Announcement

**Karachi** · 12-26-2011, 07:31 PM

it might have been mentioned in Sanskrit texts, but I am not sure

**Admin Khan** · 12-26-2011, 11:06 PM

If,

"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 (i.e., Indus) valley. Thus in the eleventh century when the Afghans are first mentioned, they are found occupying the Sulaiman Mountains now occupied by their descendants, 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.[16]
—H.A. Rose, 1997"

Then the "stan" could be considered a natural extension due to the surrounding nearby nations.

**Michin Khel** · 12-27-2011, 08:49 AM

The country by name of afghanistan was founded by ahmad shah abdali but 'land of afghans', afghanistan always existed before durrani empire. Its other name was/is pashtunistan . Even though there is no country by name of turkistan but we know that turkic countries of central asia can be collectively termed as turkistan.

**Michin Khel** · 12-27-2011, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Aryob View Post

Most non-Afghans have an understanding that the word Afghanistan is Ahmad Shah baba's creation and that Afghanistan had no boundaries and definitions before that. Most pro-pakis also believe so, well I can understand Pakistanis because coming into such an existance as Pakistan is very unique in the history of nations and states and it's against the nature so it'll see it's disaster pretty soon. But as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the name existed way before Ahmad Shah baba named this state as Afghanistan. This name was already associated with the Afghan/Pashtun people living in this area and also other ethnic groups living in this region.

Here's a paragraph from an article on 1Œ6141„21‡21‡0 1‡41ƒ9 1ƒ91†51…81ƒ91‡0 1„91‡4141‡1, hopefully you can read Pashto!

1†91„61…01‡0 1Œ61‡1 1Œ6141„21‡2 1†81‡4191†8 1…21‡21”4 1„71”4 1ƒ91‡2 1‡41†61‡41‡0 1„21‡1 1‡0121„71”8 1‘11‡21†91ƒ91‡0 1„71ƒ91„71”4 141”8 191‡1 1„71Œ6141„21‡01‡2 1Œ61‡1 1„01ƒ91„91‡1 191”8 1†81‡1 1†91„61…01‡0 1‡01‡1 1‡21Ž71ƒ91‡01„71”8 1†81‡4191†8 1…21‡21‡4 1ƒ41„31ƒ91„91‡2 1Œ61‡1 1Œ6141„21‡2 1‡21‡412 1‡01‡2 1„71Œ6141„21‡21‡0 191†81†91‡1 1„01‡1 1Œ61‡1 1‡11…81‡2 191”8 1‡11†9 1„91ƒ91…81†81”8 1‡21‡4. 1Œ9191‡1 1„61Œ61†81‡1 1Œ6141„21ƒ91‡01‡1 1Œ91ƒ91‡01‡21‡01‡1 1Œ6141„21ƒ91‡01‡1 1„01‡21†81”4. 1„61‡2 1„61„01„91‡1 1„71ƒ91„71‡1 141”8 191‡21†9 1ƒ91…11†81ƒ91†91”4 1ƒ41„31ƒ91„9 141”8 1Œ61‡1 1‡01‡21„91‡2 121„01‡2 1†81‡4191†8 1…21‡21‡4 1„71‡412 1Œ61‡1 1‡11…81‡2 191”8 1Œ6141„21ƒ91‡01‡1 1†81‡1 171”81„9 1†61„71‡41†9 1‡01‡1 (1ƒ91†51…81ƒ91‡01ƒ91‡0) 1„01†81†8 1…21‡21‡4 1„71‡4 1ƒ91‡2 1Œ61‡1 1Œ61„61‡21ƒ91‡01‡2 1ƒ91…11†81ƒ91†91”4 1ƒ41„31ƒ91„91‡2 191”8 1‡41”8 1†91†819 1‡11†912 1†8191‡1 131‡01‘11‡1 141”8 1„71„71”8 1†81‡4191‡01”8 1Œ61‡1 1ƒ91„21†9 1†51…31†8 191”8 1Œ61‡1 1„21†51…31‡41†8 1„61„01„91”8 1Œ61„91”8 1…21‡21‡4 1„71‡412 1„7 (191…21‡21„9 1ƒ91†51…81ƒ91‡01”4) 12 (1†91„91…01ƒ91†51…81ƒ9 1‡0) (1„51„71ƒ91†51…81ƒ91‡0) 1ƒ91‡2 (1ƒ91†51…81ƒ91‡01…11„2 1ƒ91‡0) 1Œ61‡1 1‡01ƒ91†91‡1 1‡41ƒ91„7 1…21‡21”4 1„71”4.

