Talk:Pashtun tribes

Untitled

Pushtuns

Hello, I would like to know why the pushtuns sadly belive that their history only started 1400 years ago. Their leaders in the Afghan Millat and ANP claim 4000 year old history. In that case they should explain that history. If it was from Arabia as is bizzarely claimed, please tell me who are the pushuns in Arabia. Only one arab came to Pak/afg border and all pushtuns claim that this arab was their father. Then surely that father's other family must still be in Arabia. So please advise about the history of the pushtuns in Arabia before and now. Who are these pushtuns. Further why did all these pushtuns abandon their langauge Arabic. Also whose language are they speaking now. Who were the people whose language they learned and adopted. Also why did this arab muslim who is deemed the ancestor of pushtuns name his children non arabic names, they were after all his children.

Further who were the original inhabitants of this land as only one arab came 1400 years ago and even if they carried on having children they would take centuries to inhabit a land.

Why did the Afghans claim to be Aryans when they are Arabs.

If you are unable to answer these questions please think why many of the Pusthun groups and many areas in Afghanistan like Kandahar, Wardak, Takhar etc.. are names of Jat tribes.

Finally i think a serious non biased secular debate needs to take place as to who the pustuns are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jat punyal (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do Indians feel the need to come to Afghan related articles to spew BS? these are real questions that need to be answered. Akmal94 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Niazi

    hello. i have complete family tree/clan tree of niazi tribe. can i submit it here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.158.120.17 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC) 

Sherwanis

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

Yes my friend they are pashtuns but most of them don't speak pashtu & most of the tribe migrated to India long a ago during the reign of Ibrahim Lodhi. Infact most of his generals were Sherwani.

Lodhi, Sherwani & Khiliji were sons of Bibi Mattu & Turk father. When Ahmad Shah Durrani divided the pashtuns in Durranis & Khiljis the pashtun sherwanis started calling themselves Khiljis & in-fact you can trace many Sarwanis (Sarwani is the actual word it got distorted in India) in Ghazni province of Aghanistan but they call themselves Khiljis.

Actually I know a pashtun historian, the next time I will meet him I will most probably update the sherwani/sarwani wiki page, until then have fun.... :)

--Cogitoplacebo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogitoplacebo (talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tanoli gujjar

Collapsing long discussion, bring sources to Talk:Tanoli gujjar instead of filling this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tanolis are gujjar Pathan, migrated from Afghanistan as there are in Hindko speaking area in majority so they speak Hindko rest all speak Pashto language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.127.250 (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Raja is different cast so off course they are not Pashto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.127.250 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 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 gujjar 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 gujjar (who are adamant to include in this section) are gujjar Pashtun. They are not and never considered to be by their own.--Raja 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC) They are gujjar 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 gelze Pashtun generally nor a gujjar Tanawali but admit to it that you are trying to include chamiars of gujjar 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 gujjar Tanoli that you don not want them to be Pashtuns so that the resultant progeny to be Punjabi. If gujjar Tanolis wish to be included as Pashtuns then that's their problem not yours. You stick to being Raja Masih Tanoli Super shaitan as the above user has said and stick Tanawal 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 attested docter to GujjarTanolis being Pashtun. Thank you for your poor language. However, citing oen source is futile as I have much more than one that states gujjar 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,gujjar Tanolis should not be included in Pashtun tribes, as another gujjar user has already proven that any resident of Tanwal is known as a gujjar 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 gujjar Pashtun and I will be removing them from the list. Teardrops 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Please do not edit out gujjar Tanoli from Pashtun list. No one has proven that gujjar 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 gujjar 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 gujjar Tanawalis back in 1910 - the author made the same kind of wild suggestions that were made about Ghilzais gujjar 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.gujjar Pakhtun Tanoli, 16:31, 17 January 2007 No YOU are on a mission to prove gujjar Tanolis are Pashtun when they clearly are not. In fact the other tribes who know gujjar 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 gujjar, then you are yousafzai gujjar, how can you call the Yousafzai's of Tanawal gujjar and Tanawalis gujjar? they would still be Yousafzai essentially. Hence if a geographic residence gives one the name gujjar Khan Tanoli, then saying Tanoli is a pure pashtun tribe is misleading, simply because a Awan of Tanawal gujjar 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 gujjar Tanoli tribe as a Pasthun gujjar 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 gujjar 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 :-).--khan Raja khan 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC) The Tanolis (Taniwal or gujjars) (Urdu: تنولی ) are a prominent and famous Muslim Pashtun tribe residing mainly in Amb Hazara Division of the North-West Frontier Province Pakistan And Some gujjar Tanoli tribes still live in Gardaiz and Ghazni both cities of Afghanistan

