Jinnah and co

[afghanis_hehe]

Brother i did'nt expact such BS from you. There was no such thing as "pakistani" or "pakistani pashtun" during times of lodhi and suri. It wont make you less of pakistani if you accept that Afghan=Pashtun. As "A" in pakistan stands for afghania according to chahaudry rehmat ali. Read urdu history books written by pakistani authors, they use terms like "sarhadi afghan", "hindostan par afghano ki hakomat", "sher shah suri naslan afghan ta " etc. I may not use title afghan for myself (due to some reasons) but i am actually an ethnic afghan , along with 30 million lar pashtuns.
And pakistan did'nt come into being with advent of mohamad bin qasim, neither it has any thing to do mughal and other dynasties. Muslim league original aim was not partition. Upto 1935 jinnah was strong supporter of hindu muslim unity. The term "pakistan" was used for the first time in 1946 by chaudry rehmat ali. It was in late 1946 and eary 1947 that jinnah begin to think of partition. According to him it was inevitable in 1947, before that he wanted proportional representations of muslims within india. Muslim league were never islamists, they used islam for political purpose.
And somehow we pashtuns have ended up in pakistan which was the idea concieved by and for hindostani muslims, who became paranoid that hindu majority would finish them from surface of earth. The same hindostani muslims are bullying us in karachi, are mocking sindhis, the real sons of sindh dharti.

Well brother one question from u as m mother never told me . Who says afghan= pashtun . Khushal khan khattak ? was there any afghanistan around 2 centuries ago nope so did pashtuns come here about two centuries ago nope. on the other before 2 centuries khorasan was the name. So there was no concept of pashtuns=afghans

[JattApache]

Well i can say that lodhi was born in pakistan and his granfathaer had settled in multan . So was the case with Ahmad shah baba. So was the case with sher shah. On the other hand ur fav Ranjit singh may also have been born in pakistan . Jinnah was Born in pakistan .
well all the other leaders from ghaznawi to ghauri and to aibak mde lahore their place of centre. And i guess if they lived there they married also. Pakistan is a new born country and yes it has been invaded by a lot of turks , and persians .On the other hand i know that even though we might be having the blood of these invaders or there armies u wil not accept it as it is ur thinking . I can just say that there are alot of mughals mirza beg taimuri, chagtai , qizilbash , khiljis , shahs, gujjars who are living in this indic region are the offsprings of the locals and the invaders . Well i have already given the link of the direct descendanst of bahadr shah zafar who are much more darker like indians or bengalis but that doesnt mean that they dont have mughal bloooood. Well this is the only land and region where most of the leaders were born . thugh they were outsder i m talking abt turks mongols and persians but still they have their descendants in these indic region. On the other hand pakhtuns like lodhi suri and abdali were born here too so pakistani pakhtuns have a better claim over them as 70 percent pakhtuns are in pakistan

Punjabi bhai,
Pakistan exists since 1947 , 1947
So you cannot say such things.
Before 1947, there was the British India, mughal India etc...., it was always india
Pakistan is just a new word

[Michin Khel]

The starter yaggi and his supporters are idiots. It is very cheap and immature way of attacking jinnah, by calling him a drinker and pork eater. And its very low to attack his family.
As a Pakistani and a Pashtun my criticism on jinnah would be,
1) He himself was from middle class but his party muslim league consisted of feudal lords, sardars, khans, nawabs etc, they did'nt gather because they were passionate about islam ...he said "meri jaib may kotay sekay hain". Still he went along with them.
2) Jinnah was first dictator of Pakistan, he appointed himself governer general without being member of assembly and took powers away from prime minister, liaqat ali khan.
3) He dismissed elected governament N.W.F.P of khudai khidmatgar and invited abdul qaum to form muslim league governament in the province, an illegal act.
4)Jinnah was liberal and secular-mind individual, he used islam for political ambitions.

