Ummah Yearnings

[justanobserver]

you indians have no idea whats coming your way... just you wait and see

Ghazwa-e-hind !

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

Ghazwa-e-hind !

That is a possibility...

but the mere change of political system is a nightmare for the status quo and the elites...

 

[Truth Teller]

Laughable claim, the major ethnic group in Pakistan are Punjabis. Your national language is Urdu (which comes from present day India btw), not Pastho .

Punjabis are less than 5% of the Bharti population.

Urdu first developed in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan with invasion of Ghaznavids. This makes sense, since Urdu has most influence from Punjabi.

btw it was the Punjabis who kicked out Abdalis out of India, Ranjit Singh's army consisted of Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims

Punjabis fought for Punjab and their Punjabi people.

Punjabis didnt fight for Marathis, Gujaratis, South Indian, Bengalis, Biharis, ect.
Sorry to disappoint you again.

Ranjit Singh was a Pakistani Punjabi born in modern-day Pakistan, Punjab, Gujranwala.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

punjabis make around 3% of indian population.

 

[Vinod2070]

Ghazwa-e-hind !

These self acclaimed "Islamists" are really funny people.

Almost to the last one of them, they are obviously hypocrites and themselves disprove everything that is generally claimed about Islam.

In fact, they prove every stereotype that the decent people within their community want to get away from.

For us, they don't matter. They are an impotent lot, big on words. Only words.

The real struggle is within their own society to shun them and put them in their real place. Good to see a beginning being made about that.

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

These self acclaimed "Islamists" are really funny people.

Almost to the last one of them, they are obviously hypocrites and themselves disprove everything that is generally claimed about Islam.

In fact, they prove every stereotype that the decent people within their community want to get away from.

For us, they don't matter. They are an impotent lot, big on words. Only words.

The real struggle is within their own society to shun them and put them in their real place. Good to see a beginning being made about that.

Why hypocrite... infact we the "islamists" are being honest about all this... like it or not India and Pakistan are inching towards a final show down every passing day... you should be thanking us for giving you forewarning instead of becoming upset...

and actually I do not approve of any war... if there is the slightest chance of peace we should pursue it... but I dont think Indians are interested in peace... so they ll get war...

 

[Vinod2070]

Why hypocrite... infact we the "islamists" are being honest about all this... like it or not India and Pakistan are inching towards a final show down every passing day... you should be thanking us for giving you forewarning instead of becoming upset...

and actually I do not approve of any war... if there is the slightest chance of peace we should pursue it... but I dont think Indians are interested in peace... so they ll get war...

I would rather prefer the Pakistanis themselves to take you on in this thread. They are doing a mighty fine job.

Frankly, I have seen a lot of Islamists on this forum and elsewhere and let's just say they have not impressed with their consistency, coherence, ability to be specific (and not abstract when it suits them) and really providing a workable alternative to any degree of detail.

In fact , most of them obviously don't practice what they preach (which they do mostly from the safety of a Western kaffir democracy, having a riba based bank account etc.).

 

[Developereo]

So in reality, we can't really say for sure that had the partition plan be presented as the end resulted and a full fledged referendum held, what would the results be in 1946.

Millions of people voted with their feet to cross over the border in both directions. That's about as clear as it gets.

I don't mean this in any way as an attack on Indian Muslims or to imply that they made the wrong choice. Both sides made their choice and are happy with it. Whatever happened happened, and it's best to accept it and move on.

Well whose official line? animostieis result in violence because of the circumstances. The parition line in Punjab forced the ethinic clensing on religious lines where prior to that there was a strong sense of Punjabi culture. Punjabi soldiers from all religious backgrounds contributed the major majority to the British Indian army and fought all over the world together. Why would the "hostilities" suddently emerge?

Look at another way, currently more muslims are killed in Pakistan than India. There are killings of Balochs or Pasthuns vs Muhajirs or Shia vs Sunnis or Barelvis and Ahmedis. Was there innante hostilities already there that this violence is along expected lines? Or is it because the current circumstances around Pakistan today have created this fracture of society that allows this violence to perpetrated?

Religious animosity and deeply held grievances had always existed in British India -- they were only kept in check by the colonial rulers. For every example of Hindu-Muslim unity against the British, there are also examples of the British exploiting Hindu-Muslim tensions. It was precisely the fear that old scores would be settled once the Brits left and, as the minority, the Muslims would mostly be on the receiving end of the onslaught.

As for your examples about Pakistan, ethnic nationalism exists in all groups. It always rises to the fore when times are bad and opportunistic personalities exploit the latent sentiments. Again, going to the US, despite all the racial harmony on the surface, tensions erupt into violence periodically between blacks, whites, latinos, Jews, Asians, etc.

Possibly, but I was only indicating that both muslims and non-muslims suffered enormously in terms of life and material assets. To say that only muslims suffered or the counter claim that only non-muslims suffered are both incorrect.

No argument that people died on all sides. However, I repeat my point that the minority always suffers far worse than the majority -- especially in the long run.

Besides there is the case of pre-71 Pakistan where a minority Punjabi force suppressed and extracted a huge toll from the majority Bengalis. Other examples include apartheid S. Africa.

Ethnic tensions as we discussed above.

