Qarardad-e-Maqasid: Similarities & Differences between Pakistan and Israel

[livingdead]

Indian muslims would rather migrate to UK or USA than pakistan. But yes, as pakistan was made because of fear of muslims being second class in a hindu dominated country, it should provide some relief to muslims who want to go there(if anybody does).
I am not saying they should promote it(like israel does) but give refugee status at least.
Same goes for India.(wrt hindus)

 

[Icewolf]

Hinduguy

Of course, any one would want to go to developed nations... But poor Indian Muslims who cant afford flight to USA or UK come to Pakistan, and trust me their are alot

 

[Fireurimagination]

I have many Muslim friends and what I have seen is Indian Muslims love India more than Hindus do but yes these are people from well off strata of the society, but even in case of real dirt poor illiterate Muslim with current economic and political turmoil it will be very difficult to sell Pakistan as an destination to migrate to, to much bad press about Pakistan makes one to believe that Pakistan is sinking

 

[MilSpec]

Hundreds of Muslims still come into Pakistan from Wagah

the ones that do come please keep them.

 

[Icewolf]

the ones that do come please keep them.

your govt cant provide anything for them and other 70% of your population... we will take care of them and shelter them

 

[Rahil khan]

@Riyadh Haque

Being born and growing up in India and around Indians mostly Muslims for the past 2+ decades would I think entitle me to have a better idea of public opinion among Indian Muslims. I am from Hyderabad, so I can certainly say this about Hyderabad and adjoining south Indian Muslims like in Bangalore e.t.c that this would be the case.

And according to the Indian cesus and population projections, the population would be around 180 million for Muslims in India. But in any case, thats not the point really. I don't want to go into details of basics between two countries like security, per capita income, literacy rates, graduates % e.t.c which I have done earlier.

What you need to understand is that there are two different aspects here.
(1) Comparing Indian Muslim status to muslims in other countries including Pakistan and even some other Arab countries (not all), we are doing quite well.
(2) Compared to Indian Muslim status within India we are "on average" not doing well and are below average.

Just because (2) is true doesn't imply that (1) is false. Minorities anywhere in the world are usually are at a disadvantageous position and the same is true in India and hence there is grass roots effort and struggle to improve the socio-economic indicators of backward Muslims. Just like there are efforts and programs to improve the indicators for Dalits, Tribal and Other backward classes groups.

Few years back, Justice Rajinder Sachar Committee report admitted that 138 Million Muslims across India are severely under-represented in government employment, including Public Sector Units. Ironically, West Bengal, a communist ruled state reported 0 (zero) percent of Muslims in higher positions in its PSUs! It has found that the share of Muslims in government jobs and in the lower judiciary in any state simply does not come anywhere close to their population share. The only place where Muslims can claim a share in proportion to their population is in prison! (Muslims convicts in India is 19.1%, while the number of under trials is 22.5%, which exceed their population ratio) . A note sent on January 9 by the army to the defence ministry in 2004 says that only 29,093 Muslims among a total of 1.1 million personnel — a ratio of 2.6 %, which compares poorly with the Muslims’ 13.8 % share in the Indian population. Officially, Indian Army don’t allow head count based on religion.
A Muslim child attends school for three years and four months, compared to the national average of four years. Less than two percent of the students at the elite Indian Institutes of Technology comprise of the Muslim community. According to the National Knowledge Commission member Jayathi Ghosh, ‘there is a need to re-orient official strategies for ensuring better access of Muslim children to schooling outside the madrasas which cater to only four per cent of children from the community.’

