at that time. Suri, their chief, was killed in this war, and his son was taken prisoner; but he killed himself by sucking poison which he had kept under the stone of his ring. The country of Ghor was annexed to that of the Sultan, and the population thereof converted to Islam. He now attacked the fort of Bhim, where was a temple of the Hindus"

That 'different language' from Khurasan could have been Indic/Indo-Aryan language as well, especially since Kabul and Kandahar region before the Ghaznawi-Turkic conquest was under Kabul Shahis who spoke Sanskrit dialect, likely related to Lahnda Western Punjabi dialects.

[Samandri]

From Tarikh-i-Guzida:

"Sultan Mahumud now went to fight with the Ghorians, who were infidels at that time. Suri, their chief, was killed in this war, and his son was taken prisoner; but he killed himself by sucking poison which he had kept under the stone of his ring. The country of Ghor was annexed to that of the Sultan, and the population thereof converted to Islam. He now attacked the fort of Bhim, where was a temple of the Hindus"

That 'different language' from Khurasan could have been Indic/Indo-Aryan language as well, especially since Kabul and Kandahar region before the Ghaznawi-Turkic conquest was under Kabul Shahis who spoke Sanskrit dialect, likely related to Lahnda Western Punjabi dialects.

You are not paying attention to the details. Immediately after conquering Ghor, Mahmud started an Indian campaign. Bhim was a fort of Nagarkot, India and Hindu temple was there The history of Hindustan. Vol. 1 - Google Books

[shamless]

You can find it here
Turia Turia Ja Farida – Nusrat Fateh Ali: Download MP3 - TheSufi.com

As for Ghorids:

"Instead, the consensus in modern scholarship (incl. Morgenstierne, Bosworth, Dupree, Gibb, Ghirshman, Longworth Dames and others) holds that the dynasty was most likely of Tajik origin.[14][15][16] Bosworth further points out that the actual name of the Ghurid family, Āl-e Šansab (Persianized: Šansabānī), is the Arabic pronunciation of the originally Middle Persian name Wišnasp, hinting at a (Sasanian) Persian origin.[17]"

However, this is complicated by the fact that Ghor and Ghoristan at that time are noted to have been Hindu and Buddhist before conquest and conversion by Mahmud Ghaznavi and Turkics, rather than Zoroastrians.

Ghorids were Tajiks. They organized themselves under one true leader Amir Banji (rehmattuallah aleislam) and conquered their neighbours to spread Islam. In recent history we can see example of few sikhs who to spread sikhsm defeated much larger armies of Mughals and Afghans.

[Dovahkiin]

You are not paying attention to the details. Immediately after conquering Ghor, Mahmud started an Indian campaign. Bhim was a fort of Nagarkot, India and Hindu temple was there The history of Hindustan. Vol. 1 - Google Books

My bad. Well, even still there is no conclusive proof that Ghor wasn't Hindu before Ghaznavi and Turkics invaded. I think some scholars might have used Hindu and Buddhist interchangeably as both were from India or perhaps it might be indication of Indic/Indo-Aryan language being spoken there, or perhaps it was part of Kabul Shahi Kingdom and spoke Sanskrit dialects related to Lahnda Western Punjabi?

[Samandri]

My bad. Well, even still there is no conclusive proof that Ghor wasn't Hindu before Ghaznavi and Turkics invaded. I think some scholars might have used Hindu and Buddhist interchangeably as both were from India or perhaps it might be indication of Indic/Indo-Aryan language being spoken there, or perhaps it was part of Kabul Shahi Kingdom and spoke Sanskrit dialects related to Lahnda Western Punjabi?

Hindu Shahi kingdom did not extend to Ghor and spread of Buddhism to these parts is not evidence of Indo-Aryan origin, for example Buddhist monuments can also be found in areas of Afghanistan north of Hindu Kush. I do have proof with me......Hadud-i-alam, written in 982 AD. here is reference from its english translation ;Ghor is described as :

"a province amid mountains and rugged country. It has a King called Ghur Shah. He draws his strength from the mir of Guzganan. In the days of old this province of Ghur was pagan (Kafir) ; actually most of the people are Muslims. To them belong numerous boroughs and villages. From this province come slaves , armour, coats of mail, and good arms. The people are bad-tempered, unruly, and ignorant. They are white and swarthy" (page-110)

Here is ebook of Hadud-i-alam in pdf format http://pahar.in/wpfb-file/1970-hudud...inorsky-s-pdf/

[Win Butler]

Yeah, Ghaznavids were Turks but Ghorid origin isn't totally confirmed Tajik. I would've thought that Tajiks would have been Zoroastrians at that time?

