Ummah Yearnings

[SQ8]

Two really curious responses from you Santro -- I'm sure you have given these much thought so please do try to explain it in some detail --

You say the solution to Islamism is more of it?? Please elaborate

and please comment on whether you think there is any merit in pursuing the "material" aspect of culture -- you refer to the Talib types as the dark side of Islam, an incredible statement, you basically are saying that blowing up shrines, schools, making misogyny the law , forcing people on pain of death to do away with their conscience, is Islam -- well, it isn't, it will never be Islam.

All these ills, not in Arabia, but in Pakistan, are due to our inattention to the "material" aspects of culture.

Now about history



Why the problem with India but not the problem with Algeria ka matlab kya or Misr ka matlab kya -- India is heir to multiple heritages, just as Pakistan is -- where did this exclusive business come from??

What do people stand for?? But why this question does not arise in relation tor Iran or Arabia or Turkiye, why just in relation to India?

Now don't get me wrong, India is heir, because we have been persuaded to abandon our heritage -- if the heritage is in Pakistan, it belongs to Pakistan

The solution to Islamism is not more Islamism --- this idea has endangered Islam and Muslims -- the solution to Islamism is to reassert that the world of our material existence is much much more than religious sciences, that the very idea of science negates the exclusivist claim, that the very idea of science suggests an open universe, there is no greater defeat for the closed universe of Islamism.

Muse, perhaps by sticking close to my analogy.. I forgot to add the distinction.
While the likes of TTP may not be Muslims, they use the same sources, the same scripture to incite violence and hatred.. so while they arent exactly a dark side.. they do use dark elements to forward their ideals.

One cannot abandon the material aspects of culture altogether.. it not even the argument, after all .. something must be said to differentiate us from the rest of the Muslim world. However, the material aspect is being targeted by elements in these organizations... they are targeting the culture.
My argument is to highlight how well Islam has worked with this culture.. use this to counter these elements and forge an identity as Pakistani Muslims.
That must be established.. one must separate religion and culture.. as well as celebrate it... is the full Abaya part of our relgion?? or adapted culture?
Is a white Turban part of our religion? or a cultural crossover?
Is the Taliban cause an Islamic one or political one?.. only by making the distinction can one counter such ideals, and you cannot counter such ideals by "Pakistan first" .. groundwork must be laid for that.
How does "islamism" fit into this, you take the ideology presented by the Taliban and you tear it apart in front of them, you show them what the interpretation according to current times, current situations is. You show what the blasphemy laws stand for, how they can apply today or not in the light of the scriptures and research,
By going "Taseer" on the laws.. you incite more and more to join the belligerent side, they will see it, interpret it.. as western attempts to poison Islam.. and join Hizb's and Jamaats that are based on mis-interpretation..
Salman taseer .. a public man whose personal exploits were well known to the public(as are of multiple western officials).. is not the ideal spokesperson to ratify the blasphemy laws.. is he? I wont give a hoot to what he says about my religion... or take him seriously.
However, if a known scholar.. or group of scholars takes that step.. I might listen.
Similarly.. the ideaology that the Taliban present is based on misinterpretations of predictions in islamic scriptures.
A secular view on it will not convince 70% of the target audience with conviction that the TTP and their likes are wrong... bring in basic human rights,civility as the argument and ill bet you twenty grand they'll counter it with equalling it to western ideals.. and showing the Deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.. as the leverage to such secular values..
They need to see people who know the scriptures, understand them well to denounce it publically and present a better alternative.
They need to be told that right now it is the time to focus on ourselves and improve our way of life. protect ourselves from these people first.. before attempting to sort out external threats... and more importantly.. why all of the former takes precedence over other pending issues.
A person presenting only secular ideals will not succeed with the Pakistan after Zia..

Your views are based on a Pakistani population that takes religion at face value.. which is not the case..
And whilst I dont support political Islam .. and find in no way that its removal will effect my personal views, however..
I do support Politics and diplomacy supporting causes close to a Muslim's heart... why I say that; the situation in Burma, while saddening does not get my attention as does the situation in Palestine.
For all its ambiguity .. the cause of Palestine is close to my heart, I do feel offended by the likes of Hirsi and Rushdie...and whilst these should be political issues.. they are now inherently attached to Islam.
So if a voter base that feels offended by such wishes to express it. should it not turn to its leaders to do so??
Will it be wrong for the GoP to protest an incursion into Gaza?.. or protest a book or statement that insults 80% of its population.. and they wish for it to be voiced?

