Talk:Islam in Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is the Role of Religious Parties in Pakistan

Raja Dahir was Holding the Hajj Pilgrims from Sarandeep (Sri Lanka) Island by Sea Ship Hostage for Ransom[edit]

The assertion in the following text of the article: '..this was due to the fact that Raja Dahir had given refuge to numerous Zorostrian Princes who had fled the Islamic invasion of Iran. The Arabs demanded their return to face forced conversion or death and they refused to return. Mohummad Bin Qasim's army was defeated in his first thee attempts....' is untrue. Mohammad bin Qasim was sent by the Governor of Kufa under the order of the Omayyad Caliph from Damascus to liberate the pilgrims. Mohammad bin Qasim's army was victorious & was never defeated otherwise he would have not conquered the province of Sind & he would not be a 'Hero of Sind'. It is also untrue, he did not conquer the province of Punjab, which was conquered later by others.Ilaila (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


Sunni is actually 90%[edit]

sunni is actually 90% and Shia 9%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Pakistan#Religions

Islam brought about by pirs[edit]

This article seems to convey that people of the subcontinent were converted to Islam only due to pirs. Some pirs might have entered the subcontinent in the eighth century (we would like to see some references on that), but all unbiased historians would agree that massive conversion of South Asian populations to Islam -- which accounts for the 450 million Muslims in the region today -- was brought about only during Islamic rule, due to policies which are discussed elsewhere in wikipedia. Selective presentation of history by not mentioning the Islamic invasions, and attributing the presence of Islam in the subcontinent completely to pirs is highly objectionable. 70.105.188.134 02:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)yes i am agree with you but actually islam was brought by mohammad bin qasim in this region not by religious parties

I agree with you for the most part. Yet Pirs did have a strong role in spreading Islam, especially among the lower castes. They made Islam the most appealing to the Indian people as opposed to the sword-wielding fury of the Ghazanvids, the Ghorids or some of the Mughals. Some of them, such as Shirdi Sai Baba and Chishti, have gained fame even among the Hindus. Yet, much of the Indian population also embraced Islam due to fear of death. I think both should be treated with equal importance, as they are probably the dominant factors as to why 30-40% of the people on the subcontinent follow Islam. -[[Afghan Historian 17:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)]]

If no one has any objections, I will modify the article in two days 70.105.188.134 02:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

This article states Islamic dogma as though it were fact ("Because the Prophet established a government in Medina...") and quite clearly expresses disapproval of Ahmadi Muslims, going as far as to append the adjective "heretical" to them, when no adjective is necessary. It defines Ahmadis as "a small group known to be outside the pale of Islam according to the teachings and tenets of all branches of Islam, both Sunni and Shia." I would edit the article, but I really know next to nothing about the subject. Sammy1339 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sammy "Ahmadis" are not Muslims at all because they do not accept the few of the very primary standards to be accepted as a Muslim. Those standards are fundamentally important in their conception that whosoever denies it is anything but a Muslim. To name one is the belief on Muhammad (PBUH) as the last Prophet of God on mankind, which they do not accept and henceforth they are not accepted as "Muslims" but called "Ahmadis" or "Qadianis". I hope its clear why they are not Muslims.

Dear sir, reading above lines, I felt that you lack knowledge on above subject as well. If they (in your words do not accept Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) as last Prophet) then it is your belief too. I think you also belief that Prophet Isa will return some time later and he will remain a "Prophet". Now why you think that make you also not Muslim. You have a similar belief as well. When you say "Belief" than its mean, you are 100% sure and you can present proove also. Can you provide some ? if not, then we should take it as a baseless arguments. regards phippi46 13:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

reply to phippi46 "Prophet Isa will return some time" he is going to return not to teach us something new but to continue the law that has already been given and to remove all the alligations that were put on him .And reading your remarks i think you are islamaphobic124.29.195.111 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And how do you know what he is going to do? He had 1000+ years to change his mind!


