Pashtuns before Islam

[Happy Khan]

D

[RevolutionThroughReason]

There is none really

the strongest attempts at even demonstrating the existence of Pashtuns prior to Islam is some references from Al Biruni

and some very ambiguous references to Pakhta and Pactuye .....This theory however has been debunked by Linguistic Analysis since Linguists agree that the Softer Dialect of Pashto is the more ancient one thereby references of "Pakhta" and Pactuye would not hold as these words are not related to Pashtun/Pakhtun or Pashto/Pakhto

Much of what Modern Pashtuns believe of their history is simply myths and folklore with no historical basis.

[Kushan Prince]

They were hardcore pagans from what i know. Most pakhtun tribes were buddhists, zorasterinsts or were monotheists (minority.)

[RevolutionThroughReason]

When speaking of Buddhists and Hindus in the land area of what is presently Afghanisan, we're actually referring to people who pre-existed the Pashtuns.

[Badlun]

The champion of reason thinks on such unreasonable way that millions of Pashtuns just appeared on the map of the earth on the eve of Islam or on one day just 1000 years back! According to this unreasonable approach it seems that all Pashtuns were born as Muslims and they never practiced any other religion or way of life.

How the sudden birth of millions of people is possible in this way. It takes thousands of years when a race, an ethnic group or a nation is born and get such a homogeneous shape as Pashtuns with one language, one cultural pattern, one racial stock, one social set up and one geography. Do you think the today's existence of about 70 millions of Pashtuns just took 1000 years to evolve?

Yes the existence of written record of Pashto is about one thousand years. Pashtuns were not a literate people as at that time there was no concept of literacy. If a people is not mentioned by others or they do not write about themselves, it does not mean they did not exist physically. There might be many races and ethnicities in Amazon or jungles of Africa , yet not discovered, but they may exist for a millennium of years.

What I have studied and what I can guess about pre Islam Pashtuns, is that they were practicing Pashtunwali as a way of life. They had their mythology like deo turaban and kohe qap, had a system like Buddhists without any God and were living like nomadic or agriculture based tribes. Gandhara civilization , Buddhism and Hinduism might have influenced them as these were the dominant religions or ways of life before Islam in those areas where Pashtuns are living.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well Millions of Pashtuns are on the map in 2014. Not in 1000 AD

Back in 1000 A.D. the world population was maybe 300 Million. This is the entire world population, including China, Europe, Africa, South America , Asia and Australia, Pashtuns today are bout 50 Million, that is only 1/700 th (50 Million/7.224 Billion) of current world population. Assuming that growth rate was constant that would mean In 1000 AD Pashtun population would probably have been 42,000 people. (300 Million * 1/700 = (approx) 42,000)

If Pashtuns were at one time 42,000 people 1000 years ago then it is easy to see how Millions of Pashtuns could appear today.

What this means is that if Pashtuns were born out of a very small population of People. 42,000 people is the size of a Small American town. We can see that if different people like Soghdians, Indians, Persians Turks, Khotanese all came and mixed together each a a small bit. Then All these groups can easy create a 42,000 Proto Pashtun population. What this demonstrates is that Pashtuns are more probably simply a product of different Non-Pashtuns mixing together and then developing their own language over time.

So that means Pashtuns are not 5000 years old, that Pashtuns are not homogeneous and that the stories Pashtuns have about their origins are myhs and folklore.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Does anyone know what the Pashtun diaspora believed in before Islam?

Do you know of any theories and archaeological work. Thank you.

Avestan, the language of the Zoroastrian texts is said to be one of the ancestors of Pashto.

Zorostrianism originates from Balkh in modern day Afghanistan and not what is now called Iran.

For example the Pashto word for dog is "Spai", whereas in Avestan it is "Span".


In Pashto when you want to talk about I, you use "zam", whereas in Avestan it is "Azam".

You can read this for more information: http://www.avesta.org/language/vocab.htm


So Zoroaster was probably an ancestor of Pashtuns or at least related to the Iranic race now known as Pashtuns.


This is not to say that Pashtuns now, just like Arabs speak one language but have different racial mixture e.g. certain tribes of Turkic origin, some Pashtuns of Indic origin e.g. in Pakistan etc.

However the original Pashtuns were an Iranic race (like the Balochis, Kurds, Persians etc).




Prior to Islam, modern day Afghanistan did see Buddhism being practised there including Greek Buddhist kingdoms as well as other religions and empires e.g. Hinduism and the Kushans.



There is much more that can be said about this topic but this in a nutshell is my two cents.

[kanishka]

Avestan, the language of the Zoroastrian texts is said to be one of the ancestors of Pashto.

Zorostrianism originates from Balkh in modern day Afghanistan and not what is now called Iran.

For example the Pashto word for dog is "Spai", whereas in Avestan it is "Span".


In Pashto when you want to talk about I, you use "zam", whereas in Avestan it is "Azam".

