No connection at all. Zionist state of Israel was floated as concept in late 19th century by Herzl etc. White, christian Europe (which was deeply antisemitic) was keen to rid itself of jews. Britain's WWI axis was financially bank-rolled by wealthy jews (Rothschild etc.) in return for the bargain that the former would deliver state of Israel in Palestine (which was then a British protectorate). This was duly done through Balfour declaration in 1917. All this while Britain and Europe fanned nationalistic uprisings throughout the Arabian peninsula and dismembered Ottoman empire into multiple Arab states. Europe got rid of jews. Jews got Israel. Win-win for both, and a permanent loss for Palestinian Arabs. Pakistan's birth was delivered by Britain too; but that's were any similarity ends. Pakistan's creation was a boon to the the Muslims who opted for it (although many here will disagree with my assessment). It was presented an opportunity to break free from majoritarian hindu yoke/past and carve its own virtuous destiny. But unfortunately it all went downhill through series of leadership failures. What would have been the 3rd most populous country (although it was just a matter of time that geographically distant Bangladesh would break free) and still is 5th largest (without Bangladesh), Pakistan failed to emerge as a power that it could have been. It is now a nobody in the international power play in contrast to its bigger, partner-in-birth counterpart, India.
Creation of Pakistan and Creation of Israel From the western perspective: Could the formation of the Independent state of Pakistan have been a double hand by the colonialists, did they push for this or did they in any way influence any part of the process thereby laying the foundation for An Independent state of Israel: Only and Purely based on the Religion of a People. Both in 1947 Connected? Has this been discussed before anywhere?
but brother haroon isnt it our responsibility to elect honest leaders to lead the country such as Imran khan. we all have to do more than just criticise, its ok to be arm chair leaders but who is willing to stand up for the nation and solve our problems. have you all ever thought about how to make Pakistan a secure and prosperous country. we should learn from people like abdul sattar edhi who have done a lot for us and contribute.
Wadood, I have been to Bangladesh twice and travelled all over the country. Its probably my favourite country to visit after Pakistan. Definately amongst the elder generation there are memories of the attacks by the pakistani soldiers in 71 and the mass rape and killings that took place. On the other hand, the current feeling of the people is generally friendly towards pakistan even though culturally i have observed that they are closer towards india. And look today are what Bengalis are doing to the Rohingyan muslims. Plenty of atrocities being done here as well. All in all, a lot of life and for what. Countries with corrupt leadership is what we get.
karachi has 1.5 million Bangladeshis [bengalis] living happily with their pakistani brothers and sisters. The friendship between Pakistan and Bangladesh is the best.
These are a couple of examples of Pakistani army brutality in East Bengal in 1971: 1) mass killing of university professors and students and burying them in graves 2) mass killing of other alumni academic, bengali nationalists, and freedom fighters, Bengali language advocates These are well documented. yayha khan ordered the killing of these people. But who were the Pakistani /bengali/bihari army personnel and sympathizers who committed the killings? We need exact details of the numbers of killings and rapes perpetrated by the 90,000 POWs and the ones before them who flew back to west pakistan in the months before the surrender to indira. Only then can we make a proper judgement as to what was the extent of the killing and rape and who committed them physically. Lets make a trip to Bangladesh and ask the local Bengalis one by one as to what happened exactly. Then we will know, what is Indian propaganda, and what is the truth on the ground. In India, they burn Muslims alive, women and children. 80% of those attacked in Gujarat were women and children. This is what a Hindu/Sikh does.
Vast majority of the 90,000 POWs caught in Bangladesh are still alive in Pakistan. Many of them have migrated to the west. They are around. You can meet them and ask for the atrocities against fellow Muslim Bengalis.
aq how can you generalise that statment to the whole nation?? well if they are such a fitnah monger then why do other islamic countries friends with it? aap to aise keh rahe jaise ke aapke indian fauj dood ki dulhi hue hain!