There was no need to mock pakistan and pakistanis. Indeed pakistan never existed before 1947, but it consider itself ideological successor of muslim history of subcontinent. Jinnah and muslim league, though were not islamists, were able to give shape to their two nation theory. And remember pakistan integrity is entirely dependant on its islamic basis.
Afghanistan is a country based on ethnicity which is its weakes point.

**Aryob** · 12-27-2011, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Luffy View Post

There was no need to mock pakistan and pakistanis. Indeed pakistan never existed before 1947, but it consider itself ideological successor of muslim history of subcontinent. Jinnah and muslim league, though were not islamists, were able to give shape to their two nation theory. And remember pakistan integrity is entirely dependant on its islamic basis.
Afghanistan is a country based on ethnicity which is its weakes point.

I do not agree with you in anything that you've said. Pakistan is not ideological successor of muslim history (How did you come up with that?). If that is true then Bangladesh could say the same thing and then what about the Muslims in india? What about Tipu Sultan's muslim state who is burried somewhere close to Banglaore in the south? (mysore? Ithink) and there's tons of other smaller muslim states in the history of india that has absolutely nothing to do with the current Pakistan. Those Muslim rulers ruled hindus and all other religions in that area whereas the state of Pakistan is a weak, unsuccessful and dangerous solution to the problems of Indian Muslims. You can NOT compare Pakistan's muslim rulers with Indian muslim rulers, They ruled the whole India with all its religions, ethnicities and all other diversities. Pakistan is failing in its own muslim majority state. Two nations theory by someone who was not even an islamist and some say not even a Muslim? If that makes any sense to anyone at all?

You were taught in high school that Pakistan is based on islamic basis, but that is not the reality when you read history. Pakistan's current shape is based on 4 major ethnicities (excluding seraiki, kashmiri, chitrali, etc etc) and that is the reason its Pakistan where you have had 1 successful separatist movement and 3 more to follow pretty soon. All these 3 separatist movements are very active and purely based on its ethnic identity. As compare to Afghanistan, there are ethnic tensions but there has been no successful separatist movement in its history and there is no active ethnic separatist movement right now. Afghanistan has such a long history that its 1400 years of relationship with Islam looks smaller but that does not mean that FOURTEEN HUNDRED YEARS is a smaller number. Islam spread in india through Afghanistan.

**Aryob** · 12-27-2011, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Admin Khan View Post

If,

"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 (i.e., Indus) valley. Thus in the eleventh century when the Afghans are first mentioned, they are found occupying the Sulaiman Mountains now occupied by their descendants, 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.[16]
—H.A. Rose, 1997"

Then the "stan" could be considered a natural extension due to the surrounding nearby nations.

The word Afghan has been used throughout the history of this region whether history was written by Arabs, Persians, Indians or Afghans themselves. The important point is that the word "Afghanistan" has been mentioned in the history as Kishware-Afghani (The land of the Afghans), Marz-e Afghan (Borders of Afghans), Had-e Afghan (Afghan Borders or Borders of Afghans) and Afghanistan. (کشور افغانی) ، (مرزافغان) (حدافغان) او (افغانستان)

**graveyardofempires** · 12-27-2011, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Aryob View Post

I do not agree with you in anything that you've said. Pakistan is not ideological successor of muslim history (How did you come up with that?). If that is true then Bangladesh could say the same thing and then what about the Muslims in india? What about Tipu Sultan's muslim state who is burried somewhere close to Banglaore in the south? (mysore? Ithink) and there's tons of other smaller muslim states in the history of india that has absolutely nothing to do with the current Pakistan. Those Muslim rulers ruled hindus and all other religions in that area whereas the state of Pakistan is a weak, unsuccessful and dangerous solution to the problems of Indian Muslims. You can NOT compare Pakistan's muslim rulers with Indian muslim rulers, They ruled the whole India with all its religions, ethnicities and all other diversities. Pakistan is failing in its own muslim majority state. Two nations theory by someone who was not even an islamist and some say not even a Muslim? If that makes any sense to anyone at all?

