Ummah Yearnings

[TheStrantrunCurve]

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.

Not only 70% of Pakhtuns live in Pakistan, Pakistan is the birthplace of pushtuns, Suleiman Mountains ranges are said to be birth place of pushtuns.

Punjabi Muslims and Balochs helped Abdali many times; Punjabi Muslims who were hostile to Sikhs always helped Abdali in his invasion. Around half of the army which defeated Maratha army came from the region which today is Pakistan and also some came from bharat.
Don’t get fooled by these hindoo fanatics, Bhartis are cheats and thieves they have hijacked our heritage and claim it is as their own. Today they are claiming Urdu originated in bharat tomorrow they will say pushto and balochi originated in bharat. Bhartis are desperately trying to convince us that their Dravidian empires of gupta, pala, dharamsala ruled Pakistan just to convince us that akhand bharat had already existed before and bhartis and Pakistanis are same race.

I keep repeating this again and again, Bharti history is fake and fraudulent manufactured by East India company officers. Bharat’s territorial and political context started with Muslims invasion. Bharat has never been a unified entity except when it was ruled by foreigners.
This is all what their sad history all about, invasion and foreign rule.

It has always been Pakistani or Pakistan based Kingdoms who have ruled Bharat not the other way around.
Not a single Bharti has ever ruled Pakistan/Indus Valley; Asoka is fake created by British to give Hindus their hero who didn’t have any indigenous emperor, who could unite Bharat, Not a single archaeological relic of Asoka has been found at Patna, said to be his capital.

There are also no relics of Chandragupta or the Nandas at Patna.

All this nonsense about Gupta rule and Pala empire rule over Pakistan have been rejected by Pakistani historian, No such archaeological evidence have been found in Pakistan which proves Gupta and Pala rule.

Bharat with no culture, no history and no language (Persian language was "lingua franca" in India of elites for many centuries, until British colonization and now these people are speaking Pakistani Urdu language claiming to be originated in Bharat, what a joke, Urdu a bharati language)

The origin of Urdu language is older than arrival of mughals. Urdu originated during Ghaznavid Empire in its second capital Lahore. The earliest literary remains of Urdu are the poems of Massod Saad of Lahore of around 10th century.

Muslim captured Delhi 2 centuries later when in 12 Th century when Urdu was brought to Delhi by Muslim invaders.

The development of Urdu in Bharat was helped by the conquest of the area. It is not a bharti language, it’s a Pakistani language and it originated here, it wasn't brought here by invaders.

I am tired of this bharati thuggery why dont they take pride in speaking their hindi language, oh i forgot sanskrit is also an immigrant language which came to bharat from indus valley just like urdu

 

[Developereo]

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?

Let's not get into a discussion of Muslims rights in India. Certainly they enjoy much freedoms, but there has always been a constituency in India that has never lived down the Muslim invasion of India, and there was every indication that they were eager to settle scores as soon as the British left. In any case, the point is that enough people believed in the need for separation to make it a reality.

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.

That's the official line, but it is illogical to believe that all this animosity just sprouted out of the blue at the drop of a hat. The hatred had been there all along -- the partition merely gave an outpouring to the innate hostilities.

Also, it is fashionable to say that the hatred went both says, but the minority always pays the higher price. In the US, the racial animosity between whites and blacks goes both ways, but it is the white majority which is overwhelmingly in power and which has the greater burden to safeguard the rights of other groups.

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.

Jinnah's reasoning and justifications were similar to the creation of Israel. He felt that Muslims would have a greater chance of success if they were freed from institutionalized discrimination in India. He tried to get some constitutional guarantees to safeguard Muslim rights but, in the face of Nehru and others, eventually opted for separation.

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.

There is world of difference between being a haven for Muslims, which Pakistan was intended to be, and an Islamic theocracy which the Islamists are proposing.

 

[Developereo]

these hindoo fanatics

Let's keep it civil.

You seem to have a lot of historical knowledge. It would be a shame if it gets skipped over because of the emotional language.

 

[Zarvan]

Let's keep it civil.

You seem to have a lot of historical knowledge. It would be a shame if it gets skipped over because of the emotional language.

UMMAH is the basic concept of Islam and who ever will try to reject it will face sever consequences but this concept will move ahead and muslim will live under on government sooner or later

 

[Leader]

Not only 70% of Pakhtuns live in Pakistan, Pakistan is the birthplace of pushtuns, Suleiman Mountains ranges are said to be birth place of pushtuns.