This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Salafi Statistics[edit]

Im not desputing whether the salafi statistics are real or not because I dont have knowledge on the subject but there is no references so id like to see a reference as I wanted to check teh source of information to learn more about the subject. thanks.

Dawud.Beale (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Ahmadis[edit]

Ahmadis are not considered Muslims under the constitution of Pakistan and by Muslims. The edit war to change the facts is unfortunate. The Ahmadi editors are reverting not only this fact but also other changes I made in media and Education section which has nothing to with Ahmadis.AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

first of all, i am not an ahmadi (this just displays your lack of maturity). secondly, no one give a damn about the constitution of pakistan. thirdly, ahmadis are allowed to consider themselves muslim in rest of the world (and in most of the islamic world) i.e. in the civilized world. fourthly, there are christian who believe that catholics or mormons are non-christian. there are muslims who think ahmadis, shias or shia ismailis (the sect of the founding father of pakistan, jinnah) are non-muslim. in iraq, many shias consider the sunnis non-muslim and vice-versa! these are point of views and have no place in wikipedia. fifthly, let me also remind you that one of the greatest leaders of jinnah's muslim league was an ahmadi, namely muhammad zafrulla khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zafrulla_Khan). ahmadis were declared non-muslims by pakistan only in 1973 (something jinnah would never have approved). pakistan might even consider them as muslims again in the future. so please, stop editing, before you get yourself banned due to vandalism (this has happened to the other anti-ahmadi kids).mustihussain 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I said "Ahmadi editors" in general and not specifically to you by quoting your name. As you said "this just displays your lack of maturity". You wrote "no one give a damn about the constitution of pakistan" that shows your disrespect for laws of Pakistan. You said that "ahmadis are allowed to consider themselves muslim ..... the civilized world". So which part of the world is civilized in your judgement ? Zafrullah Khan did not perform Namaz Janaza (death service) for Mohammad Ali Jinnah and sat in non-Muslim section at that time. The tone of your comments does not help but instead damages your point of view. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
apologies for my tone but the laws in pakistan are barbaric. you ask me what part of the world is civilized. the answer is simple: the part of the world that is civilized is the part where all pakistanis try to escape to, legally or illegally. regarding jinnah and khan, i don't care about their personal matters. what matters is that muslim league was not a sectarian organization where ahmadis or shias or sunnis or ismailis or whatever were declared non-muslim. let me also remind you that jinnah was declared to be non-muslim by the same people who forced pakistan (through terror and mob violence) to denote ahmadis as non-muslim. the same people who were against jinnah and pakistan in the first place! the ability to discern between personal and public matters is essential for any civilized country, it's essential for wikipedia. you have a lost case, don't get yourself banned. rather, free your mind. peace. mustihussain 19:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not support Jamaat policially. The Shia sect was created just after death of Mohammad. So it has been part of Islamic history. Ismailis broke from Shia have their Imamate. They are considered part of Islamic historic evolution. None of the leaders of these sects has claimed to be prophets as did Ghulam Ahmad and that even under the colonial rule with divide and rule policy. In any case the Ahmadis have crossed the rubicon by believing that Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet and have been declared non-Muslims. Their continued insistence of being Muslims only creates more hostility. I do not support any violence against Ahmadis or their property. But this issue is one of many reasons used by some people. In my view the issue was resolved in 1974 but it seems it both Ahmadis and Jamaatis wants to keep it simmering. In Wikipedia, their insistence of being Muslims which they clearly are not under Islam theology only creates more problems. Your continued threats of banning me from Wikipedia shows that you have more in common with people, as you say and I quote, who force their views "through terror and mob violence". You have displayed more raw emotions, misplaced anger and threats, which as you say are "uncivilized". AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
