Talk:Pashtun tribes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Pashtun tribes is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

پختون

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pashtun. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page.

Who says Sherwanis are not pashtuns? If they are not pashtuns, then neither are Niazis and Lodhis. But you will not dare remove Niazis nor Lodhis from the list, because if you take these two out there is nothing left to show the greatness of Pashtuns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwani_(tribe) -PP

Who the hell is this Supershitan to tell us who is Pashtun and who isn't. He does not sound like a Pashtun and he isnot a Tanoli so he should stay away from these pages. He appears to be some kind of a nut whose sole aim is to vandalize these pages. Saiyan sounds some soryt of punjabee so he should go on super sikh pages and talk about his ancestors there.

He is not Sikh, he is very much Muslim. But he has just been told (on top of the research that has been done) that Tanolis (who are adamant to include in this section) are Pashtun. They are not and never considered to be by their own.--Raja 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They are Pashtun and will be included in this section. If you persist then there are ways of dealing with this issue. You have an issue with this. You are neither a Pashtun generally nor a Tanawali but admit to it that you are trying to include chamiars of Tanawal who claim Janjua ancestory because this may be your ethnicity. No one has made any 'admission' to Tanawali being non-Pashtun. If you do persist in vandalising Pashtun related sections on Wikipedia then you can be reprimanded. What is with you - are some of women been violated by Tanoli that you don not want them to be Pashtuns so that the resultant progeny to be Punjabi? If Tanolis wish to be included as Pashtuns then that's their problem not yours. You stick to being Raja Masih i.e. Super shaitan as the above user has said and stick Khalsa pages mate and leave Pashtuns to argue between themselves. I have not read any Pashtun denying this - infact I can quote many leading Pashtun historians and intellectuals including the family of Bacha Khan attest to Tanolis being Pashtun.

Thank you for your poor language. However, citing oen source is futile as I have much more than one that states Tanoli are not Pashtun. Infact you have been requested for over a year now to provide proof and you have provided none to attest your claims. Until then, Tanolis should not be included in Pashtun tribes, as another Tanoli user has already proven that any resident of Tanwal is known as a Tanoli. Hardly proof for ones ancestry to Pashtuns. --Raja 13:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is looking good so far. But there are a couple of tribes mentioned on this tribe list which are not Pashtun tribes such as the Sherwani tribe, they are not Pashtun and I will be removing them from the list. Teardrops 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit out Tanoli from Pashtun list. No one has proven that Tanoli is not a Pashtun tribe. Secondly, the references list as well as other sources have proven my point. The fact you talk about request for proofs is not a year old but recent. Please do not be rude and make my typos bad language. You've made many more of these sort of mistakes and I've not picked you up on it as you've done above. Finally, your one mission is to prove Tanolis are Janjuas and I maintain that Raja Tanoli never existed it's the type of constructed history by a British interpreter of Ain-e-Akbari whose assertions were rejected by Tanawalis back in 1910 - the author made the same kind of wild suggestions that were made about Ghilzais as not being Pashtuns. Another very good example of such discredited scholarship is the so-called birth place (janambhumi) of Rama - Ayodhya being the place was first put forward by a 'historian' from the British establishment in India. Furthermore, I have been extremely busy but don't worry I will soon turn to this issue and provide the necessary reference, in addition to the ample already done in the references list quite soon. Please hold your breath as this might help as all. Pakhtun Tanoli, 16:31, 17 January 2007