There is another adivasi kashmiri around here related to a gujjar tanoli from Phulra who logs in and writes whatever he wants about Tribes in Hazara gujjar I dont know why he thinks he knows more but I understand he is H Y chromosome Haologroup a changani Azmarai76 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Gujjar Tanoli issue

Collapsing long discussion, bring sources to Talk:gujjar Tanoli instead of filling this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, the references to gujjar Tanoli claim that they are Hindko-speaking mostly, but also gujjari 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 gujjari Pashtun like the other Hindkowans who are of mixed gujjari and farsi 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); Gandoopur (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 gujjar 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 gujjar 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 gujjar 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 gujjar (User:Pakhtun Tanoli) 15:15 3 March 2007 Tanolis gujjar 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) 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 gujjar from Leeds University a.k.a. Pakhtun gujjar) 13:00 7th March 2007. The comment has now been provided. I am though of the opinion that Tanolis gujjar are now assimilated into Turkish culture (apparently) and even Hindkowans are accepted as Pashtuns too. Read the above next time Pakhtun gujjar aka Mumtaz gujjar from Leeds uni, and maybe you will learn that I already stated a while ago that the Tanolis gujjar should be left as Pashtun. I am not against this, although your origin will always be a disputed point. Gujjar Tanoli is a geographic name for any tribe residing in Tanawal. In that instance, even a Gujar living in Tanawal can claim to a Gujjar/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 gujjar 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. 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 gujjar as their geographical origin but they do not fit into the clan system of the original Tanawalis gujjar. 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 Gujjar 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 gujjar'--Raja 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Additions?

Can someone please add Lodin to the list? It is a large tribe in Kandahar but it has not been mentioned in this list. Thank You 74.96.217.21 (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

And where is STANEKZAI, the tribe of Logar, Nangarhar and Jallalabad? Wil the users ad this to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziastanikzai (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Tanoli are not Mughals, NOT Pashthuns tanolis are abbasis

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)

who said they are not pashton? Tanoli is Gujjar origin, have their own histry and please do not take on another tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.231.147 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. Now you just need to go to Talk:Tanoli and provide some reliable sources showing that they are pashtun. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

her are some proves of tanolis that they are abbasis go a head http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=1QmrSwFYe60C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=3_1#PRA1-PA240,M1

another proves you also found in this book http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=PL_ACoFwJ2gC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=dhund+marige&source=bl&ots=WNlDANZdHC&sig=r8EVV644P3Uw6ubvm3uiyz5VcRA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA44,M1

about barlas mughals amer khan tanoli says that he is in army of mughal thats why his name take place from their that they are mughal he does not says that his father is mughal if his father is mughal so he is also a mughal but his father is not a mughal (the_revolution_x@hotmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.115.178 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hum, I think that you missed the parts where they say that a) there are different claims and this is only one of them b) the claims are conflicting and contradictory among them c) the british said "these traditions are of course absurd" and, from a different source, "the pretensions of both tribes [dhoond and dauthputras] are equally ridiculous" [4]

