Origins of the Ghilzai tribe?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Yes i know but that isn't the only theory as i said. So why throw the rest away?

Because the other "theories" are Pashtun myths. Which are only remotely likely.

[Shahidulla]

Because the other "theories" are Pashtun myths. Which are only remotely likely.

The turk one is also a turkish myth then by a half turk like you?
Its weird that the theories i mentioned are still on the internet......... if these are myths then yours is a joke.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

No the Turk one is supported by historical evidence.

[khushal]

No the Turk one is supported by historical evidence.

According to Scholars it is not. Now this is your source, not mine

The Khalaj are usually referred to as Turks, but Josef Marquart (pp. 251-54) claimed that they were remnants of the Hephthalite confederation, which would indicate that they were originally Indo-Iranian. “Muslim authors agree that the Khalaj are one of the earliest tribes to have crossed the Oxus,” Vladimir Minorsky informs us (p. 430). According to the Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam (p. 111), compiled in 982-83 CE, most of them settled down in the Ḡazna region, but they were also numerous in the Balḵ, Toḵārestān, Bost, and Guzgān regions. Many of the Khalaj of the Ḡazna region became assimilated to the local Pashto-speaking population. Indeed, it seems very likely that they formed the core of the Pashto-speaking Ḡalzay (see ḠILZI) tribe, the name Ḡalzay being derived from Khalaj (Bosworth, p. 917; Frye, p. 1001). - See more at: KHALAJ i. TRIBE ORIGINATING IN TURKISTAN ? Encyclopaedia Iranica

Which basically states that the Khalaj were indo iranian and were assimilated into pashtuns tribes, the core of them being assimilated into the Ghilzai tribe. The Khalaj did not become Ghilzai. Assimilation has a different meaning, look it up in the dictionary and not a thesaurus. This following reenforces it since you beleive they were Haphthalites.

In 1959, Kazuo Enoki proposed that the Hephthalites were probably Indo-European (East) Iranians as some sources indicated that they were originally from Tokharestan, which is known to have been inhabited by Indo-Iranian people in antiquity.[6] Richard Frye is cautiously accepting of Enoki's hypothesis, while at the same time stressing that the Hephthalites "were probably a mixed horde".[18] More recently Xavier Tremblay's detailed examination of surviving Hephthalite personal names has indicated that Enoki's hypothesis that they were East Iranian may well be correct, but the matter remains unresolved in academic circles.[7]

Plus the greatest evidence is that fact that Turks are mongloid and Ghilzi are not. Turks are short and stocky while Ghilzi are big and tall.

[khushal]

I am here RTR to teach you about your origins.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

According to Scholars it is not. Now this is your source, not mine
Which basically states that the Khalaj were indo iranian and were assimilated into pashtuns tribes, the core of them being assimilated into the Ghilzai tribe. The Khalaj did not become Ghilzai. Assimilation has a different meaning, look it up in the dictionary and not a thesaurus. This following reenforces it since you beleive they were Haphthalites.
Plus the greatest evidence is that fact that Turks are mongloid and Ghilzi are not. Turks are short and stocky while Ghilzi are big and tall.

No what this is stating is that Khalaj were Indo-Iranians who became TURKIFIED, thus culturally Turk .because TURK is a cultural designation NOT a racial one. I've already explained this point to you before hand argued this point in the other thread. For you to come here and pretend that never happened shows desperation and willful ignorance.

I Suggest you read the entire quote in its correct context


Maybe we should get Midnight Sun on this so he'll also explain to you why you're wrong. I know you're terrified of that guy.

[Shahidulla]

No the Turk one is supported by historical evidence.

So are the other theories. i know its in your favour that you won't inclunde the other theories but there are and there is lil bit historical evidence of every one of them.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

So are the other theories. i know its in your favour that you won't inclunde the other theories but there are and there is lil bit historical evidence of every one of them.

No none of the other theories have historical evidence supporting them.

I can assure you of that.

[Shahidulla]

No none of the other theories have historical evidence supporting them.

I can assure you of that.

yes they have i don't have to assure you. Because you know .

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I am here RTR to teach you about your origins.

You need to have a correct understanding of information to do that.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

yes they have i don't have to assure you. Because you know .

