Hijab is not Bangladeshi culture, its Saudi culture: Former minister Menon

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

So please search with neutral mind, you may find some truth. Thank and peace.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Many Hindu leaders at independence time were speaking from two sides of their mouths.

Sometimes they would call for peace and understanding with Muslims, then when audiences changed talk evil and hate against Muslims.

Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, Tagore, and numerous others were all guilty of this.

If you listen to what Quran says, you will understand their mindset.

Not all Hindus hate Islam, some actually are quite partial to Islam, but these men were not those people.

Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah got independence for us simply due to his determination, honesty, and one-mindedness. He was not a flip-flopper like these Congress leaders, hence he gained the respect of Muslims from Peshawar to Calcutta.

He also gained the ear of the British this way, although he had to seek the military and political support of Iran and other Islamic countries, just in case the British reneged on their promises.

 

[Nilgiri]

I don’t idolize anyone.

Get over yourself.

The great mard-e-momin has spoken....your actual reality (forget perspective) matters zilch...

He has had to watch that POW video by the BBC, marched onto boats, heads sunken, glum expression.....and find a way to cope (as whatever version of takfiri) regd the Bengali muslims in distance jeering and chanting at them ....and then backtrack as needed historically in the typical "they were always like that" kind of thing.

The actual events that unfolded that caused this w.r.t following of basic islamic piety/morality will of course remain ignored as needed.

From that stems everything else today. Psyche is a pretty indelible thing in any person...like a clay it has been moulded into something during youth....and is then fired, baked and set for rest of life. Not much wiggle room for it most of one's life.

Mistakes happen.

Not a big deal at all.

Actually the irony that struck me is Imran Khan (that certain mard-e-momin is a big fan of) is pretty pro-Bengali narrative (regd 1971) for a Pak PM. If you check out some of his earlier videos for his opinion on it w.r.t pak army excesses etc. So it would not surprise me if he actually quoted it as from Tagore from the get go.

I think BD and Pakistan relations can improve now (beyond all this bickering in this forum), but lets see....maybe I.K hands are tied on it....and SHW won't be interested beyond a point etc. But the environment is better than it has been in past overall I would say.

 

[bluesky]

Many Hindu leaders at independence time were speaking from two sides of their mouths.

Sometimes they would call for peace and understanding with Muslims, then when audiences changed talk evil and hate against Muslims.

Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, Tagore, and numerous others were all guilty of this.

It is post-1947 and we do not have to hate others before that because of religion. It is already over. But, can I ask what you did to our unarmed civilians in 1971 although we are also Muslims? Reflect on your acts in those days and never think you can bypass this event by blaming the Hindus among us who did not really participate in direct politics during Pakistan period out of fear of backlash by us, the Bengali Muslims.

Our new identity as free Bangladesh citizen (Muslims and Hindus) has almost proved that we are better human assets than you that can build a prosperous country although we still remain Nata, Kala, and Ugly but not so Bhukha any more. Now, reflect more about 1971 instead of talking the Muslim Brotherhood that we have already witnessed for 24 years.

 

[Behram Khilji]

The man is referring to the burka when he says hijab. In BD, people commonly associate burka and niqab with hijab.

He is absolutely right that the burka and niqab is from Arabia and has nothing to do with our culture.

The Islamic requirement of hijab involves dressing modestly, covering all body and the hair. Bangladeshi women cover their bodies adequately with Sari or Salwar kamis. Many don't put on the headscarf and/or dupatta, that's the only lacking. In that regard most Muslim women of all Muslim countries rarely cover the head nowadays. Only the Arabs cover head in large scale not really because of religious reasons but because it is part of their culture. In western countries you can see Arab girls wearing skin tight dress but wearing a headscarf, which is a mockery of hijab.



Khan surname must be very Pakistani. Tell us more...

@bluesky please share your knowledge where Khan surname came from and how it became widespread in Pakistan.

@Homo Sapiens @UKBengali Welcome to share your knowledge on Khan surname.....lol

Khan is a central Asian name, Aghans, pukhtoons use it in pakistan, even in Pakistan khan is associated with pukhtoons.

Those who were conquered, ruled dedicded to keep the tradition of their masters, well bakhtiyar Khilji be happy.

 

[Bengal71]

Khan is a central Asian name, Aghans, pukhtoons use it in pakistan, even in Pakistan khan is associated with pukhtoons.

Those who were conquered, ruled dedicded to keep the tradition of their masters, well bakhtiyar Khilji be happy.

Khan name is widespread in Pakistan, rare in BD.

 

[Indian Libertarian]

South Indian Hindu wears different to Nepali Hindu, still we are both Hindus. Culture is different to religion. Hopefully idiots understand it.

