Maulanas to Modi: we have not come from Arabia.Our ancestors were also Indians

[Umair Nawaz]

Except Mian Nawaz Sharif was elected by you. Those Afghans, Persians, central Asians were NOT elected. They showed up, kicked the crap out of you and ruled over you. You have no connection to them other than the fact that you are choosing to follow the same religion 5 or 6 centuries after the fact. Heck, Mughal emperors Jahangir and Shah Jahan both had Indian mothers. But you won't see us lining up to claim that we're related. Why? Because we still have some pride left.

oh bhai, yr not understanding. Back in those times it was a worldwide trend since there used to be kings not parliamentary systems of governance. Back then there used to be total monarchy. Yr wrongly comparing the system of governance of todays modern era to previous times. Back then there was no internet, press or cars as well. People used to ride on horses etc.

By the same logic who elected yr mauria dynasty or ashoka? However we dont agree with what Akbar did, but the reason why u really cant relate to Shah Jahan or Jahangir is because both were after all Muslims. In islam children carry the name of father and his faith.

We have a greater connection of hereditary, history, faith and ancestral with them.

And dont give that pride crap to me now after some 300 years and perverted history u simply are finding solace in that without knowing the fact that yr faith or heredity was never in threat in our long history in South Asia.

 

[ares]

We muslims have a distinct identity and are in no way Indians. Our legends are those of Ahmed Shah Durrani, Mir Chakar Khan Rind, Mahmud Ghaznavi among many others. The more recent laid back attitude of other muslims left in Indian occupied parts and their support to people like Kalam Azad is a threat to the entire well being of our people who must fight for their rights and ask the question why property taken from us in Hyderabad and Lucknow has not been returned to us since the partition.

My parents were born in Lucknow but they are Pakistani and Pakistan will and should forever be in the heart of every muslim left there. We are one body. You can cut the head but it will always belong to one body. We muslims should not become slaves of India specially since they are the killers of our people.

LOL..you are piece of work!!

You admit that you are not indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, you associate yourself with invaders of Indian subcontinent and then you ask for your rights !!

Why does an invader need his rights? After all these lands(including whole of Pakistan) were occupied by you in the first place.

Muslims were not indigenous to the subcontinent, these lands became theirs after killed/displaced local population of non Muslims...so how come you, who claim to be the descendants of those invaders, lay a claims to these lands ?

What about Hindus and Sikh, who had to flee Pakistan, because a few Muslims decided to split the nation and causes unprecedented bloodshed in history of mankind, have their properties been returned to them.

My great grand father was killed at Rawal pindi railway station in those riots, while fleeing Pakistan...never even had a body to cremate. So tell me again about your rights to properties in Hyderabad and lucknow!!

 

[Joeblow]

oh bhai, yr not understanding. Back in those times it was a worldwide trend since there used to be kings not parliamentary systems of governance. Back then there used to be total monarchy. Yr wrongly comparing the system of governance of todays modern era to previous times. Back then there was no internet, press or cars as well. People used to ride on horses etc.

By the same logic who elected yr mauria dynasty or ashoka? However we dont agree with what Akbar did, but the reason why u really cant relate to Shah Jahan or Jahangir is because both were after all Muslims. In islam children carry the name of father and his faith.

We have a greater connection of hereditary, history, faith and ancestral with them.

And dont give that pride crap to me now after some 300 years and perverted history u simply are finding solace in that without knowing the fact that yr faith or heredity was never in threat in our long history in South Asia.

