Pakistan should not become like Iran says Iranian-American political commentator

[ThunderCat]

Hindu was used to refer to people who lived in the Indian sub-continent and followed a Dharmic religion.



You have nothing more in common with IVC than you do with the Sumerians.



Yes it is lol.



What do you mean "like all other Muslims"? Your statement is not only one of kufr, but is also factually wrong lol:

"Hindu" means people of the Indus. Those "dharmic religions" have commonality with one another and none of their sacred texts mention "Hinduism". Unless you can find some

We might not be IVC derived, but we still evolved from the Indus.

"Urdu" comes from "Zaban-i-Ordu" which Hindustani became known as as late as the 17th century. Just like Punjabi which is written in two scripts, Hindustani written in nastaliq script, which is known as Urdu just s Hindi is the variety of Hindustani written in devenagri script. So no, Urdu is not a language, but a variety of a language.

If you looked at the ratios, Pakistanis see themselves as Muslims first more so than Arabs or Turks or others.

And of course you oppose pride in nationality, as long as it's not pride in Arabs or Persians, because we become nationalistic on their behalf from iraq to Paaltine. But another nationalist for our own selves is "betraying Islam".

We are not Arabs, we are not "Indians" we are not Iranians, we are not Turks, we are Pakistanis and always will be.

 

[Hamza913]

"Hindu" means people of the Indus.

It has been used to refer to all people from the Indian sub-continent that follow a Dharmic religion.

We might not be IVC derived, but we still evolved from the Indus.

You're forgetting about the many Pakistanis whose families came from what is now the Republic of India during partition, many of the Pashtun tribes that came to the Indus from Afghanistan, the Hazaras that came with the Mongols, the Balochis who came from other parts of the Iranian Plateau, etc. We're a mixed bag, trying to paint all of us with a single ethnic/racial identity will not work.

"Urdu" comes from "Zaban-i-Ordu" which Hindustani became known as as late as the 17th century. Just like Punjabi which is written in two scripts, Hindustani written in nastaliq script, which is known as Urdu just s Hindi is the variety of Hindustani written in devenagri script. So no, Urdu is not a language, but a variety of a language.

Urdu and Hindi have developed some pretty significant differences over-time, mainly in terms of the vocabulary used. They are, in essence, two different languages and as a result are considered such.

If you looked at the ratios, Pakistanis see themselves as Muslims first more so than Arabs or Turks or others.

Irrelevant, plenty of Arabs and Turks still clearly see themselves as Muslim first too. And it's not like Pakistanis aren't proper Muslims, we have the world's 2nd largest Muslim population. Islam is intertwined with our culture as much as it is for the Arabs or Turks.

And of course you oppose pride in nationality, as long as it's not pride in Arabs or Persians

No, I don't care what ethnicity or nationality you come from, Islam must come first otherwise you're not a real Muslim.

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

Pakistan's problem is that it hasn't picked any model. It waffles along trying to be both a secular and sharia nation. You can't have it both ways.

Bingo

 

[Progressive1]

our role model should be West/Europe not countries like Iran/Saudi Arab

 

[Arsalan 345]

They are all Muslims according to Council of Madina, whether Wahhabi/Salafi/Ahle Hadees or Shias Ithna Ashari/Ismaili. It is not allowed to ban them from Hajj or exclude them.

They believe in One Allah and Muhammad saws as the last prophet. That is the ultimate criteria for Islam. This is why Ahmadiyyas fall outside.

That’s enough from me because religious discussion is not allowed here.

you have no right to say that sunnis are quite common like shias.i don't care about islamic council.how can you believe in a religion created by someone in 1700? this is what wahhabi believes and i don't care what they think about themselves.nobody cares.end of discussion.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

And of course you oppose pride in nationality, as long as it's not pride in Arabs or Persians, because we become nationalistic on their behalf from iraq to Paaltine. But another nationalist for our own selves is "betraying Islam".

Right bro. Pakistanis will fight tooth and nail for Palestine, but many become woefully silent on Kashmir. What kind of sense does that make?

Thread been hijacked by medieval mullah doctrine - - - - - - -. Immediate CAS requested.
Good job @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

We Muslims should be 100% united. It only serves the interests of our enemies to be divided.

I will defend Wahhabi, Salafi, Shia brothers until the end, otherwise every Tom, Dick, and Harry will create his own sect and declare others Kaffir, just like Khawarij such as Daesh and Hizb it Tahrir.

Ours is a religion of order and law, not chaos. There are ways of declaring sects as Non-Muslim, and certain criteria we must follow. That decision is best left with the muftis of Islam.

 

[ThunderCat]

It has been used to refer to all people from the Indian sub-continent that follow a Dharmic religion

Wrong. It was anyone of the Indus. It became a word to distinguish Muslim from non-Muslim, but that doesn't mean all the non-Muslim pagans are "one religion" in anyway.

