Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Arabization of Pakistan

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hot damn in my rage i forgot you weren't talking about Peace Tv

Well PeaceTV is an Indian channel, run by Dr. Zakir Naik, financed largely by Saudi sheikhs and a few Indian businessmen. And they don't say "Allah Hafiz" because they regard it as Bida'ah, they say "Salaamu Aleikum" as a way of saying Goodbye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"Allah Hafiz" is perfectly well for what it means and stands for. However, in our local cultural milieu, this term for "good bye" doesn't exist. "Allah Hafiz" is corrupted in the sense that it was for

Maryam, you're too interested in the effects of Westernization that you use it as an excuse to justify Arabization. Neither one are good. In fact, if anything is to go by, Arabization is probably a lo

True, the Shia and other religions in general had it better in India than any other Muslim-ruled lands with the exception of Muslim Iberia. The persecution in Muslim mainlands like Arabia and Persia l

Before we can proceed, we need to know exactly what this Arabization is and entails, and so then it will become clear to the people weather some individuals here are using the spread of "Arabziation' as a cover against the spread of Sunni Islam or Islam in general.

As for what we are supposed to call God- there are many terms used in the Qur'an, Allah, Ar-Rhman, Ar-Raheem etc etc etc. It is acceptable to use the common language if people are not familiar with the term Allah or if there is extreme pressure against Muslims to use the local language for God. However for some important words, it is best to use the words given in the Qur'an rather then the local languages word for it.

Furthermore, the local languages exact meaning, connotation and history of the word is usually not the same as with the words given in the Qur'an to denote generally the same thing.

So with important words, if you can and your environment allows you to without any stigmatization it is much more desired to use the terms given in the Qur'an (NOT Arabic street language either because alot of people get Qur'anic Arabic and street Arabic confused when they are TOTALLY different). This is highlighted by the fact that some important rituals like saying prayers can only be done in Qur'anic Arabic. As for reading the Qur'an, yes if you want the Barraka of reciting the whole Qur'an exactly the way Prophet did then you can read it in Arabic but make sure you, after reading the sur'ah or ayah re-read it it in a language that YOU understand so that you may be able to derive some guidance and knowledge from it.

Edited by Glow
Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion is not regarding which name does the most Justice when used for the Divine Being, rather, is there really a need to adopt Arabic terminology. In Pakistani/Iranian culture (according to their social norms, at all levels of society) the word Khuda is now used solely for the Divine Being, Allah (amongst Muslims). It is understood that this 'Khuda' has no limitations and encompasses (in meaning) all that which the name 'Allah' does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Language is just a means of communication. A means of expressing and communicating. It can be through sounds, symbols (literature), it does not matter. Just because the Quran is in the Arabic language originally does not mean Arabic is the only language the whole world must speak. This is what newly hardcore religious pakistani's and Indians keep thinking.

Khuda, God, Tanri, Allah, etc. etc. ... If the word is intended to mean God, then that's what it's supposed to mean. You are mixing 'concepts' and 'definitions' and 'descriptions', in Arabic Allah (swt) means God, in Islam we know that there is one God only, and God is All-Just, Most Merciful, self-sustained etc. those are all concepts and our beliefs, things that define our perception (concept) of God. But if you are just simply communicating, and you mean the Creator/God etc., you can also say Allah, God, Khuda, etc.

You are allowed to communicate in any language you wish. Language's are created, modified, changed, evolved, all the time. I can say God or Allah in morse code if I wanted to, it's just a method in which I communicate, but in morse code, the sounds are completely different, and there's no scripture. It's just a means of communicating.

So people, you got to get over it. There's nothing haram or wrong if somebody means Allah (swt) in their own language, or any other language that they wish to speak or write, or communicate in their own ways, blind people use Braille, deaf people use sign language. They are all a means of communicating. That's what language is.

