Pakistani Nationalism - contradictions?

[Bengal71]

Bhai Bengali, have you ever wondered why there is no mention of Zarathushtra or the Avesta in the Quran.

Ahlul Kitab means people of the Book right?

@LoveIcon

These are difficult questions for practicing Muslims in 2018 to answer. So I won't hold my breath.

Either for an answer or the inevitable ban.

Cheers, Doc

Doc some ulama consider the Zoroastrians as Ahlul Kitab. There is a difference in opinion about the matter though as there is a difference in opinion whether mushrikeen (i.e. Hindus) can be charged jizay or deserve a slaughter.

 

[padamchen]

Doc some ulama consider the Zoroastrians as Ahlul Kitab. There is a difference in opinion about the matter though as there is a difference in opinion whether mushrikeen (i.e. Hindus) can be charged jizay or deserve a slaughter.

Adam, Moses, Christ. All there.

No Zarathushtra.

Bhai to me this deserves some thought and questioning.

Don't know about 1.8 billion Muslims.

Including the 60+ million Iranian Persians who are in a 1300 year stupor cycle.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Bengal71]

Adam, Moses, Christ. All there.

No Zarathushtra.

Bhai to me this deserves some thought and questioning.

Don't know about 1.8 billion Muslims.

Including the 60+ million Iranian Persians who are in a 1300 year stupor cycle.

Cheers, Doc

According to the ulama, Allah sent many thousands of Prophets (AS) to mankind but only a few are mentioned by name in the Qur'an. Some fringe people even hold the view that even Buddha could have been a Prophet. Some even think even the Hinduism in circulation today could have been originally preached by Prophets and later on changed by people.

Express your thought about non-mention of Zarathrust in Qur'an. I am fairly open minded, I give proper consideration to my ability before discarding any opinion.

 

[padamchen]

According to the ulama, Allah sent many thousands of Prophets (AS) to mankind but only a few are mentioned by name in the Qur'an. Some fringe people even hold the view that even Buddha could have been a Prophet. Some even think even the Hinduism in circulation today could have been originally preached by Prophets and later on changed by people.

Express your thought about non-mention of Zarathrust in Qur'an. I am fairly open minded, I give proper consideration to my ability before discarding any opinion.

No I cannot express my thoughts.

Coz I get bored of non stop work when I get banned.

And WhatsApp is too superficial.

So I skim and goad and leave the questions hanging.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Bengal71]

No I cannot express my thoughts.

Coz I get bored of non stop work when I get banned.

And WhatsApp is too superficial.

So I skim and goad and leave the questions hanging.

Cheers, Doc

Alright, no worries. Now that you provoked me, I will see if I can do some research myself, times will be well spent during the holiday season here.

 

[padamchen]

Alright, no worries. Now that you provoked me, I will see if I can do some research myself, times will be well spent during the holiday season here.

I believe what I suspect is also a raging controversy in the Muslim world itself.

For many centuries too.

And something I came to read about here long long after I had come to the same conclusions on my own through my own studies.

Cheers, Doc

 

[PakSarzameen5823]

The Arab race had been vassals of the Persians for over 3000 years. Through the reign of all the great Persian Zoroastrian empires.

Arabs weren't a thing 3,000 years ago. Also, Iranian rule over what is now Arab land wasn't continuous, nor did Iran ever rule all (or even most) of it.

The Persians always had a hands off policy with their Aryan correligionists in India. The Indus forming the unspoken cleave line between the two civilizations.

LOL complete nonsense, they conquered land east of the Indus river. In fact, the Punjab was one of their most profitable provinces and gave them a steady supply of troops which would even be fielded against the Spartans.

An imperialistic movement of Arab rise and finally their day in the sun.

