Tarique against religion-based politics

[Bilal9]

Bold part: You should certainly add also the name of local Hindus, who converted to Islam, to the stocks of people in your list. But, by talking about only local connection you are denying the historical facts that were established by other people in our land.

In fact, all the regions of the world have seen invasions and migration throughout the pre-historic as well as historic times. By denying this for Bengal, you are trying to re-write the history that was created by our fore bearers. It is true that all those stocks of people have come and settled in Bengal. Please enlighten yourself by reading the history from 1200 AD to 1750 AD to know that many people with foreign ancestry also came to Bengal. Your personal disliking of that part of history cannot bend it.

However, history is continuous and does not start at only a certain point as some people are trying to establish in his thread. All those happened before Muslim arrival is also a part of our history.

Long story short we're all a bunch of mutts in Bangladesh. That's wonderful in my opinion. Having a diversity of widely diverse bloodlines generally makes for strong offspring with well-balanced genomic characteristics. Law of nature.

The attempt to pursue 'pure blood' resulted in inbreeding in some Muslim countries. The resultant mess (including stupidity) can be seen in some families (even rich ones) today.

 

[kalu_miah]

So you want to prove that you are alien invaders here. Nothing to do with this land and culture.
Occupying and looting is the main intention. And still waiting for the alien craft to return.
Bangladeshi and Bengali Muslim identity doesnt matter to you. You chose to prove yourself of descendant of Arab, persian, Turk, Mongolian, Afgani. Does it make it proud. Glorifying other country's civilization, will they take you back by this?

So where is the uniqueness of Bangladesh. Do you want to see bangla as weak and inferior, invaded by all.
Where my point was muslims' root can be different but they very much opted into Bangla and its culture, like present BD
It can can be seen now in our culture that we have opted a mixed culture of Muslim + Hindu combo.
Even Kalu Miah is so kalu that no one can understand he is from Turkey. Where he looks more similar to Tamils.
And you guys are so certain that you are muslim root from West. But the physical structure and skin tones say we are indegenous population maybe converted religion.

Your allergy to the foreign part of our ancestry can only mean one thing, but I don't want to speculate. Once again without these "invaders", we would not have a country of our own, it would rather be a part of India. That is the origin of our country, its point of divergence from your mother India. Please keep bowing down and worshiping your mother India. That suits you well.

Long story short we're all a bunch of mutts in Bangladesh. That's wonderful in my opinion. Having a diversity of widely diverse bloodlines generally makes for strong offspring with well-balanced genomic characteristics. Law of nature.

The attempt to pursue 'pure blood' resulted in inbreeding in some Muslim countries. The resultant mess (including stupidity) can be seen in some families (even rich ones) today.

Heterosis is highest in the world among Muslims compared to other religious and ethnic groups, a legacy of cross breeding of people from diverse part of the world Islamic empires throughout history.

Heterosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Heterosis, hybrid vigor, or outbreeding enhancement, is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. The adjective derived from heterosis is heterotic.

An offspring exhibits heterosis if its traits are enhanced as a result of mixing the genetic contributions of its parents. These effects can be due to Mendelian or non-Mendelian inheritance.
.............
Humans
See also: Miscegenation
See also: Exogamy
Any evidence of heterosis in humans is derived from observational studies.[8] It has been suggested that increased average height as well as many beneficial effects on average health and intelligence have resulted from an increased heterosis, resulting from increased mixing of the human population such as by urbanization.[9] Diverse human populations commonly have a cultural rule or norm that prohibits sexual relations between relatives. Such a prohibition is referred to as an incest taboo. An effect of the incest taboo is the promotion of heterosis and avoidance of congenital birth defects that often result from expression of deleterious recessive alleles in children from matings between close relatives."

 

[Samandri]

But you should remember that without Mughal's and their agrarian expansion policy which resulted in mass conversion to Islam, there would not be any Muslim majority in this landmass, and no East Pakistan and its new name Bangladesh today.

