South Asian or not ?

Arts & Culture Culture, Arts, Literature & Linguistics
21

Musalman.... do you really believe that only muslims will go to heaven (if there is one?)..actually i don't believe in heaven and hell, to treat all human beings equally and decently is the best thing we all human beings can achieve.

How would you feel if i tell you that you will go to hell if you don't follow my religion...to live in peace with us you will have to convert to Hinduism or Sikhism..what you are saying deprives human beings of freedom and is against human rights.

You worry about yourself and try to be a decent and tolerant human being if at all possible...don't worry about us whether we will go to heaven or hell - which nobody has seen it or have come back to tell us about it.

P.S. Mallik's face saving bakwas is noted and ignored.....:)

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited December 05, 2000).]

22

rvikz,
Though we are all members of OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries). SAARC or ARAB LEAGUE doesn’t matter. Pakistan already has strategic understanding with Middle-Eastern countries and very soon we will have strategic defence pacts with them as well. We always appreciate other Muslim cultures.

23

Rani
One of the other threads we have already determined that only Muslims will go to Paradise. As far as the questions of other religions is concerned. All other religions are based of false hood less Christianity and Jewish religions, but even these have been corrupted by the people of the Book (Jews & Christians). It is therefore our responsibility and duty to call on non-believers to Islam so as to save them from the torment of hellfire for this on the day of Judgment the Muslim Ummah will be called as witness before Allah (SWT). We have to keep on trying to deliver the true message of the creator to not only Hindus but to entire humanity to keep them away from the hellfire.

24

Musalman,

What if i say that all religion are based on falsehood except Sikhism. I can say the same thing what you are saying.

All i can read in your post is that you don't respect other people and their faiths. This is dangerous thinking, just remember toleration begets toleration and your kind of thinking leads to wars.

You can wage all the wars in the name of religion and hate others but in the end you will pay the cost.

P.S. I am actually amazed at your facist thinking and lack of toleration for others.

25

What do you call someone who supports the BJP-RSS-SHIV SENA-BAJRANG DAL COMBINE and who respects Bal Thackeray?

Answer - a facist.

26

Ok if this is to become a slanging party, then the thread be deleted.

I weanted a discussion on this matter. Not a couple of childish stabs.

Its demeaning o all.

I am starting another thread for you guys, use it.

So, that others can discuss the topic in question.

27

[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
**Pakistan is an Islamic State and therefore part of the Dar-ul-Islam (House of Islam), Pakistan is part of the Muslim Ummah. One clarification here which is contrary to some popular belief that Middle East the entire Ummah. Middle East is not the entire Ummah but merely part of the Muslim Ummah which stretches from far west from Morocco to Far East to Indonesia, then in Europe from of Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania to Asia minor Turkey and then to entire Central Asia Kazakhstan, Kyrhgyzstan and in Southern Russia Tatarstan then to Northen western China in Xinjiang and then it covers over half of the African continent. This is Dar-ul-Islam. Every body else is Darl-ul-Herb (House of Kuffr and Hostility). A Muslim can have only two possible relations with Dar-ul-Harb: peace with a contractual agreement, or war. A country with which there is a treaty will not be considered the home of Islam. Thus the affairs of Pakistan can in no way be mixed with any South Asian affairs of Dar-ul-Harb as the affairs of Muslims cannot be mixed with the affairs of polytheists.

[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited December 05, 2000).]**
[/quote]

very, very well said Musalman.
we have to get rid of the misconception that the Middle East represents the majority of the Muslim "ummah".....despite the fact that almost 80% of Muslims live outside it.

28

There is a considerable amount of racial and ideological inference in Pakistan that is not native to India.

Actually, though most of teh ritualistic practices in Punjab and some degenerate influences in Sindh are very vivid, the influence of the Central Asian region and Iran is very very clear especially in Sarhad
and Baluchistan.

Northern Punjab is more Central Asian than Indian in nature and theinfluence is best experienced in the regions that border the Indus.

Now for the point about the Indo-Iranian migration.

Well, it might come as a surprise to the person in question, that the thesis does not place Europe as the inception or the departing region for that expansion.

The whole bio-anthropologial study reveals that the expansion was from the region closed in by the Aral and the Oxus.
Both India and Central Europe were destinations in this expansions and not initiating points.