You're forgetting about the many Pakistanis whose families came from what is now the Republic of India during partition, many of the Pashtun tribes that came to the Indus from Afghanistan, the Hazaras that came with the Mongols, the Balochis who came from other parts of the Iranian Plateau, etc. We're a mixed bag, trying to paint all of us with a single ethnic/racial identity will not work.

You're calling my views "kuffr" while acknowledging some fantasy "partition" there was no partition as India did not exist. And neither was Pakistan a part of it.

Urdu and Hindi have developed some pretty significant differences over-time, mainly in terms of the vocabulary used. They are, in essence, two different languages and as a result are considered such.

Yeah like Devanagri and Nastaliq Punjabi? Who considers them different? Everyone calls it Punjabi regardless of scripts. Linguistically Hindi and Urdu are the same language, Hindustani, but with different scripts obviously. Linguistics recognizes them as a single language but with different varieties. Just like science and mathematics recognizes the Earth to be round. Linguistic classification works as such, not around politics.

Irrelevant, plenty of Arabs and Turks still clearly see themselves as Muslim first too. And it's not like Pakistanis aren't proper Muslims, we have the world's 2nd largest Muslim population. Islam is intertwined with our culture as much as it is for the Arabs or Turks.

No it is not. I consider a Pakistani christian the same culture as mine, even if the religion is different.

No, I don't care what ethnicity or nationality you come from, Islam must come first otherwise you're not a real Muslim.

I could say the same about you. Besides do you believe serving the interests of Arabs or Iranians over your own country brings you closer to the path? Where does it say? Either fight and die for Arabs, Afghans or Iranians otherwise you no-Muslim. No logic in that.

We do not descend from Arabs. Even haplogroup charts show minimal Arab genetic influence in Pakistan. We are people of the Indus who practice whatever religion. Why should we pretend to be of Arab descent to be accepted as Muslims?

 

[Hamza913]

Wrong. It was anyone of the Indus.

No, the term was used for people from what is now the Republic of India too. In fact, people from KPK, Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan and sometimes even Sindh were not considered to be part of Hind.

It became a word to distinguish Muslim from non-Muslim

So why are you arguing?

there was no partition as India did not exist.

Yeah like Devanagri and Nastaliq Punjabi?

I think you mean Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi. And no, that's not the same. Urdu and Hindi are recognised as distinct languages. The vocabulary of the two is different, particularly when one uses formal Urdu.

No it is not. I consider a Pakistani christian the same culture as mine, even if the religion is different.

That's not what I said, you're misunderstanding the point. Most Pakistanis would say they feel closer to a Muslim from outside of Pakistan than a Kafir from Pakistan, and that's how Muslims are supposed to feel. That's not to say we look at Kafirs from Pakistan with disgust, but we are obviously rather distant from them ideologically and (to a certain extent) culturally.

I could say the same about you.

No you can't lol. I'm not an ethno-nationalist.

Besides do you believe serving the interests of Arabs or Iranians over your own country brings you closer to the path? Where does it say? Either fight and die for Arabs, Afghans or Iranians otherwise you no-Muslim. No logic in that.

I never said that, you're putting words in my mouth to try and make me look bad.

But if you insist on discussing the topic, Muslims should help other Muslims, regardless of ethnicity. Islam is not compatible with ethno-nationalism, it's a global religion which is meant to unite humanity rather than divide it further.

We do not descend from Arabs. Even haplogroup charts show minimal Arab genetic influence in Pakistan.

Again, I never mentioned this, but since you brought it up:

https://www.harappadna.org/2012/05/harappaworld-admixture/ (SW Asian admixture comes from Arabia and the Levant)

Kashmiri Paharis (overwhelmingly Muslim): 2% SW Asian admixture
Kashmiri Pandits (overwhelmingly not Muslim): 0% SW Asian admixture

Punjabi Arains (overwhelmingly Muslim): 2% SW Asian admixture
Muslim Punjabi Jatts: 2% SW Asian admixture
Punjabi Brahmins: 0% SW Asian admixture

Muslim Gujaratis: 4% SW Asian admixture
Gujarati Patels (overwhelmingly not Muslim): 0% SW Asian admixture

Muslim Punjabi Gujjar, obtained 3% SW Asian admixture

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12411-Pakistani-Gujjar-Results-Harappa

Here are some studies on Muslim Gujjars from north-western India, they are shown to be genetically and physically distinct from their non-Muslim counterparts:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3163234

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3812661

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14524001

 

[YeBeWarned]

I’m almost done reading his book, “No god but God.” Pick it up. You will change your mind instantly.

Iranian religious political views are very similar to Deobandis. Sunni Hanafis have a lot more in common with Shia Ithna Asharis than other mazhabs. Imran Khan is a Deobandi too.

which part of his book you find offensive or wrong ?

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

which part of his book you find offensive or wrong ?

I am actually writing a list of some points, which I will probably put online when I finish.

I will share some of those points here.

