# Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars



## Taimur Khurram

I've been thinking recently, what do you guys think about these titles?

Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs are each pretty big groups with plenty of sub-groups among them. Many of them (e.g Chauhans) are in fact shared among all three. Not only that, but unlike other tribes in Pakistan, these ones don't denote people of a common origin. Each clan claims a different origin, all that unites them is the fact that they intermarry with each other. You even have some clans that are also sometimes considered tribes in their own right. Even in terms of occupation, Jats and Gujjars have been pretty diverse.

Not only that, but if Pakistanis want to distance ourselves from Indians, wouldn't it better to just drop such names? You get plenty of Indian Jats, Rajputs and Gujjars, but you really won't find many Indians belonging to same clans of these groups as most Pakistanis. Not only that, but Hinduism is often strongly connotated with these groups.

EDIT:

Thought I should clarify for all the dummies making a "hoo-ha" that I have no problem with anyone calling themselves a Rajput, Jat or Gujjar. I myself have no qualms in admitting I'm a Gujjar. I'm just making a thread about the topic to see where others stand.

Your thoughts?

@Muslimrenaissance @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan @Samlee @AfrazulMandal @iqbal Ali @Talwar e Pakistan @Areesh @Zibago @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Yankee-stani

I am a Chohan and Rajput tho my family on my dad side had mixed in a lot with the Pathans in the past I really think we should ditch the clans they have a rich history no doubt but we should promote a Iranic cultural identity and this can break off links with India

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

OsmanAli98 said:


> I am a Chohan and Rajput tho my family on my dad side had mixed in a lot with the Pathans in the past I really think we should ditch the clans they have a rich history no doubt but we should promote a Iranic cultural identity and this can break off links with India



Most of us aren't Iranic, so such an idea makes no sense.

Even people like me and you who have some Iranic ancestry are pretty much completely isolated from it now. And it's not even our paternal lineage which is what counts in our part of the world.

I only support rejecting names like Rajput, Jat or Gujjar since they don't denote a common paternal heritage and unnecessarily link us with India and Hinduism.


----------



## Yankee-stani

Look I can debate about our Iranic origins all the time but If we want to break this link with Ganga I think its better to develop better cultural ties with Iran, yeah yeah many Pakistanis will complain about Iran being Shia and blah blah how Iranians are this and that but I argue that we gotta closer cultural links to Persia than Arabs in the Gulf we can gel in just drop the sectarian banner @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan I think this better than the whole closeness with Arabs and Turks, Gulf Arabs are meh Turks are Secular Nationalists

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Clans are known by lineages, place of origin, and our sub-clans.

I can’t speak for the others you mentioned, but Rajputs are of three main sub-clans. This is how we know who is an authentic Rajput and who is not.

Generally among Pakistani Rajputs, there is a strong connection with kinship and heritage. Sikhs also share it.

When I ask a supposed Indian Hindu Rajput what is their lineage and clan, all I get are blank stares. They don’t keep lineages like we do. Many Indians also keep Rajput surnames though they are not Rajputs. In this instance, it is impossible to verify.

In short, we are proud of our heritage and the lineage which shows our evolution to Islam. Rajputs have always been on the frontlines of the Islamic conquest (first against it and later its chief soldiers, generals, statesmen) and even today we are working to defend Pakistan from its enemies.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Yankee-stani

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Clans are known by lineages, place of origin, and our sub-clans.
> 
> I can’t speak for the others you mentioned, but Rajputs are of three main sub-clans. This is how we know who is an authentic Rajput and who is not.
> 
> Generally among Pakistani Rajputs, there is a strong connection with kinship and heritage. Sikhs also share it.
> 
> When I ask a supposed Indian Rajput, all I get are blank stares. They don’t keep lineages like we do. Many Indians also keep Rajput surnames though they are not Rajputs. In this instance, it is impossible to verify.
> 
> In short, we are proud of our heritage and the lineage which shows our evolution to Islam. Rajputs have always been on the frontlines of the Islamic conquest (first against it and later its chief soldiers, generals, statesmen) and even today we are working to defend Pakistan from its enemies.



No one is complaining about Rajputs and the cultural greatness that had at one point but we have a bit of a cultural amnesia since 1947 this is the reason we are failing we dont have a coherent identity as Pakistanis first we had wave of migrants from all over India, then you had the East Bengal situation which made forming a core Pakistani identity a struggle, Jinnah wanted Dari as a language at first he had to compromise with Urdu because of the East Bengal and then that did not work 1971 came and crushed a blow to a "Multicultural Pakistan" and the 1970s with the rise of Petro Oil Sheikhs in the Gulf and the greed of the politicians in Islamabad they let our national culture and identity in flux which we are in today thankfully nowadays the USSR is gone, Afghanistan well I hate those f...ckers but they could be close link once the Yankee is gone and we could improve cultural links with Iran and plus Pasthuns are gaining foot held in Pakistani Govt and Society


----------



## Tea addict

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Clans are known by lineages, place of origin, and our sub-clans.
> 
> I can’t speak for the others you mentioned, but Rajputs are of three main sub-clans. This is how we know who is an authentic Rajput and who is not.
> 
> Generally among Pakistani Rajputs, there is a strong connection with kinship and heritage. Sikhs also share it.
> 
> When I ask a supposed Indian Hindu Rajput what is their lineage and clan, all I get are blank stares. They don’t keep lineages like we do. Many Indians also keep Rajput surnames though they are not Rajputs. In this instance, it is impossible to verify.
> 
> In short, we are proud of our heritage and the lineage which shows our evolution to Islam. Rajputs have always been on the frontlines of the Islamic conquest (first against it and later its chief soldiers, generals, statesmen) and even today we are working to defend Pakistan from its enemies.


Funny thing about this lie is that only indian Hindu Rajputs follow gotra marriage tradition which is solely based on lineage and clan. It's only the Hindu Rajputs whose 300-400 years old lineage can be easily found as we preserve it in Haridwar and update it after death or birth of any member. What's more funny is that the Rajputs of Rajputana don't even consider Pakistani Rajputs as Rajputs.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Taimur Khurram said:


> I only support rejecting names like Rajput, Jat or Gujjar since they don't denote a common paternal heritage and unnecessarily link us with India and Hinduism.



In Central Punjab (Lahore,etc.,) we are half the population. We are thoroughly linked and embedded in the structure and way of life of Punjab.

Rajputs and related groups like Jats, Gujjars, Bajwas, Bhattis have been part of this region since time immemorial.

A Muslim Rajput would rather commit sepukku than claim anything in common with India or Hinduism.









Tea addict said:


> Funny thing about this lie is that only indian Hindu Rajputs follow gotra marriage tradition which is solely based on lineage and clan. It's only the Hindu Rajputs whose 300-400 years old lineage can be easily found as we preserve it in Haridwar and update it after death or birth of any member. What's more funny is that the Rajputs of Rajputana don't even consider Pakistani Rajputs as Rajputs.



This is why we don’t consider you Rajputs, you talk big but you are mostly full of hot air.

Half of you stole our surnames and many of you use them as first names like Raj, Rani, etc.

Real Rajput blood makes us tall, muscular, fair-skinned with light hair.

This because of our nomadic Central Asian Irani origin.



OsmanAli98 said:


> No one is complaining about Rajputs and the cultural greatness that had at one point but we have a bit of a cultural amnesia since 1947 this is the reason we are failing we dont have a coherent identity as Pakistanis first



Muslim and Pakistani first. I consider the two almost synonymous in importance of our identity.

Ethnicity, language, province second.

Matter resolved.

By the way, like the rest of us, Pakistani Rajputs have also begun marrying outside tribe.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Samlee

Taimur Khurram said:


> Most of us aren't Iranic, so such an idea makes no sense.
> 
> Even people like me and you who have some Iranic ancestry are pretty much completely isolated from it now. And it's not even our paternal lineage which is what counts in our part of the world.
> 
> I only support rejecting names like Rajput, Jat or Gujjar since they don't denote a common paternal heritage and unnecessarily link us with India and Hinduism.




Actually The Part Of Pakistan From Where I Hail Has Had Greater Links To Iran and Afghanistan Than India.Iranian Cultural Influence Has Been Great On The Subcontinent As Well For Centuries.Remeber Court Language Was Persian

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sine Nomine

Tea addict said:


> Funny thing about this lie is that only indian Hindu Rajputs follow gotra marriage tradition which is solely based on lineage and clan. It's only the Hindu Rajputs whose 300-400 years old lineage can be easily found as we preserve it in Haridwar and update it after death or birth of any member. What's more funny is that the Rajputs of Rajputana don't even consider Pakistani Rajputs as Rajputs.


We do same,lineage over 800 years is preserved and updated.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Taimur Khurram said:


> I've been thinking recently, what do you guys think about these titles?
> 
> Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs are each pretty big groups with plenty of sub-groups among them. Many of them (e.g Chauhans) are in fact shared among all three. Not only that, but unlike other tribes in Pakistan, these ones don't denote people of a common origin. Each clan claims a different origin, all that unites them is the fact that they intermarry with each other. You even have some clans that are also sometimes considered tribes in their own right. Even in terms of occupation, Jats and Gujjars have been pretty diverse. So I really don't see a point to us using such titles.
> 
> Not only that, but if Pakistanis want to distance ourselves from Indians, wouldn't it better to just drop such names? You get plenty of Indian Jats, Rajputs and Gujjars, but you really won't find many Indians belonging to same clans of these groups as most Pakistanis. Not only that, but Hinduism is often strongly connotated with these groups.
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> @Muslimrenaissance @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan @Samlee @AfrazulMandal @iqbal Ali @Talwar e Pakistan @Areesh @Zibago @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz


Not at all, we should never break our links with our ancestors; these three groups combined would make up a majority of Punjab's population. Yes, some of them overlap into India and even Afghanistan; but their heartland is in Pakistan.

All of these groups are significantly higher proportion in Pakistan than they are in India.

*Jat population:*
Pakistan: 16%
India: 2-3%

*Gujjar population:*
Pakistan: 10-15% (varies on sources)
India: 1-2% (varies on sources)

*Rajput population:*
Pakistan: 8-10%
India: 3.43%

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Sine Nomine

@Taimur Khurram these are clans not titles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 313ghazi

It's heritage, nothing more, nothing less.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Tea addict said:


> What's more funny is that the Rajputs of Rajputana don't even consider Pakistani Rajputs as Rajputs.



Rajputana no longer exists and hasn’t for thousands of years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

OsmanAli98 said:


> Look I can debate about our Iranic origins all the time but If we want to break this link with Ganga I think its better to develop better cultural ties with Iran, yeah yeah many Pakistanis will complain about Iran being Shia and blah blah how Iranians are this and that but I argue that we gotta closer cultural links to Persia than Arabs in the Gulf we can gel in just drop the sectarian banner @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan I think this better than the whole closeness with Arabs and Turks, Gulf Arabs are meh Turks are Secular Nationalists



Hi,

We don't need to get closer cultural ties with Iran just because of our heritage---. My maternal and paternal side is of Iranian heritage---but that was centuries ago---. I am the son of the soil that is---Pakistan---and that is my identity---.


Get closer to Iran and become titled as a full fledged terrorist state and a Pariah nation---.

W'Allah---Ain't you of brilliant thinking---.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AfrazulMandal

No need to break links.
Call yourself ex Rajputs for instance.
Rajput then. Muslim now. Alhamdulillah.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tea addict

MUSTAKSHAF said:


> We do same,lineage over 800 years is preserved and updated.


From what background? Will be interesting to know ...in our case we update it after marriage : like from which village the bride is from,her clan,her parents etc..after birth - like what is the name of new member, birthplace etc..after death : that this member has died and died at this place..other than that we also update where we are currently living as I updated my residence as a urban city while my father and last 3 generation residence is in my village and before that another big village which is a tehsil now..I have records of last 11 generation with all their names,whom they married or married off to..where they migrated and that..and before that the subdivision in clan decided our history as a division in clan is named after one person whom we all are decended from.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cringe master

Taimur Khurram said:


> but if Pakistanis want to distance ourselves from Indians, wouldn't it better to just drop such names? You get plenty of Indian Jats, Rajputs and Gujjars, but you really won't find many Indians belonging to same clans of these groups as most Pakistanis. Not only that, but Hinduism is often strongly connotated with these groups.





Taimur Khurram said:


> I've been thinking recently, what do you guys think about these titles?
> 
> Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs are each pretty big groups with plenty of sub-groups among them. Many of them (e.g Chauhans) are in fact shared among all three. Not only that, but unlike other tribes in Pakistan, these ones don't denote people of a common origin. Each clan claims a different origin, all that unites them is the fact that they intermarry with each other. You even have some clans that are also sometimes considered tribes in their own right. Even in terms of occupation, Jats and Gujjars have been pretty diverse. So I really don't see a point to us using such titles.
> 
> Not only that, but if Pakistanis want to distance ourselves from Indians, wouldn't it better to just drop such names? You get plenty of Indian Jats, Rajputs and Gujjars, but you really won't find many Indians belonging to same clans of these groups as most Pakistanis. Not only that, but Hinduism is often strongly connotated with these groups.
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> @Muslimrenaissance @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan @Samlee @AfrazulMandal @iqbal Ali @Talwar e Pakistan @Areesh @Zibago @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz



in pakistan army i hear they discourage to use surnames based on caste. 
if we are Pakistani and muslim then these surname shouldn't matter but thing is we also can't say we should drop it because these are identities and most people are too proud to let go of these identities
but if you use these to discriminate other then it's huge problem

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tea addict

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> In Central Punjab (Lahore,etc.,) we are half the population. We are thoroughly linked and embedded in the structure and way of life of Punjab.
> 
> Rajputs and related groups like Jats, Gujjars, Bajwas, Bhattis have been part of this region since time immemorial.
> 
> A Muslim Rajput would rather commit sepukku than claim anything in common with India or Hinduism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we don’t consider you Rajputs, you talk big but you are mostly full of hot air.
> 
> Half of you stole our surnames and many of you use them as first names like Raj, Rani, etc.
> 
> Real Rajput blood makes us tall, muscular, fair-skinned with light hair.
> 
> This because of our nomadic Central Asian Irani origin.
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim and Pakistani first. I consider the two almost synonymous in importance of our identity.
> 
> Ethnicity, language, province second.
> 
> Matter resolved.
> 
> By the way, like the rest of us, Pakistani Rajputs have also begun marrying outside tribe.


Find me reference where Rajputs were referred to as fair in poems,in folklores etc. Being fair is never considered one of the trait of Rajputs and other are usually same for all warrior community like tall and that stuff. And yah it's funny seeing you say we stole any of your history as we try to distance ourselves from you and don't even consider you Rajputs. The only place you can say this stuff is Pakistan and will not be laughed at.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lastofthepatriots

This thread is dumb as ****.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Taimur Khurram

MUSTAKSHAF said:


> @Taimur Khurram these are clans not titles.



Rajput, Jat and Gujjar are not clans, they're communities who intermarry with each other. Hence why I'm rather mixed about Pakistanis identifying with them.



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> *Jat population:*
> Pakistan: 16%
> India: 2-3%
> 
> *Gujjar population:*
> Pakistan: 10-15% (varies on sources)
> India: 1-2% (varies on sources)
> 
> *Rajput population:*
> Pakistan: 8-10%
> India: 3.43%



Could I please see some sources? 



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Not at all, we should never break our links with our ancestors



I never said we should, but the fact is that when it comes to ancestry, it's your paternal clan that matters. Gujjar, Jat and Rajput clans don't all come from the same origin. Different clans among them have different origins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakhtoon yum

Taimur Khurram said:


> I've been thinking recently, what do you guys think about these titles?
> 
> Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs are each pretty big groups with plenty of sub-groups among them. Many of them (e.g Chauhans) are in fact shared among all three. Not only that, but unlike other tribes in Pakistan, these ones don't denote people of a common origin. Each clan claims a different origin, all that unites them is the fact that they intermarry with each other. You even have some clans that are also sometimes considered tribes in their own right. Even in terms of occupation, Jats and Gujjars have been pretty diverse. So I really don't see a point to us using such titles.
> 
> Not only that, but if Pakistanis want to distance ourselves from Indians, wouldn't it better to just drop such names? You get plenty of Indian Jats, Rajputs and Gujjars, but you really won't find many Indians belonging to same clans of these groups as most Pakistanis. Not only that, but Hinduism is often strongly connotated with these groups.
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> @Muslimrenaissance @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan @Samlee @AfrazulMandal @iqbal Ali @Talwar e Pakistan @Areesh @Zibago @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz


Considering we live in the same nation, these titles seem so alien and strange to me, but our titles will look the same to you. This proves the fact the we need to further integrate and educate ourselves about each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Pakhtoon yum said:


> Considering we live in the same nation, this titles seem so alien and strange to me, but our titles will look the same to you. This proves the fact the we need to further integrate and educate ourselves about each other.



I don't find Pashtun or Baloch titles/tribes alien at all. Many of them sound Islamic (e.g Yusefzai and Ahmedzai), and others aren't too different to ours (e.g Karlani doesn't sound too dissimilar to Karlal).



lastofthepatriots said:


> This thread is dumb as ****.



Then don't comment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Taimur Khurram said:


> I've been thinking recently, what do you guys think about these titles?
> 
> Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs are each pretty big groups with plenty of sub-groups among them. Many of them (e.g Chauhans) are in fact shared among all three. Not only that, but unlike other tribes in Pakistan, these ones don't denote people of a common origin. Each clan claims a different origin, all that unites them is the fact that they intermarry with each other. You even have some clans that are also sometimes considered tribes in their own right. Even in terms of occupation, Jats and Gujjars have been pretty diverse. So I really don't see a point to us using such titles.
> 
> Not only that, but if Pakistanis want to distance ourselves from Indians, wouldn't it better to just drop such names? You get plenty of Indian Jats, Rajputs and Gujjars, but you really won't find many Indians belonging to same clans of these groups as most Pakistanis. Not only that, but Hinduism is often strongly connotated with these groups.
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> @Muslimrenaissance @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan @Samlee @AfrazulMandal @iqbal Ali @Talwar e Pakistan @Areesh @Zibago @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz


Conservative/rural rajputs dont marry outside or into other communities.

If somebody does hes not considered a “rajput” by his extended family or kin.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Tea addict said:


> we try to distance ourselves from you and don't even consider you Rajputs.



I care not what you think. Rajputs are Rajputs and Pakistan is full of them.

From the military, parliament, to the judiciary, we have a strong presence at all levels of government.

Several of my relatives are famous and well-known personalities in Pakistan.

Pakistan is as much a Rajput nation as it is a Pukhtoon nation or Kashmiri nation.

Our Islamicization and alliance with the Mughals made us not only the rulers of Punjab, but the whole of the Indus and Hindustan.

We don’t share your contempt of Muslims, in fact we view ourselves as the great defenders and protectors of Islam.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## waz

Tea addict said:


> And yah it's funny seeing you say we stole any of your history as we try to distance ourselves from you and don't even consider you Rajputs. The only place you can say this stuff is Pakistan and will not be laughed at.



I've seen with my own two eyes Rajputs from Rajasthan embrace Pakistani ones as kin. Here in the UK we have many such events where Rajputs (Indian) gather and will invite along Pakistani Rajput friends.

Here;






Although I will agree there are some who don't see how you can be Rajput and not a follower of Sanatana Dharma, but I have found them in the minority. The other views are as follows;
-It's a bloodline and so therefore even non-Hindus ones are kin.
-They don't really care.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Pakhtoon yum said:


> Considering we live in the same nation, these titles seem so alien and strange to me, but our titles will look the same to you. This proves the fact the we need to further integrate and educate ourselves about each other.



Come spend some time in Lahore, dine well and see the famous sites. Talk to the people in the street. You will learn so much about these clans, and this goes probably all over Pakistan.



waz said:


> I've seen with my own two eyes Rajputs from Rajasthan embrace Pakistani ones as kin. Here in the UK we have many such events where Rajputs (Indian) gather and will invite along Pakistani Rajput friends.
> 
> Here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I will agree there are some who don't see how you can be Rajput and not a follower of Sanatana Dharma, but I have found them in the minority. The other views are as follows;
> -It's a bloodline and so therefore even non-Hindus ones are kin.
> -They don't really care.



Rajasthanis were in the process of Islamization under Mughals and even afterwards, hence they share a lot of similarities with Pakistanis culturally.

It was Ghandi’s ghar wapsi which eventually brought them back to Hinduism. Even now, BJP, RSS, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal are concentrating heavily on Rajastan to make it a breeding ground for Hindu extremism.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M. Sarmad

To all our Punjab-hating, (self claimed) Pakistani posters (OP included): please stop posting such useless and stupid threads and comments (using multiple ids) ... We should give up identifying ourselves with our tribes and castes to distance ourselves from the Indians? ... Okay, but then the Pashtuns should also stop identifying themselves with their tribes and clans to distance themselves from the Afghanis ... And the Baloch should also do the same to distance themselves from Iranians... Only a class A idiot could have come up with such an idea ... !!

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Great Janjua

Duhr fitou mou

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Great Janjua said:


> Duhr fitou mou



If you can't have a civilised discussion then don't comment at all.



M. Sarmad said:


> We should give up identifying ourselves with our tribes and castes to distance ourselves from the Indians?



Read my first post again, there's more to it than that. And I was just pondering the subject, stop getting upset over it.



M. Sarmad said:


> . Okay, but then the Pashtuns should also stop identifying themselves with their tribes and clans to distance themselves from the Afghanis ... And the Baloch should also do the same to distance themselves from Iranians...



That's not the main argument. The main argument is that we unnecessarily attach ourselves to these identities when they don't denote a common ancestry. Janjuas and Chauhans have different origins, yet they're both Rajputs. This is one example.



M. Sarmad said:


> To all our Punjab-hating, (self claimed) Pakistani posters (OP included): please stop posting such useless and stupid threads and comments (using multiple ids)



Of course, you accuse me of being a fake Pakistani with multiple IDs.

Buzz off.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Great Janjua

Taimur Khurram said:


> If you can't have a civilised discussion then don't comment at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Read my first post again, there's more to it than that. And I was just pondering the subject, stop getting upset over it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the main argument. The main argument is that we unnecessarily attach ourselves to these identities when they don't denote a common ancestry. Janjuas and Chauhans have different origins, yet they're both Rajputs. This is one example.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you accuse me of being a fake Pakistani with multiple IDs.
> 
> Buzz off.


Answer me one question what is your lineage and cast then we can proceed to have a discussion


----------



## Sine Nomine

Tea addict said:


> From what background? Will be interesting to know ...in our case we update it after marriage : like from which village the bride is from,her clan,her parents etc..after birth - like what is the name of new member, birthplace etc..after death : that this member has died and died at this place..other than that we also update where we are currently living as I updated my residence as a urban city while my father and last 3 generation residence is in my village and before that another big village which is a tehsil now..I have records of last 11 generation with all their names,whom they married or married off to..where they migrated and that..and before that the subdivision in clan decided our history as a division in clan is named after one person whom we all are decended from.


Oral or written record is kept of all Males from whom one is descendant,along with record of major migration.I have seen peoples having record upto 40 Generations with almost half of names which would sound quite odd.
Only Males are recorded.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakhtoon yum

M. Sarmad said:


> To all our Punjab-hating, (self claimed) Pakistani posters (OP included): please stop posting such useless and stupid threads and comments (using multiple ids) ... We should give up identifying ourselves with our tribes and castes to distance ourselves from the Indians? ... Okay, but then the Pashtuns should also stop identifying themselves with their tribes and clans to distance themselves from the Afghanis ... And the Baloch should also do the same to distance themselves from Iranians... Only a class A idiot could have come up with such an idea ... !!


We did lmao



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Come spend some time in Lahore, dine well and see the famous sites. Talk to the people in the street. You will learn so much about these clans, and this goes probably all over Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> Rajasthanis were in the process of Islamization under Mughals and even afterwards, hence they share a lot of similarities with Pakistanis culturally.
> 
> It was Ghandi’s ghar wapsi which eventually brought them back to Hinduism. Even now, BJP, RSS, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal are concentrating heavily on Rajastan to make it a breeding ground for Hindu extremism.


Will do

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tom M

Identity crisis yet again, huh ??? LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Shahzaz ud din

Tea addict said:


> From what background? Will be interesting to know ...in our case we update it after marriage : like from which village the bride is from,her clan,her parents etc..after birth - like what is the name of new member, birthplace etc..after death : that this member has died and died at this place..other than that we also update where we are currently living as I updated my residence as a urban city while my father and last 3 generation residence is in my village and before that another big village which is a tehsil now..I have records of last 11 generation with all their names,whom they married or married off to..where they migrated and that..and before that the subdivision in clan decided our history as a division in clan is named after one person whom we all are decended from.





Tea addict said:


> Funny thing about this lie is that only indian Hindu Rajputs follow gotra marriage tradition which is solely based on lineage and clan. It's only the Hindu Rajputs whose 300-400 years old lineage can be easily found as we preserve it in Haridwar and update it after death or birth of any member. What's more funny is that the Rajputs of Rajputana don't even consider Pakistani Rajputs as Rajputs.


It,s we the only Muslim rajput whose more than 600 years old lineage is available.A lot of detail is available in Distt gazetteer of India published in 1864.A detailed family tree is available which goes up to Beer Bikarama jeet and Ram Chander jee.etc
There was no cousin and outside gotra marriage before 1947.Till today very few people whom I know married outside the gotra.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Winchester

Threads like these make it clear to me that I shouldn't raise my kids abroad. 

God damn you guys are confused and have a severe identity crisis. I guess not being able to integrate into the wider society in which you were raised takes its toll on your mind. 

Please don't force those insecurities on Pakistanis comfortable in their heritage and their skin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yaseen1

Most pure castes are found in Muslim society .In west no one knows who is his true father and most of children are born due to extramarital relationship

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Placemat

Pakistani jets rajputs are only in name. After they were conquered by mughals or decided to convert for patronage during Mughal period they inter married with Muslims from the west and hence cannot be claiming themselves to be pure blood. This is fine because there is no need to explicitly break their connections with India. They just need to stop calling themselves these because they aren't really from these clans/ castes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Skyliner

Taimur Khurram said:


> So I really don't see a point to us using such titles.


What's your cast? 
Why would someone hide or stop using his cast, are you ashamed of it?



Tea addict said:


> What's more funny is that the Rajputs of Rajputana don't even consider Pakistani Rajputs as Rajputs.


Who cares.
Btw that's because we made alliance with the mughals and accepted Islam which was not acceptable to you hindu rajputs, and starts to disown the muslims rajputs and lived in denial.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> fair-skinned


Lol who told you that rajputs are fair skinned?
We were warriors dhoop ma larh larh k nasslen ke nasslen jallen parhen hn

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

placemat said:


> akistani jets rajputs are only in name. After they were conquered by mughals or decided to convert for patronage during Mughal period they inter married with Muslims from the west and hence cannot be claiming themselves to be pure blood. This is fine because there is no need to explicitly break their connections with India. They just need to stop calling themselves these because they aren't really from these clans/ castes



Says darkies who claim Irani blood. Give us a break. Accept your Southern heritage.



Skyliner said:


> Lol who told you that rajputs are fair skinned?
> We were warriors dhoop ma larh larh k nasslen ke nasslen jallen parhen hn



It is an incidental trait of many Rajput clans and does not mean we are superior. We also tend to have curly hair in more abundance than other Punjabis, along with green eyes and brown hair. Mostly however we are known for our height and muscular build.

However even dark-skinned Pakistanis look very different compared to Indians, as we generally all have long noses, longer face, and tend to be more muscular, tall build.

We are totally different civilizations, racially and culturally.


----------



## Jackdaws

Lol @ this thread. There might be some Rajputs in the Sindh-Rajasthan border areas in Pakistan. But that's about it. Ridiculous how Pakistanis can claim to be Rajputs otherwise though.


----------



## Tea addict

Skyliner said:


> Who cares.
> Btw that's because we made alliance with the mughals and accepted Islam which was not acceptable to you hindu rajputs, and starts to disown the muslims rajputs and lived in denial.


Actually it's the other way around..its the Rajasthani Rajputs who had much stronger alliance than any so-called muslim Rajputs .Most of the the time the Mughal army was led by an Rajasthani general even against Maharana Pratap ,Shivaji ,Afghan rebelllre and much more. When the Assamese faced Mughal army they dresses their Frontline soldiers as pandits as they knew it is considered a sin in Hindu Rajputs to kill a priest and they gain initial momentum and eventually won the ahom - Mughal wars.The Rajputs resistance to "islamic rule" is usually used by hindutva or Islamic right wingers who see everything from the eyes of religion. Most Rajputs Kings back then only concern was how to expand their kingdom,not religion.


DANCING GIRL said:


> It,s we the only Muslim rajput whose more than 600 years old lineage is available.A lot of detail is available in Distt gazetteer of India published in 1864.A detailed family tree is available which goes up to Beer Bikarama jeet and Ram Chander jee.etc
> There was no cousin and outside gotra marriage before 1947.Till today very few people whom I know married outside the gotra.


You know one has to marry outside gotra in gotra marriage tradition? As a matter of fact you marry outside 3 gotra -- your own,your mother's and your grandmother's.This is done to avoid intermixing which leads to many diseases in offspringsas we can we in cousin marriage cases.


MUSTAKSHAF said:


> Oral or written record is kept of all Males from whom one is descendant,along with record of major migration.I have seen peoples having record upto 40 Generations with almost half of names which would sound quite odd.
> Only Males are recorded.


Nice but you didn't told me your background. Baloch?


waz said:


> I've seen with my own two eyes Rajputs from Rajasthan embrace Pakistani ones as kin. Here in the UK we have many such events where Rajputs (Indian) gather and will invite along Pakistani Rajput friends.
> 
> Here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I will agree there are some who don't see how you can be Rajput and not a follower of Sanatana Dharma, but I have found them in the minority. The other views are as follows;
> -It's a bloodline and so therefore even non-Hindus ones are kin.
> -They don't really care.


Not just they but even most modern Rajputs don't care but I had to tell that guy truth for whom Pakistani Rajputs are "the bravest,tallest,fairest etc etc Rajputs" .little do he realize Rajputs are known to have wheatish complexion, not fair.i don't care either even I treat daroga people as Rajputs .



Jackdaws said:


> Lol @ this thread. There might be some Rajputs in the Sindh-Rajasthan border areas in Pakistan. But that's about it. Ridiculous how Pakistanis can claim to be Rajputs otherwise though.


If it comes to real Rajputs, the rural conservative Rajputs of Rajasthan don't even consider half of indian Rajputs as Rajputs. They just laugh when they hear term like "Pakistani Rajputs".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Tea addict said:


> They just laugh when they hear term like "Pakistani Rajputs".



Then you have no place in this thread as this thread by brother @Taimur Khurram  is only concerned with Rajput, Jat, Gujjar identity in Pakistan.

See you later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tea addict

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Then you have no place in this thread as this thread by brother @Taimur Khurram is only concerned with Rajput, Jat, Gujjar identity in Pakistan.
> 
> See you later.


You are the first person who wrote " indian Hindu Rajputs" in this thread. Ban me all you want , but as I said you van get away with saying stuff like that only on PDF and Pakistan. Not a single Pakistani Rajput can prove your statement of being the real ,superior Rajputs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Tea addict said:


> You are the first person who wrote " indian Hindu Rajputs" in this thread. Ban me all you want , but as I said you van get away with saying stuff like that only on PDF and Pakistan. Not a single Pakistani Rajput can prove your statement of being the real ,superior Rajputs.



The point of this thread is to discuss tribal, clan identity among Pakistanis. Brother Taimoor has done a great job and I believe that its good for Pakistanis to discuss these topics among ourselves openly to have a more consolidated identity based on our heritage as sons/daughters of the IVC and Irani tribes which settled Pakistan.

You are not a part of this discussion.

I gain nothing from proving anything to you. Stop trolling here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tea addict

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> The point of this thread is to discuss tribal, clan identity among Pakistanis. Brother Taimoor has done a great job and I believe that its good for Pakistanis to discuss these topics among ourselves openly to have a more consolidated identity based on our heritage as sons/daughters of the IVC and Irani tribes which settled Pakistan.
> 
> You are not a part of this discussion.
> 
> I gain nothing from proving anything to you. Stop trolling here.


Don't come up with "indian Hindu Rajputs" in your discussion further with him and I won't come here even to take a piss.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Placemat

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Says darkies who claim Irani blood. Give us a break. Accept your Southern heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an incidental trait of many Rajput clans and does not mean we are superior. We also tend to have curly hair in more abundance than other Punjabis, along with green eyes and brown hair. Mostly however we are known for our height and muscular build.
> 
> However even dark-skinned Pakistanis look very different compared to Indians, as we generally all have long noses, longer face, and tend to be more muscular, tall build.
> 
> We are totally different civilizations, racially and culturally.


