Indian Muslims of Arab descent are superior to those of Mughal and Pathan descent

[Nertj]

But I am speaking of identity. I am many things, but those are all incidental, yet my identity is Muslim only. There is a crucial difference. Identity means you identify with a certain group and its narrative. Although I am Indian-origin, I do not identify with India, its history, its culture, or its narrative. Similarly, I am a Canadian-born citizen, but I don't identify with Canada, its history, culture or narrative. If someone asks me who I am, I will always say "Muslim", never "Canadian" or "Indian" or "Pakistani" or "Brown" etc.

Muslims is faith though. It's only a part of one's identity (call it a ''sub-identity'' if you will). at least for most Muslims groups. While Muslims of the sub-continent probably hate/disregard their Indian past, it is sure other Muslims identify with their ethnic heritage (including their pre-Islamic heritage).

I don't know what ethnic identity you have but if you are Indian Muslim, then you are a Muslim Indian or indian muslim. You can't say you identify as Muslim and nothing else. there are 2 billion Muslims in the world, Muslims are the most diverse religious group in the world. pretty sure you would feel vastly different culturally from say a Nigerian Muslim or a Bosnian Muslim or a Chinese Muslim.

edit: agree with CM.

[ذو الفقار]

Muslims is faith though. It's only a part of one's identity (call it a ''sub-identity'' if you will). at least for most Muslims groups. While Muslims of the sub-continent probably hate/disregard their Indian past, it is sure other Muslims identify with their ethnic heritage (including their pre-Islamic heritage).

I don't know what ethnic identity you have but if you are Indian Muslim, then you are a Muslim Indian or indian muslim. You can't say you identify as Muslim and nothing else. there are 2 billion Muslims in the world, Muslims are the most diverse religious group in the world. pretty sure you would feel vastly different culturally from say a Nigerian Muslim or a Bosnian Muslim or a Chinese Muslim.

edit: agree with CM.

For me Muslim is my primary and sole identity. Superficial cultural differences aren't enough for me to base my identity on. Identity is about feeling of belonging to a particular group and taking on its narrative, in this sense I have more in common with and a shared affinity with Muslim in Sudan than I have with a Hindu Arya Samajist from my ancestral village in east Punjab. Indeed, other Indians that are non-Muslim have frequently been our worst enemies, so how can I identify with a group that will necessarily include them also?

You may say that Islam is only a religion or creed and isn't a sufficient basis for one's identity. Firstly, Islam is unique among the world religions in that it is much more than a personal creed or practice, it is an entire system of life and possesses its own unique narrative, including a political and geopolitical one. Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity do not have a socio-political dimension, they are merely personalized religions and creeds. Secondly, Islam is a much more dynamic part of Muslims' lives (in general) as compared to Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. In the latter three religions, greater spiritual experience is reserved for priests and monks, while the laity do not really have a direct access. In Islam there is no such clergy/laity binary, but all Muslims have equal direct access to God and potential to become spiritual leaders.

Thirdly, Muslims are often "otherized" because of their Muslim-ness, thus even if they are part of a broader cultural or racial group, the rest of that group never sees them as fully belonging to it. Muslims in India, for example, no matter how deep their roots go in India, are not regarded as fully Indian. They are seen as followers of a foreign religion with foreign customs like animal sacrifice, circumcision, veiling and segregation of women, and a radically pure and iconoclastic form of monotheism. The same is true for Muslims in Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and East Asia. In fact, even in Muslim-majority countries, more observant Muslims have de facto become a separate community from the secularized non-practicing Muslims. They view their own countrymen who spend greater time at the Mosque, wear religious clothing, veil themselves in the case of women, keep full beards, wear skullcaps, and generally observe the strictures of the Religion, as being somehow "foreign" to the local culture. In North Africa and Egypt, such observant Muslims are regarded as outsiders and foreigners from Afghanistan or some other remote eastern land.

Fourthly, a solely Muslim identity is more durable as having a dual identity can have the potential for conflict and identity crisis. Sooner or later you will be forced to pick one identity over the other, i.e., your religious identity or your ethnic/cultural identity

[Nertj]

For me Muslim is my primary and sole identity. Superficial cultural differences aren't enough for me to base my identity on. Identity is about feeling of belonging to a particular group and taking on its narrative, in this sense I have more in common with and a shared affinity with Muslim in Sudan than I have with a Hindu Arya Samajist from my ancestral village in east Punjab. Indeed, other Indians that are non-Muslim have frequently been our worst enemies, so how can I identify with a group that will necessarily include them also?