You were taught in high school that Pakistan is based on islamic basis, but that is not the reality when you read history. Pakistan's current shape is based on 4 major ethnicities (excluding seraiki, kashmiri, chitrali, etc etc) and that is the reason its Pakistan where you have had 1 successful separatist movement and 3 more to follow pretty soon. All these 3 separatist movements are very active and purely based on its ethnic identity. As compare to Afghanistan, there are ethnic tensions but there has been no successful separatist movement in its history and there is no active ethnic separatist movement right now. Afghanistan has such a long history that its 1400 years of relationship with Islam looks smaller but that does not mean that FOURTEEN HUNDRED YEARS is a smaller number. Islam spread in india through Afghanistan.

wrora we cant blame luffy for this.
he is product of pakistani education system.
if you go to pukhtunkhwa in the history class they will teach kids about how great jinah was and they teach these pashtuns nothign about their history.

for example luffy here always brings the accounts of moghul kings about Pashtun while neglecting the pashtun version of events.
that is because he has not been taught anything about pashtuns,and pashtun(Afghans) have been somewhat presented as enemies to the "hires of islamic history of subcontinent".

further more in those history book sthey teach about hindu history along with budhist history and gods and also about the war pakistan had with india over water.

if you look closely luffy uses all the biased and lies of the enemies of Pashtuns to justify his anti Afghan agenda.

he thinks this way he looks intelligent and cool but tha fact is he looks extremely uneducated and rather brainwashed.

but we still are yet to know if he means and believes what he says.

**Michin Khel** · 12-27-2011, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Aryob View Post

. Pakistan is not ideological successor of muslim history (How did you come up with that?). If that is true then Bangladesh could say the same thing and then what about the Muslims in india?

I was going to explain that but i was waiting for your response. I knew you would raise this point. Here is an interesting part, neither india nor bangladesh (both are secular states) are interested in 1000 year old history of islam in subcontinet from arrival of mohammad bin qasim to end of mughal dynasty in 1857. I have bengali classfellows and i have discussed it with them, their history mainly rotates around bengali freedom movement and they have limited themeselves with history of bengal. Indian muslims have suffered the most, they are in a secular state with clear hindu majority and history of their country start with arrival of aryans, foundation of hinduism and so on. An indian muslim dont know as much about tipu sultan as pakistani. There are hundreds of books and unlimited literature about tipu sultan is published in pakistan. While pakistan claim all of muslim history , india is selective, e.g secular akbar is described while religous aurangzeb ,is rejected as a villian. Ghauris, ghaznauis, abdalis all are mentioned as merely looters in their text books while chauhans, marahatas etc are heroes in their books. Urdu is langauge of muslims of india and it came into being in present day india but it is going to be extinct in india and is getting replased by its sanskrit version, hindi. Indian muslim has to search for muslim history on its own, secular state is not sponsering it.

You can NOT compare Pakistan's muslim rulers with Indian muslim rulers,

Before 1947 there was no such thing as 'pakistani muslim rulers'. From indus to bengal it was all considered hindostan and muslims living there were considered hindostani muslims. The indian muslims of present day india were mainly active in pakistan movement..the 15 million urduspeakers in pakistan have migrated from india. According to sources before jinnah and muslim league wanted to name it 'muslim india' but rehamat ali's name of pakistan gained tremendous popularity and jinnah had to agreed on pakistan.

. Pakistan is failing in its own muslim majority state. Two nations theory by someone who was not even an islamist and some say not even a Muslim? If that makes any sense to anyone at all?

You were taught in high school that Pakistan is based on islamic basis, but that is not the reality when you read history. Pakistan's current shape is based on 4 major ethnicities (excluding seraiki, kashmiri, chitrali, etc etc) and that is the reason its Pakistan where you have had 1 successful separatist movement and 3 more to follow pretty soon. All these 3 separatist movements are very active and purely based on its ethnic identity. As compare to Afghanistan, there are ethnic tensions but there has been no successful separatist movement in its history and there is no active ethnic separatist movement right now. Afghanistan has such a long history that its 1400 years of relationship with Islam looks smaller but that does not mean that FOURTEEN HUNDRED YEARS is a smaller number. Islam spread in india through Afghanistan.

I agree with this part of your post. But remember islam is very strong influence, without it pakistan would have long disintegrated completely. Our text books covers muslim spain to ottoman caliphate, we are taught that ahmad shah abdali, ghaznavi, ghauri, syed jamaludin afghani of your country were heroes of islam... In our text books we are also taught about palestine issue....thats why pakistanis are so deluded about umat-e-muslima. Even in pakistan there is tug of war between seculars and islamists..

