Qadianis, British and Durand line

[toughpashtun]

Qadianis have always served the interests of their foreign masters , and continue to do so. If they can be disloyal to Hazrat Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wasallam , then how can we expect them to be loyal to us?

Most of the Qadiani leaders and infrastructure is based in the United Kingdom even today.

[Samandri]

There are suspicions/accusations in Afghanistan that Sahibzada Abdul Latif screwed Afghanistan over by misrepresenting the treaty to Amir Abdurrahman Khan and taking advantage of his inability to understand English.

Allah (subhana wa ta‘ala) knows best the truth of that claim, but I wouldn't be surprised. The Qadianis were tireless slaves of the British, and Ghulam Ahmad himself noted that the majority of Mujahids against his masters were Afghans/Pashtuns.

Amir Abdur Rahman knew very well about the details of Durand treaty. The propaganda that Amir was tricked into signing the treaty because he could not understand English, emerged after creation of Pakistan (his autobiography reveals that he perfectly understood what exactly he was signing). What i am trying to imply is that the "cabinet" and people surrounding those Amirs were infiltrated by British agents and they made sure that Amirs are convinced into doing this and that. Sahibzada Abdul Latif was an advisor and was giving bad advises to the Amir. There had to be a border between British India and Afghanistan, Amir Abur Rahman agreed to that. But his choices were not taken into consideration during the negotiations and Sahibzada Abdul Lateef and other rats appear to be responsible for bad negotiations. For example he wanted to retain entirety of Mohmand belt, British did not agree to that.

And a question also arises in the mind that how come Amir Abdur Rahman ended up in British pockets?, this requires study of people around him and his companions when he was a prince and when he was competing for throne.

[ذو الفقار]

This is a Pashtun matter, and frankly a lying Punjabi Qadiani's words mean nothing to us.

Your beloved state (which will fail anyway, everyone can see that it's too unstable to last) was created to the detriment of Pashtuns on both sides of the border. You claim to be Muslim, but you completely ignore how much the Pashtuns of Pakistan were screwed over by its creation, all because Punjabis could get their own nation, when you guys, especially the Qadianis, were the biggest slaves to the British, and the least deserving for anything after the effort of everyone else to kick out the British. I'm sure you're so happy that Pashtuns were martyred for your little Punjabi state, but Pashtuns did not fight and die so that Punjabis could play king.

What is this Pashtun Punjabi nonsense? Do you want to live in an Islamic society or not? If you want to have an Islamic state we have to bury this stupid ethnic politics. I'm not saying I support Pakistan, but the idea of Pakistan is certainly superior to creating a bunch of meaningless nation states.

Pakistan wasn't meant to be a Punjabi state but an Islamic state. If Pashtuns were so traumatized by being split from the Durand Line, why don't the Pashtuns of Afghanistan join Pakistan and therefore erase that line? The idea of Islamic Pakistan is far superior than a failed state like Afghanistan or an ethnic state of Pashtunistan. It's funny you accuse me of being Qadiani and a British slave, but your idea about Pashtun interests before Islam interests reveal that you are the slave of nationalism and don't have a solid attachment to Islam.

[Samandri]

the idea of Pakistan is certainly superior to creating a bunch of meaningless nation states.
.

Pakistan calls itself a nation-state. In case you are forgetting, Jinnah and co argued that Musalmans of Hind are a separate nation from Hindus because of different religion, different cultural and social values, different historical heritage etc (Refer to Mutala-i-Pakistan). With this argument they first demanded separate electorates, then autonomy within India and in the last phase made a demand for separate country when they realized that British are going to depart from India and the fear overcome them that they are going to be bitches of Hindus in united India. The idea of Musalman-i-Hind as a separate nation was opposed by Muslim leaders like Abdul Kalam Azad who argued that Muslim is not a nation , Islam is a religion.

[ذو الفقار]

Pakistan calls itself a nation-state. In case you are forgetting, Jinnah and co argued that Musalmans of Hind are a separate nation from Hindus because of different religion, different cultural and social values, different historical heritage etc (Refer to Mutala-i-Pakistan). With this argument they first demanded separate electorates, then autonomy within India and in the last phase made a demand for separate country when they realized that British are going to depart from India and the fear overcome them that they are going to be bitches of Hindus in united India. The idea of Musalman-i-Hind as a separate nation was opposed by Muslim leaders like Abdul Kalam Azad who argued that Muslim is not a nation , Islam is a religion.

What I mean is the idea of a Muslim nation state is far superior to the idea of an ethnic nation state. I never said Pakistan is the supreme idea, but as an idea it is far superior to the basis of any other nation state.

As Thomas Barfield says, Afghanistan as an Islamic Republic is merely a descriptive term, meant to describe the fact that Afghanistan is predominantly Muslim, unlike Iran and Pakistan, which are Islamic Republics in the sense of being states based on a political ideology derived from Islam.

[salman47]

How is it wrong to be pro-British or side with the British in this context? The Durand line resulted in the inclusion of Pakhtun territory into Pakistan. Would you rather those Pakhtuns be part of the failed state of Afghanistan, which at that time was a despotic state too? All these acts of the British helped consolidate a large Muslim territorial contingency in India and hence the creation of a viable Pakistan. Pakistan wouldn't be as viable without the Frontier and without Balochistan. They would have simply become additional failed small and insignificant ethnic states in the Muslim world in a long list of many others.

Abdur Rahman Khan and his successors were despotic and worthless leaders. 60% of the Hazara population were displaced as a consequence of the brutal repression by Abdur Rahman Khan.

If Afghanistan remained as it was, there wouldn't have been a country named 'Pakistan'. Even if there was, you would be sucked back into India in a few hours.

[salman47]

What I mean is the idea of a Muslim nation state is far superior to the idea of an ethnic nation state. I never said Pakistan is the supreme idea, but as an idea it is far superior to the basis of any other nation state.

As Thomas Barfield says, Afghanistan as an Islamic Republic is merely a descriptive term, meant to describe the fact that Afghanistan is predominantly Muslim, unlike Iran and Pakistan, which are Islamic Republics in the sense of being states based on a political ideology derived from Islam.

Yeah sure Pakistan is very Islamic,, with a 'certified by Islamic Republic of Pakistan' w hore street behind a huge Mosque!

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

"I'm not a Qadiani! Now take a look at this Qadiani propaganda!"

lol