The distinction has to be made as to where the buck stops, a political party coming in and enticing voters by spewing hatred must be stopped.
However.. for a government to keep quiet when the religion of a majority of the state is insulted is also wrong.
Parties should come in with a national agenda... with secular topics as their voter call. However, they cannot abandon the need to cater for the religion of any person of the state. Religion must not be part of the state.. but the majority's religion will continue to play a role in how the state functions.

 

[AAtish]

I might be taken as a stupid in mentioning this, but our problem has always been looking for an own-able heritage. Pakistan came into being on “do qaomi nazriya” but after becoming an independent country it was still distributed logically into “do qaomi nazriya”.

One side puts its heritage to Islamic lineage and other deems it towards IVC or such. Both sides are so hell bent in proving it that in the process they have forgotten their own identity.

Just a question.. Why not just accept that we are majority Muslim country and own whatever is in the legal boundaries of Pakistan as our past heritage. (including Muslim and non-Muslim history) and then forget about it and start developing our country.

For those “ummah” lovers, here is a prediction for you. The moment you become more developed and well-off than your Arab, Turks and Persian counterparts, you won’t need them to “accept” you as “ummah”, they will “come to you” to join.

So forget about begging and crying.. Work for the betterment of your own country..

Just my two cents..

 

[Vinod2070]

Now, I am not sure why the justification for the country's existence should come in the way of acknowledging the history and inheritance objectively.

The biggest justification of Pakistan is that it exists and its people want it to exist!

It doesn't depend on whether the TNT was correct or not, whether the 1971 events validated it or not, what does India having the same number of Muslims mean to it and so on.

TNT was used to justify the event of partition and that event is now done and over with.

There should be no problem in accepting that pre 1947 we shared a large part of our history and that history didn't necessarily respect the Radcliffe or Durand lines or the LOC at all times.

 

[Zarvan]

Even after the publishing of what every Pakistani already knew, namely that the Saudi and Emerati fund Madaress liked to particular ideologies and therefore terrorism in Pakistan --- Some in Pakistan, yearn to be united with the arbi - what explains this ??


We dont need SECULAR #### to tell us about UMMAH their is no concept of countries but their is concept of UMMAH Muslim of whole world are part of UMMAH as told by HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and we will remain committed to it and any one who speaks against it will face the wrath


Yearning for a Muslim ummah
Syed Kamran Hashmi


The nostalgia of an exalted and united Muslim ummah (nation) is responsible for the identity crisis among Pakistanis, which impedes the development of strong nationalism. Its roots can be traced to the Two-Nation theory, the glimpses of which can be witnessed in the writings of Allama Iqbal. The longing for compassionate brotherhood among Muslims creates confusion in the minds of Pakistanis when they suffer humiliation and exploitation at the hands of their Muslim brothers in Arab countries.

The condescending attitude of Arabs towards Muslims of non-Arab origin should not surprise us. Pakistanis living in the Middle Eastern countries have endured this derogatory and discriminatory behaviour for decades now. The immigration policy, which prohibits the extension of any property or citizenship rights to the foreigners working in these states, is also a reflection of their racial bias against the Muslims of the subcontinent. On the contrary, their attitude is very respectful, courteous and generous when it comes to the Caucasians of the US or any of the Western European countries. This discrimination can also be discerned in the huge salary difference between Americans or Europeans and Pakistanis or Indians with equal levels of qualification and experience.

The concept of racial supremacy also manifests itself in their official documents, where Arabs allegedly identify themselves as whites while we mark our ethnicity as Asians. Their assumptions in religious matters are also startling, as some Arabs believe that understanding of the Arabic language is a prerequisite to comprehending the concepts of Islam completely. In some extreme cases, it is believed that the Divine pardon can only be bestowed upon Arabic-speaking Muslims.

The Two-Nation theory identifies Muslims of the subcontinent on the basis of their faith instead of their association with the homeland. This leads them to continue to yearn for a larger, more powerful and united Muslim ummah in the world. This ideology of pan-Islamism, which later on gave rise to the ‘Ideology of Pakistan’, had a tremendous role in carving out a separate homeland but failed to unite the Pakistanis to achieve the objectives of independence. Even after 64 years, the Pakistani population, though predominantly Muslim, remains deeply fragmented on regional, ethnic and linguistic bases.

