Originally posted by randolph85
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Iran Backs Taliban With Cash and Arms
Collapse
X
-
haha the last time I read the term "Islamofacist" was on this forum. I feel like this neocon writer has been reading Pashtunforums and specifically Soldat and Toramana's posts.Last edited by Insight; 06-16-2015, 01:13 AM."The past is not my concern. The future is no longer my concern either. One minute. One minute of everything at once. And anything before is nothing. Everything after nothing. Nothing in comparison to that one minute."
-
Only a half literate will quote Christian/Western sources without taking the trouble of digging deep. Rohingyas are definitely Arabs/semi-Arabs. That is why the Saudis have always given the special privilege to settle in Saudi Arabia.Originally posted by Friends of Baloch View Posthttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ro...IVjFgUCh1mfgJG
Arabs you say?
^ ^ ^
Stop lying.
The "Arab" theory of Rohingyas, aka Bengalis, has already been dismissed and disproved by academics.
https://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64388.pdf
"Who are the Rohingyas? Burma gained independence from Great
Britain in 1948 and this issue is a problem that Burma has had tograpple with since that time. The people who call themselvesRohingyas are the Muslims of Mayu Frontier area, present-dayButhidaung and Maungdaw Townships of Arakan (Rakhine) State,an isolated province in the western part of the country across NaafRiver as boundary from Bangladesh. Arakan had been anindependent kingdom before it was conquered by the Burmese in1784. Rohingya historians have written many treatises in whichthey claim for themselves an indigenous status that is traceablewithin Arakan State for more than a thousand years. Although it isnot accepted as a fact in academia, a few volumes purporting to behistory but mainly composed of fictitious stories, myths andlegends have been published formerly in Burma and later in the
United States, Japan and Bangladesh. These, in turn, have filteredinto the international media through international organizations,including reports to the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees (Ba Tha 1960: 33-36; Razzaq and Haque 1995: 15).2
In light of this, it is important to reexamine the ethnicity ofthe ‘Rohingyas’ and to trace their history back to the earliestpresence of their ancestors in Arakan. And history tells us that wedo not have to go back very far. In the early 1950s that a fewBengali Muslim intellectuals of the northwestern part of Arakanbegan to use the term “Rohingya” to call themselves. They wereindeed the direct descendants of immigrants from the ChittagongDistrict of East Bengal (present-day Bangladesh), who hadmigrated into Arakan after the province was ceded to British Indiaunder the terms of the Treaty of Yandabo, an event that concludedthe First Anglo-Burmese War (1824-1826). Most of these migrantssettled down in the Mayu Frontier Area, near what is now Burma’sborder with modern Bangladesh. Actually, they were called“Chittagonians” in the British colonial records.The Muslims in the Arakan State can be divided into fourdifferent groups, namely the Chittagonian Bengalis in the MayuFrontier; the descendents of the Muslim Community of Arakan inthe Mrauk-U period (1430-1784), presently living in the Mrauk-Uand Kyauktaw townships; the decendents of Muslim mercenariesin Ramree Island known to the Arakanese as Kaman; and theMuslims from the Myedu area of Central Burma, left behind by theBurmese invaders in Sandoway District after the conquest ofArakan in 1784."
Comment
-
lol
Originally posted by asad71 View PostOnly a half literate will quote Christian/Western sources without taking the trouble of digging deep. Rohingyas are definitely Arabs/semi-Arabs. That is why the Saudis have always given the special privilege to settle in Saudi Arabia.
Long Live Baloch Freedom Struggle Until Victory!
sigpic
Long Live Baloch Freedom Struggle Until Victory!
Comment
-
You are contradicting yourself.If rohingya originate from bengal as you said than how come they look like pakistanis.Bengalis are racially,culturally and linguistically very different from pakistanis.And burma was not a party to subcontinents partition.Originally posted by Friends of Baloch View PostRohingya are obviously not native to Myanmar and originate from Indian subcontinent, probably Bengal. They speak a dialect of Bengali, they look like typical pakis, and have no cultural or racial affinity to any other ethnic group in Myanmar.
Comment
-
Bengalis are not racially different to Punjabis and Sindhis, they all belong to the same race. They are only ethnically different. All of their languages and cultures are related to each other and come from the same roots.Originally posted by asif86 View PostYou are contradicting yourself.If rohingya originate from bengal as you said than how come they look like pakistanis.Bengalis are racially,culturally and linguistically very different from pakistanis.And burma was not a party to subcontinents partition.
Pakistan was created to be the homeland for the Muslims of India. Rohingya are racially Indians, just like you are. Therefore, Pakistan is their natural homeland, or India or Bangladesh, but not Myanmar for sure.
Rohingya have only two natural and logical options to relocate to: Bangladesh, or Pakistan.
Muslim nations of Malaysia and Indonesia have already refused them because they know that Rohingya belong to the Indian subcontinent and no where else.Last edited by Friends of Baloch; 06-16-2015, 02:53 PM.Long Live Baloch Freedom Struggle Until Victory!
sigpic
Long Live Baloch Freedom Struggle Until Victory!
Comment
-
But they are not Arab, they look clearly Indian.Originally posted by asad71 View PostOnly a half literate will quote Christian/Western sources without taking the trouble of digging deep. Rohingyas are definitely Arabs/semi-Arabs. That is why the Saudis have always given the special privilege to settle in Saudi Arabia."Revenge is a dish best served cold".
-Old Pashtun proverb