[afghanis_hehe]

Punjabi bhai,
Pakistan exists since 1947 , 1947
So you cannot say such things.
Before 1947, there was the British India, mughal India etc...., it was always india
Pakistan is just a new word

Well brother there was no india too .it was british india during time of britisher that is just a century ago . there was hindustan(ok brother) ok and ther was no bharat .on the other hand mughals ruled afghanistan too ,so are you saying that was india too. these are new things that u indians have made.
british india came when british captured ok . there was no such thing as mughal india. mughals were ruling hindustan. so better tell this india name bs to anybody else
bharati bhai
And i m talking about my region not urs .

[afghanis_hehe]

The starter yaggi and his supporters are idiots. It is very cheap and immature way of attacking jinnah, by calling him a drinker and pork eater. And its very low to attack his family.
As a Pakistani and a Pashtun my criticism on jinnah would be,
1) He himself was from middle class but his party muslim league consisted of feudal lords, sardars, khans, nawabs etc, they did'nt gather because they were passionate about islam islam ...
2) Jinnah was first dictator of Pakistan, he appointed himself governer general without being member of assembly and took powers away from prime minister, liaqat ali khan.
3) He dismissed elected governament N.W.F.P of khudai khidmatgar and invited abdul qaum to form muslim league governament in the province, an illegal act.
4)Jinnah was liberal and secular-mind individual, he used islam for political ambitions.

Well brother who ever he was no body has any proof against him .one thing for sure was that he wa a leader and its because of him that we are free or otherwise all of us would have been living like indian muslims.
i cant give u the asnwer for first point that u made as i dont have enough knowledge abt that
jinaah had every right to b GG and he was the best GG as he had made pakistan i guess even though he was extremely ill . well i say that if he would have been succesfull in his mission i would have asked u how happy u r as an indian muslim. NWFP was under bacha khan too who was a gaddar who supported gandhi like his brother. Well we should forget gandi was a hindu racist and khilafat movement is just one such act. Jinnah was liberal ok that fine but what abt todays muslims . who are they , they keep beards and offer prayers and then at night do all kind of bad stuff.
u shud thank jinnah for the way that u r living

[Michin Khel]

Well brother one question from u as m mother never told me . Who says afghan= pashtun . Khushal khan khattak ? was there any afghanistan around 2 centuries ago nope so did pashtuns come here about two centuries ago nope. on the other before 2 centuries khorasan was the name. So there was no concept of pashtuns=afghans

Listen brother your post is in contradiction. You are applying logic that as afghanistan is only two hundreds year old and pashtuns existed long before that. So titles like afghan are recent. You are implying that "afghan" is derived from afghanistan like "paki" is derived from pakistan. While infact it is other way around. Ahmad shah baba was afghan himself and had support of all afghan tribes from attock to kandahar so he named it afghanistan, land of afghans which like you said should have been khorasan.
In Khushal khan khattak times there was no abdali's afghanistan, yet he referred himself , khilji, bahlol lodi and sher shah as afghans...check his poetry, if you can read pashto.
Daulat khan lodhi, grandson of ibrahim lodi, was in mughal court during jahangir times and he wrote famous book "hayat-e-afghani".....why did'nt he name his book "hayat-e-pathani" or "hayat-e-pakistani pashtun".
You are deny afghan title for pashtuns but i am sure you want us to be as pathans, a title given to us hindostanis which we dont use for ourselves.
You said in another thread that your mother is pashtun, you did'nt tell us any thing about your father background?

[R3SISTANC3]

Jinnah is enough as compared to ur so called heroes. on the other hand bacha khan a gaddar is ur hero.

I really dont wish to get into this debate over Pakistani heroes vs Afghan heroes with you. I think it's quite ridiculous. However I suggest you keep away from making such slanderous remarks about our elders especially when you show little intellectual honesty in regards to them.