It is the religious identification through the Two-Nation theory that has led us to regard people of Arab and Persian origin as our heroes. We praise the efforts of these military commanders for their services to Islam but ignore the fact that they invaded our homeland. The list of such characters includes the likes of Mahmud Ghaznavi, Muhammad bin Qasim, Zaheeruddin Babar, who are revered celebrities of Pakistanis. At the same time, we blatantly show animosity and hostility towards local commanders due to their religious faith even if they stood up against the invading armies to protect the homeland. In our search for faith-based inspiration, we also remain oblivious as a nation of the services of King Porus who stood up against Alexander the Great.

A vast majority of Pakistani Muslims do not have an Arab, Turkish or Persian descent; they are natives of this land. Yet, after converting to Islam, they disowned their cultural heritage. They, instead, took pride in becoming the colonies of Arabs and Turks in the name of Islam and considered them as their saviours. On the other hand, even though the foreign rulers shared the same religion with us, they did not treat the converted Indian Muslims with the same honour and dignity as they treated their fellow countrymen. Razia Sultan is a great example. She had a Turk heritage and had to lose the crown as a punishment for her transgression when she wanted to install local Muslims in high official positions.

Our faith should act as a stimulus, not an obstacle, for the emergence of our national identity like it does for Iranians, Egyptians and Turks. These nations, while sticking to their religion, have not compromised on their national heritage. Even after the Islamic revolution in Iran, the Iranians preserved and boast of their history and pre-Islamic Persian civilisation. They are neither hesitant nor ashamed of their heritage before the dawn of Islam. The same goes for the Egyptians; they are predominantly Muslim but are proud of their history, which includes the pharaohs and their structural monuments like the pyramids and the Sphinx.

Historically, Muslims have always been divided into various factions and the propensity of a religion to ignite sectarianism, which further fragments society, can be detrimental to the future prospects of any country. We will have to join hands as one nation and give up our infatuation with a united ummah for a more realistic and pragmatic goal of a united Pakistan. We need to grow out of our own dark ages through building a strong Pakistan as our sole identity.

The writer is a freelance columnist residing in the US. He can be reached at skhashmi@yahoo.com

We dont need SECULAR #### to tell us about UMMAH their is no concept of countries but their is concept of UMMAH Muslim of whole world are part of UMMAH as told by HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and we will remain committed to it and any one who speaks against it will face the wrath

 

[Zarvan]

Exactly this. Pakistanis should take pride in Indus Valley Cilvization (the world's oldest, richest civlization). We should take pride in Vedic civlization.

We should take pride in our King Porus whom Alexander the great fought his most difficult battle with, Alexander was almost defeated by King Porus. Some historians even claim Alexander was deafeated in Pakistan by King Porus.

History shows the Arabs and Mongols were defeated in Pakistan.

We should take pride in the fact the world's first university was developed in Pakistan, Taxila.

Pakistanis should stop allowing Indians to take credit for the achievements of Pakistani's ancestors. The reason Indian can easily lay claim of Pakistani heritage is due to Pakistani's ignorance.

Look how defensive Egyptians are towards those Afro-centrists who have the nerve to claim the Egyptian history and civlization as their own. Pakistanis must defend their heritage and history against these Indo-centrists in the same manner as the Egyptians.

Though I think this article makes the situation sound alot worse than it actually is. If you search online, you will find hundreds of Bloggs and articles written by Pakistanis taking pride in their native history and heritage.

we dont take pride in KUFAR and being its part in any part of our life thats now what Islam teaches this can be the concept of America and western forces but is not our path

 

[muse]

Muse, perhaps by sticking close to my analogy.. I forgot to add the distinction.
While the likes of TTP may not be Muslims, they use the same sources, the same scripture to incite violence and hatred.. so while they arent exactly a dark side.. they do use dark elements to forward their ideals.

