Betrayed, Arabized

[VCheng]

...................... I am an agnostic Muslim.....................

What an interesting concept, although impossible by very definition of a "Muslim" as conventionally accepted.

 

[aakash_2410]

My compatibility with Tamils (and a very, very good friend of mine is Tamil) would be on the basis of a shared language (English) respect for each other's beliefs (he is an agnostic/atheist Hindu and I am an agnostic Muslim), shared liberal/Western values ... etc.

It is the US/West that makes us compatible by giving us a common set of linguistic and cultural values to coalesce around, not some 'Indic culture' or 'Indic nationhood'.

True but let's say if he was from UP or Punjab or any other Northern/Central Indian state. Then wouldn't Hindi-Urdu be the common ground? Or would it still be English? And English is probably not even your first language.

Would you relate more closely to Hindi-Urdu or English?.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And Punjabis in India are Khalsas or Khalistanis not indians.

Well, if they choose to identify themselves with the modern nation of 'India', regardless of how much you may dispute the appropriateness of the usage of that word by them, they are 'Indians' as in 'of Indian nationality/passport holders'.

 

[Subramanian]

My compatibility with Tamils (and a very, very good friend of mine is Tamil) would be on the basis of a shared language (English) respect for each other's beliefs (he is an agnostic/atheist Hindu and I am an agnostic Muslim), shared liberal/Western values ... etc.

It is the US/West that makes us compatible by giving us a common set of linguistic and cultural values to coalesce around, not some 'Indic culture' or 'Indic nationhood'.

When I say 'lack of compatibility', I am referring to a native Punjabi vs a native Tamil/Bengali - they have no shared language (excluding learning English), no shared values, culture and what not. You are ignoring those differences because you are viewing them from a 'global/Western commonality' perspective.

obviously man,u r going too far.People in my village claim they are different from the neighbouring village 5km away.Compared to that,this is nothing.

But relatively,there are similarities and this is the relatvity thats the problem.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

True but let's say if he was from UP or Punjab or any other Northern/Central Indian state. Then wouldn't Hindi-Urdu be the common ground? Or would it still be English? And English is probably not even your first language.

Urdu/Punjabi/English - all three were/are used in communicating with North Indians - but that is why I specifically was using examples of non Urdu/Punjabi/Hindi speaking ethnic groups in India, which comprise a very large part of the Indian population.

Would you relate more closely to Hindi-Urdu or English?.

At the moment both - I actually learned to read and write English before Urdu, and I am multilingual in the sense that my mind switches to thinking in the language I am speaking - so my comfort level is pretty much the same regardless of which language I converse in - they might as well all be my 'first language'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

obviously man,u r going too far.People in my village claim they are different from the neighbouring village 5km away.Compared to that,this is nothing.

That is not the same as a Punjabi vs Tamil/Bengali - in my example there is really no linguistic and little cultural commonality.

But relatively,there are similarities and this is the relatvity thats the problem.

Well 'relatively' there are similarities between Pakistanis and Arabs as well - same script, several common words, faith, some cultural aspects etc.

Hence my initial argument - why berate the commonality some Pakistanis feel with those to the West rather than those to the East?

 

[Vinod2070]

It is funny to see people talking of nations!

Nation state is a very modern concept that developed in Europe in the last few centuries. Most nation states today have formed after that. Before that borders kept on changing depending on the rulers and their whims.

 

[aakash_2410]

Urdu/Punjabi/English - all three were/are used in communicating with North Indians - but that is why I specifically was using examples of non Urdu/Punjabi/Hindi speaking ethnic groups in India, which comprise a very large part of the Indian population.

Yes. 25%. And what about other 75%?

At the moment both - I actually learned to read and write English before Urdu, and I am multilingual in the sense that my mind switches to thinking in the language I am speaking - so my comfort level is pretty much the same regardless of which language I converse in - they might as well all be my 'first language'.

Okay what language would your parents rather speak in? As a third generation immigrant myself I know they would rather speak in their native language or similar than English.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What an interesting concept, although impossible by very definition of a "Muslim" as conventionally accepted.

I never said I was 'conventional' ...

 

[LaBong]

I have no 'linguistic or cultural compatibility' with Tamils, Keralites, Bengalis ....

My fluency in English and experience with Western culture would in fact make me far more compatible with the Americans and English today ...

Offcourse you or any Pakistanis have no Linguistic or Cultural affinity with Bengalis/Tamils but you do have with Hindusthanis which constitute 47% of total population of India.

How many in Pakistan do have same expertise in Queens language as you, not even 5%!

 

[Vinod2070]

British were responsible for the division as they felt the new country would be too big and powerful , never heard so much rubbish.

Before the british and partition you were one country pakistan and india, before the rule of called barbarians.

Before the British, almost all the subcontinet was ruled by Hindus and Sikhs. Check your history.

The British fought many wars with Marathas, Jats and Sikhs before they could rule India.

You were big wealthy and a super power and one big country, so why did you guys lose to ghaznavi, ghurids, lodhis, baburids, timurids?

At this time the country was obviously divided into small kingdoms and sometimes they invited foreign invaders against each other. Much like some Indians collaborated with the British, many Iraqis did with the Americans and so on. That division cost the people dear as the idiotic rulers didn't realize the costs involved.

Please explain why?

Being one big country and united didn't save you then, so its just a poor excuse to blame it on the british.

We were not united then, We are now.

Facts is you are destined to be conquered and ruled as history shows wether united or not.

No one is destined to be ruled and conquered. Any country all over the world has had it's ups and downs. True for Mongols, true for Arabs (ruled for a thousand years by foreigners), even the British, Americans, Chinese, you name it.

What matters is the present. One can only learn from the past.

 

[53fd]

Are we talking about present day Pakistan & India, or are we talking about pre-1947 British India? People need to stay focused, this thread is going totally out of hand & meandering all over the place.

 

[53fd]

I don't understand why Indians are so keen on insisting Pakistanis have an identity crisis? Pakistanis are happy with what they are, why are Indians getting irked by it?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Saudi Arabia is my country.....but this is where Saudi Arabia stops for me. I do not believe in borders, races, tongues and cultures. All of these stuff are meaningless they will all disappear one day no matter how hard we try to keep them. No country will remain there forever and no culture will either. All of these stuff has an expiration date but there is one thing that will remain. One thing that will remain forever. That is Allah. What Allah says and what he tells us to do those are the real things of this world. This entire world will one day vanish but Allah wont...Think about this muse.

I for one told you before I do not believe in such a thing as Wahabism or Salfism. However who you label as Wahabis and Salafis only call for Islam to be practiced the way God told us to practice. If that is wrong then explain to me why do you say it is such?

Would you agree with the position then that Muslims/Theologians/Governments have no business dictating how any one community/group/sect practices their faith?

Would you agree that regardless of how much we may like to say and believe that there is 'ONE ISLAM', humans, flawed creatures that we are with free minds, will interpret things differently and therefore practice our faith differently, and that even Allah has indicated in the Quran that those differences of faith/interpretation of faith, should be respected?

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

OK, calm down everyone for a few minutes while I close the thread and read back through the many pages I have skipped to clean up.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

OK, thread re-opened.