The Turkic Mamluk like Bakthtyar Khilji and later Turkic rulers (tied to Delhi and independent ones) laid the foundation of Muslim community in this land mass and Mughals built on that, as a by product of their economic policy. Baro Bhuiyans were mostly Afghan war lords that fled from Mughal advance in Delhi and other areas in North India, if I am not mistaken.

And whether you like it or not, all of them were tied with larger Islamic world empire, mainly led by Turkics and Turko-Mongols between 1200-1757.

If you are a Bengali Muslim from the educated class, there is a good chance that there is little bit of Turkic, Turko-Mongol, Afghan or Persian or a mix of some or all blood in you, whether you realize it or not, but then that is not true for Bengali Hindu's.

Siraj-ud-daula I believe was of pure Persian origin, who were not related with the original Turkic nobility of Bengal and other South Asian seats of Muslim power. These Persians mostly came after Humayun defeated Sher Shah Suri with help of Safavi Persians.

1-Sher Shah suri was already dead when humayun came back to Hindostan in 1555, your claim that sher shah got defeated by humayun with the help of safavids, is false and rediculous. Humayun didnt tried his luck even when sher shah's son islam shah (1545-53) was alive. It was due to civil war of suris, in which your bengal's ruler Muhammad shah suri was also claimant for delhi throne along with ibrahim shah suri, sikandar shah suri, adil shah suri and hemu that humayun saw an oppurtunity.
2- Safavids were turks, not persians
3- Khalaj/khiljis, in contemporary sources are mentioned as distinct group from Afghans and turks, which had become Afghanized in Afghanistan. Khiljis of your bengal and india, were afghanized people not turkic. They were like todays ghilzais who live in kalat-i-khilji (ghazni)

 

[Kinetic]

without drawing aspiration from people nation building and progress are not possible. Islamic aspirations are part of national fabric of Bangladesh and can not be suppressed. People choice, equality, freedom are all inspired and shaped by Islamic identity and heritage over 100s of years. For readers one crucial thing to understand is that Bangladesh journey/struggle as independent country started hundreds of years ago NOT in 1971. Tareq like his father tried to make that point (not so elegant way). indo Awami propaganda masters are desperate taking word out of anyone mouth and spreading deception and creating division. Matrixx is just good foot soldier for these indo awami propaganda.

hundread of years ago you were just another low cast hindu or buddhist. ...

 

[kalu_miah]

1-Sher Shah suri was already dead when humayun came back to Hindostan in 1555, your claim that sher shah got defeated by humayun with the help of safavids, is false and rediculous. Humayun didnt tried his luck even when sher shah's son islam shah (1545-53) was alive. It was due to civil war of suris, in which your bengal's ruler Muhammad shah suri was also claimant for delhi throne along with ibrahim shah suri, sikandar shah suri, adil shah suri and hemu that humayun saw an oppurtunity.
2- Safavids were turks, not persians
3- Khalaj/khiljis, in contemporary sources are mentioned as distinct group from Afghans and turks, which had become Afghanized in Afghanistan. Khiljis of your bengal and india, were afghanized people not turkic. They were like todays ghilzais who live in kalat-i-khilji (ghazni)

1. You are correct, Sher Shah was already dead by that time, when Humayun returned, I made correction in my previous post.
2. Yes, you are correct, I corrected this as well.
3. You could be correct, but I personally doubt that Ghilzai's have much to do with Khalaji Turks, due to difference in language and genetics:
Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration | Page 13

 

[khair_ctg]

So you want to prove that you are alien invaders here. Nothing to do with this land and culture.
Occupying and looting is the main intention. And still waiting for the alien craft to return.
Bangladeshi and Bengali Muslim identity doesnt matter to you. You chose to prove yourself of descendant of Arab, persian, Turk, Mongolian, Afgani. Does it make it proud. Glorifying other country's civilization, will they take you back by this?