Alright then, riddle me this. Why did the early Muslims have Persians, Romans and Africans assist them in their efforts? Why does Islam proclaim that Arabs and non-Arabs are equal? Why did the Prophet Muhammad (as salatoo was salam) claim that his lineage wasn't indigenous to Arabia? Why was Imam Abu Hanifa, the founder of the largest madhab in Islam, not an Arab? Why were many of the major hadith collectors also not Arab? Why is it that the Ummayads and Abbasids had to rely heavily upon non-Arabs for their military and academic achievements? Why is it that for most of history, non-Arabs have been at the front seat of the Muslim world? Why, why, why? There are too many questions and you cannot sufficiently answer them.

If Al Qadissiyah had gone the other way, Zoroastrianism (more powerful than Christianity for over 500 years of the Roman empire) would have been the dominant religion in the world today.

I doubt it.

The Persians though did not go down without a fight and pockets of resistance through the land fought on under feudal rulers and satraps for the next 300 years.

Right, but your ancestors fled to the Indian sub-continent as refugees. They didn't put up a fight.

the Persian elite who were far far more sophisticated in matter of rule and politics and power dynamics and the control of hearts and minds of native and alien populaces on a global scale.

Considering how the Abbasids lost almost all the territory the Ummayads held, I really don't believe your myth of Persian superiority.

ancestral Avestan

No, people in Afghanistan, western Pakistan and Central Asia spoke Avestan. Iran spoke old Persian.

There is evidence

No there isn't, otherwise you would have provided it to us.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yah more or less. Give any political set up enough time and the ideology that set it up (if any) generally diminishes (for a whole host of reasons like population flux as you mention)...but there will be remnants.

Not too far from here is a collection of forts and canals lining the st lawrence and its connection to the Great Lakes....the British invested heavily in them, especially after the war of 1812 which showed how vulnerable the logistics network was to American intrusion. They even moved the capital more inland (and constructed a separate canal system to it) so it would buy enough time to put up a defense after Fort York + settlement (now Toronto) was easily assaulted (across lake ontario) and burned (legislature building and all) by the US forces. It is really an era much forgotten (esp after the US had its own civil war a half a century later)....and with it the core ideology is tempered with time.

Politically probably the most significant remnant of the difference in these ideologies (past the different setups, one parliamentary the other presidential) is the concept of inherent inalienable rights found in the US declaration of independence and highly influential in their constitution (esp the 1st and 2nd amendments)...and one of long storied and rich debate in their supreme court.

These were made largely specifically to contrast with the Crown system which of course vested powers over time away from an earthly monarch (Magna Carta and onwards)....but never recognised inherent (pre-existing) rights.

Very few people actually grasp the significance of this difference today....civics is no longer really taught in either country....and thus the action of entropy/time from the founding ideologies lurches on and on....it seems quite inevitable (its not all necessarily bad, but it is quite noticeable to those that have strong interests in history, politics and economics like myself).

Right now I am doing a significant study into Rome in my spare time, and there are many parallels both with its rise and fall....as time acted upon the edifices of its original core ideologies.

@Joe Shearer @Jungibaaz

You will have to give me some time. This is not a post to be replied without reading more of the thread.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Bad news for the OP ... finance minister just declared that it is part of his belief that this country was granted by Allah ...

Stop being silly. What politicians say is political rhetoric and is one of primary reasons why brand Pakistan has toilet paper value and the only thing it conjures is Islamic terrorism or rabid mullahs coughing on fumes of tyres their mob follers are burning. And Pakistan citizens are like orphans with a country but no identity other than diffuse notion of ummah which of course they are all too often prostituted by foreign forces.

For rest of the post I will give a summary when I get time.


And I will repeat the fundamentel question. Have a look at the map. Look at the 50 green Muslim majority countries. How does Pakistan identity intend to shoehorn something that is spread out in 50 Muslim countries unto just itself - the yellow patch. Pakistan does not own it. It is spread all over the globe.

 

[The Accountant]

From which angle Asad Umar is mullah ? I am not mullah too ... however believeing on Allah and follow is a crime in your eyes then you are other side of extremists ...