 

[sanddy]

India and Israel - some similarities
India and Israel are two different
countries. India is one of the largest
countries in the world easily
pointed out in world atlas while
Israel, on the other hand, is a very
small country and can hardly be pointed out in world atlas. India is
one of the poorest countries in the
world with a very low per capita
income, while Israel is among the
top 20 in per capita income index.
Two countries distance from each other but still have many
similarities. In both these countries religions were established, some of which
have among the largest number of
followers in the world. Both these
countries have many holy sites,
which are among the holiest for
their followers. In India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism were established. The holiest sites
of these religions exist in India. In
Israel, Judaism and Christianity
were established. The holiest sites
of these religions exist in Israel.
Islam was established in Saudi Arabia but some of its holiest sites
are in the Land of Israel. Israel also
has the holy sites of other religions
like Bahai and the Druze. The religions established in these
countries which got world
recognition and have large number
of followers outside these countries
are minorities in these countries.
Christianity is a minority in Israel with about 2% followers and
Buddhism is a minority in India with
less than 1% followers, but both
these religions have in general
more followers worldwide than in
their land of birth. In both these countries Islam is the largest
minority. In both these countries
some of the holiest sites of the
dominant religions, Judaism in
Israel and Hinduism in India, are
now Muslim mosques. Both the dominant religions are as
ancient as 5000 years old and
influenced the establishment of
other religions. The followers of
both these religions believe their
religion is the cradle of the whole human culture. These are the only
great religions, which had not force
their religion on others by coercion
or conversion. Both the countries, especially their
dominant religions, are multi-ethnic
and have many differences
between the different communities.
Even so these countries have
established a national ethos among its citizens which got its boost
mostly because of their problems
with neighboring countries. Both countries never had a single
local continuous ruler. The lands of
these countries always fascinated
foreigners, India because of its
spices and Israel because of its
holiness. Both countries had many foreign invaders, conquerors and
settlers all claiming it to be theirs.
The histories of both these countries
are sequences of different
conquerors who arrived there from
different parts of the world. Both these countries before
independence were under British
control. The freedom fighters of
both these countries can be divided
into two groups who were political
rivals of each other. In both these countries the freedom fighters who
received the management of the
country tried to suppress the other
group after independence. Both
these countries were the only
countries, which were established after World War II and adopted the
democratic system and remained
democratic since then. Both these countries during
independence were in total chaos
and people were leaving and
arriving in these countries. In India
a large Muslim population left India
for Pakistan while Hindus and Sikhs arrived in India. In Israel a large
Muslim population left Israel and
many Jews arrived from Muslim
countries within a short period. Both these countries since their
independence had wars with their
neighbors over the border issue.
India had wars with Pakistan and
China and its borders with these
countries are disputed. Israel had wars with Syria, Egypt, Lebanon
and Jordan and its borders aren't
clear yet. India, when created, had
Pakistan flanked on both its sides.
Today Israel has the Palestinian
entity flanked on both its sides. Both these countries had important
political leaders assassinated after
being blamed as traitors. In 1948 Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated in India because his assassin saw in
Mahatma Gandhi responsible for all
the violent acts which occurred in
India against Hindus and because
India was partitioned and parts of
India became a Muslim country, Pakistan. In 1995 Yitzhak Rabin
was assassinated in Israel because
his assassin saw him responsible for
the terrorist acts in which many
Jews died and also because Rabin
was giving the Palestinians what is considered to be the Land of Israel.

 

[Loyus]

Few years back, Justice Rajinder Sachar Committee report admitted that 138 Million Muslims across India are severely under-represented in government employment, including Public Sector Units. Ironically, West Bengal, a communist ruled state reported 0 (zero) percent of Muslims in higher positions in its PSUs! It has found that the share of Muslims in government jobs and in the lower judiciary in any state simply does not come anywhere close to their population share. The only place where Muslims can claim a share in proportion to their population is in prison! (Muslims convicts in India is 19.1%, while the number of under trials is 22.5%, which exceed their population ratio) . A note sent on January 9 by the army to the defence ministry in 2004 says that only 29,093 Muslims among a total of 1.1 million personnel — a ratio of 2.6 %, which compares poorly with the Muslims’ 13.8 % share in the Indian population. Officially, Indian Army don’t allow head count based on religion.
A Muslim child attends school for three years and four months, compared to the national average of four years. Less than two percent of the students at the elite Indian Institutes of Technology comprise of the Muslim community. According to the National Knowledge Commission member Jayathi Ghosh, ‘there is a need to re-orient official strategies for ensuring better access of Muslim children to schooling outside the madrasas which cater to only four per cent of children from the community.’

