Ancestral home of Sher Shah Sur

[Samandri]

http://historyofpashtuns.blogspot.com/2015/12/ancestral-home-of-sher-shah-suri-dera.html

[Kushan Prince]

Wasn't he a Suri though who came from the royal family of Ghor? That's what i read anyways or that he was a Kakar according to another source.

I guess multiple sources say different things.

[Samandri]

Wasn't he a Suri though who came from the royal family of Ghor? That's what i read anyways or that he was a Kakar according to another source.

I guess multiple sources say different things.

He was not a Kakar, no source makes such claim, its only you making such claim. Though there were numerous Kakars in his service. Habib Khan Kakar was one of his commander. Only an ignorant person or one who want to glorify his tribe, would make such an absurd claim. Not only details of tribes but also of sub-tribes of Pashtuns in the Lodi and Sur period are available to us.

Surs, are a branch of Lodi tribe and are cousins of Sarwanis, Niazis, Prangis, Marwats etc and all of these Lodi tribes, along with Ghilzais, are grouped under "Mati tribes" ...and these Surs along with Betani tribes, are related to minor house of Ghor by Shah hussain according to the legend, passed down orally...The house of Ghor itself, were not pashtuns...the topic which has been discussed at length on this forum.

[Samandri]

Its not surprising though, that today Pashtuns from different tribes claim great figure like Sher Shah to be from their tribe. Allah Bakhsh Yusufi in his book "Yusufzai" claims that Sher Shah was not from Lodi confederation of tribes....but he was "a Yusufzai Pashtun" from a village by name of Suri in Buner....he asserts that historians have blundered in assuming that Suri was a separate tribe, while its actually a Yusufzai village from where Sher Shah's family migrated to India.
I have also read claims that Sher Shah was from Jalalabad. There is no basis for such claims.

[Kushan Prince]

He was not a Kakar, no source makes such claim, its only you making such claim. Though there were numerous Kakars in his service. Habib Khan Kakar was one of his commander. Only an ignorant person or one who want to glorify his tribe, would make such an absurd claim. Not only details of tribes but also of sub-tribes of Pashtuns in the Lodi and Sur period are available to us.

Surs, are a branch of Lodi tribe and are cousins of Sarwanis, Niazis, Prangis, Marwats etc and all of these Lodi tribes, along with Ghilzais, are grouped under "Mati tribes" ...and these Surs along with Betani tribes, are related to minor house of Ghor by Shah hussain according to the legend, passed down orally...The house of Ghor itself, were not pashtuns...the topic which has been discussed at length on this forum.

Why are you so hostile? Calm down and take a deep breath bro.

But according to Afghan database, he was a Kakar and Iranica, he was a Sur who were from Ghor originally. Only your source says he was from KPK which i kindly disagree with since there are no Suris there and not many bettani's in general. But the Ghorids were definitely of Pashtun origin, they spoke Pashto but used Dari for the courts.

But i don't think Marwats were originally Pashtun, they were probably a khariji indian tribe that adopted Pashtun customs and languages and got absorbed in the Pashtun tribal tree. They were Lohani indians originally.

[Samandri]

Why are you so hostile? Calm down and take a deep breath bro.

But according to Afghan database, he was a Kakar and Iranica, he was a Sur who were from Ghor originally. Only your source says he was from KPK which i kindly disagree with since there are no Suris there and not many bettani's in general. But the Ghorids were definitely of Pashtun origin, they spoke Pashto but used Dari for the courts.

But i don't think Marwats were originally Pashtun, they were probably a khariji indian tribe that adopted Pashtun customs and languages and got absorbed in the Pashtun tribal tree. They were Lohani indians originally.

Iranica doesnt mention any where that Sher Shah Sur belonged to Shansabani house of Ghor, and doesnt mention any where that Ghurdis were Pashtuns. Strange that you are giving me the reference of Iranica, that site assumes (correctly) that Shansabanis were eastern iranian Tajiks. Iranica doesnt blabble like you, it gives reference for each of its statement or claim.

