Ummah Yearnings

[Burger Boy]

Actually the Vedic chronology is from east to west. The oldest books of the Rig Veda are set in the Ganga-Yamuna-Saraswati region (A great book about the Great Book).

The father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, although the grandson of a Gujarati Hindu, was very clear that his civilization was different from and in conflict with the civilization of his ancestors (Two-Nation Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). How can you claim a claim a civilization after you have converted to a conflicting civilization.

And Pakistan was created as a Bengali majority nation, so it is not linked to the Indus Valley per se.

Not to mention the fact that for most of the last 2500 years, the Indus Valley has been ruled from capitals located in the modern-day India like Patna, Thanesar, Delhi and Agra.


Map of Vedic India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period):

I am not saying that Pakistanis cannot be proud of King Porus of the Yaduvanshi clan (i.e. Krishna's clan), or of Taxila. In fact, I would welcome it if Pakistanis go back to the culture of the Vedas, Sanskrit and Buddhism. But the attempt to divorce that history from that of the rest of India is very artificial.

I'm not sure what you mean by conflicting civilization. I'm not saying there haven't been conflicts involving Islam in the history of the Subcontinent, but eventually the many Muslim leaders settled and embraced parts of the the local culture of the people who live in the land that they ruled. To say that the civilization (not the countries) are perpetually conflicting is a Hindu Nationalist/ Hindutva idea.

We often say "history of India, " but the truth is that the vast majority of the history of "India" in human history, there has been no "India" as a separate political entity. For most of history, "India" has been made up of many different states, which had been at times "conflicting with", to use your term, with each other. This was occurring even before Islam was introduced to the region.
Also, for the vast majority of history, the region that is now Pakistan, was made up of a political entity completely separated from what is now India, such as the Indus Valley Civilization and the Durrani Empire, or it has been incorporated to whatever political entity lied to the west during that time, such as the Achaemenid empire, Alexander's Empire, the Sassanid Empire, the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, the Ghaznavids, and the Timurids.

There were only 3 periods where "India" has existed as a single unified state including all or most of the subcontinent:
The Mauryan Empire
The Mughal Empire
The British Empire
and as far as Pakistan is concerned, we might as well include the Ghurids as that included all of Pakistan and most of what is now northern India.

Two out of three of those listed above were times when India was ruled by "foreigners"

Today....everything that is within Pakistan's terroritorial domain is part of its history, as is the case with any other country.

For example Stonehenge is often said to be part of "ancient England" or "ancient Britain" even though the words "England" and "Britain" did not exist when it was built.

 

[justanobserver]

For most of history, "India" has been made up of many different states, which had been at times "conflicting with", to use your term, with each other. This was occurring even before Islam was introduced to the region

Load of crap, same could be said about China or the Greek city states. Boders are always in a state of flux, but a civilization is intact

There were only 3 periods where "India" has existed as a single unified state including all or most of the subcontinent:
The Mauryan Empire
The Mughal Empire
The British Empire

Try these

Pala Empire

Also, for the vast majority of history, the region that is now Pakistan, was made up of a political entity completely separated from what is now India, such as the Indus Valley Civilization and the Durrani Empire,

Nope Pakistan was never a political entity, the Durrani empire is Afghan, NOT Pakistani. The Indus Valley civ died and guess where the people migrated to? ans: The Gangetic Plains

 

[T-Faz]

I wrote a long and well crafted reply to you but my connection dropped as soon as I clicked post. Let me repeat what i wrote briefly again.

Muhammad Bin Qasim... may Allah be pleased with the noble soul is one of the greatest (and youngest) generals of human history... at the age of 17 he led a tiny army of a few thousand annihilated the army of Dahir using tactics and strategy... Not only was he a great leader of the campaign of Sindh but also a brilliant administrator and negotiator...

There has been a lot of exaggeration and glorification of such stories to suit the popular narrative. In reality the locals supported the Arabs when Bin Qassim was the leader, this is one reason why he had success, it was not as if he fought against the entire state with only a few men by his side.

Bin Qassim cannot be proclaimed to be the greatest as he had limited opportunities to show his brilliance and the battles he was involved in had local support.

Such exaggerations and larger than life representation of events does not help the foundations of this nation as truth is the best foundation.

I dont know what books you are reading... but the story about the concubine is so preposterous that even our enemies wont accept it... The reason why the Muslim Army was sent to Sindh was because Hajjaj wanted to secure the trade routes to Sri Lanka whose king had befriended the Muslims and trade had begun flourishing between Muslims and Sri Lanka as well as lands beyond Sri Lanka i.e Indonesia and Malaysia... The reason why the routes had to be secured because Debal pirates used to raid the Muslim trade ships and were a constant annoyance... It was then when some traders were killed and women captured that Hajjaj lost all patience and ordered the Army to move into Sindh... So it was to free those women and to secure the trade routes that Qasim came to Sindh... Not for some bloody concubine... Where did you get that from anyway? Wikipedia?

