Pashtun Nationalism or Islamic Nationalism?

[Toramana]

There is no such thing as Islamist Nationalism---Muslim Ummah, Islamist Nationalism are just slogans and tools for extending Arab, Punjabi, etc. neocolonialism. Muslims have never been united except for the first 30-40 years of Islamic history. Bloody struggle for power started immediately after the death of the Prophet (PBUH). The whole Muslim history is soaked in blood shed for power.

Apart from geographical, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and economic divergence of interest, sectarian cleavages are so deep that Mullahs of one sect grabbing power will be a recepe for disaster. Theocratic and belief related differences can never be abridged.

Just few months back, in the Faisalabad city of Punjab, Barelvis and Deobandis fought for control over masses and in the process burnt 600 copies of Quran and other sacred scriptures apart from killing a couple of people.

At one time, I lived in Mardan city of KPK. And there were three madrassas near where I lived; one owned by Maulana Gohar Rahman a leader of Jumaath-i-Islami, the other a Barelvi madrassa, and the third one, a Deobandi madrassa. And they would routinely fight with each other for monoply over masses.

[ScimitarXEdge]

^^^ those things are exactly what Islam is against

so there is in fact a such thing as Pan-Islam it's just the things you believe are representing Islam are not actually following what Islam teaches.

And your logic is flawed, Jamaluddin Afghani, an AFGHAN PAKHTOON from Kunar developed Modern Pan-Islamic Theory; so it's not Punjabi or Arabic neocolonialism also the primary purveyors of Islam in Asia were Persians, Afghans and Turks; which nullifies the theory.

That's what European Neocolonialism wants to portray to divide and rule; and people who portray that idea are actually agents of White Imperialists who have ruined the world with their corruptions and dividing schemes. Same can never be said about Islam.

[Toramana]

^^^ those things are exactly what Islam is against

so there is in fact a such thing as Pan-Islam it's just the things you believe are representing Islam are not actually following what Islam teaches.

And your logic is flawed, Jamaluddin Afghani, an AFGHAN PAKHTOON from Kunar developed Modern Pan-Islamic Theory; so it's not Punjabi or Arabic neocolonialism also the primary purveyors of Islam in Asia were Persians, Afghans and Turks; which nullifies the theory.

That's what European Neocolonialism wants to portray to divide and rule; and people who portray that idea are actually agents of White Imperialists who have ruined the world with their corruptions and dividing schemes. Same can never be said about Islam.

The motivation for Turks, Persians, Afghans, etc. was empire-building not to realise some Pan-Islamist dream that Beduins are using now-a-days to rally other Muslims around to bulid their political clout...e.g. Mahmoud Ghaznavi fought as many wars against the Muslim Turks in the north as he fought wars against non-Muslim Indians in the south...At one point, he intended to attack Baghdad as well to topple the empire of your Arab ancestors.

Rest, Jamaluddin Afghani was not a Pukhtun...Neither he had any following amongst Pashtuns because his anachronistic ideas didn't make any sense to Pashtuns in general....

The desert-inspired imagination may make you imagine anything but the plain fact is Pan-Muslim thing in political terms never existed and it would never exist looking at the unresolvable diversity of every knind including sectarian in Muslims not to mention the divergence of economic and political interests l...Even two Arabs cannot pull along in total cultural terms and have a regional sense of identity in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, etc. what to talk of broader Muslim political unity.

I feel convinient in a more realistic alliance of fellow Muslim groups in Central and South Asia than to follow some Arab from a far off land.

[ScimitarXEdge]

The motivation for Turks, Persians, Afghans, etc. for empire-building not to realise some Pan-Islamist that Beduins are using now-a-days to rally other Muslims behind to bulid their clout...e.g. Mahmoud Ghaznavi fought as many wars against the Muslim Saljouk Turks in the north as it fought battles with non-Muslim Indians...At one point, he intended to attack Baghdad to topple the empire of your Arab ancestors.

Don't twist facts for Beduine agenda...

Rest, Jamaluddin Afghani was not a Pukhtun...neither had any following amongst Pashtuns because his anachronistic ideas didn't make any appeal to Pashtuns....

The desert-inspired imagination may make you imagine anything but the plain fact is Pan-Muslim thing in political terms never existed and it would never exist looking at the unsurmountable diversity and divergence of interests in Muslims...Even two Arabs cannot pull along and have a regional sense of identity in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, etc. what to talk of others.