Yeah but hijabs didn’t exist then...your normal Nepali hindu was closer to South Indian Hindus...

 

[bluesky]

Khan is a central Asian name, Aghans, pukhtoons use it in pakistan, even in Pakistan khan is associated with pukhtoons.

Those who were conquered, ruled dedicded to keep the tradition of their masters, well bakhtiyar Khilji be happy.

Khan is certainly not the Khitab of Afghans. They borrowed it from Turkic Muslims who again borrowed it originally from the Mongols. Chengiz Khan was a killer of Muslims in Central Asia. He was a Buddhist but he liked to kill the superstitious Muslims by throwing into the fire, boiled water or oil. How come he is a Khan not being a Muslim?

Actually, he was the greatest Khan of his time. Many military commanders, Jagirdars, Mansabdars in Muslim India and others were bestowed with this title and their descendants are carrying that legacy.

Anyway, this title spread across central Asia. The Buddhist Chengiz Khan caused the drowning death of more than 100,000 Afghans who now gladly call themselves Khan. Note, Halaku Khan, Kublai Khan, Chagatai Khan. Buddhist Halaku Khan even killed Khalifa Muntasim Billah in Baghdad under the pounding of horse hooves. No promised Farishta came down from the sky to save him.

@Bengal71

 

[Bengal71]

Khan is certainly not the Khitab of Afghans. They borrowed it from Turkic Muslims who again borrowed it originally from the Mongols. Chengiz Khan was a killer of Muslims in Central Asia. He was a Buddhist but he liked to kill the superstitious Muslims by throwing into the fire, boiled water or oil. How come he is a Khan not being a Muslim?

Actually, he was the greatest Khan of his time. Many military commanders, Jagirdars, Mansabdars in Muslim India and others were bestowed with this title and their descendants are carrying that legacy.

Anyway, this title spread across central Asia. The Buddhist Chengiz Khan caused the drowning death of more than 100,000 Afghans who now gladly call themselves Khan. Note, Halaku Khan, Kublai Khan, Chagatai Khan. Buddhist Halaku Khan even killed Khalifa Muntasim Billah in Baghdad under the pounding of horse hooves. No promised Farishta came down from the sky to save him.

@Bengal71

I knew about the origins of Khan. I just wanted to point towards some retards from Pakistan who say how Bangladeshis got the Khan surname and indicate that they (Pashtuns) conquered Bengal and Khan surname in Bengal is a result of the said conquest. They completely belie the fact that the Khan surname in Pakistan and central Asia itself is the result of total conquest, slaughter and subjugation by the Mongols. Compared to their country, Khans are very few in BD. So who is the conquered and subjugated one?

@bluesky Also a minor correction, Genghis Khan (Timujin) was a follower of Tengrism, not Buddhist.

 

[bluesky]

I knew about the origins of Khan. I just wanted to point towards some retards from Pakistan who say how Bangladeshis got the Khan surname and indicate that they (Pashtuns) conquered Bengal and Khan surname in Bengal is a result of the said conquest.

Is it necessary to become sensitive about what happened in historical times? Today's Saudia Arabians conquered Persian Empire and this Empire included also today's Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon up to today's Turkey border or overlapping the border. About 12% of today's Turkey people themselves are from central Asia and the remaining are the local converts of European physics,

Again, the Muslim Persians invaded Afghanistan and it took more than a Century to convert them into Muslims. Just a few years before Afghanistan was under the threat of the Mongols, many of the Afghans led by Sultan Muhammad Ghori and Kutubuddin Aibek fought and conquered Delhi in 1190 AD. Another branch of Turkic people came to the east and conquered Bengal in 1203 AD.

It was Sher Shah of Afghan descent but a Jagirdar in Bihar Sasaram conquered Bengal with the help of the Pathans who fled Delhi after they were defeated by Baber in 1526. The Pathan settlers in Bengal were also defeated by the Delhi Mughals in 1604 AD after a 30-year long war.

The last battle was in Uhar (a place in greater Mymensingh) where the Pathan leader Khwaza Osman Afghan (Jahangir mentioned him as Afghan Osman in his Tuzuk) was defeated and killed by Mughal General Shahbaz Khan.

The short history is this. No one really knows in the present context who is who and whose forefathers were whom. They have all been assimilated physically, culturally and linguistically. The vanquished and the victor Muslims are today Indians, some are Pakistanis and some are Bengali or Bihari Muslims.

Now, how do you differentiate between who is what today after centuries of mutual assimilation? I believe, there is no point in getting enraged by what a few Pakistanis say in this forum. People of Turkic, Arabic, Persian, Pathan and north Indian people who have migrated and settled in Bengal are us, and Pakistanis and Afghans of today are different from these settlers. With too high a local admixture, we look different from these two. However, Punjabis also do not look like Pathan or Hazara.