Anyways, I left a note at Talk:Tanoli about this. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

i am talking about the reality if a father is mughal then a son isa mughal he AMIR khan tnaoli dose not sayas that his father is a mughal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.115.178 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC) these traditions are of course absurd the tradition make them mughal is also an absurd if father is not a mughal so how son become a mughal and i am not missing any thing i give you references and your not excepting these proves its depend on you not on me but about mughal in hindko (MALDIYALS) i dont think so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.115.178 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC) claim of descent from Abbassi

Dhund claim that they descend from Jai Khan, who had 24 sons, from which would descend the Jawal, Dhund, Surara and Tanaoli. The british said that this and other claims are absurd: YOU POST THIS TOPIC IN YOUR PAGE AND YOU DID NOT GIVE ANY PROVE THAT BRITISH SAYS THAT THIS IS ABSURD WHERE THE BIRITHS SAYS THAT THEY ARE ABSURD FIRST YOU ASK FOR PROVES WHEN I GIVE YOU SOME PROVES YOU DENY THEM AND ASKING THAT THEY ARE ABSURD BY YOUR SELF AND CRITISIZING BY YOUR SELF WITH OUT ANY PROVE THAT THIS IS ABSURD PROBLEM IS THIS THAT YOUR NOT EXCEPTING THE REALITY SOME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.115.178 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The british call those claims absurd here and here, and call themm ridiculous here --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm about barlas mughals amer khan tanoli says that he is in army of mughal thats why his name take place from their that they are mughal he does not says that his father is mughal if his father is mughal so he is also a mughal but his father is not a mughal

and for abbasi its true that they are abbasi these traditions is absurbd for you but not for us not for (tanoli abbasi) and this is also a big bluder that amer khan cast is barlas mughal he is in army of mughals he had no blood realtions with mughals I THANK TO ALLAH THAT I AM (TANOLI ABBASI) AND THANK YOU TO PROVIDE ME ANOTHER PROVE THAT THEY ARE ABBASI ?about barlas mughals amer khan tanoli says that he is in army of mughal thats why his name take place from their that they are mughal he does not says that his father is mughal if his father is mughal so he is also a mughal but his father is not a mughal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.115.178 (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC) (british call those claims absurd claims) these claims is absurd for british but not for us for us barlas MUGHAL IS ABSURD These traditions are of course absurd. Kulu Rai is a Hindu name, and one tradition makes him brought up by a Brahman. Colonel Wace wrote of the Dhund and ...this is absurb but tanolis are abbasi yes now this the full sentence not this tahat tanolis are not abbasi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.115.178 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See Tanoli#Apical_ancestor and it's source. Tanoli claim to descend from Barglas Mughal, but the British census says that they is little doubt that they come from Indo-Iranian/Indo-European or Indian stock. In other words, the British agree with you in that the Tanoli were not Mughal. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

