What's new

What Muslim country is ideologically most similar to Pakistan?

Dont underestimate Turkey Islamic ideology as their nation has been ruled by Islamist party since early 2000. Turkey has become so liberal due to Ataturk influence that force secularism into Turkish politics and society since WW2. The Islamist has been purged since then but is able to control the nation after the year 2000. Their Islamist part believe highly with Ummah concept, this is why they support Islamist GNA government and Islamist rebel in Syria.
You are terribly ill informed about Turkish history, just to give you a glipse of it with some exsamples, the homosexuality thats highly controversial in this thread apprently got legalized in Ottoman Empire by the Sultan himself long before Turkish republic was founded.
Oh and news flash, the headscarf ban was also not Atatürks reform, it actually came 1980, long after Atatürks death. Secularisation/westernization of Turkish society started long before Atatürk and the young Turks came into the picture.


Do you know how the last Ottoman Sultans residence looked like? Spoiler: its not looking very oriental at all.

800px-Dolmabah%C3%A7e_Saray%C4%B1_-_panoramio.jpg


yildiz-palace2.jpg


If you have questions then feel free to ask but dont spread false info here.
 
. .
1. Historically Muslim kingdoms have implemented shariah. The Ottomans, the Durrani Empire, the Mughal Empire, Tipu Sultan, anyone and everyone who has ruled over Muslims implemented shariah law.

I know you mean well, but this statement alone shows how misinformed you are. These 'Muslim Kingdoms' by very definition of 'kingdom' were far from the very early history of Islam where the concept of 'kingdomhood' didn't exist.
Anyway, to me it's best to not re-event the wheel. It's best not to dig up old graves. There is not and NEVER will be even a plurality of Muslims accepting one set of rules in a nation-state about Sharia.

Pakistan's Constitution became 'Islamic' Republic in 1956, then Bhutto, under pressure from the clergy, made it even more Islamic, and then, of course under Zia ul Haq, Pakistan came to as close to a theocracy as a nation could.

My point is that there is a lot of 'Sharia' in the laws of Pakistan and there is no need spend more mental energies on that when there are issues of illiteracy, poverty, and indeed a grave threat to Pakistan's own survival because of foreign factors. Islam is not under threat in Pakistan. It will never be. No point trying to impose something so unpractical and historically so divisive in a land where it is already very much entrenched and enforced.
 
.
You are terribly ill informed about Turkish history, just to give you a glipse of it with some exsamples, the homosexuality thats highly controversial in this thread apprently got legalized in Ottoman Empire by the Sultan himself long before Turkish republic was founded.
Oh and news flash, the headscarf ban was also not Atatürks reform, it actually came 1980, long after Atatürks death. Secularisation/westernization of Turkish society started long before Atatürk and the young Turks came into the picture.


Do you know how the last Ottoman Sultans residence looked like? Spoiler: its not looking very oriental at all.

800px-Dolmabah%C3%A7e_Saray%C4%B1_-_panoramio.jpg


yildiz-palace2.jpg


If you have questions then feel free to ask but dont spread false info here.
@PaklovesTurkiye You might be interested in this info
 
.
Anything opposite of the rigid version of Islam as practiced in places in Saudi Arabia and even Iran! Acceptance of religious minorities, celebrating the diversity and even participating in non-Muslim religious events. Not condemning the Mazar-going culture (Mazar=shrines of notable religious leaders). In essence, practice your faith as you see fit and let me practice mine. And I believe a large part of the Indo-Pak Subcontinent ('Indo-Pak Subcontinent' is the term we were taught growing up in Pakistan!) culture has been a very conservative version of Islam but also a tolerant one. Maybe a lot of you don't know what Pakistan was like before Zia ul Haq's rule changed things for the worse.

This is just plurality, not necessarily a Sufi outlook. There is only a portion of Sufis today who believe in syncretic religion, most live in India, BD, SL, and other Non-Muslim dominated ccountries. Sikhism, Bahai'ism, Nation of Islam, Moorish Science, and other similar new-age religions came out of such syncretism.

Islam, on the other hand, is very much a faith of orthodoxy and codified beliefs. There is not much leeway of changing the religion, which is seen by Muslims as Bid'ah, negative innovation of religion.

There is no problem with religious minorities, but celebrating their holidays, worshipping mullahs, throwing money at pirzade, excessive celebrations and shirk in shrines has nothing to do with Sufism, as it was meant by its faithful practitioners.