No, this is Indian propaganda. It were the Indian agents who were attacking and killing Biharis and Bengali sympathizers. No one can give assurity as to who were these some pakistani army committing wrongs against Bengalis. They were all caught eventually. I met a number of them who are now around 60 years of age. One of them is major khairul bashar. The atrocities did occur as documented. But please avoid Indian propaganda. What happened to Hasina's father mujib later? Where did the mukti bahini go? Is Bangladesh an enemy of India or a friend? maulana x is a kashmir, let him say what he wants
mulla x why don't you ask the people of bangladesh how they felt? wait a sec, it was their fellow muslim west pakistani brethren raping and murdering them, was it?i'm sure they must've felt over the moon! kashmir is not your headache for sure. leave it alone. pakistan has proven that it is a despicable fitnah-monger in the islamic world and should learn to shut its political yap! apna watan to sambhalta nahin hai, chaley hain kashmir bachaney!
there was no violence because people believed in what bhonga pundit nehru had promised them that kashmir shall be liberated, however tat never happened and people lost their patience as the injustices done by the indian army were increasing thats when they decided to take matters in their own hands which was foolish but no they are not all wahhabis just people who are oppressed and want freedom. btw why has the indian killed 200,000 kashmiris since 1980 and none of have got justice, just ask the people of kashmir themselves how they feel??? brother if the betterment of the people is an independent kashmir then why not!
maulanax bhai u sound like a pakistani govt spokesman! do the kashmiris need such liberation? both india and pakistan use kashmir as a pawn for their own purposes. the ones to suffer are the innocent kashmiris caught between wahabi fanatic mullahs supported by the paki army on the one hand and the barbaric indian army on the other... look. pakistan can not wrench kashmir from india by force. no way. time to accept realities. nor can they bleed india into giving up kashmir. nor will india voluntarily give up kashmir. nor will they hold a plebiscite. so pakistan should aim at stopping the violence in kashmir even if that means giving it up. if u r a kashmiri tell me bro why there was no violence in kashmir up to about the early 1990s? the ideal solution imho would be a completely independent kashmir but neither india nor pak will agree to that.
Nj bhai kya keh rahe ho, india is a sham democracy. Do you know what goes in occupied kashmir, im ethnically kashmiri and hate the indian government. Pakistan should rather copy turkey in secularism.we cant have peace in south asia until india liberates kashmir!
to open a long closed topic, even though i am ethnically a pakistani, the more pakistan is beset with problems --number one being the wahabi terrorists who are bombing everywhere and killing innocents--may they (terrorists)be damned to hell!--i cannot but help thinking, as i get older and read more of the history of the subcontinent (a lot of new books have come onto the market in the last few years) that the creation of pakistan hasn´t really benefited the muslims much and pakistan is more and more a banana republic; the relatively pathetic standard of life for the majority of people in pakistan (and india) makes one wish that the governments their would concentrate on eradicating poverty, improving the public services, infrastructure, education, science and tech, and other such noble, islamic, goals rather than spending money on weapons of mass destruction and trying to (in pakistan´s case) shove so-called islamification on the people. i look forward to a day in the future when the countries of south asia are united in an EU style federation and where people are peace-loving and live and let live. to be fair india is on the right path, despite its problems, and is a secular democracy, making economic leaps. pakistan needs to follow suit...
this is unfair. we have never edited posts that criticize us. and i will certainly not take offense for personal remarks. anybody is free to criticize us as much as they like. and if they are correct, we will try to make amends inshaAllah. secondly, as you quote: `ujb is a malady of the nafs. you have misunderstood my post once more. the problem with yanabi posters is that they are wrong in many posts - and they are angry if they are told they are wrong. i have nothing against the site; i have nothing against the posters. i am trying to tell it as plainly as possible that they are doing themselves and others a disservice by posting all kinds of opinions without proper checks. you cannot claim to be sunni and not act as sunnis. i have given a short list of simple rules to follow to posts. in my warped mind, i think it is quite reasonable. why don't you just follow it or if you think i am wrong, elucidate where and why is it wrong or unreasonable. i am entitled for an opinion and i will state it: 'sunnis' from the subcontinent on the internet or off it, behave usually like salafis - saying what they like and making derivations/deductions on their own in matters of aqidah and fiqh. in my opinion, nobody should talk about aqidah unless they have read books like aqayid an-nasafi and its sharH by mawla taftazani; Daw al-ma`ali sharh manzumat bad'a al-amali by mawlana ali al-qari; sharH fiqh al-akbar by mawlana `ali al-qari along with its appendix; jawharatu't tawhid and its sharH by ibrahim bajuri among the basic and fundamental books of kalam. if one reads these books and realizes the scope, one will certainly tarry before shooting off posts. once again, forgive me for my impudence. Allahu ta'ala a`alam wa `ilmuhu atam.
