Tarique against religion-based politics

[EasyNow]

aulias and peers settled everywhere. but i believe Jalalabad and former Islamabad were two of the prime places. and there were more than the settlement of 300 aulias as far as settling of non-subcontinental Muslims in Sylhet is concerned.

i did not mention the economic stature of anyone. do you have trouble reading what i wrote? do you not see any other communities besides Arab and Hindu Rajputs in my last post? and i am not sure why you think being Arab or Hindu Rajput means being rich.

you are the one showing discomfort at Bangladesh's and the subcontinent's Muslim history. are you uncomfortable about the fact Muslims from points west (and in a way also east) of today's BD have shaped what BD is? better come to terms with these. because your discomfort at the very essence of how a BD map came about and at the history of the Muslim community is just disturbing. are you identifying yourself as Bangladeshi, i.e. someone of this landmass, or as a non-existent concept of Bangladeshi who has no history and heritage?

You really do seem disturbed. Have you seen anything in my posts to deny our roots? You are the one in denial of the fact that all sorts of people became Muslims - are u ashamed of it? If so you are nothing but a hypocrite.

We are 90% Muslim even TODAY, why do you need to revisit 300 year old history to recognize that? It's insecurity of the worst kind.

I often see these ridiculous genetics debates on pdf and I'm not interested in the least bit. I go back to my very first post, we are what we are today - deal with that.

Ps. Instead of advising me, read your own post properly and tell me where you have included lower class converts to Islam.

 

[my2cents]

Sorry but I could not say the same about your views. "Secularism" that we have now means hatred towards Islam, just like it is in Indian version of secularism.

Awami League is an amazing party, because in the name of securing the minorities, with help and backing from Hindutva Islamophobic India, AL is persecuting majority Muslims, accusing all of them of being extremist, regardless of the many variation of views among them.

And how can I respect the Jan. 05, 2014 non-election?

Bangladeshi Muslims have always been tolerant and we would like to follow Turkey's example of becoming even more tolerant for all minorities. And that will come with economic development, which is not possible if we remain a sh!thole colony of India, under an Indian installed puppet dictator.

If you want a more tolerant and developed Bangladesh, can you still support this illegal Awami League rule since Jan. 05, 2014?

Looks like you have selective memory when it comes to minority issues. Not a week passes without an incident of intolerant act on minorities. It is joke you are comparing yourself to Turkey.

 

[Mattrixx]

I said before you cannot express yourself and you have very little knowledge about our past. Yes, someone switched over to non-related history, but you have started to deny that history to please the Indians. Better you do not answer to off topic posts.

If you find my posts are irrelevant, better you ignore them.

Indian Sudras, these are another group of Muslims in our country. No typical face.

Just make your points not ranting. Why I should learn more history. The fair amount of knowledge is good as Im no historian.

My lineage is Mirza. Which is related to Mughal Court. I have no intention to deny Muslim history.
All I say is from Bangladeshi nationalist point of view. BD is independent country. And I want to glorify those histories where my country was not part of another country. But was independent and conquered others.

Initial Muslims were invaders here. Can you deny this fact?
Well after many chaos they settled here. Now during Muslim rule only some Sultans and Nawabs maintained independent or semi independent state. Those glorifies BD's history. Mughal empire makes BD leaning towards India.

And kalu miah and khair ctg brought this issue of lineage. Where I had no intention to discuss anyone's lineage. It doesnt matter. Where I was talking from a nationalist point of view, seems like they rotate in a same circle of their proud foreign lineage. So I said of Klau Miahs skin tone which may be very Kalu.

Sorry I have no real understanding of anyone's lineage as it doesnt matter to me. I was just proving my point, Siraj ud daula who was a Bengal Nawab must be a Bengali nationalist ( not lineage )

People here want to prove their foreign ancestry. Bangladeshi lineage means nothing to them. Maybe by that they want to relate themselves to western Muslim countries. Where Muslim rulers of Bengal and present BD people all settled here and chose this as their homeland.
So why people here want to prove them foreign?

