Fakhri Pasha "The Defender of Madina"

[xenon54 out]

haha bro i laughed more then i should have

lol

 

[al-Hasani]

Earlier in this thread you said Turkic and Mongols were cousins but now when I agree with you you tell me it is just proposed that is a double standard on your part.

Yes, long lost cousins. We are talking about whether they are the same as Turkic people which they are obviously not. Neither in terms of ancestry, language etc.

The Mughal's might have had Turkic blood just like they had Persian, Indian, Arab etc. but originally they were an MONGOL tribe.

The Barlas tribe. That was the sole point.
Besides the Mughal rule was highly influenced by Persian culture and civilization aside from the native Indian.

Barlas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Khan_patriot]

For me Afghan = Afghanistani !

Pakistani Pukhtoon = Family !

But @Khan_patriot doesn't like us Kashmiris after several of his past girlfriends fell for Kashmiri Dudes !

Yes I have beefs with some of your kind, they took your Bhabi from me, there will be vengeance.....
Keeping in lieu with my traditions I made all their gfs fall for me, they have yet to find a girl to marry because I land all of them.....
They will grow old lonely and unmarried.....

 

[KingMamba]

Correction only Babur did not so sure about humayun but from Akbar on that connection was severed

Akbar was smart because he knew they have to become locals in order to remain in power but even he wasn't really an Indian. It was only the later emperors born from Rajput mothers generations after generations that eventually became Indian literally lol.

 

[EyanKhan]

Akbar was smart because he knew they have to become locals in order to remain in power but even he wasn't really an Indian. It was only the later emperors born from Rajput mothers generations after generations that eventually became Indian literally lol.

Akbar was Indian his food dress code manners and everything in between

 

[al-Hasani]

@KingMamba

The Barlas (Chagatay/Persian: برلاس‎ Barlās; also Berlas; Mongolian: Barlas) were a Mongol[1][2] nomadic confederation in Central Asia, later Turkified[3][4] as Turko-Mongols. Its most famous representatives were the Timurids, a dynasty founded by the conqueror Timur(Tamerlane) in the 14th century, who ruled over modern-day Iran, Afghanistan, much of Central Asia, as well as parts of contemporary Pakistan, India, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Caucasus.

Barlas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Turkifying some Mongols equals them being Turks originally then I guess the Ottomans were Arabs since they were Arabized and also happened to have had Arab ancestry through marriage.

This does not work.

 

[KingMamba]

Yes, long lost cousins. We are talking about whether they are the same as Turkic people which they are obviously not. Neither in terms of ancestry, language etc.

The Mughal's might have had Turkic blood just like they had Persian, Indian, Arab etc. but originally they were an MONGOL tribe.

The Barlas tribe. That was the sole point.
Besides the Mughal rule was highly influenced by Persian culture and civilization aside from the native Indian.

Barlas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay but he was still a Turk his mother was Turkish his father was also Uzbek, he spoke Turkish and wrote his memoirs in Turkish and called himself a Turk. Only his ancestor was Timur but Timur did not spit Babur out.

Akbar was Indian his food dress code manners and everything in between

He was marrying Indians for sure lol.

@KingMamba


Barlas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Turkifying some Mongols equals them being Turks originally then I guess the Ottomans were Arabs since they were Arabized and also happened to have had Arab ancestry through marriage.

This does not work.

We are talking about ethnicity Babur was ethnic Turk too only his great great great grand father was Timur who declared himself a Mongol, Unless Timur was somehow impregnated with Babur and spit him out you cannot just gloss over Baburs mother or more immediate ancestors who were Turks.

 

[al-Hasani]

Okay but he was still a Turk his mother was Turkish his father was also Uzbek, he spoke Turkish and wrote his memoirs in Turkish and called himself a Turk. Only his ancestor was Timur but Timur did not spit Babur out.



He was marrying Indians for sure lol.



We are talking about ethnicity Babur was ethnic Turk too only his great great great grand father was Timur who declared himself a Mongol, Unless Timur was somehow impregnated with Babur and spit him out you cannot just gloss over Baburs mother or more immediate ancestors who were Turks.