Reza Aslan’s false statements


-degrades status of Makkah

-claimed prophet was not seen as a threat, by he was seen as pagan priest

-denied prophet as illiterate

-degrade status of Madinah

-claimed Arabs owned lowly land, only Jews owned good land in Madinah

-reject constitution of Madinah as a document

-claim only khazraj embraces Islam first

-rejection of hadith

-reject hijab as part of Islam

-claimed Muhammad was first only a social-political leader in Madina, later accepted as pr other by Madina

-false accusations against Omar as misogynist and hateful and including saying he claimed verses left out of Quran!

-claimed Hadith were made by wealth and power to preserve dominance after prophet

-Ummah concept as only tribe, claims Muslims became qawm later

-supporting feminists, even claiming Quran has misogynistic verses. To separate from culture.

-Ummah includes Christians and Jews

-Islam accepts Them as believers and not disbelievers

-Islam did not try to supersede but exist along with

-taking Shia position of Ali In place of Abu Bakr as khalifah and advocating political reasons for it (growing power of Ahlul bayt, separation of religion/secular)

-claimed ansar picked own successor and then supported Ali

-false allegation of violence on ansar and Ahlul bayt

-rejection of death for apostates, saying apostasy equals treason since riddah wars

-false allegation of hate of Abu bakr and Aisha to Ali, claiming Ali advocates divorce to prophet and supposedly earned their anger

-allegation that Abu bakr did revenge on Ali and Ahlul bayt

-allegation of sidelining Ali by Umar and Usman

-claims Usman was despotic and brought back Umayyas

-claims he himself caused hate against himself

 

[YeBeWarned]

I am actually writing a list of some points, which I will probably put online when I finish.

I will share some of those points here.

Reza Aslan’s false statements


-degrades status of Makkah

-claimed prophet was not seen as a threat, by he was seen as pagan priest

-denied prophet as illiterate

-degrade status of Madinah

-claimed Arabs owned lowly land, only Jews owned good land in Madinah

-reject constitution of Madinah as a document

-claim only khazraj embraces Islam first

-rejection of hadith

-reject hijab as part of Islam

-claimed Muhammad was first only a social-political leader in Madina, later accepted as pr other by Madina

-false accusations against Omar as misogynist and hateful and including saying he claimed verses left out of Quran!

-claimed Hadith were made by wealth and power to preserve dominance after prophet

-Ummah concept as only tribe, claims Muslims became qawm later

-supporting feminists, even claiming Quran has misogynistic verses. To separate from culture.

-Ummah includes Christians and Jews

-Islam accepts Them as believers and not disbelievers

-Islam did not try to supersede but exist along with

-taking Shia position of Ali In place of Abu Bakr as khalifah and advocating political reasons for it (growing power of Ahlul bayt, separation of religion/secular)

-claimed ansar picked own successor and then supported Ali

-false allegation of violence on ansar and Ahlul bayt

-rejection of death for apostates, saying apostasy equals treason since riddah wars

-false allegation of hate of Abu bakr and Aisha to Ali, claiming Ali advocates divorce to prophet and supposedly earned their anger

-allegation that Abu bakr did revenge on Ali and Ahlul bayt

-allegation of sidelining Ali by Umar and Usman

-claims Usman was despotic and brought back Umayyas

-claims he himself caused hate against himself

its been a while i read his book , things you mention sound shady but i can't comment until they are mentioned with proper context .

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

its been a while i read his book , things you mention sound shady but i can't comment until they are mentioned with proper context .

Pick up the book yourself and go through it. Reza Aslan mentions in the introduction that he is an Agnostic, rejects hadith, and claims the Quran was altered.

He does not hide his religious views, in fact he is very proud of them. The parable he gives to defend his following the Muslim route is because all religions are equally true and no one knows the truth but he dug his deepest ditch in Islam, being from a Muslim background.

Throughout his book he quotes mainly biased Non-Muslim western authors, and refutes Muslim scholars, authors, and movements throughout his book.

its been a while i read his book , things you mention sound shady but i can't comment until they are mentioned with proper context .

Its simply a personal list I have been jotting down for my own use.

Reza Aslan is being heavily promoted as a model and liberal ‘Muslim’ author by many American Muslims. I was recommended this book so I picked it up. Read halfway so far.

 

[My-Analogous]

This is for all Pakistanis who promote Iran as a role model for Pakistan:

Garbage in and Garbage out. Who is he think himself? First he have to do research on Islam before open his mouth

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

@Starlord I will post the first part of my list later on. That one is even more baffling.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

@Starlord

problems with reza aslan 'no god but God'
-----
-belief that prophet did idolatry
-misplacing the hanifs role in islam
-hanifs extent in arabia is wrong
-rejecting the birth year of prophet
-rejecting miracles of hazrat amina and prophet
-rejecting divine source of kaaba and zamzam
-wrong teaching of Allah swt as 'sky god'

Reza Aslan wrote in his book that Hanifs, whose role he overplayed, were around preaching monotheistic religions before Prophet Muhammad saws and he claimed that Prophet Muhammad saws plagiarized it. He also expresses doubt of Prophet Muhammad saws being one entity. He claims they could very well be various people amalgamated into one story.

As you know, this would definitely put him out of the fold of Islam.