Where Kabul and Afghanistan two separate nations in medieval times?

[Smarty]

About case of Marri Balochs and Zarkun Afghans, you can check Sibi gazetteer here , go to page 67.

Here is map of Kohlu

[Smarty]

Here is map of Bolan which is renamed to Kachhi nowadys. The area was in the possession of Barozai branch of Panni Afghans.

According to Tarikhi Sindh (volume vi part one page 392) of Ghulam Rasool Mehr, the Dhahdar area was in possession of Barozais, with Malik Kala khan Barozai listed as owner of land thereof , upto the times of Mian Nur Muhammad Kalhora (1719-1753 A.D). Graves of Panni notables such as Junaid Khan Barozai , Mirza Khan Barozai, and well known Mullah Misri Afghan are present in Dhadar. The town of Dhadar formed the first capital of the Panni tribe of Afghans on their arrivals in the plains. It was also the place where Dara Shikoh, the Mughal prince, visited Juanid khan, the first Barozai chief and in the vicinity of which many of the famous Baruhi Afghan battles were fought towards the end of seventeenth century A.D.
For pictures of tombs of Barozais, check "Afghans of the fronteir passes by A.K Aziz Luni, volume 1)

[Smarty]

About oldest proof of presence of Pashtuns in Baluchistan
Rai Bahadur Hitu Ram on page 681 of his Tarikh Balochistan has recorded that in a Leghari Barkhan there is a mosque which has, affixed to it, an inscription in a stone. According to this inscription , the mosque was built in 770 A.H i.e 1368 A.D by one Malik Boya Musiani Tarin – indicating that Tarins were there in western Dera Ghazi khan as far back as 14th century. Moreover Tarikh-nama Herat by Saif harvi mentions presence of Afghan tribes of Naghars and Kungs in 1249 AD in the area of later day Quetta , Loralai and Sibi divisions.

Here is map of Barkhan

[Smarty]

About persence of naghar Afghans in DG Khan and Muzafargarh before their dispossession by Balochs, consult this book for basics

Here are maps of DG khan and Muzafar garsh

[Smarty]

About granting of Shal (Quetta) and Mastung to Kalat by Ahmad Shah Abdali

1-Sir Olaf Caroe (The Pathans, p-372) writes:-Ahmad Shah, on setting up his new kingdom in that city in 1747, enforced the submission of the Brahuis,and regarded his empire as extending almost to the sea. If any doubt were held to exist upon the point,it would be resolved by the fact that, in order, to fix his new dependant's loyalty, Ahmad Shah proceeded to the unprecedented lengths of bestowing upon him an Afghan district, the valley of Shal, in which Quetta is situated. The settlement of Brahuis in the villages just south of Quetta, dates from that time.

2- Qazi Nur Muhammad in Jang Nama 1764 AD says that Shal was granted to Mir Nasir Khan by Ahmad Shah as a reward for his jihad against the Sikhs. However, Akhund does not make mention of this grant while Pottinger (Travels in Balochistan and Sindh) says that Shal was given to Nasir Khan for his bravery in the battle of Mashhad.(History of the Pathans by Haroon Rashid, Vol-III page-167)

3-S. Fida Yunas, in "A Political History Vol-I, on page 105, states, With a difficult situation for the Afghans in India (1758 AD), Nasir Khan, a formally loyal Brahui Chieftain, also availed of the opportunity and declared his independence. A Brahui Baloch confederation, centered in Kalat state, threatened Ahmad Shah Abdali, Nasir Khan was defeated but was allowed to rule locally in return for the right to ask for troops to serve in time of War. Nasir Khan gave a cousin in marriage to Ahmad Shah, with Quetta and Mastung as wedding gifts. Ahmad Shah in this venture wanted to save his strength for the Mahrattas threat in India.

[Smarty]

Tbh I'm taking kushan's side

My friend it is not a football match, neither it is a piss competition. Kushan Prince has very natural reaction to my views on Ghurids. In fact i was the first one on internet, who wrote the half boiled article "Ghurids are Pashtuns" which i posted on multiple platforms and i received a lot of feedback about that. I even tried to edit the "Ghurid" article on wikipedia which is controlled by Tajiks and Iranians, but to no avail. My friend Kushan consulted Wikipedia and is telling me that Elphinstone was the first historian to say that Ghurids were Pashtuns. Funny thing is, i was trying to edit this bit, that Elphinstone was not the first one but himself used reference from Tarikh-i-Ferishta. I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia. I have actually written lot of articles on wikipedia related to Pashtuns, the shape of which has changed with time, but i no longer waste my time there. I write stuff on my own blog. My friend Omar Khan has written article about the Wiki Wars on Pashtun articles.

http://www.khyber.org/articles/2012/Wikipedia_Wars_on_Pashtun_Topi.shtml

Pata Khazana, the only strong evidence of tying Ghor with Pashtuns, has become controversial because Alama Habibi didnt share original monoscript with the world which makes no fcking sense. Even if they were not Pashtuns, it is wrong to consider it a fully confirmed fact that Ghurids were Tajiks or Persians, they could be even Turks. Ghurid people were annihilated by Mongol invasions so its hard to research on their origin.