Yes that is what he thought and the debate on what the guarantees were and what was offered is seperate. But that again proves that religious persecution or preventing practicing of religious activities was not the reason for creation of Pakistan. It was a political argument.

I don't see how that refutes anything I wrote. Jinnah was concerned about religious discrimination and sought constitutional safeguards against it. When such guarantees were not forthcoming, he had no choice but to go for the more severe option of separation.

True, and theocracies are not present in Muslim history as such. Infact starting from the Ummayads, there have been no muslim theocracies (i.e. a religious Imam or priest being the head of state) except present day Iran and former Taliban Afghanistan. A Muslim theocracy is a very modern construct that does not gel well with Islamic theology in any case and will not receive traction anyways.

But the problem also exists by those who are not true "Islamists" believers but still try to cynically use Islam for their geopolitical purposes. Gaddafi used Islam as a political tool for example to further their interests although he didn't give a rat's about Islam personally. The same can be seen in the 80s and even now where some people cynically use Jihadi groups for geopolitical ends wethere its the US, Saudis, Iranians or Pakistanis. Islam is just used as a convenient poltical tool. It is this that has to stop. These type of people IMO are even more dangerous.

I agree.

As much as I am alarmed by the global onslaught on Muslims and Islam, and while I would be as happy as the next person if Muslims would recognize the threat and unite against it, I don't believe the concept of an ummah is a realistic possibility. I believe the concept of putting Islam before Pakistan has caused much misery in Pakistan because, as you mentioned, it opens the door to civil war by exploiting differences within Islam. It also has the secondary effect of lulling people into complacency and laziness by promising the ummah and Khilafat as a deus ex machina that will solve all our problems -- economic, social and technological -- in one magical swoop.

 

[Hindustani]

Punjabis are less than 5% of the Bharti population.

Urdu first developed in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan with invasion of Ghaznavids. This makes sense, since Urdu has most influence from Punjabi.



Punjabis fought for Punjab and their Punjabi people.

Punjabis didnt fight for Marathis, Gujaratis, South Indian, Bengalis, Biharis, ect.
Sorry to disappoint you again.

Ranjit Singh was a Pakistani Punjabi born in modern-day Pakistan, Punjab, Gujranwala.

Urdu wasn't developed in pakistan wtf? lol

Hindi-Urdu (हिंदी उर्दू, هندی ارد&#1608 is an Indo-Aryan language and the lingua franca of North India and Pakistan. It is also known as Hindi, Urdu, Hindustani (हिन्दुस्तानी, ہندوستانی, Hindustānī, IPA: [ɦɪnd̪ʊst̪aːni], literally: 'of Hindustan'), Hindavi, and Rekhta. It derives primarily from the Khariboli dialect of Delhi, western Uttar Pradesh and southern Uttarakhand region, and incorporates a large vocabulary from Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic and Turkic. It is a pluricentric language, with two official forms, Standard Hindi and Standard Urdu, which are standardized registers of it. However, colloquial Hindi and Urdu are all but indistinguishable, and even the official standards are nearly identical in grammar, though they differ in literary conventions and in academic and technical vocabulary, with Urdu retaining stronger Persian, Central Asian and Arabic influences, and Hindi relying more heavily on Sanskrit. Before the Partition of British India, the terms Hindustani, Urdu and Hindi were synonymous; all covered what would be called Urdu and Hindi today. The term 'Hindustani' is also used for several divergent dialects of the Hindi languages spoken outside of the Subcontinent, including Fijian Hindustani and the Caribbean Hindustani of Suriname and Trinidad.


And pakistan was created after 1947, there was no such thing as Indian Punjab and pak punjab

 

[1 ummah]

astaghfarullah!!

 

[EjazR]

@Develepereo

Millions of people voted with their feet to cross over the border in both directions. That's about as clear as it gets.

This happened AFTER the partition was decided not before. Millions of Palestinians were also forced and voluntarily left their lands and went out of presentday Israel. They didn't WANT to do it, but many had no choice. I hope you can see the difference.

Other than that I think we have made our points clear.

 

[humanfirst]

... if there is the slightest chance of peace we should pursue it... but I dont think Indians are interested in peace... so they ll get war...

Some months back i've seen you you saying any attack on pakistan by U.S should be retaliated by nuking india..what a peace lover!

 

[architect_cobb]

Thats what Ahmedis say also... be honest T Faz... I asked a yes or no question... I will never hold your belief against you... but I need to know where you are coming from... and what you wrote about jihad is classic qadianism...

what kind of a question is that and what has this got to do with ones posts here? Are you a munafiq. Trsut me MBQ we won;t hold it against you we just need to know where you are coming from.

 

[architect_cobb]

Yes but T Faz we all know that the British Empire kept going on the basis of buying loyalties... I mean do I have to point out to you that the forefathers of the feudal landlords of Pakistan got their land by doing acts of treason against their own people... I describe the British as masters of division actually... and their history books mention the 1847 struggle for independence as the "Indian Mutiny"... go figure the rest...

Your command on history never fails to impress me. Nor do your ideas

 

[Burger Boy]

Political entities did not exist in ancient times, there was no United Nations, India was a civilizational state long before the British came.

When has there ever been an ancient state called the "Indian Empire"??