Anthropology and Geneology has come a long way than the texts are being trodden upon in India.
The idea of a European Invasion of the CEntral Asian and mesopatanian regions was completely dismissed in teh 1970s.

There is enough data to knock the rafters out of this Destination argument.

With regards to relegion, well.

Whether or not India agrees, there is a wedge between them and the Pakistanis. It is not just their relegion.
Hindu culture is an assimulated culture. It is an accepting culture. There are no basics of belief. It is a relegion that allows everything to become part of it. One of the key advantages of not having a solid foundation is that it can not ever become or be classed as rigid.
That is the advantage and that is why Hinduism has been able to amalgamate practices that more pagan than its own or less pagan.
That is why there so much redundancy in the relegion itself.
If you want I can explain that further for you.

There in lies the problem.

There in lies the reason why there is a wedge between Pakistan and India and not somuch between Bangladesh or Maldives.

29

whole ethinic mix is very comlicated.
punjabi muslim have more common with punjabi hindu than with tamil muslim. bngali hindu can easily identify with bangaldesh muslim
than with hindu pakistani.
major difference between india and pakistan
is dravidian blood is more dominant eventhough most f them dont speak dravidian languages. only dravidian language spoken inpakistan is brahui

30

This is the beauty of Islam, once the proclamation is made that "There is no god only ALLAH, and Muhammad is the Messenger of ALLAH" then all other blood relations are removed. The only thing that is left is that all Muslims are brothers to each other. It is not like Hinduism where there is complex cast system and people are looked at according to their casts. Islam prohibits any relationship that is based on any ethnic or national creed.

[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited December 05, 2000).]

31

Rani,

Who is trying to deny we share the same genetic pool? But we also share it with others. And looking similar is no substitute for thinking similar.

[quote]
Indians are very secure with their own culture and I don't think we care what kind of culture you force yourself to follow.
[/quote]

I didn't realise jeans and baseball caps were invented by Indians. Are you wearing a sari while you are writing this?

[quote]
I don't think Indian object to whatever identity you want to take on, that is your business, we just find it very amusing.
[/quote]

Well I find it kinda funny when I see Indian film stars with names like Pinky and Bobby. And when they do their Michael Jackson routines I always think to myself, this is Indian culture at it's best.

32

If you see it from another angle, the problem with Pakistani muslims is that they have a specific trait that is not welcome in Hinduism.

In my earlier post I was trying to explain that hinduism is not a relegion based on principle beliefs, it is one that has flourished by the amalgamation of beliefs. It truly is a cosmopolitan relegion, the reason being that it has bits and pieces of all the different faiths and beliefs that it has encountered. Each new faith brought its own impact and "modernised" the perception of those who practiced Hinduism.
Like a relegious Hybrid.

Such a belief and the people who propogate it are by nature not hostile to other relegions that are not "militarily feeble". Hostilities are towards less disciplined minorities.

So, after saying that I would be asked why the hostility towards Pakistan and Pakistani Muslims ?

Well, that is explained using the same psychy. What is so different with the Pakistani Muslims which is not with say teh Bangladeshi muslims or the muslims in South India or UP ?
The difference is that they are not willing to hybrid their relegious belief. What I mean is that they are resistant to hinduanising their belief and that is what is the source of conflict.
Unlike the other communities that tehy are more than willing to "ACCEPT", the idea that one's faith is the principle means of a collective identity is very very alien to Hinduism which flourishes at the attitude of accepting others into its fold.
Like the old saying about the mongols and the chinese, "They came, they won, but China conquered".

It is that reluctance which is hard to bear, not the idea that they are defamatory towards a multitude of gods or traditions.
Hence there is so much pride displayed in the fact that so many of East Punjab and Sindh still has overtures of a hindu tradition in their society. The fact that these traits are inhumane or degrading at best are of no consequence. There in they see a victory.

As for the idea that most Pakistanis share the DRAVIDIAN blood. That is debatable.

Most of Punjab is inhabited by the Kushan or Saka decendants. There is considerable White Hun blood that is pretty obvious.

What most Hindu historians dealing with the history of Pakistan have a problem with is the idea that they are out to prove the oness of India. The idea that everyone is from teh same gene pool.
There are population traits that are so remarkably different that these people would be served well to try and take a less subjective point of view. To argue that Punjab does not have a clear mix of non-dravidian majority is to try and be stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Brahui, now that is interesting, I have had a very long debate with a linguistics student from India who tried his best to rewrite modern linguistic history regarding the relationaship of brahui and sanskrit.

