Pakistan was created on the basis of group nationalism and not religion

[Myth_buster_1]

Even the people of Mecca believed in a polythiestic belief like hindusim before Islam. In Islam, it doesnt matter what your ancestors believed in, it matters what you believe in.

And JInnah was born in Karachi and died in Karachi. Karachi was always part of Sindh. All of Sindh is in Pakistan. There are also some people who believe he had Persian ancestry.

Jinnah's ancestors were Hindu they later converted to Ismaili and Mind you the Aga Khans were big time British servants and their relationship started 1000 years ago during the Crusades. Later for some reason he became Shai however he never was a practicing Muslim sirif nam ka.

And when they meet those who believe, they say: we believe,
but when they are alone with their devils, they say:
we are with you, we are just making fun of them.
(Qur’an, Surah al-Baqarah, verse 14)

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Again you people think the indians of british raj are the same as present day indians,

During british raj we were slaves, our country was occupied and we were given the identity of indian by brits, we indus people have more right over the name india given the fact it came out of our river indus.

I'd be ashmed of calling myself a name which comes from a river which lies in my enemy country

who says you are the people of the indus.

people of the entire indian subcontinent who lived beyond the indus river were referred to as indians which includes modern day indians and pakistanis .

If some of those indians decided to call themselves pakistani for some reason does not mean that all other indians are also obligated to change their name.

again read an unbiased history book froma non pakistani source.

 

[TheStrantrunCurve]

Before independence even 'modern-day' Pakistanis were referred to as Indians.

Participants from the Indian subcontinent in the First World War

I agree sir, but that was colonial term, it was more associated with slavery, now its different.

Please differentiate between an empire and country, Before 47 there was an empire known as Brit Indian empire but now it a country known as india, Obviously the two are not the same, We were forced to accept this indian identity not by our choice, we both shared the name British indian

 

[53fd]

Thanks for putting your time in thinking and responding unlike some other members.

That is an excellent point. So Qadri was a zealot, can we apply the same logic to other zealots and extremists that "claim" to be Deobandi? Espicially since the same Deoband school has condemened their actions wether it be Taliban or suicide bombings. Lets not have double standards.

There is a difference between the top leadership and a "non-person's" words and actions. As far as I am concerned, the Deoband Ulema leadership has only recently started condemning actions, when they started feeling threatened that it would be closed down, for their own sake, not for the sake of Indian Muslims. It never condemned the actions of SIMI and the IM, and has aided "extremist ideology" into these groups in the past that committed violence in India.

Sipah-e-Muhammad Pakistan and Tehrik-e-Jafria that have a shia base of support and Sunni Thereek that has a Barelvi base.

Personally, I have not balmed Barelvi school of thought or Shias for violence.

Sipah-e-Muhammad is a fringe militant groups. It has even been accused by some of not being "Itna-Ashra". The main leadership body for Shias in Pakistan is the Tehreek-e-Jafaria, & everyone follows them. Dar-uloom Deoband is a mainstream body that represents a huge no. of Muslims in India, & it hadn't condemned violence by IM & SIMI in the past. It has only started doing so after it felt "threatened".

I am talking about since the 80s and 90s, not just now. And I think the idea that most think about Afghan Taliban good and Pakistani Taliban bad is symptomatic of a problem that affects even policy establishment in Pakistan.