Qais ABdur Rashid has absolutely zero evidence he existed.
Genetics disproves Bani Israel

so there you go, the other theories have no historical evidence.

[khushal]

No what this is stating is that Khalaj were Indo-Iranians who became TURKIFIED, thus culturally Turk .because TURK is a cultural designation NOT a racial one. I've already explained this point to you before hand argued this point in the other thread. For you to come here and pretend that never happened shows desperation and willful ignorance.

I Suggest you read the entire quote in its correct context


Maybe we should get Midnight Sun on this so he'll also explain to you why you're wrong. I know you're terrified of that guy.

I dont know who midnight sun is but your changing your own argument. Turk is an ethnic group, before you said they were turks and now your saying they were Turkified.

Your an idiot, your ego wont let you admit your wrong.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I dont know who midnight sun is but your changing your own argument. Turk is an ethnic group, before you said they were turks and now your saying they were Turkified.

Your an idiot, your ego wont let you admit your wrong.

yes.....where exactly is the change? Ethnicity is not the same as race dingbat.

[khushal]

They are a mongloid ethnic group.
I never said race and ethnic group is the same. many ethnic groups could be in one race. I already explained the change, you intitally said they are Turks and now your saying they are turkified indo-iranians. The reason you changed your argument is because it was you who did not read your own source in the correct context.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I'm reposting the other source I posted since Khushal is trying to mix up and obscure the discussion

"

...Turkish ethnic elements had been established in eastern Afghanistan for some time, perhaps for several centuries. Marquart visualized the whole of this region as once held by first the Kushans and then by the Ephthalites or White Huns, the Sveta Huna of the Hindus and the Haital (more correctly, *Habtal) or Hayatila of the Arab historians. He believed that it retained in the early Islamic period a strong Ephtalite ethnic flavour, and connected the very name 'Zabulistan' with an Epthalite tribe, the Jauvla, Jabula, or Jabuvlah, known from northern Indian inscriptions. The Oghuz and Khalaj Turks, who in early Islamic period nomadised from Tukharistan and Badakhshan in the north down to Bust, would thus be the remnants of Turkish peoples brought from north of the Oxus as part of the Ephtalite confederation that then left behind in eastern Afghanistan. Marquart's theory is by no means certain, although Frye and Sayili have recently followed him. Yet there is no doubt about their existence there in pre-Ghaznavid times. At the opening of the 9th century, the Kabulshah had to send an annual tribute of 2000 Oghuz slaves to the governor of Khurasan, 'Abdallah b. Tahir. In the Caliphate of al-Mansur Ma'n b. Za'ida as-Sulami was governor of Sistan, and he received from the Zunbil at his winter capital of ar-Rukhaj [Arochosia/Kandahar] the customary tribute of camels and Turkish felt tents and slaves. The Zunbil is said to have had a bodyguard from the local Turks, at-Turk-ad-Dawari. Istakhri says that up to his own time, the Khalaj of Zamindawar had kept their Turkish customs, external appearance and language. The Khalaj survived as an ethnic unity for several more centuries; they were subdued by Sebuktigin and recruited into his army ; they formed an important element in the armies of the Ghaznavids, Ghurids and Khwarizmshahs; they were the progenitors of the Lodi Kings of Delhi (1451-1526); and their name probably survives today in that of the modern Ghilzai Afghans. Some form of authority was excercised over these nomads in the 10th century by the Samanid central government; the youthful Sebuktigin was once sent by his master Alptigin in a military force to collect the customary taxes from the Khalaj and Turkmens."

Ghaznavids: Part 1: The Empire under Mahmud, Section 2: The establishment of Sebuktigin in Ghazna: pg. 271-272.

The red highlighted portion in the quote that Khushal reposted after I posted it was in reference to Marquart's allusion that Khalaj were ORIGINALLY Indo-Iranian people

to which Khushal responds.

Like I keep telling you, its just a theory, it says "[I]Marquart's theory is by no means certain."

This was in response to his claim that by claiming they were Turks, would mean they were Mongoloid. But this is completely ignorant of the meaning of Turk, which is a cultural and language designation NOT racial one.

Wahe Guru also added the caveat that they were Turkified Indo-Iranians, which Khushal agreed with. But is now back peddling.