Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
Oh, I don’t. I actually find people’s reactions to this theory rather amusing. 
These typically range from frothing at the mouth in anger to casually dismissing it as inaccurate research. I believe my father-in-law referred to this theory and the gentleman’s documentary as as “the vulgar fictions of bored historians.” Lol. Personally, though, I’m not terribly bothered by this theory. There are more important things to worry about in life.
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
I am sure not may Pashtuns believe that. It was just a far-fetched theory created by some people to prove their own racist superiority … if belonging to Israelites is any superiority in the first place.
Currently most Pashtuns have given up on it but some Israelis continue to espouse this theory.
Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites is traced to Maghzan-e-Afghani, a history compiled for Khan-e-Jehan Lodhi in the reign of Mughal Emperor Jehangir in the 16th century.
In his universal history Mirat-ul-Alam – The Mirror of the World – Bukhtawar Khan describes the journeys of the Afghans from the Holy Land to Ghor, Ghazni, and Kabul.
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
what was the lingua franca of their court?
Lingua franca of Afghanistan has always been dari/farsi. Also note that court language of khilji, lodhi, suri and durrani dyanastis was also persian.
@khoji
You are quoting iranica and editable wiki but why the confusion when famous historian of that time ferishta mentioned ghurids as Suri afghans.
'In the following year AH 401 (AD 1010), Mahmood led his army towards Ghoor . The native prince of the country, Mahomed, of the Afghan tribe of Soor (the same race which gave birth to the dynasty that eventually succeeded in subverting the family of *Sebüktigin), occupied an entrinched camp with 10,000 men. Mahmood was repulsed in repeated assaults which he made from morning till noon. Finding that the troops of Ghoor defended their entrenchments with such obstinacy, he caused his army to retreat in apparent confusion, in order to allure the enemy out of his fortified position. The Ghoorians, deceived by the stratagem, pursued the army of Ghizny; when the king, facing about, attacked and defeated them with great slaughter. Mahommed Soor, being made prisoner was brought to the king, but having taken poison, which he always kept under his ring, he died in a few hours; his country was annexed to the dominions of Ghizny. The author of the Towareekh Yumny affirms, that neither the sovereigns of Ghoor nor its inhabitants were Mahomedans till after this victory; whilst the author of the Tubkat-Nasiry, and Fukhr-ood-Deen Moobarik Shah Lody, the latter of whom wrote a history of the Kings of Ghoor in verse, both affirm, that they were converted many years before, even so early as the time of Ally*
(Ferishta-Translation John Briggs, p. 28 vol 1)
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
This theory was not created by “some people”, khan-e-jahan lodhi came up with it. Not to establish “racist superiority” as you claim but to give pashtuns strong relevance to islam by claiming them as descendants of prophets. This mentality was similiar to all those in subcontinent who claimed to be syeds, qureshis, farooqis, usmanis etc.
Pashtuns are easten iranic people with some assimilations notably of khilji turks. But Pashtuns/Afghans are neither bothered about that nor about fabricated isreali theory…pashtun is pashtun, thats the thinking among us
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
The map of ghurid empire from wikipedia is incorrect, an attempt to make it persia-centric and excluding territories of hindostan. here is the correct map
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
Just a query, not an intention to derail the topic
how are pathans divided in sub tribes, I remember abdali was sadozai, his rival dost mohammad khan was barkazai, then there are popalzai, on what basis these sub-tribes are divided?
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
Ghurids are mostly referred as Tajiks, not Iranians.
The name of the author does not suggest that he is an Iranian. Edmund Bosworth Encyclopaedia Iranica
I am curious who are some important people wrongly attributed as Iranian. Any examples? BTW, people like compiler of Sahih Bukhari, Imam Abu Hanifa, Abu Dawood, Ibn Sena, Ibn Hesam, Khwarzimi, Tusi, al-Biruni; really were Persian/Tajik.
But this self-exaltation is found among many people. For example, some Indians continue to believe in that preposterous 'Out of India' theory. And some Pashtuns continue to think of themselves as lost tribe of Israelites.
Both Encyclopedia iranica and encylopedia of islam are iranian sources and the wiki article you posted are only referenced with these two encyclopedias and tajik theory in both encyclopedias is quoted by this **Edmund Bosworth. **Even boswarth says
*Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the Šansabānīs in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks
You are saying that ghurids were persians because *Shansabānī** is a persian word , thats absurd logic because pashto itself is derived from avestan and shares lot of vocabulary with persian. Khorasan , pashtuns were part of persian empires. Moreover shansabani belonged to suri tribe, the fact which even your iranic encyclopedia doesnt deny. Now tell me who were suris?
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
Just a query, not an intention to derail the topic
how are pathans divided in sub tribes, I remember abdali was sadozai, his rival dost mohammad khan was barkazai, then there are popalzai, on what basis these sub-tribes are divided?