Pakistan has not been accused of forming the Afghan Taliban in 1996. Pakistan's ISI & the CIA formed the Mujahideen group in the '80s that consisted of Mullah Umar, Hekmetyar, Ahmad Shah Masood & other people. The Afghan Taliban, Hizb-e-Gulbudeen and the Northern Alliance were the off-shoot of the Mujahideen. Pakistan even supported Ahmed Shah Masood & Hekmetyar against Dostum & Najibullah. The ethnic Afghans (Mullah Umar, Haqqani) formed the Taliban, not Pakistan. The role of Pakistan's involvement has never been proven. Quote me one statement by a major international official or Pakistani official that says "Pakistan formed the Taliban, & supports it". Show me one CONCLUSIVE, SUBSTANTIATED piece of evidence that unequivocally indicts Pakistan's involvement in supporting the Taliban. Senior officials say stuff like "Pakistan should do more to root out safe havens. Pakistan hasn't done enough". Pakistan's FATA tribal regions are governed by Pashtunwali, not Pakistani law. Not doing enough does not mean Pakistan formed the Taliban or supports it in anyway. No one says that the "Pakistani government/intelligence supports the Taliban." It is only hearsay & speculation by journalists.

The indigenous Kashmir movement was secular in character. There was no Jihad and Islam when the JKLF was fighting agains teh army. It was mainly Pakistani based groups like LeT, Hizb e.t.c that moved the secular sepratist agenda to an Islamic Jihad one and the calls for Ghazwa Hind

Pakistan has a lot of stakes in Kashmir, because it considers it it's rightful land. If India hadn't been indiscriminately killing Kashmiri people, they wouldn't see the radicalization of the Kashmiri people. You reap what you sow my friend.

A covert war is one that is fought without declaring a full scale war. And this is what Pakistan is doing. Remember the Kargil War, there was no declaration of war then either. In any case, if Pakistan wants to get Kashmir through war, please do so, but dont' call it Jihad. That is my main point.

Prove to me that Pakistan is still involved in Kashmir. You are talking about the past my friend. Pakistan isn't calling it Jihad, the local Kashmiri people are.

There you go on a tangent again. The Jamiat Ulema -i- Hind explicitly said that religion has nothing to do with terrorism and that they will not use the term Hindu terrorism when describing terrorism committed by Hindu extremists. But that doesn't mean they have taken it up and condemened it.

The Kashmiri people clearly have no trust in the Indian Muslim leadership, as they see them as puppets to the Indian regime. The reason for this is that the Indian Muslim leadership has not condemned the terrorism committed by the Indian Army against them.

And "ideological funding" to SIMI? Do you know what was SIMI core goal. Do you know the differnece between a school of thought like Deobanid/Barelvi/Salafi and a political religious ideology like political Islam or Zionism or Hindutva?

Most students of the IM were "educated" in, & followed the Deobandi ideology of the Dar-uloom Deoband. Which is where they got radicalized from. I clearly know the differences between Deobandis, Salafis/Ahle-Hadis/Wahabis, Barelvis etc. Just to make it clear, the Afghan Taliban is Deobandi, Al-Qaeda is Salafi, the TTP is a mixture of Deobandi & Salafi. If you want me to explain all of this, I gladly will. It doesn't matter whether their or SIMI's actions are condemened (out of fear of being shut down) or not by the Dar uloom Deoband, the fact that most of the students/fighters got radicalized from their ideology just shows how dangerous they are. Without the Dar-Uloom Deoband in India, there would never have been a Taliban today. Fact.

 

[53fd]

When did i ever say that ancient Indian history belongs only to the the modern republic of India ?.

Many Indians do my friend, especially to belittle Pakistan in every little way they can, & then changing their arguments after they contradict themselves about Pakistan "rejecting their Indian values/heritage".

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

There is a difference between the top leadership and a "non-person's" words and actions. As far as I am concerned, the Deoband Ulema leadership has only recently started condemning actions, when they started feeling threatened that it would be closed down, for their own sake, not for the sake of Indian Muslims. It never condemned the actions of SIMI and the IM, and has aided "extremist ideology" into these groups in the past that committed violence in India.




Both these groups are fringe militant groups. Some of them have even been accused of not being "Itna-Ashra". The main leadership body for Shias in Pakistan is the Tehreek-e-Jafaria, & everyone follows them. Dar-uloom Deoband is a mainstream body that represents a huge majority of Muslims in India, & it had not condemned violence by IM & SIMI in the past. It has only started doing so after it starting feeling threatened.