I am not sure either partial PG rated fairy tales you are reading. Your narrative is supported by the Chach Nama and if we go by this source, you must also admit that Bin Qassim was punished for not sending Dahirs daughter to the Caliph. He was trapped and wrapped in oxen hides which suffocated him, the reality is that Hajjaj was a man of few virtues and many vices, his brutality is known to all and his crazed conquests are part of his want for power.

Your views are presented to show the Arabs as some sort of angels who were invading lands to help its locals when in reality the conquests were for power, monetary and political. The harems existed and it was common practice of these rulers to collect the most beautiful of women from various lands for their pleasure. This is going by the Chach Nama and you must agree that much of what happened is against the teachings of Islam.

The reason why Qasim was killed because one of the sons of Abdul Malik was mad.. .When Sulayman came to power he started killing all those that he did not like... and since Hajjaj was a particularly unpleasant character for most Muslims, Sulayman ordered persecution against all relatives of Hajjaj... He recalled Qasim and killed him... The bravery of Qasim is in the fact that he was warned by his loyal troops that this Caliph is mad and is going to kill you because you are the nephew of Hajjaj and Qasim replied saying that the Caliph has to be obeyed and kept the discipline of chain of command instead of rebelling against the centre (he could ve easily stayed in Sindh... he had great support amongst his own troops as well as natives)...

Hajjaj, Sulayman, these tyrants seem far too insecure and power thirsty, their actions come across as very short sighted and very much against the tenants of Islam. You narrated a part from the Chach Nama above but give a completely different account of how Bin Qassim died. Even then, the actions of Sulayman are very much the problem that plagued the Islamic world, tyrant leaders using Islam for personal and political gains leading to further problems.

The issue of crazy Caliphs is off topic but if it helps, we are in no mood for a Caliphate on the method of Ummayads or Abbasids or even the better than both of them Ottomans... Our model is the Rashideen... that is what we shall follow... History is for learning... we dont learn from our mistakes and moan about useless things... what happened to Qasim should never ever be repeated... Caliphate has to be representative and the Ameer elected by people... no family is to be held above the institutions of Islam... any attempt of the repeat of what Mawviya did to us shall be harshly crushed inshaAllah... because of the stupidity of Sulayman, progress on the eastern front of the Islamic State (as well as the Spanish front) halted...

You have to admit that even with the Rashideen in place, they could not stop the rise of that tyrant Muawiyah. The problems that occurred in the Islamic world from the internal division to the simultaneous caliphates shows that the system was fallible. It must be said that tyrants will rise no matter how much you make sure that such does not occur. The actions of politically motivated governors and caliphs led to the decline of the Islamic world and it is one more thing that points to the eventual decline of all systems.

and Dahir never helped any family of the Prophet... you are talking like the enemies of Pakistan i.e Awami National Party goons...

The forces of Muawiyah were hunting for the family of the Prophet (SAW) and Dahir did provide them shelter. As for ANP, I dont have anything to say about them but at least they tried to patch up with Jinnah and the leaguers unlike the likes of Maududi and the Ahrari's.

On the contrary... The Prophet saw has blessed the Muslim Army that attacks Hind and does Jihad against the Hindus... what are you on about man?

Not my variation, Jihad is only in defence and the last resort, the real jihad is internal and with a pen against opponents.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

I wrote a long and well crafted reply to you but my connection dropped as soon as I clicked post. Let me repeat what i wrote briefly again.



There has been a lot of exaggeration and glorification of such stories to suit the popular narrative. In reality the locals supported the Arabs when Bin Qassim was the leader, this is one reason why he had success, it was not as if he fought against the entire state with only a few men by his side.

Bin Qassim cannot be proclaimed to be the greatest as he had limited opportunities to show his brilliance and the battles he was involved in had local support.

Such exaggerations and larger than life representation of events does not help the foundations of this nation as truth is the best foundation.



I am not sure either partial PG rated fairy tales you are reading. Your narrative is supported by the Chach Nama and if we go by this source, you must also admit that Bin Qassim was punished for not sending Dahirs daughter to the Caliph. He was trapped and wrapped in oxen hides which suffocated him, the reality is that Hajjaj was a man of few virtues and many vices, his brutality is known to all and his crazed conquests are part of his want for power.

Your views are presented to show the Arabs as some sort of angels who were invading lands to help its locals when in reality the conquests were for power, monetary and political. The harems existed and it was common practice of these rulers to collect the most beautiful of women from various lands for their pleasure. This is going by the Chach Nama and you must agree that much of what happened is against the teachings of Islam.



