p(-)0ENiX
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,582
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Last edited by a moderator:
Turkey Contained ?
- Thread starter NeutralCitizen
- Start date
Bombay Dude
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 566
- Reaction score
- 0
Pakistanis or Afghans teaching Arabs about Islam. 
Remember It is their Religion. They Started it.
They still Follow their Own Religion, Speak their Own Language, Follow their Own Culture!
Apart from Hindus, They are the only People with Zero Outside Influence.
Both Follow their Own Religion(Never Converted), Own Language(Sanskrit, Arabic).
No Matter What Arabs are,
But Respect to that!
Other Muslims have No Right of Teaching the Arabs about their Religion.
Remember It is their Religion. They Started it.
They still Follow their Own Religion, Speak their Own Language, Follow their Own Culture!
Apart from Hindus, They are the only People with Zero Outside Influence.
Both Follow their Own Religion(Never Converted), Own Language(Sanskrit, Arabic).
No Matter What Arabs are,
But Respect to that!
Other Muslims have No Right of Teaching the Arabs about their Religion.
DRaisinHerald
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 2,926
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Other Muslims have No Right of Teaching the Arabs about their Religion.
O, an Indian lecturing us
We're not teaching anyone, just sharing/exchanging knowledge and beliefs. Besides, just because Islam started in Arabia it doesn't mean it "belongs" to them; but an Indian, a Hindu nonetheless, would never understand that.
EDIT: That crazy claim of never "converted"; Pakistan and Bangladesh were also India before; thus in total the whole Subcontinent Muslims exceed 40%, add 3% Sikhs, and like 5-6% Christians, and voila, like half of this originally Hindu popualtion has converted
EDIT: That crazy claim of never "converted"; Pakistan and Bangladesh were also India before; thus in total the whole Subcontinent Muslims exceed 40%, add 3% Sikhs, and like 5-6% Christians, and voila, like half of this originally Hindu popualtion has converted
Well, you guys do speak truth occasionally.
What he probably meant was: Hindus today are among rare people who follow their original religion, speak their original language, have their original culture still prevalent and live on their historical land. I think, he is quite right.
India is unique in that sense. That, despite all Islamic invasions it's still predominantly Hindu.
While Pakistan (and Bangladesh), according to your own admission above, have been (made to) convert.
You just penned down the reason behind identity crisis many Pakistanis face. Like you said, you are subcontinent's converts....that is, you belong to this subcontinent. While to hide identity crisis, many Pakistanis claim to be Arab blood, Iranian blood, or Turkic blood, or Afghan blood. Heck, yesterday there was a pakistani guy on the forum who claimed to be German descent.
You know how interesting it is that today Pakistani missiles are named after foreign invaders, same people who invaded present day Pakistan, and 'bravely' spread Islam.
Lets look at names of some Pakistani missiles:
Ghaznavi (missile): Named after Afghan conqueror Mahmud of Ghazni who ruled e northwestern Indian subcontinent i.e. mainly present day Pakistan.
Ghauri (missile): Named after the Turkic ruler Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri
Abdali-I: Named after the Afghan king Ahmad Shah Abdali, another Afghan ruler who ruled what is present day Pakistan.
etc. These are just some examples. Pakistan's national language Urdu is also an Indian language. It was developed in UP, India. It is based on Khariboli dialect of Delhi and is derived from Sanskrit. It is one of India's official languages.
Urdu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And you are wrong to say that half of Hindu population has converted. Reason behind large population of Muslims in the subcontinent is their relatively higher birth rate. You can verify this by comparing birth rates of India and Pakistan (And BD).
The Europeans used to call it the Indian sun-continent but for us this word is meaningless. Pakistan my lies in South Asia but our historical connections with the countries lying to our west should not be undermined. The countries like Iran and Afghanistan have played a far more important role in our history than Bharat, Bangladesh or other South Asian countries.
Pakistanis don't have any identitiy crisis, inspite of the immense propganda spread by semi-intellectuals like Hasan Nisar and the ignorants who regularly frequent this website. There are some clans and fmailies in Punjab (like Syeds or Qureshis) and Sindh (Makhdooms, Peezrzadehs) who claim to be the descendants of those Arabs who came and setlled in the Indus valley after the conquest of Sindh and lower Punjab by the armies of the Ummayad governor of Iraq Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf. It cannot be proved whether they really are the descendans of those Arab settllers but it cannot be completely ruled out either, considering the rule of Arabs that lasted for many centuries. Apart from these families the bulk of Pakistanis are a mixutre of those people who came and settled in the Indus valley in the last five millenium, most famous of them are Scythians, wihte huns and Parthianis.
When Ahmed Shah Abdali invaded India the bulk of his army was comprised of the people of FATA and Balochistan (I had read it somewhere that in the third battle of Panipat the soldiers who were recruited from Waziristan played a major role in the victory of Afghan but cannot recall where did I read it), both of these areas are part of Pakistan now. Abdali awarded Kalat to the Khan of Kalat because of his active and important participation in the third war of Panipat. Considering that the bulk of the army was always comprised of Afhgans(Pashtun) no matter who the leader was, and the bulk of the Afghans (Pashtuns) anyway live in Pak, so there is no harm in accepting them as our own. I will still believe that these missiles should be named after pure local heroes like Khushal Khan Khattak or Porus ;-)
Urdu was developed by the Muslims who ruled over a big part of South Asia for many centuries. The language of those rulers was Persian, therefore they added many Persian and Arabic words in the local dialect that was spoken in and around their capital in order to make the communication easier with the local people who didn't speak the language of their rulers, and not to mention the migration of the whole upper and middle class Muslims from India to Pakistan after the division of British India. Aren't those upper and middle class Muslim the true inheritors of Urdu? I still believe that at least the four major languages, namely Pashto, Sindhi, Balochi and Punjabi should be given the status of naitonal languages in Pakistan.
There are plenty of words in many Indian languages that are equivalent of "Indian subcontinent". So, how does it matter what word European choose or Chinese choose when they talk about same region?
Not trying undermine Pakistans relations with its western neighbors. But these connections are mainly based upon present day Pakistan's conquests by these neighbors in the past. These rulers brought with them their religion and culture. I don't see their rule any different from British rule. and you guys still treat Ghauris and Ghaznavis and Abdalis as heros who destroyed your own cities in their quest to 'spread Islam'.
And you are wrong to say that Iran or Afghanistan had greater role in Pakistans history than India. You guys do not remember (or do not want to remember?) history before Islamic past. Even in the modern day, Pakistan wouldn't even have formed without former Indian Muslims. Mohajirs played major role. Movement for creation of Pakistan happened mainly in present day India and BD.
Without the Mohajirs, i.e. former Indian Muslims, rest of Pakistanis would have been under Afghan or Indian flag. Today, Pakistan's culture is still closer to Indian Muslims than Iranians or Afghans.
You are different from Indian Muslims in this perspective that Indian Muslims know their history well. They recognize themselves as part of this region, and know their identity well.
About the bolded part, but they'd still be in minority right?
If their wasn't any identity crisis people wouldn't disown their own past. It's because of this identity crisis that most people in Pakistan prefer to be known from their religious identity, which they borrowed from Arabs. This is one famous quote by a Pakistani writer:
Bangladeshis on PDF face same problem, but in extreme. They hate their flag, they hate their own national anthem, they hate their language (Bengali). True wannabe-Arabs.
But Abdali was still a Afghan right?
Those rulers didn't belong to this land, or are you trying to claim credit for the Persian influence that Urdu has?
Urdu was still developed in India, had Indian Khariboli dialect and is derived from Sanskrit.
Before the arrival of the Europeans there was no concept of South Asia or Indian sub-continent in this region. The Europeans, especially the British, created this identitiy out of nothing and imposed on the locals. There are of course words in local langauages for sub-continent, but they are simply used as an equivalent for the English language words.
I don't know about India, but this is the way things work in the rest of the world. Invaders come and bring their languages, culture, religion and others custom alonwith them. They learn and adopt some things from the natives, and the natives learn new things from the invaders and after few centuries the assimilation of these tow people fabricate a new culture and society. You are consequently bragging abut Urdu being an Indian language, so my dear now you knwo how it was evolved. I hope you are not one of those morons who downright reject the migration of the Vedic people from Central Asia into the Indus valley and don't deny the deep impact they and their myths have left on the psyche of the people of Bharat.
I think it was a PUnjabi Muslim who had proposed an idea of a amjority MUslim province in the north-west of British India. The Muslims were in a majority and they were not afraid of the Hindu dominance, unlike the Mulism of UP or Bihar. If you read the books of Sindhi nationalist G.M.SYed you would know how vehemently he defended the idea of Sindh being a separate entitiy than India (therefoe, Sindh and Hind), even during the era of Ranjit Sindh for them Punjab and Hindustan were two separate entities.. I would also like to bring it to your knowledge my dear that if the British had not come and colonized this whole region, there would be no India in the first place that needed to be divinded in two separate countries, i.e Pakistan and Bharat. The influence of Afghanistan and Iran is deep, unavoidable and abiding. Our relgion, languages, culture, food, attire and many other thing are because of the influence of these people. Whether other people like to hear it or not, this is the reality.
Pakistani culture is not closer to Indian Muslims, even the culture of Mohajirs of Sindh is different than that of Sindhis or Pashtuns. It will be not wrong if you say that the culture of Mohajirs of Sindh is same as the culture of the Muslims of UP and 'Bihar of India. It will be a surprise for me even if the culutre of Tamils and Mrathian Muslims is same as the culture of the Muslims of UP and Bihar. One of the other reason of the separation of Bangalis from West Pakistan was the huge difference between their culture.
I didn't say that our culture is same as Irani or Afhgan culture, I just said that these countries have a deep rooted influnece on our country. It will not be wrong to say that the people of KP and Balochistan share their culture with Afghanistan. I think you consider them equal Pakistnai, don't you?
If we give up Islam we will remain Pashtun, Balochs, Sindhis, PUnjabis, Seraikis and Kashmiris. I hope I have described it in the most simplest way so you can understand it. And if Iran and Turkey cease to exist, there wil be no Iranians but Turks, Kurds, Persian, Azeris, Balochs, Turkmen and many other ethnci groups. Pakistani normally think that Turkey and Iran are homogenous countries which they are not.
I leave it to the Bangladeshi brothers to reply to your non-sense.
Where did I say that he was a Pakistan?
Re-read my last post, may this time you get the gist of my post.I do not know about Pakistan, but rest of the world would have a problem in celebrating foreign kings who killed their people in millions.
One big lie that pakistanis are fed. British weren't the first one to rule united India, India existed long before they came.
Like I said, you guys do not want to remember your pre Islamic past.
One big lie that pakistanis are fed. British weren't the first one to rule united India, India existed long before they came.
Like I said, you guys do not want to remember your pre Islamic past.
I have replied to you point in detail, but it seems you are mentally not ready to accept the facts that demolish your myths.
One big lie that pakistanis are fed. British weren't the first one to rule united India, India existed long before they came.
Like I said, you guys do not want to remember your pre Islamic past.
Are you intelligent enough to understand the difference between an empire and a nation state. The Muryans ruled over a region which is now known as South Asia, India (Hind) was just a small Persian satrapy that extended from river Jehlum to Chenab (roughly the whole area of today's Punjab of Pakistan) - the united India is just a figment of your own imagination.
You are among those who believe you carry Persian culture and Afghan culture more than that of Indian muslim's (while Pakistan was formed as homeland of Indian Muslims), then what can I say?
Not denying Persian/Afghan cultural influence, but it doesn't surpass Indian influence.
But anyways, to judge it you'd first have to define what is Pakistani culture.
You say:
That proves Pakistan would not have existed without Indian Muslims.
Rest of now-pakistanis would have been living under Afghan rule or Indian rule.
Those muslims who were afraid of Hindu dominance now live in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
British India was part of British empire. They didn't establish what is now India.
Concept of India being a single political entity existed long before british came. It had to happen sooner or later.
Bharata (emperor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
edit- may I suggest you to take this debate to some other place, this isn't the right thread. and most likely we are gonna run in circles
Pakistan was not meant to be the homeland for all the Muslims of British India, even Bengal initially was not supposed to be a part of Pakistan. There was only one idea behind its creation, that the Muslims who form a majority in the north western provinces of British India should join together and form a new country where they will be the master of their own fate.
At last you have accepted the truth but with a little twist - anyway I am not surprised as you have your own agenda. Pakistan has its own age-old cultures and in that respect we hardly need to import anything from Bharat. Pakistan is home of the oldest human settlements and ancient civilizations. Pakistan is not a homogenous country, it has dozens of cultures that sometimes have hardly any resemblance to each other. All these beautiful cultures form the core of Pakistani culture. Punjabi culture, Pashtun culture, Sindhi culture, Baloch culture, Seraiki or Kashmiri cultures are Pakistani culture.
You say:
You can reach to any conclusion to satisfy your ego but I didn't say it anywhere. You still didn't seem to get my point. Half of Pakistan was anyway a part of Afghanistan that was captured by teh British and later annexed to their colony, British India. You should better ponder about you own fate, what would be your status if the British had not come given you a new identity? Would there be any India if the British had not come and unified this vast area into one entity. Any person with mere a little common sense would say, NO.
Spare me with the links of wikipaedia which has been ruined by the RSS gangsters. It seems that editing wiki has become a national hobby in Bharat. Talk about facts, these myths are only created to satisfy the ego of the people like you and your ilk.
Bharthi
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 0
Alienoz_TR
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 4,170
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Just a few bullets, rockets.
No need to fight over it.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