Of course not but there is a reason why they are called a Mongolian Empire. Because the founders PATERNAL lineage (father to son etc.) was Mongolian. Not Turkic.

By that logic then the Ottomans were more Caucasian and Balkan than they were Turkic since all the Turkic Sultans usually married foreigners (non-Turks).

They (Timurids and later Mughals) belonged to the Barlas tribe. A Mongolian tribe.

Barlas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That would be a foolish claim. We go by their descent from father to son etc. to see what ethnic group they belong to.
If my descendants married non-Arabs for generations, let us just presume 100 generations in a row, their lineage would still be Arab. That would not change.

 

[telkon]

Okay but he was still a Turk his mother was Turkish his father was also Uzbek, he spoke Turkish and wrote his memoirs in Turkish and called himself a Turk. Only his ancestor was Timur but Timur did not spit Babur out.



He was marrying Indians for sure lol.



We are talking about ethnicity Babur was ethnic Turk too only his great great great grand father was Timur who declared himself a Mongol, Unless Timur was somehow impregnated with Babur and spit him out you cannot just gloss over Baburs mother or more immediate ancestors who were Turks.

just 4 or 5 days ago i had a nice chit-chat with some historians and turcologists from russia, turkey and uzbekistan. they said in academic circles it's now believed that barlas were originally turkics who were mongolised prior to 11. century and then turkified again during chagatay era. besides, i don't believe in wikipedia. that's a losers source for looking knowledgeable without proper education.

 

[KingMamba]

Of course not but there is a reason why they are called a Mongolian Empire. Because the founders PATERNAL lineage (father to son etc.) was Mongolian. Not Turkic.

By that logic then the Ottomans were more Caucasian and Balkan than they were Turkic since all the Turkic Sultans usually married foreigners (non-Turks).

They (Timurids and later Mughals) belonged to the Barlas tribe. A Mongolian tribe.

Barlas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That would be a foolish claim. We go by their descent from father to son etc. to see what ethnic group they belong to.
If my descendants married non-Arabs for generations, let us just presume 100 generations in a row, their lineage would still be Arab. That would not change.

Lineage has no bearing on ethnicity if you go those many generations down the line. If 100 generations from now your descendant goes to Hijaz and be like I am Arab they would stare at him funny. If he took a DNA test it would not tell him he is Arab probably only a small percentage but he would not go around calling himself Arab lol. Going by your scenario of course.

 

[al-Hasani]

just 4 or 5 days ago i had a nice chit-chat with some historians and turcologists from russia, turkey and uzbekistan. they said in academic circles it's now believed that barlas were originally turkics who were mongolised prior to 11. century and then turkified again during chagatay era. besides, i don't believe in wikipedia. that's a losers source for looking knowledgeable without proper education.

Yet no proof of that whatsoever in any sources. I also heard that the moon was made out of cheese.

Lineage has no bearing on ethnicity if you go those many generations down the line. If 100 generations from now your descendant goes to Hijaz and be like I am Arab they would stare at him funny. If he took a DNA test it would not tell him he is Arab probably only a small percentage but he would not go around calling himself Arab lol. Going by your scenario of course.

But that's how a lineage is identified. If you are a Sayyid or Sharif your lineage is Arab. That does not mean that you are as much an Arab as an ordinary Arab Joe in Palestine or Oman since your lineage is probably mixed due to not living in the Arab world anymore. We are talking about the lineage.

Lineages don't change. Only ancestry. I never denied them having Turkic or any other ancestry THROUGH marriage. But that does not make them Turks. They were Mongols originally. That's the point. They trace their lineage (father to son etc.) to Mongols.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

The Mughals as a whole are generally believed to have had both Turkic & Mongolian heritage, but the Mughal empire itself would be heavily dominated by Persian culture & influence. In any case, there is an excellent article on the relationship between the Mughals & Persians below.

