what were pashtuns before islam?

[randolph85]

lol @ retro being an iranian christian. both of which are bad enough on their own, but combined create double the awfulness.

and lol @ ashy being the mindless tard that he is.

[retro]

I don't know; when it comes to lifestyle, moral ideals and way of life Pashtuns share more with the MIddle East than with Persians. Persians have historically been more of a regional and cultural threat to us than the Middle East. Even if we factor in the AlQaeda issue, which is very recent, for the most part Pashtuns have held stronger relations, partly because of Sectarian issues, Persians having been predominantly Shi'a for the last 500 or so years, partly because Persians tend to be on the whole much more obnoxious and Pompous in Nature than the Arabs for the most part. Persians wanted to assimilate everyone under Persian Hegemony; where as Arabs historically speaking even when they conquered regions were at least willing to allow large degrees of cultural autonom; when they came as guests they respected the culture they encountered, when Persians came they wanted everything Persianified. We have many records of this from Pashtun historical accounts where Pashtuns were fighting insurrections against Persian attempts at ruling; to the extent of rising up against the Persians and overtaking Persia and entirely massacring the Persian Royal Family.

From the historical record we find numerous evidences; that such things never happened between locals and Arabs, even when skirmishes did erupt; and on the contrary we find examples of people who were at least by existence of their general locale were quite possibly ancestors to Pashtuns. Indeed it was Mahuy Suri, quite possibly one of the Progenitors of Pashtuns who had ordered the death of Yazdgird; such acts would not have happened if the natural allies of the locals of Afghanistan were the Persians over the Arabs as opposed to the Arabs over the Persians.

I understand as a Persian Nationalist; you're driven at trying to incite and usher a Pan-Indo-Aryan collaboration against the Arabs, but for the most part there is more animosity towards Persians amongst Afghans than there is Arabs.

The whole paradigm of Pashtuns or ancestors of Pashtuns being primarily converted by force is historically undemonstrated and even more falsified by the Abbasid policies which predominated most of the Islamic Development of Eastern Lands.

I am not a Persian, Pan-Aryan Nationalist and I don't where you are getting this idea from. Although it's true that the Persian where cultural imperialists and where a certainly invasive force in Asia. Your opinion of the Arabs is wildly inflated and you are desecrating, an important part of your own peoples heritage by vilifying Persia.

Whilst the regions Arabization process, started back in the 7th century with the conquest of both Persia and Afghanistan. The recent rise of Wahhabism in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is indicative of these nations continued Arabization.

Eastern Iranians are originally from Western Central Asia and as you might expect they have Indic associations. They also have ancient ties with the Turko-Persian and Turkic peoples of the region.

Whatever else Pashtuns are they certainly aren't Arabs and nor where most of you're Middle Eastern ancestors. As the Persians are not a Indo-Iranian peoples in a ethnic sence but rather Near Easterns and much the same is true of the Greeks.

Whilst it's true to say that the Arabs are South Western Asians and they are Western Eurasian peoples (a be it one with substantial, maternal Sub-Saharan African ancestry). I can assure you that the Arabs aren't originally from the Near East or Levant and they have no legitimate claim to the Near East. Let alone Egypt or North Africa.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I am not a Persian, Pan-Aryan Nationalist and I don't where you are getting this idea from. Although it's true that the Persian where cultural imperialists and where a certainly invasive force in Asia. Your opinion of the Arabs is wildly inflated and you are desecrating, an important part of your own peoples heritage by vilifying Persia.

Whilst the regions Arabization process, started back in the 7th century with the conquest of both Persia and Afghanistan. The recent rise of Wahhabism in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is indicative of these nations continued Arabization.

Eastern Iranians are originally from Western Central Asia and as you might expect they have Indic associations. They also have ancient ties with the Turko-Persian and Turkic peoples of the region.

Whatever else Pashtuns are they certainly aren't Arabs and nor where most of you're Middle Eastern ancestors. As the Persians are not a Indo-Iranian peoples in a ethnic sence but rather Near Easterns and much the same is true of the Greeks.

Whilst it's true to say that the Arabs are South Western Asians and they are Western Eurasian peoples (a be it one with substantial, maternal Sub-Saharan African ancestry). I can assure you that the Arabs aren't originally from the Near East or Levant and they have no legitimate claim to the Near East. Let alone Egypt or North Africa.

These are just greatly exaggerated and European Imperialist propagated Orientalists propgandism.

what happened wasn't Arabization but rather Hybridization; The movement of Islam Hybridized with local attributesto create a new and Unique identity yet having an overpinning umbrella of Islamic identity. Which in that sense the Arabs as propagaters of Islam has more relevance to Pashtuns than Persians as Aryans, even though Persians and Pashtuns both speak what maybe termed as "Aryan Languages". In short Pashtuns feel more brotherhood with non-Aryan Arabs than with Aryan Persians and even more so than with Europeans who adopt the Aryan flag waving.