You don't have to speak arabic to be a muslim, the scripture, the Quran's in arabic, but that does not mean that all other means and ways of communicating should be erased and vanished off the face of the earth. This is primitive, simpleton thinking that actually has no bases.

ws

--

Just a note,

In the case that a certain language does not have the proper meaning for the word God, Allah (swt) etc., then it makes sense to obviously say Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. As that language doesn't have that term. That is because the term God or Allah (swt) doesn't exist in that language. But for example, in English, God is the english word for the same arabic word Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, as Khuda/Khoda is the farsi equivalent for the arabic word Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. The roots of the word Allah (swt) etc. do not matter, as the meaning expressed are the same, we are talking about the Creator.

ws

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ Similar objections are made to terms like "namaz" and "roza" to denote Arabic "salah" and "saum" as if calling them by Arabic names would change the nature of the acts of worship.

Retarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Similar objections are made to terms like "namaz" and "roza" to denote Arabic "salah" and "saum" as if calling them by Arabic names would change the nature of the acts of worship.

Retarded.

Even "Wazoo" is claimed by some people to be changed to ÇáæÖæÁ

But the Iranians call it :P ÂÈ ÏÓÊ

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Hisham ibn al-Hakam narrates;

“Once I asked Imam abu ‘Abd Allah (Jafar Sadiq) , about the names of Allah and about the root or derivative forms of those names, ‘What is the root word for the word Allah?’ The Imam replied, ‘The word Allah is derived from the word ’aliha and ‘Ilah (Lord), which requires Ma’luh (servant). Note that names are something other than that to which they apply. O Hisham, whoever worships the name without the fact for which the name stands he has denied the existence of Allah and has not worshipped anything. Whoever worships the name and the meaning for which the name stands he has worshipped two things. Whoever worships the meaning without the name he is a monotheist. Did you understand it, O Hisham?’ Hisham then asked, ‘Please explain further.’ The Imam then said, ‘Allah has ninety-nine names. If names were the same thing for which they stand every one of them would be a Lord. However, Allah is a meaning for which these names stand and they all are something other than Him. O Hisham, bread is the name for a certain kind of food, water is the name for a certain kind of drink, cloth is the name for a certain kind of garment and fire is the name for a thing that burns. Did you understand, O Hisham, in a manner of understanding that would help you to defend our cause against our enemies and those who worship things other than Allah?’ I said, ‘Yes, I have gained such understanding.’ The Imam then said, ‘May Allah grant you success in it and keep you steadfast (in your belief).’

“Hisham has said, ‘I swear by Allah that since then, no one has been able to defeat me in an argument on the issue of the Oneness of Allah and that has made me reach this position that I hold.’”

Al-Kafi-Book on the Oneness of Allah, H 230, Ch. 5, h2

So lets put this silly 'its wrong to call Allah, Khuda' thing behind us and level up.

Edited by JimJam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators

Salams

I would like to play the devil's advocate in this very interesting discussion and ask questions from fellow shia members who believe that nations like Pakistan and/or Iran are a victim of Arabisation.

1) Firstly, I'd like to ask which party/organisation/sect is actually playing the key role in arabisation of our culture. If so, can we identify them and provide credible references to back our claim? Part of being a shia of our Prophet & Divine Imams is to be a neutral observer and I'd really like to learn how we back our stance of "Arabisation of our cultures" with facts. I have personally lived in Pakistan for more than a decade and never in my school life or in general, I was ever confronted with a hardcore attitude/stance (from society) whereby I was to chose between "Allah Hafiz" and "Khuda Hafiz". I always understood that both words are used in our society but my friends and I tend to use "Allah Hafiz" more for the very reason that "Allah" was one of the 99 names mentioned in Quran (Khuda is not). I always felt that the 99 names mentioned in Quran have a spirit of divinity in them cz the Eternal God (of Islam) has used those names in His Divine Book in order to refer to His Attributes. And I believe that this view has nothing to do with the Arabisation of cultures; rather, it is a personal belief which no doubt is debatable but has a solid ground. I’ve spent time with the deobandis/tableeghis of Pakistan (who are well known to be the fruits of wahabism/salafism) but the laymen amongst them never really intended to enforce Arabic language/culture. Their main concern was always about Tableegh (the spread and promotion of Islam) as was practised, according to them, by the Prophet and His Companions (Sahaba).