Mauryas were from the Indian heartland. Their guru Chanakya, was most probably from Pakistan. That's our history. Compare that to the Mughals who were Uzbeks. They're not related to us in any way. The Hindu faith wasn't threatened, not because of their largesse but rather because they needed people's goodwill to rule and defend against the next guy who showed up. They weren't really that dedicated to their religion. If you remember Akbar actually started his own religion. It's only today's Pakistanis that obsess about them being Muslim. The first Mughal emperor who decided to push the faith issue, Aurangzeb, faced revolts from the Sikhs and the Marathas and ended up crippling the Mughal empire and starting its downward spiral.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Mauryas were from the Indian heartland. Their guru Chanakya, was most probably from Pakistan. That's our history. Compare that to the Mughals who were Uzbeks. They're not related to us in any way. The Hindu faith wasn't threatened, not because of their largesse but rather because they needed people's goodwill to rule and defend against the next guy who showed up. They weren't really that dedicated to their religion. If you remember Akbar actually started his own religion. It's only today's Pakistanis that obsess about them being Muslim. The first Mughal emperor who decided to push the faith issue, Aurangzeb, faced revolts from the Sikhs and the Marathas and ended up crippling the Mughal empire and starting its downward spiral.

lol, dont post crap. The point is that no matter ruled our Muslim empire was infact a Muslim and kept her going with tremendous power. The development that this region saw under us was exemplary and had never reached to that level.

People come and go regardless of their way of implementing things like u said. But broadly the point was that they were after all Muslims ruling our empire.

Emperor Akbar did tried to gain support from other non muslim tribes like the rajputs etc thats why he married or whatever with that Rajput woman Jodha and then tried to make Deen a Elahi (system of All Mighty) etc. Yes he was wrong and thats why he reverted back during his last 10 years of life. Have u ever heard of Shah Wali Ullah or Mujadid Alif Sahni? Mujadid Alif Sahni was the man behind his change of heart. But these are again going into cherry picking small things. Every individual like i said has his own way of thinking and back then there used to be monarchy so one man one order system used to be more prominent. Chanakya or whatever but back in those days there was no united india as well like it was under muslim empire specifically Akbar's time.

And plz dont give me that crap abt marathas. Those were the opportunist scavengers that just had the lust for power and fought for ethnicity not for Emperor Aurangzeb's policies. The loot and massacres that they did against their own today's indian brethren r legendary. And above all do u even know that the general of Mughal Army of Emperor Aurangzeb that fought against them in retaliating itself had the Maratha Commander in Chief?

Ever heard why didnt they attacked the british rather then attacking their own countrymen? Because they had a treaty with British. Even they also became enlightened with passage of time and realized their mistake. Case closed.

So dont try to pervert the history. There were other reasons for those marathas and others revolt. It was certainly no religious reasons. Emperor Aurangzeb was the best thing to happen for the empire and its people. Back in his days gold used to be placed in the streets like today's fallen leafs from the trees are there in the road sides. Such was the prosperity under his rule and there was absolutely ZERO crime rate. The prosperity under him was legendary, the empire was contributing 23% of the global economy in that time.

Regarding the bolded part, yeah right take solace on this. But in reality if we wished we could have done it. And even if one king or dynasty didnt done it others would have but its our islam which strictly prohibits that. So no matter who comes personally whatever he could be (he might have a million women in his haram or he could be the greater sherabi ever) but when it comes to the law of the common and for the common he was bound by higher powers of All Mighty under his faith.

Heck do u even know the first Army to come in South Asia was invited here from Persian Empire against Raja Dahir of Sindhi? They didnt come in their own. It was Muslim Army under the legendary commander Mohammad Bin Qasim who was just 17 years old and only stayed in sindh for 4 years and left?

 

[jaatram]

we have ruled this region for abt 1000 years, if we did that bolded thingy then none of yr non muslim population will be remaining. It was for the generosity of our leaders, emperors and Kings that even though we ruled u for 1000 years time but still there are more non muslims then muslims in yr country and region.

Never ending desire for military dictatorship proves Pakistanis are more happy with being ruled over by boots than ruling themselves.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

1) Muslims left there were directed to an alternate sphere of influence. They were imposed with an alien Hindustani culture and ideals.

Are f***ing kidding me?