in the history of INDIA THE BRITSH MADE MANY BLUNDERS FIRST THEY DIVIDEN US TO MANY RELIGOUS GROUP LINKE (DEOBANDIAND BARALVI ) WHEN THERE IS NO BRITISH RULE IN INDIA ALL MUSLIM ARE FOLLOWERS OF IMAM-E-AZAM ABU HANIFA AND THEY BELONG TO AHLA SUNAT WAL JAMAT WHEN BRITISH CAME IN INDIA FRIST THEY DIVIDE US IN TO RELIGOUS GROUPS LIKE (DEOBANDI,BARALVI) BECAUSE THERE POLICY IS DIVIDE AND RULE THEY DIVIDE US AND RULES US THEY DIVIDE US INTO TO CASTS IN ISLAM ALL MUSLIMS ARE EQUAL WHTHER THEY ARE MOCHI, NAI, THEY ALL ARE EQUAL IN ISLAM I DONT UNDER STAND WHY DO WE BELEVE ON BRITISH THAT BRITISH SAY THIS BRITISSH SAYS THAT WE ARE ALL MUSLIMS BROTHERS EVERY ONE IS EQUAL NOW WE ARE FIGHTING ON THAT ARE TANOLIS AER MUGHALS JANGUAS PHATAN THEY MAKE US FOOL BRITISH MAKE US FOOL AND ARE ALL ALSO FOOL BECAUSE 60 YEARS AGO BRITISH LEFT THIS SUB CONTINENT AND NOW WE ARE STILL FIGHTING ON OUR RELIGION GROUPS AND ON OUR CAST BUT ABOUT TANOLI I BELEVE THAT SOME PEOPLE CAME FROM DIFFERENT ARES THEY ALSO SAY THAT THEY ARE ALSO TANOLI BUT NOT BY BLOOD THEY ARE TANOLI BUT I AM MUHAMMAD HARIS TANOLI ABBASI AND THANK TO ALL MIGHTY ALLAH THAT I AM TANOLI ABBASI. FOR ME IT IS IMPORTENT THAT I AM MUSLIM AND I WANT TO DIE MUSLIM (INSHALLAH)I DIE MUSLIM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.115.178 (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion that Tanolis are Abassis is absurd. In fact the Dhunds in Abbottabad who call themselves Abbassis are also wrong, becuase they are Dhunds not Abbassis. Before 1940, no one in Hazara called them selves Abbassis, now there are many. This discussion that Tanolis are Abbasis has originated from some people from Abbottabad, no one in Tanawal area supports this view and the name Abbassi is Alien to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.24.20 (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Alekozai Tribe

I'm wondering from where the Alekozai tribe originates from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.249.52 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

there under the barakzai branch of abdali/durrani pashtuns along with popalzais —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.35.142 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Book of India

The Golden Book of India Sir Roper Lethbridge on page 328 states about Nawab Muhammad Akram Khan, Sir, K.C.S.I The Nawab Bahadur is Chief of Amb, on the right bank of the Indus, where he and his ancestors have long been independent. Belongs to a Pathan (Muhammadan) family....

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enric_Naval" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.150.5 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

link for reference: page 328

The "trick" here is that Akram was Muhammad, but his father was not, so he must have inherited his Pathan status from his Muhammad mother and not from his Tanoli father. That doesn't show anything about the whole Tanoli tribe being Pathan, just that one of its chiefs married a Pathan and had a son that can be considered Pathan. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Enric were you sleepy when you typed the above comment, because it doesnt make sense. In The Golden Book of India Sir Roper Lethbridge on page 328 states about Nawab Muhammad Akram Khan, Sir, K.C.S.I The Nawab Bahadur is Chief of Amb, on the right bank of the Indus, where he and his ancestors have long been independent. Belongs to a Pathan (Muhammadan) family. What this statement means is that Nawab(his title) Muhammad Akram (his name) Khan (again title) belonged to a Pathan (by tribe), Muhammadan (Muslim by religion) family. And Akram Khan's father's name was Jahandad Khan. You can research and might prove Sir Roper Lethbridge's presumption that the princely family of tanawal is not Pathan, but you cannot presume, Akram Khan is called Pathan because of his mother who might have been Pathan because in the Indian Sub-Continent people are not recognised by the tribe of their mother but are recognised by the fathers tribe. I believe if a well respected historian like Sir Roper Lethbridge had mentioned this, he has not done so without research. Although there can be claims to the contrary. Cheers : )Wikitanoli (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, all these titles are so confusing to occidentals :) I tried to find if his father Jehandad Khan or his grandfather Painda Khan were Pashtun or what, but I couldn't find much info, and there are other persons with the same name from about the same time, which makes it more difficult. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