Ejaz can very well carry the logic by his own but I will assist him..

You cannot club Muslims of India into one monolith...

Rather you have to look at it regionwise..

The South Indian Mulsims are at par with other groups in their region..

The socio economic condition of Muslims are not that good in states which have been historically backward from the beginning.. like UP (especially East UP), Bihar etc etc....
In my state West Bengal where communists ruled the two most backward districts are Muslim majority. One of reason has been lack of education and money..
Because of this they cannot compete with other religious groups for jobs.. that is why there has been disproportionate representation of Muslims in jobs..(and in higher education like IITs that select on merit)
Again, constituition does not discrimate b/w Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc etc..
So reservation according to religion is not allowed...
The most important way to rse up the social ladder is wrok hard.. become educated and no one can stop you..
Kindly note that the topper in 2010 for the coveted IAS was a Kashmiri Muslim Shah Faisal..

 

[Black Widow]

Comparing the foundational ideas of Pakistan & Israel

Israel was created as a homeland for the persecuted Jews of the world. It was argued that being a minority in all countries of the world, the Jews had been reduced to second-class status in political, economic, cultural and social matters. Israel was then created as the one, unique country that would act as a safe haven for all Jews all over the world who faced, or may face, discrimination or persecution.

Similarly, Pakistan was created as a homeland for the Muslims of India. It was argued that being a minority in Unified India, the Muslims would be reduced to second-class status in political, economic, cultural and social matters. Pakistan was then created as the one, unique country that would act as a safe haven for all the Muslims of Unified India who faced, or may face, discrimination or marginalization.

Up to this point, it seems that Pakistan & Israel are quite similar in their Foundational Story (Qarardad-e-Maqasid) or their Raison d'être.

But then the similarity collapses.

For example, even today, Israel absolutely guarantees to all Jews all over the world the immediate and unquestioned right to immigrate to Israel and claim citizenship.

Pakistan, however, quickly closed its borders for the Muslims of India in 1951!
THE SLOGAN OF TWO-NATION THEORY WAS RAISED TO DECEIVE THE ONE HUNDRED MILLION MUSLIMS OF THE SUBCONTINENT - ALTAF HUSSAIN

But what does this mean?

If we close our doors to our fellow Indian-Muslims living in India, then why was Pakistan created? Who are we? Aren't we the same Indian-Muslims for whom Quaid-e-Azam said that he was creating Pakistan? About whom was our Quaid-e-Azam speaking when he said "Muslims of India"?

What would the Quaid have thought if he were to come back and see that we have closed our doors to his fellow Gujarati Muslims living in Hindu-majority Gujarat? What about the suffering of our fellow Indian-Muslims in Tamil Nadu? What about the Bihari Muslims who want to come to Pakistan, where their mother tongue is the National Language? Why do we say "NO" to them?

Yes, I admit that some Muslims may be doing well in India, but yet others may face discrimination at the hands of the Hindutva fanatics. Some may live well in posh areas, but others might be refused housing for being Muslims. Some may be in positions of power, but other face brutal treatment in India's Abu Ghraibs. Some may be well integrated, but others might live in apartheid-like ghettos. Some may be beloved stars, but others might be shunned and despised. Some may be considered National Heroes, but others might be suspected of being terrorists.

But wasn't Pakistan created for precisely this lesser-section amongst Indian Muslims who are downtrodden, oppressed, discriminated, shunned, and treated like outcastes, worse-than-untouchables?

Looking at the Israeli case again, we can see that there are certainly plenty of Jews who live outside Israel (65% of Jews in the world are citizens of states other than Israel). But IF they were very unhappy or downtrodden or felt discriminated-against, they could immediately, unconditionally & automatically emmigrate to Israel, as it is the unique homeland specifically created as a safe-haven for the World's Jews.

So why is Pakistan not like that for India's Muslims for whom it was created as a Safe-Haven? Why do we let our fellow Indian-Muslims trapped in second-class status continue to suffer in India? Why do we not open our doors and our hearts and receive them with open arms? If they were to ask as to why they cannot immigrate to Pakistan when Pakistan was created as a homeland for India's Muslims, what shall we tell them? Did our Quaid lie to them? Or did someone else toss-out his theories upon his death and change the raison d'être of Pakistan? And if so, what is the raison d'être of Pakistan now?

Am I the only one who wonders about this?

I welcome thoughtful comments and opinions. No meaningless vomiting, please. Thank you.

Pakistan is home land for Sunni Muslim only. Shia, Ahmedi,Bihari, Tamil, Telgu and Bohri Muslims are not accepted in Pakistan

While Israel welcome all Jews, Indian, African, European and all other Jews are welcome in Israel.

united we stand divided we fall

Again, you missed my point.

Israel has the very problems you mention. Ashkenazi Jews look down on Sephardim Jews. Ashenazi+Sephardim look down on Mizrahi Jews. And everybody discriminates against the Ethopian Jews, who disproportionally fill the Jails of Israel. But this does not change the fact that Israel is still a safe-haven for the Jewish minorities of the World and will take Jewish Immigrants freely.

So yes, pakistan also has the problems you mention. Punjabis look down upon Sindhis & Balochis. Sunnis look down upon Shia. And Everybody discriminates against the Ahmadis. But, unlike Israel, Pakistan will NOT accept immigrants from India's Muslim minority even though it was formed as a safe-haven for them.

My question is only this: WHY? Why this difference between Israel's stand on immigration of the World's Jewish minorities and Pakistan's stands on immigration of India's Muslim minority?

Please, I am tired to explaining to you, and so this is the last post in which I try to convey the point.

Pakistan should be made safe heaven for subcontinent Muslim and India should be made safe heaven for Subcontinent Hindus... PPl must given one more chance to choose country of his choice...

No Muslim should be allowed to move to India from Pakistan and BD. No Hindu should be allowed to move to Pakistan or BD from India.

 

[niaz]

Only similarity between Pakistan and Israel is that both the countries were created from existing countries heretofore known by another name.

Population of Jews in areas now called Israel until the beginning of 20th Century was very small.
It was only after these lands came under British control after the WW1 that Jews from Eastern Europe started purchasing lands in Palestine. This gathered pace in the 1930’s following the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany and similar treatment of East European Jews by the Soviet Union. Thus most of the Jewish population in Israel is living on land either purchased from or forcibly snatched from the Palestinian Arabs Muslims & Christians and their fathers or grandfathers were migrants.

Pakistan on the other hand was created from the lands where Muslims were already in the majority. Israel was supposed to be a haven for Jews from the world over whereas Pakistan was only meant for the Muslims of the subcontinent. Understand that cut-off date of 1951 applied both to the Muslims who wished immigrate to Pakistan as well as Hindus who wished to go to India. 4 years is a long enough period for anyone to make up his/her mind as to where they would like to live.

Altaf Hussein’s statements are primarily related to the Muslims from Bihar who migrated to East Pakistan. After East Pakistan became Bangla Desh, all the non-Bengali speaking population was declared to be foreigners. These people want to come to Pakistan but PPP gov’t despite agreement with the MQM, declined to take them back.

These Bihari Muslims opted for Pakistan at the time of partition. Thus have full right to be allowed to settle in Pakistan by all norms of logic and international law. However since most will eventually settle in Sind thereby increasing the vote bank of MQM. This is being resisted by PPP leadership and the originally Sindhis. This has nothing to do with Qaradad Maqasid, but with the realpolitik.