Braui, does not have gender stipulation in speech, sanskrit does. However, that was to him such a problem. He tried everything from persian invasion to hazzards of chronology to try and refute that, but invain.
It nice to know that some one in India (or sympathises with India) has the courage to claim that brahui is not from sanskrit stock.

Now to the idea that due to this language being dravidian in origin the region as a whole has a "present" inhabitant population taht is dravidian.

Well,

That is a sweeping idea. Kind of like saying that becuse the only true common language in India is Northern European (English) hence the Indian population is English by implication.

Its a generalisation taht is unfair at best.

Now lets llok at the population that speaks this language.

It is not a language that has a dense population base (unlike the dravidian culture in Southern India and other dravidian languages).
It has not been considered to teh primary lexicon used by any of its speakers. The language retains overtures of a dravidian past and is heavily influenced by persian, dari (a persian hybrid) and tajik.
Lets compare the physical traits of those who speak brahui with those who speak Kanada, Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu (other dravidian languages).

Are you telling me that the speakers of brahui are from the same genetic stock as the speakers of Kanada, Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu ?

Surely you would find yourself hard pressed to match the basic physical traits of the 2 million strong speakers of brahui who are spread in small pockets (to be noted) over a region as vast as Kalat (baluchistan), Iran, Afghanistanand Turkmenistan ?

Do you see the flaw in the presumption taht you make ?

33

Xtreme,

You are confusing lot of issues, Indians don't think of themselves as middle eastern or are unhappy in their skins and are consiouly trying to be closer to others to acquire their identity, they are what they are.

Exchange of culture has been going on for centuries that has nothing to do with the identity, west has borrowed many things from Indians. Do you think Madonna has become Indian or wants to become Indian by wearing Bindi and Mehdi ..of course not. What you are is within you outwards appearance doesn't count.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited December 06, 2000).]

34

Make your mind up Rani. On the one hand you are saying it is wrong for Pakistani to take culture from the middle east, but on the other hand you are saying it's ok for Indians to ape the west.

If Pakistani films showed actors riding camels and wearing arab headdresses, you would definitely say that we are trying to be arabs. So by the same logic, I can say that when Salman Khan wears leather pants and dances with Kajol wearing a mini skirt, they are rejecting their Indian dress in favour of western. Especially if there is a disco beat.

35

Xtreme,

Cultural exchange has gone on from time immorial, lot of old greek dresses look like indian dresses I bet at one time Indian culture went all over the world.

My mind is made up, it you who are having the problem by judging by the number of the post and telling the participants to reject their Indian heritage. Indians don't have a dress code but at the same time we don't actively propogate rejection of our culture in favor of some other in order to fit in with our new found friends or co-religionist.

36

We have opted for superior Islamic civilization then that of Hindu civilization. We do not like to associate ourselves with pagan customs, traditions thus any thing that reflects paganism.

37

Musalman,

Really, but listening to you it is very clear that toleration, respect for others, open mindedness and equality for all are not its virtues.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited December 06, 2000).]

38

So when Indians ape west it is 'cultural exchange', but when Pakistanis look to middle east it is in order to 'fit in with new found friends'.

Why can't Pakistani relations with middle east be described as cultural exchange?

39

[quote]
Originally posted by Rani:
**Musalman,

Really, but listening to you it is very clear that toleration, respect for others, open mindedness and equality for all are not its virtues.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited December 06, 2000).]**
[/quote]

Toleration: The relationship between Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb is the best example of Islamic toleration of other nations on earth.

Respect for others: Protected communities under Islamic rule enjoy the full rights as non Muslim citizens of the Islamic State with all due respect.

Open mindedness: If you had an open mind you wouldn’t be oppressing your own self (nafs), you commit sin against your own true selves and then talk about open mindedness. He who does not know himself cannot know his Lord (Rabb). Ignorant is he who does not know; stupid is he who does not know that he does not know; idiot is he who does not understand that he does not understand!

Equality: Can a blind and one with sight be equal?

40

Musalman,

From my vantage point people who judge others and call them eyed one are the ones who really are half blind.

Calling others ignorant reeks of insecurity..you can keep going on about how superior you are, in the end you are just exposing yourself as to who you are and wasting your time trying to convince me of your superiority.