phatan is not a cast we called phatan due to area for eg (aslam live in n.w.f.p so we called him phatan )but about his cast we did not say that he is phatan if a person live in punjab,we say him punjabi a person live in balochistan we call him baloch a person live in n.w.f.p we say him phatan phatan,punjabi calochi is not a cast the_revolution_x@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.128.10 (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Then how do you explain that Arkam was a Muhammad (Pathan), and his father wasn't? Did they go to live to a different place? I thought that they were both rulers of Amb (princely state). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmm they said them phatan due to migration through afghanistan thas why they ask them phatan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.128.10 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC) if you ask a person who are phatans they reply to you that people who live in afghanistan or in n.w.f.p are phatans or migrated from these places are known as phatan about mr ARKAM that his family migrated from afghanistan to n.w.f.p or some where else in pakistan thats why they are known as phatans now you get it (mr xyz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.128.10 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Pashtun_people, there are three definitions, and only the first one talks about geography Pashtun_people#Ethnic_definition. However, it also has a lot of other requisites. If Tanoli are really Pashtun then it should be easy to find a reliable source listing all pashtun tribes and listing Tanoli among them. You haven't still provided any source saying that Tanoli are Pashtun. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: also, see Talk:Pashtun_people/Archive_7#Tanolis_ARE_NOT_Pashtun, and this website from the government of Pakistan [5], and the sources at Tanoli. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with you that they are not pushtoons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.128.10 (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC) i am not asking that they are pashtun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.115.178 (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) they are not pusntoons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.115.178 (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry

sorry histry of tanoli started from afghanistan Taniwal tanoli tani origin of afghanistan ..you get the reference from India and pakistan since, but his estate is afghanistan .. and also its original language is Pashto does not mean that in pakistan and india do not speak Pashto and non-Pashtun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.221.154 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 February 2009

You have given no source at all for your edits, and I already pointed on the other section several sources about them not being pashtun, so I have reverted all of your edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

also a Punjabi clan kakkar are found in India and Pakistan. Kakkar are found among Arain Jatt and Khatri.

kakkar is also a tribe of Afghanistan, we have a lot of confusion about tribes afghanistan and pakistan and Hindustan

equally with tanolis is also very confused.

afghanistan people also use your name as surname tanoli,

Tanoli tribe of Pashtuns have here,

and its language is Pashto,

some branchs also speaks farsi,

in pakistan and Hindustan have with the defrientes races,

also with us always claimed neighborhoods tribes,

so many tribes lost source that can not tens of which are ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahsankhan0091 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here I am presenting the tribes of Afghanistan, who live here, and its language is Pashto and farsi..

Afridi, Achakzai, Bangash, Bhittani, Barakzai , Daulatzai Dilazak , Gandapur , Ghilzai/Khilji , Kakar , Kundi , Kharoti , Khattak , Lodhi , Mashwanis , Mahsud, Marwat , Mohamedzai , Mohmand, Niazi , Orakzai , PopalZai, Shilmani/shalmani , Shinwari , Shitak , Tanoli , Utmanzai, Tareens , Wazir , Yousafzai, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahsankhan0091 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Swabi, swabi and Mardan the community of tanoli speak Pashto, which is the first language here, as Urdu is the national language spoken all Provence of pakistan.

I know a lot of Hazara tribe. thus putting the family name of Pashtuns, but they speak hindko, for example tareen tahirkheli tanoli jadoon Yusafzai Mohammadzai lodhi utmanzai Dilazak Mashwanis etc, which are of Pashtun tribes hindko talk but does not mean a race of Pashtun language changes us also change your home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.72.102 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

TRIBE

Mando (Mandokhail)

Sub-Tribes

Daudkhail (Karizai) Sunrkhail Mummayzai Haadi (Sheikh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masoodzhobi (talk • contribs) 11:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Burki, Pashai and Tanoli

I added Burki, Pashai and Tanoli because most of them consider themslves Pashtun. Burki (Urmur) were already in the article, who are considered Sarbanri Pashtuns. Should the Tanoli and Pashai stay? I think the tables need to be rewritten. 119.152.248.25 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Wikipedians, I am just writing to compliment ALL of you on your efforts on this table. For people from the region, this may be no big deal. For those of us outside the region, you are building a mightily impressive resource. Continue the good work! A.k.a. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Tanole