So where is the uniqueness of Bangladesh. Do you want to see bangla as weak and inferior, invaded by all.
Where my point was muslims' root can be different but they very much opted into Bangla and its culture, like present BD
It can can be seen now in our culture that we have opted a mixed culture of Muslim + Hindu combo.
Even Kalu Miah is so kalu that no one can understand he is from Turkey. Where he looks more similar to Tamils.
And you guys are so certain that you are muslim root from West. But the physical structure and skin tones say we are indegenous population maybe converted religion.

your post has so much craziness i almost feel dizzy reading it.

no one is saying ALL of the Muslims' blood is Arab, Persian, Turkic-Mongolian and Afghani. but i am having a hard time understanding why it is not respectable to say that Bengal's (or maybe as well Bihar's and Orissa's) Muslim population has lineage from Muslim communities from outside the subcontinent. denying that is tantamount to denying the very historical formation of the Muslim community in this part of the world, is it not?

there are many Arabs who are darker than many Bangladeshis. and also some Tamils can also be light skinned. your stereotyping is pointless. in any case it is pathetic to discard the vast phenomenon of settlers based on one individual's darker skin colour. if those settlers are alien to you, you are also alien or part of alien community if you consider yourself Bangladeshi

 

[Mattrixx]

Your allergy to the foreign part of our ancestry can only mean one thing, but I don't want to speculate. Once again without these "invaders", we would not have a country of our own, it would rather be a part of India. That is the origin of our country, its point of divergence from your mother India. Please keep bowing down and worshiping your mother India. That suits you well.

India was never very united country. It was divided into regional powers. Bangla was one of the strongest.
Its the Muslims taken its independence and given it to the rulers of Delhi. Then the British.
Doesnt it make you more leaned towards India, because Mughal HQ is in Delhi.
Why you left India because you felt we are different.

your post has so much craziness i almost feel dizzy reading it.

no one is saying ALL of the Muslims' blood is Arab, Persian, Turkic-Mongolian and Afghani. but i am having a hard time understanding why it is not respectable to say that Bengal's (or maybe as well Bihar's and Orissa's) Muslim population has lineage from Muslim communities from outside the subcontinent. denying that is tantamount to denying the very historical formation of the Muslim community in this part of the world, is it not?

there are many Arabs who are darker than many Bangladeshis. and also some Tamils can also be light skinned. your stereotyping is pointless. in any case it is pathetic to discard the vast phenomenon of settlers based on one individual's darker skin colour. if those settlers are alien to you, you are also alien or part of alien community if you consider yourself Bangladeshi

You are loosing my point. You said Muslim rulers were not Bengali and came from different roots.
I said they were not Bengali but very much opted in to Bengal and its culture. So they can be considered no less than Indian or Bengali.
Like today we have mixed Bengal and Arab culture in our country.
Now do you consider yourself Arab or Bangladeshi?
If you consider yourself Arab that makes you foreign invader.
If you consider yourself Bangladeshi that makes you indegenous.

 

[Sliver]

...
If you are a Bengali Muslim from the educated class, there is a good chance that there is little bit of Turkic, Turko-Mongol, Afghan or Persian or a mix of some or all blood in you, whether you realize it or not, but then that is not true for Bengali Hindu's.

so all bengali muslims - are some sort of descendents from Arabian/persian/turkic people
all Bengali Hindus are not
even if the indigenous people converted to Islam, you claim they have ancestry from Turkic/mongol/persian people.

so is it not possible to be a non trukic/arab/persian/mongol and still be a muslim?

 

[Sliver]

Your allergy to the foreign part of our ancestry can only mean one thing, but I don't want to speculate. Once again without these "invaders", we would not have a country of our own, it would rather be a part of India. That is the origin of our country, its point of divergence from your mother India. Please keep bowing down and worshiping your mother India. That suits you well.



Heterosis is highest in the world among Muslims compared to other religious and ethnic groups, a legacy of cross breeding of people from diverse part of the world Islamic empires throughout history.

Heterosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Heterosis, hybrid vigor, or outbreeding enhancement, is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. The adjective derived from heterosis is heterotic.