You can read this for more information: http://www.avesta.org/language/vocab.htm


So Zoroaster was probably an ancestor of Pashtuns or at least related to the Iranic race now known as Pashtuns.


This is not to say that Pashtuns now, just like Arabs speak one language but have different racial mixture e.g. certain tribes of Turkic origin, some Pashtuns of Indic origin e.g. in Pakistan etc.

However the original Pashtuns were an Iranic race (like the Balochis, Kurds, Persians etc).




Prior to Islam, modern day Afghanistan did see Buddhism being practised there including Greek Buddhist kingdoms as well as other religions and empires e.g. Hinduism and the Kushans.



There is much more that can be said about this topic but this in a nutshell is my two cents.

Pashtoons were related to a race that Zoroaster came from but not exactly hte same race. My best guess is Pashtoons had no religion or were animists or something like that. If we think animists, then we are looking at a religion similar to Kalash and Kaffiristanis but i can't be too sure... even Zoroastrianism's sacred language is closest to Pakhto i doubt many Pashtoons were Zoroastrian.

How Sikhism's language is based on Punjabi yet most Punjabis are Pakistani Muslims :P

[Kushan Prince]

Pashtoons were related to a race that Zoroaster came from but not exactly hte same race. My best guess is Pashtoons had no religion or were animists or something like that. If we think animists, then we are looking at a religion similar to Kalash and Kaffiristanis but i can't be too sure... even Zoroastrianism's sacred language is closest to Pakhto i doubt many Pashtoons were Zoroastrian.

How Sikhism's language is based on Punjabi yet most Punjabis are Pakistani Muslims :P

Animism is mostly an African thing and there is no evidence that Pashtuns ever practised such a thing before islam.

Learn history killzai.

[kanishka]

Animism is mostly an African thing and there is no evidence that Pashtuns ever practised such a thing before islam.

Learn history killzai.

LoL.... I'm not Killzai


and Listen, sorry i said animism but i was thinking about a religion that was practiced but not written down in books..

The Kalash and Nuristani religion is not written, as far as i'm concerned... if it was , tell me... they are like a random religion that call their god's the names used in hinduism. Scholar's called them animists...

My best guess is Pashtoons practiced what Kalash practiced... an un-organized Aryan religion :$ Zoroastrianism existed but they prolly didn't practice it..

I don't consider zoroastrianism people of the book, don't be fooled... it's not a deen considered People of the book, only Jews and christians qualify for that... Ahura Mazda has limited qualities and is equal to angrai mainyu., Zoroastrianism believe hell is temporary which is really different cause in the Quran, allah said non-believers will tell you hell is goanna last only for a few days. Zoroastrianism and zoroaster don't seem to qualify as a messenger of allah, i'm jus saying, any old religions that were truly from Islam are totally gone now and it's up to the present time to learn the present religion.....

No one can make a religion by himself that fits allah's commandment, every religion someone attempted to make on his own does not match Islam...

[Kushan Prince]

[QUOTE=kanishka;735448]LoL.... I'm not Killzai

LoL.... I'm not Killzai

Yes you are lol.

My best guess is Pashtoons practiced what Kalash practiced... an un-organized Aryan religion :$ Zoroastrianism existed but they prolly didn't practice it..

You're best guess is an opinion, not a fact. Unless you can provide us some proof of what you are saying then good, if not i would remain quite. It's blandly obvious that Pashtuns were buddhists before islam due to all the buddhist statues and monasteries found in the country.

I don't consider zoroastrianism people of the book, don't be fooled... it's not a deen considered People of the book, only Jews and christians qualify for that... Ahura Mazda has limited qualities and is equal to angrai mainyu., Zoroastrianism believe hell is temporary which is really different cause in the Quran, allah said non-believers will tell you hell is goanna last only for a few days. Zoroastrianism and zoroaster don't seem to qualify as a messenger of allah, i'm jus saying, any old religions that were truly from Islam are totally gone now and it's up to the present time to learn the present religion.....

When have i even claimed that? What are you even talking about?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

]You're best guess is an opinion, not a fact. Unless you can provide us some proof of what you are saying then good, if not i would remain quite. It's blandly obvious that Pashtuns were buddhists before islam due to all the buddhist statues and monasteries found in the country.