Firstly I know who I am and fully accept Nd happy and proud with it.
I am suggesting to you in order to remove your confusion you are not jat or Rp because after conversion to Islam no one can say what blood is there. And I don't say that in a bad way. Islam attempts an extreme degree of homogenization by marrying into various races tribes community and in India's case , castes. So there is a great chance that rp jat rtf have Arabic Turkic central Asian or African blood. Also definitely some Mongol genes because of Genghis Khans army.
So please don't take what I said the two g way and I don't mean. To troll

Ps the word Mughal itself means Mongol.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Says darkies who claim Irani blood. Give us a break. Accept your Southern heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an incidental trait of many Rajput clans and does not mean we are superior. We also tend to have curly hair in more abundance than other Punjabis, along with green eyes and brown hair. Mostly however we are known for our height and muscular build.
> 
> However even dark-skinned Pakistanis look very different compared to Indians, as we generally all have long noses, longer face, and tend to be more muscular, tall build.
> 
> We are totally different civilizations, racially and culturally.


Rajputs look the way you mentioned because of the input of genes from other parts of Islamic world. Curly hair - African. Brown hair - Persian or Turkish, green eyes - Turkish or c Asian which in turn is Caucasian. Muscular build- native rajputs maybe. Angular nose - Afghan probably. 
Hence I rest my case.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabira

Tea addict said:


> You know one has to marry outside gotra in gotra marriage tradition? As a matter of fact you marry outside 3 gotra -- your own,your mother's and your grandmother's.This is done to avoid intermixing which leads to many diseases in offspringsas we can we in cousin marriage cases.



Hindus don't avoid cousin marriages because of genetic disorder, its more of cultural thing. I've read somewhere that it was to avoid being to near village of bride. Europeans are the ones that made cousin marriages taboo after 18th century for scientific reasons. 

In Zoroastrian which is considered religion from same source as hinduism aka steppe as @pedamchan will confirm marriages are even allowed between son and mother and father and daughter, brother and sister.


----------



## Placemat

Kabira said:


> Hindus don't avoid cousin marriages because of genetic disorder, its more of cultural thing. I've read somewhere that it was to avoid being to near village of bride. Europeans are the ones that made cousin marriages taboo after 18th century for scientific reasons.
> 
> In Zoroastrian which is considered religion from same source as hinduism aka steppe as @pedamchan will confirm marriages are even allowed between son and mother and father and daughter, brother and sister.


Wrong Zoroastrianism is the precursor to monotheistic religions. It is the first to have this concept of one God. There was no connection bw Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. As for cousin marriages there are rules in Hinduism which had the gotram concept where you cannot marry paternally. But other rules for cousin marriages exists in the south altho slowly losing ground. I don't completely agree in this day and age with 1 billion Hindus but it's what it is..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SorryNotSorry

Lol at this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sam.

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Not at all, we should never break our links with our ancestors; these three groups combined would make up a majority of Punjab's population. Yes, some of them overlap into India and even Afghanistan; but their heartland is in Pakistan.
> 
> All of these groups are significantly higher proportion in Pakistan than they are in India.
> 
> *Jat population:*
> Pakistan: 16%
> India: 2-3%
> 
> *Gujjar population:*
> Pakistan: 10-15% (varies on sources)
> India: 1-2% (varies on sources)
> 
> *Rajput population:*
> Pakistan: 8-10%
> India: 3.43%


Bogus so please share source.


waz said:


> I've seen with my own two eyes Rajputs from Rajasthan embrace Pakistani ones as kin. Here in the UK we have many such events where Rajputs (Indian) gather and will invite along Pakistani Rajput friends.
> 
> Here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I will agree there are some who don't see how you can be Rajput and not a follower of Sanatana Dharma, but I have found them in the minority. The other views are as follows;
> -It's a bloodline and so therefore even non-Hindus ones are kin.
> -They don't really care.


It's same with us as we open our arms for Pakistani Jats too as our kins.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

placemat said:


> I am suggesting to you in order to remove your confusion you are not jat or Rp because after conversion to Islam no one can say what blood is there.



Lol. Then please move along.

This thread has nothing to do with you.



placemat said:


> Rajputs look the way you mentioned because of the input of genes from other parts of Islamic world. Curly hair - African. Brown hair - Persian or Turkish, green eyes - Turkish or c Asian which in turn is Caucasian. Muscular build- native rajputs maybe. Angular nose - Afghan probably.
> Hence I rest my case.



What kind of laughable BS is this?





Tea addict said:


> Don't come up with "indian Hindu Rajputs" in your discussion further with him and I won't come here even to take a piss.



You can’t control what Pakistanis discuss with themselves on a Pakistani forum.


----------



## Sine Nomine

Tea addict said:


> Nice but you didn't told me your background. Baloch?


Rajput from both sides.


Tea addict said:


> If it comes to real Rajputs, the rural conservative Rajputs of Rajasthan don't even consider half of indian Rajputs as Rajputs. They just laugh when they hear term like "Pakistani Rajputs".


Number of fake Rajputs is lot more then we think.
In Pakistan tradition of maintaining lineage is dying.I have seen people's around me who won't marry out of tribe.
But these fake Rajputs can be tracked.At village level there is a lineage custodian,who has got lineage of every person in village.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AfrazulMandal

waz said:


> I've seen with my own two eyes Rajputs from Rajasthan embrace Pakistani ones as kin. Here in the UK we have many such events where Rajputs (Indian) gather and will invite along Pakistani Rajput friends.
> 
> Here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I will agree there are some who don't see how you can be Rajput and not a follower of Sanatana Dharma, but I have found them in the minority. The other views are as follows;
> -It's a bloodline and so therefore even non-Hindus ones are kin.
> -They don't really care.


This is unfortunately the exception and not the rule.


----------



## Max

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I care not what you think. Rajputs are Rajputs and Pakistan is full of them.
> 
> From the military, parliament, to the judiciary, we have a strong presence at all levels of government.
> 
> Several of my relatives are famous and well-known personalities in Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistan is as much a Rajput nation as it is a Pukhtoon nation or Kashmiri nation.
> 
> Our Islamicization and alliance with the Mughals made us not only the rulers of Punjab, but the whole of the Indus and Hindustan.
> 
> We don’t share your contempt of Muslims, in fact we view ourselves as the great defenders and protectors of Islam.





M. Sarmad said:


> To all our Punjab-hating, (self claimed) Pakistani posters (OP included): please stop posting such useless and stupid threads and comments (using multiple ids) ... We should give up identifying ourselves with our tribes and castes to distance ourselves from the Indians? ... Okay, but then the Pashtuns should also stop identifying themselves with their tribes and clans to distance themselves from the Afghanis ... And the Baloch should also do the same to distance themselves from Iranians... Only a class A idiot could have come up with such an idea ... !!



Thread full of inferiority complex. Thankfully Rajputs, Gujjar, Jats don't suffer from this inferiority, they are more son of soil then these wanna be Iranic and Arabs.

Most Nishan e Haider if I am not wrong belongs to Rajputs..

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sine Nomine

Jackdaws said:


> Lol @ this thread. There might be some Rajputs in the Sindh-Rajasthan border areas in Pakistan. But that's about it. Ridiculous how Pakistanis can claim to be Rajputs otherwise though.


Rajputs of Northern Region to begin with.



Max said:


> Thread full of inferiority complex. Thankfully Rajputs, Gujjar, Jats don't suffer from this inferiority, they are more son of soil then these wanna be Iranic and Arabs.


I hate them to core.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sam.

Max said:


> Thread full of inferiority complex. Thankfully Rajputs, Gujjar, Jats don't suffer from this inferiority, they are more son of soil then these wanna be Iranic and Arabs.
> 
> Most Nishan e Haider if I am not wrong belongs to Rajputs..


Indeed they are son of the soil and they die for their motherland be it India or Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Great Janjua

Tea addict said:


> Don't come up with "indian Hindu Rajputs" in your discussion further with him and I won't come here even to take a piss.


Oh tu kira vada rajput ah giya machoda rajput rajput kari jandai mera sala na hovai Thay. asi thay thuk thay vi ni tuwade thay masali thi aulad. aiya vada rajput

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

placemat said:


> Pakistani jets rajputs are only in name. After they were conquered by mughals or decided to convert for patronage during Mughal period they inter married with Muslims from the west and hence cannot be claiming themselves to be pure blood. This is fine because there is no need to explicitly break their connections with India. They just need to stop calling themselves these because they aren't really from these clans/ castes


There were muslim Rajputs even before the mughals came.

For example, Babur hated Raja Hasan Khan (Muslim rajput) who sided with rana sanga against him.

Hassan Khan died on the battlefield while rana sanga (a hindu) fled the battle .. but later died.

You talk about muslim rajputs marryin into mughals? However there exists no such union in history.. but most of mughals had hindu rajput mothers.. even aurangzebs. 
And those hindu rajput states had mughal patronage.

And only became “independent” after the decline of Aurangzeb & his empire.. only to be ruled again by the british.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Joe Shearer

Tea addict said:


> Funny thing about this lie is that only indian Hindu Rajputs follow gotra marriage tradition which is solely based on lineage and clan. It's only the Hindu Rajputs whose 300-400 years old lineage can be easily found as we preserve it in Haridwar and update it after death or birth of any member. What's more funny is that the Rajputs of Rajputana don't even consider Pakistani Rajputs as Rajputs.



They have no idea what they are talking about. Ultimately, it boils down to the same crap about taller, fairer and 'different'. Like the brand of tomato ketchup; they can't define how it is different, they just know that when they wake up in the morning, they are different.

Ignore these lazy, ignorant threads.



MUSTAKSHAF said:


> We do same,lineage over 800 years is preserved and updated.



These are the only genuine records, but while Hindus have a very systematic and centralised repository, I am curious to know how it is preserved outside.

@Tea addict

While the repository in your parts are those who preserve the records in Hardwar, in the east it is Gaya and Puri, and the south has an incredibly accurate system. I know of one family, part of a sub-set of a larger grouping, that came to Mysore in around the year 1000 AD, and has an unbroken record of its own and its collateral lines up to date. The record is a public one, and may be seen by any interested person, and is updated by an authorised person with each birth in each generation - the information has to be forwarded. Unfortunately, as is all too frequent in our paternalistic system, only men's names are recorded.

Just as a curiousity, my own family's records are available both in Gaya and in Puri, and go back 30 generations.



MUSTAKSHAF said:


> @Taimur Khurram these are clans not titles.



I am curious to know why Pakistanis speaking on these topics are completely unable to distinguish between Rajput, Gujjar and Jat. Do they think these are the same? It is a possibility for a certain very specific reason, but I would like to know from a knowledgeable Pakistani, rather than assume something.



Taimur Khurram said:


> Rajput, Jat and Gujjar are not clans, they're communities who intermarry with each other. Hence why I'm rather mixed about Pakistanis identifying with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Could I please see some sources?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said we should, but the fact is that when it comes to ancestry, it's your paternal clan that matters. Gujjar, Jat and Rajput clans don't all come from the same origin. Different clans among them have different origins.



According to you, what is a community, what is a clan and what is a title?



Tea addict said:


> From what background? Will be interesting to know ...in our case we update it after marriage : like from which village the bride is from,her clan,her parents etc..after birth - like what is the name of new member, birthplace etc..after death : that this member has died and died at this place..other than that we also update where we are currently living as I updated my residence as a urban city while my father and last 3 generation residence is in my village and before that another big village which is a tehsil now..I have records of last 11 generation with all their names,whom they married or married off to..where they migrated and that..and before that the subdivision in clan decided our history as a division in clan is named after one person whom we all are decended from.



Fascinating. 

Would like to learn more about this.



waz said:


> I've seen with my own two eyes Rajputs from Rajasthan embrace Pakistani ones as kin. Here in the UK we have many such events where Rajputs (Indian) gather and will invite along Pakistani Rajput friends.
> 
> Here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I will agree there are some who don't see how you can be Rajput and not a follower of Sanatana Dharma, but I have found them in the minority. The other views are as follows;
> -It's a bloodline and so therefore even non-Hindus ones are kin.
> -They don't really care.



I agree.

After all, they were Rajputs before they were Hindus. Their adoption of Hinduism and absorption into the Sanatan Dharma is very interesting, in ethnographic terms.



Kabira said:


> Hindus don't avoid cousin marriages because of genetic disorder, its more of cultural thing. I've read somewhere that it was to avoid being to near village of bride. Europeans are the ones that made cousin marriages taboo after 18th century for scientific reasons.
> 
> In Zoroastrian which is considered religion from same source as hinduism aka steppe as @pedamchan will confirm marriages are even allowed between son and mother and father and daughter, brother and sister.



There is frankly not much connection theologically speaking between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. Zoroastrians came to monotheism in the strictest sense when Hinduism only articulated it deep inside its theological speculations. I am also very uncertain about your statement about their marriage customs, but let's find out more.

@padamchen

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M. Sarmad

Joe Shearer said:


> Ignore these lazy, *ignorant* threads.



ignorância deliberada ....


While Rajput maybe a title and Jat an elastic label, Gujjars definitely are an ethnic group.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

M. Sarmad said:


> ignorância deliberada ....
> 
> 
> While Rajput maybe a title and Jat an elastic label, Gujjars definitely are an ethnic group.



Come back soon, Sir, there's obviously lots to write about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dalai Lama

The identity crisis is palpable. I wonder if the members of this forum are an accurate representation of Pakistani society as a whole. If so, you guys are screwed for the next couple of generations at the very least.


----------



## AfrazulMandal

Dalai Lama said:


> The identity crisis is palpable. I wonder if the members of this forum are an accurate of Pakistani society as a whole. If so, you guys are screwed for the next couple of generations at the very least.


I honestly never expected this.



Joe Shearer said:


> After all, they were Rajputs before they were Hindus.


Is it true that they were just pagans before. The conversion to Hinduism was very violent for Rajputs.


----------



## Joe Shearer

MUSTAKSHAF said:


> Rajput from both sides.
> 
> Number of fake Rajputs is lot more then we think.
> In Pakistan tradition of maintaining lineage is dying.I have seen people's around me who won't marry out of tribe.
> But these fake Rajputs can be tracked.At village level there is a lineage custodian,who has got lineage of every person in village.



This is a VERY complex question. The Rajput is a very flexible grouping, and rather than fake, it may be proper to consider the grouping as an avenue for upward social mobility. For instance, the Rathore was a descendant of the Rastrakutas, originally, who were feared in middle India during the period of the Tripartite Rivalry (that was before bin Qasim, so before the beginning of the world); I was intrigued and deeply interested to find that one of my students, a Lambada, had started calling himself a Rathore!

There are a number of interesting ethnographic studies about Rajputs, especially about the use and spread of the name across north India, but if you wish, I will look up and send you a Facebook page with a young contributor, a Rajput himself, who puts in the most interesting notes and posts.



AfrazulMandal said:


> I honestly never expected this.
> 
> 
> Is it true that they were just pagans before. The conversion to Hinduism was very violent for Rajputs.



Violent? What on earth do you mean? It was violent towards the Hindus, not for the Rajputs. Are you sure you know what was going on?



Sam. said:


> Indeed they are son of the soil and they die for their motherland be it India or Pakistan.



Although I deprecate the whole martial races concoction of the British, I have to agree with you on this point. Whatever their nationality, the Rajputs, Gujjars and Jats are true to their salt.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sine Nomine

Joe Shearer said:


> This is a VERY complex question. The Rajput is a very flexible grouping, and rather than fake, it may be proper to consider the grouping as an avenue for upward social mobility. For instance, the Rathore was a descendant of the Rastrakutas, originally, who were feared in middle India during the period of the Tripartite Rivalry (that was before bin Qasim, so before the beginning of the world); I was intrigued and deeply interested to find that one of my students, a Lambada, had started calling himself a Rathore!
> 
> There are a number of interesting ethnographic studies about Rajputs, especially about the use and spread of the name across north India, but if you wish, I will look up and send you a Facebook page with a young contributor, a Rajput himself, who puts in the most interesting notes and posts.


Indeed it is sign of Nobility,much like title of "RANA" which was title given to nobel elites in ancient times but today is being used as Caste in some areas of Pakistan.I came to know about that when one day i did witnessed taunts thrown on a Rana by elderly Chauhan,who was migrant from Ajmer Sharif,he was saying from which angle do you consider yourself Rana? That guy just replied it's my caste
Please forward me the link.


Joe Shearer said:


> I am curious to know why Pakistanis speaking on these topics are completely unable to distinguish between Rajput, Gujjar and Jat. Do they think these are the same? It is a possibility for a certain very specific reason, but I would like to know from a knowledgeable Pakistani, rather than assume something.


To be very frank,there are Gujjars and they identify themselves as Pashtun there is huge population of Gujjars in Afghanistan and KPK,in my opinion they are another group different from Jats and Rajputs.
When it comes to being knowledgeable,i don't think anyone is more then @Kambojaric.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Placemat

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Lol. Then please move along.
> 
> This thread has nothing to do with you.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of laughable BS is this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t control what Pakistanis discuss with themselves on a Pakistani forum.


Based on what you said


----------



## TMA

Taimur Khurram said:


> I've been thinking recently, what do you guys think about these titles?
> 
> Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs are each pretty big groups with plenty of sub-groups among them. Many of them (e.g Chauhans) are in fact shared among all three. Not only that, but unlike other tribes in Pakistan, these ones don't denote people of a common origin. Each clan claims a different origin, all that unites them is the fact that they intermarry with each other. You even have some clans that are also sometimes considered tribes in their own right. Even in terms of occupation, Jats and Gujjars have been pretty diverse. So I really don't see a point to us using such titles.
> 
> Not only that, but if Pakistanis want to distance ourselves from Indians, wouldn't it better to just drop such names? You get plenty of Indian Jats, Rajputs and Gujjars, but you really won't find many Indians belonging to same clans of these groups as most Pakistanis. Not only that, but Hinduism is often strongly connotated with these groups.
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> @Muslimrenaissance @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan @Samlee @AfrazulMandal @iqbal Ali @Talwar e Pakistan @Areesh @Zibago @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz


No need. You are what you are. So what if some Pakistanis are the same clan as some Bharatis? This is a fact. It should not be denied. 
Just like some Pakistanis share the same clan with some people of Afghanistan.

These clans are Pakistani as well! 
There was a time when our Founding Fathers could have chosen the Language of Iqbal as the national language but alas they did not...

What we need to do is learn the history of the Vedism of Pakistan, which is different to the Puranism of Bharat.
You know Indonesianss also have a "Hindu" history before Islam...and from what I know it does not seem to affect their identity....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sine Nomine

@Joe Shearer send me link sir.


----------



## Placemat

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> There were muslim Rajputs even before the mughals came.
> 
> For example, Babur hated Raja Hasan Khan (Muslim rajput) who sided with rana sanga against him.
> 
> Hassan Khan died on the battlefield while rana sanga (a hindu) fled the battle .. but later died.
> 
> You talk about muslim rajputs marryin into mughals? However there exists no such union in history.. but most of mughals had hindu rajput mothers.. even aurangzebs.
> And those hindu rajput states had mughal patronage.
> 
> And only became “independent” after the decline of Aurangzeb & his empire.. only to be ruled again by the british.


Most of these conversions happened during Mughal time.


Joe Shearer said:


> They have no idea what they are talking about. Ultimately, it boils down to the same crap about taller, fairer and 'different'. Like the brand of tomato ketchup; they can't define how it is different, they just know that when they wake up in the morning, they are different.
> 
> Ignore these lazy, ignorant threads.
> 
> 
> 
> These are the only genuine records, but while Hindus have a very systematic and centralised repository, I am curious to know how it is preserved outside.
> 
> @Tea addict
> 
> While the repository in your parts are those who preserve the records in Hardwar, in the east it is Gaya and Puri, and the south has an incredibly accurate system. I know of one family, part of a sub-set of a larger grouping, that came to Mysore in around the year 1000 AD, and has an unbroken record of its own and its collateral lines up to date. The record is a public one, and may be seen by any interested person, and is updated by an authorised person with each birth in each generation - the information has to be forwarded. Unfortunately, as is all too frequent in our paternalistic system, only men's names are recorded.
> 
> Just as a curiousity, my own family's records are available both in Gaya and in Puri, and go back 30 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious to know why Pakistanis speaking on these topics are completely unable to distinguish between Rajput, Gujjar and Jat. Do they think these are the same? It is a possibility for a certain very specific reason, but I would like to know from a knowledgeable Pakistani, rather than assume something.
> 
> 
> 
> According to you, what is a community, what is a clan and what is a title?
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> Would like to learn more about this.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> After all, they were Rajputs before they were Hindus. Their adoption of Hinduism and absorption into the Sanatan Dharma is very interesting, in ethnographic terms.
> 
> 
> 
> There is frankly not much connection theologically speaking between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. Zoroastrians came to monotheism in the strictest sense when Hinduism only articulated it deep inside its theological speculations. I am also very uncertain about your statement about their marriage customs, but let's find out more.
> 
> @padamchen


Hinduism never talked about monotheism as we know it now. It is only in the A.D.s during Adi Shankaracharya time that advitya philosophy came about which itself is not monotheism but talk about one truth. Correct me if need be


----------



## Chhatrapati

TMA said:


> What we need to do is learn the history of the Vedism of Pakistan, which is different to the Puranism of Bharat.
> You know Indonesianss also have a "Hindu" history before Islam...and from what I know it does not seem to affect their identity....


Clearly you don't know the difference.


----------



## TMA

Tea addict said:


> Funny thing about this lie is that only indian Hindu Rajputs follow gotra marriage tradition which is solely based on lineage and clan. It's only the Hindu Rajputs whose 300-400 years old lineage can be easily found as we preserve it in Haridwar and update it after death or birth of any member. What's more funny is that the Rajputs of Rajputana don't even consider Pakistani Rajputs as Rajputs.


Many Sikhs don't consider Pakistani Punjabis as Punjabis...it matters little to us......

Remember Islam is for all...even the Noble Brahmin....



Chhatrapati said:


> Clearly you don't know the difference.


Would you care to educate me?


----------



## AfrazulMandal

Joe Shearer said:


> Violent? What on earth do you mean? It was violent towards the Hindus, not for the Rajputs


What was violent towards hindus?


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Joe Shearer said:


> According to you, what is a community, what is a clan and what is a title?



Clans would be the sub-groups among these groups I mentioned.

Terms like Rajput just denote a community that tends to intermarry with each other. I use the term title/community to refer to them interchangeably.



Skyliner said:


> What's your cast?



Gujjar.



Skyliner said:


> Why would someone hide or stop using his cast, are you ashamed of it?



I'm not hiding it, I'm just opening a discussion about how necessary they are. They don't denote our lineage (that would be clans), they don't denote our occupation, they don't denote our religion, they literally mean almost nothing. A Chauhan Rajput would be more related to a Chauhan Jat/Gujjar than a Janjua Rajput.



Great Janjua said:


> Answer me one question what is your lineage and cast then we can proceed to have a discussion



Most of my family are Gujjars, in terms of clans we're mixed by I identify with my patrilineal one (Bara).



Tom M said:


> Identity crisis yet again, huh ??? LOL



Wth has an identity crisis got to do with any of this? 



Winchester said:


> Threads like these make it clear to me that I shouldn't raise my kids abroad.
> 
> God damn you guys are confused and have a severe identity crisis. I guess not being able to integrate into the wider society in which you were raised takes its toll on your mind.
> 
> Please don't force those insecurities on Pakistanis comfortable in their heritage and their skin.



Read my original post again, because you clearly didn't understand it.



placemat said:


> Pakistani jets rajputs are only in name. After they were conquered by mughals or decided to convert for patronage during Mughal period they inter married with Muslims from the west and hence cannot be claiming themselves to be pure blood. This is fine because there is no need to explicitly break their connections with India. They just need to stop calling themselves these because they aren't really from these clans/ castes



Nobody claims to be "pure blood", in Pakistan you identify with your paternal lineage, i.e your unbroken chain of male ancestors.



Jackdaws said:


> Lol @ this thread. There might be some Rajputs in the Sindh-Rajasthan border areas in Pakistan. But that's about it. Ridiculous how Pakistanis can claim to be Rajputs otherwise though.



I think it's best you keep your nose out of this.



Tea addict said:


> Not a single Pakistani Rajput can prove your statement of being the real ,superior Rajputs.



It's fairly easy to prove. Pakistani Rajputs (on average) have more Eurasian blood, just like the original Rajputs.



Tea addict said:


> This is done to avoid intermixing which leads to many diseases in offspringsas we can we in cousin marriage cases.



That's a different topic entirely, but I'll leave it at the fact that it clearly hasn't helped you guys much, and that most kids from cousin marriages end up OK:

http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cousins-is-overstated-15809



Max said:


> Thread full of inferiority complex.



No it's not lol. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you can chuck random words at it.



Joe Shearer said:


> I am curious to know why Pakistanis speaking on these topics are completely unable to distinguish between Rajput, Gujjar and Jat. Do they think these are the same? It is a possibility for a certain very specific reason, but I would like to know from a knowledgeable Pakistani, rather than assume something.



Because all three share many of the same clans.



M. Sarmad said:


> While Rajput maybe a title and Jat an elastic label, Gujjars definitely are an ethnic group.



Except me and you are not ethnic Gujjars. Ethnic Gujjars are the nomads who still speak Gojri.



Dalai Lama said:


> The identity crisis is palpable.



How so?

Instead of resorting to silly remarks, why don't you guys try and prove what I'm saying is stupid?

@Great Janjua @Max @Winchester @SorryNotSorry

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

@Taimur Khurram
The other day you were claiming that you were a Bara (descendant of some Sufi) and now you are a Gujjar !! First Make up your mind, dude

Tell me about your 'al'(sub caste) if you are a Gujjar


----------



## GHALIB

Taimur Khurram said:


> I've been thinking recently, what do you guys think about these titles?
> 
> Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs are each pretty big groups with plenty of sub-groups among them. Many of them (e.g Chauhans) are in fact shared among all three. Not only that, but unlike other tribes in Pakistan, these ones don't denote people of a common origin. Each clan claims a different origin, all that unites them is the fact that they intermarry with each other. You even have some clans that are also sometimes considered tribes in their own right. Even in terms of occupation, Jats and Gujjars have been pretty diverse. So I really don't see a point to us using such titles.
> 
> Not only that, but if Pakistanis want to distance ourselves from Indians, wouldn't it better to just drop such names? You get plenty of Indian Jats, Rajputs and Gujjars, but you really won't find many Indians belonging to same clans of these groups as most Pakistanis. Not only that, but Hinduism is often strongly connotated with these groups.
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> @Muslimrenaissance @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @Indus Pakistan @Samlee @AfrazulMandal @iqbal Ali @Talwar e Pakistan @Areesh @Zibago @TMA @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @waz



When chauhan Rajput took wife from jat or gujjar clan progeny are chauhan jat or Chauhan gujjar .rajputts are born they can not be made.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

M. Sarmad said:


> The other day you were claiming that you were a Bara and now you are a Gujjar !! First Make up your mind dude



Bara is a clan among Gujjars . The fact that you distinguish between the two only proves my point.



M. Sarmad said:


> Tell me about your 'al'(sub caste) if you are a Gujjar



My family are mixed in terms of clans, but most of my recent family members (that are Gujjar) are Bara, Toor, and Khatana. Since my paternal clan is Bara, that's what I identify as.



GHALIB said:


> When chauhan Rajput took wife from jat or gujjar clan progeny are chauhan jat or Chauhan gujjar



I highly doubt it's that simple.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GHALIB

AfrazulMandal said:


> No need to break links.
> Call yourself ex Rajputs for instance.
> Rajput then. Muslim now. Alhamdulillah.


Rajput is a Rajput no need of ex or present

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

M. Sarmad said:


> Your other id (paksarzameen) got banned ... I know who you are, that's why I don't take you seriously Afghani ''gujjar"



Lmao you think I'm an Afghan.

@Talwar e Pakistan

Look at this guy.


----------



## GHALIB

M. Sarmad said:


> Your other id (paksarzameen) got banned ... I know who you are, that's why I don't take you seriously Afghani ''gujjar"


Ha ha ha .... Rajput is always rajput,gujjar are Kshatriya

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SorryNotSorry

Taimur Khurram said:


> Clans would be the sub-groups among these groups I mentioned.
> 
> Terms like Rajput just denote a community that tends to intermarry with each other. I use the term title/community to refer to them interchangeably.
> 
> 
> 
> Gujjar.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not hiding it, I'm just opening a discussion about how necessary they are. They don't denote our lineage (that would be clans), they don't denote our occupation, they don't denote our religion, they literally mean almost nothing. A Chauhan Rajput would be more related to a Chauhan Jat/Gujjar than a Janjua Rajput.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my family are Gujjars, in terms of clans we're mixed by I identify with my patrilineal one (Bara).
> 
> 
> 
> Wth has an identity crisis got to do with any of this? You low IQ monkeys love to toss around that word without even knowing what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Read my original post again, because you clearly didn't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody claims to be "pure blood", in Pakistan you identify with your paternal lineage, i.e your unbroken chain of male ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's best you keep your nose out of this.
> 
> 
> 
> It's fairly easy to prove. Pakistani Rajputs (on average) have more Eurasian blood, just like the original Rajputs.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a different topic entirely, but I'll leave it at the fact that it clearly hasn't helped you guys much, and that most kids from cousin marriages end up OK:
> 
> http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cousins-is-overstated-15809
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not lol. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you can chuck random words at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Because all three share many of the same clans.
> 
> 
> 
> Except me and you are not ethnic Gujjars. Ethnic Gujjars are the nomads who still speak Gojri.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Instead of resorting to silly remarks, why don't you guys try and prove what I'm saying is stupid?
> 
> @Great Janjua @Max @Winchester @SorryNotSorry


You are grasping at straws when you go back to colonial theories of these castes (not clans) coming from Eurasia during prehistoric eras. 
The physical traits you list don’t describe Rajputs. 
Also, please stop channeling your inner caste obsessed Hindu. 

My advice to you: You’re clearly not claiming to be from this caste to create a sense of community here. If you were using this topic as an instrument to spread positivity or connecting with others- I wouldn’t be laughing at you. Instead You’re trying to prove to us and yourself that you come from a lineage of some superior warrior caste. You went on to claim how the Pakistani castes are superior/better to the Hindu ones. 
Improve your self confidence and don’t rely on this caste BS to feel better about yourself. Try not to let your personal inferiority complex and identity crisis manifest in this manner. I assume you’re a Muslim- and should practice your deen to be a better human everyday. Make peace with this topic and move on.

Even now, if you claim to be a certain caste, accept the fact that your ancestors must have lost and chickened out. They didn’t ascend as Rajputs from Arabia/Eurasia as Muslims. 
Castism is a flaw in Hindu culture- try not to wear it so loud and proud. We ourselves are trying to move away from this. 

Please stop!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GHALIB

Taimur Khurram said:


> It's times like these where I start to sympathise with Indian members who have to put up with this crap.


What is the crap? Gujjar pratihar are original Kshatriya clans .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

GHALIB said:


> Gujjar pratihar are original Kshatriya clans .



Some Gujjars were Kshatriyas (like the Pratiharas, Tomars, Chauhans, etc). Others were viewed as peasants. Like the Jats, we're mixed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

M. Sarmad said:


> ignorância deliberada ....
> 
> 
> While Rajput maybe a title and Jat an elastic label, Gujjars definitely are an ethnic group.



I agree with you. Rajput is prestigious title that originated in Rajasthan, it doesn't mean anyone who claim to be rajput have origins there or related to Rajasthani royal rajputs. Gujjar isn't title but more like a nomadic "ethnic" group, from NW Pakistan to India these gujjars all have same origins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SorryNotSorry said:


> You are grasping at straws when you go back to colonial theories of these castes (not clans) coming from Eurasia during prehistoric eras.



Not really. Most people from these groups have been shown via DNA studies to also have higher amounts of Eurasian ancestry than others. 



SorryNotSorry said:


> The physical traits you list don’t describe Rajputs.



I never listed any. You're confusing me with @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan 



SorryNotSorry said:


> My advice to you: You’re clearly not claiming to be from this caste to create a sense of community here. If you were using this topic as an instrument to spread positivity or connecting with others- I wouldn’t be laughing at you. Instead You’re trying to prove to us and yourself that you come from a lineage of some superior warrior caste.



Lmao I made no such claim. 



SorryNotSorry said:


> You went on to claim how the Pakistani castes are superior/better to the Hindu ones.



Again, you're confusing me with @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan 



SorryNotSorry said:


> Improve your self confidence and don’t rely on this caste BS to feel better about yourself.



I don't, I'm just discussing something. It's not my fault if racism seeps in (although I'll definitely remember this for the future). 



SorryNotSorry said:


> Try not to let your personal inferiority complex and identity crisis manifest in this manner.



Lmao I suffer from no such thing, and there is no evidence of that. Again, you're just tossing around random words. 



SorryNotSorry said:


> Even now, if you claim to be a certain caste, accept the fact that your ancestors must have lost and chickened out. They didn’t ascend as Rajputs from Arabia/Eurasia as Muslims.



