Pakistan First ! The case for Pakistani Nationalism.

[khansaheeb]

You should also add mistreatment by Indian Muslims

Why?

 

[lafete]

@lafete ; @Itachi @tkmd @Apprentice

My question to those questioning "nationalism " is then why did we need a nation?
Why couldn't we be good Muslims within a united India?
If personal piety, adherence to the faith and unity with the Ummah is concerned then the Muslims of the subcontinent had been doing that for 1000 years in India.

This is EXACTLY the argument that the Congress Bhartiya Muslims, led by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Dr.Syed Mehmood, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Gani Khan Chaudhuri, Zakir Hussain, and the mullahs of the Jamait Ul Ulema e Hind, and this is EXACTLY the argument that is sold to Indian Muslims by the RSS brand of Muslim leaders like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi.
Why Pakistan?
We are ALL brethren of the Ummah, So be steadfast in your faith as Muslims of the greater Ummah who merely reside in India.
By the argument of Jamait Ul Ulema e Hind, and Owaisi:

Why should Pakistan exist at all!

Did we all suddenly become Muslims on 14th August 1947?

So far as we know most Indian Muslims still remember the ayats to say their namaz, pray on Fridays, some can read Arabic, they try to fast during Ramadan, offer zakat, observe the two Eids, and still manage to perform Hajj in sufficient numbers to warranty a special Hajj Terminal in Delhi. Some can still read and write Urdu, and the four main centers of the Islamic schools of thought in the subcontinent are all located in India. As far as we know they are steadfast in the belief of Tauheed and can the kalma e shahada. So the 5 pillars of Islam are maintained in the personal individual lives of Indian Muslims.
We were all Indian Muslims 73 years back.

So why Pakistan?

Would like to have an answer to this argument.

Mullah Ko jo Hai Hind Mein Sajde Ki Ijazat
Nadan Ye Samajhta Hai ke Islam Hai Azad.

If you ask a muslim about what are the fraiz in Islam he will say "Belief, Prayer, Fasting, Hajj and Zakat". There mistake here is that they forget the 6th Farz, living in an Islamic state.

Interest is haram in Islam. You are still paying interest for the loans you took for terbela and mangla. That water goes into your rivers. No matter how careful and pious you are, you are still consuming haram?

There is a hadith which states that God asked the angels to destroy a particular city full of corrupt people. The angles said "Therein is Your Servant, pious and obedient . He never disobeyed You, not even for a blink of an eye." God told the angels to start the punishment with him first. “Turn it over on him and them, for his face never showed signs of displeasure for My Sake”.

Now you can argue (correctly) that there is not a single Islamic state in existence today. However, when you fought for this country you promissed Allah that you will create one. Once you got it, and said haha fooled you!! - Do you think he will not humiliate you?

Here is your promise that WE made:

Iqbal:

"I would like to offer a few pieces of advice to the young men who are at present studying at Cambridge. ... I advise you to guard against atheism and materialism. The biggest blunder made by Europe was the separation of Church and State. This deprived their culture of moral soul and diverted it to the atheistic materialism. I had twenty-five years ago seen through the drawbacks of this civilization and therefore had made some prophecies. They had been delivered by my tongue although I did not quite understand them. This happened in 1907. ... After six or seven years, my prophecies came true, word by word. The European war of 1914 was an outcome of the aforesaid mistakes made by the European nations in the separation of the Church and the State"

Jinnah:

(Jinnah's speech to the State Bank of Pakistan):

“I shall watch with keenness the work of your Research Organization in evolving banking practices compatible with Islamic ideas of social and economic life. The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is not facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century. The Western world, in spite of its advantages, of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind”.

We choose the hindu culture (punjabi, sindhi, baloch, pahstoon, kashmiri, traditions) which deprive US of courage to create anything! Forces us to be a joke for the rest of the World. Ways which caused humilation for 5000 years - over Islam.

 

[peagle]

@lafete ; @Itachi @tkmd @Apprentice

My question to those questioning "nationalism " is then why did we need a nation?
Why couldn't we be good Muslims within a united India?
If personal piety, adherence to the faith and unity with the Ummah is concerned then the Muslims of the subcontinent had been doing that for 1000 years in India.

This is EXACTLY the argument that the Congress Bhartiya Muslims, led by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Dr.Syed Mehmood, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Gani Khan Chaudhuri, Zakir Hussain, and the mullahs of the Jamait Ul Ulema e Hind, and this is EXACTLY the argument that is sold to Indian Muslims by the RSS brand of Muslim leaders like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi.
Why Pakistan?
We are ALL brethren of the Ummah, So be steadfast in your faith as Muslims of the greater Ummah who merely reside in India.
By the argument of Jamait Ul Ulema e Hind, and Owaisi:

Why should Pakistan exist at all!

