Betrayed, Arabized

[Safriz]

^^Hindd derived from Hindu

 

[Kinetic]

^^Hindd derived from Hindu

Hind derived from Sindh, while Hindu derived from Hind.

Sindh>Hind>Hindu.


Hindu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word Hindu is derived from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, first mentioned in the Rig Veda, was the historic local appellation for the Indus River in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent.

 

[Jango]

Indic does mean Bharat, though I have doubt Pakistanis are either Indic/Bharatiya.

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------



The British did not name it India but much earlier it was named after Indus aka 'India'. Do not forget 250 BC Greek traveler's book about India, "the Indica". Arab called it 'Hind' which is derived from Sindh.

India and Bharat maybe the same thing now, but 60 or 70 years back , both terms had different impact. Bharat meant the Hindu, India meant the British colony. India is anglicized, while bharat is referring to Hindu.

I said the same thing. India is from Indus. So, if you are saying Indic( again, if such a word exists), you are referring to Indus Valley Civilization, not bharat!!

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------

Indic does mean Bharat, though I have doubt Pakistanis are either Indic/Bharatiya.

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------



The British did not name it India but much earlier it was named after Indus aka 'India'. Do not forget 250 BC Greek traveler's book about India, "the Indica". Arab called it 'Hind' which is derived from Sindh.

India and Bharat maybe the same thing now, but 60 or 70 years back , both terms had different impact. Bharat meant the Hindu, India meant the British colony. India is anglicized, while bharat is referring to Hindu.

I said the same thing. India is from Indus. So, if you are saying Indic( again, if such a word exists), you are referring to Indus Valley Civilization, not bharat!!

 

[Kinetic]

India and Bharat maybe the same thing now, but 60 or 70 years back , both terms had different impact. Bharat meant the Hindu, India meant the British colony. India is anglicized, while bharat is referring to Hindu.

Not so, India was always equal to Bharat. The land known to the foreigners mostly as 'India' while to natives it was 'Bharat/Hindustan'.

I said the same thing. India is from Indus. So, if you are saying Indic( again, if such a word exists), you are referring to Indus Valley Civilization, not bharat!!

Indus valley civilization was part of Bharat, then why I need to refer it? Have not you seen the early (Vedic) maps of India/Bharat?

Here is one... see where is the Indus valley were and what was known as Bharat...

The Indus valley was part of India like any other parts.

a better detailed one....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/EpicIndiaCities.jpg

 

[Vinod2070]

So many of these people are confused that British gave the name India.

This land was called India by the Western world since ancient times. Greeks used the same name thousands of years back.

Some people are so confused by falsehoods and meaningless diversions. It is not the name that is important anyway.

 

[Jango]

loool No comment! If you think Indic does not mean Indian then I rest my case.

Did you deliberately missed the second last line?

India comes from Indus, Indic( if such a word exists) , is an extension of India.

So, India comes from Indus, Indic comes from India.

Bharat and India were different things 100 years ago.

 

[Jango]

now you people are getting off topic and proving the point that India= Bharat.

One member said that pakistanis were Indic and hence Same as you people. What i am saying is that the Indic population was from the Indus valley civilization, and hence not same as bharatis!!.
Bye Bye.

 

[Vinod2070]

Did you deliberately missed the second last line?

India comes from Indus, Indic( if such a word exists) , is an extension of India.

So, India comes from Indus, Indic comes from India.

Bharat and India were different things 100 years ago.

They were the same thing. Just called differently by people speaking different languages.

The French call India "Inde", the Germans may call it "Indien", the Arabs called it Hindustan, the natives called it Bharat.

How difficult is it to understand? All these words refer to the same land and have been used for hundreds or thousands of years.

 

[Subramanian]

now you people are getting off topic and proving the point that India= Bharat.

One member said that pakistanis were Indic and hence Same as you people. What i am saying is that the Indic population was from the Indus valley civilization, and hence not same as bharatis!!.
Bye Bye.

Most of the North Indians are also Indic man.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

can you please give a reference to a hadith or a verse which make shrines and looking after it (like it is done in Pakistan) legitimate in Islam?

What verse in the Quran makes such actions 'illegitimate'?

Does it not boil down to a matter of interpretation? And what business is it of yours or anyone else if some/many Muslims choose to pray at these shrines?

 

[Rafi]

Most Pakistani's don't have a problem with what they are - we have different parts - which the sum of is a Pakistani, I think it is our eastern friends which our confused.

 

[Al Bhatti]

Arab called it 'Hind' which is derived from Sindh.

And the thread has moved from "arabization" to sects to national geography and India.

I remember reading somwhere a long time ago that around 7th century there were two main nations in what is now Pakistan and India called al sindh and al hind in arabic السند و الهند.

So Hind is not derived from Sindh.

 

[Rafi]

What verse in the Quran makes such actions 'illegitimate'?

Does it not boil down to a matter of interpretation? And what business is it of yours or anyone else if some/many Muslims choose to pray at these shrines?

It is the common mistake that some people make, when we go to the Shrine - it is too pay our respects to the Holy Man - who is probably responsible for converting the whole area to Islam. We think because of his great works, and missionary zeal - he is near to God.

---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

I remember reading somwhere that around 7th century there were two main nations in what is now India and Pakistan called al sindh and al hind in arabic السند و الهند.

So hind is not derived form sindh.

The Indus Valley (Pakistan) has been separate for very large periods from the land mass of Bharat =

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Look, this is legitimate- we cannot be in a position to imagine that no fingers are pointing towards us. What we can do is to make our case - - I would again offer that what you are seeing and experiencing is a ripple of social change - aspects of Pakistani society will become even more liberal, and aspects even more insular - both of these responses are leading to a clash, in fact TTP are a reflection of this clash, a tip of the iceberg if you will - and I think a more insular Pakistan is one that will not be allowed to survive, it will be a grave danger to itself and others.

It is not 'Arabization' or the lack of it that will make 'Pakistani society become more liberal', it is focus on specifics - intolerance and lack of respect for difference of belief - that will bring about change.

You do realize that in Pakistan it is the Barelvi movement that has been in the forefront of supporting Pakistan's blasphemy laws and essentially 'glorifying' Salman Taseer's murderer, don't you?

 

[Al Bhatti]

Just wondering, had we implemented the Arabic language in the seventies as per the constitution what would have been the situation of Pakistan now.

And what would have been the situation of muse