Choices

[Naveed Safi]

If you were given choices to select a platform which one will be you going to select?

Pashtoon?

Afghanistan ya Loy Afghanistan ya pakhtoonistan?

Pakistan?

Islam?

i have no choices other than i am a muslim.

[Nokia_Apridey]

chay pukhtu wakhura awo sok Pukhtu wakhuralu........

zka "PAKISTAN"

[Digital Malang]

The only thing I would choose right now is food nothing else.

[Nokia_Apridey]

warkya ukhyar shway :P..

[IamDZJ]

i m an afghan

[sahil112]

i am pashtun=afghan!

[Gulbabo]

Afghanistan... nothing more nothing less

[KingKhan]

زه موسلمان یم!!

[Nokia_Apridey]

pashtun=afghan...........double double mazay :P...

[MostafaM]

Afghanistan

From the Amu to the Sindh River
From Herat to the Wakan Corridor

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

If you were given choices to select a platform which one will be you going to select?

Pashtoon?

Afghanistan ya Loy Afghanistan ya pakhtoonistan?

Pakistan?

Islam?

i have no choices other than i am a muslim.

Bhatti sahab, aap ka sawal ghalat hai.


There's no difference between Pashtun, Afghanistan, Loy Afghanistan and Pakhtoonistan. They are all one and the same and cannot be alienated from one another by even the most ardent followers of Sir Syed and Sir Shafi and other British lawyers and Sirs.

Pashtun = all Pashtuns are one nation, the Durrand Line is rejected.

Afghanistan = Doesn't recognize the British Durrand Line.

Loy Afghanistan = Doesn't recognize the British Durrand Line.

Pakhtunistan = Doesn't recognize the British Durrand Line.

Pakistan = Accepts the British Durrand Line. Furthermore, all Muslims are one nation but two Muslim Pashtuns are not one nation.

Islam = No borders - dismantle Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, KSA, etc and create a borderless Ummah. Nawaz Sharif becomes the Amir-ul-Momineen.


So which platform will I select? Let's see - I have three options - Pashtun, Pakistan and Islam.

Let's start with "Islam". Do all the Muslims of the world have the same interests as me? Do all the Muslims of the world face the same issues as me? Are all the Muslims of the world on the same economic level as me? Do they face the same challenges as me? Do they aspire to the same goals as me? Do they follow the same culture and morals as me? No. Then how does one speak for 1.5 billion people, with each few million from them having their own needs and wants? Therefore, speaking for the "Ummah" is a lost cause to begin with. We can promote Muslim unity by capitalizing on what's common but one cannot speak for Iran, Turkey, Somalia and Bangladesh at the same time. It will be an exercise in complete lunacy, which is akin to becoming a political Mullah.

Onwards to Pakistan. Ideologically speaking, Pakistan was created by the British and some Uttarpredeshi and Gujarati lawyers as a sort of a secular-Islamic state for all Muslims and some non-Muslims, who were all supposed to be one nation (despite having drastically different cultures) - whatever that means. This state has neither an identity nor an ideology. What is a Pakistani? What is Pakistani culture? What is Pakistani history? How does one speak from a platform if there is nothing substantial about it and everything is borrowed? If I ignore all of that, another question arises - is it morally right to defend a state that has in the past and still still continues to maintain such anti-people policies - whether they're mass-killings and mass-graves or the disappearances and murder of dissenters or the support of terrorists. Will I have to sell my soul to the Devil al-Khabis to speak on this "nation's" behalf?

And then we have the Pashtun platform. By the Pashtun platform, I understand Pashtun unity - and not unity in the sense that they speak the same language but that they come under the same state and government and follow the same agenda. Why do I think this is the correct agenda? The modern world is nation-centric. Nation-states dominate the world. Ideological states are dead - everything from the USSR and Yugoslavia to the Ottoman and Austrio-Hungarian empires is in the history books now. Nations are defined by their ethnicities - from Iran (Persian) and Saudi Arabia (Arab) to China (Han Chinese) and even the USA (American - English speaking, following the culture of consumerism). In the modern world, nations can only progress if they are united. Who would have ever heard of Russia had it still been the Duchy of Moskovy, the Novgorod Principality, the Kievan Rus and the Cuman Khanates? Who would have seen the domination of Germany had it still been Prussia, Saxony, Westphalia, Bavaria and a hundred other dukedoms? It is only after their national unity that both these states became world powers.