Converting to a superior ideology is not "chickening out", and just because they converted doesn't mean it was by force. And my paternal clan is descended from a Sufi so it doesn't matter anyway. 



SorryNotSorry said:


> Castism is a flaw in Hindu culture- try not to wear it so loud and proud. We ourselves are trying to move away from this.



I don't lol, we're trying to do the same.



Kabira said:


> Gujjar isn't title but more like a nomadic "ethnic" group, from NW Pakistan to India these gujjars all have same origins.



Not quite, we're an amalgamation of multiple different clans who just intermarry with each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

MUSTAKSHAF said:


> @Joe Shearer send me link sir.



Just returned home; in ten minutes' time. Sorry for the delay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

placemat said:


> Most of these conversions happened during Mughal time.



Actually, my impression is that large sections of the Rajputs, Gujjars and Jats converted during the Sultanate, rather than during the Mughal imperium. But this is from memory and general impressions, and if you challenge me, I will have to seek two or three days to check and tell you.



> Hinduism never talked about monotheism as we know it now. It is only in the A.D.s during Adi Shankaracharya time that advitya philosophy came about which itself is not monotheism but talk about one truth. Correct me if need be



LOL.

I am laughing at our temerity in taking up a subject such as this.

No, I can't deny that this was the case. But I quake in my shoes at the prospect of summarising it into a few sentences. Perhaps the best I can do is to point to your statement that it is not monotheism but talk about one truth, and supplement it by saying that it is a form of monism, and defines reality as unified, that the self and the divine are unified. This wording is so clumsy even to me that I suggest it is best to leave it alone and move on. 

Although the philosophical roots go back to the Upanishads, and to Vedanta, and to the six schools of Hindu philosophy, another way to look at it is as Shankaracharya's rebuttal of Buddhism. Since Buddhist thinking left out the question of divinity and divine identity and concentrated on the nature of moksha, of the self, atman, and of how to attain moksha, ignoring the possibility of attaining it through divine intervention or judgement, this counter also focussed on moksha, on the self and on the identity of the self with _brahman_. I hope I am not struck down by Shankaracharya's outraged spirit, if it still exists somewhere, and that it finds me so funny that it is laughing a cosmic laugh and is too busy to do anything else.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Placemat

Taimur Khurram said:


> Clans would be the sub-groups among these groups I mentioned.
> 
> Terms like Rajput just denote a community that tends to intermarry with each other. I use the term title/community to refer to them interchangeably.
> 
> 
> 
> Gujjar.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not hiding it, I'm just opening a discussion about how necessary they are. They don't denote our lineage (that would be clans), they don't denote our occupation, they don't denote our religion, they literally mean almost nothing. A Chauhan Rajput would be more related to a Chauhan Jat/Gujjar than a Janjua Rajput.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my family are Gujjars, in terms of clans we're mixed by I identify with my patrilineal one (Bara).
> 
> 
> 
> Wth has an identity crisis got to do with any of this? You low IQ monkeys love to toss around that word without even knowing what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Read my original post again, because you clearly didn't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody claims to be "pure blood", in Pakistan you identify with your paternal lineage, i.e your unbroken chain of male ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's best you keep your nose out of this.
> 
> 
> 
> It's fairly easy to prove. Pakistani Rajputs (on average) have more Eurasian blood, just like the original Rajputs.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a different topic entirely, but I'll leave it at the fact that it clearly hasn't helped you guys much, and that most kids from cousin marriages end up OK:
> 
> http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cousins-is-overstated-15809
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not lol. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you can chuck random words at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Because all three share many of the same clans.
> 
> 
> 
> Except me and you are not ethnic Gujjars. Ethnic Gujjars are the nomads who still speak Gojri.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Instead of resorting to silly remarks, why don't you guys try and prove what I'm saying is stupid?
> 
> @Great Janjua @Max @Winchester @SorryNotSorry


Sirji replying to my posts reply. Yes your patriarchal lineage marries Muslim women whose patriarchal lineage could be Muslims.. it's not hard for mixed blood to join.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yogijaat

Jat and gujjar were titles originally based on profession, this is like 2500 years before. The caste system itself was based on the profession and it was allowed to change your caste by changing profession. Later on, it became rigid and inter caste marriage was banned and caste became an identity by birth. You are talking about forgetting history of more than 2000 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SorryNotSorry said:


> Keep telling yourself you come from a great caste.



I don't. There is no such thing as a "great caste". We are all related one way or another and share a common origin, no point in trying to say x group of Homo sapiens is better than y group of Homo sapiens.



Yogijaat said:


> this is like 2500 years before.



None of the groups I mentioned are that old. 



Yogijaat said:


> The caste system itself was based on the profession and it was allowed to change your caste by changing profession.



I'm not talking about caste, these groups aren't castes.



Yogijaat said:


> You are talking about forgetting history of more than 2000 years.



I'm not talking about "forgetting history", I'm talking about the idea of people just sticking with their paternal origin by going by their clan. I wanted to see what others thought, and it's clear almost nobody agrees with it.


----------



## Joe Shearer

AfrazulMandal said:


> What was violent towards hindus?



That was before my medication. After that, and after a healing walk, I am able to collect my thoughts and answer more reasonably. My apologies for the earlier asperity.

The generally accepted theory, or perhaps, the generally least rejected theory is that Rajputs, Gujjars and Jats were none of them part of the original migration of Indo-Aryan speaking breakaways from the mainstream Indo-Iranian body, but were much later, but allied, migrants who entered the sub-continent during the turbulent times between 300 BC and 100 AD. That does not mean that they were not known to their cousins who entered India earlier; Indian epic literature is full of references to the further-most tribes, the Uttara Madras, the Parama Kamboja and others, who lived on the fringes of Indo-Aryan society, speaking an archaic but allied language that was no longer identical to that being spoken in the Indian plains. The most well-known of these were the Kamboja, quite possibly descended from the Parama Kamboja of Indian epic references.

Immediately before this, the Achaemenids, Zoroastrians, expanded their empire to the Indian marches of the Indus Valley, and further north to the foothills of the Pamirs and the Himalayas. Takshila was apparently part of their empire, the Achaemenid satrapies being Sogdiana (the land bordering Scythian-dominated steppes), Bactria (modern-day Balkh) and Gandhara (more or less the Kabul region) in the north, and in the south, the provinces of Arachosia and Gedrosia (now Balochistan, bordering the sea). The Scythians are generally considered to be a nomadic people who spoke East Iranian.

After Alexander III the Great overthrew the Achaemenid Empire, and died untimely at 33, his successors fought a series of wars among themselves. The part that concerns us is the breakaway of Balkh, or Bactria, and Sogdiana and Gandhara, under the Greek colonists of Alexandrine cities founded there, their clashes with Indian monarchs and their successes, culminating in their dominion of northern India at least as far as Mathura. But they were to meet their downfall at the hands of the Scythians and their allies, the Pahlavi, who were pushed out of the steppelands that they dominated by the Yueh Chi, earlier associated with the Kushana, and thought to have been speakers of the lost Centum language, Tokharian. These Scythians first moved into Sogdiana and Bactria, having been neighbours of Sogdiana, and in their influx destroyed the Bactrian Greeks, or the Indo-Greek kingdoms of Bactria, as political powers. This is sometime around 125 BC. The Scythians continued to press towards the core lands of Iran, putting pressure on the Iranian Empire of the Parthians, that was slowly emerging from the wreck of the Greek successor kingdoms to the Alexandrine Empire. They killed two Parthian Emperors, before the Parthians gathered themselves up and beat them back further east. 

Very briefly, summarising centuries of battle, conquest, settlement, imperial rule and merging with the existing culture of the locations, the Scythians, in Indian languages, the Saka, settled in the old Arachosia and Gedrosia, and some parts of present-day southern Afghanistan came to be named after them, Sakasthan or Seistan. That was the western boundary; on the east, they ruled as the Northern Satraps in the Gandhara region, and the Western Satraps in the Sindh, Rajasthan, Gujarat region right into Malwa, until being thrown back by a powerful southern emperor, Gautamiputra Satakarni, Emperor of the Satavahanas, sometime in the second half of the first century AD. However, their influence in Gujarat continued till as late as the 5th century AD, when they were conquered (but not expelled) by the Gupta Emperor, Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, around 395 AD. 

To return to the point that you made, the first Indic religion adopted by the Scythian-Saka or the Kushana was Buddhism, that having got a grip on the people of the north-west by then. Buddhism began to decline under the Guptas, and it is then, in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, that the Scythians, or Saka, the Kushana and others began to be 'Sanskritised', or brought into the Hindu social system by Brahmins who created genealogies for them, accounted for their entry into Hinduism (technically impossible) through the legends of the Sun Dynasty, the Moon Dynasty and the Fire Dynasty.

It is at this point that the fierce steppe warriors were gradually settled into an Indian social framework as Kshatriyas, as Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars. 

So it was not that they got rough treatment from Hindus, but the other way around. They came as conquerors; Alexandria on the Oxus was left a smouldering ruin by them when they conquered it. They put their mark permanently on India; two calendar eras were triggered by them, the Vikram Era of 57 BC, marking their expulsion from Malwa by King Vikram of Ujjain, and the Saka Era of 78 AD, marking their return.

That is why I expressed surprise at what you wrote.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tea addict

Joe Shearer said:


> This is a VERY complex question. The Rajput is a very flexible grouping, and rather than fake, it may be proper to consider the grouping as an avenue for upward social mobility. For instance, the Rathore was a descendant of the Rastrakutas, originally, who were feared in middle India during the period of the Tripartite Rivalry (that was before bin Qasim, so before the beginning of the world); I was intrigued and deeply interested to find that one of my students, a Lambada, had started calling himself a Rathore!
> 
> There are a number of interesting ethnographic studies about Rajputs, especially about the use and spread of the name across north India, but if you wish, I will look up and send you a Facebook page with a young contributor, a Rajput himself, who puts in the most interesting notes and posts.
> 
> 
> 
> Violent? What on earth do you mean? It was violent towards the Hindus, not for the Rajputs. Are you sure you know what was going on?
> 
> 
> 
> Although I deprecate the whole martial races concoction of the British, I have to agree with you on this point. Whatever their nationality, the Rajputs, Gujjars and Jats are true to their salt.


To be honest I also believe Rajput is only a title which was initially used by ruling class of region. There are Rajputs with gotra as "Badgurjar" and many northern Rajasthan,Haryana and west UP Rajputs have same gotras (tanwar,chouhan,etc) as Gurjar and both group look almost similar..the Rathores of marwar are completely different..I also believe it's not an ethnicity..then there are Pahadi Gurjar in Uttrakhand, dogras in Jammu.. certainty not an ethnicity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Taimur Khurram said:


> Clans would be the sub-groups among these groups I mentioned.
> 
> Terms like Rajput just denote a community that tends to intermarry with each other. I use the term title/community to refer to them interchangeably.
> 
> 
> 
> Gujjar.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not hiding it, I'm just opening a discussion about how necessary they are. They don't denote our lineage (that would be clans), they don't denote our occupation, they don't denote our religion, they literally mean almost nothing. A Chauhan Rajput would be more related to a Chauhan Jat/Gujjar than a Janjua Rajput.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my family are Gujjars, in terms of clans we're mixed by I identify with my patrilineal one (Bara).
> 
> 
> 
> Wth has an identity crisis got to do with any of this? You low IQ monkeys love to toss around that word without even knowing what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Read my original post again, because you clearly didn't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody claims to be "pure blood", in Pakistan you identify with your paternal lineage, i.e your unbroken chain of male ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's best you keep your nose out of this.
> 
> 
> 
> It's fairly easy to prove. Pakistani Rajputs (on average) have more Eurasian blood, just like the original Rajputs.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a different topic entirely, but I'll leave it at the fact that it clearly hasn't helped you guys much, and that most kids from cousin marriages end up OK:
> 
> http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cousins-is-overstated-15809
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not lol. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you can chuck random words at it.
> 
> 
> 
> Because all three share many of the same clans.
> 
> 
> 
> Except me and you are not ethnic Gujjars. Ethnic Gujjars are the nomads who still speak Gojri.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Instead of resorting to silly remarks, why don't you guys try and prove what I'm saying is stupid?
> 
> @Great Janjua @Max @Winchester @SorryNotSorry



Thank you for a most interesting post. This shall be my very pleasant after-dinner reading. Many thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tea addict

Taimur Khurram said:


> It's fairly easy to prove. Pakistani Rajputs (on average) have more Eurasian blood, just like the original Rajputs.


Find me a single poem,folklore or story which defines anything close to Eurasian feature of Rajputs..there are poems ,folklores and everything which defines Rajputs as "sawla"(wheatish complexion), "angry brown red eyes" "facial hairs" and stuff which is completely opposite of eurasian feature.. widely known is PDF does not equal to widely known in history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Tea addict said:


> ,folklores and everything which defines Rajputs as "sawla"(wheatish complexion), "angry brown red eyes" "facial hairs" and stuff



Those are literally features that the Ancient Iranic conquerors (who Rajputs are said to be descended from) possessed. 

Back then, most natives were pretty dark. Only foreigners had a wheatish complexion. This isn't just the case for Bharat, the same can be said for Pakistan.


----------



## Tea addict

Taimur Khurram said:


> Those are literally features that the Ancient Iranic conquerors (who Rajputs are said to be descended from) possessed.
> 
> Back then, most natives were pretty dark. Only foreigners had a wheatish complexion. This isn't just the case for Bharat, the same can be said for Pakistan.


Then again what is your reference? Or just "widely known in PDF"?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Please, gentlemen, this is a sensitive subject, our lineage and heritage is dear to each of us, let us consider the matter dispassionately and in a spirit of detached academic enquiry. I find the subject of absorbing interest, because these social structures served a purpose once upon a time, a negative or a positive purpose, depending on our own individual points of view. We can do worse than look at what impact these had on society, and what continued impact it has at the present day. Is it helping us in our social development? Is it holding us back? We have already watched it for seventy years after independence; there is now enough evidence to consider the matter. 

Some of us are less knowledgeable than others. In a very selfish way, let me appeal to other participating members to overlook our glaring errors, and to correct them instead of criticising them and their authors.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Yogijaat

Taimur Khurram said:


> I don't. There is no such thing as a "great caste". We are all related one way or another and share a common origin, no point in trying to say x group of Homo sapiens is better than y group of Homo sapiens.
> 
> 
> 
> None of the groups I mentioned are that old.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about caste, these groups aren't castes.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about "forgetting history", I'm talking about the idea of people just sticking with their paternal origin by going by their clan. I wanted to see what others thought, and it's clear almost nobody agrees with it.


The caste system by profession is this old and recorded by greeks also. It's very hard to give it away, since it's made by blood.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Dalai Lama said:


> or linkage of Pakistanis to Iranians, Turks, Arabs, Afghans or whatever else.



No, it's linkage to the Islamic conquerors. And that's not an "identity crisis", it's just a fact. They didn't pick up their bags and disappear when the Islamic rule over the region ended. They assimilated into the Muslim communities of the region. 

The only ones who claim to be closer to Iranians/Afghans from an ethnic perspective are Pashtuns and Baloch, which is pretty factual.

Others say that people from the Indus prior to 1947 used to speak Farsi which also links us to them. Again, this is factual.



Dalai Lama said:


> It's like you consider yourself to be inferior in some way so you have to cling on to other nations or races.



IVC is not from another nation/race.



Dalai Lama said:


> It's comes off as you guys having no identity of your own apart from being "not Indian".



Our identity is that we're Muslims from the Indus. That's it. That's all it's ever been. As far as other ones go (e.g ethnicity), they vary because Pakistan is pretty diverse.

And I don't see how my thread relates to this.



Yogijaat said:


> The caste system



I already told you, I'm not speaking about castes.



Tea addict said:


> Then again what is your reference? Or just "widely known in PDF"?



You can read this up for yourself if you don't believe me. Or better yet, just look at Pashtuns (the closest living examples of what these Ancient Iranic conquerors looked like) and then look at low caste Hindus (the closest living example of what Ancient Bhartis looked like).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 313ghazi

I am Jatt. 
So what? 
Is it good, is it bad; it matters not.

People need to get over their identity complexes. 

I don't understand this pride sense of shame/pride that some people have about what their ancestors where/weren't. What difference does it made if they worshipped, fire or elephants or some other pagan diety? 

If your worried about your "muslimness" focus on your aqeeda not your caste. 

If your worried aobut your "Pakistaniyat" focus on civic duty, not re-writing history.

What is a nation? Basically lines in the dirt which define what resources you have access too. Your focus should be on best utilising those resources for the benefits of the people who are within those lines. That is a matter to be proud of, not ancestory. What your ancestor did/did not do was his or her own deed and the merit of it ends with them.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
7


----------



## Sam.

Joe Shearer said:


> That was before my medication. After that, and after a healing walk, I am able to collect my thoughts and answer more reasonably. My apologies for the earlier asperity.
> 
> The generally accepted theory, or perhaps, the generally least rejected theory is that Rajputs, Gujjars and Jats were none of them part of the original migration of Indo-Aryan speaking breakaways from the mainstream Indo-Iranian body, but were much later, but allied, migrants who entered the sub-continent during the turbulent times between 300 BC and 100 AD. That does not mean that they were not known to their cousins who entered India earlier; Indian epic literature is full of references to the further-most tribes, the Uttara Madras, the Parama Kamboja and others, who lived on the fringes of Indo-Aryan society, speaking an archaic but allied language that was no longer identical to that being spoken in the Indian plains. The most well-known of these were the Kamboja, quite possibly descended from the Parama Kamboja of Indian epic references.
> 
> Immediately before this, the Achaemenids, Zoroastrians, expanded their empire to the Indian marches of the Indus Valley, and further north to the foothills of the Pamirs and the Himalayas. Takshila was apparently part of their empire, the Achaemenid satrapies being Sogdiana (the land bordering Scythian-dominated steppes), Bactria (modern-day Balkh) and Gandhara (more or less the Kabul region) in the north, and in the south, the provinces of Arachosia and Gedrosia (now Balochistan, bordering the sea). The Scythians are generally considered to be a nomadic people who spoke East Iranian.
> 
> After Alexander III the Great overthrew the Achaemenid Empire, and died untimely at 33, his successors fought a series of wars among themselves. The part that concerns us is the breakaway of Balkh, or Bactria, and Sogdiana and Gandhara, under the Greek colonists of Alexandrine cities founded there, their clashes with Indian monarchs and their successes, culminating in their dominion of northern India at least as far as Mathura. But they were to meet their downfall at the hands of the Scythians and their allies, the Pahlavi, who were pushed out of the steppelands that they dominated by the Yueh Chi, earlier associated with the Kushana, and thought to have been speakers of the lost Centum language, Tokharian. These Scythians first moved into Sogdiana and Bactria, having been neighbours of Sogdiana, and in their influx destroyed the Bactrian Greeks, or the Indo-Greek kingdoms of Bactria, as political powers. This is sometime around 125 BC. The Scythians continued to press towards the core lands of Iran, putting pressure on the Iranian Empire of the Parthians, that was slowly emerging from the wreck of the Greek successor kingdoms to the Alexandrine Empire. They killed two Parthian Emperors, before the Parthians gathered themselves up and beat them back further east.
> 
> Very briefly, summarising centuries of battle, conquest, settlement, imperial rule and merging with the existing culture of the locations, the Scythians, in Indian languages, the Saka, settled in the old Arachosia and Gedrosia, and some parts of present-day southern Afghanistan came to be named after them, Sakasthan or Seistan. That was the western boundary; on the east, they ruled as the Northern Satraps in the Gandhara region, and the Western Satraps in the Sindh, Rajasthan, Gujarat region right into Malwa, until being thrown back by a powerful southern emperor, Gautamiputra Satakarni, Emperor of the Satavahanas, sometime in the second half of the first century AD. However, their influence in Gujarat continued till as late as the 5th century AD, when they were conquered (but not expelled) by the Gupta Emperor, Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, around 395 AD.
> 
> To return to the point that you made, the first Indic religion adopted by the Scythian-Saka or the Kushana was Buddhism, that having got a grip on the people of the north-west by then. Buddhism began to decline under the Guptas, and it is then, in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, that the Scythians, or Saka, the Kushana and others began to be 'Sanskritised', or brought into the Hindu social system by Brahmins who created genealogies for them, accounted for their entry into Hinduism (technically impossible) through the legends of the Sun Dynasty, the Moon Dynasty and the Fire Dynasty.
> 
> It is at this point that the fierce steppe warriors were gradually settled into an Indian social framework as Kshatriyas, as Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars.
> 
> So it was not that they got rough treatment from Hindus, but the other way around. They came as conquerors; Alexandria on the Oxus was left a smouldering ruin by them when they conquered it. They put their mark permanently on India; two calendar eras were triggered by them, the Vikram Era of 57 BC, marking their expulsion from Malwa by King Vikram of Ujjain, and the Saka Era of 78 AD, marking their return.
> 
> That is why I expressed surprise at what you wrote.


Sir from my bloodline i was told we are Chandrvanshi Kshatriyas as described by you moon dynasty but love to take your head for my history in the Sub continent.



313ghazi said:


> I am Jatt.
> So what?
> Is it good, is it bad; it matters not.
> 
> People need to get over their identity complexes.
> 
> I don't understand this pride sense of shame/pride that some people have about what their ancestors where/weren't. What difference does it made if they worshipped, fire or elephants or some other pagan diety?
> 
> If your worried about your "muslimness" focus on your aqeeda not your caste.
> 
> If your worried aobut your "Pakistaniyat" focus on civic duty, not re-writing history.
> 
> What is a nation? Basically lines in the dirt which define what resources you have access too. Your focus should be on best utilising those resources for the benefits of the people who are within those lines. That is a matter to be proud of, not ancestory. What your ancestor did/did not do was his or her own deed and the merit of it ends with them.


What is your surname if you don't mind me asking?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saiyan0321

Joe Shearer said:


> Please, gentlemen, this is a sensitive subject, our lineage and heritage is dear to each of us, let us consider the matter dispassionately and in a spirit of detached academic enquiry. I find the subject of absorbing interest, because these social structures served a purpose once upon a time, a negative or a positive purpose, depending on our own individual points of view. We can do worse than look at what impact these had on society, and what continued impact it has at the present day. Is it helping us in our social development? Is it holding us back? We have already watched it for seventy years after independence; there is now enough evidence to consider the matter.
> 
> Some of us are less knowledgeable than others. In a very selfish way, let me appeal to other participating members to overlook our glaring errors, and to correct them instead of criticising them and their authors.



I am Going to back Joe up here and second his request. I would also like to know more about the genealogical history of these tribes.. I am surrounded by them. :p 

On top of it I sincerely believe that a good historical discussion can come of it and I love reading history.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Your other id (paksarzameen) got banned ... I know who you are, that's why I don't take you seriously Afghani ''gujjar"


I know him, he's a gujjar. Stop calling anyone who doesn't conform to your narrative an Afghani.



Yogijaat said:


> Jat and gujjar were titles originally based on profession, this is like 2500 years before. The caste system itself was based on the profession and it was allowed to change your caste by changing profession. Later on, it became rigid and inter caste marriage was banned and caste became an identity by birth. You are talking about forgetting history of more than 2000 years.


It's not a part of the caste system and they are not originally based off of profession. These are distinct tribes; with some even having their own languages like Gojri; they are based off of the Biradari system of Punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Taimur Khurram said:


> Those are literally features that the Ancient Iranic conquerors (who Rajputs are said to be descended from) possessed.
> 
> Back then, most natives were pretty dark. Only foreigners had a wheatish complexion. This isn't just the case for Bharat, the same can be said for Pakistan.



Irani (Aryan) tribes were fair skinned compared to the Gangetic Dravidians from which most Indians are descended from.

Our ancestors were racist and looked at them with disdain, we have no ill feelings toward dark skinned people now because of Islam.

Rajputs were traditionally arrogant and viewed themselves as superior to the natives of the Gangetic plains.

It is will well known that only the most warlike and martial of the Rajput clans could survive the constant warfare of the Punjab. Minor clans were exterminated or fled to other areas.

This is why this region has always been known to supply some of the best soldiers, warriors, and generals throughout history from Alexander’s time, Dilli Sultanah, Afghan empires, Persian rule, Arab conquest, Mughal dynasty, British rule, and now Pakistan.

What I don’t understand is Hindu pseudo-historians who come to Pakistani history or identity threads and act like they are superior?

They will get a rude awakening.



placemat said:


> Sirji replying to my posts reply. Yes your patriarchal lineage marries Muslim women whose patriarchal lineage could be Muslims.. it's not hard for mixed blood to join.



Again with this nonsense.



SorryNotSorry said:


> My advice to you: You’re clearly not claiming to be from this caste to create a sense of community here. If you were using this topic as an instrument to spread positivity or connecting with others- I wouldn’t be laughing at you. Instead You’re trying to prove to us and yourself that you come from a lineage of some superior warrior caste. You went on to claim how the Pakistani castes are superior/better to the Hindu ones.
> Improve your self confidence and don’t rely on this caste BS to feel better about yourself. Try not to let your personal inferiority complex and identity crisis manifest in this manner. I assume you’re a Muslim- and should practice your deen to be a better human everyday. Make peace with this topic and move on.
> 
> Even now, if you claim to be a certain caste, accept the fact that your ancestors must have lost and chickened out. They didn’t ascend as Rajputs from Arabia/Eurasia as Muslims.
> Castism is a flaw in Hindu culture- try not to wear it so loud and proud. We ourselves are trying to move away from this.
> 
> Please stop!



When the realization hits Indians that even according to their caste system, Pakistanis are high born with more prestigious castes and lineages.

Now, they are telling us to forget our ancestry. Lol.

All while they harp on about their supposed superiority day in and out.

Pakistanis are generally fair skinned compared to Indians, this is a fact and not racist to admit it.

It is not only a result of Arab, Persian, Turk genes, but Pakistani clans and tribes even according to Hindus were high born Iranis (Aryans.)

Many tribes in Pakistan have absolutely no foreign Middle Eastern DNA but still have fair complexion, light hair, light eye colors.

I am not talking about Pukhtoons, Baloch, or Kalash, but Punjabi, Sindhi, and Kashmiri clans.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M. Sarmad

Kabira said:


> Gujjar isn't title but more like a nomadic "ethnic" group, from NW Pakistan to India these gujjars all have same origins.



In BC era, Gujjars have remained one of the most vibrant identities of Central Asia. They later migrated to Northern India (Gujarat and Rajasthan) and it was there they developed their unique identity and culture, and established several Kingdoms (from the fifth century onward). Later on, due to multiple reasons, they moved out of the plains towards Himalayas and Punjab/KP (from the tenth century onward). While moving in towards the Indian subcontinent and then moving 'out' of Northern and Central India to Himalayas, the Gujjars went on giving names to their settlements.



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I know him, he's a gujjar. .



And who are you? And why should I believe in what an anonymous/incognito poster on internet has to say about another anonymous/incognito person? .. not even sure if you two are different persons in real life...

No Gujjar who knows his history will ever try to dissociate himself from his ethnic roots. The OP is a known racist, a multiple id troll.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Great Janjua

History of my roots http://www.apnakharian.com/html/history.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## atya

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Clans are known by lineages, place of origin, and our sub-clans.
> 
> I can’t speak for the others you mentioned, but Rajputs are of three main sub-clans. This is how we know who is an authentic Rajput and who is not.
> 
> Generally among Pakistani Rajputs, there is a strong connection with kinship and heritage. Sikhs also share it.
> 
> When I ask a supposed Indian Hindu Rajput what is their lineage and clan, all I get are blank stares. They don’t keep lineages like we do. Many Indians also keep Rajput surnames though they are not Rajputs. In this instance, it is impossible to verify.
> 
> In short, we are proud of our heritage and the lineage which shows our evolution to Islam. Rajputs have always been on the frontlines of the Islamic conquest (first against it and later its chief soldiers, generals, statesmen) and even today we are working to defend Pakistan from its enemies.



We don't follow the caste system but I know many that still do here in the UK. Had a lovely conversation with my grandad once...we are ghakkar Rajput, there were 4 brothers from Iran and real Rajput are from their progeny.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 313ghazi

Sam. said:


> Sir from my bloodline i was told we are Chandrvanshi Kshatriyas as described by you moon dynasty but love to take your head for my history in the Sub continent.
> 
> 
> What is your surname if you don't mind me asking?



My surname is not a caste based surname. It is an Arabic name. Obviously I don't want to disclose personal details on the Internet.

Our family have been settled in Rajouri District of IOK for about 15 generations. Before then we were cattle herders who migrated north.

I asked at home - we originated from Pindi Bhatti an. We are Jatt Bhatti.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Great Janjua

Well interesting story my family moved from a small rural village in gujrat during 1600s to now what now is known as awana pind in kharian our whole village is basically from two guys one who is mehar gujjar and the other half from my family lineage the jatts so basically these two guys fought over several sites in order to establish their rightful ownership over an area my great great great great grandparent the jatt guy established himself and his wife on the higher grounds and began multiplying and the mehar gujjar took the less elevated sites in our village and began multiplying so basically my village is half gujjar and half jatt even till this day if you visit my village you would be able to tell the clear difference but now syeds and other clans have migrated and established their roots on the edges of our village

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## M. Sarmad

atya said:


> We don't follow the caste system but I know many that still do here in the UK. Had a lovely conversation with my grandad once...we are ghakkar Rajput, there were 4 brothers from Iran and real Rajput are from their progeny.



Rajput is not a tribe. This "Real" vs "Fake" Rajput debate is based upon a false premise. 
While some Rajput clans appeared in India in BC era, they did not use term "Rajput" to describe themselves. It was only after the ruin of Gupta empire by the Huns that "Rajputs" came into existence. Huns, Jats, Gujjars, hephthalites etc assimilated to form Rajput community around 1500 years ago. 
This 'title' was then taken up by several other non-related ruling clans across Northern India.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

313ghazi said:


> I am Jatt.
> So what?
> Is it good, is it bad; it matters not.
> 
> People need to get over their identity complexes.
> 
> I don't understand this pride sense of shame/pride that some people have about what their ancestors where/weren't. What difference does it made if they worshipped, fire or elephants or some other pagan diety?
> 
> If your worried about your "muslimness" focus on your aqeeda not your caste.
> 
> If your worried aobut your "Pakistaniyat" focus on civic duty, not re-writing history.
> 
> What is a nation? Basically lines in the dirt which define what resources you have access too. Your focus should be on best utilising those resources for the benefits of the people who are within those lines. That is a matter to be proud of, not ancestory. What your ancestor did/did not do was his or her own deed and the merit of it ends with them.



This is the only thing that matters. We are Indians because we choose to be Indians. You are Pakistanis because you choose to be Pakistanis. All the rest is time-pass.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Chhatrapati

TMA said:


> Would you care to educate me?


I wish I could detail, but it't time consuming, and I don't think you are interested in learning the difference. Anyway,
For starters, there is no puranism which literally means old 'ism'. And vedism translates to knowledge 'ism'. 
In simple terms, Vedas are divided into four (not the divisions of Vedas like Rig, Yajur, Sama, Adharva), but four sections in all these four Vedas.

We have Vedanta, part of Vedas which has itihas like Ramayana, Mahabharata, Gita and the most important part of it is Upanishads. Other parts include Brahmana, Samhitas, Aranyaka. 

General Hindus may or may not learn Vedas, Upanishads are philosophies and itihas are for the people to learn and take examples from them to practice in their life. Itihas is simplified epics on how those people like lord Ram, Krishna, Arjun etc.. uphold the Dharma.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

atya said:


> We don't follow the caste system but I know many that still do here in the UK. Had a lovely conversation with my grandad once...we are ghakkar Rajput, there were 4 brothers from Iran and real Rajput are from their progeny.



That is not impossible, but it is wrong to say that 'real' Rajputs are from their progeny. There was nothing called a real Rajput in the first place; it was an artificial construct to give the steppe warriors and rulers of north India and west India a kshatriya status. As has been pointed out by @M. Sarmad , others then aligned to this new elite, and continued doing so even until recent times. I gave you an example; there are self-upgradations upto this day and age, and the carefully-preserved bloodlines will not matter for several concrete reasons. You can work out those reasons for yourselves, from the answers and posts in this thread itself.



Chhatrapati said:


> I wish I could detail, but it't time consuming, and I don't think you are interested in learning the difference. Anyway,
> For starters, there is no puranism which literally means old 'ism'. And vedism translates to knowledge 'ism'.
> In simple terms, Vedas are divided into four (not the divisions of Vedas like Rig, Yajur, Sama, Adharva), but four sections in all these four Vedas.
> 
> We have Vedanta, part of Vedas which has itihas like Ramayana, Mahabharata, Gita and the most important part of it is Upanishads. Other parts include Brahmana, Samhitas, Aranyaka.
> 
> General Hindus may or may not learn Vedas, Upanishads are philosophies and itihas are for the people to learn and take examples from them to practice in their life. Itihas is simplified epics on how those people like lord Ram, Krishna, Arjun etc.. uphold the Dharma.