You may say that Islam is only a religion or creed and isn't a sufficient basis for one's identity. Firstly, Islam is unique among the world religions in that it is much more than a personal creed or practice, it is an entire system of life and possesses its own unique narrative, including a political and geopolitical one. Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity do not have a socio-political dimension, they are merely personalized religions and creeds. Secondly, Islam is a much more dynamic part of Muslims' lives (in general) as compared to Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. In the latter three religions, greater spiritual experience is reserved for priests and monks, while the laity do not really have a direct access. In Islam there is no such clergy/laity binary, but all Muslims have equal direct access to God and potential to become spiritual leaders.

Thirdly, Muslims are often "otherized" because of their Muslim-ness, thus even if they are part of a broader cultural or racial group, the rest of that group never sees them as fully belonging to it. Muslims in India, for example, no matter how deep their roots go in India, are not regarded as fully Indian. They are seen as followers of a foreign religion with foreign customs like animal sacrifice, circumcision, veiling and segregation of women, and a radically pure and iconoclastic form of monotheism. The same is true for Muslims in Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and East Asia. In fact, even in Muslim-majority countries, more observant Muslims have de facto become a separate community from the secularized non-practicing Muslims. They view their own countrymen who spend greater time at the Mosque, wear religious clothing, veil themselves in the case of women, keep full beards, wear skullcaps, and generally observe the strictures of the Religion, as being somehow "foreign" to the local culture. In North Africa and Egypt, such observant Muslims are regarded as outsiders and foreigners from Afghanistan or some other remote eastern land.

Fourthly, a solely Muslim identity is more durable as having a dual identity can have the potential for conflict and identity crisis. Sooner or later you will be forced to pick one identity over the other, i.e., your religious identity or your ethnic/cultural identity

1-3th: What's applies in one place doesn't necessarily aply elsewhere. North Africans are suffering from the effects of colonialism. They still speak French (as well as Arabic).

4th. no, not true. Islam happened to complement the culture of ancient people of this region. There is no ''dual identity'' or potential for identity crisis, so there is no concern about that. Since Islam complements the cultures in the region, it therefor can't be the sole identity. Religion is not everything when it comes to identity. A Sunni farsiwan from Afghanistan might have a lot more in common with a Shia Iranian Persian than say a Sunni Somali (my observation of conservative communities in the West at least). In most of the Muslim world, Islam is infused with native cultures, maybe except Arabized countries. this even applies in Pakistan. Culturally the Muslim Desis are similar to their Indian brothers (wether Muslim or Hindu Indians).

Even though Pakistan and India are not very friendly politically, from my observation Pakis and Indians flock together in western countries, proving again that religion is not sole identity factor. Your identity crisis probably stems from the fact that Hindus are the dominant Indian group. Indics have a distinct culture, Muslim Indians are part of that, at least as far as culture goes. Therefor Muslim Indians can identify as Indian as well Muslim. Without any duality or identity crisis. In theory at least. (problem is Hindus hate the guts of their Muslim brothers and vice versa).

[ذو الفقار]

1-3th: What's applies in one place doesn't necessarily aply elsewhere. North Africans are suffering from the effects of colonialism. They still speak French (as well as Arabic).

Yes, but I am speaking for myself, not the entire Muslim world. My sole identity is Muslim. I acknowledge that many other Muslims, in fact most other Muslims, have different identities, in fact for many of them being Muslim is a secondary or even tertiary identity. For me, being Muslim isn't incidental, it defines the core of my being.

Islam is generally stronger in areas which were not colonized by the Europeans, such as the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan. However, Islam is also strong in those regions which were historically colonized but where Muslims had a strong sense of identity and community, such as the Indian subcontinent, where they were able to develop strong institutions to counter the modernism that was introduced through European colonialism. For example, the independent role of the Ulama and institutions like Deoband, which were anti-colonialist. Furthermore, Muslim regions where Sufism and Sufi culture is strong, to counter the corrosive influence of the State. Some people say that Sufism is strong in Turkey, a place known for the whirling dervishes. But that is fake Sufism. The "whirling dervishes" are nothing more than a tourist attraction, it is commercialized. True Sufism had a strong impact on society and way of thinking of the people. This is especially true in those Muslim regions where Sufi spiritual leaders led armed uprisings against the colonial forces.

The weakest response to colonialism and modernism has been from North Africa and the former Soviet Union, because those regions didn't have strong enough religious institutions to counter either French colonialism or Russian/Soviet secular communism respectively.

4th. no, not true. Islam happened to complement the culture of ancient people of this region. There is no ''dual identity'' or potential for identity crisis, so there is no concern about that. Since Islam complements the cultures in the region, it therefor can't be the sole identity.

