The absolute history of Ghilijis

[Hamza913]

Not true, this theory is not widely accepted

It is, he's right. But don't fret, they ended up mixing with other Pashtuns anyway, hence why they don't really look Turkic or have much Turkic DNA.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The problem is you want to start with single English source and finish with the same one because English figures are official figures for you even though when most of these lands were autonomous. For you English figures are reliable because there are no other figures. By that logic best of luck . I gave the reasons why the figures regarding the yousufzais are not true . For me English numbers are not valid ? for you my argument is not valid which. Sums things up very well Does not change the reality both tribes are still living in the those same areas. Study the current geography and demographics these questions will be answered.
.

What you are calling a 'single English source' is actually the official results of the population census carried out by the (then) government. The government had recorded the population of those semi-autonomous areas as well. We have no reason to believe that the Brits undercounted Yusufzai. And No, your baseless argument is not 'as valid as' the official results of censuses. Khataks and Yusufzais had been fighting each other and such claims based on one's tribal affiliation and inclinations cannot be accepted. The Brits were neutral in this regard.

Not true, this theory is not widely accepted, its the opinion of very few. And the most important thing as you mentioned its a theory like all other theories about the different origins of ghiljis or pashtuns and is not supported by any evidence, but you are accepting it, based on which evidences and grounds? Sounds like you have already made up your mind.

In the end, history is but a feeble agreed upon. We only have theories, some of them more plausible than the others.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

As for the Turkic origins of Khiljis, that theory is widely accepted among scholars.It is, he's right. But don't fret, they ended up mixing with other Pashtuns anyway, hence why they don't really look Turkic or have much Turkic DNA.

My point here is not to prove that ghiljis cannot be turks. Or pashtuns cannot be kambojas , israeli etc. I respect all these theories. But at some point all these theories diverge from each other and start contradicting itself. For example
they ended up mixing with other Pashtuns anyway, hence why they don't really look Turkic or have much Turkic DNA.

Without referring to anything else bro look at this statement. Ghiljis were turkic ok lets accept , but they dont look like turkic because they mixed with pashtuns (Ring bells but lets accept), They dont have much turkic DNA (Absolutely contraditing the claim itself). Thats what my point is regarding all the other theories there are missing links which nobody is answering regarding all these claims because of lack historical evidences.

 

[Crusher]

What you are calling a 'single English source' is actually the official results of the population census carried out by the (then) government. The government had recorded the population of those semi-autonomous as well. We have no reason to believe that the Brits undercounted Yusufzai. And No, your baseless argument is not 'as valid as' the official results of censuses. Khataks and Yusufzais had been fighting each other and such claims based on one's tribal affiliation and inclinations cannot be accepted. The Brits were neutral in this regard.



In the end, history is but a feeble agreed upon. We only have theories, some of them more plausible than the others.

This just reminds me my Arain class mates in Lahore always claiming that "Arain" are the largest baradari in terms of numbers in Pakistan. Now my research based on 20th century multiple census shows that Arain were a "distant" third in terms of population numbers among muslims of british punjab, they were well behind both Muslim Jatts and Rajputs in terms of population numbers. Yet my Arain class mates used to say in punjabi "Pakistan che aitt puttu tay Arain nikalda ay, assi sab to waddi bradari aan pakistan vaich" .

 

[Hamza913]

As for the Turkic origins of Khiljis, that theory is widely accepted among scholars.

Look, Ghilijis themselves are OBVIOUSLY not Turks, but Ghilijis do have SOME Turkic ancestry.

This just reminds me my Arain class mates in Lahore always claiming that "Arain" are the largest baradari in terms of numbers in Pakistan. Now my research based on 20th century concensus shows that Arain were a "distant" third in terms of population numbers among muslims of british punjab, they were well behind both Muslim Jatts and Rajputs in terms of population numbers. Yet my Arain class mates used to say in punjabi "Pakistan che aitt puttu tay Arain nikalda ay, assi sab to waddi bradari aan pakistan vaich" .