"My Pashtun Pride i will not hide!"
Comment
-
I repeat they are not similar.One reason given for bangladeshs separation from pakistan was that its people had no cultural or linguistic affinity with people in west pakistan.Originally posted by Friends of Baloch View PostBengalis are not racially different to Punjabis and Sindhis, they all belong to the same race. They are only ethnically different. All of their languages and cultures are related to each other and come from the same roots.
Comment
-
Its really popular among South Asian muslims to claim being Arab or persian. Rohingyas are Indic muslims like punjabis and Bangladeshi people. Ofcourse their is diffrence between them, like their is diffrence among all the Iranic people or German people. But still they belong to that group, the only common thing with arabs is their faith.Originally posted by Kushan Prince View PostArabs in Roghyania in 5BC? BS and these people don't look mixed at all.
Comment
-
And I find it quite shamefull on the part of Bangladesh and Pakistan that they do not help those people, despite claiming being one muslims brothers and what not. And by the way where is the jihad against Myanmar, I am still waiting for that one.
Comment
-
I'm inclined to agree.Originally posted by Khostai View PostIts really popular among South Asian muslims to claim being Arab or persian. Rohingyas are Indic muslims like punjabis and Bangladeshi people. Ofcourse their is diffrence between them, like their is diffrence among all the Iranic people or German people. But still they belong to that group, the only common thing with arabs is their faith.
I don't get the point of Asad wanting to claim these people descending from Arabs when they don't even identify as such. Whats the motive behind it? why can't most people be proud of who they are?"Revenge is a dish best served cold".
-Old Pashtun proverb

"My Pashtun Pride i will not hide!"
Comment
-
Inferiority complex maybe??, but I think the reason asad and other bangladeshi claim them to be arabs is just to not feel guilty about their treatment. Like its not their responcibility.Originally posted by Kushan Prince View PostI'm inclined to agree.
I don't get the point of Asad wanting to claim these people descending from Arabs when they don't even identify as such. Whats the motive behind it? why can't most people be proud of who they are?
I find it quite hypocrite of this muslim Indians. They are on the first row when it comes to claim that Europeans or people from other faith are cruel and heartless, but they themself don't even want to help their own neighbours in need. The people who cam actual from their own area.
Comment
-
What's funny is that it was Pashtuns that brought Islam to India anyways and not Arabs or Persians. Its stupid because Arabs treat many south asian people like trash in their countries.Originally posted by Khostai View PostInferiority complex maybe??, but I think the reason asad and other bangladeshi claim them to be arabs is just to not feel guilty about their treatment. Like its not their responcibility.
I find it quite hypocrite of this muslim Indians. They are on the first row when it comes to claim that Europeans or people from other faith are cruel and heartless, but they themself don't even want to help their own neighbours in need. The people who cam actual from their own area."Revenge is a dish best served cold".
-Old Pashtun proverb

"My Pashtun Pride i will not hide!"
Comment
-
Dear Kushan Prince.Originally posted by Kushan Prince View PostWhat's funny is that it was Pashtuns that brought Islam to India anyways and not Arabs or Persians. Its stupid because Arabs treat many south asian people like trash in their countries.
1. What language is better
Pashto or Arabic.
2. Would you say
Shukriya or Manana
3. Would you say
Pe Khair Wradz or Asalam Walikum
4. Would you want your women to
Wear Hijaab and have her hair free.
5. Would you want to
Follow Islam or Follow Pashtunwali
6. Would you want to
Go to Haj in Mekkah or go to Kandahar and celebrate being Pashtun
Please don't ban me, this forum has to respect Atheists !!!
Comment

Comment