Talk:Dhund (tribe)

Removal

Please see the article's history/log. I have just amended a somewhat negative edit by User:182.188.164.241, who actually deleted/removed text that was sourced and substantiated and replaced it with a spurious claim. I have requested the user to make useful, positive edits, and also left a note to this effect. I hope that this article will be allowed to develop properly in due course, with mutual editorial cooperation. Problem is, many tribes in the northern Punjab and NWFP/KPK and Northern Areas, of indigenous origins, have since the late 18th to 19th c, developed certain fictitious and spurious historical accounts (after the tribes' mass conversions to Islam) that showed them to be of 'foreign' (i.e. Arab, Afghan, Turk etc) origins, 'original invaders' as it were--a piece of obvious 'machismo' which however has no true or factual basis/es. This has been the cause of much trouble, at various levels, since these peoples (and the Dhund Abbasi tribe are one of them) feel very strongly and violently about these matters and are willing to take stubborn, extreme steps to insist they alone are 'right'. So I am hoping that things will remain on a positive footing here. Hamneto (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Hamneto

Further fixing up of spurious edits

I have now again fixed some spurious edits by an unidentified User:182.188.133.93, probably the same user as mentioned above User:182.188.164.241, who added unreliable and in fact fictitious material. Ironically, claiming 'Arabic' descent for the Dhund Abbasis, the user cites or refers to the Kalohras and Daudpotas ('Abbasis') who are also mere claimants to similar Arabic origins but in fact probably of indigenous Sindhi ethnic origins. I have also left a note for this user on the user's talk page, hope it does some good. I shall keep patrolling this page and keep an eye out for similar stuff. I suppose its probably all done in 'good faith' (as explained above, due to certain prejudicial and mistaken racial notions in latter-day Pakistani culture/society) and its very hard trying to keep track and fixing such errors, academically speaking. Hamneto (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

I must also especially condemn the removal of sourced/referenced material, which I have tried to explain is not quite ethical or correct by our standards.Hamneto (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Sustained vandalism

Hallo, please see edit log of this article--there seems a sustained vandalism attempt despite repeated warnings and requests etc. Help needed, please. Thanks 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

I dont know how to revert changes but if User:Osiris or other admins are available please help, thanks. Hamneto (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Assalam-o-Alaikum! My brothers you are talking about the origion of Dhund Abbasi. I can clear this to u.

Firstly, Dhund is not a indegneous tribe because there is no link between the ancestory of Dhund and Other neighbouring tribes (Satti, Kethwal,bib,chib and Karlal etc).They are other than Dhund.

Secondly, Dhund Abbasi ancestor Zurab Khan Al-Abbasi came in the reign of Mahmud of Ghaznavi (written in book of Mahmud) not in 17th century.This is believed by Ghakhar(former Rulers of Area) and Karlal(another brave warrior Tribe).

In the same way , books written books written by British are not True because they did this to degrade Abbasis because they being Arab Islamic origion did not like to accept the commands of non-Muslim like British and Sikhs.Thats why they fought against them and continued attacking them till their prescence in this area.If Dhund had the same orgion as Satti, Kethwal ,Bib,Chib than why dhund,sarrara,tanoli(not pashtun Tanoli) attacked British government while the former did not.

Moreover, Near Kohala River , a mosque is present which was constructed By Abbasis in 12th or 13th century . At the time of birth of Abdur Rehman Khan ( Rattan Khan)which is given as 14th century this mosque was present and he in his childhood took education from that mosque.

When Zorab khan came here , the area was under Ghakhar rule while in Murree and some parts of Hazara ,Karlals enjoy as Sardars. They were called Sardars by local people but after the arrival of Abbasis from Arab , The Ghakhars gave them this area as Ghakhar were recently converted to Islam in 1025 A.D,so as respect to famous Islamic Family he presented this land to Dhund Abbasi.