Tanoli are a pashtun tribe also called Taniwal Tanole in afghanistan who mixed with Persian of amb. they are pashto speakers also live in laghman

Ahmad khan Tanole laghman

Pashtun and non Pashtun

This discussion could improve with content and proper citations from verifiable sources

Intothefire (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

References

is more fully Tanoli them are from afghanistan, which is not on the list belongs Tanoli was a royal branch of the Pashtuns, article indicated are Hazara region of Pakistan that are not, is a breed of afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.169.212 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 212.88.98.150, 19 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} | ||Ahmadzai || || || || || ||

212.88.98.150 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

tanoli is Sarbanri tribe Tanoli is a major Pashtun tribe from sarbanri, eight main Sarbanri tribes

1. Durrani
2. Mohmand
3. Shilmani
4. Tareen
5. Tanoli
6. Sherani
7. Yusufzai
8. Urmar

i added see also there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed.Khan.Afg (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Any reliable sources for Tanoli being Yusufzai and Sarbanri? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish to have on record that I have removed the Tanoli from this list of Pashtuns. They are NOT Pashtuns, although some of them are settled in parts of Afghanistan too, they are according to all their own historical records, Barlas Turks, who originally came from Central Asia-- one groups or section entered Afghanistan, where some still live, and are confused by some so-called scholars with a Pashtun sub-group, the Tanae. Another group of them drifted into North-West Pakistan and entered Hazara, Pakistan, via Swat, and still live there. Yet another group or branch entered via the Kashmir passes and some are settled still in Kashmir and some came down further West and also entered Hazara, meeting up with their kin there. Over time, the Tanolis have taken on Pushto as a second language and some aspects of Pashtun culture, via close proximity to the Pashtun tribes; but they dont fit into any of the original Pashtun pedigrees and never have, I dont see why people here are insisting on adding them please? I dont see any particular shame in being of Barlas Turk origins vis a vis Pashtun? Even well into the 1980s and 1990s, almost all the Tanolis accepted their Turkic origins, its only recently that Ive noted living up here, that some of their head families are starting to claim Pashtun roots. I believe it might be a political scam, as they are trying to obtain district status for the former Amb area? In any case, I have made the proper and due correction. I would hope that people will respect this and not try to insinuate the Tanolis here, again, thanks. 39.54.228.138 (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Prof (retd) Hilda Khan Pakistan

Article is incomplete

The hadnote already states the malady: "This articles is about the tribal lineages." There is nearly nothing in this article about the Pashtun tribes. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Text vs. list

As of April 2011, this is more of a list than an article. However, the first half is organized structurally, while the text seems to be all at Pashtun tribal structure. Should these two articles be integrated? --Bejnar (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to organize the article structurally, and removed the badly formatted huge unsourced tables because they were a badly written original research. However the article is still mostly a list. 182.185.78.0 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Page needs work. The lists are not useful. It also makes no sense to have individual pages for all the tribes (a population of 60 people is usually not notable; comparable to a street people live on.) I propose these individual pages be merged into this document and redirects made to this article.Dig Deeper (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Original research and inaccuracies in this article

The current version of the article is poorly formatted and unencyclopedic, and contains too many redlinks whose accuracy is dubious. Many of the same names are mentioned multiple times because of the poor structure of the tables and lists. Almost none of the tables or lists, the names of tribes in them or their structure, is sourced. Wikipedia is not the place to publish such poorly written original reseach. So to wikify this article, I am arranging all names in alphabet order, removing 100s of redlinks with no existing articles, and keeping mostly those links which are sourced with refs either in this article, or in other main articles about the tribes and clans. For any mistakes I may do with the lists, please notify on this talk page and correct. Thank you. 182.185.78.0 (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The problems are many with this article, starting with contradictory and not necessarily reliable sources and extending into original research. The article in the Encyclopædia Iranica on the Dawlatzai (Dawlatzi) is illustrative of the piecemeal nature of our knowledge of Pashtun tribes, and the disagreements between the tribes of what the actual relationships are. I do not believe that the existing format of an extensive hierarchical list will be useful or uncontentious (see above). An article dealing with the culture and economics of Pashtun tribes on the other hand is more likely to be (1) useful, (2) substantiated in reliable sources and (3) relatively without internecine controversy. --Bejnar (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That is right. As of now I am adding more info on the history, culture, etc. of various large tribes. Most of the info there is a summarization of the main articles, and some of the info there is from Iranica and other relatively reliable online weblinks. 182.185.113.225 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Pashtun tribes

