What's in a name?

Some non-Pakistanis, particularly Indian Hindus make a big fuss
about why Pakistani Muslims have adopted Arabic names instead of
their own native ones. This is because of their lack of knowledge
and understanding in history and language.

The fact is most Pakistanis do have names that are native. This is
specially true among Sindhis, Baluchs, Pakhtuns, Panjabis, etc.
Family and tribal names are also proof that most Pakistanis do have
native names.

But the question arises, what or who is a native? In Pakistan’s
case, it is the diverse heritage of various peoples that migrated
into the region through out the centuries and got mixed with the
locals. This means, a native Pakistani is a blend of Harappan,
RigVedic Aryan, Persian, Greek, Bactrian, Scythian, Parthian,
Kushan, Hephthalite, Arab, Turkic, and Mughal heritage.

An example, “Khan” is a Turkic word/name which means ‘strong leader’
(Genghiz Khan is perhaps the first name that comes to mind, but
thats because Mongols adopted many aspects of culture from the
Turks, including words/names). Under the Hunnic, Turkic and later
Mughal rule and migrations, “Khan” became popular as a name in the
region, particularly among Pathans as it represented power and
respect (not to be confused with the much later British title
of “Khan” given to some north Indian Muslims for their services).
Many other Pakistanis have Aryan, Persian, Scythic, and other names.

Yes Arabic names are quite popular among Pakistanis. But why should
they not be? Pakistan was under Arab rule for quite some time, some
Pakistanis are descendents of Arab migrants (most are not as falsely
claimed – or perhaps the Arab lineage is too much diluted, almost
negligable), Arabic language greatly influenced the local languages,
and what is most important is that Arabic is the language of Quran.
In many cases, when an ancestor of Pakistani converted to Islam, he
would adopt an Arabic name from the Quran just representing the
change of faith. In other cases, the adoption of Arabic names from
the Quran was an effort to disown any casteist belonging from the
former name. Sufis preaching Islam would also give prestigious title
names such as Sheikh, Momin, etc. to the new converts particularly
those who were formerly oppressed.

Similar name adoption has occured all over the world. How about the
many Hindus who carry Aryan (from Central Asia/Iran) names but are
actually descendents of Dravidian-Mundic natives? How about
Europeans who have adopted Middle Eastern names because of
conversion to Christianity (e.g. Moses/Musa, Michael/Mikael,
Joseph/Yusuf, Mary/Mariam, Jacob/Yaqub, etc). I say those who
criticize Pakistanis should be more open minded and educate
themselves.

Re: What's in a name?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistan4ever: *
An example, "Khan" is a Turkic word/name which means 'strong leader'
(Genghiz Khan is perhaps the first name that comes to mind, but
thats because Mongols adopted many aspects of culture from the
Turks, including words/names). Under the Hunnic, Turkic and later
Mughal rule and migrations, "Khan" became popular as a name in the
region, particularly among Pathans as it represented power

[/QUOTE]

The Turks themselves are a Tribe of the Mongols, their origin can be traced back to Mongolia. The similarity of names between these two is because they both belong to one race.

[QUOTE]
This means, a native Pakistani is a blend of Harappan, RigVedic Aryan, Persian, Greek, Bactrian, Scythian, Parthian, Kushan, Hephthalite, Arab, Turkic, and Mughal heritage.
[/QUOTE]

Bactrian, Scythian, Hephthalite and Parthian share one origin, and thus it makes them one race but different Tribes. What i mean here is that all names related to any of these is actually Aryan, since they were all from Aryan race.

[QUOTE]
The Turks themselves are a Tribe of the Mongols, their origin can be traced back to Mongolia. The similarity of names between these two is because they both belong to one race.
[/QUOTE]

Turks are linguistically, culturally, and racially distinct from the Mongols. Yes Turkic languages are related to Mongolian languages as being part of the great Altaic family of languages, but they are not the same. Yes Turks originated from the Siberia-Mongolia-etc region, but so did many other peoples including the Aryan and Scythic peoples. Mongols are racially of course Mongoloid, however Turks are a blend of Caucasoid and Mongoloid races. Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijan are mostly Caucasoid (many were culturally Turkicized), whereas Turks of Central Asia are mostly Mongoloid (many were racially Mongolized). Among the many waves of invasions/migrations from Central Asia-Siberia, Turkic peoples preceded the Mongols. In fact, Turks were already established in Central and Southwest Asia, settling there and adopting Islam, so much so that when Mongols first invaded the region under Genghiz Khan, they actually fought against the Turkic Muslim empires (Khwarizms, Seljuks, Altamash/Khiljis, etc) .

[QUOTE]
Bactrian, Scythian, Hephthalite and Parthian share one origin, and thus it makes them one race but different Tribes. What i mean here is that all names related to any of these is actually Aryan, since they were all from Aryan race.
[/QUOTE]

Aryan is not a race! The concept of Aryan race is unscientific and was propagated by the Nazis. Arya(n), meaning noble born, was the name of ancient tribes of Central Asia that migrated to Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and north India. They spoke Iranian languages, were mostly Caucasoid, and shared culture. Today, Aryan (Iran is a derivative of Aryan) is referred to as a linguistic term, i.e. Indo-Iranian family (a branch of Indo-European) of languages, spoken in regions stretching from eastern Turkey to north India. Today, Indo-Iranians are multi-racial with some what Caucasoids as the dominant race. Bactrians, Scythians, Hephthalites, Kushans, and Parthians might be related to each other, but they had their own identities.