No YOU are on a mission to prove Tanolis are Pashtun when they clearly are not. In fact the other tribes who know Tanolis reject it to this day. Your use of poor language got you banned many times, so please dont cast this assertion of innocence here. The fact that you called supersaiyan a super shaitan is proof enough of your poor language rather than a typo error. Thats really bad for you to do Mumtaz, and although this poor behaviour has been going on since April '06, you have STILL not provided any solid proof. What you HAVE done is prove that you will one day prove it. No luck in almost a year, I dont see this being done quicker. Besides, if you are yousafzai, then you are yousafzai, how can you call the Yousafzai's of Tanawal, Tanawalis? they would still be Yousafzai essentially. Hence if a geographic residence gives one the name Tanoli, then saying Tanoli is a pure pashtun tribe is misleading, simply because a kumar of Tanawal is also essentially a 'tanawali' according to YOUR logic (which you yourself confirmed my friend. Your argument is very weak and confusing.--Raja 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to include the Tanoli tribe as a Pasthun tribe, despite the counter historical evidence of their differing origins, their practices however are culturally very much Pashtun. If any other members have any objection to this, they can discuss it. This issue is has gone on long enough I feel and I don't think the Tanoli side has added any articulate reasoning to this issue. But rather than anger another user who identifies himself as a Pashtun, far be it from me to counter self identification. Good luck guys :-).--Raja 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Tanoli issue 1.1 Here we go again... 1.2 Mumtaz makes a big mistake... 2 Additions? 3 Tanoli are Mughals, NOT Pashthuns

[edit] Tanoli issue

Well, the references to Tanoli claim that they are Hindko-speaking mostly, but also Pashto speaking in some areas or are bilingual (this is generally the case with Hindkowans as they are usually the minority. The lines are hazy and they are at least part Pashtun like the other Hindkowans who are of mixed Pashtun and Punjabi origin, at least linguistically speaking. I'm not sure NOT including them is warranted, but they are a borderline group. Perhaps as a compromise we could point out (with something like an asterix) that the Tanoli vary in language and not all of them are considered Pashtun? Just a suggestion. Tombseye 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. It's the best suggestion so far. --Raja 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tanoli's aren't Pashtuns.(PERIOD)

Then their name must be removed from this list.

Please either remove or put a footnote against the follwing tribes for their Pashtun affiliation being 'suspect': Mashwanis (Sayyads); Miankhel (Spiritual leaders/Arabs); Swatis (contested; Ghilzais (Turks); Burki (not really Pashtun only Pushtunised); Dilazaks (Hazara Gazetteer has noted caution); Gandpur (are of Arab origin); Jehangiri (same as for other Swatis; and Wardak (a graphic entity only). If we can accept the foregoing as Pashtuns then the Tanolis are to be unconditionally accepted too.

If the others have a disputed origin then why not? But I am not well versed in these tribes nor have I ever come across any info refuting their identity as Pashtuns, therefore they should remain on the list. My initial problem with Tanolis was because so much official info is available where it clearly states they are not of Pashtun origin nor were they accepted as such by their neighbouring real Pashtun tribes.

I do not accept a Punjabi 'Raja' dictating terms here and other Pashtuns accepting them. It's either all of them in or none of them remaining in the tribal list.

Wikipedia doesn't really care what you think unless you provide the citations which you have thus far for almost a year NOT done so.

Supersaiyan has been shown up to be a liar and fabricator of history regarding the Tanawalis as being of Janjua origin. We do not wish to be didtated to by outsiders.

Nope, you have been shown as a liar because you have yet to negate the evidence or provide any proper evidence to prove your assertions. My proof was official imperial records...

Tanawalis historians themselves, as well as others, trace their ancestory to Afghanistan not Punjab. The term Hinkowan is properly only applicable to Kharays of Peshawar not to Hazara. The greater number of Jehangiri and other Swatis speak Hindo as do many other Pashtun tribes of Hazara most notably the Jaduns so they are not considered Hindkowans. Please be consisitent and remove the footnote from the list for Tanoli. (User:Pakhtun Tanoli) 15:15 3 March 2007

Tanolis cant make up their mind whether they are from Mongolia or Afghanistan, so forgive me if I am amused by your last assertion.

Footnote should be removed, it dosn't make any sense! Haider 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again...

I have taken off the footnote regarding Tanolis as no one else bothered to do this given my comment posted on 3rd March 2007. (USer: Mumtaz Khan from Leeds University a.k.a. Pakhtun Tanoli) 13:00 7th March 2007.