Khan itself was bestowed throughout India during Muslim period to those who were brave and did well in warfare. However, this was also bestowed to many high civil servants. There are some Hindu families who are Khan and Munshi.

 

[God Parshuram]

Whatever it may be but my question is why only Women are made to wear this Hijabs and burkas. Why men are not wearing the clothes like Saudi men?

 

[Bengal71]

Is it necessary to become sensitive about what happened in historical times? Today's Saudia Arabians conquered Persian Empire and this Empire included also today's Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon up to today's Turkey border or overlapping the border. About 12% of today's Turkey people themselves are from central Asia and the remaining are the local converts of European physics,

Again, the Muslim Persians invaded Afghanistan and it took more than a Century to convert them into Muslims. Just a few years before Afghanistan was under the threat of the Mongols, many of the Afghans led by Sultan Muhammad Ghori and Kutubuddin Aibek fought and conquered Delhi in 1190 AD. Another branch of Turkic people came to the east and conquered Bengal in 1203 AD.

It was Sher Shah of Afghan descent but a Jagirdar in Bihar Sasaram conquered Bengal with the help of the Pathans who fled Delhi after they were defeated by Baber in 1526. The Pathan settlers in Bengal were also defeated by the Delhi Mughals in 1604 AD after a 30-year long war.

The last battle was in Uhar (a place in greater Mymensingh) where the Pathan leader Khwaza Osman Afghan (Jahangir mentioned him as Afghan Osman in his Tuzuk) was defeated and killed by Mughal General Shahbaz Khan.

The short history is this. No one really knows in the present context who is who and whose forefathers were whom. They have all been assimilated physically, culturally and linguistically. The vanquished and the victor Muslims are today Indians, some are Pakistanis and some are Bengali or Bihari Muslims.

Now, how do you differentiate between who is what today after centuries of mutual assimilation? I believe, there is no point in getting enraged by what a few Pakistanis say in this forum. People of Turkic, Arabic, Persian, Pathan and north Indian people who have migrated and settled in Bengal are us, and Pakistanis and Afghans of today are different from these settlers. With too high a local admixture, we look different from these two. However, Punjabis also do not look like Pathan or Hazara.

Khan itself was bestowed throughout India during Muslim period to those who were brave and did well in warfare. However, this was also bestowed to many high civil servants. There are some Hindu families who are Khan and Munshi.

Exactly. But it does not seem to go through the heads of some Pakistanis, they will try and find one BS argument or other to somehow mean they are conquerors, superior or whatever else. Most of the time it's just empty BS.

 

[bluesky]

Exactly. But it does not seem to go through the heads of some Pakistanis, they will try and find one BS argument or other to somehow mean they are conquerors, superior or whatever else. Most of the time it's just empty BS.

As we say, some of the tails remain bent until death. Pakistan lost its war in 1971 against the Nata/Kala Bengali Muslims. Now, they are losing also on the economic front. So, why not give them a chance to take pride in something untrue.

The reality is Bengal/Hindustan was never ruled from Peshawar. People who came and settled here are not those cowards who remained in their native lands. I am talking about the Pathans. Punjabis remained under the Sikhs until Ranjit Singh and the British bestowed them Martial Race for killing their own Hindustani countrymen. Jeye Punjab!!!

 

[Saiful Islam]

I knew about the origins of Khan. I just wanted to point towards some retards from Pakistan who say how Bangladeshis got the Khan surname and indicate that they (Pashtuns) conquered Bengal and Khan surname in Bengal is a result of the said conquest. They completely belie the fact that the Khan surname in Pakistan and central Asia itself is the result of total conquest, slaughter and subjugation by the Mongols. Compared to their country, Khans are very few in BD. So who is the conquered and subjugated one?

@bluesky Also a minor correction, Genghis Khan (Timujin) was a follower of Tengrism, not Buddhist.

If Khan was a name of Central Asian origin wouldn't that make todays bearers a light skinned complexion. Many South Asian Khans are of a dark skinned complexion

 

[Bengal71]

If Khan was a name of Central Asian origin wouldn't that make todays bearers a light skinned complexion. Many South Asian Khans are of a dark skinned complexion

Most subcontinent people are native people of the land with some degree of foreign mix. Many are light skinned yet retain Indian features i think the central Asian, Arab, Persian etc mix is the least in Bengal, they are more prevalent in north india and present day Pakistan.

 

[Arthur]

If Khan was a name of Central Asian origin wouldn't that make todays bearers a light skinned complexion. Many South Asian Khans are of a dark skinned complexion

Marriage & such.

Surname is heritage, while only some 50/60 percent is genetics.