Unfortunately I do not have many friends going to Pakistan, I only had the opportunity to ask 1 person. He said that people behaved well because they were Turkish and Muslim, but he said that the outfit of his people was like arab, he toured all over Asia until last year. When I looked at the travel videos, they also acted well when they learned that Vlogger was Turkish, but he talks about the country's shops, restaurants, and foods are not suitable for Turkish people, I have never been to Pakistan, even if I go because I haven't seen anything worth seeing other than its mountains, I only come for their people.

You are on PDF, this is an excellent place to corrext your misconceptions about Pakistan and Pakistanis.

To answer some of your points, let me say a few things.

Pakistani Shalwar Kameez/Kurta/Pheran/Khet Partoog/Dhoti/Ajrak/Firaaq/Kotti all are very different to the standard dress of most Arabs (white thawb.) We are most similar to Yemenis (among Arabs) in our dress, because they wear the analogous clothes as us. Their women wear imported Pakistani garments as well.

Our clothes are unique in the world and have only direct relation to Afghans, who dress the exact same as us. They are a mixture of our IVC, Iranic, and Turkic heritage

Furthermore, Pakistani food varies from medium spicy to heavy spicy and is very similar to Turkish and Iranian/Afghan cuisine. I have had Turkish food which has been spicy for me. I don't think it is a problem for most Turks. All of my Turkish friends are fine with the food and even ask for recipes.

I have been told that our food is more similar to rural and Eastern Turkey. Which is no surprise because we are related to both Kurds and Turkic people.

Our food is mostly meat-based like Turkey, with heavy emphasis in sauces, kababs, grilled meat, pilao, biryani, naan, yoghurt.

We even have Chatti di Lassi (and other various Lassi) which is similar to your Ayran.

We are heavy tea drinkers. We enjoy strong black tea with milk (Chai/Cha.) Other varieties include saffron based slow cooked Kashmiri chai, Pakhawari Kava (light green tea w cardamom,) doodh patti (chai which has more milk ratio.)

In my native Punjab, we also make sabz chai which is green tea w cardamom, lemongrass, ginger, and honey. Very delicious.


Within the bounds of Shariah. Opponents of sufism want to make it sounds like a heretic sect, et all the sufi ulema are strict followers and teachers of the shariah in the light of Quran and Hadith. The drums and cannabis is a fringe element.

Proper Sufism is one which is based on Quran and Sunnah. There is no room for syncretism in Islam.

We must beware of the many frauds (hakeems, pirs) who pass themselves off as Sufis.

Turks hates Arab? Stop characterizing nations in this way.

How many Turkish people do you know? Or do you think the three or five members here are all the Turkish nation? In history, there have been tribes who collaborated primarily with the British empire and this betrayal is still remembered, but this has never been generalized to all Arab nations.

Today, Turkey is the largest donor country in arab world and the largest donor nation is the Turkish nation for opressed, poor and war-losing Arabs, as non-arab country...

Besides being the donor country, more than half a million Iraqis and 4 million Syrians, with others nearly 5 million Arabs and arab country citizens livin in TR. Turkey spend billion and billions dolars for them every year , its all Turkish taxes, Zekats and donations...

We have sincere and fraternal relations with many Arab countries from the Gulf to Africa.

But your point of view must belong to a wholesaling mentality that equates the entire Arab world to the spirit of a single tribal leader ... Even for this situation, the deep bonds of love between the two country's peoples are exalted. There are millions of people who do not have political populism.

Trying to learn the world from social media triggers a dangerous combination. The combination of ignorance and fascism is very dangerous. However, the more dangerous thing is to commenting as an expert on issues that you know nothing.

Excellent post, well deserved positive ratings.

Some people cannot see that people like us (Pakistanis, Turks, and others) want to best for every single Muslim in the world, regardless of their ethnicity and race.

This is the beauty of Islam.

When we criticize certain countries' policies (like Iran, KSA, UAE, Egypt,) it is out of love and genuine concern for the people living in those places. We want to see Muslims rise up, wherever they are, and take their own destinies in their hands, instead of being pawns of external or internal powers who wish to divide and destroy us

Sharia? You know the Talibans in the 'Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan' thought they were enforcing Sharia! To them thousands of years old statues were a threat! You know the 'No Sitare' PNA political alliance against Bhutto in 1976-77 thought they were going to bring Sharia to Pakistan. You know Zia ul Haq thought he was going to 'Islamize' Pakistan from 1977-1988. You know the goons of Lal Masjid in Islamabad in 2007 thought they were enforcing Sharia even though they had killed Pakistani military personnel, taken over a mosque and a library, and put guns in the mosque. You know the Pakistani Talibans in 2007-09 thought they were enforcing Sharia in Swat. You know that the Haramkhor Maulana Khadim Rizvi lately is trying to enforce Sharia...