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pashtun tribes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Nath":

• From Pashtunwali: Nath, Samir (2002). Dictionary of Vedanta. Sarup & Sons. p. 273. ISBN 81-7890-056-4. Retrieved 2010-09-10.
• From Pashtuns: Nath, Samir (2002). Dictionary of Vedanta. Sarup & Sons. p. 273. ISBN 81-7890-056-4. Retrieved 10 September 2010.

Reference named "Heredotus":

• From Pashtuns: "7". The History of Herodotus. Translated by George Rawlinson. The History Files. February 4, 1998 [original written 440 BC]. Retrieved 10 January 2007.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
• From Pashtunwali: "The History of Herodotus Chapter 7". Translated by George Rawlinson. The History Files. 440 BC. Retrieved 2007-01-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• From Ethnic groups in Afghanistan: Chapter 7 of The History of Herodotus (trans. George Rawlinson; originally written 440 BC) (retrieved 10 January 2007)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Too hard to read

This article has been totally ruined, what happened to the good old chart that showed the different tribes and what branch they fell into? Now its just too hard to read and the word "Afghan" is completely missing from this article. Akmal94 (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

why khalji dynesty has been deleted from empires? please add it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E0CC:541B:80E7:1576 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Dost Mohammad Khan, Nawab of Bhopal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2019

218.185.233.102 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Tanoli brave and hostile pashtun

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Swatis Cis Indus tribe

Aren't pashtuns and pashtunized tajiks someone is inserting them here due some misunderstanding as half of this tribe speak Pashtu. They are basically pashtunized tajiks. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Pashtun = Afghan? Historically, Yes. In this modern age? No.

I can see Pashtun Nationalists are active on this page using various IDs and rotating IP addresses to push their "Pashtun = Afghan" agenda. Wikipedia is not the place to indulge in such activity. I have inserted the word "historically" in the sentence to address and settle their "grievances" and hopefully, it should help although I doubt it. The fact remains that in this modern age, "Pashtun" is no longer synonymous with "Afghan" as it has become a nationality covering all the ethnicities living in Afghanistan including but not limited to Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara as well as Pashtuns even under Afghanistan's own constitution. Thank you.  McKhan  ^(talk) 01:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Map of The Hotakids.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2021

There is an omission of full reference in the "External Links" at the very end. Change "Articulation of Tribalism into Modernity: the Case of Pashtuns in Afghanistan" to "Sungur, Z.T. (2013). Articulation of Tribalism into Modernity: the Case of Pashtuns in Afghanistan (Master's Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara. 178.245.95.80 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

Pashtuns have not been dropped from the sky on earth they have been a minority in the region they live in ,in the past and they must have mixed with other Turkic and other ethnic groups like hephthalites and they have used Persian culture and language to Rise up in politics and other fields in life but this page is making it sound like pashtuns have been a thing independent people which they were not they always had to pay tax to someone and had to mix up with other tribes they have always been a tribe as long as they have stuck to their pashtunwali if they have reached anything higher than that it’s because of Islam and Persian culture not Pashtun culture as they are still a tribe up to this day. So please stop making up history. 80.43.143.42 (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Khattak the Biggest tribe of Pashtuns is missing in this article

No mention of khattak tribe which is largest in Pashtuns 39.43.18.136 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)