The conversation here is of no value and confusing. I have no intention to please Indians where this kalu miah, idune insult Bangladeshis by saying us slaves of India. Indians and Pakistanis insult us same time because of these people.
No self respectful person can stay here in this forum.

 

[eastwatch]

Just make your points not ranting. Why I should learn more history. The fair amount of knowledge is good as Im no historian.

My lineage is Mirza. Which is related to Mughal Court. I have no intention to deny Muslim history.
All I say is from Bangladeshi nationalist point of view. BD is independent country. And I want to glorify those histories where my country was not part of another country. But was independent and conquered others.

Initial Muslims were invaders here. Can you deny this fact?
Well after many chaos they settled here. Now during Muslim rule only some Sultans and Nawabs maintained independent or semi independent state. Those glorifies BD's history. Mughal empire makes BD leaning towards India.

And kalu miah and khair ctg brought this issue of lineage. Where I had no intention to discuss anyone's lineage. It doesnt matter. Where I was talking from a nationalist point of view, seems like they rotates in a same circle of their proud foreign lineage. So I said of Klau Miahs skin tone which may be very Kalu.

Sorry I have no real understanding of anyone's lineage as it doesnt matter to me. I was just proving my point Siraj ud daula who was a Bengal Nawab must be a Bengali nationalist ( not lineage )

People here want to prove their foreign ancestry. Bangladeshi lineage means nothing to them. Maybe by that they want relate themselves to western Muslim countries. Where Muslim rulers of Bengal and present BD people all settled here and chose this as their homeland.
So why people here want to prove them foreign?

The conversation here is of no value and confusing. I have no intention to please Indians where this kalu miah, idune insult Bangladeshis by saying us slaves of India. Indians and Pakistanis insult us same time because of these people.
No self respectful person can stay here in this forum.

Sorry, I understand your points. Yes, there are persons who want to brag about their family lines which is absurd. It is because all the families of foreign ancestry have been mixed more or less with many other lineages. So we have to assume no lineage is in its pure form, they are all mixed. Be it local Hindus converted to Muslim, invader central asians, poor arabs who sought fortune here, Abisinian Negro Muslims who were brought to form a large part of military, Persians who came and took high govt offices, now all have been mixed with marriages into other non-similar lineage. So, no one should claim his family to be this or that.

However, you should also note the way Indian Inc. insult us and our ones do not protest them. We have two groups of enemies here in the PDF. One is Jamaatis and the other is Indians. Both want to bring down Bangladesh.

 

[Saiful Islam]

Just make your points not ranting. Why I should learn more history. The fair amount of knowledge is good as Im no historian.

My lineage is Mirza. Which is related to Mughal Court. I have no intention to deny Muslim history.
All I say is from Bangladeshi nationalist point of view. BD is independent country. And I want to glorify those histories where my country was not part of another country. But was independent and conquered others.

Initial Muslims were invaders here. Can you deny this fact?
Well after many chaos they settled here. Now during Muslim rule only some Sultans and Nawabs maintained independent or semi independent state. Those glorifies BD's history. Mughal empire makes BD leaning towards India.

And kalu miah and khair ctg brought this issue of lineage. Where I had no intention to discuss anyone's lineage. It doesnt matter. Where I was talking from a nationalist point of view, seems like they rotates in a same circle of their proud foreign lineage. So I said of Klau Miahs skin tone which may be very Kalu.

Sorry I have no real understanding of anyone's lineage as it doesnt matter to me. I was just proving my point Siraj ud daula who was a Bengal Nawab must be a Bengali nationalist ( not lineage )

People here want to prove their foreign ancestry. Bangladeshi lineage means nothing to them. Maybe by that they want relate themselves to western Muslim countries. Where Muslim rulers of Bengal and present BD people all settled here and chose this as their homeland.
So why people here want to prove them foreign?

The conversation here is of no value and confusing. I have no intention to please Indians where this kalu miah, idune insult Bangladeshis by saying us slaves of India. Indians and Pakistanis insult us same time because of these people.
No self respectful person can stay here in this forum.

Mentioning Bangladeshi Islamic heritage means bringing up the point of lineage. We have no intention of comparing ourselves to the A`1

You really do seem disturbed. Have you seen anything in my posts to deny our roots? You are the one in denial of the fact that all sorts of people became Muslims - are u ashamed of it? If so you are nothing but a hypocrite.

We are 90% Muslim even TODAY, why do you need to revisit 300 year old history to recognize that? It's insecurity of the worst kind.

I often see these ridiculous genetics debates on pdf and I'm not interested in the least bit. I go back to my very first post, we are what we are today - deal with that.

Ps. Instead of advising me, read your own post properly and tell me where you have included lower class converts to Islam.

It's not insecurity. Khair is not talking about reaffirming his identity, he is talking about Islamic heritage which is being erased by certain parties and people. I am sure no one supports incorrectly changing or erasing history, which has and is being attempted.

 

[kalu_miah]

Genetic tests have proven that Bengali Muslims have little to no foreign ancestry. The name Bengal comes from a Dravidian tribe called Vang which inhabited the region. Here is what most Bangladeshis look like:
View attachment 48856

Please show us a link for these genetic tests. And where did you get my picture? It is against forum rules to disclose personal details of forum members, specially pictures.

@Matrixx you are a Mirza, and look at my picture posted by NepaliKingdom, do you think I am insecure about dark skin? How could I choose a user name like Kalu if that was the case?

You should also take a look at this thread where I express solidarity with fellow dark skinned dalits of India against caste oppression:
How Dalit, Shudra and Muslim unity can beat twice born Hindu oppressors in India

Fact is all low caste converts, who are the majority among Muslim Bengali's and perhaps among most South Asian Muslims are today proud Muslims and share in the pride of historical achievements of Muslim rulers, soldiers, preachers etc. many of whom were migrants from other parts of the world. Specifically the Turkic and Mongol freshly converted Mamluks were from Shamanist background in Central Asia and they were from very common ordinary families, eking out a hard life of nomads in steppe and desert areas. Many noblemen from these areas however also escaped from Central Asia, Iran and other parts of the then Islamic world at the advent of Mongol invasions.

These low caste or untouchable or Adivasi converts in South Asia were in a way saved from the caste oppression of the twice born Hindu's of South Asia, which still afflicts India today as it shows up in the deplorable condition of their health and nutrition indicators which are lower than Bangladesh, despite India's higher GDP than Bangladesh for example. Poor in India are obviously worse off than poor in Bangladesh. Shouldn't we then call the Muslim migrants from other parts of the world as the saviors instead of "invaders"?

The point is not about my personal family details and my wanting to boast about them, but rather about historical accuracy, which at least @eastwatch understands well, but you don't, because our entire nation lack historical sense and context, thanks to Hindu and British educators and historians brainwashing us Muslims since 1757. This sense of historical context and continuity is only present among some rare individuals who have taken the time to learn our history on their own, such as eastwatch. So regardless of the difference of our political viewpoints, I appreciate his awareness of history, something you can and should learn from. Knowledge is never a bad thing, regardless of your personal interest and how it drives your politics.

 

[khair_ctg]

Have you seen anything in my posts to deny our roots?

you are in favour of excluding talk of migrant Muslims to this part of the world, aren't you? so yes

You are the one in denial of the fact that all sorts of people became Muslims - are u ashamed of it? If so you are nothing but a hypocrite.

the 'sorts of people' who became Muslims were mentioned in my post in question. if it wasn't mentioned, it is crude to think i want to exclude certain groups of people.

but what is clear from you is, you think the very people who converted in for example, Persia or Central Asia, and then migrated and pioneered Muslim communities in BD should not be talked about.

why that cannot be talked about is an important question and one that Bangladeshis should be concerned about.

Ps. Instead of advising me, read your own post properly and tell me where you have included lower class converts to Islam.

i am writing again: my post in question did not include any socioeconomic classes or castes. so it was not required to write about low caste converts specifically. i only mentioned intermarriage between Hindu Rajput (who were not generally low castes) with Mughal nobility as an example - they were hardly the only type of Hindus converting. the Rajput-Mughal mixing however is important in how the Muslim high culture of South Asia came about

We are 90% Muslim even TODAY, why do you need to revisit 300 year old history to recognize that? It's insecurity of the worst kind.

the real issue is, what do you have against bringing up our history, whether it's 300 years old or older?

do you think ignoring our history will prevent something like this below from showing up?

Sheikh Mujib started a great job by eliminating leftist terrorists clan. But he should have properly destroyed the jamaat clan too.
If he had done his job properly then ISI,CIA sponsored jamaat brethren fraction group from Army could never kill our great leader.
History always praises our great leaders like Siraj ud daula who had lacking in many ways but its the Mir zafars who we hate.

Muslims rulers were no better than British. Destroyed Bengle at best. Thousand years of misery and Chaos.
These impotents are not capable of securing independence. The core has the main problem.
Now dont bring this siraj ud daula at every issue. I was once interested in him but not any more as I learn more of him.
Just couldnt get time to change the profile pic. To me Siraj ud daula is worse than Mir jafar.

 

[EasyNow]

you are in favour of excluding talk of migrant Muslims to this part of the world, aren't you? so yes

This is getting tiresome. Do you realise that there are more BD Muslim's today than ever? What difference does it make where they came from?

you think the very people who converted in for example, Persia or Central Asia, and then migrated and pioneered Muslim communities in BD should not be talked about.

why that cannot be talked about is an important question and one that Bangladeshis should be concerned about.

Why is that an issue? Will we become bad Muslims if we do not talk about migration? Whether we became Muslim through Persians or through Africans the result is the same. We are Muslims - stop trying to make connections to other races, when there is no need.

i am writing again: my post in question did not include any socioeconomic classes or castes. so it was not required to write about low caste converts specifically. i only mentioned intermarriage between Hindu Rajput (who were not generally low castes) with Mughal nobility as an example - they were hardly the only type of Hindus converting. the Rajput-Mughal mixing however is important in how the Muslim high culture of South Asia came about

So you recognize that you did not 'acknowledge' anyone but the upper class. Even then you talk about Muslim high-culture! There is no high or low Muslim culture - all Muslim's have an Islamic way of life, understand?

 

[kalu_miah]

@kalu_miah

With due respect I believe your understanding of different islamic movements is very poor and shaped by western sources which inherently will have a polemic bias. U didn't read the article by posted in my last post. Plz do read that. Salafis have faults just like any other movement since its run by humans and not angles but they have strong aqeedah and basics is very strong and thus don't fall in committing shirk. They have a hugely positive impact on the muslim world. As for their methods of dealing with current social issues affecting muslims , even prominent scholars disagree with many of their views and there r many factions within salafis. There r pacifist, moderates as well as extremist and opportunists like the pro-sisi egyptian "salafists".

As for following turkish model, well sociopolitical landscape of all muslims countries r not the same and thus I don't think muslims states with relatively more conservative sociopolitical landscape than turkey have to follow turkish model. Turkey had a militant french version of secularism dictatorially imposed on them by a fascist like attaturk and underwent 80 years of institutional discrimination in all walks of life against islam & muslims. Its most likely has the largest no. of atheist and anti-muslim bigots in the muslim world. Islamic parties& muslim conservatives had to adapt in such an hostile environment and struggled to come to power in the form of centre-right AKP. AKP also has to consider the significant secular minority while formulating policies. I my opinion islamic parties have to consolidate power and have policies suited to the socio-political environment of the respective countries and thus I don't think its warranted for BD's islamic parties to be overtly secular , at least not yet.

Egypt's case is different. MB was not suited to US/israel interest and morsi wasn't smart enough in dealing with the mubarak era deep state. He was no way dictatorial. He hardly managed to even exercise his constitutional executive powers.

I just went back and read the article and it does not change my views. You should read my views on this issue here:
How to stop Islamic extremism: Global Fiqh Council (GFC)

Different variants of Salafists, one of which is Qutbists are root cause of extremism and fanaticism in Islam, as everyone can today become an expert and claim that he or she has the sole ownership of truth. The Shia's do their revivalism in a collective way and can prevent random ad hoc extremism, but rather they apply state terrorism to achieve their goals.

We should look at current revivalist govt.'s in place to see what results they have given us in the Muslim world so far:
- Monarchists tied with Ibn Abdul Wahhab's ideology, results not so great, using petrodollars to spread intolerance
- Shia revivalists took power in Iran and what did they do, they implemented an intolerant version of Shia Islam that is turning Iranians away from Islam and also they are attempting to create a Shia crescent which has started a Shia-Sunni conflict with Sunni Salafists in the region

The only govt's that has given us good development so far is in Turkey and Indonesia. What we need to do is look at models that worked well and follow those aspects of these models that is appropriate for us. Note I did not count Egypt, because Qutbists got to power but could not survive long enough, because their cousins in another variant of Salafist promptly funded to remove them from power. If they had survived, we could see what results they could bring, I doubt it would have been very good. People who believe that they have the sole interpretation that is valid has a fundamental problem with tolerating others views, which is essential for good governance and as far as my observation goes, this is not possible from any of these revivalists who want to implement their version of creeping Shariah.

What we need today more than ever is increasing unity, economic and military relations among Muslim countries, which will safeguard the future well being of the Muslim communities of the world. This is a sophisticated geopolitical challenge and I do not think these modern day Mullah's armed with ideas from Taymiyyah, Wahhab, Afghani, Banna, Qutb, Moududi et al are fit for that job.

 

[khair_ctg]

This is getting tiresome. Do you realise that there are more BD Muslim's today than ever?

and....?

What difference does it make where they came from?

history might not be important to you. but you cannot deny history.

if you are interested to know the place they came to, of course it matters where they came from.

Why is that an issue? Will we become bad Muslims if we do not talk about migration?

do you realize this is an audacious demand to push for people to not talk about their history?

but it's understandable at this point why you are uncomfortable regarding the history of the Muslims of BD or the subcontinent

Whether we became Muslim through Persians or through Africans the result is the same. We are Muslims - stop trying to make connections to other races, when there is no need.

was the official language of the subcontinent before British invasion Persian or Swahili or Somali? are you saying there is no difference between them?

why should i "stop trying to make connections to other races" especially the races are historically connected?

So you recognize that you did not 'acknowledge' anyone but the upper class. Even then you talk about Muslim high-culture! There is no high or low Muslim culture - all Muslim's have an Islamic way of life, understand?

i did not talk about any class or caste. the example of Hindu Rajput does not mean only Hindu Rajputs converted. the successive Muslim empires produced a civilization that led to a fusion of different worlds concerning language, arts, etiquette, etc. that affected a diverse society the Muslim empires stretched through

do you really not realize the topic here is the culture of South Asian Muslims instead of Islamic culture, or you are out of arguments?

 

[eastwatch]

A presentation of another BD face to the nasty looking Indian Sudras.

 

[eastwatch]

Are you trying to say that Bangladeshis are Rajputs? Do you even know what a Rajput is? They are a Hindu warrior clan that inhabited the Rajasthan desert, only 3 out of the 36 clans married with Mughals and only the royals did it. They have nothing to do with Bangladeshis, what a stupid thing to say. Absolute retard.

No one sent you good looking faces, only the normal ones to prove that we are a mixed group of people. But, you are sending pictures of Rajput Huns. Send pictures of your Sudra siblings and prove Indians have better faces than Bangladeshis.

By the way your military General Man Singh lost two of his sons in Bengal in around 1580s whlie fghting against the forces of Isa Khan. Do not you read history, bloody Indian Sudra?

 

[eastwatch]

 

[eastwatch]

99.99% of Indians are Sudras. But, you are sendng pictures of 99.99% Hindus. Look at then picture of our common people.

 

[eastwatch]

Another picture of common faces from BD. Enlarge and see also Saedi of Jamaat.