2) I read somewhere in this thread that the narration which mentions Arabic as the official language of paradise is weak or questionable. Can fellow shia member share credible references confirming that those narrations are indeed inauthentic?

3) Principally, what is wrong in promoting Arabic terms/words for the Eternal God, the Prayers, Fasting and charity e.t.c, in a muslim society especially when those words have been used/mentioned in the Divine Book and by the Divine Authorities such as our Prophet and our Imams? Shouldn’t we encourage our youth and children to learn and use those words (atleast - if not the whole Quran in Arabic) in our daily lives since it helps us understand the Divine Book in much more detail? Is it necessary for us to oppose every act of the groups (who mostly hate us cz of their ignorance in certain sunni dominated countries of the world) yet tend to promote certain things that we all (muslims - shia or sunni) can benefit from?

Fi-Amanillah

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Salams

I would like to play the devil's advocate in this very interesting discussion and ask questions from fellow shia members who believe that nations like Pakistan and/or Iran are a victim of Arabisation.

1) Firstly, I'd like to ask which party/organisation/sect is actually playing the key role in arabisation of our culture. If so, can we identify them and provide credible references to back our claim? Part of being a shia of our Prophet & Divine Imams is to be a neutral observer and I'd really like to learn how we back our stance of "Arabisation of our cultures" with facts. I have personally lived in Pakistan for more than a decade and never in my school life or in general, I was ever confronted with a hardcore attitude/stance (from society) whereby I was to chose between "Allah Hafiz" and "Khuda Hafiz". I always understood that both words are used in our society but my friends and I tend to use "Allah Hafiz" more for the very reason that "Allah" was one of the 99 names mentioned in Quran (Khuda is not). I always felt that the 99 names mentioned in Quran have a spirit of divinity in them cz the Eternal God (of Islam) has used those names in His Divine Book in order to refer to His Attributes. And I believe that this view has nothing to do with the Arabisation of cultures; rather, it is a personal belief which no doubt is debatable but has a solid ground. I’ve spent time with the deobandis/tableeghis of Pakistan (who are well known to be the fruits of wahabism/salafism) but the laymen amongst them never really intended to enforce Arabic language/culture. Their main concern was always about Tableegh (the spread and promotion of Islam) as was practised, according to them, by the Prophet and His Companions (Sahaba).

2) I read somewhere in this thread that the narration which mentions Arabic as the official language of paradise is weak or questionable. Can fellow shia member share credible references confirming that those narrations are indeed inauthentic?

3) Principally, what is wrong in promoting Arabic terms/words for the Eternal God, the Prayers, Fasting and charity e.t.c, in a muslim society especially when those words have been used/mentioned in the Divine Book and by the Divine Authorities such as our Prophet and our Imams? Shouldn’t we encourage our youth and children to learn and use those words (atleast - if not the whole Quran in Arabic) in our daily lives since it helps us understand the Divine Book in much more detail? Is it necessary for us to oppose every act of the groups (who mostly hate us cz of their ignorance in certain sunni dominated countries of the world) yet tend to promote certain things that we all (muslims - shia or sunni) can benefit from?

Fi-Amanillah

The introduction and usage of Arabic terms in our languages and daily conversations isn't really an issue; we already use Arabic terms like Assalamu Alaikum, Inshallah, mashallah et cetera in our languages and no one opposes that for obvious reasons. Our languages have also over centuries taken great influence from Arabic. This may be an issue with nationalist purists but not with us (or at least not with me).

Having said that, there are other localised terms, which we either use interchangeably with Arabic words (for instance using both "inshallah" and "Allah kare" of Urdu interchangeably) or strictly using only the localised terms (like "namaz" for "salah" or obligatory prayers).

Now, the trouble is that in Pakistan we have a campaign from some sections of the society who make it a matter of right and wrong, of Islamic and un-Islamic, and heap scorn on people who use localised terms, for "going away for Islam". This is extremely frustrating for me as I have had the bad luck of encountering such people many times.