Regrettably most Pakistanis consider themselves Muslims first; Sindhi/Punjabi etc. second with Pakistan coming a distant third. Herein lies the real tragedy and root cause of most the problems.

 

[Riyadh Haque]

Only similarity between Pakistan and Israel is that both the countries were created from existing countries heretofore known by another name.

Niaz,

If you look up history, you will see that almost every country in the world today was created from existing countries heretofore known by another name. You can try Latin America, Africa, Europe, Middle-east, North America, South-East Asia, East Asia, Central Asia. See how many countries existed by the current name 200 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago and so on. In most cases by far you will see that there was a preceding country of another name from which the current country was created.

This is rountine. This is neither unusual, nor rare, nor limited to Israel and Pakistan. The only thing unique to Israel and Pakistan (and very rare elsewhere) is that these two Modern States were specifically created as a safe-haven homeland for religious groups who were afraid of becoming permanent minorities is other States.

I agree with the rest of what you say on the Palestine-Israel issue.

Understand that cut-off date of 1951 applied both to the Muslims who wished immigrate to Pakistan as well as Hindus who wished to go to India. 4 years is a long enough period for anyone to make up his/her mind as to where they would like to live.

Niaz,

(1) India had no such cut-off date. India's position was that once Pakistan was created on August 14, 1947, all the people living within the boundaries of the Pakistan so created were Pakistanis, regardless of religion. India was never created as a homeland for any specific religious group, it was merely the default post-imperial state for all the people who happened to live within its boundaries on August 15, 1947, regardless of religion. So any Hindus, Sikhs, Jains who might have left Pakistan and entered India after August 15, 1947 were treated as "refugees" and not as automatic Indian citizens. They were then put through a legal process of refugee resettlement and rehabilitated as a gesture of humanitarian compassion ("panaah"). The same procedure was followed for the Tibetan Buddhists who fled the Chinese-communist take-over of the Kingdom of Tibet and migrated to India. None of these people had any "automatic right" to come to India and claim citizenship, as India was never created as a homeland for Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or any other religious group.

But the reverse cannot possibly be true. Pakistan did not give "panaah" to the Muhajirs. The Muhajirs (with the Bengalis) were the main ideological and intellectual force behind the Pakistan Movement. The one single university which is said to have contributed the maximum intellectual backing to Nazariya-e-Pakistan is Aligarh Muslim University in India. The urdu-speaking muhajirs cannot be called "refugees" as they were amongst the principal founders of Pakistan itself. The muhajirs who migrated ("hejira") to Pakistan were not asking for "panaah", they were asking for their "right" to become Pakistani citizens, as Pakistan was created mainly by them and specifically as a safe-haven homeland for them and their culture.

(2) As for the temporary-window of migration idea, surely, the same could be said to be true for the Jews of the World with regard to Israel. Afterall, Israel could also have shut its doors to Jewish minorities in other countries in 1952 and said "4 years is a long enough period for Jewish minorities elsewhere to make up their mind as to where they would like to live". But Israel never did this. Israel doors, as per their original Qarardad-e-Maqasid, are still open.

So the question is why did Pakistan close its door after X (2,4,20,40 or whatever) years and contradict its foundational story as told by the Quaid? Was any explanation given at the time? Was this debated in the Assembly? Did the Urdu-language Nawa-i-Waqt Newspaper, editored by Hameed and Majid Nizami of the Patriotic Nazariya-e-Pakistan Foundation, carry any editorials on why the doors were closed? Did Nawa-i-Waqt explain to its readers in Urdu that Pakistan will no longer be welcoming Urdu-speaking Muslim-minority migrants from India? I have no problem with the decision, my question is about who made these decision, by what process and why? What is the "official" story? Is there even an "official" story or do we just accept silence and shadows of obfuscation from the Wadera-policitians?

Altaf Hussein’s statements are primarily related to the Muslims from Bihar who migrated to East Pakistan. After East Pakistan became Bangla Desh, all the non-Bengali speaking population was declared to be foreigners. These people want to come to Pakistan but PPP gov’t despite agreement with the MQM, declined to take them back. These Bihari Muslims opted for Pakistan at the time of partition. Thus have full right to be allowed to settle in Pakistan by all norms of logic and international law. However since most will eventually settle in Sind thereby increasing the vote bank of MQM. This is being resisted by PPP leadership and the originally Sindhis. This has nothing to do with Qaradad Maqasid, but with the realpolitik.

Niaz,

Up to a point I agree with you that this Sindhi versus Muhajir politics is responsible for Pakistan's abandonment of the Urdu-speaking Pakistani Citizens stranded in Bangladesh since 1971.

But surely, given that East & West Pakistan were once the same country, it is certain that there would have been some Pathan, Punjabi, Kasmiri, Sindhi & Baloch businessmen and workers living in East Pakistan in 1971. After the surrender in December, these people would also have been trapped in the newly-formed Bangladesh. The Bengalees would have declared them foreigners as well. Did Pakistan refuse to take them back them as well? Are they still languishing in Red Cross Camps? Did Pakistan try to pawn them off to Bangladesh by asking the Bengalees to give them Bangladeshi citizenship? Or were they allowed to come to Pakistan by virtue of their being Pakistani Citizens?

If we say that the others were allowed to return to Pakistan after being rejected by the Bengalees of Bangladesh, then why did we only refuse the Urdu-speakers this right? Is Urdu not our National Language? Are we saying that we accepted Urdu as our unifying common language, but rejected the very people who speak it as a mother-tongue and were instrumental in the creation of the underlying ideology upon which our country is based?

I am horribly confused by all this. All I am seeing are a mass of contradictions. Twisting, weaving, contorting. Tap dancing, gymnastic and acrobatics is all I get. I just want a simple and clear explanation as to what is going on in our country? Who is making all these decisions? How are these decisions made? What is the reasoning or rationale behind them?

Still further, if what you say is true, i.e. that we "ignored" our Qarardad-e-Maqasid because "realpolitik" of Sindhi-Muhajir tensions got in the way, then for what does Pakistan stand now? What are the new Qarardad-e-Maqasid post-1951, post-1971? Or are we just carrying the original 1940 Qarardad-e-Maqasid on paper and just pretending that everything is fine? Where is the discussion in our country on all this? Where is our intelligensia? Where are our leaders, lawyers, historians, political scientists and nationalists?

Regrettably most Pakistanis consider themselves Muslims first; Sindhi/Punjabi etc. second with Pakistan coming a distant third. Herein lies the real tragedy and root cause of most the problems.

Niaz,

I agree with you that our people consider themselves Pakistani as a Distant Third. But I must disagree with you when you say that they consider themselves Muslims First. And here is why:

I have heard many Pashtun, Sindhi and Baloch leaders (educated, English-capable, well-read people) say, "We have been Sindhi/Baloch/Pashtun for 5000 years, we have been Muslim for 1000 years, but we have been Pakistani for just 50 years".

And we know that this view is not limited to a few people, but is actually held by the masses, because we can see:
(1) Pathan & Muhajir Demography Fights in Karachi
(2) Muhajir & Sindhi Demography Fights in Hyderbad
(3) Punjabi & Baloch Demography Fights in Gwadar
(4) Balti & Kashmiri Demography Fights in Skardu

If mean, if we were Muslim First and Sindhi/Muhajir/Punjabi/Pathan/Baloch Second, would these figths really be taking place? Wouldn't the Sindhis be comfortable with the Pathans & Muhajirs changing the ethnic-demography of Sindh, because after all they are Muslims as well and the Muslim-demography would not change? And what about the Baloch who are so resentful of all other Pakistanis that migrate into Balochistan? If they were truly Muslims first, wouldn't they be accepting of other Muslims and not revolt against ethnic-demographic change?