I suspect @TMA is referring to an implied belief in the Vedas per se having been developed in the Punjab, or in the north-west in general, against the extensions and additions incorporated into the Puranas. You surely know the correct response to that mistaken notion. And it is a mistaken notion, especially when one comes to the '_itihasa_', a term that has led to a great deal of grief and confusion. Or the Bhagavad Geeta.



Tea addict said:


> To be honest I also believe Rajput is only a title which was initially used by ruling class of region. There are Rajputs with gotra as "Badgurjar" and many northern Rajasthan,Haryana and west UP Rajputs have same gotras (tanwar,chouhan,etc) as Gurjar and both group look almost similar..the Rathores of marwar are completely different..I also believe it's not an ethnicity..then there are Pahadi Gurjar in Uttrakhand, dogras in Jammu.. certainty not an ethnicity.



Don't go overboard about that 'gotra' bit; in my region, Brahmins and we share the same gotras (some Brahmins and we; there are five kinds). But there are possibly ethnic reasons for that. This is not the place for that discussion; you might like to look up which were the only two sets of people that Vidyasagar accepted as students in the Sanskrit College.

For those who have spent a great deal of time posting on this thread, may I strongly recommend looking up the history of the period after Alexander's invasion, before the rise of the Gupta Empire, and especially in what @Indus Pakistan would define as the Pakistan that was to be. It is a fascinating history, especially due to its being the precursor, the prelude, as it were, to the happenings from the 7th century onwards, through into the Sultanate of Delhi. It is difficult to avoid seeing it as a continuous narrative, with enormous context for Pakistanis in particular.

There used to be a series called The Comprehensive History of India, and that was the best for this period. The Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan series also has a volume on the period, but the writing does not attract interest; it is difficult to stay awake. I am not familiar with the oeuvre of Professor Dani, but that polymath must have written extensively on this. Perhaps someone familiar with his writing for UNESCO can tell us. But whatever posts have been made need to be read and re-read with that historical foundation and background in mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Chhatrapati

Joe Shearer said:


> I suspect @TMA is referring to an implied belief in the Vedas per se having been developed in the Punjab, or in the north-west in general, against the extensions and additions incorporated into the Puranas. You surely know the correct response to that mistaken notion. And it is a mistaken notion, especially when one comes to the '_itihasa_', a term that has led to a great deal of grief and confusion. Or the Bhagavad Geeta.


I clearly understand what he implied. This thread is all about drawing difference of 'you/me' and 'them'. I replied to it because, out of all the casteist buffoonery in the this thread, his comment stand out (on a different level of buffoonery) which draw my attention. 

I wouldn't give a great deal of importance to epics/itihasa (personally, I'm more interested in the philosophical aspects of the Upanishads). It was twisted and used on convenience throughout the history (be it Vaishnavites vs Shaivites or the recent events relating to temples).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Chhatrapati said:


> I clearly understand what he implied. This thread is all about drawing difference of 'you/me' and 'them'. I replied to it because, out of all the casteist buffoonery in the this thread, his comment stand out (on a different level of buffoonery) which draw my attention.
> 
> I wouldn't give a great deal of importance to epics/itihasa (personally, I'm more interested in the philosophical aspects of the Upanishads). It was twisted and used on convenience throughout the history (be it Vaishnavites vs Shaivites or the recent events relating to temples).



I prefer 'mistaken impression' to 'buffoonery'. Really. 

The Upanishads is a different thing altogether. Which are your favourites? Maybe we should take this discussion elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yogijaat

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> I know him, he's a gujjar. Stop calling anyone who doesn't conform to your narrative an Afghani.
> 
> 
> It's not a part of the caste system and they are not originally based off of profession. These are distinct tribes; with some even having their own languages like Gojri; they are based off of the Biradari system of Punjab.


I will take words of my elders over you. It is very much based on profession.
Jat is synonym for farmers, gujjar for cow keepers and rajput for mercenary. None of them originally from Punjab. Jat came from sindh, Rajput says their forefathers were born in mount abu Rajasthan, gujjars came much earlier than both jats and rajputs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Yogijaat said:


> I will take words of my elders over you. It is very much based on profession.
> Jat is synonym for farmers, gujjar for cow keepers and rajput for mercenary. None of them originally from Punjab. Jat came from sindh, Rajput says their forefathers were born in mount abu Rajasthan, gujjars came much earlier than both jats and rajputs.



These are very narrow regional interpretations; the Ahirs and Yadavs have better credentials (in western India only) as cowherds. Everyone is a farmer, not particularly the Jat. And the Rajput is born to battle, with or without the money; 'mercenary' has strong connections. Jats from the Sindh is quite possible; remember where the Sakas ruled? Rajputs talk about Mount Abu because the archetypical fire sacrifice took place there. Gujjars coming in much earlier is merely a memory of the phased, pulse nature of the incursions of this period.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Yogijaat said:


> I will take words of my elders over you. It is very much based on profession.
> Jat is synonym for farmers, gujjar for cow keepers and rajput for mercenary. None of them originally from Punjab. Jat came from sindh, Rajput says their forefathers were born in mount abu Rajasthan, gujjars came much earlier than both jats and rajputs.



Professions came later. They are original lineages with common ancestors.

Indus people also did not follow caste system as Gangetic people did.



M. Sarmad said:


> Rajput is not a tribe. This "Real" vs "Fake" Rajput debate is based upon a false premise.
> While some Rajput clans appeared in India in BC era, they did not use term "Rajput" to describe themselves. It was only after the ruin of Gupta empire by the Huns that "Rajputs" came into existence. Huns, Jats, Gujjars, hephthalites etc assimilated to form Rajput community around 1500 years ago.
> This 'title' was then taken up by several other non-related ruling clans across Northern India.



May be the case for some, however there are three original lineages of Rajputs descended from one common ancestor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Joe Shearer said:


> These are very narrow regional interpretations; the Ahirs and Yadavs have better credentials (in western India only) as cowherds. Everyone is a farmer, not particularly the Jat. And the Rajput is born to battle, with or without the money; 'mercenary' has strong connections. Jats from the Sindh is quite possible; remember where the Sakas ruled? Rajputs talk about Mount Abu because the archetypical fire sacrifice took place there. Gujjars coming in much earlier is merely a memory of the phased, pulse nature of the incursions of this period.



As pointed out by Col. James Todd (the British Surveyor General of Rajasthan), the Sanskrit inscriptions (since sixth century AD) on ancient palaces, temples, forts etc. tell us that those buildings had been built by the Gujjars and not by the Rajputs (several supposedly 'Rajput' kings of medieval India were ethnic Gujjars in fact). Similarly,while the association of the Gujjars with the Mount Abu is noticed in many inscriptions and epigraphs, the association of Rajputs with Mount Abu is mostly 'legendary'. I believe archaeological studies and sources give a more accurate account of the past than literary or legendary history.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> In BC era, Gujjars have remained one of the most vibrant identities of Central Asia. They later migrated to Northern India (Gujarat and Rajasthan) and it was there they developed their unique identity and culture, and established several Kingdoms (from the fifth century onward). Later on, due to multiple reasons, they moved out of the plains towards Himalayas and Punjab/KP (from the tenth century onward). While moving in towards the Indian subcontinent and then moving 'out' of Northern and Central India to Himalayas, the Gujjars went on giving names to their settlements.



A beautiful history, no doubt.

Much love to our Gujjar brothers.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Yogijaat

Joe Shearer said:


> These are very narrow regional interpretations; the Ahirs and Yadavs have better credentials (in western India only) as cowherds. Everyone is a farmer, not particularly the Jat. And the Rajput is born to battle, with or without the money; 'mercenary' has strong connections. Jats from the Sindh is quite possible; remember where the Sakas ruled? Rajputs talk about Mount Abu because the archetypical fire sacrifice took place there. Gujjars coming in much earlier is merely a memory of the phased, pulse nature of the incursions of this period.


In areas i live, gujjars and ahirs are known to be related, also gujjars are slanged as milkman. 

Agree on Rajputs, mount abu is where i think agnivansha started.

A mere look on the population centre of these group can tell their migration order. Yadavas are concentrated in eastern up, gujjars are spread all over the place western up, kashmir, gujarat, rajasthan. Jats in punjab, haryana rajasthan and western up.



M. Sarmad said:


> As pointed out by Col. James Todd (the British Surveyor General of Rajasthan), the Sanskrit inscriptions (since sixth century AD) on ancient palaces, temples, forts etc. tell us that those buildings had been built by the Gujjars and not by the Rajputs (several supposedly 'Rajput' kings of medieval India were ethnic Gujjars in fact). Similarly,while the association of the Gujjars with the Mount Abu is noticed in many inscriptions and epigraphs, the association of Rajputs with Mount Abu is mostly 'legendary'. I believe archaeological studies and sources give a more accurate account of the past than literary or legendary history.


Mount abu is the place where the word rajput originated and brahmins gave them kshatriya status.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

atya said:


> We don't follow the caste system but I know many that still do here in the UK. Had a lovely conversation with my grandad once...we are ghakkar Rajput, there were 4 brothers from Iran and real Rajput are from their progeny.



Nice to hear that brother.

I am sick of this myth perpetuated by the Indian government of so-called heroic resistance of Rajputs against Muslim invaders.

This makes the Hindus live in their dream world and unable to accept our noble lineage.

Literally, their motherboard will malfunction if they hear Rajput and Muslim in the same sentence.

The reality is that the Rajputs were thoroughly Islamized, mostly during Mughal times as the Mughals preferred the Rajputs due to their loyalty and chivalry.

Islamization of the Rajput clans of Punjab was finally completed under Sultan Aurangzeb, who was the most popular leader for us as he brought many of us into the fold of Islam due to his generousity and pious traits.

Pakistan is filled with Rajputs from very important historical families, and although we don’t harp on it because of Islam, we don’t reject our ancestors’ history either.

Even Nehru talked about the pride and nobility of Muslim Rajputs many times.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

313ghazi said:


> I am Jatt.
> So what?
> Is it good, is it bad; it matters not.
> 
> People need to get over their identity complexes.
> 
> I don't understand this pride sense of shame/pride that some people have about what their ancestors where/weren't. What difference does it made if they worshipped, fire or elephants or some other pagan diety?
> 
> If your worried about your "muslimness" focus on your aqeeda not your caste.
> 
> If your worried aobut your "Pakistaniyat" focus on civic duty, not re-writing history.
> 
> What is a nation? Basically lines in the dirt which define what resources you have access too. Your focus should be on best utilising those resources for the benefits of the people who are within those lines. That is a matter to be proud of, not ancestory. What your ancestor did/did not do was his or her own deed and the merit of it ends with them.



For the umpteenth time, I'm not attacking Gujjars, Jats or Rajputs. Stop getting all defensive.

I am simply bringing up the point that these groups do not denote a common ancestry, clans do. So I was wondering whether or not you guys would prefer being identified as Gujjar, Jat or Rajput, or with your particular clan.

I honestly can't believe how many people on here clearly didn't read my opening post properly, or are just unable to understand it. Not only that, but the number of triggered idiots is quite astounding.



M. Sarmad said:


> In BC era, Gujjars have remained one of the most vibrant identities of Central Asia. They later migrated to Northern India (Gujarat and Rajasthan) and it was there they developed their unique identity and culture, and established several Kingdoms (from the fifth century onward). Later on, due to multiple reasons, they moved out of the plains towards Himalayas and Punjab/KP (from the tenth century onward). While moving in towards the Indian subcontinent and then moving 'out' of Northern and Central India to Himalayas, the Gujjars went on giving names to their settlements.



Stop copy and pasting nonsense from other places. The word Gujjar did not exist in BC times, and the migration routes are not entirely known.



M. Sarmad said:


> No Gujjar who knows his history will ever try to dissociate himself from his ethnic roots. The OP is a known racist,



I never tried to dissociate myself from my roots lol, if anything I'm closer to them than you since you seem to think you're Ranjit Singhs long lost lover, even though a Gujjar from Kashmir beat his army 3 times in battle (Ruhullah Khan). So much for being "proud".



Yogijaat said:


> Jat is synonym for farmers, gujjar for cow keepers and rajput for mercenary.



That's not correct, you have plenty of clans shared among all three who were also rulers/fighters (e.g Chauhans and Tomars).



Yogijaat said:


> None of them originally from Punjab.



Some of the clans are, but obviously not the community as a whole.


----------



## M. Sarmad

Yogijaat said:


> Mount abu is the place where the word rajput originated and brahmins gave them kshatriya status.



_The Gurjar is a great race of the world. Gurjars had been ruling India since historical times; their some families were called Rajputs in medieval period. Rajput, Maratha, Jat and Ahir are heirs of the Kshatriyas. They are not foreigners. There is no community being called Kshatriya except us all. How that Kshatriyan race can be eliminated in which Ram and Krishna were born._

*All of us Rajput, Maratha, Jat and Ahirs are the stars whereas Gurjar is the Moon in the Kshatriyan sky. It is beyond human power to lessen the dignity of the Gurjars.*

*(Words By - Thakur Yashpal Singh Rajput, Ex-MP)*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yogijaat

Taimur Khurram said:


> For the umpteenth time, I'm not attacking Gujjars, Jats or Rajputs. Stop getting all defensive.
> 
> I am simply bringing up the point that these groups do not denote a common ancestry, clans do. So I was wondering whether or not you guys would prefer being identified as Gujjar, Jat or Rajput, or with your particular clan.
> 
> I honestly can't believe how many people on here clearly didn't read my opening post properly, or are just unable to understand it. Not only that, but the number of triggered idiots is quite astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop copy and pasting nonsense from other places. The word Gujjar did not exist in BC times, and the migration routes are not entirely known.
> 
> 
> 
> I never tried to dissociate myself from my roots lol, if anything I'm closer to them than you since you seem to think you're Ranjit Singhs long lost lover, even though a Gujjar from Kashmir beat his army 3 times in battle (Ruhullah Khan). So much for being "proud".
> 
> 
> 
> That's not correct, you have plenty of clans shared among all three who were also rulers/fighters (e.g Chauhans and Tomars).
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the clans are, but obviously not the community as a whole.


I am not disputing that clans are not shared, the point i am making that the clans assimilated into one of these profession and later called themselves gujjar, rajput and jats. 
First came the caste(gujjar, rajput, jats) than clans(gotras) assimilated into one of these castes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Taimur Khurram said:


> Stop copy and pasting nonsense from other places. The word Gujjar did not exist in BC times, and the migration routes are not entirely known.



Afghani Clown, take a break from trolling and try to spend some time reading what scholars like V.A Smith, General Cunnigham, D.R. Bhandarkar, Javed Rahi etc have written about the history of Gujjars


----------



## Taimur Khurram

M. Sarmad said:


> Afghani Clown, take a break from trolling and try to spend some time reading what scholars like V.A Smith, General Cunnigham, D.R. Bhandarkar, Javed Rahi etc have written about the history of Gujjars



if you knew a single thing about history you wouldn't be making an idol out of Ranjit Singh, or acting as if Baras are not a clan among Gujjars.


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> And who are you? And why should I believe in what an anonymous/incognito poster on internet has to say about another anonymous/incognito person? .. not even sure if you two are different persons in real life...
> 
> No Gujjar who knows his history will ever try to dissociate himself from his ethnic roots. The OP is a known racist, a multiple id troll.



I’ve known brother @Taimur Khurram since I came to PDF. I think his previous ID was drs/dsr something. He is originally from East Punjab, like me.

@PakSarzameen5823 is someone completely different.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I think his previous ID was drs/dsr something.



Yes that's probably worth mentioning. I changed my name @M. Sarmad 

Look, if I was an anti-Punjabi Afghan, why would I have made a thread named the history of Punjabis? 



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> He is originally from East Punjab, like me.



Do you mean Indian Punjab or east as in eastern Pak Punjab (I have family from both anyway so it doesn't really matter)?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

Guys, I am enjoying the thread so far. Can we please steer clear from personal attacks?

I don't want this thread to get derailed in to a slinging match or shut down. 

Respectfully @M. Sarmad @Taimur Khurram

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Taimur Khurram said:


> Do you mean Indian Punjab or east as in eastern Pak Punjab (I have family from both anyway so it doesn't really matter)?



East Punjab (now occupied by India,) where my family lived before partition. Specifically the border region with Kashmir. We are from the same place.

We had to leave everything behind, but Alhamdulilah made off much better than many others as our family wasn’t torn to pieces by Hindu/Sikh mobs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani E

M. Sarmad said:


> STFU Afghani MonkeyDLuffy...
> And how many times have I told you not to quote me??
> kaunsi zuban samajhtay hain ap?



Bro I think you're getting confused. @Taimur Khurram previous name was dsr or drs something. He used to live in Qatar, and honestly I had a lot of arguments with him before. We have differences on many topics, especially around religion. But he's not that Afghan Punjabi hater you're referring to.

Let's leave personal insults out of this and concentrate on the discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani E

M. Sarmad said:


> A multiple id troll nonetheless.
> And what discussion, bro?
> Such idiots are absolutely clueless
> and he has already ruined the thread.



Koi gal nai. I honestly don't know anything about this topic, so seeing people bounce off ideas and their knowledge is good. We all will learn in the process. No harm in it I think.

@M. Sarmad 

And yes I did read the OP and I don't agree with it. But I have a mind completely different to most other posters. I consider all groups living within the Indus Valley coming under an umbrella of "Pakistani" culture group. I don't want people to forget their origins or identity. Just, that they remember that we are only free as a people because we accept the ideals of Pakistan and consider our insular identities, as nothing more than an extension of being a Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> East Punjab (now occupied by India,) where we lived before partition. Specifically the border region with Kashmir. We are from the same place.
> 
> We had to leave everything behind, but Alhamdulilah made off much better than many others as our family wasn’t torn to pieces by Hindu/Sikh mobs.



Yeah my mother's side came from Hoshiarpur. Most of them made it out alive, but one relative got stabbed during partition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

M. Sarmad said:


> A multiple id troll nonetheless.



I've only ever had one ID, I only changed my name.



M. Sarmad said:


> Did you read the OP?



Did you?

I've been perfectly amicable with you until you decided to start muttering nonsense. I'm willing to extend the hand of reconciliation once again, it's up to you whether you take it or leave it.



M. Sarmad said:


> believing that the history of Pakistan starts with Bin Qasim



Because it does. Pakistan was made for the Muslims of what was then British India. Our nation owes it's very existence to individuals like Muhammad Bin Qasim, the first Muslim to take control of large portions of the region.



Crixus said:


> for them every thing is related to Islam



It's the only identity that really matters in the end.

Being proud of your nationality makes no sense since it's literally taking pride over being born on a different piece of dirt.

And being proud of your ethnicity/tribe/race is also stupid since all of humanity has a common origin.

Feeling close to one's tribe/race/ethnicity/nationality is one thing, being proud of it is another.



Crixus said:


> all historical references are null and void for them



I've never said anything about history that wasn't based on facts. You're welcome to try and disprove what I said but I doubt you'll be able to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Taimur Khurram said:


> I'm willing to extend the hand of reconciliation once again, it's up to you whether you take it or leave it.



I don't have anything against you, mate
I don't even know who you are






Taimur Khurram said:


> Because it does. Pakistan was made for the Muslims of what was then British India. Our nation owes it's very existence to individuals like Muhammad Bin Qasim, the first Muslim to take control of large portions of the region.



Absolute nonsense
But let's agree to disagree




Taimur Khurram said:


> It's the only identity that really matters in the end.
> 
> Being proud of your nationality makes no sense since it's literally taking pride over being born on a different piece of dirt.
> 
> And being proud of your ethnicity/tribe/race is also stupid since all of humanity has a common origin.



Religion is a matter of choice, Nationality can be changed/revoked
Only the ethnic identity is unchangeable
Yet, quite ironically, most of us prioritize our religious and nationalistic identities over our ethnic identities (or maybe simply because ethnic identities are often taken-for-granted?)
Deep down, we are all insecure in one way or the other

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Crixus

Indians are not better but pdf is like mob mentality...... jats are Hindus , Muslims and Sikhs some say even you can find jar christians in western UP Muslim and Hindu jats share the same surname........ my point was just saying everything thing starts with Islam nothing before that was ridiculous... if some one converts to irrespective of reason we should respect that but just start abusing his or forefathers or their faith it’s worse .....


M. Sarmad said:


> I won't say 90%, but yes, many of them. But I don't blame them either, as they have been brainwashed into believing that the history of Pakistan starts with Bin Qasim and that we have nothing in common with Indians... they are victims of state-sponsored religious-chauvinistic indoctrination via distortion.
> 
> But honestly speaking, looking at posts made by many Indian posters here, one can easily conclude that state of education in India doesn't seem to be any better.



I am not pointing towards you as quite visible in whole thread ... hate over shadows reasoning related to roots and really gives birth to identity crisis..... here everything related to Hindus is blasphemous and majority of current Pakistanis are converts whose forefathers once followed religions other then Islam so they start abusing even their own forefathers..... let me give you one example whole Pakistan feels proud in Harappa and Mohanzodaro but no one even acknowledges what religion they used to follow .... 


Taimur Khurram said:


> I've only ever had one ID, I only changed my name.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you?
> 
> I've been perfectly amicable with you until you decided to start muttering nonsense. I'm willing to extend the hand of reconciliation once again, it's up to you whether you take it or leave it.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it does. Pakistan was made for the Muslims of what was then British India. Our nation owes it's very existence to individuals like Muhammad Bin Qasim, the first Muslim to take control of large portions of the region.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the only identity that really matters in the end.
> 
> Being proud of your nationality makes no sense since it's literally taking pride over being born on a different piece of dirt.
> 
> And being proud of your ethnicity/tribe/race is also stupid since all of humanity has a common origin.
> 
> Feeling close to one's tribe/race/ethnicity/nationality is one thing, being proud of it is another.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said anything about history that wasn't based on facts. You're welcome to try and disprove what I said but I doubt you'll be able to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

M. Sarmad said:


> I don't have anything against you, mate
> I don't even know who you are



Nice to see that we've reached a point of amicability. 



M. Sarmad said:


> Absolute nonsense
> But let's agree to disagree



I might make a thread on this topic later, we can discuss that there. 



M. Sarmad said:


> Religion is a matter of choice, Nationality can be changed/revoked
> Only the ethnic identity is unchangeable
> Yet, quite ironically, most of us prioritize our religious and nationalistic identities over our ethnic identities (or maybe simply because ethnic identities are often taken-for-granted?)
> Deep down, we are all insecure in one way or the other



Because Islam comes first. In our religion, there is no room for nationalism for anything other than the religion. We all come from Adam (peace be upon him) anyway, so these ethnic identities are pretty redundant in comparison, and we are supposed to act as one Ummah, which makes these national identities pretty silly too. 

*He is not one of us who calls to tribalism. He is not one of us who fights for the sake of tribalism. He is not one of us who dies following the way of tribalism.*

Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 5102, Grade: Sahih
*
Whoever is killed under the banner of blind following, who calls to tribalism or supports tribalism, then he has died upon ignorance.
*
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1850, Grade: Sahih
*
The parable of the believers in their affection, mercy, and compassion for each other is that of a body. When any limb aches, the whole body reacts with sleeplessness and fever.*

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 5665, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2586

Ibn Taymiyah said: "*Everything that is foreign to the call of Islam and the Qur'an, with regards to lineage, land, nationality, schools of thoughts and methodologies, then that is from the calls of the Days of Ignorance (jahiliyah). Once the Muhajireen and the Ansar argued, such that one of the Muhajireen said: 'O Muhajireen!' (meaning, come to assist me) And one of the Ansar said: 'O Ansar!' Upon hearing this, the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: 'Is it with the calls of Jahiliyah that you cry out, while l am still amongst you?!' [Reported by Al-Bukhaaree (8/137)] And he became very angry at that."*[Majmoo'-ul-Fatawa (3/456)]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Taimur Khurram said:


> Because Islam comes first. In our religion, there is no room for nationalism for anything other than the religion. We all come from Adam (peace be upon him) anyway, so these ethnic identities are pretty redundant in comparison, and we are supposed to act as one Ummah, which makes these national identities pretty silly too.
> 
> *He is not one of us who calls to tribalism. He is not one of us who fights for the sake of tribalism. He is not one of us who dies following the way of tribalism.*
> 
> Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 5102, Grade: Sahih
> *
> Whoever is killed under the banner of blind following, who calls to tribalism or supports tribalism, then he has died upon ignorance.
> *
> Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1850, Grade: Sahih
> *
> The parable of the believers in their affection, mercy, and compassion for each other is that of a body. When any limb aches, the whole body reacts with sleeplessness and fever.*
> 
> Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 5665, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2586
> 
> Ibn Taymiyah said: "*Everything that is foreign to the call of Islam and the Qur'an, with regards to lineage, land, nationality, schools of thoughts and methodologies, then that is from the calls of the Days of Ignorance (jahiliyah). Once the Muhajireen and the Ansar argued, such that one of the Muhajireen said: 'O Muhajireen!' (meaning, come to assist me) And one of the Ansar said: 'O Ansar!' Upon hearing this, the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: 'Is it with the calls of Jahiliyah that you cry out, while l am still amongst you?!' [Reported by Al-Bukhaaree (8/137)] And he became very angry at that."*[Majmoo'-ul-Fatawa (3/456)]



^^That's just one of the many interpretations we have. Majority of the Islamic scholars in sub continent didn't accept this position. I have posted it before, re-posting here:


During the struggle for the freedom(and even today), the most important issue which concerned Muslim Scholars and political activists was about the national and religious identity of Indian Muslims and their position in the future India ...


Hussain Ahmed Madani (The Rector of Darul Uloom Deoband) and many others advocated "Composite Nationalism", (i.e. despite cultural, linguistic and religious differences, the people of India were but one nation). The proponents of composite nationalism believed/argued that this idea was consistent with the teachings of the Holy Quran and that the Prophet (PBUH) himself had set a practical example of Composite Nationalism when he signed the Constitution of Medina (Meesaq-e-Medina)



Then there were those who advocated the idea of "Muslim Nationalism in India" ... This idea formed the basis of the Two Nation Theory ... This idea/theory implies/implied that We were Muslims before being Indian ... And We were Indian before being (Non-Indian) Muslim ... This theory created and propounded by modernist and reformist Muslims (like Sir Syed) was inspired by Western Political Theories (of John Lock, Thomas Paine, Milton etc.).... It in a way advocated a _Pan-Islamism_ that was restricted by geographical boundaries of the Nation state (of India, and now Pakistan).


And there were others (like Maududi) who were of the view that neither Composite Nationalism nor Muslim Nationalism were Islamic in their orientation, therefore, they warned the Muslims of the sub-continent to be beware of both. Few of them advocated "Pan-Islamism"


I believe the Pakistani nationalist ideology is very unique, and (for the Pakistani Muslims at least) Pakistani Nationalism and Islam are not mutually exclusive ..... I for one do not prioritize a Pakistani identity over Muslim identity (or vice versa). But there are those who claim to be Pakistani First, and then there are those who say that they are Muslim First. Both these claims are consistent with TNT as the TNT has both ingredients; Pan-Islamic and Nationalist. But as it is Pan-Islamism that is restricted by the Nation State boundary (and not the other way around), "Pakistani First", in my opinion, is the more valid and realistic position.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Crixus said:


> really gives birth to identity crisis.



I have never seen this so-called identity crisis. Pakistanis know what we are. We're Muslims, then people from the Indus, then whatever ethnicity we belong, then whatever tribe we belong to, and finally, we're whatever clan we belong to. 

This forum feels the same too, even if some people here don't put those identities in that order (but most Pakistanis in real life do). 



Crixus said:


> here everything related to Hindus is blasphemous and majority of current Pakistanis are converts whose forefathers once followed religions other then Islam so they start abusing even their own forefathers



Rasullulah (peace be upon him) himself had no qualms in admitting his parents were both Kafirs, and that his father was going to hell. Sorry but in Islam, religion comes first. A true Muslim will have no qualms disowning his ancestors if, as per Islam, they were terrible people. 

And my paternal clan is descended from a Sufi, so again, I don't have this forefather problem. There are no Kafir Bara (unless one of us decided/decides to convert). 

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/471...-of-allaah-be-upon-him-in-paradise-or-in-hell

Muslim (203) narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that a man said: *“O Messenger of Allaah, where is my father?” He said: “In Hell.” When he turned away he called him back and said: “My father and your father are in Hell.” *

Muslim (976) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: *“I asked my Lord for permission to pray for forgiveness for my mother, but He did not give me permission. *And I asked Him for permission to visit her grave, and He gave me permission.” 

It says in ‘Awn al-Ma’bood: 

*“But He did not give me permission” means: because she was a kaafirah (disbeliever) and it is not permissible to pray for forgiveness for the kuffaar. *

Also, Muslims believe that all of humanity comes from a common origin and that these early humans were originally Muslim. There is also the belief that (prior to Rasulullah, peace be upon him), Prophets were sent to every group of people. As per this belief, our original ancestors were Muslim, and there would have been Prophets of Islam who came from the Indus too. 

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/138770/were-any-prophets-sent-to-the-people-of-africa-and-europe
*
“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghoot (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Taghoot besides Allah)”*

[an-Nahl 16:36]. 



Crixus said:


> let me give you one example whole Pakistan feels proud in Harappa and Mohanzodaro but no one even acknowledges what religion they used to follow



We don't know what religion they followed, but we know for a fact that it wasn't Hinduism since that came much later with the Aryans.



M. Sarmad said:


> ^^That's just one of the many interpretations we have. Majority of the Islamic scholars in sub continent didn't accept this position.



Majority of scholars from the Indian sub-continent thought it was OK to side with India over other Muslims. They're not exactly the greatest authority. 



M. Sarmad said:


> I for one do not prioritize a Pakistani identity over Muslim identity (or vice versa)



Well, they go hand-in-hand in my eyes, but I will always be Muslim first.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I am sick of this myth perpetuated by the Indian government of so-called heroic resistance of Rajputs against Muslim invaders.



Bro, this is not a 'myth' perpetuated by the Indian government. Some of the greatest Arab Islamic historians of that era have also acknowledged this 'heroic' resistance in their seminal works .... Although they have mentioned 'Guzar/Juzr'(Gujar) Kings of Gurjara-Desh, not Rajputs (the term did not exist back then), as their most formidable enemies. Will post details later

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Taimur Khurram

M. Sarmad said:


> Bro, this is not a 'myth' perpetuated by the Indian government. Some of the greatest Arab Islamic historians of that era have also acknowledged this 'heroic' resistance in their seminal works .... Although they have mentioned 'Guzar'(Gujar) Kings of Gurjara-Desh, not Rajputs (the term did not exist back then), as their most formidable enemies. Will post details later



Both were known as being pretty fierce resistors to the Muslim invasions. Gujjars were called Jurz and referred to as good fighters, and the king of the Gujjar Empire at the time of the Ummayads was called the best king of Hind.

@M. Sarmad 

Map of the Gujjar Empire (one of many, but the most well-known one)







@M. Sarmad 

You might also be interested in Rana Kumbha, he was one of history's undefeated military leaders who belonged to the Sisodia clan (present among both Rajputs and Gujjars). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbha_of_Mewar

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Bro, this is not a 'myth' perpetuated by the Indian government. Some of the greatest Arab Islamic historians of that era have also acknowledged this 'heroic' resistance in their seminal works .... Although they have mentioned 'Guzar/Juzr'(Gujar) Kings of Gurjara-Desh, not Rajputs (the term did not exist back then), as their most formidable enemies. Will post details later



We are Muslims now, which totally destroys their propaganda options.

They want to keep that part hidden from their population.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Taimur Khurram said:


> Yeah my mother's side came from Hoshiarpur. Most of them made it out alive, but one relative got stabbed during partition.



Inna lillahi wa Inna ilayhi rajioon.

I know how you feel as I lost uncles fighting in the 1971 failed Indian invasion of Lahore.

May Allah swt bless all our shuhada.



Taimur Khurram said:


> Both were known as being pretty fierce resistors to the Muslim invasions.



Who eventually converted wholesale to Islamic religion and civilization.

More Indians need to learn the last part of our history, that is our Islamization and our roles in the Muslim dynasties and resistance against the British.



Muslimrenaissance said:


> hahaha
> 
> what a load of bullshit thread , we don't need indian to make pdf toxic



That’s because they are unable to separate religion from history/tribe.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sam.

Joe Shearer said:


> These are very narrow regional interpretations; the Ahirs and Yadavs have better credentials (in western India only) as cowherds. Everyone is a farmer, not particularly the Jat. And the Rajput is born to battle, with or without the money; 'mercenary' has strong connections. Jats from the Sindh is quite possible; remember where the Sakas ruled? Rajputs talk about Mount Abu because the archetypical fire sacrifice took place there. Gujjars coming in much earlier is merely a memory of the phased, pulse nature of the incursions of this period.