Secondly, it's a matter of common sense that two people living alongside each other, having the same interests and a bond going back into history to be united against common foes who want to subjugate them. The last time Pashtuns were united, they took over half of Iran, all of Pakistan and parts of northern India. And when Pashtuns got disunited, they were occupied by Iran, the Sikhs, the Russians and the British and were humiliated and scattered.

Lastly, is it in Islamabad's interest to promote Pashto language and culture or is it in their interests to assimilate Pashtuns into the Punjabi-Mohajir way of life that they call the Pakistani culture? Is it in Islamabad's interest to strengthen and enrich Pashtuns so that they overtake Punjab or is it in their interests to maintain the territorial integrity of Pakistan by keeping the Pashtuns in line? The political and economic empowerment of Pashtuns is a direct threat to the state-security of Pakistan. The promotion of Khushal Khattak, Ghani Khan and Ahmed Shah in the minds of Pashtun children is a direct threat to Islamabad whereas the promotion of Jinnah, Chaudry Rehmat Ali, Maulana Jauhar, Mir Taqi Mir, Ghalib and Sir Syed is seen as a positive alternative for the children of NWFP.

Without national unity, no nation can achieve anything. History stands testament to this fact. Clumping together different nations does not make a country. When nations are united, their exploiters are gone and all their energy can go into nation-building. You can't make up a fake/false "nation" and then initiate nation-building. It just won't work. And that is why even after 64 years, it has failing miserably. Even in India, there are just as many nationalist insurgencies as there are in Pakistan, if not more.

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

Pashtun Canadian

[Admin Khan]

Bhatti sahab, aap ka sawal ghalat hai.


There's no difference between Pashtun, Afghanistan, Loy Afghanistan and Pakhtoonistan. They are all one and the same and cannot be alienated from one another by even the most ardent followers of Sir Syed and Sir Shafi and other British lawyers and Sirs.

Pashtun = all Pashtuns are one nation, the Durrand Line is rejected.

Afghanistan = Doesn't recognize the British Durrand Line.

Loy Afghanistan = Doesn't recognize the British Durrand Line.

Pakhtunistan = Doesn't recognize the British Durrand Line.

Pakistan = Accepts the British Durrand Line. Furthermore, all Muslims are one nation but two Muslim Pashtuns are not one nation.

Islam = No borders - dismantle Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, KSA, etc and create a borderless Ummah. Nawaz Sharif becomes the Amir-ul-Momineen.


So which platform will I select? Let's see - I have three options - Pashtun, Pakistan and Islam.

Let's start with "Islam". Do all the Muslims of the world have the same interests as me? Do all the Muslims of the world face the same issues as me? Are all the Muslims of the world on the same economic level as me? Do they face the same challenges as me? Do they aspire to the same goals as me? Do they follow the same culture and morals as me? No. Then how does one speak for 1.5 billion people, with each few million from them having their own needs and wants? Therefore, speaking for the "Ummah" is a lost cause to begin with. We can promote Muslim unity by capitalizing on what's common but one cannot speak for Iran, Turkey, Somalia and Bangladesh at the same time. It will be an exercise in complete lunacy, which is akin to becoming a political Mullah.

Onwards to Pakistan. Ideologically speaking, Pakistan was created by the British and some Uttarpredeshi and Gujarati lawyers as a sort of a secular-Islamic state for all Muslims and some non-Muslims, who were all supposed to be one nation (despite having drastically different cultures) - whatever that means. This state has neither an identity nor an ideology. What is a Pakistani? What is Pakistani culture? What is Pakistani history? How does one speak from a platform if there is nothing substantial about it and everything is borrowed? If I ignore all of that, another question arises - is it morally right to defend a state that has in the past and still still continues to maintain such anti-people policies - whether they're mass-killings and mass-graves or the disappearances and murder of dissenters or the support of terrorists. Will I have to sell my soul to the Devil al-Khabis to speak on this "nation's" behalf?