Considering that it all started only in the 7th century and muslims have been in India for several centuries now (some of you even boast of a 1000 year rule), you think Hindustani culture and ideals are still alien for you? Are you really that thick?

It is a good thing that you moved out. I commend your father or grand dad whoever took that decision for you!

We should have treated muslims left there as a part and parcel of Pakistan.

You can't have the cake and eat it too! You either had to move out to Pakistan or stay behind as an Indian - as much Indian as every other Indian irrespective of his/her caste/creed/ethnicity/religion.

Many could be an asset in times of war with India. But our foreign policy has been one huge mess.

That would have been nice, isn't it!

Too bad for you though, the Muslims in India are as patriotic as they come. Bad apples don't count irrespective of religion!

 

[Zhukov]

Indian muslims are indeed of Indian ancestory, although can't say about Pakistanis.

Typical Indian. Dragging Pakistan again into internal affairs of India.
Pata nai kis baat ki obsession hai tum logon ko

 

[illusion8]

Please do not assume that gives him any less right to talk on India. Such ideals of "worry about your own end" will not play on this forum nor will they be tolerated unless they amount to responding to trolls.


They too have an identity that goes beyond India. BUT and BUT with an emphasis.. that does not mean it excludes their being Indian. It is one of the reasons why I am not inclined to have India as part of the OIC as an observer and have them more involved. The more India embraces its Muslim heritage with relative proportions to how it embraces its history with IVC and then the Mahabharta.. these communal ideals will be squashed itself.

There's ambiguity in that confused stand. What does an Indian Muslim gain from acting arab when he is clearly not, nor does he exist in that surrounding?. Islam is an outside religion similar to Christianity. The practices and the customs are no way connected to the land at the basic level. Once we had this discussion too earlier. When people are told and guided to follow customs that are alien to the land and to pray to Gods who have no link to the land, when people have no connections - whatever connections exist are at the artificial superficial level is when they feel alienated. The question here is do the people feel more in touch with their real ancestors or to aliens like gaznavi or the rest who have no relation to the people of the land?. The strange prayer rituals in masjids and churches and the robes that mullahs and preachers wear have no connection with the land. But it can be and is accepted when the people practicing it try to merge themselves with the practices and culture of the land. If they as you and havizultan suggest want to form their own identity based on outside culture is when people of the land treat them as confused souls..

 

[SQ8]

There's ambiguity in that confused stand. What does an Indian Muslim gain from acting arab when he is clearly not, nor does he exist in that surrounding. Islam is an outside religion similar to Christianity. The practices and the customs are no way connected to the land at the basic level. Once we had this discussion too earlier. When people are told and guided to follow customs that are alien to the land and to pray to Gods who have no link to the land, when people have no connections - whatever connections exist are at the artificial superficial level is when they feel alienated. The question here is do the people feel more in touch with their real ancestors or to aliens like gaznavi or the rest who have no relation to the people of the land. The strange prayer rituals in masjids and churches and the robes that mullahs and preachers wear have no connection with the land. But it can be and is accepted when the people practicing it try to merge themselves with the practices and culture of the land. If they as you and havizultan suggest want to form thier own identity based on outside culture is when people of he land treat them as confused souls..

That is the same confused perception of this identity I mentioned earlier and you seem to have ignored that explnation. The identity is NOT connected to Arabs. It is an amalgamation of the local cultural practices with the religion/ cultural influences of the travellers. However, to not even allow that distinction will only alienate that section of the population and lead to more success for those seeking Arabization.

Which brings that idea of the Indian Muslim only being accepted if he/she screams "vande mataram" louder than everyone else and especially louder than "allah o Akbar".

 

[illusion8]

That is the same confused perception of this identity I mentioned earlier and you seem to have ignored that explnation. The identity is NOT connected to Arabs. It is an amalgamation of the local cultural practices with the religion/ cultural influences of the travellers. However, to not even allow that distinction will only alienate that section of the population and lead to more success for those seeking Arabization.