One cannot abandon the material aspects of culture altogether.. it not even the argument, after all .. something must be said to differentiate us from the rest of the Muslim world. However, the material aspect is being targeted by elements in these organizations... they are targeting the culture.
My argument is to highlight how well Islam has worked with this culture.. use this to counter these elements and forge an identity as Pakistani Muslims.
That must be established.. one must separate religion and culture.. as well as celebrate it... is the full Abaya part of our relgion?? or adapted culture?
Is a white Turban part of our religion? or a cultural crossover?
Is the Taliban cause an Islamic one or political one?.. only by making the distinction can one counter such ideals, and you cannot counter such ideals by "Pakistan first" .. groundwork must be laid for that.
How does "islamism" fit into this, you take the ideology presented by the Taliban and you tear it apart in front of them, you show them what the interpretation according to current times, current situations is. You show what the blasphemy laws stand for, how they can apply today or not in the light of the scriptures and research,
By going "Taseer" on the laws.. you incite more and more to join the belligerent side, they will see it, interpret it.. as western attempts to poison Islam.. and join Hizb's and Jamaats that are based on mis-interpretation..
Salman taseer .. a public man whose personal exploits were well known to the public(as are of multiple western officials).. is not the ideal spokesperson to ratify the blasphemy laws.. is he? I wont give a hoot to what he says about my religion... or take him seriously.
However, if a known scholar.. or group of scholars takes that step.. I might listen.
Similarly.. the ideaology that the Taliban present is based on misinterpretations of predictions in islamic scriptures.
A secular view on it will not convince 70% of the target audience with conviction that the TTP and their likes are wrong... bring in basic human rights,civility as the argument and ill bet you twenty grand they'll counter it with equalling it to western ideals.. and showing the Deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.. as the leverage to such secular values..
They need to see people who know the scriptures, understand them well to denounce it publically and present a better alternative.
They need to be told that right now it is the time to focus on ourselves and improve our way of life. protect ourselves from these people first.. before attempting to sort out external threats... and more importantly.. why all of the former takes precedence over other pending issues.
A person presenting only secular ideals will not succeed with the Pakistan after Zia..

Your views are based on a Pakistani population that takes religion at face value.. which is not the case..
And whilst I dont support political Islam .. and find in no way that its removal will effect my personal views, however..
I do support Politics and diplomacy supporting causes close to a Muslim's heart... why I say that; the situation in Burma, while saddening does not get my attention as does the situation in Palestine.
For all its ambiguity .. the cause of Palestine is close to my heart, I do feel offended by the likes of Hirsi and Rushdie...and whilst these should be political issues.. they are now inherently attached to Islam.
So if a voter base that feels offended by such wishes to express it. should it not turn to its leaders to do so??
Will it be wrong for the GoP to protest an incursion into Gaza?.. or protest a book or statement that insults 80% of its population.. and they wish for it to be voiced?

The distinction has to be made as to where the buck stops, a political party coming in and enticing voters by spewing hatred must be stopped.
However.. for a government to keep quiet when the religion of a majority of the state is insulted is also wrong.
Parties should come in with a national agenda... with secular topics as their voter call. However, they cannot abandon the need to cater for the religion of any person of the state. Religion must not be part of the state.. but the majority's religion will continue to play a role in how the state functions.

Absolutely stunning to read - Yes, I understand and I think you have articulated it just right - but I must tell you that while I was once convinced that if Shari'ah can be liberated and the epistemological understand of the nature or knowledge become the guiding principle in the formulation and refinement of Shari'ah, that we may come to the stage that Muslim and Modernity is reconciled -- but the reality is, and I say this to you as someone with some experience in trying to effect such a understanding, that it is a, at present, futile pursuit, matching the money of the Wahabi is not possible and even when it is, bridging the sectarian divide is not possible -- not possible.

Now, my hope is on material achievement -- This is the great truth to me, because success, read material achievement, is a reflection, an affirmation that the yearning has been satisfied, more than less.

 

[Nothing]

Hi Muse , T-Faz and Santro ,
After long time I got some thing very nice to read on this thread which is very much true. and something witch really don't need power or money to implement.
Just started painting picture of Karachi and Sindh where people will take pride in Indus civilization and foreigners will come to learn more about that.

People outside world have very different idea about Pakistan but as you told some of the great things in world started there at riverbed of Sindhu ..

What I know about our neighbor is what I read here and what I learnt from elders of mine who were there in Sindh and Karachi before 1947 ..
I would like to read this kind of thread more and more ..
Even if 100 people will change their thinking after reading this .. then I think this forum achieved lot ..

 

[Ganga]

The main article points out that the people of Pakistan must take pride in the fact that Porus stopped Alexander.This is good and it should happen.The question is how many of these people are willing to show their respects to a Hindu king?many reports suggest that school kids as young as 10 years old get brainwashed that the Hindus are cruel people.Will majority of Pakistanis respect Ashoka who ruled from Herat in Afghanistan to Orrisa in eastern India.After all he was the governor of Taxila before he became emperor .Unless and until the hate which is propagated by textbooks by distorting history is stopped nothing will change.Many in Pakistan are not aware about the time before the arrival of the Arabs in the 8th century.If you ask a random guy on the street who was kaniskha he will probably not know.But if you ask him about Qasim he will know everything.