damned if you are, damned if you ain't. disclaimer: Dear Brother abu Hasan, with all due respect, please note the following is purely based on my brotherly love for you and is in no way intended to insult or slander you therefore “please forgive me for my impudence”: ---------- Who cares what you think about YaNabi.com!? You have never had anything positive to say about YaNabi.com anyway so your occasional emotional outbursts are not really a surprise. Tell you what; if you are genuinely concerned about YaNabi.com then why do not you post your message there for the whole community to view? Sorry, I forgot, that way your post will probably be edited or deleted so there is no point. Not that this is true but this is most likely your mode of thinking. Reading your post was quite amusing as it portrays your mentality in a much more subtle manner than previous outbursts. No doubt, this post of mine will probably be edited or deleted, however, there is no harm in trying. I have copied a few links for you to check out and see what the public thinks of YaNabi.com – their opinions matter. Your voice is not loud enough. Among the most valued YaNabi.com users YaNabi.com - 10,825 users in 151 unique countries Thank You YaNabi.com Indeed this is a beautiful site The forums on this website are very informative A fantastic job MASHA ALLAH al-‘ujbu āfatul lubbi :lol:
damned if you are, damned if you ain't. i am routinely accused of throwing bile at the esteemed and honorable site yanabi.com and being hostile and anathema to the honorable and extremely knowledgeable posters on the esteemed and beloved yanabi.com site. it is said that i rile up anti-sunni sentiments by unfairly and unjustly criticising the extremely honorable members and their lofty, exalted and highly-valued opinions. now look at these exalted thread posted at the honorable site yanabi.com. i must very humbly and grovellingly [strike:f3fdfd4e5b]disagree[/strike:f3fdfd4e5b] offer my wretched and deplorable comments which are like throwing the mud on the sun and hence do not alter a tiny speck of the radiant and glorious informative content on the highly esteemed and honorable yanabi.com site. please forgive me for my impudence. ---------------------------------------------------------- with the disclaimer above i proceed to commit the sin of criticising the comments by our unerring and unfaltering brothers. all that you find in that thread are emotional outbursts and i sincerely ask anyone to consider the questions above. the sum-total of the argument in that thread is that 'sunnis were for pakistan and deobandis were against - hence and because they are evil.' moreover, this argument suits only those in pakistan. if pakistan means that we should all migrate to an enclave ruled by muslims, then there should be no pakistani in any of the western countries. why do they live there? not only this thread, i sometimes go through threads on ilm al-ghayb and takfir etc; people make justifications and give proofs from their own minds which is a salafi trait. some of them try to tackle complex matters of aqidah without even proper knowledge about the issue and sometimes ridicule an opinion without considering the vast amount of difference in both fiqh and aqidah matters among our elders. i can only advise my sunni brothers to learn and learn well before belting out solutions. you can lynch me for this: most of the speechmakers from the subcontinent - i said MOST - need to go back and read their basic books of aqidah. it is now spreading to the internet. and do you see any disclaimers? no sir. they state opinions with absolute authority like alaHazrat himself. i mean, we should say such things only by: p) quoting a major scholar's position like alaHazrat or q) by being a master of that subject and having a wide-view of the matter; knowing all the different positions and their proofs. if not, one should say that 'this is how i know.' or 'this is according to the best of my knowledge.' my brothers and my sisters! people like imam nawawi, imam suyuTi and imam nab'hani among others issue such disclaimers when they are in doubt - what about you and me? for example, if anyone wants to answer an `aqidah matter: a) able to quote from the basic books of aqidah - least of all 'bahar e shariat' b) able to translate on a specific point of aqidah from a reliable source like alaHazrat or mufti ahmed yar khan c) not extrapolate anything on their own or derive conclusions. c-1) not extrapolate the statements of deobandis or any others - just STATE THEM AS THEY HAVE SAID. strictly speaking i advise all novices to keep off this subject. d) do not use the fallacy that 'if deobandi/wahabi/salafi holds that position, it must be wrong' e) do not do takfir unless qualified by a qualified mufti. heavily censure others who do. the responsibility of the senior members is to correct others when they overstep such rules. sweet talk and embellished language is not necessary to correct others. and everyone should learn to accept a mistake and openly do so. imam malik would flatly say: 'i don't know' if he had the slightest doubt about a thing. and there are times when he reversed his former opinion. understand that we are humans. and we make mistakes. and don't be surprised or angered if someone criticizes you. if you want i can show examples - but that is to correct our brothers/sisters; not to make fun of them or to show my (supposedly) superiority or any other such delusions i may have. if we don't criticize our own, they will keep going on blissfully what they are doing. as i said, i am willing to illustrate here - but alas. izzatu'n nafs as they say... etc...etc... may Allah guide us all.
Further reading: Chief of Dar -ul- ‘Uloom Deoband against founder of Pakistan and clarification of some lies Entry of 341 Speakers banned in Sindh
i did not understand abu nibras first, but then i realized when i re-read the following sentense where the ambiguity was. i have corrected it above. i had said: true. the concept of hindu-muslim unity was opposed by alaHazrat. the deobandis were foremost in it and alaHazrat refuted them. the deobandis were foremost in stressing this unity - which is widely known. if you like to know how gandhian husayn ahmed tanDwi - whom the deobandis call 'shaykhul islam' and who is also known as husayn ahmed madani, you must read the special issue of a magazine (tajalli from deoband, if i remember well) titled: 'shaykhu'l islam number.' they made gandhi the leader of the khilafat movement and they even took gandhi into masjids chanting: 'gandhiji ki jai' [or hail gandhi]. they took part in the boycott known as 'swadeshi' and it is said that one deobandi luminary insisted that his shroud (kafan) be made of khaddar or khadi, the hand-woven cloth espoused by gandhi and his followers. some others were cross that the cap (topi) was not made of khaddar and so on. ---- anti-imperial revolution, movements for independence from the british, insisting on a distinct muslim identity were all lofty objectives; but do we have to overstep the limits to achieve such objectives without being scruplous about means? the khilafat movement was one such and alaHazrat is accused of not participating in it. he refuted even a sunni scholar mawlana `abdul Bariy farangi mahalli for joining this movement. in a detailed fatawa alaHazrat says: 'no muslim will deny the lofty objectives or the validity of the cause to save a muslim dominion; but it is the means they have chosen that i oppose whereby they seek to erase the fundamental difference between muslims and non-muslims.' moreover, the khilafat was only nominal. it is not canonical khilafah or khilafah sharayi because only a member of the quraysh clan can be a khalifah among other conditions. alaHazrat says that when we say 'khilafah uthmaniyyah', it is 'urf' or 'prevalent use' of the word khilafah meaning sultanate. not the sharayi meaning where every muslim on earth owes allegiance to such a khalifah. and such khilafah is possible only by the arrival of imam mahdi - wallahu a`alam. so alaHazrat was not against the independence movement or any such progressive movements; he was against the deluded notion of 'ends justify the means.' the same with suicide bombings and wanton killings - no matter how lofty the objective is, one needs to scruplously choose the means to achieve those objectives. wallahu a`alam wa `ilmuhu atam
wadood describes the riots correctly, but i have to disagree with him in his generalization. such awful things happen; but not all the time and not all over the place. there is discrimination and most of this is after the 80s when pakistan began to interfere in indian affairs. we had all the freedom we wanted until the 90s and we still do to a great extent. it is tougher and more sensitive than before, but still life goes on. i think i can say this with a certain degree of certitude since i have lived most of my life in india and have also been in the center of riots and rampage and at the receiving end. but much of this could have been avoided if muslims showed good judgement. for example one of the worst riots in our city was fanned by actions of muslim youth who torched government buses, hindu vehicles, some of the hindu shops and lynched a hindu or two who strayed into their area. in retaliation the hindus burnt our shops and it kept on and on. i ask you, what is the mistake of that poor laborer whose only objective is to find some food for his family and doesn't bother muslims, who strays into your stronghold? how should a muslim group behave? should they be chivalrous and magnanimous and see this person safely home or lynch him? muslims do this. they attack the unarmed and weak - and in return their weak and unarmed are lynched. and then the police joins in - because most are hindus. that is how it becomes mayhem. when muslims do not follow a principle, can you expect a kafir to? again, i am not speaking as someone far removed; we have been affected by riots - our houses have been vandalized. a cousin of mine was beaten badly and he barely survived. his mistake was he strayed into their 'area'. he says that when he began to run from the mob, muslim houses in the area began to shut their doors. i can understand the fear of those people in the house - i don't blame them; they have to save thier own kin and skin. but talking about riots from a warm place and a comfortable chair is quite different from what it is to be there. may Allah protect all muslims from such times. the whole question is about the creation of pakistan. frankly, i do not have a straightforward answer. one should consider the times, the people, the resources, the problems faced by muslims in those times before one can make any judgement on whether it was right or wrong. sometimes, it looks obviously illogical or absurd in hindsight and analyzed from afar; whereas those in the middle of things might have different constraints and complex factors affecting their judgement. it is tough to judge six decades after what happened, mainly because the data we have mostly advocates one prejudiced position or the other. as ford would say: 'history is bunk' wallahu a'alam wa `ilmuhu atam wa aHkam. [rant] i won't rake up the issue of kashmir and the wahabi-zealot led jihad there who don't mind destroying an entire community...and for what? islamic fiqh has laid down the rules and guidelines for jihad. the life, honor and property of muslims are more important than ruling the land or winning a war. the valley has been destroyed by these militants who have no principles - i have muslim friends from kashmir who are terribly disillusioned. to top this all, the indian army did not spare them either. the poor people of kashmir are caught between a rock and a hard place. the militants exploit, kill, blow-up anything without any care - calling it 'jihad' and the indian army terrorises the civilian population and harrasses/tortures muslims. one's heart wrenches in agony when one sees the condition of kashmiri muslims. as i said, muslims have forgotten their priorities and there is no point in referring to ibn `abidin or any of the fiqh masters - after all, when you become an absolute mujtahid yourself, you can interpret the scripture as you like. --- add more misery: the bomb blasts in bombay were the handiwork of muslim extremists. but wadood somehow seems to gloss over that. until this time we were living without much trouble. we hardly feared hindus or riots until 90s. let us be honest and just. i cannot understand how can anyone win a war by blowing up a few buses and civilians. it hurts our cause. it hurts our image as a peaceful and reasonable people. the blame should be laid squarely on the wahabi-salafi ideology of free-for-all interpretation. there was another of these umpteen jihad groups in kashmir enforcing hijab. they would throw acid on the faces of girls who would not cover their faces. where did they bring this from? indeed, muslim women should observe hijab but those who don't must be invited in a compassionate manner and those who don't cannot be punished in this manner by anybody. this, they call 'amr bi'l ma'aruf wa'n nahy `anil munkar' wa laa hawla wa laa quwwata illaa billah. there is a Hadith about final days where RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said that 'my ummah will perish at the hands of youth' and in another narration 'youth of quraysh.' i am inclined to believe that it is these misguided young men who take law into their own hands and according to their own understanding of shari`ah. [/end rant]