He may be somewhat right, a lot of sub-groups among Rajputs and Jatts (as well as Gujjars, Kamboj and Awans) are also present among Arains due to intermarriages.

 

[Kabira]

The Pakistani Pathans are of indigenous origins. Afridis, Khataks and Dadis (Now Kakars) constitute the nucleus of the Pathans proper. Around this nucleus have collected many tribes of foreign origin.

The Afghan proper include the Tarin, Abdali or Durrani and Shirani, who have distinct origins from the descendants of the fugitive Gandhari, i.e. Yusufzai, Mohmand, and other tribes of Peshawar, who are Pathans by origin, but are more close to Afghans.

The Afghans and Ghilzais spread into Pathan territory and adopted their language and customs; and just as Irish, Scot and Welsh speaking the English language are commonly called Englishmen; so all who speak the Pakhto tongue came to be included under the name Pathan. Thus the Afghans and Ghilzais are Pathan by the virtue of their language, though not of Pathan origins.

This is very very plausible and dare I say even ancient and modern DNA from KPK point towards that. That could explain why there is huge difference in DNA of Kandaharis who I think are Abdalis etc and northen KP pashtuns. It cant be coincidence that northen KP pashtuns are closer to indigenous dards of KP and northen areas genetically then those from south/Kandahar. This isn't possible if they migrated in last 500 years to these areas.

The other theory is that all these tribes like mohmand, yousafzai etc were speaking some dardic/indo-aryan language before pashtunization.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

What you are calling a 'single English source' is actually the official results of the population census carried out by the (then) government. The government had recorded the population of those semi-autonomous as well. We have no reason to believe that the Brits undercounted Yusufzai. And No, your baseless argument is not 'as valid as' the official results of censuses. Khataks and Yusufzais had been fighting each other and such claims based on one's tribal affiliation and inclinations cannot be accepted. The Brits were neutral in this regard

.

Whatever you want to accept thats your choice Bro. It does not changes anything neither for me nor for you.

[/QUOTE]In the end, history is but a feeble agreed upon. We only have theories, some of them more plausible than the others.[/QUOTE]

History is a feeble agreed upon is truth but by the historians with the historical evidences and proves. Otherwise they remain theories and cannot be relied upon. And in this regard there are many theories each one based on different set of arguments.

 

[M. Sarmad]

.
Whatever you want to accept thats your choice Bro. It does not changes anything neither for me nor for you.

History is a feeble agreed upon is truth but by the historians with the historical evidences and proves. Otherwise they remain theories and cannot be relied upon. And in this regard there are many theories each one based on different set of arguments.

Of course, bro.... You are free to believe in whatever ideas/theories you want, no matter how delusional and irrational they may eventually be shown to be.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

Look, Ghilijis themselves are OBVIOUSLY not Turks, but Ghilijis do have SOME Turkic ancestry.

My mistake , wanted to requote the full argument . Its not my argument

"As for the Turkic origins of Khiljis, that theory is widely accepted among scholars.It is, he's right. But don't fret, they ended up mixing with other Pashtuns anyway, hence why they don't really look Turkic or have much Turkic DNA".

My argument is the same as i quoted in my previous post

"they ended up mixing with other Pashtuns anyway, hence why they don't really look Turkic or have much Turkic DNA."

Without referring to anything else bro look at this statement. Ghiljis were turkic ok lets accept , but they dont look like turkic because they mixed with pashtuns (Ring bells but lets accept), They dont have much turkic DNA (Absolutely contraditing the claim itself). Thats what my point is regarding all the other theories there are missing links which nobody is answering regarding all these claims because of lack of historical evidences.

 

[M. Sarmad]

You dont have anthing else then a mere figure to support your claim. Sorry bro try again next time.

Yeah bro, I have at least official figures/results of censuses to back up my claim... I don't need anything else
What have you got to back up your claims? ... Absolutely nothing...