Moreover, The name Dhund is a nickname given by people to our ancestor.Grand son of Zurab Khan and brother of one of the twelve sons of Akber Gahi Khan.The real name of dhund was Kahonder which is an Arabic word showing that Zurab Khan belonged to Arab.

Another proof that Dhund are subtribe of Al-Abbasi is that there is no one who can say that Dhund s were Non- muslims while all other tribes (Kethwal,Bib,Chib,satti etc) except Karlal and Ghakhar were non- Muslims at the arrival of Zurab Khan Al- Abbasi.Some Kethwal tribesaccepted islam in 1090 on the arrival of Abbasis.

I hope u will learn from this and will correct your negetive ideas about dhund abbasis , Sarrara Abbasis And Tanoli Abbasi and will help me in future.

My dear friend hallo, all of the above information, if you dont mind my saying so,m is spurious, or unreliable, academically speaking, as it is not properly sourced--also, at the same time as giving a properly sourced claim of this sort we also have to give the other side or opinion, for the sake of neutrality/objectivity. I hope you understand this? To remove and citations and references and material thus ascribed, is VANDALISM. If you perisist, then I am sorry to say there will be a problem for you. Please understand this clearly, thanks, and also note that if your English is not good or clear then dont write on this Wiki, try to write on the Urdu or Punjabi Wiki, where your valuable contribution might be more useful thanks Hamneto (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Are there any sources for the claims made in this edit? It looks very much like POV pushing. I have no opinions (negative or otherwise) on Abbasi tribes. We only know what is written in reliable sources about them, so let's see some presented please. Osiris (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear user:Osiris no there are no real sources for these claims, beyond some 'graves' that this person keeps insisting 'show' the Arab origins. In fact, the graves of 'Zuhrab Khan' (a Persian name) only shows that a remote common ancestor did exist, who probably converted to islam. The name 'Abbasi' was added to the tribes original Hill Rajput name i'a 'Dhond' or 'Dhund' to signify some later ancestor called 'Abbas' who separated from the main tribe. If you will please note, this article has been tampered with again by the same person and again, sourced material is removed--why? And why is the whole 'References' section also removed? I believe that the main reason is, the sources arent just British colonial ones but also later research, which largely/mostly proved the Dhund Abbasis' indigenous origins. As I have stated above in the very first note on this page, 'Arabic' origins carry 'cachet' here ever since the Zia regime of the 1970s and 80s, with its negative, fundamental Islamist implications. And this is what is at the heart of this whole furore. RegardsHamneto (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Hamneto Stupid remarks

, There is no link between Raput and Dhund Abbasis . Hill Rajput themselves say that our  Ancestors belonged to Al Abbasi family . Dhund is a nick name of a person while abbasi is his Family.

And u are just talking rubbish that we claim ourselves abbasi in 20th century in Zia region . While in the Book of Colonel Wace which is written in 19th century our Abbasi claim is present because we are origionallly Abbasis.

Please maintain a basic decorum when addressing other users, thanks. Regards, Hamneto (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Sub-tribes of al-abbasi in Pakistan

Our indegneous is not possible zurrab khan came out of Sub continent .He beloged to Famous Abbasi Family. This is proved by Kalhora Abbasi of Sindh and local tribes of Satti, karlal and Ghakhar. — This unsigned comment was added by 182.188.214.217 (talk • changes).

My dear friend. Please be calm and have patience. You must understand the basic issue (a) all claims must be represented in an article and (b) they must all be properly sourced. I dont have any personal issues with you, or your tribe, I am abiding by the strict rules here please, and you must also follow these if you wish to participate in the editing process here. You must also learn how to behave and address other colleagues and how to edit and what not to edit. You cannot remove sourced material and references sections, for example. Do you get it please? Hamneto (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Protected