Punjabi Muslims and Balochs helped Abdali many times; Punjabi Muslims who were hostile to Sikhs always helped Abdali in his invasion. Around half of the army which defeated Maratha army came from the region which today is Pakistan and also some came from bharat.
Don’t get fooled by these hindoo fanatics, Bhartis are cheats and thieves they have hijacked our heritage and claim it is as their own. Today they are claiming Urdu originated in bharat tomorrow they will say pushto and balochi originated in bharat. Bhartis are desperately trying to convince us that their Dravidian empires of gupta, pala, dharamsala ruled Pakistan just to convince us that akhand bharat had already existed before and bhartis and Pakistanis are same race.

I keep repeating this again and again, Bharti history is fake and fraudulent manufactured by East India company officers. Bharat’s territorial and political context started with Muslims invasion. Bharat has never been a unified entity except when it was ruled by foreigners.
This is all what their sad history all about, invasion and foreign rule.

It has always been Pakistani or Pakistan based Kingdoms who have ruled Bharat not the other way around.
Not a single Bharti has ever ruled Pakistan/Indus Valley; Asoka is fake created by British to give Hindus their hero who didn’t have any indigenous emperor, who could unite Bharat, Not a single archaeological relic of Asoka has been found at Patna, said to be his capital.

There are also no relics of Chandragupta or the Nandas at Patna.

All this nonsense about Gupta rule and Pala empire rule over Pakistan have been rejected by Pakistani historian, No such archaeological evidence have been found in Pakistan which proves Gupta and Pala rule.

Bharat with no culture, no history and no language (Persian language was "lingua franca" in India of elites for many centuries, until British colonization and now these people are speaking Pakistani Urdu language claiming to be originated in Bharat, what a joke, Urdu a bharati language)

The origin of Urdu language is older than arrival of mughals. Urdu originated during Ghaznavid Empire in its second capital Lahore. The earliest literary remains of Urdu are the poems of Massod Saad of Lahore of around 10th century.

Muslim captured Delhi 2 centuries later when in 12 Th century when Urdu was brought to Delhi by Muslim invaders.

The development of Urdu in Bharat was helped by the conquest of the area. It is not a bharti language, it’s a Pakistani language and it originated here, it wasn't brought here by invaders.

I am tired of this bharati thuggery why dont they take pride in speaking their hindi language, oh i forgot sanskrit is also an immigrant language which came to bharat from indus valley just like urdu

you will make bharties weep..................

 

[Rig Vedic]

The development of Urdu in Bharat was helped by the conquest of the area. It is not a bharti language, it’s a Pakistani language and it originated here, it wasn't brought here by invaders.

I am tired of this bharati thuggery why dont they take pride in speaking their hindi language, oh i forgot sanskrit is also an immigrant language which came to bharat from indus valley just like urdu

Urdu is based on Khadi Boli, which is a pre-Islamic variant of Prakrit spoken in the Delhi & North-West UP region.

And you are equally wrong about Sanskrit.

But if Pakistanis actually want to learn Sanskrit, have it taught as a subject in schools, learn about the Vedas and Buddhism, they are welcome. Regrettably, most Pakistanis know very little about the pre-Islamic culture of their land.

That is a consequence of the mind-set which made Jinnah divorce himself and put himself in conflict with the civilization of his ancestors.

 

[Roby]

you will make bharties weep..................

No.He makes us sympathetic.

 

[punit]

Don’t get fooled by these hindoo fanatics, Bhartis are cheats and thieves they have hijacked our heritage and claim it is as their own. Today they are claiming Urdu originated in bharat tomorrow they will say pushto and balochi originated in bharat. Bhartis are desperately trying to convince us that their Dravidian empires of gupta, pala, dharamsala ruled Pakistan just to convince us that akhand bharat had already existed before and bhartis and Pakistanis are same race.

That's a damn fine weed you're smoking"

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

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.

Oh but it does matter... because if the answer is a yes then your opinions on Islam and Islamic History weigh less than zero on any scale... since you then belong to a minority with some very different beliefs... to the extent that one of them disqualifies Ahmedis from being called Muslims even... Furthermore the approach we take with Ahmedis is nt that of discussion and arguments... rather we say for you your religion and for us ours... Ahmedis in the Islamic State live as citizens with equal rights but still are considered as Dhimmis and Muslims dont take history lessons from them...

So it does matter my dear...

The British creation of Ahmedism has been the worst Fitnah that the subcontinent Muslims have faced...

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

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?