For example, how is a man like Bachaa Khan who didn't wish to divide his home nation a ghaddar vs. a British educated, socialist barrister, established member of the Fabian Socialist Society, who sided with the British to create a secular proxy nation? How is a Sunni Hanafi Muslim, a member of the Khalifat Movement a ghaddar vs. a Khoja Ismaili (or a Twelver Shia - whatever - still kaafirs or misguided according to Ahlu Sunna wal Jamaah) who was influenced by esoteric beliefs, mentored by none other than Annie Besant the founder of co-Freemasonry (he lovingly called her "Amma" as in his mother) and the occultist Agha Khan the 3rd (his Khoja Amir, the Ismaili Imam Mehdi of his time) the founder of All Indian Muslim League which today is known as Muslim League Pakistan.

I hope you do recognize that majority of the Muslims in the Indian Independence Movement were against the creation of Pakistan including Maulana Mufti Mahmud, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and Abul A’la Maududi who himself considered Jinnah to be a walking talking Englishman rather than Islam savior. So to call Bachaa Khan a ghaddar for holding the same position is intentionally malicious and hypocritical.

Judging by the company that Mohammad Ali Jinnah kept and that of Bachaa Khan, one can arrive at an intellectually honest conclusion in deciding who was the real traitor and Trojan horse.

The facts speak for themselves.

[JattApache]

Well brother there was no india too .it was british india during time of britisher that is just a century ago . there was hindustan(ok brother) ok and ther was no bharat .on the other hand mughals ruled afghanistan too ,so are you saying that was india too. these are new things that u indians have made.
british india came when british captured ok . there was no such thing as mughal india. mughals were ruling hindustan. so better tell this india name bs to anybody else
bharati bhai
And i m talking about my region not urs .

Where are you from ?

Ok so I was wrong, there was no india before the british india, but there was a hindustan as you said
So there was no pakistan , also, so you was also wrong.
There was a hindustan ( pekhawar to bengal and kashmir to tamil nadu ) so punjab and sindh formed part of hindustan

[JattApache]

[afghanis_hehe]

Listen brother your post is in contradiction. You are applying logic that as afghanistan is only two hundreds year old and pashtuns existed long before that. So titles like afghan are recent. You are implying that "afghan" is derived from afghanistan like "paki" is derived from pakistan. While infact it is other way around. Ahmad shah baba was afghan himself and had support of all afghan tribes from attock to kandahar so he named it afghanistan, land of afghans which like you said should have been khorasan.
In Khushal khan khattak times there was no abdali's afghanistan, yet he referred himself , khilji, bahlol lodi and sher shah as afghans...check his poetry, if you can read pashto.
Daulat khan lodhi, grandson of ibrahim lodi, was in mughal court during jahangir times and he wrote famous book "hayat-e-afghani".....why did'nt he name his book "hayat-e-pathani" or "hayat-e-pakistani pashtun".
You are deny afghan title for pashtuns but i am sure you want us to be as pathans, a title given to us hindostanis which we dont use for ourselves.
You said in another thread that your mother is pashtun, you did'nt tell us any thing about your father background?

yes i told u abt my mother bcz my mother is pashtun and this is pashtunforum i guess but my father is punjabi . so i am punjabi and proud to be . But i will tel u one thing even my mother is a strong muslim and doesnt have any kind of hatred with any ethnic group. She does nt even know what ethnic groups are . she is pakistani and thats enough for me . well u may be true that afghan was old word but still its present in pakistan word right a for afghania. So whats the matter with u r u a pakistani or r u a afghan. first decide this and i really would appreviate that u need to check ur knowledge n khiljis as khiljis were central asian turks who had settled in afghanistan and adopted there customs which makes them impure turks but not afghans. though khushal khan calls them afghans but still will u belive in a historian barani who served his court and who knew them well or khushal khan . barani said that they were turks who had settled in afghanistan and had married muslims from khorasan hindustan and arabia. that is why they were called impure turks and were looked down upon by other llbari turks who were of pure turkic stock. and they follwed turkish theory of kingship not afghan theory which ws followed by bahlol khan lodhi and sher shah.
Turkish theory of kingship means king is the lord and he can do whatever with his servants and u know how alla udin khilji treated his servants his favourtie general was ghayas ud tughluq and was a turk . why didnt he keep an afghan there.
Afghan theory of kingship means king is equal to the servants and will not take any decsion until the wazirs and army says so .
on the other ghilzai pashtuns which u say are khiljis are descended from khilji turks . this is one theory other is that they have descended from shah hussain a turk . like me u should read some books and then u can decided fro urself
one question sikhs living in afghanistan . Are they pakhtuns as they know pashto and live there?