Did we all suddenly become Muslims on 14th August 1947?

So far as we know most Indian Muslims still remember the ayats to say their namaz, pray on Fridays, some can read Arabic, they try to fast during Ramadan, offer zakat, observe the two Eids, and still manage to perform Hajj in sufficient numbers to warranty a special Hajj Terminal in Delhi. Some can still read and write Urdu, and the four main centers of the Islamic schools of thought in the subcontinent are all located in India. As far as we know they are steadfast in the belief of Tauheed and can the kalma e shahada. So the 5 pillars of Islam are maintained in the personal individual lives of Indian Muslims.
We were all Indian Muslims 73 years back.

So why Pakistan?

Would like to have an answer to this argument.

I like your line of thinking, and would rather view this as a spectator, then get involved.

But, I wanted to highlight an obvious fallacy in your statement, I do not blame you as we have been raised in that environment, where thinking was a crime, and following the existing dogma was almost religious.

You have given India a historical perspective akin to a nationhood. I think it would be wise, or at the very least better, that we start referring to the period of before 1947 as the "India region", rather then implicitly given it a recognition as a historical nation/country, by referring to it as "India" in a singular sense. Narratives matter, and by adopting the name India, it messed up the history of our region. Our intellectuals, have been intellectually lazy in presenting a valid counter argument, but its time to put a stop to it.

India to be used only if it is mentioned in the context of modern nation state of "India", prior to that, either "British India" for the period describing under British rule, never failing to use "British" India, and "India region" for the rest of the history unless obviously discussing or describing a particular empire or kingdom.

Old habits die hard, but we have to start somewhere.
If anyone has a counter viewpoint, and wishes to have a valid discussion, on the above points, I am happy to participate.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Mullah Ko jo Hai Hind Mein Sajde Ki Ijazat
Nadan Ye Samajhta Hai ke Islam Hai Azad.

صرف ہندکئوں ؟
سجدے کی اجازت تو اور ملکوں میں ہیں جہاں الحمداللہ ہمارے براررن وطن اب مقیمُ ہیں
امریکہ برتانیا کناڈا اسٹدیلیا
Why only India? Muslims are permitted to perform sajda in most other countries where our brethren now reside, America, U.K, Canada, Australia etc.

If you ask a muslim about what are the fraiz in Islam he will say "Belief, Prayer, Fasting, Hajj and Zakat". There mistake here is that they forget the 6th Farz, living in an Islamic state.

20% of the world's Muslim population live as minorities and the largest Muslim minority population in the world are Indian Muslims. So the Muslims in India should migrate to live in an Islamic state and Pakistanis who migrated from Pakistan to live in Australia, North America, Britain should migrate out to live in an Islamic state ? Where should 180 million Indian Muslims go?

We choose the hindu culture (punjabi, sindhi, baloch, pahstoon, kashmiri, traditions) which deprive US of courage to create anything! Forces us to be a joke for the rest of the World. Ways which caused humilation for 5000 years - over Islam.

So Sindh, Baloch, Punjabi, Pashtun, Kashmiri cultures are all Hindu cultures. Wow ! The RSS would agree with you there except they say stick with your Hindu culture and revert to becoming Hindus ( whatever caste). Your contention is that Sindh, Baloch, Punjabis, Pashtuns should abandon their Hindu culture to adopt a Muslim culture. What exactly is the Muslim culture?
What was the culture of the Mughal's who married Hindu princesses observed Holi and Deepavali and other Hindu customs? Yet they ruled India for 200 years..
What is Muslim culture?
Do the "Saudi" Arabians who have the culture from the cradle of Islam have a Muslim culture? Must be, because the "Saudi" Arabians are certainly not a joke and have the courage to create everything, (even their own fighter jets and nuclear missiles.).

So going by your argument there is no Islamic state in the world, and
I agree with you that Pakistan is not an Islamic state ( whatever the name), then my question is even more relevant.

Why Pakistan?
Why should Pakistan exist ?

We should all merge together and try for a global Islamic Ummah state as we have been trying for 1300 years. Then as the Rashtriya Bhakt "Muslim" politicians of India say we should merge back with the Indian Muslim Ummah.
Likewise, the Kashmiri struggle from the point of view of the Ummah is also futile. How does it matter if Kashmiris are part of India or Pakistan, because in any case they won't be part of s true Islamic state.

Could you give me a link which says the 6th Faraiz is to live in an Islamic state, because then by that logic 1.8 billion Muslims are violating a basic tenet of their faith because there is no Islamic state.
As Mr.Spock would say "Logical "

 

[Baibars_1260]

You have given India a historical perspective akin to a nationhood. I think it would be wise, or at the very least better, that we start referring to the period of before 1947 as the "India region", rather then implicitly given it a recognition as a historical nation/country, by referring to it as "India" in a singular sense. Narratives matter, and by adopting the name India, it messed up the history of our region. Our intellectuals, have been intellectually lazy in presenting a valid counter argument, but its time to put a stop to it.

India to be used only if it is mentioned in the context of modern nation state of "India", prior to that, either "British India" for the period describing under British rule, never failing to use "British" India, and "India region" for the rest of the history unless obviously discussing or describing a particular empire or kingdom.

Old habits die hard, but we have to start somewhere.
If anyone has a counter viewpoint, and wishes to have a valid discussion, on the above points, I am happy to participate.

That is exactly what I did. I mentioned that we were residing here ( old India, that has varied its geography as its history has unfolded) as Muslims for 1000 years without compromising our faith. So Iqbal's theme :
"Mulle ko jo hai Hind mein sijde ki ijazat "is either flawed because he refers to Hind, which Muslims had been living in for 1000 years and they didn't need permission ( ijazat) from anyone most of that time since they were either ruling or were equals OR what Iqbal was clearly referring to was a "nation state". We can't cherry pick Iqbal, He did recognize ethnic identities which is why he wrote poems like "Punjabi Musalman".

So back to the question which no one here supporting the Ummah theory and dilution of ethnic identities is asking ?

IF there is an Ummah then why is there a Pakistan?

 

[peagle]

That is exactly what I did. I mentioned that we were residing here ( old India, that has varied its geography as its history has unfolded) as Muslims for 1000 years without compromising our faith. So Iqbal's theme :
"Mulle ko jo hai Hind mein sijde ki ijazat "is either flawed because he refers to Hind, which Muslims had been living in for 1000 years and they didn't need permission ( ijazat) from anyone most of that time since they were either ruling or were equals OR what Iqbal was clearly referring to was a "nation state". We can't cherry pick Iqbal, He did recognize ethnic identities which is why he wrote poems like "Punjabi Musalman".

So back to the question which no one here supporting the Ummah theory and dilution of ethnic identities is asking ?

IF there is an Ummah then why is there a Pakistan?

"My question to those questioning "nationalism " is then why did we need a nation?
Why couldn't we be good Muslims within a united India?
If personal piety, adherence to the faith and unity with the Ummah is concerned then the Muslims of the subcontinent had been doing that for 1000 years in India."

The above is the portion that had caught my eye. to which I needed to reply.

Now, regarding your statement above.

I think, it is natural to over analyse situations, statements and believes within statements, it is a natural human tendency, among everyone, everywhere. But, we have been poor in explaining our side. Since we are concerned with the South Asian region, so I will try to keep it condensed, shouldn't be too difficult.

Iqbal was living in a period of "British India", the British have given India its sense of self as an entity, a collective, that it never was in its history. Before the British, it was just a region full of Kingdoms and Empires. What the British did was to provide the "other" for the local brown residents, that had broadly similar cultural outlook, and basic set of similar values, much like the Europeans, or the Africans or the Latin cultures etc... Plus the British bought with them the concept of a European sense of nationhood. Because there had to be a centralised power to govern a large area like South Asia, the act of ruling the region centrally reinforced the sense of "US" among the ruled. I have other arguments such as western styled education etc.. but then this will become too long.

So, Iqbal was operating within that atmosphere, that mindset, so his poetry had to reflect those realities, no matter what the basis of that reality was, he was living in the moment, we are providing an objective judgement with the benefit of hindsight, and emotional detachment, by virtue of not being "subjects", and not being ruled by a foreign power. That aspect of his interpretation of his reality has never been explored. Extremely unfair.

Furthermore, once that sense of "US" or the ruled, against the ruler had gained traction, a solid foundation from where a fight could be fought, and the leaders could actually feel results were forthcoming via various new laws and opening of doors. That lead to reawakening of the new "US" as I cannot pray to a statue, and I only pray to a statue, this actually had already happened under the Hindi/Urdu controversy led by the Hindus, but it so easily gets forgotten in understanding South Asian history. The Muslims and Hindus being the largest grouping, obviously meant their worldview would dominate, rest of the groupings were minnows.

The religious grouping dominated the whole construct because it was easiest to define, plus the ethnic and other groupings needed time, education and cultural realignment before they could be awakened, and awaken they did. But, by that time independence had been achieved, by both the major dominant parties, Hindus and the Muslims. The Hindus had to stick to the secular construct, otherwise their statements to the Muslims would have been found out as total lies, I won't go deeper into this as it would derail. But, to close this point, the reorganisation of Indian states in 1956 and thereafter, along linguistic, effectively ethnic lines, points to this ethnic reawakening that happened too late, by that time the British were gone, and it was harder to fight your own brown masters. Bangladesh was another example of this ethnic reawaking, it would not have happened if the unit was a singular whole, but, it was over a 1000 miles away, and, distance has a magic of its own. I will close this section to, before it gets longer, but I think the point is made.

Understanding the various aspects of identity, and how they relate to the level of existing realities matters in so many ways, in the case of Iqbal, it was reflected in his poetry. "saray jahan sey acha, Hindustan hamara", when the "other" was the white man, but what happens to me when there is no white man left, was the other realisation for the rights for Muslims, introducing new awakenings in his mindset.

Take everything apart, in modern day India, which has had strong leadership throughout, inherited a strong economy, India has been the top 10 economies since 1947 by virtue of its size, its not a new thing, it is just poor. And, the acceptance of India as a nation state by the majority since 1947. still, census only happens in India due to a "set in time" North India/South India agreement, their version of slicing the tax pie, also happens under a frozen agreement, the various quota systems, including in the parliament, basically there are so many compromises made in the creation of an Indian nation state. Because identity matters, but, it only matters once it awakens for one reason or another, those reasons differ from situation to situation, and region to region. People are not carbon copies of each other, and neither are societies, they all move to their own tunes, and that effects how things unfold.

Iqbal was purely reflecting different stages in his life, in his writings, nothing more, nothing less. Just like he was a baby only few pounds in weight at birth, and dozens of kgs at death, his body had evolved, so did he, and his mind. That is the essence of Iqbal, and the essence of human beings across the world.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Why?

Because Indian Muslims are not Muslims. Any people who betray Pakistan are not Muslims.


@PAKISTANFOREVER

 

[Baibars_1260]

"My question to those questioning "nationalism " is then why did we need a nation?
Why couldn't we be good Muslims within a united India?
If personal piety, adherence to the faith and unity with the Ummah is concerned then the Muslims of the subcontinent had been doing that for 1000 years in India."

The above is the portion that had caught my eye. to which I needed to reply.

Now, regarding your statement above.

I think, it is natural to over analyse situations, statements and believes within statements, it is a natural human tendency, among everyone, everywhere. But, we have been poor in explaining our side. Since we are concerned with the South Asian region, so I will try to keep it condensed, shouldn't be too difficult.

Iqbal was living in a period of "British India", the British have given India its sense of self as an entity, a collective, that it never was in its history. Before the British, it was just a region full of Kingdoms and Empires. What the British did was to provide the "other" for the local brown residents, that had broadly similar cultural outlook, and basic set of similar values, much like the Europeans, or the Africans or the Latin cultures etc... Plus the British bought with them the concept of a European sense of nationhood. Because there had to be a centralised power to govern a large area like South Asia, the act of ruling the region centrally reinforced the sense of "US" among the ruled. I have other arguments such as western styled education etc.. but then this will become too long.

So, Iqbal was operating within that atmosphere, that mindset, so his poetry had to reflect those realities, no matter what the basis of that reality was, he was living in the moment, we are providing an objective judgement with the benefit of hindsight, and emotional detachment, by virtue of not being "subjects", and not being ruled by a foreign power. That aspect of his interpretation of his reality has never been explored. Extremely unfair.

Furthermore, once that sense of "US" or the ruled, against the ruler had gained traction, a solid foundation from where a fight could be fought, and the leaders could actually feel results were forthcoming via various new laws and opening of doors. That lead to reawakening of the new "US" as I cannot pray to a statue, and I only pray to a statue, this actually had already happened under the Hindi/Urdu controversy led by the Hindus, but it so easily gets forgotten in understanding South Asian history. The Muslims and Hindus being the largest grouping, obviously meant their worldview would dominate, rest of the groupings were minnows.

The religious grouping dominated the whole construct because it was easiest to define, plus the ethnic and other groupings needed time, education and cultural realignment before they could be awakened, and awaken they did. But, by that time independence had been achieved, by both the major dominant parties, Hindus and the Muslims. The Hindus had to stick to the secular construct, otherwise their statements to the Muslims would have been found out as total lies, I won't go deeper into this as it would derail. But, to close this point, the reorganisation of Indian states in 1956 and thereafter, along linguistic, effectively ethnic lines, points to this ethnic reawakening that happened too late, by that time the British were gone, and it was harder to fight your own brown masters. Bangladesh was another example of this ethnic reawaking, it would not have happened if the unit was a singular whole, but, it was over a 1000 miles away, and, distance has a magic of its own. I will close this section to, before it gets longer, but I think the point is made.

Understanding the various aspects of identity, and how they relate to the level of existing realities matters in so many ways, in the case of Iqbal, it was reflected in his poetry. "saray jahan sey acha, Hindustan hamara", when the "other" was the white man, but what happens to me when there is no white man left, was the other realisation for the rights for Muslims, introducing new awakenings in his mindset.

Take everything apart, in modern day India, which has had strong leadership throughout, inherited a strong economy, India has been the top 10 economies since 1947 by virtue of its size, its not a new thing, it is just poor. And, the acceptance of India as a nation state by the majority since 1947. still, census only happens in India due to a "set in time" North India/South India agreement, their version of slicing the tax pie, also happens under a frozen agreement, the various quota systems, including in the parliament, basically there are so many compromises made in the creation of an Indian nation state. Because identity matters, but, it only matters once it awakens for one reason or another, those reasons differ from situation to situation, and region to region. People are not carbon copies of each other, and neither are societies, they all move to their own tunes, and that effects how things unfold.

Iqbal was purely reflecting different stages in his life, in his writings, nothing more, nothing less. Just like he was a baby only few pounds in weight at birth, and dozens of kgs at death, his body had evolved, so did he, and his mind. That is the essence of Iqbal, and the essence of human beings across the world.

I don't dispute anything you say. Iqbal evolved over his lifetime, and he varied significantly; from outreach to Hindus (writing a poem in praise of Lord Ram, Hindu icons and his famous poem Naya Shivalya oft quoted by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh) ; to despair on the plight of Muslims globally. The only independent Muslim nation in his era was Turkey which was crushed by a combination of the Arab Revolt, and a defeat during World War One. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire affected Iqbal deeply.
So I agree that India transitioned and Iqbal evolved.
For argument's sake let's leave India out of the equation.
Lert's sum up the Ummah theorists arguments.

1. There is no place for nationalism in Islam.
2. The Muslims are one people termed the Ummah.
3. There is no such thing as ethnicity or culture in Islam
4. All Muslims must adhere to a Muslim culture
5. There is no truly Islamic state in the world .

So it follows by this logic,
1. Since there is no place for nationalism in Islam, there is no need for
nations in Islam so Pakistan as an "Islamic nation" is an oxymoron.
2. Since Muslims are one people then there is no point creating
nations, and Pakistan's creation was wrong since it split the Muslim population of the subcontinent into 3 and it's creation goes against the spirit of the Ummah which seeks to unite.
3. Since there is no such thing as ethnicity and culture in Islam then Pakistanis should stop observing Basant and stop speaking Punjabi ( and stop speaking Sindhi, Balochi, Pashto) as language is an important part of ethnicity and culture . Additionally these cultures are Hindu cultures.
4. All Muslims must adhere to Muslim culture ; which is presumed to be the culture of Arabia or more specifically the culture of Hejaz or modern Saudi Arabia. So it follows that Muslims (Pakistanis) should shed their Hindu culture, start speaking Arabic with a Gulf accent, wear tobe and gutra instead of salwar qameez and caps . At weddings Pakistani men should inhale the bakhoos and Pakistani women should start ululating at weddings ( practices that are at least 2200 years old ).

5. There is no Islamic state in the world and Muslims are compelled by their faith to migrate to an Islamic state or build one. So Pakistan is not an Islamic state and hence the creation of Pakistan is flawed. So by logic Kashmiris wishing to leave India and join Pakistan are making a mistake in their struggle.; because whether their struggle is successful or not either way they don't get to live in an Islamic State.

 

[lafete]

صرف ہندکئوں ؟
سجدے کی اجازت تو اور ملکوں میں ہیں جہاں الحمداللہ ہمارے براررن وطن اب مقیمُ ہیں
امریکہ برتانیا کناڈا اسٹدیلیا
Why only India? Muslims are permitted to perform sajda in most other countries where our brethren now reside, America, U.K, Canada, Australia etc.


20% of the world's Muslim population live as minorities and the largest Muslim minority population in the world are Indian Muslims. So the Muslims in India should migrate to live in an Islamic state and Pakistanis who migrated from Pakistan to live in Australia, North America, Britain should migrate out to live in an Islamic state ? Where should 180 million Indian Muslims go?



So Sindh, Baloch, Punjabi, Pashtun, Kashmiri cultures are all Hindu cultures. Wow ! The RSS would agree with you there except they say stick with your Hindu culture and revert to becoming Hindus ( whatever caste). Your contention is that Sindh, Baloch, Punjabis, Pashtuns should abandon their Hindu culture to adopt a Muslim culture. What exactly is the Muslim culture?
What was the culture of the Mughal's who married Hindu princesses observed Holi and Deepavali and other Hindu customs? Yet they ruled India for 200 years..
What is Muslim culture?
Do the "Saudi" Arabians who have the culture from the cradle of Islam have a Muslim culture? Must be, because the "Saudi" Arabians are certainly not a joke and have the courage to create everything, (even their own fighter jets and nuclear missiles.).

So going by your argument there is no Islamic state in the world, and
I agree with you that Pakistan is not an Islamic state ( whatever the name), then my question is even more relevant.

Why Pakistan?
Why should Pakistan exist ?

We should all merge together and try for a global Islamic Ummah state as we have been trying for 1300 years. Then as the Rashtriya Bhakt "Muslim" politicians of India say we should merge back with the Indian Muslim Ummah.
Likewise, the Kashmiri struggle from the point of view of the Ummah is also futile. How does it matter if Kashmiris are part of India or Pakistan, because in any case they won't be part of s true Islamic state.

Could you give me a link which says the 6th Faraiz is to live in an Islamic state, because then by that logic 1.8 billion Muslims are violating a basic tenet of their faith because there is no Islamic state.
As Mr.Spock would say "Logical "

Under Islamic law there are only 3 reasons that allow living in a non islamic state:
1) You were born in that country - that is your land
2) You are in that state to help Islam
3) You are in that state to acquire knowledge.

Now, the question for you is what is the added benefit from Allah for those pious people living in an Islamic state - What does Allah give them which he does not give others? What worldly benefit do you gain from living in an Islamic state?

The second question is that Islam is only 1500 years old. These sub continent cultures are how old? Who started them? What system of beliefs influenced them for the longest? What lies at their foundation?

For example here is what lies at the foundation of cultures influenced by Christianity:

According to the psychologist Helmut Schoeck, envy sits at the base of a primitive society and it also guarantees that such a society will remain primitive. He came to this conclusion after spending time with the American Red Indians, trying to understand their society and culture better. Christianity (and by the same logic Islam), with a strong belief in the non-worldly life and hereafter, allowed its societies to rise above pettiness and think about collaboration and the greater good. This is the reason why these societies have dominated world history as much as they have. Envy is the main differentiating factor between a primitive culture and an advance culture.

Why did the sahaba karam put an end to the Egyptian language and culture but spared the Persian and Turkish languages/Cultures, which became cultures influenced by Islam at their foundation? How did these cultures reform?

 

[Itachi]

@lafete ; @Itachi @tkmd @Apprentice

My question to those questioning "nationalism " is then why did we need a nation?
Why couldn't we be good Muslims within a united India?
If personal piety, adherence to the faith and unity with the Ummah is concerned then the Muslims of the subcontinent had been doing that for 1000 years in India.

This is EXACTLY the argument that the Congress Bhartiya Muslims, led by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Dr.Syed Mehmood, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Gani Khan Chaudhuri, Zakir Hussain, and the mullahs of the Jamait Ul Ulema e Hind make.
This is EXACTLY the argument that is sold to Indian Muslims by the RSS brand of Muslim leaders like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi.
Why Pakistan?
We are ALL brethren of the Ummah, So be steadfast in your faith as Muslims of the greater Ummah who merely reside in India.
By the argument of Jamait Ul Ulema e Hind, and Owaisi:

Why should Pakistan exist at all!

Did we all suddenly become Muslims on 14th August 1947?

"Indian" Muslims?

So far as we know most Indian Muslims still remember the ayats to say their namaz, pray on Fridays, some can read Arabic, they try to fast during Ramadan, offer zakat, observe the two Eids, and still manage to perform Hajj in sufficient numbers to warranty a special Hajj Terminal in Delhi. Some can still read and write Urdu, and the four main centers of the Islamic schools of thought in the subcontinent are all located in India. As far as we know they are steadfast in the belief of Tauheed and can recite the kalma e shahada. So the 5 pillars of Islam are maintained in the personal individual lives of Indian Muslims.

We were all Indian Muslims 73 years back.

So why Pakistan?

Would like to have an answer to this argument.

This is my response. Read & Watch it carefully. Then come back to me.

Under Islamic law there are only 3 reasons that allow living in a non islamic state:
1) You were born in that country - that is your land
2) You are in that state to help Islam
3) You are in that state to acquire knowledge.

Now, the question for you is what is the added benefit from Allah for those pious people living in an Islamic state - What does Allah give them which he does not give others? What worldly benefit do you gain from living in an Islamic state?

The second question is that Islam is only 1500 years old. These sub continent cultures are how old? Who started them? What system of beliefs influenced them for the longest? What lies at their foundation?

For example here is what lies at the foundation of cultures influenced by Christianity:

According to the psychologist Helmut Schoeck, envy sits at the base of a primitive society and it also guarantees that such a society will remain primitive. He came to this conclusion after spending time with the American Red Indians, trying to understand their society and culture better. Christianity (and by the same logic Islam), with a strong belief in the non-worldly life and hereafter, allowed its societies to rise above pettiness and think about collaboration and the greater good. This is the reason why these societies have dominated world history as much as they have. Envy is the main differentiating factor between a primitive culture and an advance culture.

Why did the sahaba karam put an end to the Egyptian language and culture but spared the Persian and Turkish languages/Cultures, which became cultures influenced by Islam at their foundation? How did these cultures reform?

Asking the right questions. Sadly too many are poisoned by liberalism and secularism. Also by ignorant Mullahs.

 

[Itachi]

I like your line of thinking, and would rather view this as a spectator, then get involved.

But, I wanted to highlight an obvious fallacy in your statement, I do not blame you as we have been raised in that environment, where thinking was a crime, and following the existing dogma was almost religious.

You have given India a historical perspective akin to a nationhood. I think it would be wise, or at the very least better, that we start referring to the period of before 1947 as the "India region", rather then implicitly given it a recognition as a historical nation/country, by referring to it as "India" in a singular sense. Narratives matter, and by adopting the name India, it messed up the history of our region. Our intellectuals, have been intellectually lazy in presenting a valid counter argument, but its time to put a stop to it.

India to be used only if it is mentioned in the context of modern nation state of "India", prior to that, either "British India" for the period describing under British rule, never failing to use "British" India, and "India region" for the rest of the history unless obviously discussing or describing a particular empire or kingdom.

Old habits die hard, but we have to start somewhere.
If anyone has a counter viewpoint, and wishes to have a valid discussion, on the above points, I am happy to participate.

Exactly, India was never united. It was only united under Ashoka (Buddhist), Maurya (Hindu or whatever; only once under a Hindu in a 3,000 years old civilization), the Mughals & the Brits.

Today's India is as old as Pakistan. And the future is again a divided India. Hazrat SAW has predicted this and Hindutvas will themselves build such a future....brick by brick.

Anyone inspired by India or the West is just digging themselves a 10-ft grave. I and others will bury them inside it.

 

[Adonis]

We are Pakistan's First ....

It is necessary now as never before to emphasize our identity.

We are Pakistanis, dwellers of Sindh, Baluchistan, KPK, Gilgit, Baltistan, Punjab and Azad Kashmir. We are defined by a common cultural thread of Saraiki linking our provinces and our peoples.
Ours is an ancient culture going back to the dawn of civilization established in the Indus River Valley 5400 years ago. We have evolved over the centuries absorbing other cultures and religions.

Over the last 50 years our cultural and national identity has been transformed and redefined.
We are redefining our cultural traditions to as they were centuries back with deep roots to Central Asia and the Middle East. In dress, language, and cuisine we are now different than we were 50 years back. Few nations in the world have culturally transformed so rapidly.

To further redefine it is necessary to emphasize who we are NOT...
Pakistanis are Not :

1. "Indian" Muslims - We are not part of "India", and yes a majority of our
population is Muslim, but religion is not the only defining feature of our national
identity.
We have no connection with the Muslim population of "India" as defined by its
territory today.

2. "West" Pakistanis - There is no "East" or "West" Pakistan but simply Pakistan.


3. "South" Asians- Pakistanis are Asians and our population similarity is with West or Central
Asia.

What do PDF members think?

Are the other South Asian populations at all relevant to us?

Let's be clear...Pakistan First should not be Establishment First.

Pakistan consists of 25 million individuals, thousand of years old culture, rich land mass......it does not limit to few individuals who think "Me First". What Pakistan is today is due to the blunders made by these individuals in the last 73 years....from a progressive country with modern culture that I witnessed, we have gone down the drain....and have made ourselves one of the least liked people of one of the least respected state on earth.

Nationalism means love for the land, it's people, culture.....it comes from within the masses and cannot be forced upon them.... Built you system first...make Pakistan a welfare state...change will come...
Untill few power / money hungry vultures (both politicians and Generals) keep deciding our fate...Pakistan will keep slipping into abyss.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Under Islamic law there are only 3 reasons that allow living in a non islamic state:
1) You were born in that country - that is your land
2) You are in that state to help Islam
3) You are in that state to acquire knowledge.

Now, the question for you is what is the added benefit from Allah for those pious people living in an Islamic state - What does Allah give them which he does not give others? What worldly benefit do you gain from living in an Islamic state?

Thanks
Is there an Islamic state anywhere today? You said in your previous post there isn't any.
So taking your rules for living in a non-Islamic state.

1). You were born in that country - that is your land
73 years back all Pakistanis were citizens of a united India which was
non-Islamic and were born there.
So we should have continued living as Indians

2) You are in that state to help Islam.
So once again that applies to Indian Muslims because they are helping Islam, The two most important Islamic seminaries , Darul Uloom Deoband, and Nadwatul Uloom, are located in that territory and the Partition did not leave a single traditional school of the Uloom in either Pakistan or Bangladesh.

3) You are in that state to acquire knowledge.

Once again, that applies to Indian Muslims because the foremost Muslim universities, where knowledge is acquired are Jamia Milllia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University, Hamdard Tibbi University, Osmania University, Darul Rashad, are all located in the non-Islamic Hindu region.The Khuda Baksh Library, and Madarsa e Shamshul Huda, with its rare manuscripts going back 1000 years is also located in a non-Islamic Hindu region.
90% of the Islamic documentation of the region going back 1000 years and the works of Maulana Shibli Nomani, Ashraf Thanvi, Syed Sulaiman Nadvi are all located here with three schools of fiq and a Darul Qaza located in all provinces. There is also an Emarat e Shariah with branches in all provinces as well as the common funded Auqaf to sponsor students studying in all major disciplines of science and technology. The Maulana Azad Medical College and the Jamia Millia School of Engineering turn out top rated doctors and engineers. The Jamia Millia school of Mass Communications, Media and Journalism produces top notch TV journalists.

AMU leads the region in Geology and Petroleum engineering, eye surgery and a host of other medical disciplines.

There are no parallels to Dar ul Uloom Deoband anywhere in Pakistan. Not a single Pakistani educated Muslim scholar or theologian has published any work of significance. Even Tahir Qadri comes nowhere close to Indian educated Maulana Maududi and Shibli Nomani.

So my question is why Pakistan ? Why was Pakistan created when Muslims were full filling all the above reasons for residing in a non-Islamic state.

The second question is that Islam is only 1500 years old. These sub continent cultures are how old? Who started them? What system of beliefs influenced them for the longest? What lies at their foundation?

Agreed, so lets dump all the culture before 1500 years and we can advise the Saudi Arabs to stop sniffing the bakhoose.

For example here is what lies at the foundation of cultures influenced by Christianity:

According to the psychologist Helmut Schoeck, envy sits at the base of a primitive society and it also guarantees that such a society will remain primitive. He came to this conclusion after spending time with the American Red Indians, trying to understand their society and culture better. Christianity (and by the same logic Islam), with a strong belief in the non-worldly life and hereafter, allowed its societies to rise above pettiness and think about collaboration and the greater good. This is the reason why these societies have dominated world history as much as they have. Envy is the main differentiating factor between a primitive culture and an advance culture.

Ok, so Christianity got diluted by the cultures of the region it was adopted. So Islamic culture lies in the Hejaz, so let's dance with swords, sniff bakhoos, drink camel milk, and put a whole roasted sheep in a tray and pluck the eyes out of the head and eat it . Also we must learn to ululate at weddings, marry and divorce as many times we want as long as we keep four wives, and also keep slaves. We will try convict and behead by laws of Qasas according to the Hambali firqah and abolish district, high courts and supreme courts. Better still we can simply surrender our country to a certain Arab bedouin tribe the House of Saud to rule us because after all, they are of the Ummah and what is more they are the Khadim Al Harmain Sharifain,
The best way to kickstart an Ummah would be to hand over our territories to the Aley Saud.
Why Pakistan?

 

[Baibars_1260]

View attachment 709314

This is my response. Read & Watch it carefully. Then come back to me.


Asking the right questions. Sadly too many are poisoned by liberalism and secularism. Also by ignorant Mullahs.

So why Pakistan? Why not ask the Ale Saud to come over and rule us?
That will save us from the Hindu culture. " Saudi " Arabia is a country that rules solely by the Quran and Sunnah and has no Western Style Constitution. So why don't we adopt that style of Governance.
General Zia ul Haq declared a Nizam e Mustafa but depended on Western established courts to carry out his commands and depended on Western aid to fight the godless communists in Afghanistan.
Why ?
Why Pakistan?

 

[Itachi]

So why Pakistan? Why not ask the Ale Saud to come over and rule us?
That will save us from the Hindu culture. " Saudi " Arabia is a country that rules solely by the Quran and Sunnah and has no Western Style Constitution. So why don't we adopt that style of Governance.
General Zia ul Haq declared a Nizam e Mustafa but depended on Western established courts to carry out his commands and depended on Western aid to fight the godless communists in Afghanistan.
Why ?
Why Pakistan?

Your question and thoughts are very wrong...

Shows that I shouldn't waste my time with you....just a hint. Islam doesn't belong to Arabs or non-Arabs.

Get out of this sick mentality. Islam belongs to whoever follows it. Currently, the best Muslims are Afghans, Chechens and some Turks. The worst being Arabs, followed by Pakistanis and the South East Asian Muslims...

You're also looking to the future with the lens of the past. Don't.

The future is very different and the Bastion of Islam will be those who work towards it. It might take, 10, 20 or 50 years but someone will get there.

Why Pakistan?

Because only Israel & Pakistan have been made on the basis of religion. Israeli constitution is their holy book. They have the mercy and help of Allah.

Whereas so called "Muslims" will get their *** whopped by them if they don't follow the Sunnah, the Shariyat or Islam.