About your "Afghan database", do enlighten us with a link so i can check what exactly you are talking about. I have a guess that its a site like "Afghan-wiki", run by sorts like you. (i.e Afghanistani pashtuns from west, traumatized by Tajikam.com guys, clinging to the work of that fraud writer of pata khazana)

[Samandri]

Moreover , academically speaking, "source" means, primary source or published secondary source which has used primary sources in the research. Iranica is a published authentic secondary source, which is getting uploaded to web. Its a good reference. Your Afghan-database (i think you are referring to Afghan-bios-info), is not a "source", its a commentry from some one like you without giving any reference from any authentic book.

[marwat]

Iranica doesnt mention any where that Sher Shah Sur belonged to Shansabani house of Ghor, and doesnt mention any where that Ghurdis were Pashtuns. Strange that you are giving me the reference of Iranica, that site assumes (correctly) that Shansabanis were eastern iranian Tajiks. Iranica doesnt blabble like you, it gives reference for each of its statement or claim.

About your "Afghan database", do enlighten us with a link so i can check what exactly you are talking about. I have a guess that its a site like "Afghan-wiki", run by sorts like you. (i.e Afghanistani pashtuns from west, traumatized by Tajikam.com guys, clinging to the work of that fraud writer of pata khazana)

if we take your 'according to you' into account then pashtun actually don't exist because according to you everyone is pashtunised. on another thread you once claimed that whole karlani confederation is pashtunised. one wonder that God hide that so rare pashtun gene from earth and we have only pashtunised pashtun left.

[Samandri]

if we take your 'according to you' into account then pashtun actually don't exist because according to you everyone is pashtunised. on another thread you once claimed that whole karlani confederation is pashtunised. one wonder that God hide that so rare pashtun gene from earth and we have only pashtunised pashtun left.

Dont take "according to you" into your account but the historical "facts", researched papers, articles and books, and come up with your own opinion and conclusion. Sarabans, Baitanis, Ghurghustis and Karlanris are Pashtuns......

The problem with Pashtuns, particularly with nationalist ones, is that they suffer from grandiosity and want to compete with Persians in history, and are extremely disappointed and go into denial mode when they are confronted with real history. Ghurids were not Pashtuns, any one who has any idea what Tabqat-i-nasiri is, should know that. http://historyofpashtuns.blogspot.co...t-pashtun.html

[Kushan Prince]

Iranica doesnt mention any where that Sher Shah Sur belonged to Shansabani house of Ghor, and doesnt mention any where that Ghurdis were Pashtuns. Strange that you are giving me the reference of Iranica, that site assumes (correctly) that Shansabanis were eastern iranian Tajiks. Iranica doesnt blabble like you, it gives reference for each of its statement or claim.

About your "Afghan database", do enlighten us with a link so i can check what exactly you are talking about. I have a guess that its a site like "Afghan-wiki", run by sorts like you. (i.e Afghanistani pashtuns from west, traumatized by Tajikam.com guys, clinging to the work of that fraud writer of pata khazana)

Ghorids were Pashtuns, how can they be Tajiks if they were never a proper ethnic group to begin with but rather a linguistic one? Most western and afghan historians say they were Pashtuns, the indians saw them as Pathans as well. I will the take the word of Abdul Hay Habibi any day rather then that of some western scholar who thinks he's an expert on our peoples history. Iranica does not mention they were tajiks either. Also they were tribal like Pashtuns, the Tajiks on the other hand have never been tribal and have dwelt cities while the ghorids were from the rural areas.

And by Afghan database, yes i am talking about Afghan bios. Why should i post you the link if you know what i am talking about?

(i.e Afghanistani pashtuns from west, traumatized by Tajikam.com guys, clinging to the work of that fraud writer of pata khazana)

You seem to like to errorlessly make assumptions on what people do or are. No dude i have no time to run or edit a website since i have better things to do then obssess over this stuff like you. Funny thing is the boys at Tajikam call the pata khazana a fraud and nothing more than "kuchi fairytales."