Rejecting Persia would not be characteristically villyfing Pashtun heritage; because Pashtuns themselves became defined by it's distinction from Persia. That isn't to say Persians and Pashtuns haven't had exchange or share much in common; but that is to say what Pashtuns identify and value is more akin with Arabs than with Persians on everything from temperment to lifestyle. This is a fundamental fact you cannot deny.

Indeed Ideology and values has overwhelming more influence than perceived linguistic or alleged racial identities.


The Modern Wahhabist Argument as a movement of Arabianism is also a false nomer because Wahhabism is equally antipathic towards Arabic cultural features as it is anyone elses. Evident in their eschewing of music, art and literary tradition of the Arabs. It is in other words a red herring just doctored up by media progandism for Western hegemonic strategy. The problem with Wahhabism isn't some Arabist movement, but rather their Eschatological Nihilism.

Pan Aryanism is too vague and genetically unsubstantiated to make any meaningful or fortified movement from it. Most Pan-Aryanists are just feeble minded European children. The Ideology is often steeped in vague mythologizations of racial purity which never existed, since most Indo-European speakers are racial mish mashes.. Islam is long established in history with a clear cut monolithic character.

[R3SISTANC3]

Iranian Christian? Is like equivalent to saying Israeli Nazi.

And why would anyone try to defend Islam against Christian doctrine? Christianity is a failed religion, the proof is in the pudding, look at all major Western countries... Christianity is dying.

The belief that a God created hell, then created subjects, then those subjects committed original sin, and for that sin to be cleansed God divided himself into 3, part of him became his son, that son had to be born and tortured to death, so that the subjects that God created, could be saved from entering eternal hell that God created in the first place...is such a scam that only brain dead neanderthals will believe in. It is emotional blackmail at epic proportions.

Hey Christian God, why torture and kill your son, why not just FORGIVE? The all loving Christian God had no love for his own child? All the while has control over hell and heaven. It's so stupid..so retarded. UNBELIEVABLE.

The Roman Constantine goes down in history as the greatest manipulator and emotional blackmailer that ever existed.

[retro]

What are your sources? Quran was completely compiled in the life of Holy Prophet (STW). It was written on different Leaves, Leather sheets etc. Besides writing it, Hundreds of Muslim has memorized it. Still they are memorizing it. Stop your lies

You are correct that Muhammads followers most likely memorized the Quran. As the earliest Quran's are poorly written, abridged versions, that are intended to preserve Oral tradition, rather than to be read. However who ever told you that the Quran was compiled during the in the life of Muhammad is misleading you.

It's Uthman ibn Affan, who is accredited as first attempting to develop a definitive text of the Quran, at the expense of other versions, that were circulating. An act for which I might add he paid for his life. As he was assassinated for sectarian reasons by his fellow cultists, who seemingly disagreed, with his particular interpretation of Islam.

Based upon script analysis, the earliest Quranic fragments in the possession of scholars today. Where written in the Ma'il script and even that has been dated towards the end of the eighth century. You also won't find a copy of Uthman's (Tashkent) Quran anywhere, dated before this period. As much like the Topkapi and Samarkand Sana'a Manuscripts, these are written in later Kufic script.

So they could not have been written earlier than 150 years after the Uthmanic Recension was supposedly compiled. What is more these are not to my knowledge, even complete manuscripts. Hence your not going to find, complete or even legible Quran's before the ninth and tenth century.

What is more many of the early Islam manuscripts where partically written on older parchments. Which is why Islamic scholars, cite outlandish, carbon dating results for Quranic fragments in order to try and make them look far older than they actually are (Taqiyya).

[Toramana]

What SE is saying is indicative of the identity crisis in him and his Arabism. Pashtuns are a distinct people, not an extension of Arabs.

[ScimitarXEdge]

What SE is saying is indicative of the identity crisis in him and his Arabism. Pashtuns are a distinct people, not an extension of Arabs.

It only seems that way to you on account of your state of being mentally colonized by europeans and their imperialist motives

[ScimitarXEdge]

What is more many of the early Islam manuscripts where partically written on older parchments. Which is why Islamic scholars, cite outlandish, carbon dating results for Quranic fragments in order to try and make them look far older than they actually are (Taqiyya).

This is merely a conspiracy theory disguised as intellectual critque

Carbon-14 tests date some of the parchments to 645-690 AD.[3] This period may be quite long, especially if the parchment is re-used, a common practice in ancient times. Calligraphic datings have pointed to 710-715 AD.[4]

so even when we factor in the possibility of re-writing overparchment, the writing itself still has dates around the same time. which could not mean they were forged at all.