[Kushan Prince]

My friend it is not a football match, neither it is a piss competition. Kushan Prince has very natural reaction to my views on Ghurids. In fact i was the first one on internet, who wrote the half boiled article "Ghurids are Pashtuns" which i posted on multiple platforms and i received a lot of feedback about that. I even tried to edit the "Ghurid" article on wikipedia which is controlled by Tajiks and Iranians, but to no avail. My friend Kushan consulted Wikipedia and is telling me that Elphinstone was the first historian to say that Ghurids were Pashtuns. Funny thing is, i was trying to edit this bit, that Elphinstone was not the first one but himself used reference from Tarikh-i-Ferishta. I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia. I have actually written lot of articles on wikipedia related to Pashtuns, the shape of which has changed with time, but i no longer waste my time there. I write stuff on my own blog. My friend Omar Khan has written article about the Wiki Wars on Pashtun articles.

http://www.khyber.org/articles/2012/Wikipedia_Wars_on_Pashtun_Topi.shtml

Pata Khazana, the only strong evidence of tying Ghor with Pashtuns, has become controversial because Alama Habibi didnt share original monoscript with the world which makes no fcking sense. Even if they were not Pashtuns, it is wrong to consider it a fully confirmed fact that Ghurids were Tajiks or Persians, they could be even Turks. Ghurid people were annihilated by Mongol invasions so its hard to research on their origin.

I did not take ANYTHING from Wikipedia, stop mis-quoting me. I've heard of Elphistone and Ghorids LONG before wikipedia. I first heard of the ghorids from my father who found out i was interested in Afghan history and told me about them as he also believed they were Pashtun. Regardless half your quotes and references come from wikipedia. Like Maghzan-i-Afghani for example is a separate entry on wiki for its author. I love you how you quote stuff from there yet you ignore Nimat's theory on Pashtuns being jews, i wonder why you left that out?

Also for your nonsensical maps above, all of them agree with me that Pashtuns have been in the north and not the south like your claiming. That was my whole initial point from the beginning, Pashtuns are ONLY native to Northern Baluchistan and not the south. Whether Raisin's or Mengals were originally Pashtuns is a completely different story and i am afraid no scholar other then Pashtun nationalists would agree with that. Tell a raisani he is Pashtun and watch how upset he gets.

Last but not least; Wikipedia is a good starting point for research but its not the end, other sources should be used for research other then wikipedia but the website itself should not be completely ignored. If there is a quote on wikipedia without citations, i will most likely doubt it. However if there is a citation that leads to a plausible and reliable source then should it really be ignored? Saying everything on Wikipedia is wrong because of a few non-sensical edits is the eponym of conformation bias and dogmatism.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

My friend it is not a football match, neither it is a piss competition. Kushan Prince has very natural reaction to my views on Ghurids. In fact i was the first one on internet, who wrote the half boiled article "Ghurids are Pashtuns" which i posted on multiple platforms and i received a lot of feedback about that. I even tried to edit the "Ghurid" article on wikipedia which is controlled by Tajiks and Iranians, but to no avail. My friend Kushan consulted Wikipedia and is telling me that Elphinstone was the first historian to say that Ghurids were Pashtuns. Funny thing is, i was trying to edit this bit, that Elphinstone was not the first one but himself used reference from Tarikh-i-Ferishta. I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia. I have actually written lot of articles on wikipedia related to Pashtuns, the shape of which has changed with time, but i no longer waste my time there. I write stuff on my own blog. My friend Omar Khan has written article about the Wiki Wars on Pashtun articles.

http://www.khyber.org/articles/2012/Wikipedia_Wars_on_Pashtun_Topi.shtml

Pata Khazana, the only strong evidence of tying Ghor with Pashtuns, has become controversial because Alama Habibi didnt share original monoscript with the world which makes no fcking sense. Even if they were not Pashtuns, it is wrong to consider it a fully confirmed fact that Ghurids were Tajiks or Persians, they could be even Turks. Ghurid people were annihilated by Mongol invasions so its hard to research on their origin.

Hahaha so basically Kushans' just hopping off an old article you wrote and now he's claiming your previously held erroneous beliefs as "facts"

Poetic irony!!!