Persia and the Mughals

It was an empire whose legends many have heard, but with which most people are not likely to be very familiar. Descended from both the infamous Genghis Khan and the merely famous Timur (Tamerlane), the Mughals were an eclectic race of people who spread across Central and Southeast Asia. They built an empire in India that lasted from 1526 to the mid-nineteenth century, and whose decline would be so devastating to India that at the time it was widely cited as a reason the country needed British colonial rule. The Mughals left behind a rich tradition of art and culture—millions of people visit their masterpiece, the Taj Mahal, every year—that was as culturally diverse as the people themselves, and which has left a lasting impact on Indian culture.


The Mughals (a name which reflects their ancestors, the Mongols) traced direct descent from Timur, who in the fourteenth century established an empire stretching from the Caspian and Mediterranean seas to the Gulf and which stretched as far east as modern-day Pakistan. Numerous miniatures showing the Mughal lineage depict Timur at the head, followed by Babur, who established the Mughal Empire, and Babur’s sons. Babur, the first great Mughal, made his way to India from the Ferghana Valley in present-day Uzbekistan; his dream was to capture Samarkand. When he failed on his third attempt, he decided to change course and instead headed southeast to Kabul and from there to India, where he defeated the sitting ruler, the Afghan Ibrahim Lodi. Although India had been under Afghan rule for centuries and was open to Persian influences, these only increased under the Mughals. Ethnically Turks, the Mughals regarded Persian culture as the epitome of refinement, making Persian the court and administrative language.

 

[al-Hasani]

The Mughals as a whole are generally believed to have had both Turkic & Mongolian heritage, but the Mughal empire itself would be heavily dominated by Persian culture & influence. In any case, there is an excellent article on the relationship between the Mughals & Persians below.

Persia and the Mughals

We are not only talking about ancestry. They also had Arab, Persian, Indian etc. ancestry. We were solely discussing lineage. Not intermarriages. By that logic Ottomans were an Arabized family that were Caucasians since they mostly married Caucasian women. Or those from Balkan. But that would not make sense since they were an Turkic family originally belonging to the Oghuz tribal confederation. They came form what is now Turkmenistan. That's what their paternal lineage shows. Hence they are called Turks no matter how many non-Turks they marry.

Let's be consistent for once.

 

[KingMamba]

But that's how a lineage is identified. If you are a Sayyid or Sharif your lineage is Arab. That does not mean that you are as much an Arab as an ordinary Arab Joe in Palestine or Oman since your lineage is probably mixed due to not living in the Arab world anymore. We are talking about the lineage.

Lineages don't change. Only ancestry. I never denied them having Turkic or any other ancestry THROUGH marriage. But that does not make them Turks. They were Mongols originally. That's the point.

My lineage is Arab yes but I am not an Arab a lot of my forefathers married local converts except the woman in my family which I believe is the same everywhere. Nah bro originally don't matter just because my forefather was an original Arab doesn't mean if I somehow take over lets say Oman they wouldn't be like damn **** ruling over us lol.

Let us just care to disagree because we are going in circles.

 

[al-Hasani]

My lineage is Arab yes but I am not an Arab a lot of my forefathers married local converts except the woman in my family which I believe is the same everywhere. Nah bro originally don't matter just because my forefather was an original Arab doesn't mean if I somehow take over lets say Oman they wouldn't be like damn **** ruling over us lol.

But I am neither fully Arab. I have non-Arab ancestry on both of my sides. From Europe and the ME.

No. We are talking about lineage. Your lineage is Arab thus you are an Arab in my eyes. Your lineage that is. Let us presume that an Punjabi moves to England and for the next 3 generations his descendants marry solely British women and they only get sons. Would you then consider them Punjabis? I mean their lineage and surnames would still be Punjabi. No matter if they continued to marry let us say solely British women from now on. Of course there is a difference between lineage and ancestry but it would be too complicated if we looked at the overall ancestry since we are all mixed.

Your identity is that of your father. For instance when Arab women marry non-Arabs their children are not considered Arab but if an Arab father marries an non-Arab mother they are considered Arab.

But both of them are only half Arab in terms of ancestry. Do you get me now?