This is what the science tells us, show science which demonstrates the contrary.

[retro]

What SE is saying is indicative of the identity crisis in him and his Arabism. Pashtuns are a distinct people, not an extension of Arabs.

As things stand, two thirds of Pashtuns are illiterate and Afghans are mostly poor, rural people. If Pashtuns where far more intact cultrally and better educated. Then naturally it would be far more difficult for other peoples to undermine your peoples identity, manipulate or otherwise exploit you. Wahhabism has radicalised Afghanistan and the Saudis and their Paki coolies have a great deal to answer for.

[retro]

so even when we factor in the possibility of re-writing overparchment, the writing itself still has dates around the same time. which could not mean they were forged at all.

Carbon-14 tests date some of the parchments to 645-690 AD.[3] This period may be quite long, especially if the parchment is re-used, a common practice in ancient times. Calligraphic datings have pointed to 710-715 AD.[4]

This is what the science tells us, show science which demonstrates the contrary.

The Calligraphic datings of all these kufic script manuscript fragments are far later than this and many of these parchment where likely scrubbed and re-used. Since the oldest known are late 8th century and are written in the Ma'il script.

You are quoting a secondary source and here is the primary.

Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) Dating And The Qur'ānic Manuscripts
M S M Saifullah, Ghali Adi & ʿAbdullah David

THE AL-WALĪD MANUSCRIPT FROM ṢANʿĀʾ, YEMEN (INV. NO. 20-33.1)

This is perhaps one of the most well-studied Qur'anic manuscripts and comes from Dār al-Makhṭūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen. Hans-Caspar Graf von Bothmer from the University of Saarland, Germany, studied this manuscript in great detail from the point of view of script, ornamentation and illumination.[20] It is one of the earliest known and firmly dated manuscript from the late 1st century of hijra written in the kufic script. This monumental Qur'anic manuscript has the dimensions of 51 cm in length by 47 cm in width (Figure 3). Its origin appears to be from Syria.

Figure 3: A folio of the "Great Umayyad Qur'an" from Ṣanʿāʾ, (Yemen).[21]

Using palaeography, ornamentation and illumination of this manuscript, von Bothmer dated it to the last decade of the 1st century of hijra, around 710–715 CE, in the reign of the Umayyad caliph al-Walīd. However, the radiocarbon dating of this manuscript suggests a date between 657 and 690 CE.[22] Again he confirms the dating of this manuscript elsewhere by pointing out that:

Certain features of the manuscript and the iconography intimate that this work was made for a member of the Umayyad family; historical circumstances suggest that caliph al-Walid himself may have commissioned it. However, the carbon dating points to a slightly earlier date.[23]

Here it is interesting to note that both the palaeographic considerations and radiocarbon dating have arrived at nearly the same conclusion, i.e., this manuscript dates to the last part of the 1st century of hijra. However, as von Bothmer has noted, the radiocarbon dating gives a slightly earlier date. This could be due to the fact that the radiocarbon dating gives the death of animal and not when the manuscript was actually written.
The interesting thing to note about this Qur'an from al-Walīd's time is its uncanny resemblance to a number of large Qur'anic manuscripts typified as "Group 2" by Estelle Whelan. The most famous of them is the Chester Beatty 1404.[24] The Chester Beatty 1404 manuscript has very similar features that are reminiscent of the Umayyad period. Moritz published details of the twenty ornamented pages.[25] This manuscript was dated to 1st century of hijra by A. S. Yahuda.[26] Moritz, in the legends to his photographs, dated it to the 2nd / 3rd century hijra.[27] On the other hand, Josef von Karabacek dated it to the 3rd century.[28] However, now a firm dating of a Qur'an belonging to "Group 2" from al-Walīd's time suggests that the Chester Beatty 1404 manuscript also dates from similar period, i.e., either late 1st century or early second century of hijra. Furthermore, this also lends support to the early dating of the numerous primitive ḥijāzī manuscripts.


Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) Dating And The Qur'anic Manuscripts

[retro]

"Iranian Christian? Is like equivalent to saying Israeli Nazi."

You do realise that their are Christians in Iran and historically Oriental Christians faired better under the Shia than around you geocidal, Sunni death cultists.

"And why would anyone try to defend Islam against Christian doctrine? Christianity is a failed religion, the proof is in the pudding, look at all major Western countries... Christianity is dying."

The only place where Christianity is dying is in your sick and twisted mind. Islam is not a religion at all and it's merely a perverted, Arab cultural-political doctrine. That masquerades, as a Abrahamic monotheistic religion. Why do you think that they have got you praying to a meteorite, at a Pagan Arabian shrine, five times a day?