An offspring exhibits heterosis if its traits are enhanced as a result of mixing the genetic contributions of its parents. These effects can be due to Mendelian or non-Mendelian inheritance.
.............
Humans
See also: Miscegenation
See also: Exogamy
Any evidence of heterosis in humans is derived from observational studies.[8] It has been suggested that increased average height as well as many beneficial effects on average health and intelligence have resulted from an increased heterosis, resulting from increased mixing of the human population such as by urbanization.[9] Diverse human populations commonly have a cultural rule or norm that prohibits sexual relations between relatives. Such a prohibition is referred to as an incest taboo. An effect of the incest taboo is the promotion of heterosis and avoidance of congenital birth defects that often result from expression of deleterious recessive alleles in children from matings between close relatives."

this is a red herring argument.

Are you an arab or a bengali?
is is possible to be a muslim without having an arabian/persian/turkic blood? why is it difficult to be a muslim and have roots in your bengali culture?
By wanting to show case your arabian/turkic/persian lineage you are showing that you do not want be a proud of your bengali heritage.

 

[khair_ctg]

You are loosing my point. You said Muslim rulers were not Bengali and came from different roots.
I said they were not Bengali but very much opted in to Bengal and its culture. So they can be considered no less than Indian or Bengali.
Like today we have mixed Bengal and Arab culture in our country.
Now do you consider yourself Arab or Bangladeshi?
If you consider yourself Arab that makes you foreign invader.
If you consider yourself Bangladeshi that makes you indegenous.

a Muslim ruler of Bengal (wherever their ancestry was from) was as Bengali or as Hindustani as they could get. that is what i am saying. also the Muslim communities of particularly the Mughal and Turkic-Afghan (Pathan) sultanats that now fell into Bangladesh, Central-Northern India and most of Pakistan were a cohesive unit of their own. to be a Bengali Muslim has historically had a loose meaning and a very geographic connotation. the history and the ancestries of Bengal-Bihar-Orissa Muslims in particular are very mixed up. Muslims of Bengal or other parts of South Asia were very much Hindustani irrespective of their lineages from points west.

this is a red herring argument.

Are you an arab or a bengali?
is is possible to be a muslim without having an arabian/persian/turkic blood? why is it difficult to be a muslim and have roots in your bengali culture?
By wanting to show case your arabian/turkic/persian lineage you are showing that you do not want be a proud of your bengali heritage.

these have been discussed to shreds.

the bengali heritage is not bengali without arabic/turkic/persian influence. having such components in lineage and culture does not make Bengali Muslims more superior Muslims than they would be without the components.

please refer to this thread instead of making remarks that to me at least seem ignorant, and could be seen by others as trolling.

Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration

 

[Kinetic]

Your allergy to the foreign part of our ancestry can only mean one thing, but I don't want to speculate. Once again without these "invaders", we would not have a country of our own, it would rather be a part of India. That is the origin of our country, its point of divergence from your mother India. Please keep bowing down and worshiping your mother India. That suits you well.

Kalu.... means... black..... here comes that dark 5.5 feet Turkish guy from BD!!!! Just go to Turkey or Afghanistan and meet local people, they will say something about you after looking at your face!!!

These guys not only hate their root but also hate their own body!!! Shameless.

Just show me few BD people who are tall and fair... or atleast have sharp features.

See its not bad that you look like that. What you think about your look and hating the same is bad.

 

[eastwatch]

hundread of years ago you were just another low cast hindu or buddhist. ...

All Hindus including you and your parents belong to low caste group. Can you do anything about it? Can you become an Aryan invader's descendent by choice? Please see your m##key face in the mirror and talk.

 

[Saiful Islam]

so all bengali muslims - are some sort of descendents from Arabian/persian/turkic people
all Bengali Hindus are not
even if the indigenous people converted to Islam, you claim they have ancestry from Turkic/mongol/persian people.

so is it not possible to be a non trukic/arab/persian/mongol and still be a muslim?

The point is Bengali Muslims are very mixed, doesn't mean all Bengalis can trace themselves to a foreign lineage. A Muslim is not synonymous with a particulour ethnic group, you can be Muslim regardless of what ethnicity you are, something emphasised a lot of in Islam.