A more sensible question on Hizb ut Tahrir... The issue of Quaid e Azam is nt an unchanging belief of Hizb ut Tahrir... The Hizb does not even comment on individuals that much... rather it is the policies that are analyzed and discussed... In that context the Hizb stands against all nationalism... and the Pakistan that we know of today is to expand its borders beyond nationalist divide in the near future...

Furthermore the Hizbi is a nonsectarian party... it has Shia members also... and Quaid e Azam bothered little with religion... He was an educated Lawyer who was a politician first... and a lot of his concepts were shaped due to the Indian attitude towards Muslims otherwise he was always in favor of a united India... so to say that the Hizb criticizes Jinnah due to him being Agha Khani is ludicrous... the criticism could be if Jinnah seemed to support secularism... not coz Jinnah was a Shia... thats nonsense...

and yes do stick to the topic... If you have questions on the Hizb feel free to PM me... The problems with the Ummah are not a Hizb monopoly... I could equally stand as an ordinary Muslim and accuse those who try to divide Muslims by attacking the concept of Ummah as the worst traitors and snakes of our sleeves...

 

[Vinod2070]

This pathological hatred that some people display about Bharat is "self loathing" in my opinion.

As this thread should primarily remain true to its topic, I won't give details of the amazing achievements of Indian civilization in diverse fields, from North to South and East to West. Anyone interested can get an amazingly detailed account from one unbiased source "The History of Civilization" which is an outcome of a lifetime of scholarship by a person who is called one of the most influential in the world.

I can share a soft copy with anyone interested, just PM me with your email.

The Indian civilization has been based primarily in the areas of modern India for much of history. Even in our epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata, the modern areas of Pakistan play an insignificant part. It was mostly a neglected border region. May be the neglect was a mistake as it resulted in pain for India many times.

Yes, try and fashion a Pakistani identity by all means. It can only work if it is based on facts and rationality, not denial and hatred.

A negative identity can never keep a nation united in the long term.

 

[Vinod2070]

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.)

It does provide a Pakistani view and Indian view is diametrically opposite about the conversions and the reasons for the same.

That is a problem. I believe this kind of history glosses over what is uncomfortable and tries to find scapegoats for what happened.

Nowhere have people given up an established belief system peacefully to accept an alien system en masse and peacefully. They always try to reform what is not working.

The Europeans suffered through centuries of Church atrocities and finally found a system that worked for them.

The same is true even for Muslims. They are struggling with internal contradictions and violence and they are trying to find what can work for them. We see it happening on this forum itself.

Looking dispassionately at the history of the Islamic expansion from the Maghreb to Pakistan would give a clue as to what really happened. Not reading one sided account of the victors.

 

[T-Faz]

Oh but it does matter... because if the answer is a yes then your opinions on Islam and Islamic History weigh less than zero on any scale... since you then belong to a minority with some very different beliefs... to the extent that one of them disqualifies Ahmedis from being called Muslims even... Furthermore the approach we take with Ahmedis is nt that of discussion and arguments... rather we say for you your religion and for us ours... Ahmedis in the Islamic State live as citizens with equal rights but still are considered as Dhimmis and Muslims dont take history lessons from them...

So it does matter my dear...

The British creation of Ahmedism has been the worst Fitnah that the subcontinent Muslims have faced...

Woah there cowboy, how have the British been able to create so much around the world and not keep their empire going?

Vinod420 over there tells me that Jinnah and the Muslim League were a British creation, hence they created Pakistan, your Islamist buddies agree with this, the Fakir of Ipi called the Muslim League 'a bastion of qadianism'. Then there is your trainee MythBuster who says that Jinnah was a freemason and a British agent, Jinnah being an Agha Khani, a freemason cult and in conjuction with Ahmadi's, another British creation, they created Pakistan.

All these conspiracies, grand stories of agents and freemasons, I thought you would be more factual with your posts. There are people who say the Wahabi's are a British creation, their partnership with the British is known and so are certain incidents where the Sauds and the Wahabi's sat with the westerners plotting against the Ottomon empire. Don't forget the Deobandi's and their first building being initiated by the British.

The British turned out to be masters of creation or is it all just made up because of paranoia, penchant for conspiracies and fear.

As long as you keep getting the cheque from the British government, its all cool.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod420 over there tells me that Jinnah and the Muslim League were a British creation, hence they created Pakistan

If you meant me (interesting play on numbers), I don't really remember telling you that.

 

[T-Faz]

If you meant me (interesting play on numbers), I don't really remember telling you that.

Remember that time when you told me that Jinnah was playing at the hands of the British when he created Pakistan.

As for the numbers, I kid, I kid, you are my friend now.