Our bloodline hails from Sindh centuries ago as i said love to take your mind about our history or your guidance towards some books.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Taimur Khurram said:


> Because it does. Pakistan was made for the Muslims of what was then British India. Our nation owes it's very existence to individuals like Muhammad Bin Qasim, the first Muslim to take control of large portions of the region.
> 
> Being proud of your nationality makes no sense since it's literally taking pride over being born on a different piece of dirt.
> 
> And being proud of your ethnicity/tribe/race is also stupid since all of humanity has a common origin.
> 
> Feeling close to one's tribe/race/ethnicity/nationality is one thing, being proud of it is another.
> 
> I've never said anything about history that wasn't based on facts. You're welcome to try and disprove what I said but I doubt you'll be able to.



Excellent.

That puts an end to the ridiculous claims that the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilisation are heirlooms of Pakistan. 

@Indus Pakistan 

Evidently he didn't get the memo. Such people are known to Communists as 'useful <something or the other that I can't remember>'.



Sam. said:


> Our bloodline hails from Sindh centuries ago as i said love to take your mind about our history or your guidance towards some books.



Be delighted to help. I mentioned the Comprehensive History of India and the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan series, but any further recommendations are dependent on the extent and objective of your historical interest. Are you planning to read, or planning to write?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

We can have respect for both Muhammad Bin Qasim and also IVC/Taxila/Mohenjodaro, similar to how Egyptian Muslims pride themselves on the Islamic conquest but still maintain respect and pride for Pharoanic Egypt.

Pakistan is primarily a religious state (Islamic) but we also take pride in our blood heritage. This is why the focus on pagan Kalash, our folktales, and ancient sites.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Pakistani identity is vibrant and dynamic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sam.

Joe Shearer said:


> Be delighted to help. I mentioned the Comprehensive History of India and the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan series, but any further recommendations are dependent on the extent and objective of your historical interest. Are you planning to read, or planning to write?


I am planning to read as that is my hobby , i have two hours reserved daily for that activity. Currently looking for our bloodline history. We are Jat and surname is Rathi and my wife Malik.

If you could provide online link then it will be fantastic. Thanks in advance sir.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sam. said:


> I am planning to read as that is my hobby , i have two hours reserved daily for that activity. Currently looking for our bloodline history. We are Jat and surname is Rathi and my wife Malik.
> 
> If you could provide online link then it will be fantastic. Thanks in advance sir.



Most interesting.

Give me a couple of days, and I will send you a reading list. It is very encouraging to see such enthusiasm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Crixus said:


> Pakistan feels proud in Harappa and Mohanzodaro but no one even acknowledges what religion they used to follow ....


They do. Just that the they don't fall for your ridicalous claim that they were Hindu's. A term only coined few centuries ago and even then to a concept so vague that it can be applied to anything.



M. Sarmad said:


> _Islamism_


Can never be restricted within 'patch of dirt' as @Taimur Khurram would say. As a identity or concept 'Muslim' will never be restricted to a geography. It goes against the very notion of Islam that is universal.

And the very heart of the Pakistani crisis of identity is trying to brand a religion - Islam that is *global* and universal. This will never work. How the hell can people even think they can tie down a uinversal faith that has global presence and majority religion in nearly 40 countries be branded into one geography on the Indus Valley?

Ridicalous ....

_Ps. I looked into this in another thread. The contradiction is laid bare in the map below._

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Joe Shearer said:


> That puts an end to the ridiculous claims that the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilisation are heirlooms of Pakistan



No it doesn't, because the civilisation started in and revolved around the Indus Valley. And it just so happens that the Muslim nation carved out of British India also contains most of the Indus region.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Taimur Khurram said:


> No it doesn't, because the civilisation started in and revolved around the Indus Valley. And it just so happens that the Muslim nation carved out of British India also contains most of the Indus region.



Either this statement or your earlier statement is incorrect. You decide.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Joe Shearer said:


> Either this statement or your earlier statement is incorrect. You decide.



Not at all. They both work. Pakistan itself owes it's existence to Islam, but that doesn't mean all pre-Islamic history here belongs to India any more the Arabia's pre-Islamic history does. India being Pagan doesn't give it free reign to claim all Pagan history across the region.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Crixus

Where I said they followed Hinduism but I am sure in one thing they were not following Islam either ...

@Indus Pakistan see Pashupati seal from Mohenjodaro performing Namaz .......  ... Indians still use this word Pashupati








Indus Pakistan said:


> They do. Just that the they don't fall for your ridicalous claim that they were Hindu's. A term only coined few centuries ago and even then to a concept so vague that it can be applied to anything.
> 
> Can never be restricted within 'patch of dirt' as @Taimur Khurram would say. As a identity or concept 'Muslim' will never be restricted to a geography. It goes against the very notion of Islam that is universal.
> 
> And the very heart of the Pakistani crisis of identity is trying to brand a religion - Islam that is *global* and universal. This will never work. How the hell can people even think they can tie down a uinversal faith that has global presence and majority religion in nearly 40 countries be branded into one geography on the Indus Valley?
> 
> Ridicalous ....
> 
> _Ps. I looked into this in another thread. The contradiction is laid bare in the map below._


----------



## Joe Shearer

MUSTAKSHAF said:


> @Joe Shearer send me link sir.



https://www.facebook.com/groups/1122504307762347/

I don't know if citing outside URLs is allowed on PDF. In case this doesn't come through, type in https://, followed by Facebook - that would be www.facebook.com - followed by groups, and then by 1122504307762347.

Please separate all these with the '/' sign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sine Nomine

Joe Shearer said:


> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1122504307762347/
> 
> I don't know if citing outside URLs is allowed on PDF. In case this doesn't come through, type in https://, followed by Facebook - that would be www.facebook.com - followed by groups, and then by 1122504307762347.
> 
> Please separate all these with the '/' sign.


Much obliged Joe.


----------



## saiyan0321

Joe Shearer said:


> Be delighted to help. I mentioned the Comprehensive History of India and the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan series, but any further recommendations are dependent on the extent and objective of your historical interest. Are you planning to read, or planning to write?



Sorry for the interruption but if you mention any reading material related to history then plz make sure to mention it here so that all of us know which reading material to consult on the matter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

saiyan0321 said:


> Sorry for the interruption but if you mention any reading material related to history then plz make sure to mention it here so that all of us know which reading material to consult on the matter.



Sure. 

I will make it a point to mention it where those interested can see it. As of now, I am counting @MUSTAKSHAF, @M. Sarmad and you (@saiyan0321), along with @Sam. as the interested people.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> We can be have respect for both Muhammad Bin Qasim and also IVC/Taxila/Mohenjodaro, similar to how Egyptian Muslims pride themselves on the Islamic conquest but still maintain respect and pride for Pharoanic Egypt.
> 
> Pakistan is primarily a religious state (Islamic) but we also take pride in our blood heritage. This is why the focus on pagan Kalash, our folktales, and ancient sites.
> 
> The two are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Pakistani identity is vibrant and dynamic.


See, if more people would provide better context and qualify their responses about 'pride in their Islamic roots' like you did above, it would help discussions from getting hijacked.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> See, if more people would provide better context and qualify their responses about 'pride in their Islamic roots' like you did above, it would help discussions from getting hijacked.



With due respect, this (#158) should have been one of the first posts, not one of the last.

Second, it invites the right to reply - in robust and uncompromising fashion - if there is a denigration of others' heritage and antecedents in an attempt to defend one's own.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Joe Shearer said:


> With due respect, this (#158) should have been one of the first posts, not one of the last.
> 
> Second, it invites the right to reply - in robust and uncompromising fashion - if there is a denigration of others' heritage and antecedents in an attempt to defend one's own.


I agree. There were a few previous posts that perhaps misunderstood the nature of the discussion on this thread and, to me at least, it appeared that people had taken umbrage over the fact that such a discussion was even being held and that it meant some kind of 'marginalization of the Islamic aspect of Pakistan's identity'.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Crixus said:


> see Pashupati seal from Mohenjodaro performing Namaz .......  ... Indians still use this word Pashupati


Okay Einstien, cite proof that Ancient Sindhi's called that or any other seal "Pashupati"?



Crixus said:


> Pashupati seal from Mohenjodaro performing Namaz


And many niggas from Black Africa were pagan worshipers and modern Eygptians are Muslim. Does that give those Black African pagans rights to Ancient Egypt that supercedes modern Egyptians because they have 'namaz'?



> Swastika


Hey, did you know the Germans used the swastika. Look at this German fighter. Guess they must be linked to IVC as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Crixus said:


> let me give you one example whole Pakistan feels proud in Harappa and Mohanzodaro but no one even acknowledges what religion they used to follow ....


They never followed Hinduism if that's what you're trying to hint at, the current religion that they would've been the most closest to would be Punjabi Folk Religion which is practiced in Pakistan in synchronism with Islam. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_folk_religion

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Crixus

Where did I said they the people of IVC were Hindus .... see my response to @Indus Pakistan , I said they were followers of Islam


Talwar e Pakistan said:


> They never followed Hinduism if that's what you're trying to hint at, the current religion that they would've been the most closest to would be Punjabi Folk Religion which is practiced in Pakistan in synchronism with Islam.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_folk_religion



Don't worry I understand certain facts are difficult to digest , but the best this thread describes is the identity crisis ..... 


Indus Pakistan said:


> Okay Einstien, cite proof that Ancient Sindhi's called that or any other seal "Pashupati"?
> 
> And many niggas from Black Africa were pagan worshipers and modern Eygptians are Muslim. Does that give those Black African pagans rights to Ancient Egypt that supercedes modern Egyptians because they have 'namaz'?
> 
> Hey, did you know the Germans used the swastika. Look at this German fighter. Guess they must be linked to IVC as well.
> 
> View attachment 533767


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Crixus said:


> Don't worry I understand


Well, what I understand is I rasied three clear points for you. Non of them were taken up by you. Instead you chose to shove your head up your backside. That tells me you have no replies to give to points I raised.

That we in Pakistan have a indentity crisis is fact but non of that has any bearing on you guys .... in time it will be resolved. But the reality that Pakistan is the 'crucible' of civilization in South Asia will never change. You on the Ganga will always remain in the dark ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Ancient Rajputs worshipped only three nature elements: sun, moon, and fire.

That doesn’t sound like Hinduism to me.

Ancient sites in Pakistan are filled with pagan dieties and motifs from different places including Persian, Babylonian, Hun, Greek, and Parthian.

IVC culture being close to all these regions and the Ganges means culture and concepts passed through here. It doesn’t mean India owns our history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> That doesn’t sound like Hinduism to me.



It was. Hinduism is pretty broad. Kshatriya Hinduism was pretty much a war-cult.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Crixus said:


> Indians still use this word Pashupati


Your so deluded that you think just because you use the "Pashupati" in India today that Ancient Sindhi's also used it. You probably watched some Bolly flick on Mohenjo Daro, heard 'Pashupati' used and then thought "hey they used 'Pashupati' as well.

Jeez ....



Taimur Khurram said:


> Hinduism is pretty broad


This is a modern term that only gained currency under British as us understood today. Even today what exactly is Hinduidsm has not been fixed. Even Indian Supreme Court failed to give a rendering of what Hinduism is. Thus it givres free rope to catch anything and everything as Hindu, contemperorily and historically. Which is what has been done.

It would be like giving one name to all the animist practices found across all of Africa before arrival of Islam or Christianity.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Crixus said:


> Where I said they followed Hinduism but I am sure in one thing they were not following Islam either ...
> 
> @Indus Pakistan see Pashupati seal from Mohenjodaro performing Namaz .......  ... Indians still use this word Pashupati


They did not follow Islam, that does not matter to me; religions constantly shifted in the region - our ancestors have always been open to change.

The word "Pashupati" is completely unrelated to that seal, it was Marshall who claimed it was a seal depicting "Pashupati", an incarnation of the Hindu god Shiva. His claim was refuted and countered by a storm of indologists, historians, archaeologists and etc... - however, the name had already stuck. 

Most scholars now support this conclusion by Gregory:


> Writing in 2002, Gregory L. Possehl concluded that while it would be appropriate to recognize the figure as a deity, its association with the water buffalo, and its posture as one of ritual discipline, regarding it as a proto-Shiva would "go too far."



Deities sitting in a cross-legged position, surrounded by animals is nothing new; this is a seal from Denmark.







Are the Ancient people of Denmark now considered Hindus to you too?



Taimur Khurram said:


> Because Islam comes first. In our religion, there is no room for nationalism for anything other than the religion. We all come from Adam (peace be upon him) anyway, so these ethnic identities are pretty redundant in comparison, and we are supposed to act as one Ummah, which makes these national identities pretty silly too.
> 
> *He is not one of us who calls to tribalism. He is not one of us who fights for the sake of tribalism. He is not one of us who dies following the way of tribalism.*
> Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 5102, Grade: Sahih





Taimur Khurram said:


> *Whoever is killed under the banner of blind following, who calls to tribalism or supports tribalism, then he has died upon ignorance.
> *
> Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1850, Grade: Sahih



These hadith are commonly cited by Salafis in-order to prove "nationalism" is haram and we should distance ourselves from our countries. 

"Tribalism" is not equivalent to every form of nationalism. Ethno-nationalism would be categorized under that, but is Pakistan an ethno-nationalist state? We are countless peoples, languages, cultures, all united under Islam.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Crixus

Where did I relate Pashupati seal with Hinduism , why are you assuming so much ... the whole thread is about the people relating themself with the non Islamic terms like Rajputs even after converting to Islam ... why they are still latching to non Islamic pagan terms ( like Rajputs )originated from the Hindu culture ... isn't it blasphemous in Islam ???


Talwar e Pakistan said:


> They did not follow Islam, that does not matter to me; religions constantly shifted in the region - our ancestors have always been open to change.
> 
> The word "Pashupati" is completely unrelated to that seal, it was Marshall who claimed it was a seal depicting "Pashupati", an incarnation of the Hindu god Shiva. His claim was refuted and countered by a storm of indologists, historians, archaeologists and etc... - however, the name had already stuck.
> 
> Most scholars now support this conclusion by Gregory:
> 
> 
> Deities sitting in a cross-legged position, surrounded by animals is nothing new; this is a seal from Denmark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Ancient people of Denmark now considered Hindus to you too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These hadith are commonly cited by Salafis in-order to prove "nationalism" is haram and we should distance ourselves from our countries.
> 
> "Tribalism" is not equivalent to every form of nationalism. Ethno-nationalism would be categorized under that, but is Pakistan an ethno-nationalist state? We are countless peoples, languages, cultures, all united under Islam.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Ancient Rajputs worshipped only three nature elements: sun, moon, and fire.
> 
> That doesn’t sound like Hinduism to me.
> 
> Ancient sites in Pakistan are filled with pagan dieties and motifs from different places including Persian, Babylonian, Hun, Greek, and Parthian.
> 
> IVC culture being close to all these regions and the Ganges means culture and concepts passed through here. It doesn’t mean India owns our history.



LOL.

What do you think the Vedic pantheon represented? Starting from Dyaus Pitar through Surya, Soma, Agni? Or let's be different - Indra, or Pawan, or Ushas? Or old man Varun/Ouranos/Uranus?



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> They did not follow Islam, that does not matter to me; religions constantly shifted in the region - our ancestors have always been open to change.
> 
> The word "Pashupati" is completely unrelated to that seal, it was Marshall who claimed it was a seal depicting "Pashupati", an incarnation of the Hindu god Shiva. His claim was refuted and countered by a storm of indologists, historians, archaeologists and etc... - however, the name had already stuck.
> 
> Most scholars now support this conclusion by Gregory:
> 
> 
> Deities sitting in a cross-legged position, surrounded by animals is nothing new; this is a seal from Denmark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Ancient people of Denmark now considered Hindus to you too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These hadith are commonly cited by Salafis in-order to prove "nationalism" is haram and we should distance ourselves from our countries.
> 
> "Tribalism" is not equivalent to every form of nationalism. Ethno-nationalism would be categorized under that, but is Pakistan an ethno-nationalist state? We are countless peoples, languages, cultures, all united under Islam.



Just curiousity: do you actually have any notion about the Germanic pre-Christian Gods? Or the Celtic Gods? You do know about the Latins and the Greeks, of course?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> These hadith are commonly cited by Salafis in-order to prove "nationalism" is haram and we should distance ourselves from our countries.



Because it is lol. They're (or should I say we're) right. 



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> "Tribalism" is not equivalent to every form of nationalism.



It's equivalent to every form of nationalism that divides Muslims. 



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> is Pakistan an ethno-nationalist state? We are countless peoples, languages, cultures, all united under Islam.



Exactly, hence why any logical Pakistani patriot would be Muslim first, and view Pakistan as just a stepping-stone to the global unified Muslim nation.


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Indus Pakistan said:


> This is a modern term that only gained currency under British as us understood today. Even today what exactly is Hinduidsm has not been fixed. Even Indian Supreme Court failed to give a rendering of what Hinduism is. Thus it givres free rope to catch anything and everything as Hindu, contemperorily and historically. Which is what has been done.
> 
> It would be like giving one name to all the animist practices found across all of Africa before arrival of Islam or Christianity.



Exactly my point also.

I once asked a University Religions professor specializing in Eastern faiths about what is the definition of Hinduism. The answer I got was interesting.

Hinduism is worship of 360+ gods, or worship of only 3, or just one god, but also no god at all. All the above would be qualified as Hindu although their concept of god is radically different.

Then the answer came. 

Hinduism is a person from the Indian subcontinent who is neither Muslim nor Christian.

Honestly, I was a bit surprised by this answer. The definition of Hinduism is so vague, that before the codification of Hinduism as a faith, it is absolutely impossible to say what is Hinduism and what is not. It is all arbitrary.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Crixus

What about Indian Buddhist, Jains , Sikhs ,Jews , Zoratrians and Ahamadis 

what we call them Hindus ????



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Exactly my point also.
> 
> I once asked a University Religions professor specializing in Eastern faiths about what is the definition of Hinduism. The answer I got was interesting.
> 
> Hinduism is worship of 360+ gods, or worship of only 3, or just one god, but also no god at all. All the above would be qualified as Hindu although their concept of god is radically different.
> 
> Then the answer came.
> 
> Hinduism is a person from the Indian subcontinent who is neither Muslim nor Christian.
> 
> Honestly, I was a bit surprised by this answer. The definition of Hinduism is so vague, that before the codification of Hinduism as a faith, it is absolutely impossible to say what is Hinduism and what is not. It is all arbitrary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yankee-stani

The fact that the IVC is not taught to Pakistanis at a young age is a travesty by the Government of Pakistan and the backwards or darkness trend that has been in our nation since the last 50 years all cause the politicians and moulvis never cared to create a coherent identity for our people they used sectarian warfare, used regional tensions between Pasthuns,Balochis, Punjabis, Sindhis,Gilgitis, and other groups, the IVC and late Islamic rulers could have formed a basis of our identity shame on YOU THE LEADERS OF PAKISTAN For letting our history be stolen by Gangas who bathe in polluted waters and steal our rightful history


Honestly, I was a bit surprised by this answer. The definition of Hinduism is so vague, that before the codification of Hinduism as a faith, it is absolutely impossible to say what is Hinduism and what is not. It is all arbitrary.[/QUOTE]

To be fair most religions are universal in nature only difference is Islam is the true monolithic faith left while other Aberhamic religions have gone astray



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Ancient Rajputs worshipped only three nature elements: sun, moon, and fire.
> 
> That doesn’t sound like Hinduism to me.
> 
> Ancient sites in Pakistan are filled with pagan dieties and motifs from different places including Persian, Babylonian, Hun, Greek, and Parthian.
> 
> IVC culture being close to all these regions and the Ganges means culture and concepts passed through here. It doesn’t mean India owns our history.



Hmm Intresting looks like our Rajput ancestors practiced a form of Zoroastrianism

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

Crixus said:


> What about Indian Buddhist, Jains , Sikhs ,Jews , Zoratrians and Ahamadis
> 
> what we call them Hindus ????


It's interesting you say that, because a few years ago there were 2 or 3 very active Indian members on this forum that argued just that - that Hinduism was a 'very loose definition' of a faith that in fact encompassed all those who traditionally call themselves 'Hindu, Buddhist, Jain's, Sikhs etc'.

They seemed to define 'Hinduism' as more of a 'cultural/civilization' ethos than a religious one, thereby, at times, also arguing that South Asian Muslims, Christians and Jews were also 'Hindus', according to this 'contemporary definition of Hinduism' they were pushing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Exactly my point also.
> 
> I once asked a University Religions professor specializing in Eastern faiths about what is the definition of Hinduism. The answer I got was interesting.
> 
> Hinduism is worship of 360+ gods, or worship of only 3, or just one god, but also no god at all. All the above would be qualified as Hindu although their concept of god is radically different.
> 
> Then the answer came.
> 
> Hinduism is a person from the Indian subcontinent who is neither Muslim nor Christian.
> 
> Honestly, I was a bit surprised by this answer. The definition of Hinduism is so vague, that before the codification of Hinduism as a faith, it is absolutely impossible to say what is Hinduism and what is not. It is all arbitrary.


The Indian Supreme Court could not define what a hindu is today but these guys see shadow of shadows from 5,000 years ago IVC and shout "Hindoo there".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

M. Sarmad said:


> To all our Punjab-hating, (self claimed) Pakistani posters (OP included): please stop posting such useless and stupid threads and comments (using multiple ids) ... We should give up identifying ourselves with our tribes and castes to distance ourselves from the Indians? ... Okay, but then the Pashtuns should also stop identifying themselves with their tribes and clans to distance themselves from the Afghanis ... And the Baloch should also do the same to distance themselves from Iranians... Only a class A idiot could have come up with such an idea ... !!


Insecurity, identity crisis and obsession with Persian and arabs 
we should ask our army chief to stop calling themselves Bajwa( jats), Janjua(Rajputs) etc to distance themselves from Indians.. they should find some alternative Persian or arabic surname 



Crixus said:


> Where did I relate Pashupati seal with Hinduism , why are you assuming so much ... the whole thread is about the people relating themself with the non Islamic terms like Rajputs even after converting to Islam ... why they are still latching to non Islamic pagan terms ( like Rajputs )originated from the Hindu culture ... isn't it blasphemous in Islam ???


It seem you have close links with arabs. They were idol worshipper before converting into Islam and if your Hinduvata would have looked at those 360 idols in Mecca then you would have probably linked them with Hinduism as well

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> These hadith are commonly cited by Salafis in-order to prove "nationalism" is haram and we should distance ourselves from our countries.
> 
> "Tribalism" is not equivalent to every form of nationalism. Ethno-nationalism would be categorized under that, but is Pakistan an ethno-nationalist state? We are countless peoples, languages, cultures, all united under Islam.



The term used in this hadith is Asabiyyah. Some people translate it in different ways. 

Sunnis and Salafis have radically different ideas of what that means.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Peshwa

Indus Pakistan said:


> Even Indian Supreme Court failed to give a rendering of what Hinduism is.
> .



It is not the job of the Supreme Court to define the parameters/understanding of Hinduism. Hinduism is not a law (interpretation of which is the job of the Supreme Court and it’s judges.). So not sure what this line has to do with your argument or supports in it any manner.


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Taimur Khurram said:


> Because it is lol. They're (or should I say we're) right.
> 
> 
> 
> It's equivalent to every form of nationalism that divides Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, hence why any logical Pakistani patriot would be Muslim first, and view Pakistan as just a stepping-stone to the global unified Muslim nation.



I beg to differ, my brother.

There are forms of nationalism that unite us together. Turkish, Iranian, and Pakistani nationalism are all unifying forces among previously disunited Muslim groups.

Pakistani nationalism in particular is an expansive and revolutionary concept which has elements of Pan-Islamic ideology (of Jamal Uddin Afghani,) modernism (Of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan,) and strong self-consciousness and awareness (Of Allama Iqbal and Maulana Maududi.)

It may be for this very reason that Allah swt seems to save our country again and again from the throes of destruction and the hands of our enemies.

Pakistani nationalism is irrevocably Islamic, in every sense of the word. According to Allama Iqbal, Pakistan’s mission is as a savior of the world of Islam from divisiveness and fractionalization.

Where we fail however is that the rest of the Muslim world, especially the Arabs, need to take a few beatings more to wake up for the need for unity.

We are not the sole guardians or protectors of all the Muslims in the world. Only the powerful and influential have a say in the affairs of other nations.

We need to work on Pakistan, it’s economy and society, before we can take the leadership position long owed to us and our ideology of unity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

Peshwa said:


> It is not the job of the Supreme Court to define the parameters/understanding of Hinduism. Hinduism is not a law (interpretation of which is the job of the Supreme Court and it’s judges.). So not sure what this line has to do with your argument or supports in it any manner.


What is Hindu law then? I thought Hindu law apply to those who are Hindu and Hindus are followers of those religion which originated in India and you include Bhuddism, janism, Sikhism etc in it though Chinese buddhists would probably take exception to being called Hindu

But word Hindu is confusing in itself because people that identify as Hindus don't share the same belief about God. They range from theist to atheist. There is no core belief that unite HIndus

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peshwa

Proudpakistaniguy said:


> What is Hindu law then? I thought Hindu law apply to those who are Hindu and Hindus are followers of those religion which originated in India and you include Bhuddism, janism, Sikhism etc in it though Chinese buddhists would probably take exception to being called Hindu
> 
> But word Hindu is confusing in itself because people that identify as Hindus don't share the same belief about God. They range from theist to atheist. There is no core belief that unite HIndus



Think you’re missing my point. Hindu law as you state is defined by the people calling themselves Hindu in its current state. There is no such law of Hinduism as it is not defined by the book as is the case of Abrahamic religions. 
The point I’m arguing is that Supreme Court judges a) cannot create a Hindu law b) are not trained in Hindu or any theology to be able to define the parameters of Hinduism C) are only supposed to interpret a law (and are qualified) to pass judgement, usually based on the Briitish legal system.
So not sure how the Supreme Court being able to define the parameters of Hinduism has any bearing on the argument Indus Pakistan made.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cringe master

Peshwa said:


> Think you’re missing my point. Hindu law as you state is defined by the people calling themselves Hindu in its current state. There is no such law of Hinduism as it is not defined by the book as is the case of Abrahamic religions.
> The point I’m arguing is that Supreme Court judges a) cannot create a Hindu law b) are not trained in Hindu or any theology to be able to define the parameters of Hinduism C) are only supposed to interpret a law (and are qualified) to pass judgement, usually based on the Briitish legal system.
> So not sure how the Supreme Court being able to define the parameters of Hinduism has any bearing on the argument Indus Pakistan made.


first correct your gangadeshi hindu laws
*Shivaji’s humiliation by “Brahmins” was as abominable as humiliation by Aurangzeb*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Peshwa said:


> So not sure how the Supreme Court being able to define the parameters of Hinduism has any bearing on the argument Indus Pakistan made.



This thread has nothing to do with India or Hinduism, and only to do with Pakistani clans and their modern identity in Pakistan.

However, you and your countrymen seem to not be able to digest any thread on Pakistani history or identity. You lot have been derailing them any chance you get.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> This thread has nothing to do with India or Hinduism, and only to do with Pakistani clans and their modern identity in Pakistan.
> 
> However, you and your countrymen seem to not be able to digest any thread on Pakistani history or identity. You lot have been derailing them any chance you get.



Of course it had nothing to do with India or with Hinduism; who dragged it in? You did. Nobody had anything to do with it until your really silly and ignorant statements: remember these?



Taimur Khurram said:


> Most of us aren't Iranic, so such an idea makes no sense.
> 
> Even people like me and you who have some Iranic ancestry are pretty much completely isolated from it now. And it's not even our paternal lineage which is what counts in our part of the world.
> 
> I only support rejecting names like Rajput, Jat or Gujjar since they don't denote a common paternal heritage and unnecessarily link us with India and Hinduism.





Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Clans are known by lineages, place of origin, and our sub-clans.
> 
> I can’t speak for the others you mentioned, but Rajputs are of three main sub-clans. This is how we know who is an authentic Rajput and who is not.
> 
> Generally among Pakistani Rajputs, there is a strong connection with kinship and heritage. Sikhs also share it.
> 
> When I ask a supposed Indian Hindu Rajput what is their lineage and clan, all I get are blank stares. They don’t keep lineages like we do. Many Indians also keep Rajput surnames though they are not Rajputs. In this instance, it is impossible to verify.
> 
> In short, we are proud of our heritage and the lineage which shows our evolution to Islam. Rajputs have always been on the frontlines of the Islamic conquest (first against it and later its chief soldiers, generals, statesmen) and even today we are working to defend Pakistan from its enemies.





Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> In Central Punjab (Lahore,etc.,) we are half the population. We are thoroughly linked and embedded in the structure and way of life of Punjab.
> 
> Rajputs and related groups like Jats, Gujjars, Bajwas, Bhattis have been part of this region since time immemorial.
> 
> A Muslim Rajput would rather commit sepukku than claim anything in common with India or Hinduism.
> 
> This is why we don’t consider you Rajputs, you talk big but you are mostly full of hot air.
> 
> Half of you stole our surnames and many of you use them as first names like Raj, Rani, etc.
> 
> Real Rajput blood makes us tall, muscular, fair-skinned with light hair.
> 
> This because of our nomadic Central Asian Irani origin.
> 
> Muslim and Pakistani first. I consider the two almost synonymous in importance of our identity.
> 
> Ethnicity, language, province second.
> 
> Matter resolved.
> 
> By the way, like the rest of us, Pakistani Rajputs have also begun marrying outside tribe.



@Tea addict put up a very mild post in response to your grossly offensive comment about Hindu Rajputs not maintaining their lineage. 

So get your own act together before you run around wildly looking for someone else to blame.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

Jackdaws said:


> Joe, you went full Rajput on him.



The Rajputs used us as priests and doctors (hakims, vaids). We are peaceable people; I usually lean over backwards to respond positively to those seeking knowledge and information. It is those who make unprovoked attacks and then complain of our presence here that raise my hackles.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TMA

Chhatrapati said:


> I wish I could detail, but it't time consuming, and I don't think you are interested in learning the difference. Anyway,
> For starters, there is no puranism which literally means old 'ism'. And vedism translates to knowledge 'ism'.
> In simple terms, Vedas are divided into four (not the divisions of Vedas like Rig, Yajur, Sama, Adharva), but four sections in all these four Vedas.
> 
> We have Vedanta, part of Vedas which has itihas like Ramayana, Mahabharata, Gita and the most important part of it is Upanishads. Other parts include Brahmana, Samhitas, Aranyaka.
> 
> General Hindus may or may not learn Vedas, Upanishads are philosophies and itihas are for the people to learn and take examples from them to practice in their life. Itihas is simplified epics on how those people like lord Ram, Krishna, Arjun etc.. uphold the Dharma.


And Hinduism is what Britons gave and linguistically means a geographic place called Hind and “ism”. Can you imagine something called Bharat “ism” or Russia “ism”.

I do not like the term “Hinduism” to refer to the Dharm of the Vedas or Puranas. It is not found in them and it is a colonial appelllation. It is unfortunate that even “Hindus” have accepted this. I would prefer the term Hindu to be what it was originally...a geographic name....unfortunately this cannot be attributed to the First Empire of the Anti-Christ but to various Turkic Muslim dynasties that ruled South Asia.

Also I know that there is no such thing as Vedism or Puranism...(just like there is no such thing as /was Hinduism), my point was that the in bygone times the “Hinduism” of coterminous Pakistan was not exactly the same as coterminous Bharat...and that Pakistanis who are interested in learning their history ought to look at coterminous Pakistan’s religious history before going to coterminous Bharat’s religious history...and not confuse the two...of course compared to Islam both “Hinduisms” are two peas in a pod so to speak but still separate peas.....





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1766899513370025







Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Irani (Aryan) tribes were fair skinned compared to the Gangetic Dravidians from which most Indians are descended from.
> 
> Our ancestors were racist and looked at them with disdain, we have no ill feelings toward dark skinned people now because of Islam.
> 
> Rajputs were traditionally arrogant and viewed themselves as superior to the natives of the Gangetic plains.
> 
> It is will well known that only the most warlike and martial of the Rajput clans could survive the constant warfare of the Punjab. Minor clans were exterminated or fled to other areas.
> 
> This is why this region has always been known to supply some of the best soldiers, warriors, and generals throughout history from Alexander’s time, Dilli Sultanah, Afghan empires, Persian rule, Arab conquest, Mughal dynasty, British rule, and now Pakistan.
> 
> What I don’t understand is Hindu pseudo-historians who come to Pakistani history or identity threads and act like they are superior?
> 
> They will get a rude awakening.
> 
> 
> 
> Again with this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> When the realization hits Indians that even according to their caste system, Pakistanis are high born with more prestigious castes and lineages.
> 
> Now, they are telling us to forget our ancestry. Lol.
> 
> All while they harp on about their supposed superiority day in and out.
> 
> Pakistanis are generally fair skinned compared to Indians, this is a fact and not racist to admit it.
> 
> It is not only a result of Arab, Persian, Turk genes, but Pakistani clans and tribes even according to Hindus were high born Iranis (Aryans.)
> 
> Many tribes in Pakistan have absolutely no foreign Middle Eastern DNA but still have fair complexion, light hair, light eye colors.
> 
> I am not talking about Pukhtoons, Baloch, or Kalash, but Punjabi, Sindhi, and Kashmiri clans.


