Origins of the Ghilzai tribe?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well, I didn't say they were Pashtuns, neither is it sure if they were Iranic or Tokharian speakers. But when they were the first then sure of eastern Iranian branch, so in somehow closer to Pashtuns linguisticlly.

As Khushal said, I told Turkic, so closer with the origins to Turkic people, who are of Mongoloid characters.

I think You are right to say that if those people were turkified indoeuropeans, there is still not the possibility to call them Pashtuns, but still there is neither the possibility to call them Turks, because both assimilated those people. But for those who were assimilated linguistically by Turks, their origin is closer to the origin of Pashtuns, than to the origin of Turkic people.

well they say Indo-Iranian not specifically Eastern Iranian. But either way this won't be a return to Pashtuns. Khushal is not correct by the DEFINITION of Turk; even his source demonstrated that.

We can call them Turks because the definition of Turk is not racial. Look at Arabs, Syrian and Lebanese are now a days are Arabs, but they used to be Levantine. Same with many Iraqis. You can use this logic in relation to Turks ...and even Ghilzai Pashtuns; they were Pashtunized, not as you would put it "Real Pashtuns"

[Kushan Prince]

He is talking about ethnic Turks. Those pashtuns that have the mongolian phenotypes who are a unique minority are the descendents of those Turks that have assimilated into pashtuns.

What does that mean? are you implying those Pashtuns are not actual pashtuns but "Pashtunized" turks? or that they are Turks who mixed with native pashtuns?

Isn't that agreeing with RTR's claim?

[khushal]

What does that mean? are you implying those Pashtuns are not actual pashtuns but "Pashtunized" turks? or that they are Turks who mixed with native pashtuns?

Isn't that agreeing with RTR's claim?

What I am saying is that there are a small minority ethnic Turks who did assimilate with pashtuns, you could see this with certain pashtuns who have mongloid features. There are some in the neighboring village that I am from.

There are too many holes in the Turk theory.
First, RTR shows us a picture of a mongloid in central Asia named Hotak who claims to be Turk. We cant really question him because he has the features of an ethnic Turk. The name does not prove anything.

Second, Scholars are saying that the Khalaj were haphthalites = indo iranians which would correspond with the physical features of todays Ghilzai.

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

Further, it is stated by Scholars that the Khalaj were eastern Iranians which again points to today's Ghilzai.

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

Now were the Khalaj Turkified hepthalites?
We dont know but because there is no hard evidence of it, most schoalrs are dismissing this.

[Kushan Prince]

What I am saying is that there are a small minority ethnic Turks who did assimilate with pashtuns, you could see this with certain pashtuns who have mongloid features. There are some in the neighboring village that I am from.

There are too many holes in the Turk theory.
First, RTR shows us a picture of a mongloid in central Asia named Hotak who claims to be Turk. We cant really question him because he has the features of an ethnic Turk. The name does not prove anything.

Second, Scholars are saying that the Khalaj were haphthalites = indo iranians which would correspond with the physical features of todays Ghilzai.
Further, it is stated by Scholars that the Khalaj were eastern Iranians which again points to today's Ghilzai.



Now were the Khalaj Turkified hepthalites?
We dont know but because there is no hard evidence of it, most schoalrs are dismissing this.

Again that's basically agreeing with RTR'S claim. I have also seen a bunch of mongoloid looking Pashtuns but that doesn't mean they are turks. They must have mixed with turkic groups like hazaras or uzbeks, you have to take into consideration that Afghanistan has been invaded a lot so some mixing might have occur. That's like calling the Afridi's pashtunized jews and not actual pashtuns. I have seen some Caucasian looking hazaras with no mongoloid features at all, how can you explain that? They obviously mixed with pashtuns just like how these turks mixed with native pashtuns. The Ghilzai, like all other pashtun tribes desecnd from qais abdur rashid and his sons and daughters.

[Zabihullah Sidiqkhil]

There are some speculations surrounding the origins of the Ghilzai pashtun tribe. I'm hearing by a lot of people that they are Turks, Wikipedia doesn't mention anything about this but i don't trust that as a reliable source. Can anyone give me an articulate proof or mentions from various history book?

This is a source best. Please, WTF is wrong with you people, You do not know your own peopls history and to find out you turn to English people. just why?

Why did I say the above sentence, ROMANS/ EU/US/ are on a mission to re-write history to create divisions and anything they desire. The purpose is so that in the books/knowledge they will only look great and no one else. when it comes to our history, do whatever but not follow English history, all false, all written to justify their atrocities, all written to show them as better.

Now here is the tradition opinion, these opinions are valuable, we Pashtuns are very proud ad keep the knowledge regarding where we came from, open and its passed down. Those are not fairy tails

Quote "Traditional historians are however of a different view. According to them, Ghilji and Lodhi (Ibrahim Lodhi) were the offspring of Shah Hussain Ghauri off his first wife; Bibi Mato bint Bait Nikka bin Qais Abdul Rashid." The problem with this is that we cannot grow so big in such a short time

Ghilzai :: Khyber.ORG

How can you believe that over 24% of Pashtuns are Turks and why are we not speaking Turkish if we came in such a large number, a person only changes language because they are a minority, Ghilzai are not. if you are in such a large number than you speak what you speak