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Kushan Prince ....why don't you just give a full disclosure of all your sources with proper citations so we can have a proper look at them and we can examine what is faulty and what is valid?

[Smarty]

Also for your nonsensical maps above, all of them agree with me that Pashtuns have been in the north and not the south like your claiming.

You want your home province of Balkh to be accepted as original abode of Pashtuns?.......You have to convince us in believing that, start posting some research work and historical sources.

[Kushan Prince]

You want your home province of Balkh to be accepted as original abode of Pashtuns?.......You have to convince us in believing that, start posting some research work (not creative theories of your imagination).

I don't where your from, but its been generally believed that the Aryans originated from Northern Afghanistan. Read on the "Airyana Vaeja" and its Zoroastrian scriptures that place the original homeland of Aryans around that area. Avestan which is generally believed to be a direct ancestor of Pashto came from there.

Even the greeks mention tribal people inhabiting Bactria and Pactyca but no mention of tribalists in the south.

[Smarty]

I don't where your from, but its been generally believed that the Aryans originated from Northern Afghanistan. Read on the "Airyana Vaeja" and its Zoroastrian scriptures that place the original homeland of Aryans around that area. Avestan which is generally believed to be a direct ancestor of Pashto came from there.

Even the greeks mention tribal people inhabiting Bactria and Pactyca but no mention of tribalists in the south.

And humans are descended from Adam. Or they from Africa if westerns are to be believed. When i say Pashtun or Afghan in the history, i mean the single ethnic identity or qaum, not their various ancestors and contributors to their genes. Greeks also have mentioned Afridis (Aparutai), Yusufzais (Aspasioi of alexander), shetaks ( Sattagudai) and Dawis (Dadikai).....they are mentioned as tribes of down south, not North.
Start considering history of pashtuns from the point where they were called or mentioned as Afghans

[Brown Skinned Savage]

I don't where your from, but its been generally believed that the Aryans originated from Northern Afghanistan. Read on the "Airyana Vaeja" and its Zoroastrian scriptures that place the original homeland of Aryans around that area. Avestan which is generally believed to be a direct ancestor of Pashto came from there.

Even the greeks mention tribal people inhabiting Bactria and Pactyca but no mention of tribalists in the south.

Even if we take this claim as fact; you're making HUGE leaps in suggesting that this implies they were Pashtun. As I mentioned before Ibn Battuta mentioned a tribe of PERSIANS called Afghans. Which makes the term Afghan somewhat ambiguous in antiquity.

Likewise it makes Pactyca and Bactria ambiguous because these words may not be Pashtu in origin.. Just like "Ghazni" is not a Pashtu word but most who live there are Pashtuns. Kandahar is also not a Pashtu word, yet the region is inhabited by Pashtuns mainly. If you're just manufacturing a narrative just because of childish taunts against Pashtuns online (which you seemed to be concerned about); it hints that you have confirmation bias.

The thing is the Greeks were very detailed about the types of people they encountered. If Greeks actually met Pashtuns they'd have been able to identify their speaking a distinct language called Pashtu.

[Smarty]

The mind of a bigot to the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour on it, the more it contracts

[pashtanajan]

Pashtansjan,

Most Pashtuns in the north regardless of what tribe they come from are not native there. most were forcefully settled there thanks to abdur Rahman's pashtunization policies at the time. My great grandfather didn't come to these regions until the 1940s and I think the same is true for your family. Also I discussed in another another thread with you already that tajiks are not an ethnic group unlike pashtuns so the likely scenario of some pashtuns being tajiks is improbable. Many if not all the tajiks are just persianized pashtuns who adopted farsi at one point in history. Secondly genetics the way your interpreting is wrong, Northern Indian Brahmins and eastern European show high amounts of it as well yet I fail to see the relationship between them or how they even look like each other.

Golden rule is: if don't belong to a tribe then your not native.

The Ghilzai were most likely once Turks. They are an Iranic-Turkic hybrid. Many groups amalgamated into the Pashtun ethnicity. I know that my mother's side most likely has some Kalash/Nuristani roots, as they have intermarried within them extensively and follow many of their customs. This makes sense, as there are also some Dardic/Turkic words in the Pashto language.

My paternal line was already settled in Kunduz in the 1940s. They came to Kunduz a long time ago. They don't even remember the province they were originally from. My great-great-great-great grandfather (four generations back) was in Kunduz before Rahman was even existent in the world. My family doesn't know the name of their ancestor 5 generations back, but each generation that we know of was born and raised in Kunduz. Not all pashtuns in the north moved there forcefully. I know that my ancestors were there even before Rahman's birth.