"The Ghuristan region remained primarily populated by Hindus and Buddhists till the 12th century. It was then Islamised and gave rise to the Ghurids.

The rise to power of the Ghurids at Ghur, a small isolated area located in the mountain vastness between the Ghaznavid empire and the Seljukids, was an unusual and unexpected development. The area was so remote that till the 11th century, it had remained a Hindu enclave surrounded by Muslim principalities. It was converted to Islam in the early part of the 12th century after Mahmud raided it, and left teachers to instruct the Ghurids in the precepts of Islam. Even then it is believed that paganism, i.e. a variety of Mahayana Buddhism persisted in the area till the end of the century.[5]"

And being from a region matters little e.g Akbar was born in Sindh so was he a 'Sindhi'?

Tajiks were not just Zoroastrian. They also practiced Buddhism, Hinduism, Manichaeism, Nestorian Christianity, etc. depending on the region or even within the same region. Bactria was a major center of Buddhism. The Hephthalite rulers of Khatlon (southern Tajikistan) even practiced Hinduism. That doesn't mean they were Indian anymore than being Muslim makes one Arab.

The Ghorids spoke an East Iranic language before being Persianized. Tajiks and Pashtuns have a lot of shared ancestry going back so both Tajiks from Ghor/western Afghanistan in general and some Pashtun tribes can claim them. Trying to anachronistically project modern ethnic identities onto medieval empires with certitude is problematic.

[Dovahkiin]

Hindu Shahi kingdom did not extend to Ghor and spread of Buddhism to these parts is not evidence of Indo-Aryan origin, for example Buddhist monuments can also be found in areas of Afghanistan north of Hindu Kush. I do have proof with me......Hadud-i-alam, written in 982 AD. here is reference from its english translation ;Ghor is described as :

"a province amid mountains and rugged country. It has a King called Ghur Shah. He draws his strength from the mir of Guzganan. In the days of old this province of Ghur was pagan (Kafir) ; actually most of the people are Muslims. To them belong numerous boroughs and villages. From this province come slaves , armour, coats of mail, and good arms. The people are bad-tempered, unruly, and ignorant. They are white and swarthy" (page-110)

Here is ebook of Hadud-i-alam in pdf format 197 Hudud al-Alam–the Regions of the World a Persian Geography 982AD 2nd ed by Minorsky s | MCADD-PAHAR

Well, spread of Buddhism is linked with Indo-Aryan influence given Buddhism's origins and proximity of Ghor to Kabul Shahi territories.
It seems as if there are conflicting sources on Ghor, some say Muslim others Hindu or Buddhist though it is filled with Buddhist temples and writers used Buddhist and Hindu interchangeably. 10th century seems bit too early but it could have spread by Saffarid or Ummayad conquest, rather than by Turkic.

[Dovahkiin]

Tajiks were not just Zoroastrian. They also practiced Buddhism, Hinduism, Manichaeism, Nestorian Christianity, etc. depending on the region or even within the same region. Bactria was a major center of Buddhism. The Hephthalite rulers of Khatlon (southern Tajikistan) even practiced Hinduism. That doesn't mean they were Indian anymore than being Muslim makes one Arab.

The Ghorids spoke an East Iranic language before being Persianized. Tajiks and Pashtuns have a lot of shared ancestry going back so both Tajiks from Ghor/western Afghanistan in general and some Pashtun tribes can claim them. Trying to anachronistically project modern ethnic identities onto medieval empires with certitude is problematic.

I think using linguistic terms and trying to project them onto modern ethnic identities is problematic as well, given that the Kabul-Kandahar region spoken a Sanskrit dialect related to Lahnda Western Punjabi dialects at that time.

Afghans of that time have been mentioned as Hindus by Al-Beruni:

"Al Beruni mentions the Afghans once (ed Sachau, I 208) saying that in the western mountains of India live various tribes of Afghans who extend to the neighbourhood of the Sindh (ie Indus) valley. Thus in the eleventh century when the Afghans are first mentioned, they are found occupying the Sulaiman Mountains now occupied by their descendents, the very tribes which the advocates of the exclusive claims of the Durannis will not admit to be true Afghans. Al Beruni no doubt also alludes to them in the passage (loc. Cit .p 199) where he says that rebellious savage races, tribes of Hindus, or akin to them inhabit the mountains which form the frontier of India towards the west.[6]

The most explicit mentioning of the Afghans appears in Al- Baruni’s Tarikh Al-Hind (eleventh century AD). Here it is said that various tribes of Afghans lived in the mountains in the west of India. Al Baruni adds that they were savage people and he describes them as Hindus.[7]"