Islam only compliments those aspects of the culture which are neutral or not against Islam. But there are many, many aspects of our cultures which are clearly un-Islamic, to the point where it can be said that Islam has actually brought a new, unique culture resulting in many "culture wars" between Islam and those who prefer their local culture/ancestral heritage in various Muslim regions. Many cultures, for example, are matriarchal, or otherwise very "feminist" where women are very much active in public. This is very much true of Bengali culture for example. They find the Islamic concept of women being veiled and segregated from men extremely foreign and against their culture, whereas this comes more natural in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. For them it is inconceivable that houses are partitioned between sections, with women sitting in a separate section divided by a curtain, and men sitting in another. If you go to a typical Bengali Muslim social gathering, men and women sit together, but this is clearly un-Islamic.

Thus if you attend a Bengali social gathering where there is segregation, you can be sure that it is a religious gathering or set up by Bengalis who emphasize their Islamic identity and are in fact going against their standard culture.

Religion is not everything when it comes to identity. A Sunni farsiwan from Afghanistan might have a lot more in common with a Shia Iranian Persian than say a Sunni Somali (from what I noticed in conservative communities in the West at least). In most of the Muslim world, Islam is infused with native cultures, maybe except Arabized countries. this even applies in Pakistan. Culturally the Muslim Desis are similar to their Indian brothers (wether Muslim or Hindu Indians). Even though Pakistan and India are not very friendly politically, I notice Pakis and Indians flock together in western countries, proving again that religion is not sole identity factor.

I disagree, even in the West, Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus don't mix much, at least nothing more than the usual mixing between people of different cultures. This may be changing among the younger generation of millennials, but that is because they are increasingly more secular due to the public education system in the West. Hindus very rarely would ever invite a Muslim to their house. The only thing we seem to have in common is a similar language.

[ذو الفقار]

The newest entry of my blog exposes the fact that Deobandi mulla Ashraf Thanwi reassured his disciple about the good meaning of the former’s experience in both a dream and during wakefulness when he recited the blasphemous words “Ashraf Ali Rasul Allah” and “Allahumma salli ala Sayyidina wa Nabiyyina wa Mawlana Ashraf Ali”.

Instead of disassociating himself from such a satanic experience, Ashraf Thanwi declared it a sign that his disciple is following someone who is an adherent of the Sunna (namely himself). I always find it extremely ironic that the so-called Deobandis (the ‘Hayati’ camp from among them) are supposedly the most zealous defenders of the the doctrine of Khatam-an-Nubuwwa and in the forefront of refuting the so-called ‘Qadiyanis’, when in fact their elders are the ones who are most guilty of contravening the precepts of Khatam-an-Nubuwwa.

رَبَّ جِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَائِيلَ وَإِسْرَافِيلَ أَعِذْنِي مِنْ حَرِّ النَّارِ وَعَذَابِ الْقَبْرِ: Deobandi Kalima and Durud: "Ashraf Ali Rasul Allah"

[salman47]

The newest entry of my blog exposes the fact that Deobandi mulla Ashraf Thanwi reassured his disciple about the good meaning of the former’s experience in both a dream and during wakefulness when he recited the blasphemous words “Ashraf Ali Rasul Allah” and “Allahumma salli ala Sayyidina wa Nabiyyina wa Mawlana Ashraf Ali”.

Instead of disassociating himself from such a satanic experience, Ashraf Thanwi declared it a sign that his disciple is following someone who is an adherent of the Sunna (namely himself). I always find it extremely ironic that the so-called Deobandis (the ‘Hayati’ camp from among them) are supposedly the most zealous defenders of the the doctrine of Khatam-an-Nubuwwa and in the forefront of refuting the so-called ‘Qadiyanis’, when in fact their elders are the ones who are most guilty of contravening the precepts of Khatam-an-Nubuwwa.

رَبَّ جِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَائِيلَ وَإِسْرَافِيلَ أَعِذْنِي مِنْ حَرِّ النَّارِ وَعَذَابِ الْقَبْرِ: Deobandi Kalima and Durud: "Ashraf Ali Rasul Allah"

Somehow the only 'positive post' on your blog is about Qadyanis, but then you claim you're not one.

[toughpashtun]

The newest entry of my blog exposes the fact that Deobandi mulla Ashraf Thanwi reassured his disciple about the good meaning of the former’s experience in both a dream and during wakefulness when he recited the blasphemous words “Ashraf Ali Rasul Allah” and “Allahumma salli ala Sayyidina wa Nabiyyina wa Mawlana Ashraf Ali”.