On the other hand i m proud that my mother is pashtun and i am v close to my mother as my father has died. but i dont like is lies and when u say that we shoudl be proud of our history than i guess afghans should b proud of their history not turks.

[afghanis_hehe]

I really dont wish to get into this debate over Pakistani heroes vs Afghan heroes with you. I think it's quite ridiculous. However I suggest you keep away from making such slanderous remarks about our elders especially when you show little intellectual honesty in regards to them.

For example, how is a man like Bachaa Khan who didn't wish to divide his home nation a ghaddar vs. a British educated, socialist barrister, established member of the Fabian Socialist Society, who sided with the British to create a secular proxy nation? How is a Sunni Hanafi Muslim, a member of the Khalifat Movement a ghaddar vs. a Khoja Ismaili (or a Twelver Shia - whatever - still kaafirs or misguided according to Ahlu Sunna wal Jamaah) who was influenced by esoteric beliefs, mentored by none other than Annie Besant the founder of co-Freemasonry (he lovingly called her "Amma" as in his mother) and the occultist Agha Khan the 3rd (his Khoja Amir, the Ismaili Imam Mehdi of his time) the founder of All Indian Muslim League which today is known as Muslim League Pakistan.

I hope you do recognize that majority of the Muslims in the Indian Independence Movement were against the creation of Pakistan including Maulana Mufti Mahmud, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and Abul A’la Maududi who himself considered Jinnah to be a walking talking Englishman rather than Islam savior. So to call Bachaa Khan a ghaddar for holding the same position is intentionally malicious and hypocritical.

Judging by the company that Mohammad Ali Jinnah kept and that of Bachaa Khan, one can arrive at an intellectually honest conclusion in deciding who was the real traitor and Trojan horse.

The facts speak for themselves.

Even though if he was a shia or sunni . u have no right to call him kafir as Allah has that right or Our beloved Prophet(PBUH) and u have given example of maulana abdul kalam azad and wahtever the other, woow they were supporting hindus but were not supporting shia muslims. well hindus are not even a muslim category who is the best then . jinaah or (abdul kalam or bacha khan ). when congreess ministries came and muslims were asked to bow to gandhis picture and sing bhajans where was ur frontier gandhi bacha khan and abdul kalam azad. where was he when pigs and dogs were thrown in the mosques when muslims use to pray . this bacha khan and abdul kalam azad had joined hands with hindus rather thhan wuith shia muslims. iran is all shia why do afghans call themselves iranic peopel . why dont they call themselves just afghan or whatever

[afghanis_hehe]

Where are you from ?

Ok so I was wrong, there was no india before the british india, but there was a hindustan as you said
So there was no pakistan , also, so you was also wrong.
There was a hindustan ( pekhawar to bengal and kashmir to tamil nadu ) so punjab and sindh formed part of hindustan

there was a hindustan . so u r saying that mighals and delhi sultanate was ruled hindustand part of khurasan. comon man that part was also included in the sultanate the kabul kandhar . and the other part belonged to khawarizm and other iran empires. see the mughal maps and delhi sultanate maps.
yes pakistan was not there but the region was still there right or did the region appear on the map in 1947 . hindustan had whole pakistan india and part of afghansitan. When ghaznawi came these afghans were buddists and hindus too . islam came about 1400 years ago befr that they were not muslims
KAbul shahi dynasty i.e hindu shahi dynasty ruled parts of afghansitan and janjua rajput empire too. Dont u know abt jaypala who was defeated by mahmud ghaznawi.
I am from pakistan and punjab region