Pakistan has not been accused of forming the Afghan Taliban in 1996. Pakistan's ISI & the CIA formed the Mujahideen group in the '80s that consisted of Mullah Umar, Hekmetyar, Ahmad Shah Masood & other people. The Afghan Taliban, Hizb-e-Gulbudeen and the Northern Alliance were the off-shoot of the Mujahideen. Pakistan even supported Ahmed Shah Masood and Hekmetyar (non-Taliban) against Dostum & Najibullah. The ethnic Afghans (Mullah Umar, Haqqani) formed the Taliban, not Pakistan. The role of Pakistan's involvement has never been proven. Quote me one statement by a major international official or Pakistani official that says "Pakistan formed the Taliban, & supports it". They say stuff like "Pakistan should do more. Pakistan hasn't done enough". Not doing enough does not mean Pakistan formed the Taliban or supports it in anyway. It is only hearsay & speculation by journalists.




Pakistan has a lot of stakes in Kashmir, because it considers it it's rightful land. If India hadn't been indiscriminately killing Kashmiri people, they wouldn't see the radicalization of the Kashmiri people. You reap what you sow my friend.




Prove to me that Pakistan is still involved in Kashmir. You are talking about the past my friend. Pakistan isn't calling it Jihad, the local Kashmiri people are.




The Kashmiri people clearly have no trust in the Indian Muslim leadership, as they see them as puppets to the Indian regime. The reason for this is that the Indian Muslim leadership has not condemned the terrorism committed by the Indian Army against them.




Most students of the IM were "educated" in, & followed the ideology of the Dar-uloom Deoband. Which is where they got radicalized from. I clearly know the differences between Deobandis, Salafis/Ahle-Hadis/Wahabis, Barelvis etc. Just to make it clear, the Afghan Taliban is Deobandi, Al-Qaeda is Salafi, the TTP is a mixture of Deobandi & Salafi. If you want me to explain all of this, I gladly will. It doesn't matter whether their or SIMI's actions are condemened (out of fear of being shut down) or not by the Dar uloom Deoband, the fact that most of the students/fighters got radicalized from their ideology just shows how dangerous they are. Without the Dar-Uloom Deoband in India, there would never have been a Taliban today. Fact.

There are many deobandis in India , this school f thought originated in medieval india of which most of pakistan was a part , how come there is a Taliban in afghanistan and Pakistan but none in India ?

 

[KS]

I agree sir, but that was colonial term, it was more associated with slavery, now its different.

Please differentiate between an empire and country, Before 47 there was an empire known as Brit Indian empire but now it a country known as india, Obviously the two are not the same, We were forced to accept this indian identity not by our choice, we both shared the name British indian

But did you not say that the British equated Indians with dogs. Obviously that was also a colonial term which means they equated present day Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis with dogs.

And believe no Indian wants anything to do with Pakistan. Be happy where you are.

 

[TheStrantrunCurve]

The identity of India or Hind, Hindustan or other variations has been there for many thousands of years. The greeks, persians and Arabs referred to people living east of the Indus river as Hindi or Hindus. That includes present day Pakistan.

Allama Iqbal and Jinnah had no shame in calling themselves Indian and were infact proud of being one. So its upto you really.

All these name mean colonialism, Hindustan was name given by muslims invaders, india by greeks,

However i disagree with you that the name hind, india was applied to both india pakistan,

name Hindustan only became popular after the capture of delhi, Note pakistan region was already under muslim control for 300 years but was never called hindustan,
Arabs called us sindh and land east of sind as hind.

Persian gave the name hindush to the territories occupied by it, they never occupied any part of india,

Alexander's india wass different than british india, Alexander india is more pakistan and british india is more south asia.

So there is clearly a distinction between the indus land(pakistan) and land east of indus(hindustan)

 

[Vinod2070]

Many Indians do my friend, especially to belittle Pakistan in every little way they can, & then changing their arguments after they contradict themselves about Pakistan "rejecting their Indian values/heritage".