Yes. Coterminous Pakistanis were still different to coterminous Bharatis even before the introduction of the Dharm of Abraham (peace be upon him) to South Asia. Even Pakistanis do not know this.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Exactly my point also.
> 
> I once asked a University Religions professor specializing in Eastern faiths about what is the definition of Hinduism. The answer I got was interesting.
> 
> Hinduism is worship of 360+ gods, or worship of only 3, or just one god, but also no god at all. All the above would be qualified as Hindu although their concept of god is radically different.
> 
> Then the answer came.
> 
> Hinduism is a person from the Indian subcontinent who is neither Muslim nor Christian.
> 
> Honestly, I was a bit surprised by this answer. The definition of Hinduism is so vague, that before the codification of Hinduism as a faith, it is absolutely impossible to say what is Hinduism and what is not. It is all arbitrary.


Yes, even the British could not make heads or tails of this...hence the name they used Hind”ism”
,might as well call it Bharat “ism”.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> The term used in this hadith is Asabiyyah. Some people translate it in different ways.
> 
> Sunnis and Salafis have radically different ideas of what that means.


Love of nation is not asabiyyah.
If you love your family would that be asabiyyah....
Many Pakistanis I meet don’t see that difference....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sam.

TMA said:


> And Hinduism is what Britons gave and linguistically means a geographic place called Hind and “ism”. Can you imagine something called Bharat “ism” or Russia “ism”.
> 
> I do not like the term “Hinduism” to refer to the Dharm of the Vedas or Puranas. It is not found in them and it is a colonial appelllation. It is unfortunate that even “Hindus” have accepted this. I would prefer the term Hindu to be what it was originally...a geographic name....unfortunately this cannot be attributed to the First Empire of the Anti-Christ but to various Turkic Muslim dynasties that ruled South Asia.
> 
> Also I know that there is no such thing as Vedism or Puranism...(just like there is no such thing as /was Hinduism), my point was that the in bygone times the “Hinduism” of coterminous Pakistan was not exactly the same as coterminous Bharat...and that Pakistanis who are interested in learning their history ought to look at coterminous Pakistan’s religious history before going to coterminous Bharat’s religious history...and not confuse the two...of course compared to Islam both “Hinduisms” are two peas in a pod so to speak but still separate peas.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1766899513370025
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Coterminous Pakistanis were still different to coterminous Bharatis even before the introduction of the Dharm of Abraham (peace be upon him) to South Asia. Even Pakistanis do not know this.
> 
> 
> Yes, even the British could not make heads or tails of this...hence the name they used Hind”ism”
> ,might as well call it Bharat “ism”.
> 
> 
> Love of nation is not asabiyyah.
> If you love your family would that be asabiyyah....
> Many Pakistanis I meet don’t see that difference....


There is no religion as Hinduism but Sanatan Dharma.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TMA

Sam. said:


> There is no religion as Hinduism but Sanatan Dharma.


Yes. And what do you call the followers of Sanatan Dharm? Certainly not “Hindus”???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## M. Sarmad

Taimur Khurram said:


> Both were known as being pretty fierce resistors to the Muslim invasions. Gujjars were called Jurz and referred to as good fighters, and the king of the Gujjar Empire at the time of the Ummayads was called the best king of Hind.



During Abbasid period, _Ballahra_, the king of _Mankir_ (Rashtrakuta dynasty) was called the best king of Hind by Arab historians and travelers.

_Ballahra_ were allies of Muslims against _Budah, _the king of_ Kinnauj _(Gurjara-Pratihara) as per Arab historians.

The kings of Kinnauj (Kanauj)were considered as _the most formidable enemies of Muslims_ by the Arabs.

To quote "Herodotus of the Arabs", Al-Masudi (d. 956 AD): 

_The kingdom of the Budah, king of Kanauj, extends about one hundred and twenty farasangs of Sind in length and breadth, each farasang being equal to eight miles of this country. 

This king has four armies, according to the four quarters of the wind. Each of them numbers 700,000 men. The army of the north wars against the prince of Multan, and with the Muslims, his subjects, on the frontier. The army of the south fights against the Ballahra, king of Mankir. The other two armies march to meet enemies in every direction _










Aloys Sprenger, _El-Masudi’s Historical Encyclopaedia, entitled "Meadows of gold and mines of gems" : translated from the Arabic by Aloys Sprenger_, (London: 1841)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Sam.

TMA said:


> Yes. And what do you call the followers of Sanatan Dharm? Certainly not “Hindus”???


You are correct factually but it is what it is today.


----------



## TMA

Sam. said:


> You are correct factually but it is what it is today.


I know...lots of things are what they are today...but it does not mean that one ought to always accept it....but the Law of Historical Compulsion is hard to fight...

But for my knowledge what are they known as?


----------



## Chhatrapati

TMA said:


> And Hinduism is what Britons gave and linguistically means a geographic place called Hind and “ism”. Can you imagine something called Bharat “ism” or “Russia” ism.


Why should I imagine an alternate scenario when we are living in reality? Yes, British may have categorized the people who follow a unique custom under a single name called Hindus.



> I do not like the term “Hinduism” to refer to the Dharm of the Vedas or Puranas. It is not found in them and it is a colonial appelllation. It is unfortunate that even “Hindus” have accepted this. I would prefer the term Hindu to be what it was originally...a geographic name....unfortunately this cannot be attributed to the First Empire of the Anti-Christ but to various Turkic Muslim dynasties that ruled South Asia.


I don't care about the name Hindu either, there used to be groups, who were called Nagas(Not to be confused with Naga people of NE) a cult who worshiped snakes without following any of the vedic methods the only connection they had was their paradevata(supreme deity) Thakshak the King of serpants. They also fell under the category of Hindu and it wasn't the British who actually united these groups, it's the effort of Adi Sankara who united all the groups, subgroups through debates, and defeating every opponent through debates in vedanta philosophy (Which had a major impact to Buddhist in the region too).


> my point was that the in bygone times the “Hinduism” of coterminous Pakistan was not exactly the same as coterminous Bharat.


How do you know that? Was there two Rig Veda? One for Pakistan, other for India? Anyone who studies the history of Hinduism in Pakistan will surely learn that, by looking at the temples in there, the people was driven by Vedantas, i.e the worship, Rama, Krishna, Kali, Hanuman, or a lot of Shiv temples which is no different from what you see in India a little more so than here given the Lava temples (Son of Lord Ram) in there. What are you trying to say?
To say, the Alvar saints and their followers in Tamil Nadu have a valid difference when it comes to Vedas they don't recite vedas to empower their dieties (Lord Vishnu being prima) instead they recite Divya Prabhandham composed in around 800AD.

Or the Hare Krishna (a group) which you see around the world, their supreme deity is lord Krishna and not Vishnu who's avatar is Krishna. I had an interesting conversation with a guy who's the follower of this group a few years back.
Are they followers of Dharma? Of course they are. If we begin to follow your path, we will have hundreds of religions, again todays religion is an Abrahamic theory, one god, prophets, it's people and a book. Which is entirely different from Eastern concept. You cannot understand it when you apply the Abrahamic concept of religion here. You can see similar traditions on Buddhists too, there are different schools of it, Mahayana, Teravada etc...

@Joe Shearer Yes, we can discuss about Upanishads, but I don't think PDF is the right place. Your email given in signature still works?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TMA

*Ancient Pakistan*
31 December 2017 at 16:24 ·

Nilofar Abbasi asks "What is the difference between Hinduism in Pakistan vs Hinduism in India".

The difference is so stark, that they might as well be two different religions. The difference is that Pakistani Hindus still practice authentic Vedic beliefs, whereas Indian Hindus practice Puranic Hinduism or Brahminsm. The difference between the two is quite significant and historical and even violent.

~ Early Vedic period ~
The Vedic religion was formed during the Vedic civilization, which developed in the Indus Valley following the collapse of the Harappan (Indus Valley) Civilization in around ~1500 BC. During this collapsing period, the Aryan people migrated into the Indus Valley between 1800 BC to 1000 BC, and along with them came their distinctive religious traditions and practices which appears to have syncretised (fused) with native Indus (Harappan) beliefs. This essentially gave rise to Vedic civilization (Vedic tribes, Vedic religion and Vedic Sanskrit).

~ Indus Vedic faith ~
The Indus Vedic faith is still prevalent today among most Pakistani Hindus and the Kalash. From information gathered in the Rig Veda, Vedic society during this period was pastoral and centered in the Indus Valley in a few dozen kingdoms such as the Sindhu, Kashmira, Gandhara and Kamboja to name a few. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets in Saptha Sindhu (Punjab) tell of a society which starkly differs from what we know as "Hinduism" today. For example, the Vedic people ate beef, buried their dead, and had no idols and no caste system. In fact, the Vedas forbade idolatry and the term “varna” (caste) is nowhere to be found.

“There is no evidence in the Vedas for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system,” Joel Brereton, a professor of Sanskrit and Religious studies, states.

“The Vedic society was neither organized on the basis of social division of labour nor on that of differences in wealth,” Ram Sharan Sharma, an eminent historian and academic of Ancient and early Medieval India, states. “… [it] was primarily organized on the basis of kin, tribe and lineage.”

The Vedic gods mentioned in the Vedas are also starkly different what we consider “modern Hindu gods” today. The Vedic gods are the most important differentiating factor – they were mainly adopted from the Bactria-Margiana Culture, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism) and local Harappan beliefs.

These Vedic gods included:

Mitra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Mithra”)

Varuna (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Ahura Mazda”)

Indra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Verethraghna”)

Sorya (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Hvare-Khshaeta”)

Agni or Matarisvan (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Atar”)

Soma (borrowed from the Bactria-Margiana culture)

If anything, the Vedic people were more culturally and religiously related to the Avestan Iranians in the west than the Gangetic Dravidians in the east. Most strikingly, Vedic society made a strong point to differentiate themselves (Sindhu and Sapta Sindhu) from others, particularly the region east of the Indus which was the Ganges plain and Deccan. The people living in that region were referred to by the Vedics as "Dasyas". Keep this in mind for later.

Internecine military conflicts between these various Vedic tribes was very common and as such the Indus Valley did not have one powerful Vedic kingdom to wield the warring tribes into one organized kingdom. Most notable of such conflicts was the Battle of Ten Kings, which took place on the banks of the River Ravi in ~1300 BC and was fought between the Bharatas tribe and a confederation of ten tribes which included the Alinas (from Nuristan), Anu (from upper Punjab), Bhrigus (from Punjab), Bhalanas (from Bolan), Druhyus (from Swat), Matsya (from Cholistan), Parsu (from western Balochistan), Purus (from Thar) and Panis (from Sibi). The Bharatas emerged victorious, yet the constant threat of war forced many Vedic tribes to consider migrating out of the Indus. The Bharatas and Purus were among the first to do so.

~ Late Vedic period & Ganges migration ~
Up until 1100 BC, the Ganges plain had remained out of bounds to Vedic tribes because of thick forest cover as well as local resistance from its native Gangetic inhabitants (the Dravidians). After 1100 BC, the use of iron axes and ploughs became widespread and thus forests could be cleared with ease. By 800 BC, Vedic society had transitioned from semi-nomadic life to settled agriculture and now tribes had a choice to remain in the Indus or migrate. The majority stayed such as the Sindhu and Kashmira, while others such as the Bharatas and Purus, migrated east towards the Ganges plain.

As these migrating tribes migrated and settled in the Ganges plain, they began breaking Vedic norms. They attempted to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order against the native Dravidians, but were unsuccessful. Within a few generations, the minority Vedic tribes had been completely usurped by the indigenous culture and faith. Their original Vedic faith, gods and customs were completely abandoned in favour of the indigenous Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs. Their original Vedic social order (as explained above) was replaced with the preexisting caste system. Through religious manipulation, the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges were made to surrender whatever little political rule they had acquired and and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient servants (Sudra caste) of their Dravidian masters. In another version of history, it is claimed that the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges plain successfully entrenched themselves into the ruling order, by adopting Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs, while subjecting the original native Dravidian population to the Sudra caste, though this seems highly unlikely. Regardless of who ruled who and who Brahmins really are (Vedic immigrants or native Gangetic Dravidians), the fact remains is that they abandoned Vedic faith and customs.

~ Puranic Hinduism/Brahminism vs Indus Vedic ~
None of the Dravidian and Gangetic gods such as Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma are mentioned in Rig Veda hymns nor do they appear in Vedic texts, Avestan texts or Hittite tablets. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharata and Varna Ashram Dharma of Manu refer to the Indus Vedics as 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'. These texts forbade Brahmans from even visiting the Indus Valley (Vahika-desa). Mahabharata texts also depict Dravidian gods like Krishna clashing with and defeating Vedic gods like Indra. Similarly, the Rig Veda contains taboos and injunctions against the Ganges plain and Deccan which Vedics referred to as "Dasya-varta" and regularly sung praises of Indra (god of thunderbolt) destroying "'Dasya-purahs' or cities in the Ganges plain and Deccan.

~ Clash of ideologies ~
Both Indus Vedic and Gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' between the two, indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the Indus did not accept the Gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture, Brahmanical caste ideology or the Puranas. Vice versa, the Puranic Hindus did not accept Vedic culture or beliefs either.

~ End result ~
Eventually by 500 BC, Persian rule took over much of the Indus Valley and Zoroastrianism began to spread and influence Vedic beliefs. Similarly under Greek and Macedonian rule, the Indus Vedics would be influenced by Paganism (Hellenism) and later under the Ashoka would eventually begin adopting Buddhism. On the flip side, the Ganges plain and Deccan did not have this outside influence, and hence Puranic Hinduism/Brahmanism would become the dominant form of Hinduism, while the Vedic faith would slowly fade away.

~ Pakistani Hinduism ~
Most Hindus in Pakistan still incorporate some aspect of the Vedic faith. This can be proven from the gods that are worshiped among the different communities of Hindus in Pakistan:

- In Sindh, the most revered god among Sindhi Hindus is Jhulelal (Ishta-Deva). They regard Jhulelal to be a incarnation of Varuna, an early Vedic god who was adopted from the Iranian Avestan deity Ahura Mazda.

- In Kashmir, Pandits worship a Vedic god known as Kheer Bhawani.

- In KP, the Kalash tribe (although not Hindus) revere an Indra-like figure as the central part of their religion. Indra was adopted by the Vedic culture originally from the Zoroastrian deity Verethraghna.

Vedic culture is still prevalent among the Hindus in Pakistan and the Kalash. A large percentage of Hindus in Pakistan are non vegetarian and some Hindu clans in Pakistan bury their dead. In Hyderabad you can find the famous graveyard of Thakur Jaati Hindus. Laal Chand Raybari, the first Pakistani Hindu soldier to be martyred, was buried rather than cremated.

At the same time, there is also a small population of Hindus in Pakistan who worship mainstream Hindu gods, similar to those found in India. However, this Hindu population arrived in Sindh and Punjab during the British Raj after 1857, mainly from places like Delhi, Bengal, eastern Rajasthan and southern Gujarat. During British rule, Brahmanism experianced a revival. They were chosen by the British to rule the colony, and were educated in English and placed in British government offices throughout the colony. The British also passed laws supporting and aiding Brahmanism. The British also created a myth that Brahmans were Aryans and a superior race, which oddly enough is still believed to this day, despite the fact that Aryans migrated into the Indus Valley and fused culturally with the remaining Harappans. How Aryans ended up in the Ganges is anyone's guess...yet the myth prevails.

~Indian Hinduism~
In comparison, Hinduism in India can also be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped. These include Shiva, Karthikeya, Ganesha, Shakti (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Meenakshi) and Hanuman - all these gods were originally from Dravidian/South Indian culture, which were worshipped by them long before the Vedic faith had even been established. Vishnu is a god of the Ganges culture. The Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna and others are not mainstream at all among Indian Hindus, as they are among most Hindus in Pakistan.





Chhatrapati said:


> Why should I imagine an alternate scenario when we are living in reality? Yes, British may have categorized the people who follow a unique custom under a single name called Hindus.
> 
> 
> I don't care about the name Hindu either, there used to be groups, who were called Nagas(Not to be confused with Naga people of NE) a cult who worshiped snakes without following any of the vedic methods the only connection they had was their paradevata(supreme deity) Thakshak the King of serpants. They also fell under the category of Hindu and it wasn't the British who actually united these groups, it's the effort of Adi Sankara who united all the groups, subgroups through debates, and defeating every opponent through debates in vedanta philosophy (Which had a major impact to Buddhist in the region too).
> 
> How do you know that? Was there two Rig Veda? One for Pakistan, other for India? Anyone who studies the history of Hinduism in Pakistan will surely learn that, by looking at the temples in there, the people was driven by Vedantas, i.e the worship, Rama, Krishna, Kali, Hanuman, or a lot of Shiv temples which is no different from what you see in India a little more so than here given the Lava temples (Son of Lord Ram) in there. What are you trying to say?
> To say, the Alvar saints and their followers in Tamil Nadu have a valid difference when it comes to Vedas they don't recite vedas to empower their dieties (Lord Vishnu being prima) instead they recite Divya Prabhandham composed in around 800AD.
> 
> Or the Hare Krishna (a group) which you see around the world, their supreme deity is lord Krishna and not Vishnu who's avatar is Krishna. I had an interesting conversation with a guy who's the follower of this group a few years back.
> Are they followers of Dharma? Of course they are. If we begin to follow your path, we will have hundreds of religions, again todays religion is an Abrahamic theory, one god, prophets, it's people and a book. Which is entirely different from Eastern concept. You cannot understand it when you apply the Abrahamic concept of religion here. You can see similar traditions on Buddhists too, there are different schools of it, Mahayana, Teravada etc...
> 
> @Joe Shearer Yes, we can discuss about Upanishads, but I don't think PDF is the right place. Your email given in signature still works?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Chhatrapati said:


> Why should I imagine an alternate scenario when we are living in reality? Yes, British may have categorized the people who follow a unique custom under a single name called Hindus.
> 
> 
> I don't care about the name Hindu either, there used to be groups, who were called Nagas(Not to be confused with Naga people of NE) a cult who worshiped snakes without following any of the vedic methods the only connection they had was their paradevata(supreme deity) Thakshak the King of serpants. They also fell under the category of Hindu and it wasn't the British who actually united these groups, it's the effort of Adi Sankara who united all the groups, subgroups through debates, and defeating every opponent through debates in vedanta philosophy (Which had a major impact to Buddhist in the region too).
> 
> How do you know that? Was there two Rig Veda? One for Pakistan, other for India? Anyone who studies the history of Hinduism in Pakistan will surely learn that, by looking at the temples in there, the people was driven by Vedantas, i.e the worship, Rama, Krishna, Kali, Hanuman, or a lot of Shiv temples which is no different from what you see in India a little more so than here given the Lava temples (Son of Lord Ram) in there. What are you trying to say?
> To say, the Alvar saints and their followers in Tamil Nadu have a valid difference when it comes to Vedas they don't recite vedas to empower their dieties (Lord Vishnu being prima) instead they recite Divya Prabhandham composed in around 800AD.
> 
> Or the Hare Krishna (a group) which you see around the world, their supreme deity is lord Krishna and not Vishnu who's avatar is Krishna. I had an interesting conversation with a guy who's the follower of this group a few years back.
> Are they followers of Dharma? Of course they are. If we begin to follow your path, we will have hundreds of religions, again todays religion is an Abrahamic theory, one god, prophets, it's people and a book. Which is entirely different from Eastern concept. You cannot understand it when you apply the Abrahamic concept of religion here. You can see similar traditions on Buddhists too, there are different schools of it, Mahayana, Teravada etc...
> 
> @Joe Shearer Yes, we can discuss about Upanishads, but I don't think PDF is the right place. Your email given in signature still works?



It does, but I wish we could invite @TMA, and @saiyan0321 and @M. Sarmad also to join. They are pretty knowledgeable, and I wish we could deepen and widen the conversation by including them. Please feel free to mail me as a first step.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Chhatrapati

@TMA I think I got where did you get the idea, but I think it's best not to read too much into such facebook posts, which are basically a wikipedia rendition of some unknown wannabe historian. I can spend whole day debunking his statements, one for example where it claims that you guys were the followers of authentic Vedic beliefs, if so then you would see more Indra temples, Sun temples, rather than Shiva, Kali, Krishna, etc...


----------



## Joe Shearer

Chhatrapati said:


> @TMA I think I got where did you get the idea, but I think it's best not to read too much into such facebook posts, which are basically a wikipedia rendition of some unknown wannabe historian. I can spend whole day debunking his statements, one for example where it claims that you guys were the followers of authentic Vedic beliefs, if so then you would see more Indra temples, Sun temples, rather than Shiva, Kali, Krishna, etc...



Not here, not on this thread, but elsewhere...he deserves a fuller, detailed explanation.


----------



## Sam.

Joe Shearer said:


> Not here, not on this thread, but elsewhere...he deserves a fuller, detailed explanation.


Please include me as it is great stuff and very much enjoyable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

TMA said:


> And Hinduism is what Britons gave and linguistically means a geographic place called Hind and “ism”. Can you imagine something called Bharat “ism” or Russia “ism”.
> 
> I do not like the term “Hinduism” to refer to the Dharm of the Vedas or Puranas. It is not found in them and it is a colonial appelllation. It is unfortunate that even “Hindus” have accepted this. I would prefer the term Hindu to be what it was originally...a geographic name....unfortunately this cannot be attributed to the First Empire of the Anti-Christ but to various Turkic Muslim dynasties that ruled South Asia.
> 
> Also I know that there is no such thing as Vedism or Puranism...(just like there is no such thing as /was Hinduism), my point was that the in bygone times the “Hinduism” of coterminous Pakistan was not exactly the same as coterminous Bharat...and that Pakistanis who are interested in learning their history ought to look at coterminous Pakistan’s religious history before going to coterminous Bharat’s religious history...and not confuse the two...of course compared to Islam both “Hinduisms” are two peas in a pod so to speak but still separate peas.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1766899513370025
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Coterminous Pakistanis were still different to coterminous Bharatis even before the introduction of the Dharm of Abraham (peace be upon him) to South Asia. Even Pakistanis do not know this.
> 
> 
> Yes, even the British could not make heads or tails of this...hence the name they used Hind”ism”
> ,might as well call it Bharat “ism”.
> 
> 
> Love of nation is not asabiyyah.
> If you love your family would that be asabiyyah....
> Many Pakistanis I meet don’t see that difference....



Great post.

It is a shame that the guy behind “Ancient Pakistan” was banned from this forum.

He had oodles of knowledge and insight which could be very useful for Pakistan and our understanding of the past.



TMA said:


> *Ancient Pakistan*
> 31 December 2017 at 16:24 ·
> 
> Nilofar Abbasi asks "What is the difference between Hinduism in Pakistan vs Hinduism in India".
> 
> The difference is so stark, that they might as well be two different religions. The difference is that Pakistani Hindus still practice authentic Vedic beliefs, whereas Indian Hindus practice Puranic Hinduism or Brahminsm. The difference between the two is quite significant and historical and even violent.
> 
> ~ Early Vedic period ~
> The Vedic religion was formed during the Vedic civilization, which developed in the Indus Valley following the collapse of the Harappan (Indus Valley) Civilization in around ~1500 BC. During this collapsing period, the Aryan people migrated into the Indus Valley between 1800 BC to 1000 BC, and along with them came their distinctive religious traditions and practices which appears to have syncretised (fused) with native Indus (Harappan) beliefs. This essentially gave rise to Vedic civilization (Vedic tribes, Vedic religion and Vedic Sanskrit).
> 
> ~ Indus Vedic faith ~
> The Indus Vedic faith is still prevalent today among most Pakistani Hindus and the Kalash. From information gathered in the Rig Veda, Vedic society during this period was pastoral and centered in the Indus Valley in a few dozen kingdoms such as the Sindhu, Kashmira, Gandhara and Kamboja to name a few. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets in Saptha Sindhu (Punjab) tell of a society which starkly differs from what we know as "Hinduism" today. For example, the Vedic people ate beef, buried their dead, and had no idols and no caste system. In fact, the Vedas forbade idolatry and the term “varna” (caste) is nowhere to be found.
> 
> “There is no evidence in the Vedas for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system,” Joel Brereton, a professor of Sanskrit and Religious studies, states.
> 
> “The Vedic society was neither organized on the basis of social division of labour nor on that of differences in wealth,” Ram Sharan Sharma, an eminent historian and academic of Ancient and early Medieval India, states. “… [it] was primarily organized on the basis of kin, tribe and lineage.”
> 
> The Vedic gods mentioned in the Vedas are also starkly different what we consider “modern Hindu gods” today. The Vedic gods are the most important differentiating factor – they were mainly adopted from the Bactria-Margiana Culture, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism) and local Harappan beliefs.
> 
> These Vedic gods included:
> 
> Mitra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Mithra”)
> 
> Varuna (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Ahura Mazda”)
> 
> Indra (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Verethraghna”)
> 
> Sorya (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Hvare-Khshaeta”)
> 
> Agni or Matarisvan (borrowed from Iranian Avestan deity “Atar”)
> 
> Soma (borrowed from the Bactria-Margiana culture)
> 
> If anything, the Vedic people were more culturally and religiously related to the Avestan Iranians in the west than the Gangetic Dravidians in the east. Most strikingly, Vedic society made a strong point to differentiate themselves (Sindhu and Sapta Sindhu) from others, particularly the region east of the Indus which was the Ganges plain and Deccan. The people living in that region were referred to by the Vedics as "Dasyas". Keep this in mind for later.
> 
> Internecine military conflicts between these various Vedic tribes was very common and as such the Indus Valley did not have one powerful Vedic kingdom to wield the warring tribes into one organized kingdom. Most notable of such conflicts was the Battle of Ten Kings, which took place on the banks of the River Ravi in ~1300 BC and was fought between the Bharatas tribe and a confederation of ten tribes which included the Alinas (from Nuristan), Anu (from upper Punjab), Bhrigus (from Punjab), Bhalanas (from Bolan), Druhyus (from Swat), Matsya (from Cholistan), Parsu (from western Balochistan), Purus (from Thar) and Panis (from Sibi). The Bharatas emerged victorious, yet the constant threat of war forced many Vedic tribes to consider migrating out of the Indus. The Bharatas and Purus were among the first to do so.
> 
> ~ Late Vedic period & Ganges migration ~
> Up until 1100 BC, the Ganges plain had remained out of bounds to Vedic tribes because of thick forest cover as well as local resistance from its native Gangetic inhabitants (the Dravidians). After 1100 BC, the use of iron axes and ploughs became widespread and thus forests could be cleared with ease. By 800 BC, Vedic society had transitioned from semi-nomadic life to settled agriculture and now tribes had a choice to remain in the Indus or migrate. The majority stayed such as the Sindhu and Kashmira, while others such as the Bharatas and Purus, migrated east towards the Ganges plain.
> 
> As these migrating tribes migrated and settled in the Ganges plain, they began breaking Vedic norms. They attempted to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order against the native Dravidians, but were unsuccessful. Within a few generations, the minority Vedic tribes had been completely usurped by the indigenous culture and faith. Their original Vedic faith, gods and customs were completely abandoned in favour of the indigenous Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs. Their original Vedic social order (as explained above) was replaced with the preexisting caste system. Through religious manipulation, the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges were made to surrender whatever little political rule they had acquired and and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient servants (Sudra caste) of their Dravidian masters. In another version of history, it is claimed that the Vedic immigrants to the Ganges plain successfully entrenched themselves into the ruling order, by adopting Gangetic/Dravidian gods and customs, while subjecting the original native Dravidian population to the Sudra caste, though this seems highly unlikely. Regardless of who ruled who and who Brahmins really are (Vedic immigrants or native Gangetic Dravidians), the fact remains is that they abandoned Vedic faith and customs.
> 
> ~ Puranic Hinduism/Brahminism vs Indus Vedic ~
> None of the Dravidian and Gangetic gods such as Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma are mentioned in Rig Veda hymns nor do they appear in Vedic texts, Avestan texts or Hittite tablets. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharata and Varna Ashram Dharma of Manu refer to the Indus Vedics as 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'. These texts forbade Brahmans from even visiting the Indus Valley (Vahika-desa). Mahabharata texts also depict Dravidian gods like Krishna clashing with and defeating Vedic gods like Indra. Similarly, the Rig Veda contains taboos and injunctions against the Ganges plain and Deccan which Vedics referred to as "Dasya-varta" and regularly sung praises of Indra (god of thunderbolt) destroying "'Dasya-purahs' or cities in the Ganges plain and Deccan.
> 
> ~ Clash of ideologies ~
> Both Indus Vedic and Gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' between the two, indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the Indus did not accept the Gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture, Brahmanical caste ideology or the Puranas. Vice versa, the Puranic Hindus did not accept Vedic culture or beliefs either.
> 
> ~ End result ~
> Eventually by 500 BC, Persian rule took over much of the Indus Valley and Zoroastrianism began to spread and influence Vedic beliefs. Similarly under Greek and Macedonian rule, the Indus Vedics would be influenced by Paganism (Hellenism) and later under the Ashoka would eventually begin adopting Buddhism. On the flip side, the Ganges plain and Deccan did not have this outside influence, and hence Puranic Hinduism/Brahmanism would become the dominant form of Hinduism, while the Vedic faith would slowly fade away.
> 
> ~ Pakistani Hinduism ~
> Most Hindus in Pakistan still incorporate some aspect of the Vedic faith. This can be proven from the gods that are worshiped among the different communities of Hindus in Pakistan:
> 
> - In Sindh, the most revered god among Sindhi Hindus is Jhulelal (Ishta-Deva). They regard Jhulelal to be a incarnation of Varuna, an early Vedic god who was adopted from the Iranian Avestan deity Ahura Mazda.
> 
> - In Kashmir, Pandits worship a Vedic god known as Kheer Bhawani.
> 
> - In KP, the Kalash tribe (although not Hindus) revere an Indra-like figure as the central part of their religion. Indra was adopted by the Vedic culture originally from the Zoroastrian deity Verethraghna.
> 
> Vedic culture is still prevalent among the Hindus in Pakistan and the Kalash. A large percentage of Hindus in Pakistan are non vegetarian and some Hindu clans in Pakistan bury their dead. In Hyderabad you can find the famous graveyard of Thakur Jaati Hindus. Laal Chand Raybari, the first Pakistani Hindu soldier to be martyred, was buried rather than cremated.
> 
> At the same time, there is also a small population of Hindus in Pakistan who worship mainstream Hindu gods, similar to those found in India. However, this Hindu population arrived in Sindh and Punjab during the British Raj after 1857, mainly from places like Delhi, Bengal, eastern Rajasthan and southern Gujarat. During British rule, Brahmanism experianced a revival. They were chosen by the British to rule the colony, and were educated in English and placed in British government offices throughout the colony. The British also passed laws supporting and aiding Brahmanism. The British also created a myth that Brahmans were Aryans and a superior race, which oddly enough is still believed to this day, despite the fact that Aryans migrated into the Indus Valley and fused culturally with the remaining Harappans. How Aryans ended up in the Ganges is anyone's guess...yet the myth prevails.
> 
> ~Indian Hinduism~
> In comparison, Hinduism in India can also be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped. These include Shiva, Karthikeya, Ganesha, Shakti (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Meenakshi) and Hanuman - all these gods were originally from Dravidian/South Indian culture, which were worshipped by them long before the Vedic faith had even been established. Vishnu is a god of the Ganges culture. The Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna and others are not mainstream at all among Indian Hindus, as they are among most Hindus in Pakistan.



This is pure gold.



OsmanAli98 said:


> The fact that the IVC is not taught to Pakistanis at a young age is a travesty by the Government of Pakistan and the backwards or darkness trend that has been in our nation since the last 50 years all cause the politicians and moulvis never cared to create a coherent identity for our people they used sectarian warfare, used regional tensions between Pasthuns,Balochis, Punjabis, Sindhis,Gilgitis, and other groups, the IVC and late Islamic rulers could have formed a basis of our identity shame on YOU THE LEADERS OF PAKISTAN For letting our history be stolen by Gangas who bathe in polluted waters and steal our rightful history



Imran Khan and PTI will do it.

How poetic that it will take a Pukhtoon leader to finally rid us of this Indian Ganges cultural infiltration and Westoxification.

Pukhtoons are the best resource Pakistan has in fighting against India and reclaiming our past history. They for the most part have preserved their traditional way of life and the pride in their identity which we lost.