Which brings that idea of the Indian Muslim only being accepted if he/she screams "vande mataram" louder than everyone else and especially louder than "allah o Akbar".

There are clear examples of other minorities available. Other minorities clearly distinguish nationalism away from religion. Sindhis, parsi's, buddhists, christians, sikhs, jains etc place their Indian identity above their religion. Shouting vande mataram or singing the national anthem is not a big deal for anyone except the madrassah crowd. Neither do the other minorities consider their religion or the origin of their religion more important then their Indianess. This ambiguity only lies with the sunni Islamist crowd - who's existence and faith is only limited to Mecca and to their own brethren. Why do we need to give consideration to their existence or what they believe when they do not believe in the core concept of India? A separate substantial country was created for them, if they chose not to go and stay within the Indian constitution they need to abide with it and not pay obeisance to something alien and harmful to the very fabric of the state. We are in no way obliged to give consideration to their separatist tendencies that is completely alien to the majority and to the other minorities.

 

[SQ8]

There are clear examples of other minorities available. Other minorities clearly distinguish nationalism away from religion. Sindhis, parsi's, buddhists, christians, sikhs, jains etc place their Indian identity above their religion. Shouting vande mataram or singing the national anthem is not a big deal for anyone except the madrassah crowd. Neither do the other minorities consider their religion or the origin of their religion more important then their Indianess. This ambiguity only lies with the sunni Islamist crowd - who's existence and faith is only limited to Mecca and to their own brethren. Why do we need to give consideration to their existence or what they believe when they do not believe in the core concept of India? A separate substantial country was created for them, if they chose not to go and stay within the Indian constitution they need to abide with it and not pay obeisance to something alien and harmful to the very fabric of the state. We are in no way obliged to give consideration to their separatist tendencies that is completely alien to the majority and to the other minorities.

Sindhis are not a religious minority. Again, your views reflect that of the Indian populations own phobia and extremism and not necessarily that of what the identity is. It has nothing to do with not following the constitution or not loving their country. But the fact that they have to constantly prove unlike the rest that they love their country. Essentially, the Muslims of India have become a punching bag for pointless issues because of their religion. It shows a national bias against them much as the jewish people in Europe started facing in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Moreover, you are confusing cultural identity with attitudes. Culturally these people are more Indian than Arabs. The only difference is that whilst the Christians are somehow ok to praise Christ in Latin or English and revere the pope, you and the rest of Indian Hindus seem to have an issue with Indian Muslims doing the same for Mecca and Arabic. So it makes me think if the issue even lies with Indian Muslims and more with deep rooted hatred for them that has arisen over the years.

 

[deepak.chauhan2312]

we agree with u maulana sahab.All south Asian Muslims have Indian Hindu ancestors though some muslims are suffereing from identity crisis but that's fine they know inn their hearts

tou Pakistan kya Antarctic k totne k bad wajood me aya kya??

bro you fellow countrymen went all out when last time I said that all pakistani muslims have Indian Hindu ancestors they were offended.Now he said that he have doubt about that now you are offended

 

[illusion8]

Sindhis are not a religious minority. Again, your views reflect that of the Indian populations own phobia and extremism and not necessarily that of what the identity is. It has nothing to do with not following the constitution or not loving their country. But the fact that they have to constantly prove unlike the rest that they love their country. Essentially, the Muslims of India have become a punching bag for pointless issues because of their religion. It shows a national bias against them much as the jewish people in Europe started facing in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Moreover, you are confusing cultural identity with attitudes. Culturally these people are more Indian than Arabs. The only difference is that whilst the Christians are somehow ok to praise Christ in Latin or English and revere the pope, you and the rest of Indian Hindus seem to have an issue with Indian Muslims doing the same for Mecca and Arabic. So it makes me think if the issue even lies with Indian Muslims and more with deep rooted hatred for them that has arisen over the years.