Its like a branching tree. My tribe is Rehman khel, rehman khan was father of my great-grandfather, I am his 5th generation descendant. There are 5 other tribes in my village , named after 5 brothers of rehman khan. These 6 sub-tribes are together called chuwar khel. Chuwar khel itself is branch of achu khel. Achu khel is section of marwat , the tribe which resides in lakki marwat district of KPK.
Marwat Tribe is branch of Lohanis. Lohani is branch of Lodhi. Lodhi is one of the 5 confederations of pashtun tribes. Other confederations are,
2- Sarban
3- karlanri
4-ghilzai
5-ghurghust
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
^^ what about matrimonial alliance, is it with in tribe only?
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
From 1000 AD onwards how many rulers do you think were Pashtun? Ghauris, Lodhis, Suris and Durrani? Or am I missing more? I am talking of those who ruled in big chunks and not regional rulers.
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
This theory was not created by "some people", khan-e-jahan lodhi came up with it. Not to establish "racist superiority" as you claim but to give pashtuns strong relevance to islam by claiming them as descendants of prophets. This mentality was similiar to all those in subcontinent who claimed to be syeds, qureshis, farooqis, usmanis etc. Pashtuns are easten iranic people with some assimilations notably of khilji turks. But Pashtuns/Afghans are neither bothered about that nor about fabricated isreali theory.....pashtun is pashtun, thats the thinking among us
If one wants to give relevance to Islam then he does not make connections with JUDAISM. A connection with ARABS would have made more sense.
Pashtun is not just a Pashtun. Pashtun is part of a larger Iranian family.
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
Lingua franca of Afghanistan has always been dari/farsi. Also note that court language of khilji, lodhi, suri and durrani dyanastis was also persian.
@khoji You are quoting iranica and editable wiki but why the confusion when famous historian of that time ferishta mentioned ghurids as Suri afghans.
'In the following year AH 401 (AD 1010), Mahmood led his army towards Ghoor . The native prince of the country, Mahomed, of the Afghan tribe of Soor (the same race which gave birth to the dynasty that eventually succeeded in subverting the family of *Sebüktigin), occupied an entrinched camp with 10,000 men. Mahmood was repulsed in repeated assaults which he made from morning till noon. Finding that the troops of Ghoor defended their entrenchments with such obstinacy, he caused his army to retreat in apparent confusion, in order to allure the enemy out of his fortified position. The Ghoorians, deceived by the stratagem, pursued the army of Ghizny; when the king, facing about, attacked and defeated them with great slaughter. Mahommed Soor, being made prisoner was brought to the king, but having taken poison, which he always kept under his ring, he died in a few hours; his country was annexed to the dominions of Ghizny. The author of the Towareekh Yumny affirms, that neither the sovereigns of Ghoor nor its inhabitants were Mahomedans till after this victory; whilst the author of the Tubkat-Nasiry, and Fukhr-ood-Deen Moobarik Shah Lody, the latter of whom wrote a history of the Kings of Ghoor in verse, both affirm, that they were converted many years before, even so early as the time of Ally* (Ferishta-Translation John Briggs, p. 28 vol 1)
If wiki is so editable then why don't YOU go there and edit that content? :)
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
The term ‘Iranian’ is not related to the country of Iran. Instead it includes all people, like Persians, Kurds, Tajiks, Pashtuns, Balochs. So what is the problem with Encyclopedia Iranica? Besides, the writer of that article, Budsworth, is not an Iranian anyway.
The doubts about Ghurids’ Pashtun origins have also been raised by others besides Encyclopedia Iranica. For example,
G. Morgenstierne (1999). “AFGHĀN”. Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV.
I obviously can read myself that Budsworth does not claim the origins of Ghuris with certainty. But he says that there is more indications of them being Tajik.
That could be wrong. No one knows it now. So people like you need to let it go.
People and languages a thousand years ago were in flux. Regional tribes were increasing giving rise to nations. Languages were changing as well.
** No point giving an ambiguous ancient people a historic certainty by attaching present-day labels to them.**
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
So posting a map from an Indian website somehow makes it more reliable?! Great going!
You are saying that the map at wikipedia EXCLUDES Indian territories, but I see that the map at wikipedia actually shows MORE Indian territories under Ghurids.
Ghurid dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So what are you talking about?
Re: Ghurids were Pashtuns
khoji the wikipedia article is in tight grip of iranis and tajiks, they revert back any change and are not accepting any content which points towards pashtun origin even if provided with sources. I pointed out that map is completely wrong, from where the hell iraq came under ghurids? So they have changed the map, previously it was the one i posted on first page. And the one of india's is roughly accurate, read history of ghurids, they were afghanistan-centric and didnt expand towards persia except sistan area. And you are forgetting that in islam, there are prophets from hazrat adam to hazrat mohammad p.b.u.h, they are part of islam.