[afghanis_hehe]

Listen brother your post is in contradiction. You are applying logic that as afghanistan is only two hundreds year old and pashtuns existed long before that. So titles like afghan are recent. You are implying that "afghan" is derived from afghanistan like "paki" is derived from pakistan. While infact it is other way around. Ahmad shah baba was afghan himself and had support of all afghan tribes from attock to kandahar so he named it afghanistan, land of afghans which like you said should have been khorasan.
In Khushal khan khattak times there was no abdali's afghanistan, yet he referred himself , khilji, bahlol lodi and sher shah as afghans...check his poetry, if you can read pashto.
Daulat khan lodhi, grandson of ibrahim lodi, was in mughal court during jahangir times and he wrote famous book "hayat-e-afghani".....why did'nt he name his book "hayat-e-pathani" or "hayat-e-pakistani pashtun".
You are deny afghan title for pashtuns but i am sure you want us to be as pathans, a title given to us hindostanis which we dont use for ourselves.
You said in another thread that your mother is pashtun, you did'nt tell us any thing about your father background?

oon the other hand my cousins never call themselves afghans . rather they call themselves pakhtoon

[JattApache]

there was a hindustan . so u r saying that mighals and delhi sultanate was ruled hindustand part of khurasan. comon man that part was also included in the sultanate the kabul kandhar . and the other part belonged to khawarizm and other iran empires. see the mughal maps and delhi sultanate maps.
yes pakistan was not there but the region was still there right or did the region appear on the map in 1947 . hindustan had whole pakistan india and part of afghansitan. When ghaznawi came these afghans were buddists and hindus too . islam came about 1400 years ago befr that they were not muslims
KAbul shahi dynasty i.e hindu shahi dynasty ruled parts of afghansitan and janjua rajput empire too. Dont u know abt jaypala who was defeated by mahmud ghaznawi.
I am from pakistan and punjab region

Ok but you can't say that ranjit singh or porus were born in Pakistan !
It is incorrect, teinu samaj ni andi yaar, yeh beelkul galat hai.
The people who were born after 1947 were born in pakistan
Before 1947 , people were born in the british india
My grandfather was born in gujranwala, ( NOT in pakistan, in the british india )
You can say that he was born in the actual territory of Pakistan

[Admin Khan]

Brother i did'nt expact such BS from you. There was no such thing as "pakistani" or "pakistani pashtun" during times of lodhi and suri. It wont make you less of pakistani if you accept that Afghan=Pashtun. As "A" in pakistan stands for afghania according to chahaudry rehmat ali. Read urdu history books written by pakistani authors, they use terms like "sarhadi afghan", "hindostan par afghano ki hakomat", "sher shah suri naslan afghan ta " etc. I may not use title afghan for myself (due to some reasons) but i am actually an ethnic afghan , along with 30 million lar pashtuns.
And pakistan did'nt come into being with advent of mohamad bin qasim, neither it has any thing to do mughal and other dynasties. Muslim league original aim was not partition. Upto 1935 jinnah was strong supporter of hindu muslim unity. The term "pakistan" was used for the first time in 1946 by chaudry rehmat ali. It was in late 1946 and eary 1947 that jinnah begin to think of partition. According to him it was inevitable in 1947, before that he wanted proportional representations of muslims within india. Muslim league were never islamists, they used islam for political purpose.
And somehow we pashtuns have ended up in pakistan which was the idea concieved by and for hindostani muslims, who became paranoid that hindu majority would finish them from surface of earth. The same hindostani muslims are bullying us in karachi, are mocking sindhis, the real sons of sindh dharti.

Well said.