[ScimitarXEdge]

The Calligraphic datings of all these kufic script manuscript fragments are far later than this and many of these parchment where likely scrubbed and re-used. Since the oldest known are late 8th century and are written in the Ma'il script.

You are quoting a secondary source and here is the primary.

Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) Dating And The Qur'ānic Manuscripts
M S M Saifullah, Ghali Adi & ʿAbdullah David

the labeling of it being Kufic would be inconsequential

Kufic is the oldest calligraphic form of the various Arabic scripts and consists of a modified form of the old Nabataean script. Its name is derived from the city of Kufa, Iraq, although it was known in Mesopotamia at least 100 years before the foundation of Kufa. At the time of the emergence of Islam, this type of script was already in use in various parts of the Arabian Peninsula. It was in this script that the first copies of the Qur'an were writting

Your intonation on the fact it was Kufic, to imply it was some foreign addition latter forged to make it appear older is untenable , firstly it's presence was already in the region, secondly such forgeries would have had to be done by people who had a keen idea about radiometric dating and calligraphic analysis, no such institution or body existed at the time the parchments were discovered.

while the parchment may indicate the death of an animal, the animals death corresponds to the actual accepted period of Qur'an manuscripting, and coupled with the calligraphic analysis being of the same era. the evidence shows this is unlikely a forgery. To suggest otherwise would leave critics to show that medieval Arabs knew about radiometric dating and calligraphic analysis. So your argument is a red herring

[ScimitarXEdge]

You do realise that their are Christians in Iran and historically Oriental Christians faired better under the Shia than around you geocidal, Sunni death cultists.



The only place where Christianity is dying is in your sick and twisted mind. Islam is not a religion at all and it's merely a perverted, Arab cultural-political doctrine. That masquerades, as a Abrahamic monotheistic religion. Why do you think that they have got you praying to a meteorite, at a Pagan Arabian shrine, five times a day?

Salaahuddin Ayubi was clearly a "Sunni Death Cultist"

Christianity is long dead, how many different versions of Christianity are there? And how many people actually take Christianity seriously amongst those who nomially identify with it?

Masquerades as a Monotheistic religion? Islam's theology teaches is that the Divine immaterial and cannot be described in subordinate structures. It retains a purer monotheism

The use of an alleged pagan shrine is inconsequential; Monotheism is Theological concept.

Christians believe that Jesus is the embodiment of God, much akin to a Hindu believing Krishna embodies Vishnu. Coupled with the fact that Christianity is in fact; not alleged or accused of being ....but actually is a plagiarism of Apollonic and Mithraic Sun Cults which are pagan. And Unspoken name of God YHWH ....or Yahweh in the Bible is of Canaanite origins, how would Abraham (Ibrahim) a Chaldean Monotheist, adopt belief in a Canaanite Sky deity? We can see here that it's not Islam which postures itself as a Monotheist Abrahamic Faith.

Maybe if you stopped identifying with Anthropomorphc doctrines; your measuring scale on where Islam stands would be more meritable.

[ScimitarXEdge]

As things stand, two thirds of Pashtuns are illiterate and Afghans are mostly poor, rural people. If Pashtuns where far more intact cultrally and better educated. Then naturally it would be far more difficult for other peoples to undermine your peoples identity, manipulate or otherwise exploit you. Wahhabism has radicalised Afghanistan and the Saudis and their Paki coolies have a great deal to answer for.

Pashtun identity is fine and still in tact .....these perceived external interventions from Wahhabists and so on, has no bearing on Pashtun cultural identity. I would be more worried about a Christian Aryanist than a Wahhabi Arab in so much as cultural identity is concerned. Pan-Iranists have are more an adversary to Pashto culture; as they actually seek to abolish it. The Wahhabists left language and culture more or less alone. The Wahhabist radicalization is more of domestic sociological problem; not cultural.

[ScimitarXEdge]

About Islam and Christianity.


even if we assume that most critiques about the authenticity of Islamic Doctrine are true; which has yet to be established; the conclusion is clear

why would anyone, unless deluded, bamboozled or completely brainwashed/deceived


trade off a religion which allows you direct approach to God, and judges you by the merit of your own actions .....over a religion that teaches that you cant approach God without an intermediary because of some trespass committed by someone else and he has to come back to Earth as his own son in order to forgive you.

The Reason why Europeans progressed is because they abandoned Christianity. The reason why Muslims didn't progress is because they abandoned Islam.

Sure Christianity gives you the 'Get Out of Jail Free" card of "Jesus died for your sins" So Christian women can whor*e around guiltlessly Saturday and then find reprieve on Saturday. But the only person who'd embrace such a belief system are Spoiled Brats who want to avoid responsibility, not thoughtful and sincere seekers of God.

I think we can see here which religion promotes the better option.