The comment has now been provided. I am though of the opinion that Tanolis are now assimilated into Pashtun culture (apparently) and even Hindkowans are accepted as Pashtuns too. Read the above next time Pakhtun Tanoli aka Mumtaz Khan from Leeds uni, and maybe you will learn that I already stated a while ago that the Tanolis should be left as Pashtun. I am not against this, although your origin will always be a disputed point. Tanoli is a geographic name for any tribe residing in Tanawal. In that instance, even a Gujar living in Tanawal can claim to a Tanawali/tanoli. (if your assertion that a Yousafzai of Tanawal is now a Tanoli is to be accepted, then as YOU suggested above, it's one rule for one, then SAME RULE FOR ALL.) Talking of which, if there is any dispute as to Gujar presence in Tanawal, then read this claim [1] --Raja 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will deal with your input above but desist from calling me by that name. I understand you've been doing this on other sites in the Wikipedia system.

Strange, another proof that you have been doing similar things on the other pages also, to other tribes....

You are a frustrated man and I think we should meet to discuss this problem you have with me as Pakhtun Tanoli. Is it because other Pakhtuns have been challenging you after my contributions to the debate regarding Pakhtun status of Tanolis. You've have been peddling this name about on different sites in Wikipedia and I've left it for proud Pakhtuns and others to challenge you.

No, your sock puppets were recorded, so it was not others, but you who was doing it, and were ultimately caught out.

[edit] Mumtaz makes a big mistake...

Get it into your ignorant head that Tanolis are Pakhtuns and Janjuas are kasbis (I know at least 3 families of Janjua origin who do not claim to rajputs but say they are of Maliyar caste. None of the historical sources link them with rajputs.

Is that so? 3 fakes tell you they are Janjua and you took their word for it?! Then how can you explain that Janjua Rajputs are Ambassadors (Nepal and UAE - Brig.Amir Gulistan Janjua, and Egypt Raja Zafar Ul Haq), Generals (past and present), chief of staff of Pakistan Army & Navy, UN representatives (Tehmina Janjua), High ranking Police DSP's and SP's, Nishan e Haider recipients, Olympic award winners (Amir Khan), international sportsmen (Sajid Mahmood) and National heroes (Maj. Gen Shahnawaz Khan of the INA, Gen.Iftikhar Janjua, Gen AK Janjua of Haripur....your locality no less!)? Infact, a well known Janjua Rajput was a Governor of the NWFP i.e. your tribal land!!!! How can you forget Brigadier Amir Gulistan Janjua saheb? Thats just their achievements post 1947. In terms of status and titles, Tanoli's only have one Nawabzada, yet the Janjua have a current Nawabzada of Darapur who is also politically active [2], as well as two current Sultans in control of ancestral forts (makhiala and Watli). Besides, the powerful General AK Janjua, who almost toppled Ayub Khan was a Janjua from Haripur Hazara, of the acclaimed Raja Tanoli line himself! Boy did you get that wrong when you tried to make us insignificant, lol. In terms of success, don't EVER dare to compare yourself against a Janjua Rajput mumtaz, you will keep failing....

It's a fact that many socially/economically deprived tribes use grander tribal names for reasons to do with our poor societal caste system prejudice, in hopes of elevation somehow. Far be it from me to stop people using my ancestral name if it helps a needy person Inshallah. If anything, Janjua is not the topic in discussion here. If they were that minorly, then Emperor Babur wouldn't have allied himself with them in his conquests and the Syed's wouldn't have taken their princesses hands in marriage. Even the powerful Niazi tribe intermarried with the Janjua according to Babur!!! I didnt see a Tanoli name mentioned in his records or todays as nationally acclaimed as the Janjua?!

I know 3 families in UK who all allege to be Tanolis and allege to be Rajputs!!!! Explain that one?! Stick to the topic before it costs you your remaining credibility.

Ghakhars use the title raja but are not rajputs as do the Turks of Hazara, in Manakrai,and they are not rajputs either - read about Raja of Mahmoodabad. Moreover, the real Rajputs of Rajputana use the universal title of Singh to denote their proud identity (the term raja is reserved for the rulers). As for the Gujjar issue it is well documented that Jat, Gujjar and the so-called rajputs of northern Punjab are the same people.