No offense but most of your claims are also opinions. first you assume Pashtuns even existed as a Distinct and Clearly defined ethnic group which has been shown to be faulty based on linguistic analysis. Then you assume that Pashtuns were the same people who inhabited these regions where Buddhist statues were established. If they were Pashtuns we'd have evidence of Pashto language there because these people could read and write and they also left behind inscriptions. Secondly Pashtuns were nomads and migrated, they didn't settle until about 800 years ago. The inscriptions there are mainly in Khotanese and regional languages existing at that time. None were Pashto

[Kushan Prince]

No offense but most of your claims are also opinions. first you assume Pashtuns even existed as a Distinct and Clearly defined ethnic group which has been shown to be faulty based on linguistic analysis. Then you assume that Pashtuns were the same people who inhabited these regions where Buddhist statues were established. If they were Pashtuns we'd have evidence of Pashto language there because these people could read and write and they also left behind inscriptions. Secondly Pashtuns were nomads and migrated, they didn't settle until about 800 years ago. The inscriptions there are mainly in Khotanese and regional languages existing at that time. None were Pashto

Well there is evidence of pashto language existing back in those times in the form of Avestan which was popular in the north, the same area you also claim as non-pashtun. Oh and pashtuns did exist 5000 years ago dude sorry to burst your bubble. A people of 50 mill can't randomly pop out of nowhere especially not during the introduction of islam and in such a small amount of time. To say Pakhtuns haven't been mentioned in the past is also not true, since the greeks clearly mention Pactyans and Pakhtrians who historians believe are cognate with Pashtuns.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well there is evidence of pashto language existing back in those times in the form of Avestan which was popular in the north, the same area you also claim as non-pashtun. Oh and pashtuns did exist 5000 years ago dude sorry to burst your bubble. A people of 50 mill can't randomly pop out of nowhere especially not during the introduction of islam and in such a small amount of time. To say Pakhtuns haven't been mentioned in the past is also not true, since the greeks clearly mention Pactyans and Pakhtrians who historians believe are cognate with Pashtuns.

Avestan isn't Pashto though, and there's also evidence of Farsi words in Avestan, does that mean Farsi existed in Avestan. There's also Sanskrit words in Pashto, This doesn't mean Sanskrit is Pashto either.The North IS Non-Pashtun, Most of the languages that were existing in the North after Avestan were NOT Pashto. They were Soghdian, Khotanese , Scythian and Bactrian, None of whom called themselves Pashtun.

I already disproved the 50 Million claim by using Population Statistics so you can't use that as a legitimate argument. If we go by current growth rate Constants, then there was only 40,000 Pashtuns 1000 years ago which means since Growth rate was lower back then the actual numbers were lower probably, even less than 20,000

Pactyan and Pakhtrian argument is debunked by Linguistic Evidence in fact the same AVESTAN language argument you're presented. the Sha dialect of Pashto is the closest to Avestan because words which are spelled with "SHA" in Avestan are retained, but the KHA dialect converts them to KHA, for example Ushtra which means camel is USH in "Sha" Pashto but "Ukh" in "Kha" Pakhto. The best argument is that Avestan is an ancestor of Pashto, but it's also Ancestor of Farsi, Kurdish and baluchi. So the claim Avestan is Pashto is weak. since Pakhtrian/Pactuye would not be references to the actual original Pashto.

So actually none of your opinions have any factual basis, they're just you who use very faulty references and assumptions which are mainly wishful thinking. You're making as weak guesses as this Kanishka guy.

[Kushan Prince]

Avestan isn't Pashto though, and there's also evidence of Farsi words in Avestan, does that mean Farsi existed in Avestan. There's also Sanskrit words in Pashto, This doesn't mean Sanskrit is Pashto either.The North IS Non-Pashtun, Most of the languages that were existing in the North after Avestan were NOT Pashto. They were Soghdian, Khotanese , Scythian and Bactrian, None of whom called themselves Pashtun.

I already disproved the 50 Million claim by using Population Statistics so you can't use that as a legitimate argument. If we go by current growth rate Constants, then there was only 40,000 Pashtuns 1000 years ago which means since Growth rate was lower back then the actual numbers were lower probably, even less than 20,000

Pactyan and Pakhtrian argument is debunked by Linguistic Evidence in fact the same AVESTAN language argument you're presented. the Sha dialect of Pashto is the closest to Avestan because words which are spelled with "SHA" in Avestan are retained, but the KHA dialect converts them to KHA, for example Ushtra which means camel is USH in "Sha" Pashto but "Ukh" in "Kha" Pakhto. The best argument is that Avestan is an ancestor of Pashto, but it's also Ancestor of Farsi, Kurdish and baluchi. So the claim Avestan is Pashto is weak. since Pakhtrian/Pactuye would not be references to the actual original Pashto.

So actually none of your opinions have any factual basis, they're just you who use very faulty references and assumptions which are mainly wishful thinking. You're making as weak guesses as this Kanishka guy.

The best argument is that Avestan is an ancestor of Pashto, but it's also Ancestor of Farsi, Kurdish and baluchi. So the claim Avestan is Pashto is weak. since Pakhtrian/Pactuye would not be references to the actual original Pashto.

Hold it right there, farsi, balochi and kurdish are NOT descended from avestan not even close. All these languages are western iranian and have most likely descended from other dialects. Farsi comes from Pahlavi, balochi is descended from median and the kurdish language (s) is not one language, its a set of different dialects with different names. I know a few iranians online that can debunk your devious claims.