 

[Zarvan]

These Ummah types are the people who IMHO are most dumbest people on this planet.I think they will be in for a huge shocker if they try to explain this plan to Iranis or Arbis.Will get a huge kick on their backside by Iranis or Arbis.

UMMAH is the main concept of ISLAM so before speaking against it first know who gave it to MUSLIMS HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and we will not tolerate any about UMMAH

 

[Burger Boy]

UMMAH is the main concept of ISLAM so before speaking against it first know who gave it to MUSLIMS HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW and we will not tolerate any about UMMAH

Most of the supporters of the "ummah" are hypocrites.

I am not against ummah in the sense that I would like to see Muslims stop fighting each other. But there are many sects of Islam and Sunni and Shia as well as groups within those two believe that their way is right and that everyone else it a murtid or a munafiq. Some of them have opprobrium to the Sufis even though many of the polymaths of the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" were Sufis. They also encourage the persecution or Ahmadis even though many of them contributed to Pakistan's founding, or at the very least look the other way, when a crime against them happens.

Until Muslims learn to be more tolerant of other sects and other religions, and stop killing other people for having different view than them, the "ummah" is nothing but a word and means nothing.

 

[Zarvan]

Most of the supporters of the "ummah" are hypocrites.

I am not against ummah in the sense that I would like to see Muslims stop fighting each other. But there are many sects of Islam and Sunni and Shia as well as groups within those two believe that their way is right and that everyone else it a murtid or a munafiq. Some of them have opprobrium to the Sufis even though many of the polymaths of the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" were Sufis. They also encourage the persecution or Ahmadis even though many of them contributed to Pakistan's founding, or at the very least look the other way, when a crime against them happens.

Until Muslims learn to be more tolerant of other sects and other religions, and stop killing other people for having different view than them, the "ummah" is nothing but a word and means nothing.

UMMAH is everthing and means every thing its not just a word which America and its servants are trying their best it to portray and most people of sects are not fighting each other and Ahmedies are not Muslims but they cant be executed

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

Most of the supporters of the "ummah" are hypocrites.

I am not against ummah in the sense that I would like to see Muslims stop fighting each other. But there are many sects of Islam and Sunni and Shia as well as groups within those two believe that their way is right and that everyone else it a murtid or a munafiq. Some of them have opprobrium to the Sufis even though many of the polymaths of the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" were Sufis. They also encourage the persecution or Ahmadis even though many of them contributed to Pakistan's founding, or at the very least look the other way, when a crime against them happens.

Until Muslims learn to be more tolerant of other sects and other religions, and stop killing other people for having different view than them, the "ummah" is nothing but a word and means nothing.

and most supporters of secularism are traitors

 

[Burger Boy]

The Two-Nation theory identifies Muslims of the subcontinent on the basis of their faith instead of their association with the homeland. This leads them to continue to yearn for a larger, more powerful and united Muslim ummah in the world. This ideology of pan-Islamism, which later on gave rise to the ‘Ideology of Pakistan’, had a tremendous role in carving out a separate homeland but failed to unite the Pakistanis to achieve the objectives of independence. Even after 64 years, the Pakistani population, though predominantly Muslim, remains deeply fragmented on regional, ethnic and linguistic bases.

I agree with the author on just about everything except this part. I do not believe that two-nation theory can be associated with what we today would call "Islamism".

Islamism of today is based upon the Muslim brotherhood and the groups that grew out of it. The Muslim Brotherhood started in the 1920s in Egypt but it did not have any prominence until the 1950s, well after Pakistan was founded, and the Muslim Brotherhood had nothing to do with Pakistan during that time.

Some people say that Iqbal was an Islamist. I don't really know much about the subject, but I suppose he may've been, but keep in mind that Iqbal only supported the creation of a separate state for Muslims after he went to Europe to be educated. Before this, he seemed to have supported a united India. This could be seen in his poem "sare jahan se acha hamara hindustan. Keep in mind that Iqbal was also greatly influence by European Philosophers as well, so he wasn't like people who we normally think of as Islamists who yell "kufr" at any philosophy or any thinking that they don't agree with.

Also, Jamaat-e-Islami was founded in the 1930s, and they were the real islamists of the subcontinent and they opposed the creation of Pakistan at the time.

In my opinion, the ideology of Pakistan is not Islam perse, but Muslim nationalism, or that the Muslims have a different culture and different history than the rest of the subcontinent. I do not think this in it and of itself is an obstruction to tolerance, because Jinnah's August 11th speech indicates he wanted tolerance for religious minorities, and that what religion one belonged to had nothing to do with the business of the state. This nationalism of Pakistan certainly has a religious aspect I don't think that this Muslim nationalism excludes the religious minorities of Pakistan.

This isn't related to Pakistan, but I was recently reading one of Edward Said's books, and in one of them he said that "Islam is an integral part of our history, something all Palestinians take pride in" (I don' t know if this was the exact quote but it was something like this). In case you don't know, Edward Said was a Christian Palestinian, but from this statement you can see that he still took some sort of pride in Islam, or if not Islam, than some identity that influenced by Islam or Muslim in nature. I don't know too much about the minorities of Pakistan, as I have never lived in Pakistan, but I would hope that they have an identity as a Pakistani which means that in some way they would have appreciation for the ideology of Pakistan and its founders; however, in order to make it easier for the minorities of Pakistan to do this, Pakistan must be more tolerant of its minorities and get rid of laws that persecute them such as the blasphemy law, and get rid of the requirement to be a Muslim to hold office of President or Prime Minister..

Don't get me wrong however, though I do believe that part of....most of Pakistan's history is of people who are Muslims, I do not think that Pakistan should only take pride in it's Muslim history, but it should also take pride in its pre-Islamic history such as the Indus Valley Civilization, ancient Punjab and Sindh, and the Persian Empires which were all situated in what is now Pakistan.

However, Pakistan has evolved in many different directions since it was founded. When Ayub Khan was in power, Pakistan was a quasi-secular state. When Zia-ul-Haq was in power, Pakistan was on the verge of becoming a theocracy. Strides toward Islamism began after the 1971 war, when Islam became the state religion of Pakistan according to the newly drafted 1973 constitution, the prohibition of alcohol and declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Ideallly I would like Pakistan to be a state of Muslims rather than a Muslim State.


my 2 cents.....

 

[Burger Boy]

UMMAH is everthing and means every thing its not just a word which America and its servants are trying their best it to portray and most people of sects are not fighting each other and Ahmedies are not Muslims but they cant be executed

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------


and most supporters of secularism are traitors

Secularism just mean that the government should not controlled by theocrats, and that religious minorities are to have the same rights as any other citizens, and are to be treated with respect and equal rights.

How does supporting that make secularists traitors?

 

[Zarvan]

Secularism just mean that the government should not controlled by theocrats, and that religious minorities are to have the same rights as any other citizens, and are to be treated with respect and equal rights.

How does supporting that make secularists traitors?

because their is no concept of Secularism in Islam so either you are with Islam or you are against it their because Secularism is kufr

 

[Truth Teller]

The main article points out that the people of Pakistan must take pride in the fact that Porus stopped Alexander.This is good and it should happen.The question is how many of these people are willing to show their respects to a Hindu king?many reports suggest that school kids as young as 10 years old get brainwashed that the Hindus are cruel people.Will majority of Pakistanis respect Ashoka who ruled from Herat in Afghanistan to Orrisa in eastern India.After all he was the governor of Taxila before he became emperor .Unless and until the hate which is propagated by textbooks by distorting history is stopped nothing will change.Many in Pakistan are not aware about the time before the arrival of the Arabs in the 8th century.If you ask a random guy on the street who was kaniskha he will probably not know.But if you ask him about Qasim he will know everything.

The main article points out that the people of Pakistan must take pride in the fact that Porus stopped Alexander.This is good and it should happen.The question is how many of these people are willing to show their respects to a Hindu king?many reports suggest that school kids as young as 10 years old get brainwashed that the Hindus are cruel people.Will majority of Pakistanis respect Ashoka who ruled from Herat in Afghanistan to Orrisa in eastern India.After all he was the governor of Taxila before he became emperor .Unless and until the hate which is propagated by textbooks by distorting history is stopped nothing will change.Many in Pakistan are not aware about the time before the arrival of the Arabs in the 8th century.If you ask a random guy on the street who was kaniskha he will probably not know.But if you ask him about Qasim he will know everything.

Wheres the proof King Porus was a hindu? There is no proof he was a hindu. Stop claiming as if everything belongs to hindus.

We want Pakistanis to take pride in their actual history and civlization. We dont want your hindutva version of history. So no thank you. Keep your advice to yourself.