I feel more convinient in an alliance with fellow Muslim groups in Central and South Asia than to follow some Camel.

This is actually a gross misunderstanding of history on your parts. Ottomons, Afghans , Persians had numerous peoples under the same banner and causes which did not necessarily deal with Empire building motives. The rendering of Mahmoud Ghaznawi's activities are much maligned; he was actually in allegiance with the Abbasid Khilafate. The skirmishes between the Saljuks was due to mismanagement of Saljuk responsibilities. Internal issues did not nullify a Pan-Islamic sense of some sort. There certainly wasn't any ethnic rivalry as postured by you.

Jamaluddin Al Afghani was Pakhtoon; he's from the famous Sad'at-e-Kunar, who are Pakhto speakers. I have close friends who are relatives of Jamaluddin Al-Afghani; they're Pakhtoons. You're not from the actual plarani khwah, so you're not familiar with the relationship the Sad'at-e-Kunarh have in Afghanistan.

As for Jamaluddin Al-Afghanis membership amongst Pakhtoons, this isn't true, he was exiled by the Afghan Rulers of the time who were British stooges, much like yourself they idealized European styled social models. They persecuted Al-Afghani precisely because he was starting to gain followers amongst Pakhtoons; clearly his ideas were not seen as anachronistic as we can see because Ghilzai tribes overthrew their rulers for being stooges of Europeans and instead favored the Islamic minded Tajik ruler, Bacha Saqo. So much for your anachronism claim.

Pan Islam has existed and still exists; there have been attempts to dissuade it; and yes some have infiltrated like Jamat-e-Islami to run it's name in the mud. but this doesn't debunk it's merit. It only means these people were imposters.

The issues of Internal discontinuity between Arab States is exactly because of NATIONALISM; not Pan-Islam. Which disproves your claim of Pan-Islam having Arab-centered motives. The divisions between ethnic groups is a European Imperialist motivated argument. Divide and Rule agenda.

Nomadic Pakhtoons, known as Powanda also are affiliated with camels just as nomadic Arabs, known as bedouin; the cultures and values of both are identical. We too are "camels" in the sense you're rendering it. So this attempt at making distinguishments only shows that such remarks come from a person completely outside of Pakhtoon society and Muslim society.

Which means It's you who are twisting facts for your British/Imperialist Agenda; your understanding of history is based on manufactured ideas by Orientalists,

[ScimitarXEdge]

I feel convinient in a more realistic alliance of fellow Muslim groups in Central and South Asia than to follow some Arab from a far off land.

hahhaa I noticed how you went in and edited out the camel part PRECISELY because you know you'd have been caught red handed for being exposed as an outsider to Pakhtoon society because anyone who knows about Kuchiyan/Powanda knows the Ukh is intrinsically apart of Pakhtoon Nomad society as well.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Just like my Nomadic Ancestors amongst Pakhtoons, I am a camel. May God protect the Lovers of Nature and destroy the Imperialists and their Stooges who idealize their unnatural way of life. Ameen

[graveyardofempires]

Just like my Nomadic Ancestors amongst Pakhtoons, I am a camel. May God protect the Lovers of Nature and destroy the Imperialists and their Stooges who idealize their unnatural way of life. Ameen

nice picture and nicely said

[Paktyawal Qandaharai]

Nice theme.

Nationalism is a very complicated issue in the discipline of International Relations. As part of my course studies, I have written a short piece which may be useful in explaining the pros and cons of nationalism:


Nationalism, as claimed, is a double-edged sword. There is no doubt that nationalism has its own pros and cons and can be a threat to sovereignty and at the same time can be used to add force to sovereignty.
The idea that people recognize their indigenous cultural, linguistic and religious values and tend to work together for the welfare of their country and accomplish their goals can make nationalism an important factor in helping and reinforcing sovereignty. But there is the other side of the coin too, ultra-nationalism like in Nazi Germany can pose threat to the sovereignty of the state. Here, you see people erroneously believing their nation values, belief and culture is the only right way and exclude other nations at the cost of prosecuting them and they may use nationalism as a means to justify their atrocities against other nations. Of course, in a country that is inhabited by diverse ethnic groups, the idea of extreme nationalism can be very detrimental to the multinational sovereignty of the country. It may even end up in some ethnic groups struggling to secede from a sovereignty they deem unjust. Also, the concept of irredentism, the position of campaigning for the annexation of territory ruled by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity occur as a result of nationalistic beliefs.