Prove it. You cant even cite evidence for Tanolis being genuine Pashtuns, what are you going to prove for any other tribe? Again, another typical diversion from your main issue. But for the record, none of the major Muslim rajput tribes of the Bhatti, Jarral, Johya, Khanzada's, Chauhans or Chibs, use Singh at all since conversion but all use the ancestral titles of Raja, Malik and Khan. Your knowledge of my proud people is evidently very very very poor, so dont embarass yourself anymore with ridiculous assertions of my caste. No really.

This leads to the conclusion that maybe the Janjua claim to be rajput is suspect as I have said all along. Darbar-e-Akbari, Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri and other historical works do not mention Janjuas and Rajputs together and locate the former in Bhir far away from Hazara, and more importantly, from real Rajputs as well.

Prepare to be openly embarassed because it is incredible that Abu Fazl, author of Ain e Akbari (Vol i, Delhi 2006, p354, and Vol iii, p131) Abu Fazl himself includes the Janjua with list of the Most Renowned Rajputs. Akbar himself deputised them as generals! (Malik Darwesh Khan Janjua). The British who deputaised your Nawab and gave him Knighthood, openly called them "the only real pure Rajputs in the Punjab". But then you knew this. Forgotten maybe? ;-)

I accept there are people who live in Tanawal and use Tanoli as their geographical origin but they do not fit into the clan system of the original Tanawalis. We know who the gujjar families are in Tanawal and they do not use Tanoli for themselves though they do say they reside in Tnawal. Other Gujjars in Hazara are either settled or are move about between Swat, Upper hazara and Azad Kashmir.

Your right, there are Gujars in Tanawal. You seem to denigrate them, but it appears that they did defeat the Tanolis quite recently [3].

Additionally, you seem to be on a mission to prove something that is not proveable. I know you are in the UK and I can meet you face to face to discuss this if you prefer. We can sort a number of things relevant to this debate as well as you can know who I really am. (User: Pakhtun Tanoli - 11:41

Thanks for your input. You are obviously an issue taker, because you have yet to provide the proof you adamantly keep harping on about like a lost child. The link above, is something that claims Gujjars beat back areas of Tanawal, your homeland (but then you dont read things properly do you?) otherwise you would have had to explain how such a meagre tribe in your eyes accomplished such a feat?

Read the actual points instead of adding your irrelevant info, I dont care what Tanoli are or that they think they are Pashtun. I am the writer who has actually called for Tanolis to be left on here as Pashtun, other users such as Tanoli blogger et al are the ones who have taken it off. Get THAT through your head Mumtaz.

As far as the offer of meeting, if you like meeting men over the net, I'd say that's a shaytaani pass time you need help with ;-)

Your argument is strange in that, I am not against you putting your geographically named tribe here on this list despite your admissions and later retractions. I am asking for it to be left there, not because you back what you said with proof, but because if thats what you believe then so be it. It's no biggy.

I think if you weren't so prejudiced and poorly behaved, we could possibly have a civil discussion on the topic and I have even offered to help write the Tanoli page with the clarifications and explanations which you (thus far) have been unable to do as a wikipedian. I dont take things personally, because ultimately, you are simply just a text of an internet page to me lol. But civility and respect is all the more important, rather than trying to belittle my tribe with silly class demotions etc (which always end up embarassing you back, as this is not a tribe you can belittle, by any means) which till date, I have not done to your alleged tribe. I feel class/dignity speak for themselves in actions rather than claimed assertions. Either way, for the record again I have no issue with the Tanoli name being left on this page, as per my last posts above. Please understand this once and for all. Argue with the users who HAVE this issue, not me Mumtaz.--Raja 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions?

Can someone add Suleimonkhel to the Ghilzai subsection? Im sure this isn't contested as they are historically one of the larger Pashtun tribes.

Also what about Ghazi and Ghaziyar? ZeroFC 09:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanoli are Mughals, NOT Pashthuns

Can the users who keep putting Tanoli name on this page constantly, show me one proof from any book or any source that Tanolis are Pashtun? If not, then stop lying and trying to make us something we are not.--Dil tarasha (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)