As for using "Allah Hafiz" and "Khuda Hafiz" interchangeably, if I be sincere with you, I really don't have a problem with the former if had just come into our dialects through influence (just as many English words have come into Urdu through colonisation). But the term "Allah Hafiz" (which had never been used in Persian-Urdu literary history) came into being and became popular at the hands of advocates of Arabisation.

As for which sect is playing the key role in this, without a doubt they are Salafis and Wahhabis. They did not start but accelerated the process with Saudi money. And along with came a lot of extremism and hatred for 'the other', an import from Saudi sponsored ideology. Sadly, many people from other sects have been exposed to this organised propaganda for long, which was supported at state level by Zia, and thus unconsciously or subconsciously accepted some influence regardless of their sectarian affiliations. The most clear example of which is the harmless salutation of "Allah Hafiz". Like you, my family uses it freely, even within the family and with other Shia, though I don't hesitate to tell them the background of this term. I personally don't use it.

Secondly, the process of Arabisation of our society doesn't much rest on the usage of Arabic terms in daily conversations; it is a much broader and comprehensive process. I liken it to the pan-Arabism in non-Arab lands to be honest. A quick glance at history books in Pakistan schools, at school and college level, show what is going on behind the scene. As I said twice in this thread, there is a subversion of history and an attempt to extricate the history of Muslims in India from local setting, and to join it with the Arab of the times of Hajjaj b. Yousaf Thaqafi. This isn't a new process. It was already in place by the second decade of Pakistan's independence. It was accelerated by the infamous Zia-ul-Haq, during whose times the process of Arabisation took strength. It was then the demand to make Arabic the language of instruction in Pakistan schools was sounded.

Edited by Marbles
Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a new process. It was already in place by the second decade of Pakistan's independence. It was accelerated by the infamous Zia-ul-Haq, during whose times the process of Arabisation took strength. It was then the demand to make Arabic the language of instruction in Pakistan schools was sounded.

You mean during the regime of Md. Ayub Khan ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Pretty much. But calling it Wahabisation doesn't encompass all that is going on under a much broader mindset: Arabisation.

Is it still going on ? Why doesn't the elected Government stop it ? And why didn't the "enlightened moderate" Gen. Pervez Musharraf stop it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^Because the Army and ISI run the country and the Army and the ISI leadership is stuffed with Wahabbis. Like Hamid Gul They're not committed Wahbbiis and most drink till they all have panda-eyes but Arab money keeps them in the Saudis pockets. They're like adventurers adventuring at other people's expense.

Edited by JimJam
Link to post
Share on other sites

^Because the Army and ISI run the country and the Army and the ISI leadership is stuffed with Wahabbis. Like Hamid Gul They're not committed Wahbbiis and most drink till they all have panda-eyes but Arab money keeps them in the Saudis pockets. They're like adventurers adventuring at other people's expense.

LOL then how are they gonna win a War ? :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

^They haven't ever won a war, they did manage to reach a stalemate in 1965.

Naah come on, the 1965 "stalemate" is a fiction created in your schoolbooks. Pakistan failed to reach their strategic objectives, which basically is a failure. Pakistan was the aggressor who had objectives to reach, and they failed. Rather, it should be said, it was India who managed to reach a stalemate. A stalemate is reached by the defending power. Similarly, it was Iran that managed to reach a stalemate in 1988, not Iraq. I would rather say, Pakistan managed to reach atleast 50 % of their strategic objectives in the 1948 War. But at that time, the Army was commanded by an Englishman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^Because the Army and ISI run the country and the Army and the ISI leadership is stuffed with Wahabbis. Like Hamid Gul They're not committed Wahbbiis and most drink till they all have panda-eyes but Arab money keeps them in the Saudis pockets. They're like adventurers adventuring at other people's expense.

First of all, either have a valid definition of what is a Wahabi otherwise stop trying to divide mainstream islam.

There are also lots of shias in the pakistani army including the higher ranks of army. Shias are well-represented in the army and are not discriminated against in recruitment and promotions.