**Aryob** · 12-27-2011, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Luffy View Post

I was going to explain that but i was waiting for your response. I knew you would raise this point. Here is an interesting part, neither india nor bangladesh (both are secular states) are interested in 1000 year old history of islam in subcontinet from arrival of mohammad bin qasim to end of mughal dynasty in 1857. I have bengali classfellows and i have discussed it with them, their history mainly rotates around bengali freedom movement and they have limited themeselves with history of bengal. Indian muslims have suffered the most, they are in a secular state with clear hindu majority and history of their country start with arrival of aryans, foundation of hinduism and so on. An indian muslim dont know as much about tipu sultan as pakistani. There are hundreds of books and unlimited literature about tipu sultan is published in pakistan. While pakistan claim all of muslim history , india is selective, e.g secular akbar is described while religous aurangzeb ,is rejected as a villian. Ghauris, ghaznauis, abdalis all are mentioned as merely looters in their text books while chauhans, marahatas etc are heroes in their books. Urdu is langauge of muslims of india and it came into being in present day india but it is going to be extinct in india and is getting replased by its sanskrit version, hindi. Indian muslim has to search for muslim history on its own, secular state is not sponsering it.

Before 1947 there was no such thing as 'pakistani muslim rulers'. From indus to bengal it was all considered hindostan and muslims living there were considered hindostani muslims. The indian muslims of present day india were mainly active in pakistan movement..the 15 million urduspeakers in pakistan have migrated from india. According to sources before jinnah and muslim league wanted to name it 'muslim india' but rehamat ali's name of pakistan gained tremendous popularity and jinnah had to agreed on pakistan.

I agree with this part of your post. But remember islam is very strong influence, without it pakistan would have long disintegrated completely. Our text books covers muslim spain to ottoman caliphate, we are taught that ahmad shah abdali, ghaznavi, ghauri, syed jamaludin afghani of your country were heroes of islam... In our text books we are also taught about palestine issue....thats why pakistanis are so deluded about umat-e-muslima. Even in pakistan there is tug of war between seculars and islamists..

Unfortunately I also have studied your curriculum and that too for 15-16 years so I too have an idea of what they teach in the schools. However what you've said above makes very little sense to me. You were all over the places so I can't answer you well enough but if you had expert knowledge of curriculum system of Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc etc you'll understand that they too cover all of Muslim world in their curriculum so having a topic about muslim spain or hijaz or ottomen empire does not mean your strong association with Islam. That is what EVERYONE studies pretty much all over the world. Your curriculum does not say a word about Gandhi, as far as i remember he's portrayed as the "BAD GUY" of indian subcontinent and your curriculum also glorifies AGHA KHAN, Syed Ahmad Khan, people who are very controversial to most Muslim scholars.

You can write and print thousands of books about Tipu Sultan or Moghuls but the fact remains that they were Indians. You can read all about Syed Jamaluddin Afghani, The Suris, The Ghoris, The Lodhis, Abdalis, Hotaks etc etc but they were Afghans and only Afghans.

Can you tell me what does your curriculum say about Bacha Khan and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? and can you provide me some reference as well? Mind you they were Muslims and freedom fighters against the British. They are highly respected Muslim leaders who fought the British. Aren't they called traitors in your Islamic-based curriculum? Weren't they jailed?

If your were so deeply rooted in Islam and your primary and high school curriculum was Islamic based then you won't have so many mushriks in Punjab, so many false prophets, so many Imam Mehdis, so many Salman Rushdis.

Instead of praising your curriculum so much and preaching to the preachers I'd say you start criticizing it and try to ammend it for the sake of all Ummah.

**Michin Khel** · 12-27-2011, 02:43 PM

You have touched so many topics that required entire discussions of their own. I have already mentioned flaws in our education system and one-sided course material some where in a post in this forum, when i find it i would post it there. You have also brought bacha khan into discussion, i feel you are getting emotional, if you are mistaking me for a pakistani nationalist then you are wrong in assuming that..I have great respect for Bacha khan and Gandhi..dont mistake me for zahid hamid.
As a neutral person, I am mentioning the presence of islam-based material in our text books, we have also compulsory islamiyat subject upto graduate levels even in MBBS, so you can imagine pakistan bady needs justification of its existance through islamic card.
Those mushrikeens of sindh and punjab you are talking about, are illiterate people. On tabligh i have went to cholistan and rural sindh, people there are jahils, and no one know basics of islams , mosques either dont exist or are empty..but remember they were all illiterate. Also islam came to these areas through sufis, so practical islam there is weak.