Hajjaj, Sulayman, these tyrants seem far too insecure and power thirsty, their actions come across as very short sighted and very much against the tenants of Islam. You narrated a part from the Chach Nama above but give a completely different account of how Bin Qassim died. Even then, the actions of Sulayman are very much the problem that plagued the Islamic world, tyrant leaders using Islam for personal and political gains leading to further problems.



You have to admit that even with the Rashideen in place, they could not stop the rise of that tyrant Muawiyah. The problems that occurred in the Islamic world from the internal division to the simultaneous caliphates shows that the system was fallible. It must be said that tyrants will rise no matter how much you make sure that such does not occur. The actions of politically motivated governors and caliphs led to the decline of the Islamic world and it is one more thing that points to the eventual decline of all systems.



The forces of Muawiyah were hunting for the family of the Prophet (SAW) and Dahir did provide them shelter. As for ANP, I dont have anything to say about them but at least they tried to patch up with Jinnah and the leaguers unlike the likes of Maududi and the Ahrari's.



Not my variation, Jihad is only in defence and the last resort, the real jihad is internal and with a pen against opponents.

hmmm your last point got my eyes widened

Polite question from you T Faz... Are you an Ahmedi? Or a Ghamdi?

Gnite

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Ask the Pakistanis living in Gulf Countries about how your arab brothers treat them.



The Muslim world is too diverse for a unified ummah... culturally, linguistically, historically.

I already know how they treat them and in case you missed it... I said they are waiting for a bad beating from us

 

[Burger Boy]

Nope Pakistan was never a political entity, the Durrani empire is Afghan, NOT Pakistani. The Indus Valley civ died and guess where the people migrated to? ans: The Gangetic Plains

70% of the Pashtuns (Afghans) in the world are Pakistanis, and Ahmad Shah Durrani was born in what in now Pakistan, so Pakistan can claim the Durrani Empire as part of its history as well.

Most of the Indus Valley Civilization was in what is now Pakistan. Most of the ruins of the IVC are in Pakistan. The Indus Valley Civilization developed irrigation, and some of their irrigation systems are still in use today, so Indus Valley is part of the history of Pakistan as they left an indelible mark on Pakistan.

I'm not saying that Pakistan was a political entity as the Dominion of Pakistan or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan did not exist before 1947, the same way that there was no Republic of India before 1947. I'm saying that whatever the land of Pakistan was before 1947, throughout much of that history, it was separate from what is now India.

 

[T-Faz]

hmmm your last point got my eyes widened

Polite question from you T Faz... Are you an Ahmedi? Or a Ghamdi?

Gnite

I am a Muslim.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

The question: Since secularism implies separation of state and religion, what happens to the Sharia and the people in Pakstan who want to see it implemented (the real version without bearded armed men forcing it on people)?

The law applies to everyone and no-one is exempt, be he a judge, a religious leader or the Caliph himself.
I can not see where state and religion mix in Islam.
Many Muslim scholars don't have the long beard and some only have a moustache. Doesn't this imply that the law and state are different?

As for ownership, we should not shun something out of our text books just because it is unrelated to Islam or pre-dates it.
Someone else is using the culture that originated in Pakistan. Look at Egypt. It has started demanding Pre-Islamic Egyptian artefacts back from countries who plundered it.

Razor... Many scholars dont have a beard because growing a beard is not an obligation in Islam...

A better example for mixing state and Islam is... which I always give is riba free economy... hope that helps the question...

 

[Developereo]

I agree with about 80% of the original article. The part I question is the supposed lack of identity in Pakistan. Most Pakistanis have always felt Pakistan to be their identity -- the supposed confusion only came in with Zia's Islamization and the concept of putting Islam before Pakistan.

As for the other points in the article, if we remember that Pakistan was created as a haven for Muslims to escape religious persecution, it explains quite a few things: firstly, it explains why Pakistanis view the Muslim conquerors as heros (they view the conversion to Islam as a defiant act of liberation from oppressive upper-caste Hindus); it also explains why the IVC history is downplayed because the precursors to Hinduism borrowed a few concepts from IVC, and ancient history is seen as the history of the oppressors. (I am not attacking Hindus here, but a million graves in 1947 are proof enough that the fear was justified.)

Now, as time goes by and the pain of partition dissipates, we can try to dampen our instinctive recoil at certain subjects and try to reclaim our ancient history.

On the subject of the ummah, I think muse and AAtish have made the salient point: our main focus should be on making Pakistan strong, both economically and technologically. For believers in the ummah, this will serve as a focal point around which the ummah can coalesce. For people who don't believe in the ummah, building up Pakistan is its own reward.

Finally, on the subject of Islamic identity for Pakistan, as I noted earlier, the country was formed as a safe haven from religious persecution. Jinnah made it clear that he wanted the same freedom extended to non-Muslim citizens of Pakistan also. While it is perfectly reasonable for the majority Muslims to want a society and culture reflective of Islam, we must remember why Pakistan was created in the first place: let's not do unto others what we ourselves escaped from.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

I am a Muslim.