Pakistani society and its written Constitution is 'Islamic' enough. No need to introduce more Islam into the country because there is NOT ONE version of Islam the majority would agree upon. The idiots in Pakistan can't even agree upon 'Moon Sightings' for Eid when even Saudi Arabia has that sorted out!! There are bigots, pressure groups, opportunists more than willing to be tools of foreign agents to wreak havoc inside Pakistan again. Pakistan is indeed facing grave threats externally; no need to take focus off them.

So let it be where we are! A Sufi-oriented society. A society the Founder of Pakistan would have wanted.

You are very judgemental and have a wrong idea about Islamic Fiqh (Shariah.)

To answer a few points, Taliban removed and condemned their rogue commander who blew up the Bamiyan statues, the logic was that no one worships them, therefore there is no reason to destroy them.

In Pakistan, various parties attempted to galvanize Islamic sentiments of the general population against opponents, but it was only for political gain.

PTI is the first party which is genuinely concerned with the image of Islam and bringing religiousity into the country, although they do have many liberals too.

Zia used religion for his own means and to elevate his own power. Bhutto and Zia both met their fate at the hands of their former allies, US.

Yeah, everyone is a 'thug'. Only real example of Sharia you could come up with would be from the dawn of Islam 1400+ years ago. That was a very very different situation.

It's best to keep religion a private matter. As was in the spirit of the M.A. Jinnah speech of 11 August 1947. Go and offer your Prayers. Go for the Pilgrimage. Offer Zakat. But I am old enough to have seen what kind of disasters happened inside Pakistan because of the political opportunism in the name of Sharia. And that's not some 'liberal' wish: It's a practical wish for the survival of Pakistan.

You have a very erroneous idea about Islamic fiqh.

With the possible exception of Lebanon, the entire Arab world is a socially-suffocating place. Ten times I would rather live in Pakistan than those countries where people may be hospitable and nice but not only is their geography/landscape not much appealing, on the whole, but also social freedoms are generally set for some other past centuries.

These countries are not very tolerable for religious Muslims either, whereas Pakistan is ripe soil for Islamic minded individuals. We do not have any state oppression concerning religion, alhamdulilah.

1. Historically Muslim kingdoms have implemented shariah. The Ottomans, the Durrani Empire, the Mughal Empire, Tipu Sultan, anyone and everyone who has ruled over Muslims implemented shariah law.

2. Shariah is not limited to what we consider "law of the land" today. The definition of halal and haram, etc are all part of shariah. We have aspects of it, even in Pakistan today.

It is a shame that Pakistani's only view shariah through the prism of politics, this is not your fault, it is the fault of the uber politicised clergy in our country who are just as power hungry as the politicians. When I made my original point is was to say that Sufi Islam is not chuff chuff pirs, cannabis, drum circles and miracles.

Indeed the some of the Awliya through the power given to them by Allah swt did miracles, but their entire lives were spent teaching Islam, living by the laws of Islam, guiding others to Islam, and helping those in need. They stood up to haram and promoted halal - often in the face of power.

Sufi Islam is not the hocus pocus some people like to portray it as today. If people want to get high to a drum beat chanting Allah Hu, they're welcome - it is their personal matter - but the crux of Sufi Islam is Shahada, Salat, Fasting, Zakat, Hajj, controlling ones nafs, rememberance of Allah. It is madrasa, not mazaar, it is langar, not landcruiser. It is tawheed not just taweez.

Of course that is not to say that mazars should not be visited, i regularly visit khari sharif when i am in Pakistan, but i am disappointed how it is a tourist attraction rather than a beacon of teaching Islam and helping the poor.

Good post. As someone who visits Data Jee (Ali Hajweri Baba RA,) I simply go to his qabar, read fatiha, make dua for him, and I leave. Most Pakistanis visit mazars in this fashion. Only a few are excessive, and women tend to be moreso.
 
Last edited:
.
1. Historically Muslim kingdoms have implemented shariah. The Ottomans, the Durrani Empire, the Mughal Empire, Tipu Sultan, anyone and everyone who has ruled over Muslims implemented shariah law.