**Aryob** · 12-27-2011, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Luffy View Post

You have touched so many topics that required entire discussions of their own. I have already mentioned flaws in our education system and one-sided course material some where in a post in this forum, when i find it i would post it there. You have also brought bacha khan into discussion, i feel you are getting emotional, if you are mistaking me for a pakistani nationalist then you are wrong in assuming that..I have great respect for Bacha khan and Gandhi..dont mistake me for zahid hamid.
As a neutral person, I am mentioning the presence of islam-based material in our text books, we have also compulsory islamiyat subject upto graduate levels even in MBBS, so you can imagine pakistan bady needs justification of its existance through islamic card.
Those mushrikeens of sindh and punjab you are talking about, are illiterate people. On tabligh i have went to cholistan and rural sindh, people there are jahils, and no one know basics of islams , mosques either dont exist or are empty..but remember they were all illiterate. Also islam came to these areas through sufis, so practical islam there is weak.

To make things simple you are a "Pakistani" and you are against anything that is against the state of "Pakistan", whether is another Islamic state Bangladesh or Afghanistan. For you Afghanistan and Afghans, Bangladesh and Bengalis and Indian Muslims have less contribution and association with Islam as compare to the 64 year state of Pakistan and 71 year old ideology of Pakistan and 71 year old name of "Pakistan". If you believe Pakistan is an ideology of Muslim rulers of subcontinent then i'd recommend you do some more readings and explore Islam in depth. The existance of Pakistan is a big blow to Islam in the region. I wish it was one big India where Muslims would be a major minority (current indian muslims+Pakistanis+Bangladeshis) in India.

Anyways we've spoiled this discussion of the word "Afghanistan" enough.

**Michin Khel** · 12-27-2011, 06:21 PM

You are not an active member thats why you have difficulty in understanding me and you have no clue what are my views. In another thread "unconquourable afghanistan" of same section , i clearly said to admin khan that a fool would deny contributions of afghanistan towards subcontinent. Islam has come to subcontinent through Afghanistan, and most of the muslim dynasties of subcontinent were originated from Afghanistan.
Sir agha khan, founder of muslim league , was an ismaeli (non-muslim), jinnah was ismaeli, liaqat ali khan was shia , sir zafrullah khan was qadiani...these people had least to do with islam but they rallied people around them by name of islam...islam and hindophobia proved powerful tools...call them munafiq but they founded pakistan on the basis of islam, the second ideological state in the world is israel.
I would call pakistan as inheritor of muslim legacy of subcontinent, i would give you an example. Jumat-e-islami, jamiat-e-ulama-e-islam, tablighi organization etc were founded in present day india before 1947. After creation of Pakistan, all of these religous organizations have shifted their main centres and activities to pakistan.

**Michin Khel** · 12-27-2011, 06:23 PM

I agree with you on this part that creation of pakistan was a mistake. More than 50 crores muslims of subcontinet are divided into three countries of Pakistan, india and bangladesh .

**KHANVICT KAKA KHEL** · 01-05-2012, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by graveyardofempires View Post

wrora we cant blame luffy for this.
he is product of pakistani education system.
if you go to pukhtunkhwa in the history class they will teach kids about how great jinah was and they teach these pashtuns nothign about their history.

for example luffy here always brings the accounts of moghul kings about Pashtun while neglecting the pashtun version of events.
that is because he has not been taught anything about pashtuns,and pashtun(Afghans) have been somewhat presented as enemies to the "hires of islamic history of subcontinent".

further more in those history book sthey teach about hindu history along with budhist history and gods and also about the war pakistan had with india over water.

if you look closely luffy uses all the biased and lies of the enemies of Pashtuns to justify his anti Afghan agenda.

he thinks this way he looks intelligent and cool but tha fact is he looks extremely uneducated and rather brainwashed.

but we still are yet to know if he means and believes what he says.

I'm new here wrorano, but I plan to b very vocal, just like a pakhtun should b LOL. Why can't we all work to better our situations instead of belittling each other? Why not listen and learn from each other, instead of talking over one another? I always try my best to bring people together esp my muslim brothers and sisters. I will do tha same here with ma pakhtun brothers and sisters, but if I don't get a nice response, then I'll stick tha middle finger up, and say forget it, it's not worth it. we need to unite (Muslims,pakhtuns etc).

Announcement

How old is the word "Afghanistan"?

How old is the word "Afghanistan"?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment