Sikh families leave Orakzai after Taliban demand jizia

[roadrunner]

Some estimates of the number of people that migrated range up to 14.5 million.

The 1951 census indicated that Pakistan's population was about 33 million.

Wiki suggests that about 7 million refugees settled in Pakistani Punjab and Sindh, and an equivalent number of refugees migrated to India. Pakistan's population in 1941 (the census that indicates a higher number of non-muslims in Pakistan) was likely lower than that in 1951 (33 million) so the impact of the Muslim refugees coming in and the non-Muslims leaving, on the proportion of non-Muslims in West Pakistan, can be clearly extrapolated from this data.

Back to the thread topic please.

The 14.5 million figure is grossly inflated.

Total Muslim population of west pakistan (1951 census) = 28 million

Total Muslim population of west pakistan (1941 census) = 22 million

Growth rate of West Pakistan = approx. 2% per annum

10 years will see a 120% increase

Expected Muslim population in 1951 = 26.2 million.

Actual minus expected = 28 million -26.2 million = 1.8 million immigrants.. Total West Pak pop (1951) = 29 million

So percentage of immigrants from India (majority from East Punjab) = 1.8/29 = 6.2%.


Source for figures - BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 6(2) September October 2003

 

[roadrunner]

So if its a per Capita tax and Same as Zakat, SWAT people are making a lot more money than what I expected. It is estimated that population of SWAT itself is 1.2 Million and everyone Paying a million. My calculator gives and error if I multiply those kind of numbers...

The tax sounds a bit high. It may not be true. If it's true, they're collecting that much from 38 families, then they do need to redo their math.

 

[roadrunner]

Have you looked at Fateh's questions.
----
And i think Taliban would spend Zakat money on Jihad (Yusuf Al-Qaradawi).

That worries me.

Not read them

Most have been answered already.

 

[notsuperstitious]

As usual the point goes right above your head. Normally I don't waste my time replying to your posts, but since i'm in the mood and this is a vile bit of propaganda you're supporting, I will.

Paritosh's implication was that at 80% Muslim, 20% non Muslim after partition (that's his implication), Pakistan's non Muslim community decreases to 3%. That is false and is part of Hindutva propaganda. That was the point of my post.

Somehow, you managed to miss all the gist of that, and spotted I said 97% pre-partition. My point was that it was miniscule pre-partition, it was miniscule post-partition and it's been miniscule to the present day.

Figures if you must. The million or so that crossed over to India was negligible relative to the overall population. the million Muslims that entered West Pakistan was also quite neglibible.

A 1/22th addition, and 1/22th loss for a population = a 2/22th increase in the Muslim population, and a 2/22th decrease in the non Muslim one. Either way, 2/22th does not equal 20% (yes I know you need to multiply by a hundred, so please do not point out this pedantic point either ).

The estimated figures pre partition West Pak, I'd say 93% Muslim, post-partition 97% Muslim, present day, 96% Muslim. There's not a lot of difference.

Ok now i get it, the assumption you are using to prove your numbers is that only a million crosed over to india and from india. I believe that number is worked out backward.

That number does not stand any scrutiny, its incorrect.

 

[notsuperstitious]

From what I know, Zakat % is defined for muslims

For non muslims the Jaziya % is not defined. That itself is discrimination.

 

[roadrunner]

Ok now i get it, the assumption you are using to prove your numbers is that only a million crosed over to india and from india. I believe that number is worked out backward.

That number does not stand any scrutiny, its incorrect.

There's a thread on it in military history. Post your evidence there. My sources are very clear.

 

[roadrunner]

An odd thought occurred to me, that they're charging them tax for the previous 1000 years.

But then they would need to charge a Zakat for that long also.

The figure looks amazing. One of the reasons to focus on education in that agency.

 

[shukla_swapnil]

An odd thought occurred to me, that they're charging them tax for the previous 1000 years.

But then they would need to charge a Zakat for that long also.

The figure looks amazing. One of the reasons to focus on education in that agency.

Has to be something on those lines because if it was regular tax there would be no reason to leave.

Rather paytaxes and hang on to their home.

 

[khanz]

As usual the point goes right above your head. Normally I don't waste my time replying to your posts, but since i'm in the mood and this is a vile bit of propaganda you're supporting, I will.

Paritosh's implication was that at 80% Muslim, 20% non Muslim after partition (that's his implication), Pakistan's non Muslim community decreases to 3%. That is false and is part of Hindutva propaganda. That was the point of my post.

Somehow, you managed to miss all the gist of that, and spotted I said 97% pre-partition. My point was that it was miniscule pre-partition, it was miniscule post-partition and it's been miniscule to the present day.

Figures if you must. The million or so that crossed over to India was negligible relative to the overall population. the million Muslims that entered West Pakistan was also quite neglibible.

A 1/22th addition, and 1/22th loss for a population = a 2/22th increase in the Muslim population, and a 2/22th decrease in the non Muslim one. Either way, 2/22th does not equal 20% (yes I know you need to multiply by a hundred, so please do not point out this pedantic point either ).

The estimated figures pre partition West Pak, I'd say 93% Muslim, post-partition 97% Muslim, present day, 96% Muslim. There's not a lot of difference.

omg how is it vile propoganda ? i'm not saying pakistan forced them to convert or killed them or saying we drove them out i'm just disputing your actual numbers 97% or even 93% figure where did u even get this from i think you just made this up yourself .
It was not a 1/22 population loss it was MUCH higher(thought it was countered by mohajr influx) seriously where did you come up with this number ? plz look the the data from the census and do the math - Pre-partition west pak population was around 33 million and over 7+ million hindus/sikhs from there moved to india while even more muslims came to pak do the calculations thats means in 1947 before independance the non-muslims percentage of around 21% + was right or do you think the census takers were lying about the population count ?
i'm not agreeing with hindutva propoganda and saying we killed them all ofcourse there was a muslims majority there before partition i'm just saying it's true that pak hindu/sikh population was indeed much higher and def much higher than a 4% change but mostly coz of migration at partition time on both sides not coz of killing them all or anti-minority activities from the pakistani state.

 

[rubyjackass]

A person who can't afford to pay Jizya has to convert to Islam.

Is this true?
What if a person defaults Jijya or Zakat?

 

[muse]

You mean like installment payment system? Qist?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Perhaps if a Sikh family couldn't pay they could offer a daughter for marriage to a Mullah? Would that be OK? I wonder how much a Sikh girl would be worth?

 

[Elmo]

@ Shravan and Roadrunner: you guys just manage to go below and then further below the belt. Don't know who is the worst debator of the two. You both just beat each other by a scrape of a nail before the next one breaks the record of ludicrousness.

@ Truthseeker: "price of a sikh girl"..... joke in extremely bad taste.

Coming back to the real discussion,

1. Who controls FATA:

It's under the control of the federal government and thence the president. The laws concerning criminal cases are dealt with under the Frontier Crimes Regulations, while civil matters are decided on the basis of tribal traditions. The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and other civil laws do not apply there.

2. What is jizya?

I don't know about its evolution in the Mughal and Ottoman empires, but know that it has been there since the time of the Prophet (somebody please double check this).

3. What is the penalty if one fails to pay jizya?

Surely not being forced out of your homes, as has been the case on Orakzai Agency.



What no one has highlighted so far is that since 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 and the militants making inroads into Pakistan, Orakzai Agency had been immune to the developments in its neighbouring agencies of waziristan and bajaur. But now Orakzai too has come centre-stage. In Mohmand agency, if I am not wrong, the Salarzai tribe had taken up arms against the militants there and to some success. Let's see if Orakzai, which has seen sectarian strife becomes the hub of militant activities too.

 

[shravan]

@ Shravan and Roadrunner: you guys just manage to go below and then further below the belt. Don't know who is the worst debator of the two. You both just beat each other by a scrape of a nail before the next one breaks the record of ludicrousness.

I asked Roadrunner to tell me what is the punishment (twice). Did he answer my question.

I don't have a Think Tank belt....
---

It's good news for India. I hope Roadrunner understands that.

 

[XYON]

Perhaps if a Sikh family couldn't pay they could offer a daughter for marriage to a Mullah? Would that be OK? I wonder how much a Sikh girl would be worth?

I think she would most certainly be worth more than an American lass!