Instead of disassociating himself from such a satanic experience, Ashraf Thanwi declared it a sign that his disciple is following someone who is an adherent of the Sunna (namely himself). I always find it extremely ironic that the so-called Deobandis (the ‘Hayati’ camp from among them) are supposedly the most zealous defenders of the the doctrine of Khatam-an-Nubuwwa and in the forefront of refuting the so-called ‘Qadiyanis’, when in fact their elders are the ones who are most guilty of contravening the precepts of Khatam-an-Nubuwwa.

رَبَّ جِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَائِيلَ وَإِسْرَافِيلَ أَعِذْنِي مِنْ حَرِّ النَّارِ وَعَذَابِ الْقَبْرِ: Deobandi Kalima and Durud: "Ashraf Ali Rasul Allah"

This is a false accusation. I have researched the matter.Its not like how you are making it out to be.
However , all the accusations on Mirza Qadiani are true.With each post , it is becoming more and more clear that you are a Qadiani in the garb of a Panjpiri.
I shall contact the mods to ban you , you are not contributing here in a constructive manner.

[ذو الفقار]

This is a false accusation. I have researched the matter.Its not like how you are making it out to be.
However , all the accusations on Mirza Qadiani are true.With each post , it is becoming more and more clear that you are a Qadiani in the garb of a Panjpiri.
I shall contact the mods to ban you , you are not contributing here in a constructive manner.

False accusation? Why don't you enlighten us then how it is a false accusation since apparently you have "researched the matter"?

Go ahead and ban me. It's very telling that you will ban me but leave alone the Hindu filth Kanishka who swore foul language to our beloved Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

You keep accusing me of being a "Qadiani" but apparently this "Qadiani" is the only one on this forum who is raising a voice in defense of the honor of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم while rest of you such great Muslims who cannot tolerate a "Qadiani" are tolerating a Hindu who openly swears at our Nabi on this very forum. Well done.

[toughpashtun]

False accusation? Why don't you enlighten us then how it is a false accusation since apparently you have "researched the matter"?

Go ahead and ban me. It's very telling that you will ban me but leave alone the Hindu filth Kanishka who swore foul language to our beloved Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

You keep accusing me of being a "Qadiani" but apparently this "Qadiani" is the only one on this forum who is raising a voice in defense of the honor of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم while rest of you such great Muslims who cannot tolerate a "Qadiani" are tolerating a Hindu who openly swears at our Nabi on this very forum. Well done.

Just check my new thread. I suggested banning you and Kanishka both and all similar people.
I will give you an explanation for the accusation soon.

[Aham Brahmasmi]

False accusation? Why don't you enlighten us then how it is a false accusation since apparently you have "researched the matter"?

Go ahead and ban me. It's very telling that you will ban me but leave alone the Hindu filth Kanishka who swore foul language to our beloved Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

You keep accusing me of being a "Qadiani" but apparently this "Qadiani" is the only one on this forum who is raising a voice in defense of the honor of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم while rest of you such great Muslims who cannot tolerate a "Qadiani" are tolerating a Hindu who openly swears at our Nabi on this very forum. Well done.

i dont get you sub continental Muslims, first you abuse us even tho we dont even like to live with you and when we kick your asses for that you start wining, bitching and moaning like little girls.

maybe you guys should learn something from West Asians and Arabs such as grow balls and stand up like a man if you want to associate with them.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Prominent Indian scholar Ashraf Ali Thanwai (1863 – 1943) from Deoband school of thought, said that Indian people of Arab descent are superior to those of Mughal and Pashtun descent. In the topic of "Equality of lineage" , "Kufu" (compatibility/match) of his book "Bahishti Zewar", he says ;

"The Shariah has taken great precautions in ensuring that nikah with an incompatible person or a person of a lower social standing does not take place...."

"Equality in the lineage is that the Shaykh, Sayyid, Ansari and Alawi (i.e people of Arab descent) are all equal to each other.........".

"The Mughals and Pathans are regarded as one nation and are not of same class as that of the Sayyids and Shaikhs. If the daughter of a Sayyid or Shaykh gets married with one of them , it will be said that she married someone who is of a lower social standing than her."

"Equality in being a Muslim is only considered among Mughals, Pathans, and other non-Arab nations. There is no consideration of this among the Shaykhs , Sayyids, Alawis, and Ansaris...."

Note: Ashraf Ali Thanwai himself belonged to Farooqi Shaikh caste of Indians.

Reference: Bahishti Zewar, English translation by Maulana Muhammad Muhammadi, pp.413-414

Trust me that’s not the only problem with Bahishti Zewar or any other writing of ‘Hazrat Thaanvi’. He among many other prominent Deobandis have made a sport of writing most bizarre, absurd, and sometimes even kufry ideas in their books.

But sadly people within the deobandi tradition are taught not to be critical of their ‘akaabir’. Which is why many Muslims eventually leave deobandism after a while.