2. Shariah is not limited to what we consider "law of the land" today. The definition of halal and haram, etc are all part of shariah. We have aspects of it, even in Pakistan today.

It is a shame that Pakistani's only view shariah through the prism of politics, this is not your fault, it is the fault of the uber politicised clergy in our country who are just as power hungry as the politicians. When I made my original point is was to say that Sufi Islam is not chuff chuff pirs, cannabis, drum circles and miracles.

Indeed the some of the Awliya through the power given to them by Allah swt did miracles, but their entire lives were spent teaching Islam, living by the laws of Islam, guiding others to Islam, and helping those in need. They stood up to haram and promoted halal - often in the face of power.

Sufi Islam is not the hocus pocus some people like to portray it as today. If people want to get high to a drum beat chanting Allah Hu, they're welcome - it is their personal matter - but the crux of Sufi Islam is Shahada, Salat, Fasting, Zakat, Hajj, controlling ones nafs, rememberance of Allah. It is madrasa, not mazaar, it is langar, not landcruiser. It is tawheed not just taweez.

Of course that is not to say that mazars should not be visited, i regularly visit khari sharif when i am in Pakistan, but i am disappointed how it is a tourist attraction rather than a beacon of teaching Islam and helping the poor.

Well Ottomons,Mughals, or others implemented islam according to their own interpretation. Every predecessor blamed the successor for not implementing islam properly. That is why it became a political tool.

all caliphates after the rashidun, in the medieval times, defined islam as was best suited to their political interests and inclinations. Islam suffered because of the political decadence and power grappling practices such as fratricide in ottomon empire and in others and many more.
 
.
Well Ottomons,Mughals, or others implemented islam according to their own interpretation. Every predecessor blamed the successor for not implementing islam properly. That is why it became a political tool.

all caliphates after the rashidun, in the medieval times, defined islam as was best suited to their political interests and inclinations. Islam suffered because of the political decadence and power grappling practices such as fratricide in ottomon empire and in others and many more.

It was not the same as Sahabah, but we had many righteous rulers like Aurangzeb for one.
 
. .
None...Pakistan is the zion of the muslim world ie built in the name of religion as a homeland for central/south asian muslims. Closest comparison would be a muslim version of Israel.


When they arent on camels they are dancing lol
 
.
only bengali muslims actually, bengali hindus have west bengal


government maybe secular but the people most definitely are not


Bosnia comes to mind, a country created to safeguard muslims from a much larger enemy ( serbs/indians)
Racially, culturally Pakistan is most similar to Afghanistan

Which really makes me think how does the Awami Party keep winning.
 
.
It was not the same as Sahabah, but we had many righteous rulers like Aurangzeb for one.

You have your own opinion.

Facts are islam was used by figures such as aurangzeb to kill their own siblings and fellow muslim states. His administration included a very high number of hindus just to maintain power. You like him, its up to you and i respect that. I like him because he killed maratha fascist terrorists even though it was to consolidate his power nothing to do with islam.

In one's opinion for the true spirit of islam benchmark should be Rashidun. Their selflessness is matchless and their ability to rally people around islamic values without getting into tribes, sects, race, linguistics was what the west followed.
 
Last edited:
.
You have your own opinion.

Facts are islam was used by figures such as aurangzeb to kill their own siblings and fellow muslim states. His administration included a very high number of hindus just to maintain power. You like him, its up to you and i respect that. I like him because he killed maratha fascist terrorists even though it was to consolidate his power nothing to do with islam.

In one's opinion for the true spirit of islam benchmark should be Rashidun. Their selflessness is matchless and their ability to rally people around islamic values without getting into tribes, sects, race, linguistics was what the west followed.

Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir also commissioned Fatwa e Alamgiri, which even now is studied by every student of Hanafi Fiqh in the world. This is just one example.

You are acting as if no achievements or accomplishments in Islam were made during the time after Khilafat Rashidun.

Hazoor Pak SAWS clearly stated that, "those who are not here will understand my words better than those who are here" in his Khutbat al Wida.

We have lost our connection to previous Islamic history, the continuation was broken by the British. This is what @Mangus Ortus Novem Brother once referred to as the "hole in our heart/chest."

All these misunderstandings and nervousness about Islam and Muslim history is a result of that.