Thats what Ahmedis say also... be honest T Faz... I asked a yes or no question... I will never hold your belief against you... but I need to know where you are coming from... and what you wrote about jihad is classic qadianism...

 

[T-Faz]

Thats what Ahmedis say also... be honest T Faz... I asked a yes or no question... I will never hold your belief against you... but I need to know where you are coming from... and what you wrote about jihad is classic qadianism...

Does it even matter?

As far as I am concerned, personal religious doctrine always remains a personal matter and I as someone who hails from a family with members belonging to multiple sects have always agreed with the most logical answers.

Your argument is the perfect example of faith/ethnicity based differentiation, let me expand on it, rather than everyone being treated just as a Pakistani, they have to divided into ethnicities and sects for tailored responses and reactions.

In the context of the nation, it does not matter.

 

[Burger Boy]

Thats what Ahmedis say also... be honest T Faz... I asked a yes or no question... I will never hold your belief against you... but I need to know where you are coming from... and what you wrote about jihad is classic qadianism...

I'm assuming you are a Sunni, either Hanafi or Hanbali. .....in that case.....keep in mind that the founder of Pakistan was an Aga Khani Shia, which many members of groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which you have supported in your other posts, consider to be murtids (apostates) or munafiqs (hypocrites).

So how can you be a Pakistani when you agree with the same people who berate the founder of Pakistan?

 

[justanobserver]

70% of the Pashtuns (Afghans) in the world are Pakistanis, and Ahmad Shah Durrani was born in what in now Pakistan, so Pakistan can claim the Durrani Empire as part of its history as well.

Laughable claim, the major ethnic group in Pakistan are Punjabis. Your national language is Urdu (which comes from present day India btw), not Pastho .

Plus their already exists a country called Afghanistan, so no you have no claim to Afghan history

btw it was the Punjabis who kicked out Abdalis out of India, Ranjit Singh's army consisted of Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims

Most of the Indus Valley Civilization was in what is now Pakistan. Most of the ruins of the IVC are in Pakistan. The Indus Valley Civilization developed irrigation, and some of their irrigation systems are still in use today, so Indus Valley is part of the history of Pakistan as they left an indelible mark on Pakistan.

Yet you guys follow none of the Indus Valley culture, their customs their rituals, nothing !

I'm not saying that Pakistan was a political entity as the Dominion of Pakistan or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan did not exist before 1947, the same way that there was no Republic of India before 1947. I'm saying that whatever the land of Pakistan was before 1947, throughout much of that history, it was separate from what is now India.

Political entities did not exist in ancient times, there was no United Nations, India was a civilizational state long before the British came.

I have already show you many large Indian Empires : Mauryan, Pala, Gupta and Mughal (yes it was based in India). Any attempt to equivocate is sheer dishonesty

Pakistan was just an attempt to unite two distinct people (East and West of the Indus) under the banner of Islam. It is completely political with no civilizational precedence

 

[Developereo]

Laughable claim, the major ethnic group in Pakistan are Punjabis. Your national language is Urdu (which comes from present day India btw), not Pastho .

Plus their already exists a country called Afghanistan, so no you have no claim to Afghan history

I believe his point was that it was a Pakhtun empire, and 70% of Pakhtuns live in Pakistan (3x as many as in Afghanistan), so Pakhtun history is Pakistani history.

 

[EjazR]

@Develepereo

Finally, on the subject of Islamic identity for Pakistan, as I noted earlier, the country was formed as a safe haven from religious persecution.

That is incorrect. There was complete freedom of religion for Muslims in India and continues till today including their personal laws.

If it was the case then why did the majority of religious Muslim leaders oppose Pakistan? Wouldn't they be the first to be persecuted if there was religious persecution?

The partition brought untold miseries and widespread killing based on religious identity. But this again was in the aftermath of the political bungling at that time. The massacres both Muslims AND NON-Muslims happened AFTER the decision of partition was made and BECAUSE of it. Not the other way around.

The basis for Jinnah was political and not religious. He used Islam as a political idea and build a nation state on Islam. Unfortunately, he did'nt realize that there is no nationality when it comes to Islam or any religion for that matter. It is a universal religion and can't be confined within borders.

If Jinnah had rallied around the Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun identity as as the basis of nation state, Pakistan might have been much more stable and multicultural. While Jinnah tried to reverse the ideas after Pakistan by asking for a secular state but didnt live long to establish it, Zia went back to the same ideas and pushed Pakistan into that dangerous path of reviving the two nation theory and Pakistan as a the protector of Islam.

Now some consider it fashionable to blame "mullas" for all the misery when the political ideas were fashioned by the elite non-mulla class in Pakistan mainly for their own political interests.