If the symptoms are visible, one needs to research the cause. Is it right to discourage Jamaate Islami? Is it right to discourage Islamist tendencies? Is it right to discourage political Islam and shariah calls? Is it right to discourage extreme Islamic ideas? Is it right to discourage alienation of the populace encouraged by the mullahs themselves and no one else from the real people of the land? is it right to discourage the belief that only your religion is the true religion and the others are pagans or kafirs that do not deserve the right to exist? is it right to discourage calls for obeisance to wahabism and madrassahs and mullahs and terrorists and deobandis and taking up arms and suicide vests against your own brethren and right to kill kaffirs and pagans and life of ignorance of putting your women under burqhas and refusing their right to work and education and refusing their right to choose their life partners or convert or open their world to real possibilities? Is it right to out-rightly think that your religion is the greatest - when it clearly isn't by any stretch of imagination?

There are much better role models in other religions than there are anyone from Islam...I cannot think of even one from Islam of the cuff.

The most important question is - does a decent secular society anywhere in the world over assumes and does a great disservice for itself by discouraging the numerous alienating forces of Islam and what it brings to the society as a consequence?

If the answer is no then that's what the world is doing - it's not an unwanted paranoia. And, if the answer is yes then you are as confused as the typical Muslim who wonders why he and the rest of the passengers are put through the myriad security clearances and checks at every airport and every important building in the world...Are the security guards looking for the aggressive Jew or Hindu or Buddhist who intends to blow up numerous planes or buildings if given the chance? or are they more looking for the wayward ISIS, boko, Somalian, AQ, taliban, IM, LET, JUD etc kind?.

 

[SQ8]

If the symptoms are visible, one needs to research the cause. Is it right to discourage Jamaate Islami? Is it right to discourage Islamist tendencies? Is it right to discourage political Islam and shariah calls? Is it right to discourage extreme Islamic ideas? Is it right to discourage alienation of the populace encouraged by the mullahs themselves and no one else from the real people of the land? is it right to discourage the belief that only your religion is the true religion and the others are pagans or kafirs that do not deserve the right to exist? is it right to discourage calls for obeisance to wahabism and madrassahs and mullahs and terrorists and deobandis and taking up arms and suicide vests against your own brethren and right to kill kaffirs and pagans and life of ignorance of putting your women under burqhas and refusing their right to work and education and refusing their right to choose their life partners or convert or open their world to real possibilities? Is it right to out-rightly think that your religion is the greatest - when it clearly isn't by any stretch of imagination?

There are much better role models in other religions than there are anyone from Islam...I cannot think of even one from Islam of the cuff.

The most important question is - does a decent secular society anywhere in the world over assumes and does a great disservice for itself by discouraging the numerous alienating forces of Islam and what it brings to the society as a consequence?

If the answer is no then that's what the world is doing - it's not an unwanted paranoia. And, if the answer is yes then you are as confused as the typical Muslim who wonders why he and the rest of the passengers are put through the myriad security clearances and checks at every airport and every important building in the world...Are the security guards looking for the aggressive Jew or Hindu or Buddhist who intends to blow up numerous planes or buildings if given the chance? or are they more looking for the wayward ISIS, boko, Somalian, AQ, taliban, IM, LET, JUD etc kind?.

Actually, the Jewish people do that. Many Christians consider the rest of the world damned.Heck, the origin of the word "Achoot" was not Islamic either. But as I said, now that we have Islamophobia spewing out it is clear that this debate is not one based on understanding but blind hatred. And anyone out on blind hatred is not using their brain and is clearly not a person worth debating with.

I pray for Indian Muslims too then. Because unlike the massacre of Muslim upon Muslim where there is some savoir.. when the rest of their nation turns on them and decides to start gassing and massacring their children under the pretext of Islam is evil.. nothing will save them.

 

[Bratva]

Darbari Mullah