My ancestors converted to Islam during Sultan Aurangzeb's reign. We were the last of those Rajput Non-Muslims who occupied high positions in the Mughal government. Therefore my view of Islam and its history is very positive in our region.

From that outlook and recent Islamization, Sahabah and Rasool SAWS seem like ancient history. We saw the actions and demeanor of their followers in recent times and were impressed. Do not discount the great Muslims who succeeded the Prophet SAWS.

No one can compare to Hazoor Pak SAWS and his Sahabah, but the Muslims of the pre-modern era were strong in their faith and identity as well. Much stronger than how we are now.
 
.
I know you mean well, but this statement alone shows how misinformed you are. These 'Muslim Kingdoms' by very definition of 'kingdom' were far from the very early history of Islam where the concept of 'kingdomhood' didn't exist.
Anyway, to me it's best to not re-event the wheel. It's best not to dig up old graves. There is not and NEVER will be even a plurality of Muslims accepting one set of rules in a nation-state about Sharia.

Pakistan's Constitution became 'Islamic' Republic in 1956, then Bhutto, under pressure from the clergy, made it even more Islamic, and then, of course under Zia ul Haq, Pakistan came to as close to a theocracy as a nation could.

My point is that there is a lot of 'Sharia' in the laws of Pakistan and there is no need spend more mental energies on that when there are issues of illiteracy, poverty, and indeed a grave threat to Pakistan's own survival because of foreign factors. Islam is not under threat in Pakistan. It will never be. No point trying to impose something so unpractical and historically so divisive in a land where it is already very much entrenched and enforced.

Again you focus on the politics. Kingdoms, constitutions etc.

As for plurality - there are many examples where people are treated in accordance to the fiqh they follow. If in a Muslim country a non Muslim can be judged by non Islamic law, there is no reason why a minor fiqh based difference cannot be accommodated.

All of us live in accordance to shariah today as best we can.
 
.
Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir also commissioned Fatwa e Alamgiri, which even now is studied by every student of Hanafi Fiqh in the world. This is just one example.

You are acting as if no achievements or accomplishments in Islam were made during the time after Khilafat Rashidun.

Hazoor Pak SAWS clearly stated that, "those who are not here will understand my words better than those who are here" in his Khutbat al Wida.

We have lost our connection to previous Islamic history, the continuation was broken by the British. This is what @Mangus Ortus Novem Brother once referred to as the "hole in our heart/chest."

All these misunderstandings and nervousness about Islam and Muslim history is a result of that.

My ancestors converted to Islam during Sultan Aurangzeb's reign. We were the last of those Rajput Non-Muslims who occupied high positions in the Mughal government. Therefore my view of Islam and its history is very positive in our region.

From that outlook and recent Islamization, Sahabah and Rasool SAWS seem like ancient history. We saw the actions and demeanor of their followers in recent times and were impressed. Do not discount the great Muslims who succeeded the Prophet SAWS.

No one can compare to Hazoor Pak SAWS and his Sahabah, but the Muslims of the pre-modern era were strong in their faith and identity as well. Much stronger than how we are now.

You like Sultan Aurangzaib, i like him too because he killed marathas thats it. Sorry but, I dont see him as a great selfless islamic leader we need to emulate.

I am no one to question you. You are more than welcome to follow him.

one's opinion is that fiqh vs fiqh is what divides muslims. If a historical figure follows my fiqh, for me he is an ideal. Again nothing wrong with it. But that is not comprehensive thinking.

Anyone who likes his fiqh connects it with Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Anyone is welcome to do that. I follow hanafi fiqh ,everyone i know looks the world through that prism. its their choice. But in my opinion this is again factionalist thinking which does not allow us to see how islam was and is being used for simple power grab.

Like today many maulanas are only respectable figures because of their perceived khidmat of fiqhi thinking while BTS they are after power.

My opinion - The hole in our heart is actually the sectarian view point that is so ingrained that it has become an eye sight.

The historical fact is muslim civilization declined in baghdad, cordoba, persia and india precisely because rulers used islam to claim power which resulted in factionalism. Europe realized that and might rule for another 1 thousand years.

You are more than welcome to disagree or dismiss my opinion which is your right. But i dont see these things as you do.

Wish u all the best.
 
.
Pakistan has its own uniqueness ... its not similar to any Muslim country. We have similarities with India. But, not with any other nation. Because majority of Muslim nations are based on nationalism,language and very strong bonding with there culture. Majority of us are inspired from foreign cultures... may be due to some complex issue....
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom