Propagation of myth

Creation and propagation of myth lies at the heart of Nation building and religion. There is no nation on earth and no religion on earth that has not cooked up myths of some distant past and propagated it as realities and their NOW is based on many of those myths and living up to these myths.

In another thread someone commented in a discussion on Pakistani culture

"I was talking about time way beyond Bristish Colonialism. When muslims first moved to this area (ofcourse we conquered this area), they came up with their own islamic traditions…thus giving a new color to the existing local culture.
It was during British rule that when muslims lost their strenght, and they felt more insecure…it is then the muslims started accepting the influence of Hinduism in culture. "

I think it is reasonable myth to propagate for the benefit of nation building in Pakistan and in fact it was created on this argument that we(pakistanis) as Muslims are different from Hindus. But what surprises me the most is that many of the Pakistanis go another step further and live in this fantasy that their ancestors were already muslims before they came from some other far away land and conquered this land now known as Pakistan. How popular is this myth? No doubt there are some Pakistanis(and Indians too)[some estimate only 10-15% Pakistani population not native of this land] whose ancestors came from other countries and were muslims and they permanently settled in this area but saying most of Pakistani muslims came from some other land and conquered it, how much more ridiculous one can be?

What I have sensed further is that some of these so called “descendents of conquerers”, now Pakistanis, still have this mentality of thinking about their more native countrymen as inferior…meaning still live up to those mythical fanstasies of ruling this “conquered” land and people.

[This message has been edited by ChannMahi (edited April 03, 2002).]

[quote]
... and live in this fantasy that their ancestors were already muslims before they came from some other far away land and conquered this land now known as Pakistan. ... No doubt there are some Pakistanis(and Indians too)[some estimate only 10-15% Pakistani population not native of this land] whose ancestors came from other countries and were muslims and they permanently settled in this area but saying most of Pakistani muslims came from some other land and conquered it, how much more ridiculous one can be?
[/quote]

Chann ji,

Even in the case of 10-15% Muslims coming from abroad, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't really tell you anything or proves anything. Being the successor of, say, Arabic or Purssian ancestry doesn't mean squat. It's people's own inferiority complex that makes them try to distinguish themselves among rest of the masses by following exactly the kinda myths you mentioned.

Speaking of lineage reminds me of Sayeds. I mean, look at these guys. Here they are, trying to promote themselves as better and more respectable than common people 'cause supposedly they are from the same ancestry as Prophet Mohammad. Can you imagine the primatial desire of virtue by the sole association or descent of remote ancestors? How much foolish is that?

I think all such people should take their Arabic, Purssian, or Ibrahim-y lineage (which a pretty long, long one, btw) and shove it where it came from.

Assi maali day putter ee theek aaN.

[quote]
Assi maali day putter ee theek aaN.
[/quote]

:~) Roman bhai cha gayay!

I am so glad that when I’m in Pakistan I do not have to answer moronic questions such as “where are you from originally?” or “where are your parents from?” Because it would surely be so damned hard to explain that just because the forefathers set up camp in the wilderness, a long while back, I might be one of the 10-15% non-native Pakistani Syeds… If after at least 300 years of ancestral history in the Barray Sagheer, I cannot call myself a native Pakistani and be proud of the fact, then something is seriously amiss.

I think the very beauty of the sub-continental culture lies in its diversity; I have never seen a nation more indigenously diverse than that of the sub-continent, and yet despite the diversity there is common culture, enabling people from vastly different backgrounds to “connect”.

Roman, I have oftentimes felt reviled by the very elitist attitude of syeds, (especially the Indo-Pakistani ones) and believe this is more to do with the influence of prevalent caste systems in society, a drawback of our culture, than anything else. But on the other hand, if the virtue of association does indeed enable one to become a more responsible, Mohammedan-spirited individual, what is the harm in that?

if the virtue of association does indeed enable one to become a more responsible, Mohammedan-spirited individual, what is the harm in that?

Ms Nisa,

The virtue of association is nothing but a false sense of group identity to rise above the others based on something that is absolutely uncontrollable by the very responsible, Mohamedan-spirited individuals you mentioned. We all seek group identity one way or the other, nothing wrong with that. However, when it becomes a matter of social pride and discrimination without personal achievement then it's absolutely condemnable.

Moreover, if those individual need to feel the lineage link to be pious or spiritual then there is nothing more self-deceptive and delusional than that.

Hey, it's their own Quran that says something like no Ajmi is better than the Arabi and vice versa except for the Taqwa. And one doesn't really need to be a son of a prophet to be Mutaqi.

[quote]
Originally posted by Roman:
>> And one doesn't really need to be a son of a prophet to be Mutaqi.
[/quote]

Similarly, one does not need to eat Alpo to be a son of a b**ch.

What's 'Alpo'?

It's dogfood. Don'tchya know?

First of all, I understand there is a trend among some Pakistanis to claim descent from the Muslim conquerors which in the case of Pakistan came mostly from arab, afghan, and turkic stock. FIrst reason for this is , that the desecndants of those folks did not just disappear--they remained and intermingled. Secondly, the situation of Pakistan is extremely complex and its not very important to explain how all this happened. But since some one brings it up, i'll say a few things. Majority of Pakistanis are the ones who were present/settled here over periods of time before the muslim armies from arabia or central Asia came. With the Islamic conquest the new invaders settled down. Those who were away from their original homeland in time departed from their original customs and forged local identities. Perhaps this example would help: there are many Pakistanis who clamim descent from Afghans for example. But there are usually 2 kinds of folks involved here 1) Those who belong to NWFP and northern balochistan (the area itself being afghan proper) who call themselves the pakhtuns. They rarely refer to themselves as desecendants of afghans, since this area "IS" afghan proper. Infact, inorder to distinguish themselves they refer to themselves as "pakhtuns". 2) second are the ones who settled with the administrative muslim armies in major cities of south Asia. These folks are what I would refer the "detached group" which amalgamates its identity with a group because of self interst, language and settlement. Hence there are afghans in Punjab who speak Punjabi. There are pukhtuns among urdu speaking mohajireen who call themselves muhajir and in manner are probably very different from the "afghan proper". Usually it is these folks who on probing would go to pains of early years ancestory. Similarly, there were muslim sindhis, with traditional sindhi jatt last names who migrated to Pakistan along with other muhajireen. These folks are considered "urdu", karachite and outsider even by their own native sindhi counterparts who consider themselves sindhi proper. About 20% population of Punjab are ones who settled with the Muslim armies. These would be the desecendants of afghans, turks, arabs and iranians. (keep in mind that this would not apply to areas such as attock etc... since the pukhtuns migrated to these regions not with the armies but as a result of later migrations, same goes for the punjabi balochis).Infact this is how the British identified the muslims of Punjab by classyfying them as Punjabi Muslims...a relatively new term for the folks of these region, because of the strong and diverse blood lines.

The pattern of foreign muslim settlement (that is after the 8th century onwards) occured in a few phases. The first arabs who settled in Pakistan were the ones who settled in Sindh with the conquest by Ibn Qasim (R.A). Under and after his rule Sindh thrived. History and books were written on Sindh and commerce and trade thrived. Conversely around 30,000 sindhi jatt families (called by arabs as Zutt) were displaced to the Islamic centres in baghdad, and other cities as soldiers, physicians, and accountants. Once in a while a person may very well run into a Iraqi with the last name of Al-Sindhi etc..not to mention that in the Thousand nights and one night there is Sindbad of busra.
People think that Pakistan was converted to Islam under Sultan Memood E Ghaznavi (R.A). However the fact is that Before Sultan Ghaznavi entered the region, Much of Pakistan primarily area upto multan & bhawalpur had embraced Islam but was under the Ismaili sect. And under Ghaznavi most switched to sunni sect. This was the first phase of Arab settlement. Same goes for the turko afghan settlement outside of afghan proper.
The second phase would be during the mughal rule, when crisis and destruction of baghdad and anatolia would bring princes, artisians, poets, philosophers, musicians, courtiers etc. from bukhara, baghdad, hamadan, arabia, caucuses, gardeyz, ghazan etc... Most of these would settle in and near the court of the moghul which is delhi and intermarry with everyone.
And lastly, respect to syed is not only paid in Pakistan, in Iran they are treated to the extent of shirk. In Iraq, and other countries they are also given a lot of respect primarily from rural quarters. And not everyt syed is a descendant of the prophet (saw) many have just taken up this title for prestige.
If people make a big deal about it, then its their mentality more than anything else. Muhammad (saw) was a shepard who mend his own shoes and slept on a mat.

[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited April 04, 2002).]

[quote]
Originally posted by Chaltahai:
It's dogfood. Don'tchya know?
[/quote]

Nah man, I munch on Pedigree.

[quote]
Originally posted by Roman:
** However, when it becomes a matter of social pride and discrimination without personal achievement then it's absolutely condemnable.

Moreover, if those individual need to feel the lineage link to be pious or spiritual then there is nothing more self-deceptive and delusional than that.
**
[/quote]

Roman azizam,

As you may or may not have noticed, I do not disagree with your point.

However, the fact remains that linkage to the Prophetical lineage is indeed a trait which in many Muslim societies, across the spectrum, is held in high regard, and in some respects, as someone pointed out, maybe in too high a regard. The only reason for such “respect” that comes to mind is simply the association, however remote, to the Prophet. Yes I do believe discrimination and self-promotion based on such a notion is wrong. But maybe “Sadatship” did not begin as a matter of superiority and discrimination, but as an issue of much greater responsibility – if Syeds recognise the significance of this, they may not be so eager to proclaim themselves as such.

It is also stated in the Qur’an that the wives of the Prophet, having become wives, were instructed that they were no longer like other women, and had to behave in a more responsible manner; if she committed an indecency, she’d be doubly liable for punishment. This is because of the virtue of association with the Prophet.

With “status” comes responsibility, not superiority. I for one would not be prepared to take such a responsibility upon myself.

[This message has been edited by Khairun Nisa (edited April 05, 2002).]

[quote]
... But maybe “Sadatship” did not begin as a matter of superiority and discrimination, but as an issue of much greater responsibility – if Syeds recognise the significance of this, they may not be so eager to proclaim themselves as such.

It is also stated in the Qur’an that the wives of the Prophet, having become wives, were instructed that they were no longer like other women, and had to behave in a more responsible manner
[/quote]

Miss Nisa,

What was expected of Prophet's wives is an apple, and the significance of ancestral association hundereds of years later accross the globe among a particular group of people (Sayed) is not so much of an apple - it's a rotten egg.

It's the same as first lady of the US is supposed to act/behave in a certain way as she's the wife of the president. I'm all up for such social front or respectful responsibility due to immediate familty (father, mother, brother, sister, etc) reputation/association etc.

But I don't think there is any sort of extra responsibility lies on the shoulders of Sayed clan hundereds of years later just because one of their forefathers happened to be a prophet. I mean, com' on, if you go by that logic then given the number (huge number) of prophets, everybody ends up in some sorta prophetic lineage - and if not, you can always by-pass everybody go directly to Adam and Eve.

But I don’t think there is any sort of extra responsibility lies on the shoulders of Sayed clan hundereds of years later just because one of their forefathers happened to be a prophet. I mean, com’ on, if you go by that logic then given the number (huge number) of prophets, everybody ends up in some sorta prophetic lineage - and if not, you can always by-pass everybody go directly to Adam and Eve.**
[/QUOTE]

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/ok.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/ok.gif

well said
Still if they do’nt understand then there R enough verses for ppl like 'em

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif

Roman, you are telling me that when you go to the grocery store and you see a bad kaddoo or blemished bellpepper you don't feel the responsibility to point it out to the manager how that produce could have been grown better? My father will pick up the perfect kharbooza at the supermarket, rotate it on his left hand and then point at some textrual property with middle finger of his right hand and say ...unjh te changa ay lekin thoRha pehlaN toRh liya ay.

