A NATION is known by the role-models it keeps

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

yes you have a point. The same tribal and primitive traditions were responsible for the destruction of Bamiyan Buddah by the Taliban.

The same tribal behavior resulted in mass killing by Northern alliance as well Taliban.

Pakistan too is suffering at the hands of Taliban simply because we have acquired really really bad role models.

42

My knowledge is purely academic, so I apologize for any ignorance on the subject.

43

There was very intresting discussion going on in this thread, however the original question of the thread was, about a nation known by its role models.

I think taking the examples of religious leaders, whether it is Prophet muhammad or Pope or Shankaracharya, will lead you no where. You need to achieve something and set the standard for the community to achieve. The role models will inturn inspire others to take things forward.

The best example, I can give is of Mr. N.R. Narayana Murthy, who from a very humble southindian family went on to build the famed Infosys in 25 years time. He did it without compromising on ethics and values. He has inspired many entrepreneurs in India, some of them went on to start other huge corporations employing thousands of people. Eg. Ashoka Soota / Subroto Bagchi of Mindtree, Phaneesh Murthy to Igate, even Azim premji was inspired to expand his oil business to computers.

Many true middle class indians are getting into the business, though their ancestors never owned or ran one.

We need more Narayana Murthy's and ashok sootas in India and south Asia. Only then our subcontinent can propser.

44

Now u r getting more funnier,

U r insisting that Mehmood was Gay, and the evidence you have posted has no basis, its only you and few of other biased like you who can take the verse you presented as an evidence..

Now if only i quote ur replies... in one reply you said Illama Iqbal was said that he is Gay.. and in another reply you have said, Illama Iqbal should have not glorified him in Shikwa... now what is this.. because Iqbal have gloriified Mehmood in his poetry, you are saying the the poet did the wrong thing because Mehmood was a Gay and did not deserve glory in the history of Muslims.. now do you think that Illama Iqbal who was 100,000 time more intelligent than you and me didn't see it coming???

I think with ur super-deciving skills, you are now going to say that Illama Iqbal was not that good after all, he glorafied a Gay in his poetry... is this the conclusion ur dirty mind is getting too???

Now the Prophet Mohammad (SAAW) did have all those marriages, no muslim disagree nor get offended, but did your LORD Krishan stole clothes of bathing girls? didn't he mastered the art-of-steeling when he was a little child? Unlike you i am not accusing Krishan of anything, i am just asking!!! is it wrong to ask???

LOL at ur logic and moral values, surely they differ from ours, may be it is OK in your religion to accuse anyone of anything ( i guess if brahmin accuses anyone, he didn't have to comeup with any evidence, specialy if the accused one is from the lower cast), same you did here, you said Mehmood was Gay, when asked for evidence, you comeup with a verse of Ghazal which is not even remote connected with the allegation you are making and on top of that you are teaching other moral values.. surely u need to teach others all this, as this may be is you religious believe

Every now and then you recite a Holy verse from Quran, i must say this is ur tactic of deciving which you might have mastered in, if you have red the Quran don't you know what is the punishment of the person who comeup with these kind of false allegation.. haven't you red one??? or may be it doesn't suit you and you only read and practice which suits you better, another typical Indian Habit...

Now i don't know where does your Hinduism stands when it comes to false allegation.. and allegation which have ( even according to you) no clear prove.. just a hint of prove.. may be hinduism promotes this kind of stuff may be it doesn't but ur practice and insisting on things which you have miserably fail to prove shows that yes this is what indians are good at..

Now there is gap of several hundered years between Mehmood Ghaznavi and Illama Iqbal... can you give any reference of any credible historian which might given any evidence which supports your allegation on Mehmood..

Like i said, there cannot be any peace with any nation who cannot respect heroes of other ( one of the basis of two nation theory)

45

OK Ghazni was as gay is a well known fact. I can understand that some of the pakistanis look up to him as their hero and nothing wrong in that. This is a free world and you can have a gay or a prophet or a film star as your role model.

There are many historical evidences to prove the same. Infact, the Gay slave of Ghazni was appointed the ruler of Lahore.

You can get many writings on this, and this was easily available on google.

An Introduction to LGBT Studies By Deborah T. Meem, Jonathan F. Alexander, Michelle Gibson

The book is available online in google books.

Finding Out: An Introduction to LGBT … - Google Books

Time Pass ... Jan 2@14
46

i m sorry to say but u always get personal and dat is disgusting. further u always quote what i say on different posts. keeps doing it i have sympathy for u.
( but i wud suggest u to focus on the topic and the reponse and not on the person............ otherwise i reserve the right to complain the same to the moderator.)

2ndly i think what u get from the media u take as a truth. in my personal opinion most of the ppl who criticised zia was based on their emotions rather tangible arguement to prove him a bad ruler. (most of the thing they were mentioning including were the fall out of the afghan war and the result of the decision of zia). i praised him coz he worked for my country. unlike most of other rulers whose sole purpose was to ensure the western interest in pakistan. he was a practicing mulim used to offer namaz regularly abstains from the drink.