Still further, if you recall, the ethnic Pashtuns refugees fleeing Afghanistan were not resented much in Pakistani Pashtunkhwa, but were bitterly resented by the Muhajirs & Sindhis when they moved in large numbers to settle in Pathan-areas of Karachi in Sindh. This shows that the ethnic bond (Pakistani-Pashtun, Afghan-Pashtun) is STRONG, but the religious bond (Baloch-Sunni, Punjabi-Sunni) is WEAKER and the National Bond (Shia_Sindhi-Pakistani, Sunni_Pathan-Pakistani) is the WEAKEST.

Clearly, our people are Sindhi/Muhajir/Baloch/Punjabi/Pathan/Seraik/Khowar/Kashmiri/Balti/Shin FIRST, Muslims SECOND and Pakistani THIRD. And this is shown by both, the behaviour of our people, as well as the often-quoted idea that "We have been (X) for 5000 years, we have been Muslim for 1000 years, but we have been Pakistani for just 50 years"

 

[Rahil khan]

Pakistan is home land for Sunni Muslim only. Shia, Ahmedi,Bihari, Tamil, Telgu and Bohri Muslims are not accepted in Pakistan

That's a complete baseless statement. Yes Ahmedis are facing some problems, but to say that only Sunni Muslims are accepted in Pakistan is an utter, baseless propaganda. I am a Sunni Muslim, and 3 of my best close friend are Shia. Should i start posting the Lectures of Shia scholars given on the national television. Should i start posting the videos and photos of Shia Mosques in Pakistan so that your small eyes start observing the other side of the picture. Grow up man. Enoughhhhhhhhhhhh now

 

[Riyadh Haque]

That's a complete baseless statement. Yes Ahmedis are facing some problems, but to say that only Sunni Muslims are accepted in Pakistan is an utter, baseless propaganda. I am a Sunni Muslim, and 3 of my best close friend are Shia. Should i start posting the Lectures of Shia scholars given on the national television. Should i start posting the videos and photos of Shia Mosques in Pakistan so that your small eyes start observing the other side of the picture. Grow up man. Enoughhhhhhhhhhhh now

Rahil,

Please see the following:

1) Our country's Sunni Aqeeda

Martyrdom of Hussain RA (The Myth and the Reality) part 2 of 6 By Sheikh Tauseef Ur Rehman HQ - YouTube

Also might want to follow up on this via--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRQurvg8mJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9N-Fgzf9iY



2) Our fellow-Sunnis carrying out these Aqeeda in practice

Scores killed in suicide attack on Pakistan shia rally - YouTube


Further follow up on this here--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xq0tLGY0vg



3)The Original True Sunni Islam in the Land of the Two Holy Places

truth about shia by imam of Haram Mosque in Mecca - YouTube

4) And it is not limited to just Shia, it also applies to Sufi, Barelvi, Nizari, Zaidi, Ibadi etcetera

UNBELIEVABLE Shirk in the Name of Islam - Shaikh Tauseef ur Rahman [English] - YouTube

 

[Riyadh Haque]

Hinduguy

Of course, any one would want to go to developed nations... But poor Indian Muslims who cant afford flight to USA or UK come to Pakistan, and trust me their are alot

Icewolf,

I am sure there are a lot of them. But, embedded in my original point was the question of how do native ("sons of the soil") Pakistanis view them? How are the muhajirs treated by Punjabis? Do the Sindhis resent them? Is Karachi still "bey-chain"?

The Two Nation Theory could not provide honour, dignity and freedom to the Muslims of subcontinent
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=68715
http://www.awaminationalparty.org/books/factsarefacts.pdf

Drunk PPP Leader Zulfiqar Mirza speaking against Mohajirs - YouTube

Bilatakalluf with Tahir Gora Ep23 - Tarek Fatah Blasts The Pakistan Military - YouTube