BTW do you know Heer's husband was also Syed? look at the respect Waris Shah pays to him....he calls him Saiydda kaana.

[This message has been edited by ChannMahi (edited April 05, 2002).]

[quote]
Originally posted by Roman:
I mean, com' on, if you go by that logic then given the number (huge number) of prophets, everybody ends up in some sorta prophetic lineage - and if not, you can always by-pass everybody go directly to Adam and Eve.
[/quote]

And thus I come a full circle…

There is no greater lineage than that of Adam and Eve. I don’t think it will do much harm to recognise this pedigree; perhaps the world might be a better place for it.

for Gods sake Adam and Eve's kids had sex with each other...what is so great about it? If our kids do that today..we will just die of shame. dunya taahne maar maar, maar de gi.

Channji

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/ok.gif

Kudos to Sultan Toora for the detailed explanation.

My two cents:

I agree that a large percentage of Pakistanis (Indian Muslims also) are in outright denial of their culture. I agree with the non-native Arab, Persian, Turk figure of 20% (max). The majority of Pakistanis from Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan are descended from Jatt and Rajput ancestories. While many Indian Muslims are descendants of Dalits and other lower castes. In Kashmir, the Muslims are descendants of Brahmins.

In many instances you see a Pakistani “Sandhu” or a “Khokhar” last name ‘claim’

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif

foreign ancestory, which is laughable at best (if you know your history). I’m not going to spare other Muslims of the subcontinent either, actually just last week an Indian Muslim friend of mine decided to bring up his Turkish ancestory, when the fact is that his name, physical attributes bearing resemblance to Bihari Hindus

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif

I found out that his grandfather had converted to Islam, while the grandfathers brothers were still practicing Hindus. I ended up telling him off about the lies and I told him that having former Hindu relatives do not make him less of a Muslim, although his lying sure did!

My point is that, Muslims didn’t spring from the ground. All of our ancestors were once Hindu, Pagan, etc., but to deny that is to be foolish. Remember Islam doesn’t judge your ancestors, only you.

As you can see, I am VERY proud of my heritage. I am a Muslim and a Rajput. I know there are Hindus, Sikhs and others who I share bloodlines with, and why should I not be proud of my heritage AND my religion?

Saddi dharti te log. . .


The eyelids of a Rajputs eyes are lowered only in death.

Depends how many generations you want to go back... in the end we're all related.

Dear Rajput brother and son of the soil of this land of pure. You are very right. Infact, every one converted to islam at one point or the other. Just a couple of things: balochis are not of jatt or rajput origin and are possibly an older ethnic people, however, they very well may have incorporated in themselves the elements that have given rise to the identities of todays jatts and rajputs. I will quote one of the leading culturalist and anthropologist of southwest Asia John Keay from his book when he writes about the groups the britsh derived much of their troops usually pathans, gurkhas, sikhs, hindu jats and dogras, and punjabi muslims. He says,“…here, thanks to the Britsh recruitment preferences, all communities had strong military connections and cherished martial traditions. The muslims of Panjab, unlike the mostly lower-caste converts of east bengal , included descendants of long converted rajput tribes (Bhatti, khokar…) and of the turks, Mongols and Afghans who had so often traversed this region.”

It is the spirit of Islam that has united us, the sons of this land.
As a token of another trivial fact i’ll mention that rajputs and pukhtuns have many things common to them including the expert use of the horse and sports like tent pegging. Muslims rajputs should try playing buzkashi aswell LOL

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif

. They might like it.
And I dont have much information, but I do know that some pukhtuns were also influeced by brahmanist paganism. This is evident from the fact that the bollywood famous kapoor family is originally from peshawar and they can pass as pathan. However, brahmanist paganism was never a strong tradition in this area: there are no hindu temples in this area.
And by the way there arent any “hindu” temples of antiquity ANYWHERE in Pakistan worth mentioning although the land holds plenty of budhist, zoroastarian, other animist and pagan heritage such as kalash kafirs, and even sikhy gurdawaras.

[This message has been edited by Sultan Toora (edited April 06, 2002).]