Tweet
Firstly let's deal with the claim that Mahmud had a Pashtun Mother This is patently false and I detailed why here.
Secondly NoBalls has suggested that we only accept White European scholars as legitimate historical claim; this is false. It's the quality of academic depth and research which is what determines what possesses merit. As I detail below.
[MENTION=18842]History of Pashtuns[/MENTION]
[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]
[MENTION=1028]Yousafzai Pakhtun[/MENTION]
I don't want to diss Abdul Hai Habibi entirely; but he does the same very poor sophistic attempts at trying to make word associations to support his claims as is usually done in Pashtun histiography
Look at what he says here that "AlpTageen" were mixed Turkish-Pashtun, because Habibi thinks Tageen is a Pashto family name.
Sabuktin, was the Father of Mahmud Ghaznawi, and the SON IN LAW of Alptageen, which means that Mahmud's mother was in fact a TURK woman. Mahmud's mother was ALPTAGIN's daughter
The word ALPTAGIN has no connection to Pashto whatsoever, the word means Brave Prince in Yamini Turkish. Which means he was the "Zabuli" Noble being referred to. ALPTAGIN was a Yamini Turk. The only Turks alleged to be associated with Pashtun tribes were the Khaladj or Khilji Turks
Tarikh-e-Firishta i confirmed that Sabuktin married Alptagin's daughter therefore she cannot be a Pashtana.
Furthermore the name "Loyak" was nowhere in reference; the Native Zabulis who were UPSEATED by Alptagin were LAWIK, not Loyak. Loyak is a fabrication by Habibi
[MENTION=18842]History of Pashtuns[/MENTION]
Look at what he says here that "AlpTageen" were mixed Turkish-Pashtun, because Habibi thinks Tageen is a Pashto family name.
Sabuktin, was the Father of Mahmud Ghaznawi, and the SON IN LAW of Alptageen, which means that Mahmud's mother was in fact a TURK woman. Mahmud's mother was ALPTAGIN's daughter
The word ALPTAGIN has no connection to Pashto whatsoever, the word means Brave Prince in Yamini Turkish. Which means he was the "Zabuli" Noble being referred to. ALPTAGIN was a Yamini Turk. The only Turks alleged to be associated with Pashtun tribes were the Khaladj or Khilji Turks
Tarikh-e-Firishta i confirmed that Sabuktin married Alptagin's daughter therefore she cannot be a Pashtana.
Furthermore the name "Loyak" was nowhere in reference; the Native Zabulis who were UPSEATED by Alptagin were LAWIK, not Loyak. Loyak is a fabrication by Habibi
[MENTION=18842]History of Pashtuns[/MENTION]
That's not true at all
For example you just linked a Google Book from a British writer named Alice Albinia to support the claim that Mahmud Ghazni's mother was Pashtana BUT that book is absolute sensationalist rubbish. Look at what she writes about Khushal Khan Khattak in Empires of the Indus.
It's not the fact that she makes allusions to the Sex Poetry that Khushal Khattak that's the problem; It's the fact she does so mainly through commentary than reference. Her book is littered with UN-Academic remarks/statements without having any valid support from primary sources. As you can see, what she wrote was more NARRATIVE and Commentary Than Facts. She's BRITISH but her writing is RUBBISH because it's not academically correct.
This is the same Shortcoming that exists in Abdul Hai Habibi's works; sometimes he wrote good stuff another time he writes COMPLETE crap; Because Primary sources do not support his commentary. He calls the "Lawik", "Loyak" to make their name sound more "Pashto". That's a very ACADEMICALLY DISHONEST tactic. He says Alptagin is a Hybrid Turkish-Pashto family because he can construe the "Tagin" part into "Tageen" which he suggests is Pashto. But the word AlpTagin is a Turkish word, unrelated to Pashto, meaning "Brave Prince". The word for Brave in Pashto is "Bator" and the closest Native Pashto word not influenced from Farsi or Arabic for Prince would be like "Masharzoi" or "Sashtanzoi". Like Alice Albinia; Habibi provides more COMMENTARY and NARRATIVE than primary source data.
People don't accept an Historian because of their nationality; they accept them because of their Academic Thoroughness; It just so happens because Modern Universities and Academic Organizations are in Wealthier parts of the world; have more academic resources and can perform more Thorough academic resources that More often the better quality scholarship will be produced there. But it has nothing to do with being British or French of Chinese. It has to do with Being Strong with the quality of data to support a claim.
For example you just linked a Google Book from a British writer named Alice Albinia to support the claim that Mahmud Ghazni's mother was Pashtana BUT that book is absolute sensationalist rubbish. Look at what she writes about Khushal Khan Khattak in Empires of the Indus.
It's not the fact that she makes allusions to the Sex Poetry that Khushal Khattak that's the problem; It's the fact she does so mainly through commentary than reference. Her book is littered with UN-Academic remarks/statements without having any valid support from primary sources. As you can see, what she wrote was more NARRATIVE and Commentary Than Facts. She's BRITISH but her writing is RUBBISH because it's not academically correct.
This is the same Shortcoming that exists in Abdul Hai Habibi's works; sometimes he wrote good stuff another time he writes COMPLETE crap; Because Primary sources do not support his commentary. He calls the "Lawik", "Loyak" to make their name sound more "Pashto". That's a very ACADEMICALLY DISHONEST tactic. He says Alptagin is a Hybrid Turkish-Pashto family because he can construe the "Tagin" part into "Tageen" which he suggests is Pashto. But the word AlpTagin is a Turkish word, unrelated to Pashto, meaning "Brave Prince". The word for Brave in Pashto is "Bator" and the closest Native Pashto word not influenced from Farsi or Arabic for Prince would be like "Masharzoi" or "Sashtanzoi". Like Alice Albinia; Habibi provides more COMMENTARY and NARRATIVE than primary source data.
People don't accept an Historian because of their nationality; they accept them because of their Academic Thoroughness; It just so happens because Modern Universities and Academic Organizations are in Wealthier parts of the world; have more academic resources and can perform more Thorough academic resources that More often the better quality scholarship will be produced there. But it has nothing to do with being British or French of Chinese. It has to do with Being Strong with the quality of data to support a claim.
[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]
[MENTION=1028]Yousafzai Pakhtun[/MENTION]
Comment