It was not long ago that even us Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis had strong ethnic roots to our past. Unfortunately we were thoroughly Anglicized and de-Persianized by the British.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TMA

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Great post.
> 
> It is a shame that the guy behind “Ancient Pakistan” was banned from this forum.
> 
> He had oodles of knowledge and insight which could be very useful for Pakistan and our understanding of the past.
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure gold.
> 
> 
> 
> Imran Khan and PTI will do it.
> 
> How poetic that it will take a Pukhtoon leader to finally rid us of this Indian Ganges cultural infiltration and Westoxification.
> 
> Pukhtoons are the best resource Pakistan has in fighting against India and reclaiming our past history. They for the most part have preserved their traditional way of life and the pride in their identity which we lost.
> 
> It was not long ago that even us Punjabis, Kashmiris, Sindhis had strong ethnic roots to our past. Unfortunately we were thoroughly Anglicized and de-Persianized by the British.


Indeed. So many Pakistanis don’t know this....and don’t care...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gangsta_rap

DAAL KHOR


----------



## Nilgiri

Joe Shearer said:


> It does, but I wish we could invite @TMA, and @saiyan0321 and @M. Sarmad also to join. They are pretty knowledgeable, and I wish we could deepen and widen the conversation by including them. Please feel free to mail me as a first step.



Can I join too? I think we can over time create a google hangout or something similar like that.



Chhatrapati said:


> How do you know that? Was there two Rig Veda? One for Pakistan, other for India? Anyone who studies the history of Hinduism in Pakistan will surely learn that, by looking at the temples in there, the people was driven by Vedantas, i.e the worship, Rama, Krishna, Kali, Hanuman, or a lot of Shiv temples which is no different from what you see in India a little more so than here given the Lava temples (Son of Lord Ram) in there. What are you trying to say?
> To say, the Alvar saints and their followers in Tamil Nadu have a valid difference when it comes to Vedas they don't recite vedas to empower their dieties (Lord Vishnu being prima) instead they recite Divya Prabhandham composed in around 800AD.



Friend are you a Tamil out of interest? Even as Iyer myself, I do much love and venerate the Vaishnavite temples in my great state...they go full out with the regality and splendour of their liturgical and worship process (I for one know thiruppavai by heart....also each weekend my dad always play M.S recording of vishnu sahasranam). They are some of the biggest temples in TN after all too...they concentrate more than spread out.

I would not say its a difference w.r.t Vedas though (given Vedas is still supreme, they just have interpreted/supplanted it with Narayana as the ultimate relevance and meaning of Vedas in this day and age of Kaliyug). Much like is done with Murugan among saivites (if you know the story of say Palani + Swamimalai and its relevance to TN culture broadly)...also like is done with Ayyapan (and that union story of Saivite-vaishnavite) for many faithful.

I always enjoyed this (appropriate to what you are explaining) song too (Ram's name is a Veda itself, raag + taal is a Gita itself):






Rajinikanth (esp his accent in some parts) of all ppl as Sri Raghavendra swami always made me and my folks ...but he did a pretty decent job in that movie must be said. Doubt they would make good movies like this anymore.

I understand what you are bringing up though in nuanced way, it is very well put. All our differences in our dharmic fold really are pretty petty in the end given the much bigger harm that has been done.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Nilgiri said:


> Can I join too? I think we can over time create a google hangout or something similar like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Friend are you a Tamil out of interest? Even as Iyer myself, I do much love and venerate the Vaishnavite temples in my great state...they go full out with the regality and splendour of their liturgical and worship process (I for one know thiruppavai by heart....also each weekend my dad always play M.S recording of vishnu sahasranam). They are some of the biggest temples in TN after all too...they concentrate more than spread out.
> 
> I would not say its a difference w.r.t Vedas though (given Vedas is still supreme, they just have interpreted/supplanted it with Narayana as the ultimate relevance and meaning of Vedas in this day and age of Kaliyug). Much like is done with Murugan among saivites (if you know the story of say Palani + Swamimalai and its relevance to TN culture broadly)...also like is done with Ayyapan (and that union story of Saivite-vaishnavite) for many faithful.
> 
> I always enjoyed this (appropriate to what you are explaining) song too (Ram's name is a Veda itself, raag + taal is a Gita itself):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rajinikanth (esp his accent in some parts) of all ppl as Sri Raghavendra swami always made me and my folks ...but he did a pretty decent job in that movie must be said. Doubt they would make good movies like this anymore.
> 
> I understand what you are bringing up though in nuanced way, it is very well put. All our differences in our dharmic fold really are pretty petty in the end given the much bigger harm that has been done.



Can you please open another thread to continue your discussion there?

This thread is about Pakistani history and we would like to keep the topic about Pakistan, not India.


----------



## Nilgiri

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Can you please open another thread to continue your discussion there?
> 
> This thread is about Pakistani history and we would like to keep the topic about Pakistan, not India.



Would be great if this if followed forum wide (i.e original topics fully stick to the topic only). I will indulge in such when I see it being applied by the ppl who run this forum equally everywhere.

In fact you can tag the mods right now and ask you cleave this topic into two where you have determined the off-topic stuff to start (it started lot earlier after all...might as well make it a good clean cut).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nilgiri said:


> Would be great if this if followed forum wide (i.e original topics fully stick to the topic only). I will indulge in such when I see it being applied by the ppl who run this forum equally everywhere.
> 
> In fact you can tag the mods right now and ask you cleave this topic into two where you have determined the off-topic stuff to start (it started lot earlier after all...might as well make it a good clean cut).



Yes, indeed.

Much of the 'angst' floating around PDF is due to thread creep - a gradual transition of a thread from the original topic to something quite remote.

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan 

Dear P-I-P, do ask the Moderators to do this splitting, and I will gather up support for that request among other members, if possible.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Can you please open another thread to continue your discussion there?
> 
> This thread is about Pakistani history and we would like to keep the topic about Pakistan, not India.



You must, and you will. Remember, keep the topic about Pakistan, and not about India, or about Hindus, or anything or anybody else. The physician must first heal himself.



Nilgiri said:


> Can I join too? I think we can over time create a google hangout or something similar like that.



Do join in. It will be fun. Let's wait for the Moderators. Meanwhile check your mail inbox.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chhatrapati

Joe Shearer said:


> Let's wait for the Moderators.


It's better you create a thread on the topic with an introduction and later we can quote these into the post. Rather than waiting for mods.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

Chhatrapati said:


> It's better you create a thread on the topic with an introduction and later we can quote these into the post. Rather than waiting for mods.



I've copied my post to another document, just in case its deleted etc. Will post elsewhere wherever we decide is best if that happens.

I think a good Indian purely cultural thread is needed in say Central/South Asia forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Chhatrapati said:


> It's better you create a thread on the topic with an introduction and later we can quote these into the post. Rather than waiting for mods.



You have a point. In an hour, on return.



Nilgiri said:


> I've copied my post to another document, just in case its deleted etc. Will post elsewhere wherever we decide is best if that happens.
> 
> I think a good Indian purely cultural thread is needed in say Central/South Asia forum.



Got it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Nilgiri said:


> Would be great if this if followed forum wide (i.e original topics fully stick to the topic only). I will indulge in such when I see it being applied by the ppl who run this forum equally everywhere.
> 
> In fact you can tag the mods right now and ask you cleave this topic into two where you have determined the off-topic stuff to start (it started lot earlier after all...might as well make it a good clean cut).



You could respect Pakistanis on this forum and simply allow us to have our own discussions.



Nilgiri said:


> I've copied my post to another document, just in case its deleted etc. Will post elsewhere wherever we decide is best if that happens.
> 
> I think a good Indian purely cultural thread is needed in say Central/South Asia forum.



Yes, good idea and take the trolls with you.


----------



## Chhatrapati

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> You could respect Pakistanis on this forum and simply allow us to have our own discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, good idea and take the trolls with you.


It happens when you get stuck after dealing with @Tea addict all you can do is praising your buddies on their fallacies. I guess we'll let you continue praising each other, no matter how funny these claims are.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> You could respect Pakistanis on this forum and simply allow us to have our own discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, good idea and take the trolls with you.



Respect is something earned on individual basis for me....I don't give it verbatim to entire identities or countries since they are compromised of humans who are different degrees of flawed.

I defer to the mods as to the appropriate delineation for thread straying as they see fit here. We have moved the conversation already.

If you want a Pakistani member only subforum for strict "own" discussion, I suggest you take that up with the mods too. It has been pointed out here already how you were the one bringing us in...in the first place:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rajputs-jats-and-gujjars.597206/page-14#post-11110600

and you expected zero response for your "own" discussions? Again I will let the mods decide.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

TMA said:


> Indeed. So many Pakistanis don’t know this....and don’t care...



We should create more threads about Pakistani history. Any Indian troll who tries to derail the thread should be reported ASAP.

@Taimoor Khan @Hakikat ve Hikmet @Indus Pakistan @Pakhtoon yum @M. Sarmad @Talwar e Pakistan

@313ghazi @MUSTAKSHAF @OsmanAli98 @PAKISTANFOREVER

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Pakhtoon yum

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Yes. I don’t see a difference between him and someone like Austrlitz.
> 
> 
> 
> We should create more threads about Pakistani history. Any Indian troll who tries to derail the thread should be reported ASAP.
> 
> @Taimoor Khan @Hakikat ve Hikmet @Indus Pakistan @Pakhtoon yum @M. Sarmad @Talwar e Pakistan
> 
> @313ghazi @MUSTAKSHAF @OsmanAli98 @PAKISTANFOREVER


Agreed it's about time we show our true colors

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Pakhtoon yum said:


> Agreed it's about time we show our true colors



I will try to do my part as well.

Let’s flood PDF with Pakistan History threads.

We should speak openly and be frank about our opinions without cowering to Indian trolls.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yankee-stani

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I will try to do my part as well.
> 
> Let’s flood PDF with Pakistan History threads.
> 
> We should speak openly and be frank about our opinions without cowering to Indian trolls.



Thats the spirit

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Yes. I don’t see a difference between him and someone like Austrlitz.
> 
> 
> 
> We should create more threads about Pakistani history. Any Indian troll who tries to derail the thread should be reported ASAP.
> 
> @Taimoor Khan @Hakikat ve Hikmet @Indus Pakistan @Pakhtoon yum @M. Sarmad @Talwar e Pakistan
> 
> @313ghazi @MUSTAKSHAF @OsmanAli98 @PAKISTANFOREVER




Bro, you should engage respectfully with elegant and accomplished members like @Joe Shearer ... I am sure you will learn a lot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Bro, you should engage respectfully with elegant and accomplished members like @Joe Shearer ... I am sure you will learn a lot.



I don’t engage with people like this.

Pakistanis should have the right to discuss their own country and exchange ideas without Indians derailing every thread and going after Pakistani or Pro-Pakistani posters in gangs.

For one example, Brother @Hakikat ve Hikmet will attest to it.

@Saiful Islam is another example.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Yankee-stani

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I don’t engage with people like this.
> 
> Pakistanis should have the right to discuss their own country and exchange ideas without Indians derailing every thread and going after Pakistani or Pro-Pakistani posters in gangs.
> 
> For one example, Brother @Hakikat ve Hikmet will attest to it.
> 
> @Saiful Islam is another example.



Every fourm is like this the crux of the world wide web is filled with so many personalities and persepectives

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> *Gujjar population:*
> Pakistan: 10-15% (varies on sources)
> India: 1-2% (varies on sources)



Gujjars make almost 15% of Population of Kashmir.
In Pakistan Punjab, they are the fifth or sixth largest ethnic group after Rajputs, Jats, Arains, Baloch etc.
In KP, they are a major ethnic group in Hazara division and a few other districts only. In Sindh and Balochistan they are very few Gujjars. _''10-15 % of entire Pakistani population''_ is an exaggeration.



Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I don’t engage with people like this.
> 
> Pakistanis should have the right to discuss their own country and exchange ideas without Indians derailing every thread and going after Pakistani or Pro-Pakistani posters in gangs.
> .



Bro, this is a public forum ... Many people may hold views that are diametrically opposed to your own, but they are free to express them, just as you are. Instead of calling for a ban on dissenting and opposing views, why not try to use those opposing views to sharpen your own understanding/views ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Bro, this is a public forum ... Many people may hold views that are diametrically opposed to your own, but they are free to express them, just as you are. Instead of calling for a ban on dissenting and opposing views, why not try to use those opposing views to sharpen your own understanding/views ?



When did I say ban him?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> When did I say ban him?



You have misunderstood what I wrote.
'..ban on dissenting and opposing views...' 
by banning all Indians from posting on Pakistan related threads


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> You have misunderstood what I wrote.
> '..ban on dissenting and opposing views...'
> by banning all Indians from posting on Pakistan related threads



Just trolls who try to derail threads, not all Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

Adult Male Population of major castes/tribes of Punjabi Muslims as per 1931 Census
​
*Jats * - 1,604,628
*Rajputs* - 919,165
*Arains * - 726,913
*Baluch *- 341,544
*Awans* - 288,310
*Gujjars* - 283,495
*Sayyads* - 250,000
*Punjabi Pathans* - 193,835
*Sheikh* - 187,370
*Kashmiri* - 113,759
*Mughals* - 100,000
*Meos *(Mawati)*- *71,633
*Kambohs -* 54,481
*Qureshi - *50,003
*Dogars* - 30,000

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I don’t engage with people like this.
> 
> Pakistanis should have the right to discuss their own country and exchange ideas without Indians derailing every thread and going after Pakistani or Pro-Pakistani posters in gangs.
> 
> For one example, Brother @Hakikat ve Hikmet will attest to it.
> 
> @Saiful Islam is another example.



Two comments:

Nobody will engage with you if you post with some self-restraint. It has already been pointed out that your totally unfounded remarks about Indians started the intervention with @Tea addict making a harmless observation. Don't blame others for what you have brought on yourself.

There is a thread entirely by Pakistanis about Pakistanis and it will serve to remind you of several things that you seem to forget. 

Restricting a thread to Pakistanis only is NOT a guarantee of quality. Reading that thread will make it clear that the opposite can be true. It degenerates quickly, very quickly, and that is not surprising in the abstract.
You will find Indian members entering a thread only when interested, or when provoked. It is up to you to observe decency and limits on what you post. You, @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan, have everything to do with the results of your badly-conceived post. Don't blame others.
On a personal note, I have never been part of a collusive effort.

On the contrary. I have had to face a great deal of hostility from Indian members for pointing out logical and rational aspects of an issue, aspects that did not support a jingoistic view among Indians on that issue.

You get what you deserve.



Nilgiri said:


> Joe is a troll now?



Nobody likes to be shown up as an idiot. That is human nature. For such anguished souls to make such a personal humiliation a national issue is also not unusual nor unexpected. And, of course, just to put the cap on things, being informed in exact and precise detail how he has strayed leads to a charge of verbosity.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nilgiri

Joe Shearer said:


> Two comments:
> 
> Nobody will engage with you if you post with some self-restraint. It has already been pointed out that your totally unfounded remarks about Indians started the intervention with @Tea addict making a harmless observation. Don't blame others for what you have brought on yourself.
> 
> There is a thread entirely by Pakistanis about Pakistanis and it will serve to remind you of several things that you seem to forget.
> 
> Restricting a thread to Pakistanis only is NOT a guarantee of quality. Reading that thread will make it clear that the opposite can be true. It degenerates quickly, very quickly, and that is not surprising in the abstract.
> You will find Indian members entering a thread only when interested, or when provoked. It is up to you to observe decency and limits on what you post. You, @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan, have everything to do with the results of your badly-conceived post. Don't blame others.
> On a personal note, I have never been part of a collusive effort.
> 
> On the contrary. I have had to face a great deal of hostility from Indian members for pointing out logical and rational aspects of an issue, aspects that did not support a jingoistic view among Indians on that issue.
> 
> You get what you deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody likes to be shown up as an idiot. That is human nature. For such anguished souls to make such a personal humiliation a national issue is also not unusual nor unexpected. And, of course, just to put the cap on things, being informed in exact and precise detail how he has strayed leads to a charge of verbosity.



Just found it funny is all....Joe the Troll....almost has a ring to it....and you of all people 

In my list of trolls/trolling intensity/olympics, you are literally like dead last in the medals count (Esp factoring in post count and all that). Heck kind of parallels a bit with India in the summer olympics (post count = population)...did you have an earlier field hockey era trolling equivalent (medal wise) I wonder...

...at some point I will have to read this thread from the start...still have not done that...I just somewhat rudely read only the last bits (hence the straying well off topic when it was pointed out to me)....but the context+emotional undulation is so important to this forum (in judging the last sinews of it at the end) I have often found.

Imma tag some more ("austerlitz level"!) trolls like you and I now:

@VCheng @jbgt90 @Vibrio @scorpionx @M. Sarmad

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Nilgiri said:


> Just found it funny is all....Joe the Troll....almost has a ring to it....and you of all people
> 
> In my list of trolls/trolling intensity/olympics, you are literally like dead last in the medals count (Esp factoring in post count and all that). Heck kind of parallels a bit with India in the summer olympics (post count = population)...did you have an earlier field hockey era trolling equivalent (medal wise) I wonder...
> 
> ...at some point I will have to read this thread from the start...still have not done that...I just somewhat rudely read only the last bits (hence the straying well off topic when it was pointed out to me)....but the context+emotional undulation is so important to this forum (in judging the last sinews of it at the end) I have often found.
> 
> Imma tag some more ("austerlitz level"!) trolls like you and I now:
> 
> @VCheng @jbgt90 @Vibrio @scorpionx @M. Sarmad



I generally try to stay away from such topics and threads, because they tend to bring out the worst tendencies in certain vulnerable people on PDF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> I generally try to stay away from such topics and threads, because they tend to bring out the worst tendencies in certain vulnerable people on PDF.



Indian trolls unite again. My point is made.



Vibrio said:


> Him being called troll is but a given when the person involved on the other side has the IQ which competes to reach the Mariana Trench. Have engaged with the member earlier. Waste of time, effort and bandwidth.
> 
> The thread was a joke from the start. To break away from 'Indian' links, they need to systematically break away from their history - starting with leveling of all of their _Idols_ and _Symbols_, be it in the flag or in the 'culture' they are trying to appropriate - that of the original Indus Valley Civilization in form of the excavations at Mohenjo Daro!



Personal attacks. A great way to prove your point. Case and point.

I am here to discuss Pakistani history and politics, so you trolls can personally attack me as much as you like.

I won’t get suckered into it.

Mods, notice the personal attacks and please keep an eye on these Indian gangs.

They are attacking Pakistani and Pro-Pakistani posters in every thread in gangs.

@waz @Dubious @WebMaster @Horus

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Vibrio said:


> The thread was a joke from the start. To break away from 'Indian' links, they need to systematically break away from their history - starting with leveling of all of their _Idols_ and _Symbols_, be it in the flag or in the 'culture' they are trying to appropriate - that of the original Indus Valley Civilization in form of the excavations at Mohenjo Daro!



You are correct in that Pakistan is still struggling to create a viable national narrative, a task made infinitely more difficult by the conscious choices made in its history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> You are correct in that Pakistan is still struggling to create a viable national narrative, a task made infinitely more difficult by the conscious choices made in its history.



Of course Indians, who have been trying to undo Pakistan for 71 years, will agree on that.

There is a reason India invaded Pakistan three times, holds Kashmir hostage, created bad blood between us and Bangladeshis in 1971, and tried to turn Afghanistan against us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Of course Indians, who have been trying to undo Pakistan for 71 years, will agree on that.
> 
> There is a reason India invaded Pakistan three times, holds Kashmir hostage, created bad blood between us and Bangladeshis in 1971, and tried to turn Afghanistan against us.



Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that Pakistan still struggles to create a viable national narrative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that Pakistan still struggles to create a viable national narrative.



I agree. It is because of the ineptitude of our previous governments, which were only there to line their pockets.

The other issue was British rule which de-Persianized our identity. All our Western neighbors are thoroughly Persian speakers, as were most Pakistanis pre-1900s.

It the election of nationalist PTI and the resurgence of Persian (and Turkish,) Pakistan is going to recover its lost Persian/Turkish heritage.


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I agree. It is because of the ineptitude of our previous governments, which were only there to line their pockets.
> 
> The other issue was British rule which de-Persianized our identity. All our Western neighbors are thoroughly Persian speakers, as were most Pakistanis pre-1900s.
> 
> It the election of nationalist PTI and the resurgence of Persian (and Turkish,) Pakistan is going to recover its lost Persian/Turkish heritage.



Do you think Pakistan will be able to create one by its centennial celebrations?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> Do you think Pakistan will be able to create one by its centennial celebrations?



We have an identity already which is our Islamic one.

“Pakistan ka matlab kya? La ilaha ila Allah”

What people are confused about is whether we have more commonality with Indian Muslims/Bangladeshis or Persians/Turks/Afghans.

We have been shifting towards the latter for most of our history and finally reached a point where we can comfortably ditch the British Indian identity for IVC and our Islamic one.

Both Allama Iqbal and Choudry Rahmat Ali advocated Pakistan to look toward and eventually unite with Afghanistan (Pukhto/Persian) and Central Asia (Turks.)

The seeds were planted from the beginning.


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> We have an identity already which is our Islamic one.
> 
> “Pakistan ka matlab kya? La ilaha ila Allah”
> 
> What people are confused about is whether we have more commonality with Indian Muslims/Bangladeshis or Persians/Turks/Afghans.
> 
> We have been shifting towards the latter for most of our history and finally reached a point where we can comfortably ditch the British Indian identity for IVC and our Islamic one.
> 
> Both Allama Iqbal and Choudry Rahmat Ali advocated Pakistan to look toward and eventually unite with Afghanistan (Pukhto/Persian) and Central Asia (Turks.)
> 
> The seeds were planted from the beginning.



That identity is meaningless and just a slogan until and unless sharia is enforced as the law of the land.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> That identity is meaningless and just a slogan until and unless sharia is enforced as the law of the land.



That’s your opinion. You are entitled to it.

For us Pakistanis, it is our day to day life.

The air we breathe, the soil we walk on, the water we drink, all is blessing from God and a reminder of our ancestors.

This is a holy land, called by us as Arz e Pak even before the word Pakistan existed. 

There is no place in the whole world as beautiful and lovely as our land.

No placed filled with the same Barakat (blessings) which God bestowed on our ancestors who were great warriors, statesmen, scholars, mystics, and noblemen of this land.

“Where Meer e Hijaz (Muhammad saws) felt the cool breeze,
This country is mine, this country is mine.” -Allama Iqbal commenting on the hadith


----------



## M. Sarmad

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> We have an identity already which is our Islamic one.
> 
> “Pakistan ka matlab kya? La ilaha ila Allah”



Well, that was just an unofficial election campaign slogan in 1945-46 General Elections ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> That’s your opinion. You are entitled to it.
> 
> For us Pakistanis, it is our day to day life.
> 
> The air we breathe, the soil we walk on, the water we drink, all is blessing from God and a reminder of our ancestors.
> 
> This is a holy land, called by us as Arz e Pak even before the word Pakistan existed.
> 
> There is no place in the whole world as beautiful and lovely as our land.
> 
> No placed filled with the same Barakat (blessings) which God bestowed on our ancestors who were great warriors, statesmen, scholars, mystics, and noblemen of this land.
> 
> “Where Meer e Hijaz (Muhammad saws) felt the cool breeze,
> This country is mine, this country is mine.” -Allama Iqbal commenting on the hadith



Nice flag waving buddy, but quite meaningless claims unless backed by actions and results. A holy land without any holy law in force? Not very holy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

M. Sarmad said:


> Well, that was just an unofficial election campaign slogan in 1945-46 General Elections ..



Yes brother, but it went viral. All of our bozorg from East Punjab speak of it.

It is the only thing which kept them going while they trudged barefoot on the dangerous roads leading to Pakistan, littered with dead bodies on both sides of the road.














VCheng said:


> Nice flag waving buddy, but quite meaningless claims unless backed by actions and results. A holy land without any holy law in force? Not very holy.



It’s a work in process, but aren’t all nations?

We have high aspirations and we will meet them, in sha Allah.






“The destiny of the Muslim is beyond the blue sky,
The road which stars follow as dust, you are that caravan ” -Allama Iqbal

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> It’s a work in process, but aren’t all nations?
> 
> We have high aspirations and we will meet them, in sha Allah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The destiny of the Muslim is beyond the blue sky,
> The road which stars follow as dust, you are that caravan ” -Allama Iqbal



MashaAllah. InshaAllah in another 70 years, may be? One lives in hope, after all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

We are optimistic for our future.







“And also (He will give you) another (blessing) which you love, help from Allah (against your enemies) and a near victory. And give glad tidings (O Muhammad SAW) to the believers.” -Quran 61:13

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

VCheng said:


> You are correct in that Pakistan is still struggling to create a viable national narrative, a task made infinitely more difficult by the conscious choices made in its history.



The problem is that the antithetical nature of the narrative is lost on the majority and those who do make the mistake of even accepting and addressing the issue, are quickly labeled as being un-Pakistani (if that can be considered a word).

It is precisely analogous to what our side is doing, trying to remove Mughal period from history. 

Personal opinion, every instance wherein the country (or it's predating form) has been vanquished/subjugated/conquered, needs to be evaluated with pragmatism in order to derive the lessons that history have to offer. To do otherwise is to invite the tendency of repeating the history in some other form, but with roughly the same consequences.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

Vibrio said:


> The problem is that the antithetical nature of the narrative is lost on the majority and those who do make the mistake of even accepting and addressing the issue, are quickly labeled as being un-Pakistani (if that can be considered a word).
> 
> It is precisely analogous to what our side is doing, trying to remove Mughal period from history.
> 
> Personal opinion, every instance wherein the country (or it's predating form) has been vanquished/subjugated/conquered, needs to be evaluated with pragmatism in order to derive the lessons that history have to offer. To do otherwise is to invite the tendency of repeating the history in some other form, but with roughly the same consequences.



Why do you think I am so reviled here? Speaking up for the truth is important, but when the situation is like you have described it (and I agree), one can only do so much against mandatory delusions of such an encompassing nature.

Your side will fail at erasing Mughal history just as surely as we have failed to manufacture a viable national narrative, just as the removal of statues will fail in the US South. Such contrived revisionism never works, except by highlighting the importance of the true lessons being learned from history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

VCheng said:


> Why do you think I am so reviled here? Speaking up for the truth is important, but when the situation is like you have described it (and I agree), one can only do so much against mandatory delusions of such an encompassing nature.
> 
> Your side will fail at erasing Mughal history just as surely as we have failed to manufacture a viable national narrative, just as the removal of statues will fail in the US South. Such contrived revisionism never works, except by highlighting the importance of the true lessons being learned from history.




Hence, a step back to read and post only when actually need to. And to who one feels like replying to.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## VCheng

Vibrio said:


> Hence, a step back to read and post only when actually need to. And to who one feels like replying to.



For once I, a despicable traitor, agree with a dirty Yindoo. 

(Just kidding! Please do not complain, for people are positively itching to ban me.)

Actually, that is a good policy. Being selective in whom we interact with makes not only for mental peace, but also a better forum overall, if that is a goal any longer.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

VCheng said:


> For once I, a despicable traitor, agree with a dirty Yindoo.
> 
> *(Just kidding! Please do not complain, for people are positively itching to ban me.)*








VCheng said:


> Actually, that is a good policy. Being selective in whom we interact with makes not only for mental peace, but a also a better forum overall, if that is a goal any longer.



Goal, sir, is always to improve own knowledge, for even in a heated discussion with a worthy member, I do learn a lot. I may not agree, but I do get insights nevertheless. *Saiyan0321* has already suggested a reading to me, one which I intend to undertake as soon as I can make time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Great Janjua

Vibrio said:


> Goal, sir, is always to improve own knowledge, for even in a heated discussion with a worthy member, I do learn a lot. I may not agree, but I do get insights nevertheless. *Saiyan0321* has already suggested a reading to me, one which I intend to undertake as soon as I can make time.


I suggest start of by reading in the line of fire by pervez Musharraf.


----------



## VCheng

Vibrio said:


> Goal, sir, is always to improve own knowledge, for even in a heated discussion with a worthy member, I do learn a lot. I may not agree, but I do get insights nevertheless. *Saiyan0321* has already suggested a reading to me, one which I intend to undertake as soon as I can make time.



Such insights require a certain level of intellectual prowess on both sides to be fruitful. It is a testament to the few hardy surviving souls already mentioned that this discussion can exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

Great Janjua said:


> I suggest start of by reading in the line of fire by pervez Musharraf.



What, sir, makes you think that I have not read and then some? Reading the Pakistani authors and perspective, is something undertaken with diligence. Similar to the Chinese.

But alas, the perspective is invariably the outcome of a multitude of sources, not necessarily found in the public domain and a combination of own experience in the field and in counter insurgency in Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> That identity is meaningless and just a slogan until and unless sharia is enforced as the law of the land.


See, now you're falling into the trap of 'defining identity' for someone.


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> See, now you're falling into the trap of 'defining identity' for someone.



I am not defining anything, except observing that a land claiming to be holy is not really what it claims to be without implementing the holy laws for which it claims to stand.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nilgiri

VCheng said:


> Why do you think I am so reviled here? Speaking up for the truth is important, but when the situation is like you have described it (and I agree), one can only do so much against mandatory delusions of such an encompassing nature.
> 
> Your side will fail at erasing Mughal history just as surely as we have failed to manufacture a viable national narrative, just as the removal of statues will fail in the US South. Such contrived revisionism never works, except by highlighting the importance of the true lessons being learned from history.



Woah woah woaaaaah buddy....looks like you've had too much to think again! We can't have that here!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> I am not defining anything, except observing that a land claiming to be holy is not really what it claims to be without implementing the holy laws for which it claims to stand.


When you say that for a land's identity to be 'X', it should have 'Y' laws, you are defining it for them.

Even when we talk about nations that have narrower definitions about their identities (such as secular) there is a lot of debate on what exactly that means and even in the West these identities are constantly evolving, driven by various dynamics.

When we talk about religion, it's even more shades of gray given the lack of consensus withing religious circles on religious interpretations. This is a question I often pose to 'religious Pakistanis' who want a 'Caliphate' or 'Shariah' - whose interpretation of Shariah given that even within the sects there is no consensus? What are the details of this Caliphate system and how does it differ from a system in which the government is elected?

The fact is that you'll ask a hundred people and get a hundred different answers, so arguing that 'implementing Holy Laws' is a necessity is just as vague an answer as that offered by the religious wing.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

There are no clans in Islam, Arabs had identification based on clans , but eventually even they embraced simply being known as Muslims.

There is no maharaja or mughal king who I rather associate with , I am better off being associated to Prophet himself and he never preached no clans

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

Nilgiri said:


> Woah woah woaaaaah buddy....looks like you've had too much to think again! We can't have that here!



(Read in a southern drawl )

Then aah do aapolahgize!



AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> When you say that for a land's identity to be 'X', it should have 'Y' laws, you are defining it for them.
> 
> Even when we talk about nations that have narrower definitions about their identities (such as secular) there is a lot of debate on what exactly that means and even in the West these identities are constantly evolving, driven by various dynamics.
> 
> When we talk about religion, it's even more shades of gray given the lack of consensus withing religious circles on religious interpretations. This is a question I often pose to 'religious Pakistanis' who want a 'Caliphate' or 'Shariah' - whose interpretation of Shariah given that even within the sects there is no consensus? What are the details of this Caliphate system and how does it differ from a system in which the government is elected?
> 
> The fact is that you'll ask a hundred people and get a hundred different answers, so arguing that 'implementing Holy Laws' is a necessity is just as vague an answer as that offered by the religious wing.



Nope. I am not defining anything. What you should do is read the Objectives Resolution and then see who defined it as what, and how many shades of grey they used, or even none at all. 

(It seems pretty black and white to the impartial observer.  )

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> Nope. I am not defining anything. What you should do is read the Objectives Resolution and then see who defined it as what, and how many shades of grey they used, or even none at all.
> 
> (It seems pretty black and white to the impartial observer.  )


It's black and white to you because it serves your purpose to cast it that way. For example, here'e one of the principles of the Objectives Resolution:

_The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed_

And given the complete lack of consensus within Islamic religious circles on those principles, what 'Holy laws' are you claiming should be implemented in Pakistan to align with the 'identity' that is the subject of this conversation?



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> ...Arabs had identification based on clans , but eventually even they embraced simply being known as Muslims.


That's not true. Arabs, especially in the GCC countries, have always grouped themselves by Tribe and continue to further differentiate by country and race.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Yes they do love their tribes , but it don't mean much to me

An Arab (Speaker) in Saudia, Qater, UAE, OMAN , IRAQ , EYGYPT , SYRIA , Algeria , Tunisia , Morocco look all same to me

They themselves may spend 10 hours explaining to me how different they are

If I spoke a similar language I would have better understanding with any of them

Tribes were important when people could only travel on horses or walked 5-20 km distances so they identified with their tribe they never viewed the region as a country 5,000km region

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> It's black and white to you because it serves your purpose to cast it that way. For example, here'e one of the principles of the Objectives Resolution:
> 
> _The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed_
> 
> And given the complete lack of consensus within Islamic religious circles on those principles, what 'Holy laws' are you claiming should be implemented in Pakistan to align with the 'identity' that is the subject of this conversation?



Why not start quoting the very first words of that Resolution first and then see what you quoted really means Sir. Let us not be dishonest here. The principles are to be interpreted as anunciated by Islam, no ifs, ands or buts. The lack of a consensus is a totally different matter in that it speaks more of national confusion in attaining the ideals it has set for itself, not that the ideals have any shades of grey about them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> I am not defining anything, except observing that a land claiming to be holy is not really what it claims to be without implementing the holy laws for which it claims to stand.



I actually agree with your basic point and you are 100% correct.

This doublespeak about Islam in Pakistan needs to end. Either embrace it or leave it, simply.

That Pakistanis need to agree on it first is also a point that I agree on with @AgNoStiC MuSliM

It’s easy for outsiders to say it, but for us to implement it will take some effort.

We are confused ourselves and most of our leaders have been more confused than us, that has led to the current situation.

There needs to form a mutual consensus in Pakistan about Islam’s role, and I believe finally we have reached that point with PTI/Imran Khan.


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> I actually agree with your basic point and you are 100% correct.
> 
> This doublespeak about Islam in Pakistan needs to end. Either embrace it or leave it, simply.
> 
> That Pakistanis need to agree on it first is also a point that I agree on with @AgNoStiC MuSliM
> 
> It’s easy for outsides to say it, but for us to implement it will take some effort.
> 
> We are confused ourselves and most of our leaders have been more confused than us, that has led to the correct situation.
> 
> There needs to form a mutual consensus in Pakistan about Islam’s role, and I believe finally we have reached that point with PTI/Imran Khan.



I am sure that if enough people want sharia, then by all means they should get it. That is the reason Pakistan was founded in the first place.


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> I am sure that if enough people want sharia, then by all means they should get it. That is the reason Pakistan was founded in the first place.



Pakistan already has fiqh rulings, the correct term for what you are calling Shariat.

It is more about the ideological foundations of the state and its destiny. More Islamic minded regions of Pakistan (like KPK and North Punjab) have finally gotten a larger say in the central government thanks to PTI.

There are fresh winds now and Pakistan has started to move in the correct direction, not just for Islamic governance, but economy, military, health, infrastructure, and foreign policy.


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Pakistan already has fiqh rulings, the correct term for what you are calling Shariat.
> 
> It is more about the ideological foundations of the state and its destiny. More Islamic minded regions of Pakistan (like KPK and North Punjab) have finally gotten a larger say in the central government thanks to PTI.
> 
> There are fresh winds now and Pakistan has started to move in the correct direction, not just for Islamic governance, but economy, military, health, infrastructure, and foreign policy.



Just so that were perfectly clear, I am personally against mixing any matters of religion with matters of State. To me, religion is a personal matter, while State affairs apply to all citizens. Thus, I think Pakistan will remain a confused mess about its identity until and unless the Objectives Resolution is repealed, but if it is in force, it should be enforced the way its authors intended: Islam above all and in everything.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> Why not start quoting the very first words of that Resolution first and then see what you quoted really means Sir. Let us not be dishonest here. The principles are to be interpreted as anunciated by Islam, no ifs, ands or buts. The lack of a consensus is a totally different matter in that it speaks more of national confusion in attaining the ideals it has set for itself, not that the ideals have any shades of grey about them.


The first words of the Objectives Resolution offer no specific guidance on the structure and laws of the country - they are the equivalent to 'In God we Trust' in the United States.

_Sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.
_
It is the subsequent words, that I quoted in my earlier post, that start offering some degree of specificity _"principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice". _And the 'grey' here is the lack of consensus in Pakistani society and the religious right on what those principles of 'democracy, equality, freedom, tolerance and social justice' mean exactly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> The first words of the Objectives Resolution offer no specific guidance on the structure and laws of the country - they are the equivalent to 'In God we Trust' in the United States.
> 
> _Sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.
> _
> It is the subsequent words, that I quoted in my earlier post, that start offering some degree of specificity _"principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice". _And the 'grey' here is the lack of consensus in Pakistani society and the religious right on what those principles of 'democracy, equality, freedom, tolerance and social justice' mean exactly.



Spin it as you might Sir, there is no denying what the Objectives Resolution intends for Pakistan to be is as clear as day. The grey areas you wish to claim are only national confusion about how to achieve those ideals of Islam, not about the intended ideal outcomes at all, as I have mentioned before. Again, those principles are to be enunciated only according to Islam, without a doubt (the part that you left out this time  ).


----------



## Taimur Khurram

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> This is a question I often pose to 'religious Pakistanis' who want a 'Caliphate' or 'Shariah' - whose interpretation of Shariah given that even within the sects there is no consensus? What are the details of this Caliphate system and how does it differ from a system in which the government is elected?



The interpretation that is given authority is that of the Salaf as Salih.



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> There are no clans in Islam, Arabs had identification based on clans , but eventually even they embraced simply being known as Muslims.



Yes there is. Rasulullah (peace be upon him) recognised tribes/clans that genuinely denoted people's lineages, but anything from the time of jahiliya was rejected (e.g racism or pride based on one's ancestors)



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> An Arab (Speaker) in Saudia, Qater, UAE, OMAN , IRAQ , EYGYPT , SYRIA , Algeria , Tunisia , Morocco look all same to me



You clearly haven't met many Arabs.

Egyptians, Yemenis, Omanis (and obviously the Sudanese) tend to be much darker than the rest, Saudis, Qataris, and Emiratis are mixed, Iraqis are usually white or light brown, and the rest are typically white.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## M. Sarmad

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> It's black and white to you because it serves your purpose to cast it that way. For example, here'e one of the principles of the Objectives Resolution:
> 
> _The principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed_
> 
> And given the complete lack of consensus within Islamic religious circles on those principles, what 'Holy laws' are you claiming should be implemented in Pakistan to align with the 'identity' that is the subject of this conversation?



According to Jinnah, Islam believed in absolute equality of mankind ... That's why Jinnah said that Muslims and Non-Muslims would be equal citizens of the state in Muslim Democratic Pakistan. Jinnah had said there would be no minorities in Pakistan and that religion was a personal matter and not the business of the state

Objectives Resolution was a perfect antithesis of Jinnah's vision .... the Objectives Resolution identified religious minorities separately and made religion 'the business of the state', .... It was the turning point that changed the course of our history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

VCheng said:


> Just so that were perfectly clear, I am personally against mixing any matters of religion with matters of State. To me, religion is a personal matter, while State affairs apply to all citizens. Thus, I think Pakistan will remain a confused mess about its identity until and unless the Objectives Resolution is repealed, but if it is in force, it should be enforced the way its authors intended: Islam above all and in everything.



Your opinion doesn’t have weight. It is the common people of Pakistan which will decide their destiny, and they are very religious.



Taimur Khurram said:


> Egyptians, Yemenis, Omanis (and obviously the Sudanese) tend to be much darker than the rest, Saudis, Qataris, and Emiratis are mixed, Iraqis are usually white or brown, and the rest are typically white.



And Saudi/Yemeni Arabic is the closest to fus’ha. Beautiful language.

I found the Egyptians most diverse in looks, reflecting their cosmopolitan history.

Pretty much on the ball as far a looks.

Iraqis, KSA, and rest of Gulf look a lot like us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

Joe Shearer said:


> They have no idea what they are talking about. Ultimately, it boils down to the same crap about taller, fairer and 'different'. Like the brand of tomato ketchup; they can't define how it is different, they just know that when they wake up in the morning, they are different.
> 
> Ignore these lazy, ignorant threads.
> 
> 
> 
> These are the only genuine records, but while Hindus have a very systematic and centralised repository, I am curious to know how it is preserved outside.
> 
> @Tea addict
> 
> While the repository in your parts are those who preserve the records in Hardwar, in the east it is Gaya and Puri, and the south has an incredibly accurate system. I know of one family, part of a sub-set of a larger grouping, that came to Mysore in around the year 1000 AD, and has an unbroken record of its own and its collateral lines up to date. The record is a public one, and may be seen by any interested person, and is updated by an authorised person with each birth in each generation - the information has to be forwarded. Unfortunately, as is all too frequent in our paternalistic system, only men's names are recorded.
> 
> Just as a curiousity, my own family's records are available both in Gaya and in Puri, and go back 30 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious to know why Pakistanis speaking on these topics are completely unable to distinguish between Rajput, Gujjar and Jat. Do they think these are the same? It is a possibility for a certain very specific reason, but I would like to know from a knowledgeable Pakistani, rather than assume something.
> 
> 
> 
> According to you, what is a community, what is a clan and what is a title?
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> Would like to learn more about this.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> After all, they were Rajputs before they were Hindus. Their adoption of Hinduism and absorption into the Sanatan Dharma is very interesting, in ethnographic terms.
> 
> 
> 
> There is frankly not much connection theologically speaking between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. Zoroastrians came to monotheism in the strictest sense when Hinduism only articulated it deep inside its theological speculations. I am also very uncertain about your statement about their marriage customs, but let's find out more.
> 
> @padamchen



You don't need a Parsi to educate you or anybody else.

The Parsi Marriage Act 1936 is available on Google.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kathin_Singh

Are there any Aheers(Yadavs) in Pakistan? 

In india, Aheers / Yadavs are a big politcal force in North India.


----------



## padamchen

Jats are the closest people left on the subcontinent as our ancestral distant cousins. Blood and faith-wise.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Great Janjua

padamchen said:


> Jats are the closest people left on the subcontinent as our ancestral distant cousins. Blood and faith-wise.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


Am a jatt please enlighten me on your blood type and faith please thanks in advance [emoji11] [emoji11] [emoji11]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## padamchen

Great Janjua said:


> Am a jatt please enlighten me on your blood type and faith please thanks in advance [emoji11] [emoji11] [emoji11]



You are a Pakistani. So you must be a Muslim?

Converts are not who I was referring to.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Great Janjua

padamchen said:


> You are a Pakistani. So you must be a Muslim?
> 
> Converts are not who I was referring to.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


Ouch.i would personally reward you.if you find me a jatt the same religion as yours cheers cock I mean doc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Great Janjua said:


> Ouch.i would personally reward you.if you find me a jatt the same religion as yours cheers cock I mean doc.



LOL.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cringe master

padamchen said:


> You are a Pakistani. So you must be a Muslim?
> 
> Converts are not who I was referring to.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


hindu jaats and punjabi muslim jatts are lot different and have different gotra
hindu jaats are jatav jat mixed with yadavs or in other words punjabi mixed with bhayas



Joe Shearer said:


> LOL.


jaat and jatt are different a lot different
there are 3 or 4 jaat gotra which are found in punjabi muslim jatts rest all jaat gotra are not found in muslim jatts and even sikh jatts

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## padamchen

Muslimrenaissance said:


> hindu jaats and punjabi muslim jatts are lot different and have different gotra
> hindu jaats are jatav jat mixed with yadavs or in other words punjabi mixed with bhayas



I'm going on three things. Maybe not very scientific. I don't pretend to have the intellect for exalted threads like these.

They are fair and big like us.

They still venerate fire and elements like us.

They came last, just before us.

From the same direction.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## VCheng

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Your opinion doesn’t have weight. It is the common people of Pakistan which will decide their destiny, and they are very religious.



Well, I do support the people's right to get the system that they want, no matter if I agree with the system itself or not. If the people of Pakistan want sharia, they should definitely have it.


----------



## cringe master

padamchen said:


> I'm going on three things. Maybe not very scientific. I don't pretend to have the intellect for exalted threads like these.
> 
> They are fair and big like us.
> 
> They still venerate fire and elements like us.
> 
> They came last, just before us.
> 
> From the same direction.
> 
> Cheers, Doc



what r u?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Muslimrenaissance said:


> hindu jaats and punjabi muslim jatts are lot different and have different gotra
> hindu jaats are jatav jat mixed with yadavs or in other words punjabi mixed with bhayas
> 
> 
> jaat and jatt are different a lot different
> there are 3 or 4 jaat gotra which are found in punjabi muslim jatts rest all jaat gotra are not found in muslim jatts and even sikh jatts



Pronunciation, not ethnic. Please don't do the Khushwant Singh bit. Gotras are different in different regions, that does not in any way signify a difference in essential character.


----------



## cringe master

Joe Shearer said:


> Pronunciation, not ethnic. Please don't do the Khushwant Singh bit. Gotras are different in different regions, that does not in any way signify a difference in essential character.


jatt is not a race but profession , genetically jatt and jaat are different and every gotra have different origin same wy you can say bihari rajput , bengali rajput or any other indian rajput are different then pakistani rajputs

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Muslimrenaissance said:


> what r u?



Gujarati Parsi with Hindutva thrown in.

Basically he is a fossil.



Muslimrenaissance said:


> jatt is not a race but profession , genetically jatt and jaat are different and every gotra have different origin same wy you can say bihari rajput , bengali rajput or any other indian rajput are different then pakistani rajputs



Gen Raheem Sharif and Iftikhar Choudary are both Rajputs.

They could never pass for an Indian even if they tried.

Pakistani Rajputs of Punjab are the most noble and martial of all Rajput lineages. We were heavily recruited by both Mughals and the British for this very reason.

Punjab was the proving ground and the pearl of the eye of this regions. Different Rajput clans fought for dominance, leading only the strongest to survive.

Raja Porus (who resisted and was acknowledged by Alexander/Skander E Azam) was from this region.



Muslimrenaissance said:


> jatt is not a race but profession , genetically jatt and jaat are different and every gotra have different origin same wy you can say bihari rajput , bengali rajput or any other indian rajput are different then pakistani rajputs



Jatts are a noble lineage, much respect brother.

I know many Sikh Jatts who always refer to themselves as Sikh Jatt and never just jatt, conscious of the fact that Jatts are mostly Muslims and Pakistanis now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cringe master

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Gujarati Parsi with Hindutva thrown in.
> 
> Basically he is a fossil.



i don't beleive him , i think he is jst another pajeet pretending to be he wants so badly and trying to talk with logic so he can matter


Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Gujarati Parsi with Hindutva thrown in.
> 
> Basically he is a fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> Gen Raheem Sharif and Iftikhar Choudary are both Rajputs.
> 
> They could never pass for an Indian even if they tried.
> 
> Pakistani Rajputs of Punjab are the most noble and martial of all Rajput lineages. We were heavily recruited by both Mughals and the British for this very reason.
> 
> Punjab was the proving ground and the pearl of the eye of this regions. Different Rajput clans fought for dominance, leading only the strongest to survive.
> 
> Raja Porus (who resisted and was acknowledged by Alexander/Skander E Azam) was from this region.
> 
> 
> 
> Jatts are a noble lineage, much respect brother.
> 
> I know many Sikh Jatts who always refer to themselves as Sikh Jatt and never just jatt, conscious of the fact that Jatts are mostly Muslims and Pakistanis now.



raheel sharif ancestors migrated from india bro but overall i agree there is huge difference between Pakistani jat,rajputs and gujjars and india jats,rajput and gujjar now

raja porus was either jatt or khatri (most pakistani rajputs migrated from india recently)


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Your opinion doesn’t have weight. It is the common people of Pakistan which will decide their destiny, and they are very religious.
> 
> 
> 
> And Saudi/Yemeni Arabic is the closest to fus’ha. Beautiful language.
> 
> I found the Egyptians most diverse in looks, reflecting their cosmopolitan history.
> 
> Pretty much on the ball as far a looks.
> 
> Iraqis, KSA, and rest of Gulf look a lot like us.





Taimur Khurram said:


> The interpretation that is given authority is that of the Salaf as Salih.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. Rasulullah (peace be upon him) recognised tribes/clans that genuinely denoted people's lineages, but anything from the time of jahiliya was rejected (e.g racism or pride based on one's ancestors)
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly haven't met many Arabs.
> 
> Egyptians, Yemenis, Omanis (and obviously the Sudanese) tend to be much darker than the rest, Saudis, Qataris, and Emiratis are mixed, Iraqis are usually white or light brown, and the rest are typically white.



The closest arabs to us in complexion are the Iraqis.

Saudis,gulf arabs in general are darker.


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> Spin it as you might Sir, there is no denying what the Objectives Resolution intends for Pakistan to be is as clear as day. The grey areas you wish to claim are only national confusion about how to achieve those ideals of Islam, not about the intended ideal outcomes at all, as I have mentioned before. Again, those principles are to be enunciated only according to Islam, without a doubt (the part that you left out this time  ).


"National confusion' - exactly, because there is no consensus on how Islam defines those principles of _freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice - _hence the 'grey' areas.


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> "National confusion' - exactly, because there is no consensus on how Islam defines those principles of _freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice - _hence the 'grey' areas.



Now that we can agree on that national confusion, let me reiterate that removing it would be possible only if the OR is repealed. The OR itself has no grey areas, but the people do in their will and ability to implement it as intended. Only then would Pakistan be able to develop a robust national narrative. It is of course up to the people what they would like Pakistan to be.


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> Now that we can agree on that national confusion, let me reiterate that removing it would be possible only if the OR is repealed. The OR itself has no grey areas, but the people do in their will and ability to implement it as intended. Only then would Pakistan be able to develop a robust national narrative. It is of course up to the people what they would like Pakistan to be.



Syed Sahab why do you have such hatred towards Objective Resolution? Did someone take your khums away or something?


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> Now that we can agree on that national confusion, let me reiterate that removing it would be possible only if the OR is repealed. The OR itself has no grey areas, but the people do in their will and ability to implement it as intended. Only then would Pakistan be able to develop a robust national narrative. It is of course up to the people what they would like Pakistan to be.


I've pointed out the lack of consensus on interpretations of Islam related to _democracy,_ _freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice _from the very beginning. Not sure why it took you so long to realize that.

The OR has grey areas, such as the ones pointed out above. Even if the OR made no reference to Islam, there would be debate within Pakistani society over what exactly _freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice _meant, much as that social debate took place in the US (and continues to take place) over slavery, racism, individual rights etc despite an arguably clearer constitution.


----------



## VCheng

Retired Troll said:


> Syed Sahab why do you have such hatred towards Objective Resolution? Did someone take your khums away or something?



I have no hatred. I merely identify it as the root cause of what ails Pakistan today. I am immune from its effects. 



AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> I've pointed out the lack of consensus on interpretations of Islam related to _democracy,_ _freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice _from the very beginning. Not sure why it took you so long to realize that.
> 
> The OR has grey areas, such as the ones pointed out above. Even if the OR made no reference to Islam, there would be debate within Pakistani society over what exactly _freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice _meant, much as that social debate took place in the US (and continues to take place) over slavery, racism, individual rights etc despite an arguably clearer constitution.



LOL. Pakistanis can figure out what exactly freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice mean, it is just that they cannot figure out how these are enunciated by Islam as ordained by the OR. The problem is not with the people, it is with what the OR says, and your convolutions can do nothing to avoid that conclusion, even with the inevitably expected whataboutery about USA.


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> I have no hatred. I merely identify it as the root cause of what ails Pakistan today. I am immune from its effects.



If you are immune to it, then how come its an ailment? 

Aapse to hum zakaat lenge abhi.... itni jaldi bhi kia hai Syed Sahab


----------



## VCheng

Retired Troll said:


> If you are immune to it, then how come its an ailment?
> 
> Aapse to hum zakaat lenge abhi.... itni jaldi bhi kia hai Syed Sahab



It is an ailment for Pakistan, not me. And here I though I owe my zakat to Allah and not the likes of you.


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> It is an ailment for Pakistan, not me. And here I though I owe my zakat to Allah and not the likes of you.



Ryasat lelegi aapse warna bolegi aap ryasat se takra rahe hain or phir dama dam mast qalander na hojae..


----------



## VCheng

Retired Troll said:


> Ryasat lelegi aapse warna bolegi aap ryasat se takra rahe hain or phir dama dam mast qalander na hojae..



No takrao here. Ryasat zindabad!


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> No takrao here. Ryasat zindabad!



to phir Zakaat jama kara den zara beghair chik chik kiye.....


----------



## VCheng

Retired Troll said:


> to phir Zakaat jama kara den zara beghair chik chik kiye.....



In Ramadhan, InshaAllah.


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> In Ramadhan, InshaAllah.



Why Ramadan? It is due start of fiscal year not start of fasting month Syed Sahab...


----------



## AgNoStiC MuSliM

VCheng said:


> LOL. Pakistanis can figure out what exactly freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice mean, it is just that they cannot figure out how these are enunciated by Islam as ordained by the OR. The problem is not with the people, it is with what the OR says, and your convolutions can do nothing to avoid that conclusion.


Pakistanis would interpret those principles based on their religious values regardless of whether the constitution specifically referred to Islam or not. A nation and its legislature largely represents the views of the citizenry. The issue is not so much the reference to Islam in the constitution, but the influence (coercive and non-coercive) of the Mullah/religious right in preventing legal reform or pushing through regressive laws.

There have been various initiatives to reform things like the Blasphemy Laws, women's rights, child marriages etc, but it is the push back from enough elected legislators (who claim cultural and religious norms as justification) that has stalled these reforms. The issue here isn't the reference to religion in the constitution, it is the out-sized influence the religious right exercises in society.


----------



## VCheng

AgNoStiC MuSliM said:


> Pakistanis would interpret those principles based on their religious upbringing regardless of whether the constitution specifically referred to Islam or not. A nation and its legislature largely represents the views of the citizenry. The issue is not so much the reference to Islam in the constitution, but the influence (coercive and non-coercive) of the Mullah/religious right in preventing legal reform or pushing through regressive laws.
> 
> There have been various initiatives to reform things like the Blasphemy Laws, women's rights, child marriages etc, but it is the push back from enough elected legislators (who claim cultural and religious norms as justification) that has stalled these reforms. The issue here isn't the reference to religion in the constitution, it is the out-sized influence the religious right exercises in society.



The real issue is not that the Constitution makes a "reference to Islam", it is that it makes religion the business of the State, and that is the fatal flaw originating in the OR. You are correct that the people are indeed religious (and it is their right as a personal matter), but do note that it is religion as a duty of the State that empowers the mullah brigade to the extent that we can see these days after decades of such nourishment.

Hence you are absolutely wrong in saying that the issue here is the "reference to religion" in the Constitution. The "out-sized influence the religious right exercises in society" is the result of what the Constitutions formulates to enforce religion as the business of the State based on the OR, and not the cause of Pakistan's national confusion about its identity.



Retired Troll said:


> Why Ramadan? It is due start of fiscal year not start of fasting month Syed Sahab...



Just a tradition, and easy enough to remember.


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> Just a tradition, and easy enough to remember.



Syed Sahab Ramadan me Musalman hue they kia? Chalen jab ryasat maange forun adaa kardijiyega warna ryasat se takranay kay zumray me ajaega


----------



## VCheng

Retired Troll said:


> Syed Sahab Ramadan me Musalman hue they kia? Chalen jab ryasat maange forun adaa kardijiyega warna ryasat se takranay kay zumray me ajaega



Jee bilkul waada raha. Timely payment and no takrao.


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> Jee bilkul waada raha. Timely payment and no takrao.



raseeden bhi jama karke rakhiyega...ye na ho kay koi raseed iran se kubbi yadev kay paas se nikal aye apki....


----------



## VCheng

Retired Troll said:


> raseeden bhi jama karke rakhiyega...ye na ho kay koi raseed iran se kubbi yadev kay paas se nikal aye apki....



All entered into Excel spreadsheets and backed up on NAS in three different geographical locations.


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> All entered into Excel spreadsheets and backed up on NAS in three different geographical locations.



is not enough to drag you out of the list honey.


----------



## VCheng

Retired Troll said:


> is not enough to drag you out of the list honey.



And what is this list that I should, or could, care about?


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> And what is this list that I should, or could, care about?



i thought you were immune sir.... why worry of any list that exists anywhere


----------



## Taimur Khurram

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> The closest arabs to us in complexion are the Iraqis.
> 
> Saudis,gulf arabs in general are darker.



Nah from my experience Gulf Arabs are the closest. Iraqis have too many white people and not enough dark-skinned people.


----------



## VCheng

Retired Troll said:


> i thought you were immune sir.... why worry of any list that exists anywhere



So this list a list I should not care about.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Muslimrenaissance said:


> jatt is not a race but profession , genetically jatt and jaat are different and every gotra have different origin same wy you can say bihari rajput , bengali rajput or any other indian rajput are different then pakistani rajputs



This is one of the reasons I brought up whether or not we should still call ourselves by such names. They don't denote our patrilineage, all they do is say which community of clans (that intermarry with each other) we belong to.


----------



## El Sidd

VCheng said:


> So this list a list I should not care about.


have you cared about it till yet? why start now


----------



## VCheng

Retired Troll said:


> have you cared about it till yet? why start now



Good point!


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Kathin_Singh said:


> Are there any Aheers(Yadavs) in Pakistan?
> 
> In india, Aheers / Yadavs are a big politcal force in North India.



No. 



Great Janjua said:


> Am a jatt please enlighten me on your blood type and faith please thanks in advance [emoji11] [emoji11] [emoji11]



Then why is your name "Great Janjua"? Do you get Janjua Jats as well? 



padamchen said:


> They are fair and big like us.



No, both of you are mixed. 



padamchen said:


> They came last, just before us.



Lmao no they didn't, Anglos came last and some of them assimilated into India (google Anglo-Indians). 



padamchen said:


> From the same direction.



Again, incorrect. Most Jat clans came from Central Asia, not Iran.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Great Janjua

Taimur Khurram said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is your name "Great Janjua"? Do you get Janjua Jats as well?
> 
> 
> 
> No, both of you are mixed.
> 
> 
> 
> Lmao no they didn't, Anglos came last and some of them assimilated into India (google Anglo-Indians).
> 
> 
> 
> Again, incorrect. Most Jat clans came from Central Asia, not Iran.


Great janjua is a tribute to general iftikhar janjua the guy my father served under in battle of chamb joria Mereya saleya

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Pakistani history and identity, what does that have to do with you or the verbose troll you linked?



@Dubious I’m going to have to dispute you for this negative rating.

If you want to discuss it privately, we can do that.

This is my opinion based on the interaction of these two members with me and their behavior on this forum recently with others.

They have literally been attacking me this whole thread, while I have refused to engage in a back and forth.

I guess @Nilgiri @Joe Shearer are pressuring you on this.

@Hakikat ve Hikmet @Saiful Islam @Taimur Khurram 

If I don’t want to engage with someone, I think I should have that right not to be forced to. @OsmanAli98 @M. Sarmad

If I’m asked to give an explanation, I will give it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Great Janjua said:


> Great janjua is a tribute to general iftikhar janjua the guy my father served under in battle of chamb joria Mereya saleya



@saiyan0321 

This is the answer to that little game I was playing with you elsewhere.

You had mentioned that the Indian Army would have had cause to remember the name of General Akhtar Hussain Malik with regret, if he had not been displaced very rudely at the last moment by Yahya Khan on the orders of Ayub Khan. I said that there was a better.

This is the man, Eftekhar (or Iftikhar) Janjua, who took the same line of attack as had done General Mallik six years earlier; the difference is that he won. Please look up the battle; it was handled in a masterly fashion, insofar as his attack on one flank being thwarted, he changed his axis of attack to the other flank and put so much asymmetric pressure to bear that the front cracked, and the Pakistanis poured in. The general did not live to see victory; he was shot down in a helicopter, and died of his injuries in hospital two days later.

IMO, he comes ahead of Tajammul Malik, and certainly of Akhtar Hussain Malik.

@Great Janjua

I had no idea that you had adopted your title from this general. Congratulations; he was the best Pakistani general. In 1965, he was in command, then a Brigadier, of the Gujarat/ Rann of Kutch sector, and won, albeit with a superiority of troops. Whatever, he won.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## saiyan0321

Joe Shearer said:


> @saiyan0321
> 
> This is the answer to that little game I was playing with you elsewhere.
> 
> You had mentioned that the Indian Army would have had cause to remember the name of General Akhtar Hussain Malik with regret, if he had not been displaced very rudely at the last moment by Yahya Khan on the orders of Ayub Khan. I said that there was a better.
> 
> This is the man, Eftekhar (or Iftikhar) Janjua, who took the same line of attack as had done General Mallik six years earlier; the difference is that he won. Please look up the battle; it was handled in a masterly fashion, insofar as his attack on one flank being thwarted, he changed his axis of attack to the other flank and put so much asymmetric pressure to bear that the front cracked, and the Pakistanis poured in. The general did not live to see victory; he was shot down in a helicopter, and died of his injuries in hospital two days later.
> 
> IMO, he comes ahead of Tajammul Malik, and certainly of Akhtar Hussain Malik.
> 
> @Great Janjua
> 
> I had no idea that you had adopted your title from this general. Congratulations; he was the best Pakistani general. In 1965, he was in command, then a Brigadier, of the Gujarat/ Rann of Kutch sector, and won, albeit with a superiority of troops. Whatever, he won.



A definite read on a great man. It would do us all more good to read about these men in our curriculum then of those of old ages and gone... To know those that we can touch, to those that fought under our flag, it is something we deserve to know.... So many names came to light only wen personal study was undertaken. many times wars were mentioned in our curriculum but never the names of heroes nor the names of those that acted worse than villains whilst fighting on our front. 

I will read up on him more. Thanks for the tag

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani E

saiyan0321 said:


> A definite read on a great man. It would do us all more good to read about these men in our curriculum then of those of old ages and gone... To know those that we can touch, to those that fought under our flag, it is something we deserve to know.... So many names came to light only wen personal study was undertaken. many times wars were mentioned in our curriculum but never the names of heroes nor the names of those that acted worse than villains whilst fighting on our front.
> 
> I will read up on him more. Thanks for the tag



He was an Ahmadi, that's why he's not given the same due as others. There's a certain segment of society in Pakistan that wants to pretend Ahmadis have played no role in the defense of Pakistan, and that we're all traitors and foreign agents. The admins and some mods of PDF are counted in that segment.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Great Janjua

Joe Shearer said:


> @saiyan0321
> 
> This is the answer to that little game I was playing with you elsewhere.
> 
> You had mentioned that the Indian Army would have had cause to remember the name of General Akhtar Hussain Malik with regret, if he had not been displaced very rudely at the last moment by Yahya Khan on the orders of Ayub Khan. I said that there was a better.
> 
> This is the man, Eftekhar (or Iftikhar) Janjua, who took the same line of attack as had done General Mallik six years earlier; the difference is that he won. Please look up the battle; it was handled in a masterly fashion, insofar as his attack on one flank being thwarted, he changed his axis of attack to the other flank and put so much asymmetric pressure to bear that the front cracked, and the Pakistanis poured in. The general did not live to see victory; he was shot down in a helicopter, and died of his injuries in hospital two days later.
> 
> IMO, he comes ahead of Tajammul Malik, and certainly of Akhtar Hussain Malik.
> 
> @Great Janjua
> 
> I had no idea that you had adopted your title from this general. Congratulations; he was the best Pakistani general. In 1965, he was in command, then a Brigadier, of the Gujarat/ Rann of Kutch sector, and won, albeit with a superiority of troops. Whatever, he won.


My dad has described general iftikhar janjua to me as a man of great valour and humour.for your information my dad had a personal few minute talk with Janjua sir Before his demise.He would often pay visit to his troops during stand still. Once he came over to my dad who was just chilling on his anti tank gun as my dad was the commander of an jeep mounted anti tank gun and said Sultan (my dads full name is Muhammed sultan Saleem by the way) your name may be sultan but your LMG (I don't why know armymen in the nineties called anti tank guns as LMG but hey ho ) Is the real sultan so be precise in your shooting. Cracked a few jokes and left after that encounter the sultan my dad was shot in the hand and had to stay behind front lines till the end of the war my dad was very young when he was appointed as the commander of an anti tank gun he was 17 believe it or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Great Janjua

I guess only my dad calls anti tank guns as aaam (normal gun) or gollay wali gun

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dubious

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> They have literally been attacking me this whole thread, while I have refused to engage in a back and forth.


Kindly report. I sometimes dont go through the whole thread...but address specific concerns...

Dont call a troll a troll....It hurts sentiments of some ...

Report. We do view our reports and try to clear as many as we humanly can!

*People stick to the topic! I am going to close this thread to clean it up! 

And kindly dont come crying to me if you failed to report and your post happens to break rules!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dubious

*I see no reason to reopen this thread CONSIDERING both Pakistanis and Indians DID troll!

I also see no reason to discuss a topic that can neither be openly or even truthfully talked about!

Thread will remain closed!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