It is true! You are taught that your history starts with Bin Qasim.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Many Indians do my friend, especially to belittle Pakistan in every little way they can, & then changing their arguments after they contradict themselves about Pakistan "rejecting their Indian values/heritage".

mmm i dont agree with that , its mostly pakistani who try to claim arab , persian and turkic ancestry . Lets agree to disagree here .

 

[Myth_buster_1]

No matter what Indians try to prove Pakistan is now part of Muslims and Insallah one day it will be ruled according to Islam.
And oh. T-ban is a b@stard child of CIA and the Islam they promote is nothing but a tool to destroy the name of Islam.

 

[TheStrantrunCurve]

But did you not say that the British equated Indians with dogs. Obviously that was also a colonial term which means they equated present day Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis with dogs.

And believe no Indian wants anything to do with Pakistan. Be happy where you are.

I was trying to say india had become more like a humiliating name during brits time and nehru should chosen something indigenous and not something meaning slavery

 

[KS]

T
Pakistan has a lot of stakes in Kashmir, because it considers it it's rightful land. If India hadn't been indiscriminately killing Kashmiri people, they wouldn't see the radicalization of the Kashmiri people. You reap what you sow my friend.

If Pakistani backed tribals irregulars had not invaded the independent princely state of Kashmir in 1948 Indian Army would not have been there in the first place. And as for what Pakistan considers about Kashmir - Does it matter at all ?

Prove to me that Pakistan is still involved in Kashmir. You are talking about the past my friend. Pakistan isn't calling it Jihad, the local Kashmiri people are.

Then what is Hafiz Sayed doing when he calls for jihad in Kashmir, gives ads in newspapers wanting money for the same , What is Syed Salahuddin doing in Pakistani Kashmir ?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

It is true! You are taught that your history starts with Bin Qasim.

Federal Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education (FBISE) Islamabad

Syllabus HISTORY OF PAKISTAN For Class IX (marks 75)

1. Ancient Indus Valley Civilization, Vedic Age, Later Vedic Age, Greeks in Pakistan: Imperial Hindu Rules (3000 BC -711 AD).

2. Geo Political conditions at the time of Advent of Islam, A brief survey of regional history under the Sultans

3. Impact of Amir Taimur's Invasion of the areas which now constitute Pakistan; Sayyids and Lodis.

4. The influence of the Mughal rule on the provinces of present Pakistan.

5. Advent of the Europeans
Rise of the British to power, Muslim heroes: Sirajuddaulah, Mir Qasim, Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan.

RECOMMENDED REFERENCE BOOKS FOR CLASS IX

The question paper will be syllabus oriented. However, the following books are recommended for reference and supplementary reading:
1. Tareekh-e-Pakistan
Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore

2. Farooq Naseem Bajwa
A Historical and Contemporary Look (Revised Edition)
Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan

3. Chaudhry M Azam
Pakistan kay Pachas Saal
Qamar Kitab Ghar, Karachi

4. Zafar Mohi-ud-Din
Tamseel-e-Aazadi
Maktaba Aasri Aaghai, Karachi

5. K Ali
A Study of Islamic History
Publisher Emporium, Lahore

6. I.H. Qureshi
A Short History of Pakistan
University of Karachi, Karachi

7. Hilala Ahmad Zubari
Jadojhed-e-Pakistan
University of Karachi, Karachi

they call the rule of their own hindu ancestors as imperial rule .funny

Another thing to notice is that they want their students to refer to only books written by only Pakistani authors and not any international authors unlike in india and other countries of the world .

No wonder the knowledge of Pakistanis about history never ceases to amaze us here .

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Many Indians do my friend, especially to belittle Pakistan in every little way they can, & then changing their arguments after they contradict themselves about Pakistan "rejecting their Indian values/heritage".

Thank you.

I did not know that.