And then we have the Pashtun platform. By the Pashtun platform, I understand Pashtun unity - and not unity in the sense that they speak the same language but that they come under the same state and government and follow the same agenda. Why do I think this is the correct agenda? The modern world is nation-centric. Nation-states dominate the world. Ideological states are dead - everything from the USSR and Yugoslavia to the Ottoman and Austrio-Hungarian empires is in the history books now. Nations are defined by their ethnicities - from Iran (Persian) and Saudi Arabia (Arab) to China (Han Chinese) and even the USA (American - English speaking, following the culture of consumerism). In the modern world, nations can only progress if they are united. Who would have ever heard of Russia had it still been the Duchy of Moskovy, the Novgorod Principality, the Kievan Rus and the Cuman Khanates? Who would have seen the domination of Germany had it still been Prussia, Saxony, Westphalia, Bavaria and a hundred other dukedoms? It is only after their national unity that both these states became world powers.

Secondly, it's a matter of common sense that two people living alongside each other, having the same interests and a bond going back into history to be united against common foes who want to subjugate them. The last time Pashtuns were united, they took over half of Iran, all of Pakistan and parts of northern India. And when Pashtuns got disunited, they were occupied by Iran, the Sikhs, the Russians and the British and were humiliated and scattered.

Lastly, is it in Islamabad's interest to promote Pashto language and culture or is it in their interests to assimilate Pashtuns into the Punjabi-Mohajir way of life that they call the Pakistani culture? Is it in Islamabad's interest to strengthen and enrich Pashtuns so that they overtake Punjab or is it in their interests to maintain the territorial integrity of Pakistan by keeping the Pashtuns in line? The political and economic empowerment of Pashtuns is a direct threat to the state-security of Pakistan. The promotion of Khushal Khattak, Ghani Khan and Ahmed Shah in the minds of Pashtun children is a direct threat to Islamabad whereas the promotion of Jinnah, Chaudry Rehmat Ali, Maulana Jauhar, Mir Taqi Mir, Ghalib and Sir Syed is seen as a positive alternative for the children of NWFP.

Without national unity, no nation can achieve anything. History stands testament to this fact. Clumping together different nations does not make a country. When nations are united, their exploiters are gone and all their energy can go into nation-building. You can't make up a fake/false "nation" and then initiate nation-building. It just won't work. And that is why even after 64 years, it has failing miserably. Even in India, there are just as many nationalist insurgencies as there are in Pakistan, if not more.

Preach brother, preach!

[KingKhan]

All believers should strive for one body, one nation. Using Pakistan as in example is very poor. It wasn't created for a Khalifah, but for selfish needs.

Islam was created for all people to get united, anybody who supports Nationalistic goals should look hard at themselves.

I don't support a Pashtunistan, a Loy Afghanistan, or whatever. Just one Islamic nation from Morrocco to Indonesia.

A United States of Islam.

Untill then, all Muslims will stay in the pathetic state they are in.

[Naveed Safi]

Let's start with "Islam". Do all the Muslims of the world have the same interests as me? Do all the Muslims of the world face the same issues as me? Are all the Muslims of the world on the same economic level as me? Do they face the same challenges as me? Do they aspire to the same goals as me? Do they follow the same culture and morals as me? No. Then how does one speak for 1.5 billion people, with each few million from them having their own needs and wants? Therefore, speaking for the "Ummah" is a lost cause to begin with. We can promote Muslim unity by capitalizing on what's common but one cannot speak for Iran, Turkey, Somalia and Bangladesh at the same time. It will be an exercise in complete lunacy, which is akin to becoming a political Mullah.

thanks for sharing your views
YES I agreed with you that all the muslims are neither on the same economic level and nor are their NEEDS the same but brother talking about the goal, interests, issues and challenges don't you think so that all the muslims share these things? what do you think that why is war implemented on afghanistan, iraq, vietnam, and now the Libya?
Why is Iran a thorn in the eyes of america?
i am of the believe that all the muslims share these interests.