Edited by oxygen
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Naah come on, the 1965 "stalemate" is a fiction created in your schoolbooks. Pakistan failed to reach their strategic objectives, which basically is a failure. Pakistan was the aggressor who had objectives to reach, and they failed. Rather, it should be said, it was India who managed to reach a stalemate. A stalemate is reached by the defending power. Similarly, it was Iran that managed to reach a stalemate in 1988, not Iraq. I would rather say, Pakistan managed to reach atleast 50 % of their strategic objectives in the 1948 War. But at that time, the Army was commanded by an Englishman.

Although I agree that the '65 war turned out to be a fiasco for the adventurers on Pakistani side, crediting the 'successes' of '48 war to an Englishman is factually incorrect. You are referring to the first chief of the newly created Pakistan army called General Sir Frank Messervy who refused to obey the orders of Governer-General Jinnah to march into Kashmir to fight Indian troops. The excuse given by Messervy was that the armies of the two newly independent countries were under the joint command of a senior British General. Never in the history of Britain two British army units under two British generals had gone to war. And Messervy was determined to keep it so.

In the end, it were the irregulars and junior army officers who continued the fight in Kashmir till UN jumped in for a ceasefire.

There are also lots of shias in the pakistani army including the higher ranks of army. Shias are well-represented in the army and are not discriminated against in recruitment and promotions.

If you mean these Shias have any influence in the policy making at the upper level then you are mistaken. They are part of the military oligarchy and part of the establishment. Anyway the Wahhabi bent in the military isn't due really to ideological reasons (save for some isolated elements). The Wahhabi or fundamental Islamists policies and their support is carried out under the army doctrine of 'strategic depth'. It's an ambitious policy which is carved out of the geopolitical interests. Faith comes last.

Edited by Marbles
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree that the '65 war turned out to be a fiasco for the adventurers on Pakistani side, crediting the 'successes' of '48 war to an Englishman is factually incorrect. You are referring to the first chief of the newly created Pakistan army called General Sir Frank Messervy who refused to obey the orders of Governer-General Jinnah to march into Kashmir to fight Indian troops. The excuse given by Messervy was that the armies of the two newly independent countries were under the joint command of a senior British General. Never in the history of Britain two British army units under two British generals had gone to war. And Messervy was determined to keep it so.

In the end, it were the irregulars and junior army officers who continued the fight in Kashmir till UN jumped in for a ceasefire.

If you mean these Shias have any influence in the policy making at the upper level then you are mistaken. They are part of the military oligarchy and part of the establishment. Anyway the Wahhabi bent in the military isn't due really to ideological reasons (save for some isolated elements). The Wahhabi or fundamental Islamists policies and their support is carried out under the army doctrine of 'strategic depth'. It's an ambitious policy which is carved out of the geopolitical interests. Faith comes last.

Actually, the "succeses" of '48 were not evem successes. Because you failed to capture your main objective - the main Kashmiri-speaking regions (i.e. Kashmir Valley). The Pakistan-administered Kashmir is basically an extension of the Potohar plateau of Punjab. This has nothing to do woth "Arabization of Pakistan" though. :dry: I had raised the pertinent question that why an "enlightened moderate" like Pervez Musharraf did not try to reverse this "Arabization".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
First of all, either have a valid definition of what is a Wahabi otherwise stop trying to divide mainstream islam.

Anyone who agrees with and / or glorifies Saudi Arabia or other gulf Arab Wahabi states or the Taliban, or Takfiri sectarian terrorist groups is a Wahabi.

They are unrealistic and regressive in their views and a want a return to the so-called 'glorious' Islamic past

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Although I agree that the '65 war turned out to be a fiasco for the adventurers on Pakistani side, crediting the 'successes' of '48 war to an Englishman is factually incorrect. You are referring to the first chief of the newly created Pakistan army called General Sir Frank Messervy who refused to obey the orders of Governer-General Jinnah to march into Kashmir to fight Indian troops. The excuse given by Messervy was that the armies of the two newly independent countries were under the joint command of a senior British General. Never in the history of Britain two British army units under two British generals had gone to war. And Messervy was determined to keep it so.