This is not opinion of mullah bragade but opinion of one of the top most people of the Pakistan not only designation wise but intellectual as well ...

He has far more broader vision then yours and mine and in his concluding remarks of his 5 years governance plan he is cayegorivally sign that this country as made by Allah so he understands that islam is the only uniting force for us ...

One last argument ... just look at your enemy how they are supporting your instance of a secular Pakistan as they know this is the only hurdle to defeast two nation theory and then they can make Pakistan a vessel state just like they did to Bangladesh ... by the way on the whole map can you share the name of one country created on name of religion or divided based on religion ?

All those countries are based on ethinicity only and by chance they have religion as islam ...

Bro seriously think what you are suggesting means creation if Pakistan was a wrong exercise ... if islam is not our nationality then whats the purpose of division of sub continent ... you are propagating the same that congress was propagating and indians are ... you are supporting our enemy

Stop being silly. What politicians say is political rhetoric and is one of primary reasons why brand Pakistan has toilet paper value and the only thing it conjures is Islamic terrorism or rabid mullahs coughing on fumes of tyres their mob follers are burning. And Pakistan citizens are like orphans with a country but no identity other than diffuse notion of ummah which of course they are all too often prostituted by foreign forces.

For rest of the post I will give a summary when I get time.


And I will repeat the fundamentel question. Have a look at the map. Look at the 50 green Muslim majority countries. How does Pakistan identity intend to shoehorn something that is spread out in 50 Muslim countries unto just itself - the yellow patch. Pakistan does not own it. It is spread all over the globe.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Im not pro Erdogan,never was but we dont have any other option,there is no one else for now,so we try to do some damage control,steer him to the right direction.


Didnt you just contradict yourself with this post?
''Pakistani Muslims'',so why ''Pakistani'' first,what happened to ''Muslims'' only?

No I did not contradict myself. Pakistan can talk on behalf of Pakistani Muslims, not for the world's Muslims.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

From which angle Asad Umar is mullah ?

Please read again? Where did I say "mullah" with referance to Asad Umar? He is a 'politician'.

politicians say is political rhetoric

And please address the question posited on the map above. Thanks.

 

[VCheng]

How does Pakistan identity intend to shoehorn something that is spread out in 50 Muslim countries unto just itself - the yellow patch. Pakistan does not own it. It is spread all over the globe.

I think the hope is that Pakistan will become recognized as the leader of this block by virtue of its might, relatively speaking, if not now, then at some point in the future.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

No I did not contradict myself. Pakistan can talk on behalf of Pakistani Muslims, not for the world's Muslims.

Your exposing the contradiction here that I began in the opening thread. For pete's sakes why can't you see the darned contradiction in -

• Muslims are global, Islam is trans-national with no fcukin borders
• Pakistan is limited to a geography, restricted to defined border, which only covers Pakistani citizens
• Pakistan state covers Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Hindu's Parsee and animists like Kalash.

Which airforce did Cecil Chaudry fly for when he was killed and given medal for bravery? Who was Justice Dorab Patel? And what nationality are Kalash in Pakistan? Before you reply go back to post #159 and look at the map.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Your exposing the contradiction here that I began in the opening thread. For pete's sakes why can't you see the darned contradiction in -

• Muslims are global, Islam is trans-national with no fcukin borders
• Pakistan is limited to a geography, restricted to defined border, which only covers Pakistani citizens
• Pakistan state covers Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Hindu's Parsee and animists like Kalash.

Which airforce did Cecil Chaudry fly for when he was killed and given medal for bravery? Who was Justice Dorab Patel? And what nationality are Kalash in Pakistan? Before you reply go back to post #159 and look at the map.

Yes but Muslims are not united in one nation state today.

Pakistan can talk on behalf of Pakistani Muslims but can Pakistan talk on behalf of Uzbekistani Muslims. Obviously not.

Uzbekistan can talk on behalf of Uzbekistani Muslims.

We can agree to disagree.