( keep it in mind that i think he was a gud person but not an angel )

no my heroes are george w bush and obama who are responsible of killing of
of thousand of PPL in my country , iraq and afghainstan. in oder to ensure so called peace in their own country.

47

U understandably fail to recognize the concrete proof which lies in the verse of Allama Iqbal and twist the entire meaning of the verse which indicates any unholy relation between them. So I cant help this, ppls change the meaning of verses is not new syndrome. Even verses of holy quran have been misquoted, so its not a big deal. Watch it.

I dont say that Allama said that mehmood is a gay, but indicated that there was some un natural relation between Mehmood and Ayaz which prompted Allama to describe both MALES as lovers. the thing which U fail to read intentionally. But its ur problem if U are selevtively being unable to grab the meaning of the verse. Now I never said that Allama glorified Ayaz and Mehmood in any verse even. I SAID THAT ALLAMA USED EXAMPLE OF MEHMOOD AND AYAZ IN GLORIFYING ISLAM WHICH IS OBJECTIONABLE TO SOME SCHOLERS OF ISLAM, now I hope that U are able to understand the whole thing. He didnt glorified Mehmood or Ayaz in any of his verse I think for obvious reasons of their unholy relationship.

What Allama saw coming or what not is not our point of discussion. He dared to call ALLAH harjai ( Infidale/unfaithful) in one of his following verse, which no poet can dare in today's time of Talibaans and Osamas. Read the verse.......

**Kabhi Apno Kabhi Gairo Se Shanasai Hai

Baat Kahne Ki Nahin, Tu Bhi To ***HARJAI Hai*

So plz dont drag this into discussion which is certainly not about Allama. What he saw coming and what not is not my or urs business to speculate. We are rather discussing what he wrote.

For ALLAH sake my dear Tahzeebyafta friend, understand that I never said that Allama glorified Ayaz or Mehmood. I dont understand why ur clean mind is unable to understand the simple thing?

U keep on saying what U want to say about Krishna, I have made the things clear in this regard and I m sure that honourable members of this forum understand who is playing what clean or dirty game. I can only wish U happy slandering and happy showing of ur glorifying colours. Keep it up, U are scoring points which U need.

U keep on bragging about the verse saying that Mehmood was a Ghazi or Ayaz was a Jihadi, but fact remains that they were together because of a filthy relation and that has been clarified in the verse that we have been discussing. Why dont U leave the rest on ALLAH? He is most just and all knowing. He will decide my or anyone else's fate. Agree?

LOL at ur love for gay Mehmood brother that U are ready to go to any extent to justify him. I present verse from holy quran just to prove that U are wrong in ur actions and words. I know the punishment for wrong accusations, hope U too know, however ur words tell otherwise.

Like I said that to U is ur religion and its teachings and to me is my religion and its teachings. So may peace and mercy of ALLAH may be with U. May HE show U the right path and right words to interact. AMEEN.

48

Is this ur concrete prove?

which u said was not clear... LOL at ur Concrete proves... no wonder Indian media is so dumb...

this thing in ur post which tells about ur intellect level enuf said..

Do you have more concrete proves LOL

Sing a Song according 2 Ur Mood !!!!!
49

@raj

i m sorry to say but u have taken the discussion of the track . ppl here are saying that Mehmood is our hero (not an angel hope u understand the difference) as a warrior and as a conqueror. and his invasion helped the propagation of islam in india.

u r unnecessarily projecting a frivolous so called issue. what he does with the ghulam and londi does not make him a man of great stature. u dont see nething worth discussing about his life history?.

talk about his deeds/misdeeds that makes him worth discussing personality. come on yar dont talk like the sizzling news of tabloids.

(provided SC of India have recently held gay marraiage legal. so i think even if ayaz mehmood had that relationship that is now a non issue for u)

i always wonder hindus writer always condemn the aurangzeb as a emperor. who ruled the majority of indian sub continent area and next to Ashoka who is considered to rule the whole sub continent. they always project him ferocious, senseless and unjust ruler beside being incompetent. however, they have no objection over the rulers that ruled india between 1707- 1757 (after the demise of Aurangzeb). when the incompetent rulers like AKbar Sani and Shah alim rangelay ruled. during that period law and order situation was not gud and chaos was wide spread.

50

i think u r rite in this respect. recently an article of renowned Indian journalis Jug Suriya was publised in Times of India. in which he disclosed the fact the Archeology department cud get ne conclusive proof that RAM ever existed in india…

Is Ram really for real?:Juggle-Bandhi:Jug Suraiya’s blog-The Times Of India

most of the ppl codemen the colums but out of 538 comments none of them seriosly tried to historically prove the existence of RAM.

51

That is the problem which i highlighted in the earlier posts of this thread, that when these Indian ( and even some Pakistnies for that matter) consider someone good then they make him god and when they consider someone bad they put all the evils on him.. and that is without any prove although RAJ-IND is good in providing concrete proves ( i hope concrete buildings/bridges in India are safe), but his proves are not enough to prove any allegation…

52

Well brother, U want to turn the meaning of the verse upside down. So naturally U will have to resort to such intimidating words. But this is not going to work here. I have made my point pretty clear, so now its no use scratching the same place where itch is no more. So keep happy with ur denial mode.

Peace to U.

Time Pass ... Jan 2@14
53

I too feel sorry seeing discussion going off the track. But if U refer to my first post than U will notice that I had just added two more names to the Pakistan's list of icons. And rightly so. I dont know why that post irked the brother so much that he started calling me names and he was at the best of his Tahzeeb all of the sudden. Now I m yet to find out what wrong I did by including those two names which no Pakistani can deny except few to be their icons. U better ask the brother why he behaved like a pricked guy all of the sudden.

I must agree with U that there is nothing much to discuess about this and I take this from U and stop discussing this from now onwards,

Well brother, U should understand that what our sc has ruled out has nothing to do with an Islamic nation. the only thing which pains me is that Ppls like Mehmood are considered icons of Muslim nations who deserved to be severly punished already. anyways, its purely ur decision who U want to make ur icon.

Aurangzeb deserve severe condemnation just because he jailed his father and murdered his brothers. I dont want to discuess what he did to my forefathers. I know the more I will tell U about his atrocities on hindus, the more U will rejoice at it.

One thing I would like to point out is that Mehmood is to India what George Bush is to Iraq and Afganistan. What U can expect with poor Afganis and Iraqis to say about that monkey bush? Now in future when Americans will rejoice at the mass murder of Afganis and Iraqis and tell their coming generations how our ancestors and great president killed ur forefathers brutally than I wonder how those Iraqis and Afganis will react???? This is a serious question if U find it worth keeping in mind at least.

Peace to U all.

54

Raj_ind,

Though my knowledge is academic as I already said. One question is bothering me regarding attacks of Ghaznavi on temple of Somnat. He attacked 16 times could not succeed but was succesful on 17th time. When he broke the biggest stutue he found lots of ornaments and precious stones. According to Mohammad Hussain Azad, the statue was made of Gold. He dispatched half of the statue to Macca and rest half he himself took away. His attacks seemed to be only getting treasure hidden inside the statue. In a way it looked like he was an adventurer theif rather than role model for Muslims.

One off the record question. Is the carachter Ghajini in Bollywood movie is actually Ghazni (or Ghaznavi) showing a Muslim villian in the move?:)

55

Fighting with India was a great desire by Muslim Sultans and 17 attacks were his attacks on India not only Somnat. Inia was big enough and he could reach only almost the area which is Pakistan now and Mehmood was not having a very big army and was Sultan of Ghazni only (Almost Afghanistn now a days).He made the road to rule india for later trying. You can call him first Pakistani.

DANCE AND MASTI IS ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN....!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
56

i think hindu historian did not treat him well . we have few very low characters and tyrants personalities in indian history. and aurangzeb was not one them at least i m sure about it.

newayz as renowned historian romaila thapar once remarked that indian history is generally based on opinion and emtions rather than facts and figures.

57

Is it your habit to make baseless allegation or there is some other thing which is forcing you to do so.. you urself have changed the meaning of verse, which as per ur words was not clearly saying the thing you are trying to prove ( a concrete prove by u) and now u r saying that i am changing the meaning of the verse... well no logic or explanation can help reduce the hatedness you people have towards muslims and their heroes.. so it is obvious who is doing what...

58

So Much for ur academic knowledge...

Have u ever looked at the map of Indo-Pak, have you thought that what would it take to reach somnat from Ghazni? What is the distance? now thief will ever take that risk.

Most importantly, and just for your info, Somnaat was attacked once only, and that was his 16th Attack on India, and with all the might Indian Raja of that time had, they were not able to defeat a Warrrior who was thousand miles away from his homeland...

Anyway, you are free to think whatever you like to think about others, most nations who disown their national heroes are normally disowned by the history as well..

59

I slightly disagree as Mohammad Bin Qasim was here before Sultan Mehmood, so he can claim the title of first Pakistani...

anyway the hindus and their brothers who think Mehmood Ghaznavi was just a looter cannot answer a simple question that what stopped the Hindu Raja of that time to defeat this Sultan and/or invade Ghazni to bring this Sultan down...?

60

Qasim ghazni etc. had an impact on the whole Indian subcontinent. So they were not essentially "Pakistani".

The only leader that we can think of in terms of his "direct" impact on modern day Pakistani borders is actually Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

He is the one who set the borders in place on both east and West that pretty much determine the borders of modern day Pakistan.

That's a valid point. Indians today should accept the weakness of medieval rulers instead of blaming everything on Afghani warlords.

BTW Maharaja Ranjit Singh is among some of the few indigenous rulers who could dish out Afghani war lords the taste of their own medicine.

So we should consider him and owe him a great deal of credit and perhaps consider him the "first Pakistani" due to his contributions towards stabilizing and setting east-west borders of Pak.