And please read the Shaan-e-Nazool of Surah Al Takasur. Boasting over the abundance of the number of one's tribesmen is greatly frowned upon in Islam.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

Yeah bro, I have at least official figures/results of censuses to back up my claim... I don't need anything else
What have you got to back up your claims? ... Absolutely nothing...

Officials who have no influence in these areas. Sounds great! You dont have anthing to support your claim either.

The reality is thats how the tribal society of pashtoons are dividied with yousufzai living on a much more vast areas and having much numerous numbers and sub-tribes than khattaks. It is noted in known pashto history and literature.

[/QUOTE]And please read the Shaan-e-Nazool of Surah Al Takasur. Boasting over the abundance of the number of one's tribesmen is greatly frowned upon in Islam.[/QUOTE]

Please dont try to play religion card here and misquote things in a wrong context to achieve your own self propagated results. The same quran kareem says that we have divided you into tribes so you can idenfity yourself and relate to.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Officials who have no influence in these areas. Sounds great! You dont have anthing to support your claim either.

The reality is thats how the tribal society of pashtoons are dividied with yousufzai living on a much more vast areas and having much numerous numbers and sub-tribes than khattaks. It is noted in known pashto history and literature.

Again, You are free to believe in whatever ideas/theories you want, no matter how delusional and irrational they may eventually be shown to be.

Please dont try to play religion card here and misquote things in a wrong context to achieve your own self propagated results. The same quran kareem says that we have divided you into tribes so you can idenfity yourself and relate to.

No one is playing any card here. I didn't quote anything (wonder what you mean by misquoting). Just pointed it out to you that such kind of boasting is frowned upon in Islam. You of course are free to disagree and have every right to take pride in your tribal identity and boast about it. That you are absolutely wrong about the numbers is another thing of course.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

Again, You are free to believe in whatever ideas/theories you want, no matter how delusional and irrational they may eventually be shown to be.

No one is playing any card here. I didn't quote anything (wonder what you mean by misquoting). Just pointed it out to you that such kind of boasting is frowned upon in Islam. You of course are free to disagree and have every right to take pride in your tribal identity and boast about it. That you are absolutely wrong about the numbers is another thing of course.

My point was never directed for numbers boasting. But it is rather to find the truth in your claim which the tribal structure and literature and many other factors does not support. Thats it.

Thats the point . When its shown we will see. And then i think you will then have the right to call me irrational and delusional with pleasure. But Not yet.

 

[M. Sarmad]

My point was never directed for numbers boasting. But it is rather to find the truth in your claim which the tribal structure and literature and many other factors does not support. Thats it.

Thats the point . When its shown we will see. And then i think you will then have the right to call me irrational and delusional with pleasure. But Not yet.

I am not calling you irrational or delusional, bro ... I was talking about irrational theories and delusional ideas that you choose to follow based on your tribal affiliation and inclinations (instead of facts and figures).

 

[Gorgin Khan]

I am not calling you irrational or delusional, bro ... I was talking about irrational theories and delusional ideas that you choose to follow based on your tribal affiliation and inclinations (instead of facts and figures).

Bro, i am not inclined or affiliated with the mentioned tribes in any sort. Secondly i respect all the possibilities, Because each has its own pros and cons and i respect the arguments and figures that you provided. Because its quite possible that the demographics then were like this and it might have changed now and vice versa.

For me the most important question is not that khattaks are more in numbers or yusufzai. Although we have been discussing about it with our own set of arguments. You can absolutely be correct with figures. Or may be i am. Then what changes ? Nothing

But rather it does changes history if we want to identify where does all these tribes come from ? how they unified ? why they unified ? how they developed there language ? if they did why dont we have the old inscriptions of pashto? . Why are some pashtoon tribes being related turkic , while others are claimed to be related to iran and India etc etc etc.why did all of them changed their language and culture ? adopting a single defined code ? The convergence in the arguments is lacking with none providing strong evidence to back themselves or answer the above questions even . If you have Kindly share it .