In the end, it were the irregulars and junior army officers who continued the fight in Kashmir till UN jumped in for a ceasefire.

If you mean these Shias have any influence in the policy making at the upper level then you are mistaken. They are part of the military oligarchy and part of the establishment. Anyway the Wahhabi bent in the military isn't due really to ideological reasons (save for some isolated elements). The Wahhabi or fundamental Islamists policies and their support is carried out under the army doctrine of 'strategic depth'. It's an ambitious policy which is carved out of the geopolitical interests. Faith comes last.

http://en.wikipedia....lam_in_Pakistan

Political Influence

Pakistan is the only Sunni majority country where Shias have been elected to top offices and played an important part in the country's Independence, history and nation building. The founder of Pakistan Muhammed Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Ali Bogra, Khawaja Nazimuddin and their families were Shia Muslims, and so are the Bhuttos, Asif Ali Zardari, Haidar Abbas Rizvi, Syeda Abida Hussain, Syed Fakhar Imam, Faisal Saleh Hayat, Fahmida Mirza, Zulfiqar Mirza and several other top ranking Pakistani Politicians and Generals such as Mushaf Ali Mir, Yahya Khan, Musa Khan and Iskander Mirza.

Edited by oxygen
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

http://en.wikipedia....lam_in_Pakistan

Political Influence

Pakistan is the only Sunni majority country where Shias have been elected to top offices and played an important part in the country's Independence, history and nation building. The founder of Pakistan Muhammed Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Ali Bogra, Khawaja Nazimuddin and their families were Shia Muslims, and so are the Bhuttos, Asif Ali Zardari, Haidar Abbas Rizvi, Syeda Abida Hussain, Syed Fakhar Imam, Faisal Saleh Hayat, Fahmida Mirza, Zulfiqar Mirza and several other top ranking Pakistani Politicians and Generals such as Mushaf Ali Mir, Yahya Khan, Musa Khan and Iskander Mirza.

Nothing that I didn't already know.

The question is: In what ways these Shias have influenced the policy making of the country at top level by virtue of their sectarian affiliation?

Edited by Marbles
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Well, there have been politically influential Shias in the Subcontinent for a long time. This is in stark contrast to the Middle East (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and GCC) where Shias have traditionally remained politically marginalised. Part of the reason is, both the Mughals and the British did not discriminate against minorities when it came to filling important posts. many Mughal rulers had close advisors, Governors, etc. who were Shias. This had nothing to do with their faith, but the fact that the Mughals chose not to judge people by their fath, unlike the Ottomans, Mamluks, Abbasids and Ummayyads. So given their history, it isn't surprising that a lot of powerful political families have been Shia, because they have been like this for the last 400 years atleast, when they started to migrate to india from Persia. Though these political familes are nothing to be admired, just like any other politician.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

Well, there have been politically influential Shias in the Subcontinent for a long time. This is in stark contrast to the Middle East (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and GCC) where Shias have traditionally remained politically marginalised. Part of the reason is, both the Mughals and the British did not discriminate against minorities when it came to filling important posts. many Mughal rulers had close advisors, Governors, etc. who were Shias. This had nothing to do with their faith, but the fact that the Mughals chose not to judge people by their fath, unlike the Ottomans, Mamluks, Abbasids and Ummayyads. So given their history, it isn't surprising that a lot of powerful political families have been Shia, because they have been like this for the last 400 years atleast, when they started to migrate to india from Persia. Though these political familes are nothing to be admired, just like any other politician.

True, the Shia and other religions in general had it better in India than any other Muslim-ruled lands with the exception of Muslim Iberia. The persecution in Muslim mainlands like Arabia and Persia led to the mass exodus of minorities to India notably the Shia. No wonder that the undivided India was, and is, home to the followers of almost every major and minor religion and sect.

The pluralist policy favoured by Muslim rulers of India was directly due to the necessity of ruling an overwhelmingly non-Muslim country. It also produced favourable conditions for the so called heterodox Islamic sects. For example Sufis were periodically rounded up and executed in Arab lands and Persia. Whereas in India they found a safe place to live.

