Read! I said ethnic cleansing of Pakistan's history, not people. Big, big difference in case you notice.
Besides, did you not say Raja Ranjit and some other coward King should be Punjab's heroes as opposed to foreign Arabs, Persians, Turks and Afghans invaders? Go on, what exactly is your argument for calling Porus and Raja Ranjit your 'heroes' other than the fact they fit your self pleasing sons of soil criteria? Speaking of sons of soil, do you have any idea how Punjab's present day population owes its wonderful mix of ethnic diversity and racial make up to those foreigners who established communities and populated the rich, fertile land of five rivers. By randomly throwing in the manipulative neo-Nazi - natives good, foreigners evil - arguments, you are subsequently disrespecting the heritage of those groups whose familial lineage has roots outside of Punjab yet today they are just as Punjabi as everyone else in Punjab. But I'm interested to know what percentage of Punjab's population is ethically pure 'native' Punjabi and what percentage carry the damned foreigners' blood. Who are the real sons of soil and who are still 'outsiders'. I'm gonna debunk your argument on every single level to show the how dangerous and poisonous that mentally is if it is not properly challenged and nipped in the bud.
I'm willing to agree that the history you read at school which glorifies personalities is totally rubbish because hero worshiping is not what history is all about. But I don't think you actually agree with that. None of you have actually presented a single credible argument on academic grounds as to why it is important to study objective history, turn it into a specialised field of academia, expand and enrich our intellectual scope of historical studies and how can we practically achieve that (i.e allocate more funds for research). All I see is same old ethnic bullsht ranting about creating 'heroes' to sooth incurable sense of victim complex who can't be bothered about anything else in this world.
Well said.
Sons of soil are better even if they are looters, funny. this is racism. Ethnic pride looks good at start, but it ultimately leads to stupidity, differences, and hate.
This is typical liberal facist’s article. You cannot quote Iqbal by just looking at his stances of earlier stages. Once Iqbal realized what is wrong with sufis and turkish he stopped favoring them. He gone through those phases intellectually and reached here as follows. Once he called Rumi as peer e Rumi but when he realized he said…
Na Diya Nishan-e-Manzil Mujhe Ae Hakeem Tu Ne
Mujhe Kya Gila Ho Tujh Se, Tu Na Reh Nasheen Na Rahi
You have not led my way, O man of wisdom!
But why, complain? You know not the way.
Ye Maamle Hain Nazuk, Jo Teri Raza Ho Tu Kar
Ke Mujhe To Khush Na Aya Ye Tareeq-e-Khanqahi
Your monastic cult is a strait and narrow path,
Which I like not, but your freedom I respect.
This is typical liberal facist's article. You cannot quote Iqbal just looking at his stances of earlier stages. Once Iqbal realized what is wrong with sufis and turkish he stopped favoring them. He gone through those phase intellectually and reached here as follows. Once he called Rumi as peer e Rumi but when he realized he said...
Na Diya Nishan-e-Manzil Mujhe Ae Hakeem Tu Ne
Mujhe Kya Gila Ho Tujh Se, Tu Na Reh Nasheen Na Rahi
You have not led my way, O man of wisdom!
But why, complain? You know not the way.
Ye Maamle Hain Nazuk, Jo Teri Raza Ho Tu Kar
Ke Mujhe To Khush Na Aya Ye Tareeq-e-Khanqahi
Your monastic cult is a strait and narrow path,
Which I like not, but your freedom I respect.
hahah. so likes of Iqbal can make mistakes and then rectify their views. Its a positive approach. I just started loving Iqbal that he was not a rigid mulla as portrayed by today's so called mazhab ke thekedar.
hahah. so likes of Iqbal can make mistakes and then rectify their views. Its a positive approach. I just started loving Iqbal that he was not a rigid mulla as portrayed by today's so called mazhab ke thekedar.
I dont understand why is it funny for you.
Well I dont regard Iqbal as prophet, unlike some people consider shah latif equal to prophets of their culture.
Scanned the article and honestly, that is the biggest pile of bs I have ever read. I studied in Pakistan up until 7th grade, never once was I taught to hate “nonbelievers” or “Hindus”. Neither was I ever taught to only glorify religious figures or blindly hate India. How can someone who has probably never set a foot in Pakistan come to such a conclusion as presented by the writer of the article, sounds like a nutcase to me.
You are talking to wrong person dear. Even I don’t consider Shah Latif a Sufi saint. He is just a great poet and I revere him who had courage to talk about rights of people without creating compartments of religion and sects. Same reverence goes for Iqbal, after I read him praising Guru Nanak and Ata Turk.
Sadly, generations have now grown up espousing the cause of jihad so well laid out in our textbooks that the reversal of this process may take another 10 years or more. Little wonder, then, that when I received an invitation for the Saarc Literature festival in New Delhi, my eight-year-old emphatically advised me: “you can’t go to the enemy country”. What could be more worrying for a South Asia pacifist?
Well mybe you dont know why Iqbal praised Guru nanak. If you knew you would hate him. :hehe:
Iqbal wanted the unity among muslims, his other later thoughts remained consistent to this idea.
How did dr israr misquoted Iqbal?