 

[kalu_miah]

India was never very united country. It was divided into regional powers. Bangla was one of the strongest.
Its the Muslims taken its independence and given it to the rulers of Delhi. Then the British.
Doesnt it make you more leaned towards India, because Mughal HQ is in Delhi.
Why you left India because you felt we are different.



You are loosing my point. You said Muslim rulers were not Bengali and came from different roots.
I said they were not Bengali but very much opted in to Bengal and its culture. So they can be considered no less than Indian or Bengali.
Like today we have mixed Bengal and Arab culture in our country.
Now do you consider yourself Arab or Bangladeshi?
If you consider yourself Arab that makes you foreign invader.
If you consider yourself Bangladeshi that makes you indegenous.

These was no India back then (1200-1757), there was Delhi Sultanate, Bengal Sultanate, Mughal Hindustan and Subah Bangalah which under last Nawabs were semi-independent. We are just stating history, its not a matter of how I or anyone else feel about them. We cannot change the fact that Muslim rule in Bengal landmass was started by one Bakhtyar Khalaji, who was one of the Mamluks under Muizuddin Muhmmad of Ghor.

India as a political entity came into being in 1947 and much of the credit of unifying this entity goes to the Muslim rulers who attempted to unify South Asian landmass from 1200 to 1700. Now the ingrate Hindu's of course give no credit to them or their contribution. Their unfair mean streak forced us South Asian Muslims to curve out our self ruled land in both Eastern and Western part.

About Bengali, what you should keep in mind is that since 1200 Muslim rulers of various non-Hindustani origin shaped the formation of Bengali culture, language, religion and genetic makeup. Bangladeshi culture and even West Bengal culture has been shaped by them, but at the same time Hindu, Buddhist and Animist people who existed in this landmass, have shaped its culture, religion and genetic makeup as well, no one is trying to deny this fact. The ingrate Hindu Bengali's however tried to negate this influence starting with British rule, by trying to Hinduize/Sanskritize and reshape our language with help of British in Fort William college. A significant part of genetic makeup of Bangladeshi's however come from low caste or even adivasi converts. We have discussed these many times in many threads, may be you missed some of that.

Of course I consider myself Bangladeshi, look at my flag, why, because I am from that landmass, but I am very much aware of the diverse origin of our ancestry, which is related to the history of this landmass. Without birth of Muhammad (SAWS) and the Turkic Mamluks and other Muslim rulers who came to South Asia and Chinggis Khaan in Mongolia who reshaped Asia and eventually gave rise to Timurid Mughals, there would be no majority Muslim community in Bangladesh. So you should get used to the fact that there is nothing local about most countries of the world, many are result of invasions and migrations in the age of medieval empires and Bangladesh is no exception.

 

[kalu_miah]

so all bengali muslims - are some sort of descendents from Arabian/persian/turkic people
all Bengali Hindus are not
even if the indigenous people converted to Islam, you claim they have ancestry from Turkic/mongol/persian people.

so is it not possible to be a non trukic/arab/persian/mongol and still be a muslim?

Please do not twist my words, reread my post, that is not what I said at all. Are you an Indian American?

this is a red herring argument.

Are you an arab or a bengali?
is is possible to be a muslim without having an arabian/persian/turkic blood? why is it difficult to be a muslim and have roots in your bengali culture?
By wanting to show case your arabian/turkic/persian lineage you are showing that you do not want be a proud of your bengali heritage.

It is not wanting to show, it is stating facts of ancestry. Many Muslim Bengali's have mixed ancestry.

Kalu.... means... black..... here comes that dark 5.5 feet Turkish guy from BD!!!! Just go to Turkey or Afghanistan and meet local people, they will say something about you after looking at your face!!!

These guys not only hate their root but also hate their own body!!! Shameless.

Just show me few BD people who are tall and fair... or atleast have sharp features.

See its not bad that you look like that. What you think about your look and hating the same is bad.

So you are a big hulking Hindko Hindu? Size or skin color does not matter much, its how well you can use your brain.