But of course the great Luffy Khan of PF is always right on Pashtun history and we are all wrong because we don't have a great blog like he does. He also says some Pashtun tribes are Pashtunized and then retracts that statement in another thread and will argue with everyone who doesn't agree with him. I guess that's how the great Luffy Khan has always got banned from every forum.

[Kushan Prince]

Dont take "according to you" into your account but the historical "facts", researched papers, articles and books, and come up with your own opinion and conclusion. Sarabans, Baitanis, Ghurghustis and Karlanris are Pashtuns......

The problem with Pashtuns, particularly with nationalist ones, is that they suffer from grandiosity and want to compete with Persians in history, and are extremely disappointed and go into denial mode when they are confronted with real history. Ghurids were not Pashtuns, any one who has any idea what Tabqat-i-nasiri is, should know that. http://historyofpashtuns.blogspot.co...t-pashtun.html

But Mr. Luffy, different books and papers say different things so how can we come to a definite conclusion? Just like some writers believe the Marwats being of Lohani Indian lienage while others don't.

[ANAcommander]

But Mr. Luffy, different books and papers say different things so how can we come to a definite conclusion? Just like some writers believe the Marwats being of Lohani Indian lienage while others don't.

Do you have a source for this Marwat Lohani Indian lineage theory?

[Samandri]

Do you have a source for this Marwat Lohani Indian lineage theory?

A British doctor Henry Walter Bellew (1834-1892) theorized in 1864 that most Pashtun tribal names were actually Rajput names of India which had undergone changes over time. He thinks prefix Suleman is derived from Rajput Solan which is today visible in Solanki. Daud, as it appears in Daudzai and Daudputra among Muslims, is actually Rajput Dadi or Dadika. Utmanzais have sub-tribes like Baddo (Rajput Yaddo, the tribe of Krishna), Ballo is Rajput Bhalla khatri, Bura is Bora (Vohra) mercantile Rajput, a name taken by Bohras, the Ismailis of Gujrat, Mandal is the Jat tribe Mada, its version Mandanr, live along Jadun or Gadun tribes (of Hazara which is Sanskrit Abhisara), which names are variant of the Jadu Rajput tribe. These are Yadavas of India. The Afghan Batanis are ancient Bhattis, the elite of the Rajputs serving at the court as ministers.The Bangash are also called Bangak which relates to Bangat Chohan Rajputs. Their neighbours the Turis are the same as Tiwari Rajputs of India. And so on.

[Samandri]

H.W.Bellew thinks that Marwats are actually Maorat tribe of Rajasthan. Raverty corrects him, that Marwats, Miya Khels, Daulat Khels and Taturs are Nuhanis, descendants of a Person by name of Nuh.

"
The Nuhanis are descended from Isu Khan son of Ismael. He is said to have been commonly known as Nuh or Nuhan , and his descendants came to be known as Nuharni , variously corrupted by Afghans into Luharni, Loharni and Lawarni.

Like in case of some other Semitic languages, the "n" in Nuh is sometimes changed for "l" , thus Luh or Luhanri. This last mode of writing the name is comparatively modern. In no historical work, even written in India before the reign of Aurangzeb Alamgir will it be found written otherwise than Nuhani or Nuharni." (Raverty, Notes on Afghanistan, p-486-87)

Balochs also have a tribe by name of Nuhani, once very powerful and numerous, and are described as descendants of a person by name of Nuh

[tilla_jogian]

Do you have a source for this Marwat Lohani Indian lineage theory?

Lohanas of sindh are merchant/baniyas, muslim lohanas changed surname to Memon, Khoja and possibly Vohra. There is posiblity name being similar is just coincidence. Lohana is not name of tribe but whole ethnic group. And with in that ethnic group there are many tribes/clans.