how come ahmadis create hostility? they can insist on whatever they want. period. if people get agitated by ahmadis it's their bloody problem. it's not a matter of the state. however, it should be worrisome for pakistan that such a large portion of its population is so immature. you also have to remember the barbaric laws that are in place in pakistan against ahmadis. you can read about them here on wiki. when did i threaten to ban you? i said you will get banned. that is a fact not a threat. i personally don't want to ban you, however, someone else will as this has happened before. also, equating getting banned by wiki with "terror and mob violence" is beyond proportions, laughable and ridiculous. cheap rhetorics. showing raw emotions, anger? that's hilarious. i am sarcastic yes. i'll admit that but i'm not emotional. btw, regarding ismailis and other shias: sunni fundamentalists and wahabis consider them non-muslim (just take a look at iraq or the statements made by wahabies in pakistan!). by declaring ahmadis non-muslim the goverment of pakistan opened the floodgates to islamic fundamentalism. you can see the consequences in pakistan today (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YeIr30ASaI). that is why more wiser nations refuse to take part in braindead religious discussions about who is infidel and who is not. that is why religious "point of views" are not tolerated in wiki. one more thing: i am not a pakistani but my sympathies lies with the pakistani people still. but pakistan will not progress until the difference between religious opinions and state matters is understood. i have hope that you will and contribute to change in pakistan which is so desperately needed. peace.mustihussain 12 March 2010. —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC).
Nonetheless, you wrote "no one give a damn about the constitution of pakistan" and "barbaric laws" and that cuts both ways since Ahmadis and their opponents have the same attitude and follow law of the jungle, When you have this attitude then don't compain about "immature" Pakistanis. They have been more mature and have never elected any Islamic party in position to form a government. Nobody opened the floodgates of fundamentalism it was natural political development as country became more religious. Look at India, they also went on path of Hindutva and resulted in violence. Ismailis, Bohras, Hindus, Zikris in Pakistan don't have an aggresive agenda and they don't have major problems. I think it is same as the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Look at Peaceworld111 going in every "Islam in ..." and adding number of Ahmadis in that country. I don't see Ismailis doing that. My Ismaili friends mother was born in Nigeria and she mentioned she still have relatives there. There no Ismailis going on every webpage and adding that information. So if you add sugar then don't complain about the flies. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
to say that pakistan has draconic/barbaric laws, from the viewpoint of human rights, is unproblematic. many pakistanis have come to the same conclusion, especially women. but this is another and longer discussion. i will not equate ahmadis with their opponents. it's like equating the the victim with the offender. ahmadis have a missionary agenda for sure. but so has sunnis, wahabies ,catholics, protestants, and so on and so forth. will you really get irritated if ismailis began to imitate ahmadies here on wiki? so what if peaceworld provides information about the ahmadis around the world. the ahmadiyya sect is one of the fastest growing islamic sects in the world. many have pointed out that this is one of the bizarre achievement of the stupidities of 1974. this is even pointed out by people who disagree with ahmadis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mz30QgDROc). the more you suppress a sect or a nation the more resistant this sect and nation will become. in fact, this is precisely how christianity spread and became dominant in the roman empire! ironic isn't it?mustihussain 12 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC).

Ahmadis may not be considered muslims by Pakistan, but that doesn't and shouldn't take away their right of claiming to be muslims. It has already been mentioned in the edit that accoding to Pakistan law they are not muslims - and that is enough.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem started when Ghulam Ahmad declared himself a prophet and messiah. So chronologically, we have to mention that first. I would say in 19xx Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared himself to be prophet and messiah and he was declared non-Muslim as per Islamic law. You don't start the paragraph complaining about treatment of Qadianis. All events has to be mentionioned as they happened over time. Ahmadis "claim" that they are Muslims but their claim is not accepted by Muslims. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
ImprovedPeaceworld111 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Links[edit]

>> Pakistan's madrassas reined in by government(Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)).

Orphaned references in Islam in Pakistan[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islam in Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Walsh":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 13:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islam in Pakistan[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islam in Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "World Scientific":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 18:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam in Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)