Though Mughals in general maintained religious pluralism, achieving its height in the reign of Akbar, some of them were narrow minded bigots who tried to impose their own sectarian views on those who did not conform. The case in point is Aurangzeb. He was anti-Hindu and anti-Shia. He also killed Sikh gurus.

So all was not well in Muslim ruled India before the British appeared on the scene.

As for powerful Shia families and their influence, yes, there were prominent figures who influenced the policies of the state and in some cases had their own independent kindgoms/principalities. The Golkanda state, Awadh and Tipu Sultan's Mysore state are examples.

Putting that in context of post-independence Pakistan, the powerful Shia families have not, do not, in any meaningful way affected the policies of the country by virtue of their sectarian affiliations. It was and is just plain politics, be it the Shia founder Jinnah, Socialism minded Bhutto, or corruption-mill Zardari.

Edited by Marbles
Link to post
Share on other sites

True, the Shia and other religions in general had it better in India than any other Muslim-ruled lands with the exception of Muslim Iberia. The persecution in Muslim mainlands like Arabia and Persia led to the mass exodus of minorities to India notably the Shia. No wonder that the undivided India was, and is, home to the followers of almost every major and minor religion and sect.

The pluralist policy favoured by Muslim rulers of India was directly due to the necessity of ruling an overwhelmingly non-Muslim country. It also produced favourable conditions for the so called heterodox Islamic sects. For example Sufis were periodically rounded up and executed in Arab lands and Persia. Whereas in India they found a safe place to live.

Though Mughals in general maintained religious pluralism, achieving its height in the reign of Akbar, some of them were narrow minded bigots who tried to impose their own sectarian views on those who did not conform. The case in point is Aurangzeb. He was anti-Hindu and anti-Shia. He also killed Sikh gurus.

So all was not well in Muslim ruled India before the British appeared on the scene.

As for powerful Shia families and their influence, yes, there were prominent figures who influenced the policies of the state and in some cases had their own independent kindgoms/principalities. The Golkanda state, Awadh and Tipu Sultan's Mysore state are examples.

Putting that in context of post-independence Pakistan, the powerful Shia families have not, do not, in any meaningful way affected the policies of the country by virtue of their sectarian affiliations. It was and is just plain politics, be it the Shia founder Jinnah, Socialism minded Bhutto, or corruption-mill Zardari.

And ironically it is the presence of "Shias" in high places that is used by certain parties to whip up sectarian sentiments among the Sunni masses. I have even heard things like "Pakistan is ruled by Shias" sort of things.

Btw, Tipu Sultan was not Shi'a. He was a staunch Sunni who till this day is extolled by the Ulama of Deoband for his peity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who agrees with and / or glorifies Saudi Arabia or other gulf Arab Wahabi states or the Taliban, or Takfiri sectarian terrorist groups is a Wahabi.

They are unrealistic and regressive in their views and a want a return to the so-called 'glorious' Islamic past

Jimjam : The past of Islam was glorious indeed. At least more glorious than what it is now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Jimjam : The past of Islam was glorious indeed. At least more glorious than what it is now.

Yeah, like the 'glorious' Ummayad ururpers, the Hindu-Ismali genocide machine Ghaznavids and the 'magnificent' Imperial Turks who outlawed conversion to Islam by the Serbs since Jizya was very lucrative. It was a a house of cards, that fell down. We should try and create a better, more fair society, not repeat the imperial adventures of the past.

Otherwise the most glorious man in the whole of Human history is Genghis Khan

Edited by JimJam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, like the 'glorious' Ummayad ururpers, the Hindu-Ismali genocide machine Ghaznavids and the 'magnificent' Imperial Turks who outlawed conversion to Islam by the Serbs since Jizya was very lucrative. It was a a house of cards, that fell down. We should try and create a better, more fair society, not repeat the imperial adventures of the past.

Otherwise the most glorious man in the whole of Human history is Genghis Khan

I was not referring to the conquests or imperialism or expansionism....I was talking about simpler things....we were economically and militarily better-off, at least everybody used to take us seriously. Our blood was not considered cheaper than water. And now ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...