Okay, the article is now protected for a week, owing to persistent twisting of sources and replacement of sourced content with unsourced claims. If the anonymous editor can produce some sources to verify their claims and agree to collaborate, then we can consider removing the protection. Osiris (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Hamneto (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Just to bring up to date User:Osiris and User:Chenzw, regarding earlier discussions about this article, which was earlier changed rather negatively by User:182.188.133.93 and User:182.188.164.241 resulting in the page being protected temporarily. Seems that probably the same gentleman who used the above two IDs now using ID User:182.188.175.193 has again removed sourced material and a balanced/objective perspective, insisting on a slanted and unverified view. I have undone this, and left some talk on the ID's talk page, but am not certain if this article might be changed again. I shall be logging off shortly as its getting late here but would be grateful if you could kindly keep an eye on this article, thanks very much. Sincerely, Hamneto (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Warning

Hey Cowards and Rascals . Logging the page will not help you because it is a fact that Dhund like Kalhora are of Arab origion. Add following lines in your article .

1. dhund is an arab origionated tribe.
2. Colonial Masters had their own priorities to rule. Distortion of history, Misleading salved nations and falsifying the truth was their only tool to keep these nations from uprising.

My dear unidentified friend, hallo to you too. Maybe the colonial British had their own 'priorities'-- but from all accounts, one sees that they at least carried out honest and painstaking research in various ethnic histories/origins and faithfully rendered their accounts. They backed up each and every assertion they made in their research/es with reliable and proper sources and references. Later ethnic research by various scholars circa 1960s onwards (including Pakistani and other nationalities) seem to almost entirely support/reinforce the original claims made by British colonials. Best regards, Hamneto (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

There is nothing about faith in British scholars . In their book they declared Dhunds to be of Turkic origion . They say that Dhund ancestors came with Timur. But questiom arises that if they came with timur (i.e in 1400 c.e).Then how dhund were already present their. The prescence of Dhund in area is confirmed by writer of Punjabi musalman (british writer ) and also by Grand mosque in basian,Hazara,where Abdur rehman khan (Rattan khan) took education. One of The british writer you talk about donot believe Daudpotas to be Arab abbasi while it is confirmed that Kalhora and daud potas are same.

Keeping in mind these facts and numerous other, I hope u will stop talkimg rubbish.

Once again, you are please advised to moderate your language and attitude to a decent and civilised one; and also please refrain from making attacks on either individuals/editors/users and/or other people/s. Thanks Hamneto (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Yet more claims without any sources to speak of. Please do present some instead of continuing this edit war indefinitely. I've protected the page again. Osiris (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:Osiris, hallo. Well, yes, most of the claims about the Dhunds' supposed 'Arab' origins (and also their supposed 'Turkic' origins) put forward here are unsourced. I have found references in (a) old books dating from British colonial times and (b) some newer post-1947 ethnological studies, which I have already enlisted, which supports the local/indigenous origins thesis. I have indicated some places where I think citations/refs are required but havent been provided so far. I am also sick of this directionless furore. Regs, Hamneto (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Self promoting photo

Hello, I saw a self-promoting photo of some former 'Nazim' (mayor) , a political chap, what does he have to do with this topic except that he belongs to the Dhond/Dhund (hill Abbasi) tribe? Thats no reason to add his photo here unless its for political mileage. Im removing it. Thanks 39.54.205.177 (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Hilda Khan, former college professor, Pakistan.

Once again fixing the article

Hello, please all editors should see previous discussions etc above. Once again, someone is starting off with the same old story about the origins/history that we had over time fixed and come to a basic consensus about. I have re edited and fixed this again, please, and I do hope that people will not keep re adding the same unsubstantiated and spurious stories, without any real acceptable sources or references. Thank you Hamneto (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Hamneto

Greetings. I just saw this article and I think there is a need to clean the origins section a bit- I did the same for the Wikipedia (main) article about this tribe . First of all, most reliable modern scholarship seems to believe the Dhund Abbasis are of indigenous origins . And secondly, there seems to be no formal or known research where any DNA tests or comparison of any Hazara tribes has been made, at all, as claimed here. I shall edit and amend this section. Right. Thanks. AsadUK200 (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)AsadUK200